That's progess. However, gas mileage for the average model seems to have STAGNATED over the past 30 years. It's not about people choosing an SUV over a sedan. It's about the fact that they gain weight after each redesign. So, gas mileage and safety seem to be inverse.
who really cares about the crash test all you have to do with the old car is have it rebuilt using modern car metal and airbags or maby a crumple zone then the car wouldnt be that bad in a crash but even know chevy dodge and ford can easily bring back there classic cars with new safe technology they arent going to try because they dont think anyone will buy the cars if this comment gets 100 likes ford chavy and dodge will bring back all there cool cars
@mrwhaleywhale You mean rebuild it with a bunch of modern technology that it didn't have? The point of the video is how modern technology and engineering have changed safety in 50 years.
The most revealing image was taken from an over head camera. Note that the '59s cowl, windshield trim, and dashboard move about two feet back on the impact side. The dog leg A pillar invites collapse. The Malibu's cowl, and dash remain perpendicular to the roof. This vast improvement in chassis design, and the modern restraint systems have saves thousands of lives every year.
idiot old car fans are in such denial about the crappy safety of old cars. stuck on bigger is better is safer. they think its more american to drive an old car than a new car how stupid.
So what? Those oldies are still safer than the plastic tinboxes the Chinese are about to flood the Western world with, put that rusted, bogged up Chevy (yes.. you cant fool me, look at the brown dust which flies off it at the moment of impact) up against a modern Chinese car and we'll see who comes out better off.
@PunkbeerandCortinas That's not rust, if you look at the pictures you can clearly see good sheet metal on this car after the crash. I would guess this was probably a desert car and that is dust flying off of it. The Chinese can't currently meet crash standards, and we'll see Indian cars before those.
this test is bullshit.the 59 has a 6 cylinder in it.no v-8 fender emblems and in the crash the breather goes flying.the 59 also has an x frame so if you crash it like they did. there hitting nothing real solid. line them up head on and see who eats shit. chevy rules!!!!!!!
@dalejrrules881 You don't line them up head on because hardly any crashes occur that way. Most head on crashes, and the most torturous test of a vehicle's integrity is the offset head on collision in this video.
@husskat - the '59 was a run of the mill 6 cylinder sedan that most collectors wouldn't look at. It was your basic grocery getter. Wasn't worth much even fully restored. And yes, the engine was in the '59. I've seen other tests of the older cars and have seen wrecks involving older cars and believe me, the newer cars are much safer. The old ones keep collapsing well into the passenger compartment. I've seen it firsthand as an EMT.
WHAAAAT AAAAAA FUUUUUUCKK!!!!!! NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!! WHYYYY YOU DESTROY A CLASSIC CAR??? ALL OF YOU ASS HOLE ALL OF YOU MOTHER FUCKER HOW YOU DESTROY A 50 YEAR CLASIC CAR NOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!~!!@@#$#$%^&()_+(^ MY GOD!!!!!!!. NEVER IN THE WORL NOBODY REMANUFACTURE ANOTHER CLASSIC CAR LIKE THIS NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!! MOTHER FUCKEEEERR!!!!!! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!
You can not compare the two, also keep in mind modern vehicles have steel(highstrength) /alloys for the saftey cage,(A-pilliars B-Billiars, Roof Mounts, and H-bar(crumple zone in the front of the vehicle) Bullet are designed to penterate objects using massive amounts of kinetic energy. lol btw what is kevlar made of? even most bullet proff vests are made of plastic/nylon/ceramic, and not steel. The principle for most cars is simple crumple zone slow deceleration over a longer period of time.
@Supergungun I'm not sure how that would be rigged. You should check out this old Ohio Dept of Highways driver ed movie here on youtube. They show real accident scenes from the day, and man, they're gross. People all crushed in the cars. No rigging there.
@timon924 That's because in that era even the mighty Cadillac was not safe. It's 4,500 pounds of steel was rivaled by the 2 tons of steel from other full size cars and even small cars like the Corvair were still rip roaring powerful heavy duty monsters. No plastic crap.
So yes, in that era mere flesh and blood bodies couldn't fight off steel. But in their prime these Dinosaurs ruled the road with their big block V8s and pure steel.
But steel has a tendency to rust away hence this video.
@Supergungun If you watch the video without a bias, you may come to the conclusion that classic cars where not "built like a rock" in terms of saftey. The where built on the principle of reliability. The Bel-Air crumpled completely, that is not built like a rock, more or less a peice of paper. Cars will only get safer as technology improves, safety is not a inverse. 50's tech is not safer than moden tech, when it comes to vehicles safety. Dumb Dumb Dumb Dumb Duuuuummmmbbbb!
Look closely from 1:12 to 1:18. As the outer fender of the Bel Aire pulls away, you can see the dirt and crap blowing out of the rusted cowling. Solid my butt!. Rustteed out more like it!
one of the ideas they tried to push that it was a myth that "they dont make em like they used too" but the test gives a false impresion of the reality.
old cars do survive impacts better then new cars but they had safety issues is true. over design and over complicating drive production costs up and the industry out of the country and the product out of the reach of consumers.
let drivers learn to drive safer is the best safety gear.
I've seen pics from when my grandparents had head on collishions and they arent that bad. I bet that this car was a junker and they just painted it. My grandma was pregnant, had a old 57 bel air, got hit on her front left fender at 40 mph and only had a scratch on her elbow. Also if you go see a demolishion derbie, the cars from the 50's and 60's survive and the new cars from 90s and 00s die on the first hit.
@Vl4D39000 Old people love to lie about how safe their old cars were because they were "made with metal". In reality, millions of people died in old cars before laws forced automakers to make them safer.
@Vl4D39000 That's because they didn't have crumple zones. Trust me, the cars don't look bad, but there were a lot of occupant deaths because the cars didn't absorb energy quite as effectively, and a lot of them didn't even have seatbelts.
A hit on the left fender isn't particularly strong evidence for your case either, because that would leave the passenger compartment virtually unscathed due to the energy going in a different direction.
@gp75motorsports but not practical, id rather drive my 76 chevy c10 and get 13mph because the money i save by working on it myself easily covers the cost of gas, im more comfortable in my truck, and besides, it has character, ive never felt a difference in the driving quality of a 2007 grand cherokee to a 2001 mazda protege, but a car made before the early 80's were made for people who understood cars. in the 50's they handed out oiling guides to customers, who even touches oil today? very few
@gp75motorsports i really dont think the 59 would have done that bad if it were actually up to 1959 specs, the ammount of rust that comes out of the bel air is almost unbelievable. it probably would have been a rock and didnt move at all which still isnt a good thing but im sure that it wouldnt have crumbled like that, all the crashes i saw involving cars of this period had damage but it was nowhere near the result of this 59.
@gp75motorsports that doesnt mean im willingly going to risk my truck in a crash, though it's a daily driver, it also has a lot of sentimental value, and that is a big part of why i try to be a better driver
@snipinggod29 You're kidding right? Wouldn't have done too bad except for the whole firewall and cowl coming back and the steering wheel knocking the driver into the collapsing roof? Nah, no biggie there.
@wgfinley ah yea, and i guess that gigantic cloud of rust that was unleashed upon impact wasnt a pointer that the entire '59 was structuraly unstable because of corrosion. a rust free fully restored '59 would never collapse like that, i read the report, and they bought it from a 3rd party who restored it. and take a look at 1:10, at the lower corner of the door on the bel air, and you tell me that it's in the same condition as the malibu. too many variables for a reliable test
@snipinggod29 you're also forgetting that NEW cars dont have serviceable joints... :P No sense in handing out a oiling guide if you cant even grease the chassis! :P My classic Mustang has them, but my 04' Subaru doesn't... But then again, I love both cars..
@yasafusa yes i understand, im just trying to make a point that auto makers have built cars today so that anyone can use it and make it last, which lets most car buyers be very ignorant about what car they choose.
@snipinggod29 Nah, it's cool, I was agreeing really, but just throwing in some info.. and at the second part of your statement +1 to absolutely in agreement! lol, I've seen some odd purchases based on reasons unfathomable...
@yasafusa it just never ceases to amaze me that people can be so ignorant when it comes the the 2 biggest investment of the average american. eh, either way, im happy with what i drive, gonna maybe restore it when i get out of boot camp. just a shame to see a car like that be destroyed, i would love a 59 bel air, even if it did only have a 6cyl, it's an iconic car and it has class.
Listen, you're obviously 15 or of a similar mentality. It is pointless to debate any issue of importance with you. You are on a mission to tell people how Awesome Toyota is. Why don't you tell them how bad it is for the US economy to buy a Toyota? Maybe you don't know. Do some studying. Raise your intelligence up a few notches and try to refrain from sounding like a Hippie. No one likes a Hippie.
Your right old cars will never come back. Im glad about that. The value of mine keeps going up and up and up. Its going to be a long time for toyota . Another toyota recall 00 to 03 tundra gas tank and spare tire falls out because of frame rust I thought only old cars rusted out??
plus, the roads today are not safer than they used to be for one simple reason. Distracted drivers. While you dumb ass Prius owners are runnin down the road texting on your blackberry, the guy in that 59 was doing something maybe you're not accustomed to. Driving his vehicle. It took more skill to drive that 1959 BelAir than your Toyota of today. Skills you probably lack.
@Bodyworx25 Prius drivers, by nature of their demographics, are the least likely to do dumb things like text behind the wheel. That's one of the reasons their insurance costs are lower than other new cars. The other is the Prius's crash resilience. The death rate for all car crashes has dropped in half since 1970. Where have you been all this time?
Prius Drivers are smarter ? Says who ? You must remember something. You're not always right. Perhaps your multiple ExWives could validate that fact for us. You have minimal reading skills and very poor understanding. Here's a concept : Not everyone cares about safety to the extent you do. I should take a moment to explain to you that i am fully capable of owning a Prius but choose not to. Ill leave saving the planet to you. You seem to have all the answers. you dolt.
@Bodyworx25 Here's a concept - old cars are death traps and not everybody cares about their styling as much as you do. Why are you here defending old cars lying about their safety? And who said anything about the planet? Oil saving is about supporting the troops too isn't it? Aren't you one of those people who slapped a yellow ribbon on your car after 911? Hypocrite.
No. This is not about the troops you dolt. You obviously have no friends nor any in the military. They will tell you what war is all about. You're a Hippie so war and you don't even fit in the same sentence.
What about all the trees and environment you are polluting by patronizing Nickel manufacturing plants ? Ever seen the pictures of the devastation? Don't care about that do you? Its not here so who cares. right? Batteries are not the solution. I will not claim to have the solution, Unlike you with all the answers. Please share with us all your knowledge. I should get free college credits just for talking with you.
@Bodyworx25 The smelter in question is no longer in use. Battery lifecycle energy and material impact is lower than non-battery use in pure fossil, non-hybrid engines. You self serve with Fox News because you want to believe you are right.
@Bodyworx25 Old cars needed more skill to drive because they handled so poorly and had terrible brakes. However, at the time, people didn't know how dangerous they were, because companies kept that hidden. So they only drove conservatively to protect the car from damage, not themselves since they thought big cars without seat belts were safe.
@Bodyworx25 Styling doesn't suffer because of safety improvements. How do you come up with such irrational things? Style changes. Fuel economy concerns makes cars smaller, which restricts how much metal you can waste to create style. But there are plenty of beautiful new cars on the road today. You just might not be able to afford many of them.
I sent two modern cars to the crusher and their inhabitants to the hospital sadly with my 57, and drove home uninjured both times. Outside of that, my father is a professional accident investigator for BIG insurance companies and half my friends are into new, old or race cars and NONE of them believe this video. NONE! This therefore has less to do with a fair comparison and everything to do with marketing for an industry that needs a booster shot.
@Bodyworx25 Hippies? Where are you coming up with that? Because a Prius is safer than a crap old 59? What about the troops you supposedly care about and 911? Remember that? What about a Priuses reducing the need to import millions of barrels of oil every year? We can't drill our way out of waste. Shouldn't conservatives be the ones conserving?
@Bodyworx25 Many American cars are not made in the US. They are made in Mexico. Many Japanese cars are made in the United States. A Ford Fusion made in Mexico returns less of your purchase price to the USA than an American made Camry. Only the profit goes to the company HQ. The bulk of your money which pays for development costs, materials and assembly labor stay in the country of manufacture. Get your facts and head straight. You make conservatives look like idiots.
@myphonyaccount I, unlike you, have worked in the auto industry and i can tell you that you are wrong. Remember the phrase "Where the buck stops"? Once profit leaves the United States headed for Toyota City, Japan it seldom returns. It may return in minimal paying labor jobs and benefits to a worker in a plant in the US. Only a portion returns. A much smaller portion than Mexico. I have seen the financials of FORD motor company in person so i will not debate them with you.
@Bodyworx25 The profit is the smallest part of the per car sales price. So it doesn't matter where the $5,000 goes. The rest of the $25,000 price you paid stays in the country of manufacture. Your parts counter experience is not a valid argument.
I'll second the comment from bodyworx25. Notice how the fenders on the "57 are not fastened on the upper inner wheel wells. The drivers door clearly had most of the hinge bolt loosened or missing. Anyone with a fair amount of car body experiance can see it was rigged. A non-tampered 57 would have torn the 09 to shreds.
And rawhemi, regarding reliability, when is the last time you got more than 60,000 miles out of a US-made automatic? My Chevy still has its original cast-iron Powerglide. Instead of getting a workshop manual these days, you get a little booklet that tells you to go to the dealership and bend over every time a lightbulb burns out. No, I'll take the older car with upgrades anyday.
I put 250,000 miles on a 57 Chevy after rebuilding the engine and sent two "modern" cars to the crusher. I know newer cars are safer but this video is hard to believe. A lot of rust colored dust, an inline 6, the X-frame in 59 certainly don't point to a fair comparison either.
@JonDraeger Would you please donate the IIHS an older model of your choice to be tested against a comparable weight new car? To prove your theory that old cars are not as disgraceful in this type of crash?
Does anybody else want to cry, knowing that millions of people were killed in minor accidents in these old cars because they weren't regulated and it was cheaper to pay out lawsuits than to install $15 seat belts? A work of art in this case killed people.
Ralph Nader influenced Jimmy Carter to create NHTSA and the first safety laws that forced automakers to install $15 seatbelts and later airbags while meeting other crash criteria, not the insurance companies. IIHS only helped later, in the 1990s when their offset tests made it onto television and humiliated car makers even further.
Insurance companies do not care what automobile manufacturers pay to create safe cars, they only care about how much money they will have to pay out to settle claims. "Safe" cars reduce settlements.
Nixon created the NHTSA.
Nader just seized on the moment and wrote a book about what a lot of people had been talking about.
Seat belts were mandated under LBJ. Most people didn't wear them until Clinton.
You're right, it was Nixon who created NHTSA only after Nader created a firestorm of truth nobody could ignore any longer.
Until seat belt laws requiring the public to actually wear them came, you're right about that too, many people didn't wear them. That's why the US death rate declined during those years less than other countries.
@husskat Yes, I was Completely Idiotic to destroy a mighty fine automobile like that Bel-Air to demostrate that. They could have used a Shitty car like a late 50s Nissan or something like that. NOT a nice American Classic!
Fluids and oils are far better today than they were back then. Radial tires are better on the suspension. Also, today's roads are easier on the cars. These are major contributors of how reliable the car is, and the cars engines, & transmissions of then easily do better, now. The one detriment is that rust prevention wasn't developed & there is a lot more salt used on the roads these days. This is cosmetic, and you can use modern methods in restoration today to compensate.
wow...what a shame for that 59 chevy..and i'm a ford guy...look at 1:11..you will see all the fine dust and dirt come out of the rocker panel...it looked like someone took care of the car before it was ruined here
GM will repay it's loans in full by June. It was cheaper to loan them money than to pay 3 million unemployment insurance claims and suffer the loss to the economy.
@myphonyaccount yeh but that's only because they didn't have crumple zones. They are still far stronger and better made. Look at how the metal on the malibu just folds like tissue paper.. the bel air metal just bends at certain points..
@rawhemi Thicker sheet metal won't protect in a crash. Crumple zones on a Bel Air would still have been an incomplete solution without a stronger A pillar and X frame.
@myphonyaccount Yeh i know. Bel airs would get destroyed in crashes, but i am saying that they would last longer because they were still better made. I seriously doubt there will be any of the cheap and tacky malibus around in 50 years.
@rawhemi Old cars required massive amounts of maintenance and work to keep them going. They were easy to repair, but didn't "last long". 50,000 miles was "a lot" back then. Transmissions and engines had to be rebuilt at 50,000 miles. They were a joke in terms of long term durability compared with today's cars.
@rawhemi Old cars were made better? How do you figure that when they constantly needed engine and transmission rebuilds, chronic tune ups, frequent maintenance? What, just because average joe could do the work that means they were better made? Please. The technology was not there for long term durability. You could never get the high mileage you can out of many GOOD new cars.
@rawhemi Longer lasting is relative. They were easier to fix, but needed lots of maintenance, overhauls, etc. New cars don't need all that. But they do cost more to repair. So they end up being scrapped before their time.
@rawhemi Old cars were not "better made" they were made of simpler materials and technologies that were easier to fix. But they didn't last 300,000 miles on original transmissions like Hondas do.
Has anyone on here seen stock car racing from the late 50s early 60s where these cars are running into walls and other cars and none of them ever folded up like that
The IIHS didn't need to weaken the old car, it had a pathetic X frame and A pillar where the door meets the windshield. The new car simply was designed to stay together in a crash where somebody veers into an oncoming lane. This crash puts all the force on ONE side of the car, not both.
the metal in the cars was also brand new at the time, this 50 year old metal has seen many freeze that cycles and lost much of its strenght because of it.
Actually, this video made the IIHS test look great and every time Taliban like yourself try to defend "the old way" with these poorly made old cars, you just look ridiculous considering the millions these old cars killed because the public didn't know better. Isn't the internet contradictory to you're Talibanish need to "be a man" as you said?
you can tell that this is not a true bel-air. it is an impala fixed up using a bel-air front. when compared to the 1959 Chevy Bel Air, you notice trim marked the rear trunk deck lid center crease and on tail lamp lenses. the car has a dummy vent above the rear window (only on impalas) and the impala trim on th botton half of the dash.
I get that classic car nuts are always going to defend that era of automobiles. But really, use your head. Most cars from the 50's would have this same result. If you want to get into a head on collision in a 50's era car with no airbags and only a lap belt go right ahead. I'll make sure they bring enough mops to clean up your carcass.
Been there, done that, read my post. I sent two modern cars to the crusher and their inhabitants to the hospital sadly and drove my 57 home uninjurred both times. Outside of that, my father is a professional accident investigator for BIG insurance companies and half my friends are into new, old or race cars and NONE of them believe this video. NONE! This therefore has nothing to do with "classic car nuts" and everything to do with marketing for an industry that needs a booster shot.
i am 57 i drive corvairs and have a 56 chevy in the real life the 59 would have cleaned its clock i have a 2002 grandprix no way would i want to hit a full frame car ...i have seen 59s in this type of smashups....they do not fold up ... this is bull
didnt liked what ive seen ... malibu should be better ! the driver door has been damaged ! watch some european cars and see the differences ... but ... nice work chevo guys !
At 1;12 checkout the explosion of 50 years of internal rust from the rocker panel, not to mention metal fatigue over decades of time. I think there was a bit of sensationalism and shock value incorporated into this video, to help GM climb out of it's self made hole. Keep your Malibu. I'll rely on my Dependable and safe Toyota Camry. And drive my classic 59 with pleasure.
RIP 1959 Chevy , I nearly shat upon myself to see such an iconic classic automobile destroyed in seconds. In the words of Miss Carrie Underwood " Jesus take the Wheel" .....guess Jesus was out taking a piss.
how can this be helpful at all, for one they destroyed a beautiful car and it was not the Malibu, no one drives the 59 anymore unless they are going to a car show. another prime example of the government wasting time and money. the guys that put this together are retards. there are folks out there without a job and these einsteins want to crash a classic car while getting payed be bucks, you go boy.
Or not. There was an engine in the car at the time of impact. If you want an impartial source the New York Times wrote an article about the 50th Anniversary Event with details. This is as real as a crash with a 50 year old car can get ... er ... well ... and not be on the road, that is.
Obviously, you don't know much about antiques...That is definitely without a doubt a '59 Bel-Air, the Impala's bodyside molding was only painted white from the back to apprx the front door. From there to the front, it was all brushed aluminum, no paint, plus it was much wider, at least twice the width... google both and see the diference...
nope i dont know much about antiques! got me there jumbo...but i do know about 59 chevys...if your first car was a 59 impala because you couldnt afford a 59 belair youd also know the difference!
im all for admitting when im wrong...when in fact i am...this time i am not!
You're not making any sense, The Impala was more expensive than the BelAir by at least $500. My Dad had a 59 Impala and I still have pictures of it. Identical body style, only visible difference is the side molding....
Like I said, google both cars and you'll see the diference...chk out the side molding on each....Also, if you chk the other youtube video of the same crash, It shows the interior and the steering wheel is different on this belair...
jumbo, apparently some classic car enthusiast's are not up on their facts and figures, as you stated this is indeed a Bel Air, spyder should checkout 1:12 in the video and see the Bel Air nameplate on the front fender.
That's progess. However, gas mileage for the average model seems to have STAGNATED over the past 30 years. It's not about people choosing an SUV over a sedan. It's about the fact that they gain weight after each redesign. So, gas mileage and safety seem to be inverse.
unknownunknowns 2 months ago
Great Grandpa and Great Grandson Fighting, Great Grandson Winns
evinrudeboy6601 7 months ago
who really cares about the crash test all you have to do with the old car is have it rebuilt using modern car metal and airbags or maby a crumple zone then the car wouldnt be that bad in a crash but even know chevy dodge and ford can easily bring back there classic cars with new safe technology they arent going to try because they dont think anyone will buy the cars if this comment gets 100 likes ford chavy and dodge will bring back all there cool cars
mrwhaleywhale 8 months ago
@mrwhaleywhale You mean rebuild it with a bunch of modern technology that it didn't have? The point of the video is how modern technology and engineering have changed safety in 50 years.
wgfinley 2 weeks ago
The most revealing image was taken from an over head camera. Note that the '59s cowl, windshield trim, and dashboard move about two feet back on the impact side. The dog leg A pillar invites collapse. The Malibu's cowl, and dash remain perpendicular to the roof. This vast improvement in chassis design, and the modern restraint systems have saves thousands of lives every year.
PacificEdibleSeaweed 8 months ago
idiot old car fans are in such denial about the crappy safety of old cars. stuck on bigger is better is safer. they think its more american to drive an old car than a new car how stupid.
myphonyaccount 8 months ago
So what? Those oldies are still safer than the plastic tinboxes the Chinese are about to flood the Western world with, put that rusted, bogged up Chevy (yes.. you cant fool me, look at the brown dust which flies off it at the moment of impact) up against a modern Chinese car and we'll see who comes out better off.
PunkbeerandCortinas 9 months ago
@PunkbeerandCortinas That's not rust, if you look at the pictures you can clearly see good sheet metal on this car after the crash. I would guess this was probably a desert car and that is dust flying off of it. The Chinese can't currently meet crash standards, and we'll see Indian cars before those.
wgfinley 2 weeks ago
this test is bullshit.the 59 has a 6 cylinder in it.no v-8 fender emblems and in the crash the breather goes flying.the 59 also has an x frame so if you crash it like they did. there hitting nothing real solid. line them up head on and see who eats shit. chevy rules!!!!!!!
dalejrrules881 11 months ago
@dalejrrules881 You don't line them up head on because hardly any crashes occur that way. Most head on crashes, and the most torturous test of a vehicle's integrity is the offset head on collision in this video.
wgfinley 2 weeks ago
how the heck can a bel air being crashed celebrate the 50th anniversary
cookie1749 11 months ago
And still, hundreds of thousands die every year in car crashes.
Making cars safer, only made people drive with less care for their own safety, and the safety of others.
Dysprosio2 1 year ago
Basically: Try not to crash your car. The best you'll get is a slight knee injury, and that isn't even a good thing to have.
feckingbillgates 1 year ago
@husskat - the '59 was a run of the mill 6 cylinder sedan that most collectors wouldn't look at. It was your basic grocery getter. Wasn't worth much even fully restored. And yes, the engine was in the '59. I've seen other tests of the older cars and have seen wrecks involving older cars and believe me, the newer cars are much safer. The old ones keep collapsing well into the passenger compartment. I've seen it firsthand as an EMT.
16924fps 1 year ago
@16924fps In the UK, the passenger and driver are sitting the other way around. Thus in the UK we win.
feckingbillgates 1 year ago
@16924fps no you dont what about if you turn and get t-boned you will get severely injured
deadlyeagle85 1 year ago
@deadlyeagle85 - That's why they have the side impact structure and air bags.
16924fps 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WHAAAAT AAAAAA FUUUUUUCKK!!!!!! NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!! WHYYYY YOU DESTROY A CLASSIC CAR??? ALL OF YOU ASS HOLE ALL OF YOU MOTHER FUCKER HOW YOU DESTROY A 50 YEAR CLASIC CAR NOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!~!!@@#$#$%^&()_+(^ MY GOD!!!!!!!. NEVER IN THE WORL NOBODY REMANUFACTURE ANOTHER CLASSIC CAR LIKE THIS NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!! MOTHER FUCKEEEERR!!!!!! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!
carib0055 1 year ago
what the hell went flying in 1:17 and 1:18?
fofe11 1 year ago
@fofe11 i think that was a head =)
MissSushipunk 1 year ago
@fofe11 I saw nothing flying in at 1:17 and 1:18 (nothing unique to that second). Can you be more specific?
feckingbillgates 1 year ago
Dislike because you destroyed a beautiful piece of automobile history.
burubadodesign 1 year ago
You can not compare the two, also keep in mind modern vehicles have steel(highstrength) /alloys for the saftey cage,(A-pilliars B-Billiars, Roof Mounts, and H-bar(crumple zone in the front of the vehicle) Bullet are designed to penterate objects using massive amounts of kinetic energy. lol btw what is kevlar made of? even most bullet proff vests are made of plastic/nylon/ceramic, and not steel. The principle for most cars is simple crumple zone slow deceleration over a longer period of time.
Atheist18505 1 year ago
Nice. You've proven RUST not the STEEL it was once made of is weaker than plastic. Nice rigged crash.
Supergungun 1 year ago
@Supergungun I'm not sure how that would be rigged. You should check out this old Ohio Dept of Highways driver ed movie here on youtube. They show real accident scenes from the day, and man, they're gross. People all crushed in the cars. No rigging there.
timon924 1 year ago
@timon924 That's because in that era even the mighty Cadillac was not safe. It's 4,500 pounds of steel was rivaled by the 2 tons of steel from other full size cars and even small cars like the Corvair were still rip roaring powerful heavy duty monsters. No plastic crap.
So yes, in that era mere flesh and blood bodies couldn't fight off steel. But in their prime these Dinosaurs ruled the road with their big block V8s and pure steel.
But steel has a tendency to rust away hence this video.
Supergungun 1 year ago
@Supergungun If you watch the video without a bias, you may come to the conclusion that classic cars where not "built like a rock" in terms of saftey. The where built on the principle of reliability. The Bel-Air crumpled completely, that is not built like a rock, more or less a peice of paper. Cars will only get safer as technology improves, safety is not a inverse. 50's tech is not safer than moden tech, when it comes to vehicles safety. Dumb Dumb Dumb Dumb Duuuuummmmbbbb!
Atheist18505 1 year ago
@Atheist18505 So you're saying you'd rather me shoot you with a plastic shield or you having a metal one?
Supergungun 1 year ago
Safer than a chinese car
matheusgu 1 year ago
Amazing.
jmpomerleau 1 year ago
Look closely from 1:12 to 1:18. As the outer fender of the Bel Aire pulls away, you can see the dirt and crap blowing out of the rusted cowling. Solid my butt!. Rustteed out more like it!
ryn1010 1 year ago
@ryn1010 it was only 50 years of dust. it would still be there if it were made of plastic
beatlesnut007 1 year ago
one of the ideas they tried to push that it was a myth that "they dont make em like they used too" but the test gives a false impresion of the reality.
old cars do survive impacts better then new cars but they had safety issues is true. over design and over complicating drive production costs up and the industry out of the country and the product out of the reach of consumers.
let drivers learn to drive safer is the best safety gear.
3onamatch 1 year ago
I've seen pics from when my grandparents had head on collishions and they arent that bad. I bet that this car was a junker and they just painted it. My grandma was pregnant, had a old 57 bel air, got hit on her front left fender at 40 mph and only had a scratch on her elbow. Also if you go see a demolishion derbie, the cars from the 50's and 60's survive and the new cars from 90s and 00s die on the first hit.
Vl4D39000 1 year ago
@Vl4D39000 Old people love to lie about how safe their old cars were because they were "made with metal". In reality, millions of people died in old cars before laws forced automakers to make them safer.
myphonyaccount 1 year ago 4
@Vl4D39000 That's because they didn't have crumple zones. Trust me, the cars don't look bad, but there were a lot of occupant deaths because the cars didn't absorb energy quite as effectively, and a lot of them didn't even have seatbelts.
A hit on the left fender isn't particularly strong evidence for your case either, because that would leave the passenger compartment virtually unscathed due to the energy going in a different direction.
So yes, new cars are much safer.
gp75motorsports 1 year ago 12
@gp75motorsports but not practical, id rather drive my 76 chevy c10 and get 13mph because the money i save by working on it myself easily covers the cost of gas, im more comfortable in my truck, and besides, it has character, ive never felt a difference in the driving quality of a 2007 grand cherokee to a 2001 mazda protege, but a car made before the early 80's were made for people who understood cars. in the 50's they handed out oiling guides to customers, who even touches oil today? very few
snipinggod29 9 months ago
@snipinggod29 I'm not slamming old cars, I'm just saying they're not as safe as new ones.
gp75motorsports 9 months ago
@gp75motorsports i really dont think the 59 would have done that bad if it were actually up to 1959 specs, the ammount of rust that comes out of the bel air is almost unbelievable. it probably would have been a rock and didnt move at all which still isnt a good thing but im sure that it wouldnt have crumbled like that, all the crashes i saw involving cars of this period had damage but it was nowhere near the result of this 59.
snipinggod29 9 months ago
@snipinggod29 True enough. :)
gp75motorsports 9 months ago
@gp75motorsports that doesnt mean im willingly going to risk my truck in a crash, though it's a daily driver, it also has a lot of sentimental value, and that is a big part of why i try to be a better driver
snipinggod29 9 months ago
@snipinggod29 You're kidding right? Wouldn't have done too bad except for the whole firewall and cowl coming back and the steering wheel knocking the driver into the collapsing roof? Nah, no biggie there.
wgfinley 2 weeks ago
@wgfinley ah yea, and i guess that gigantic cloud of rust that was unleashed upon impact wasnt a pointer that the entire '59 was structuraly unstable because of corrosion. a rust free fully restored '59 would never collapse like that, i read the report, and they bought it from a 3rd party who restored it. and take a look at 1:10, at the lower corner of the door on the bel air, and you tell me that it's in the same condition as the malibu. too many variables for a reliable test
snipinggod29 4 days ago
@snipinggod29 you're also forgetting that NEW cars dont have serviceable joints... :P No sense in handing out a oiling guide if you cant even grease the chassis! :P My classic Mustang has them, but my 04' Subaru doesn't... But then again, I love both cars..
yasafusa 9 months ago
@yasafusa yes i understand, im just trying to make a point that auto makers have built cars today so that anyone can use it and make it last, which lets most car buyers be very ignorant about what car they choose.
snipinggod29 9 months ago
@snipinggod29 Nah, it's cool, I was agreeing really, but just throwing in some info.. and at the second part of your statement +1 to absolutely in agreement! lol, I've seen some odd purchases based on reasons unfathomable...
yasafusa 9 months ago
@yasafusa it just never ceases to amaze me that people can be so ignorant when it comes the the 2 biggest investment of the average american. eh, either way, im happy with what i drive, gonna maybe restore it when i get out of boot camp. just a shame to see a car like that be destroyed, i would love a 59 bel air, even if it did only have a 6cyl, it's an iconic car and it has class.
snipinggod29 9 months ago
Those in denial about this test = birthers.
myphonyaccount 1 year ago
@myphonyaccount
If you truly were into saving the environment you would ride a bike and not even drive a car. Practice what you preach Hippie.
Bodyworx25 1 year ago
Not to mention that i have no respect for anyone who names themselves myphonyaccount in an effort to disguise himself. Coward.
Bodyworx25 1 year ago
@Bodyworx25 And you're hiding your identity for what non-coward purpose?
myphonyaccount 1 year ago
@myphonyaccount
Listen, you're obviously 15 or of a similar mentality. It is pointless to debate any issue of importance with you. You are on a mission to tell people how Awesome Toyota is. Why don't you tell them how bad it is for the US economy to buy a Toyota? Maybe you don't know. Do some studying. Raise your intelligence up a few notches and try to refrain from sounding like a Hippie. No one likes a Hippie.
Bodyworx25 1 year ago
Want my address ?
Bodyworx25 1 year ago
Your right old cars will never come back. Im glad about that. The value of mine keeps going up and up and up. Its going to be a long time for toyota . Another toyota recall 00 to 03 tundra gas tank and spare tire falls out because of frame rust I thought only old cars rusted out??
1959chevy 1 year ago
@1959chevy
Please keep your 59 Alive as long as possible to prevent Hippies like this video poster from crushing them to make room for more Toyotas.
Bodyworx25 1 year ago
plus, the roads today are not safer than they used to be for one simple reason. Distracted drivers. While you dumb ass Prius owners are runnin down the road texting on your blackberry, the guy in that 59 was doing something maybe you're not accustomed to. Driving his vehicle. It took more skill to drive that 1959 BelAir than your Toyota of today. Skills you probably lack.
Bodyworx25 1 year ago
@Bodyworx25 Prius drivers, by nature of their demographics, are the least likely to do dumb things like text behind the wheel. That's one of the reasons their insurance costs are lower than other new cars. The other is the Prius's crash resilience. The death rate for all car crashes has dropped in half since 1970. Where have you been all this time?
myphonyaccount 1 year ago
@myphonyaccount
Prius Drivers are smarter ? Says who ? You must remember something. You're not always right. Perhaps your multiple ExWives could validate that fact for us. You have minimal reading skills and very poor understanding. Here's a concept : Not everyone cares about safety to the extent you do. I should take a moment to explain to you that i am fully capable of owning a Prius but choose not to. Ill leave saving the planet to you. You seem to have all the answers. you dolt.
Bodyworx25 1 year ago
@Bodyworx25 Here's a concept - old cars are death traps and not everybody cares about their styling as much as you do. Why are you here defending old cars lying about their safety? And who said anything about the planet? Oil saving is about supporting the troops too isn't it? Aren't you one of those people who slapped a yellow ribbon on your car after 911? Hypocrite.
myphonyaccount 1 year ago
@myphonyaccount
No. This is not about the troops you dolt. You obviously have no friends nor any in the military. They will tell you what war is all about. You're a Hippie so war and you don't even fit in the same sentence.
Bodyworx25 1 year ago
@Bodyworx25 Hippies hold protests. Patriots use less oil.
myphonyaccount 1 year ago
@myphonyaccount
What about all the trees and environment you are polluting by patronizing Nickel manufacturing plants ? Ever seen the pictures of the devastation? Don't care about that do you? Its not here so who cares. right? Batteries are not the solution. I will not claim to have the solution, Unlike you with all the answers. Please share with us all your knowledge. I should get free college credits just for talking with you.
Bodyworx25 1 year ago
@Bodyworx25 The smelter in question is no longer in use. Battery lifecycle energy and material impact is lower than non-battery use in pure fossil, non-hybrid engines. You self serve with Fox News because you want to believe you are right.
myphonyaccount 1 year ago 2
@Bodyworx25 Old cars needed more skill to drive because they handled so poorly and had terrible brakes. However, at the time, people didn't know how dangerous they were, because companies kept that hidden. So they only drove conservatively to protect the car from damage, not themselves since they thought big cars without seat belts were safe.
myphonyaccount 1 year ago
Congratulations Captain
obvious, they should be. There's 50 years of safety innovation and
advancement to work with. In fact, they
have been crash testing vehicles since the late 20's. Safety was not
always a high ranking priority In years past, however; when safety
becomes a higher priority usually the looks suffer. My point is that
comparing these two vehicles in a crash test is like comparing just
about ANYTHING to a product from a half century ago. Think before you talk
Bodyworx25 1 year ago
@Bodyworx25 Styling doesn't suffer because of safety improvements. How do you come up with such irrational things? Style changes. Fuel economy concerns makes cars smaller, which restricts how much metal you can waste to create style. But there are plenty of beautiful new cars on the road today. You just might not be able to afford many of them.
myphonyaccount 1 year ago
Already did asshole. You can't read evidently?
JonDraeger 1 year ago
I bet if they put a 1959 Cadillac up against that Malibu it would have been completely crushed.
Supergungun 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I sent two modern cars to the crusher and their inhabitants to the hospital sadly with my 57, and drove home uninjured both times. Outside of that, my father is a professional accident investigator for BIG insurance companies and half my friends are into new, old or race cars and NONE of them believe this video. NONE! This therefore has less to do with a fair comparison and everything to do with marketing for an industry that needs a booster shot.
JonDraeger 1 year ago
Is my 59 chevy part of an 8 million vehicle recall?
1959chevy 1 year ago
@1959chevy No,because they didn't do recalls in the age of your old 59 death trap. Old cars will never come back. Toyota will.
myphonyaccount 1 year ago
All I can hear the old car fans saying is "blah blah blah, blah blah blah". They're full of it and in total denial.
myphonyaccount 1 year ago
@myphonyaccount Thats because you, like other hippies, are a bad listener. You're in love with the sound of your own voice.
Bodyworx25 1 year ago
@Bodyworx25 Hippies? Where are you coming up with that? Because a Prius is safer than a crap old 59? What about the troops you supposedly care about and 911? Remember that? What about a Priuses reducing the need to import millions of barrels of oil every year? We can't drill our way out of waste. Shouldn't conservatives be the ones conserving?
myphonyaccount 1 year ago
@myphonyaccount
We are. Conserving the pride in US made products unlike you, Liberal.
Bodyworx25 1 year ago
@Bodyworx25 Many American cars are not made in the US. They are made in Mexico. Many Japanese cars are made in the United States. A Ford Fusion made in Mexico returns less of your purchase price to the USA than an American made Camry. Only the profit goes to the company HQ. The bulk of your money which pays for development costs, materials and assembly labor stay in the country of manufacture. Get your facts and head straight. You make conservatives look like idiots.
myphonyaccount 1 year ago
@myphonyaccount I, unlike you, have worked in the auto industry and i can tell you that you are wrong. Remember the phrase "Where the buck stops"? Once profit leaves the United States headed for Toyota City, Japan it seldom returns. It may return in minimal paying labor jobs and benefits to a worker in a plant in the US. Only a portion returns. A much smaller portion than Mexico. I have seen the financials of FORD motor company in person so i will not debate them with you.
Bodyworx25 1 year ago
@Bodyworx25 The profit is the smallest part of the per car sales price. So it doesn't matter where the $5,000 goes. The rest of the $25,000 price you paid stays in the country of manufacture. Your parts counter experience is not a valid argument.
myphonyaccount 1 year ago 2
Old cars sure are crap. Glad new ones are better.
myphonyaccount 1 year ago
I'll second the comment from bodyworx25. Notice how the fenders on the "57 are not fastened on the upper inner wheel wells. The drivers door clearly had most of the hinge bolt loosened or missing. Anyone with a fair amount of car body experiance can see it was rigged. A non-tampered 57 would have torn the 09 to shreds.
CrassyOne 1 year ago
@CrassyOne Such denial. Emotion vs science. This is why body shop people are not engineers.
myphonyaccount 1 year ago
And rawhemi, regarding reliability, when is the last time you got more than 60,000 miles out of a US-made automatic? My Chevy still has its original cast-iron Powerglide. Instead of getting a workshop manual these days, you get a little booklet that tells you to go to the dealership and bend over every time a lightbulb burns out. No, I'll take the older car with upgrades anyday.
JonDraeger 1 year ago
I put 250,000 miles on a 57 Chevy after rebuilding the engine and sent two "modern" cars to the crusher. I know newer cars are safer but this video is hard to believe. A lot of rust colored dust, an inline 6, the X-frame in 59 certainly don't point to a fair comparison either.
JonDraeger 1 year ago
@JonDraeger Would you please donate the IIHS an older model of your choice to be tested against a comparable weight new car? To prove your theory that old cars are not as disgraceful in this type of crash?
myphonyaccount 1 year ago
I cry foul.
Bodyworx25 1 year ago
@Bodyworx25 Old cars weren't designed for safety. Where's the conspiracy in that?
myphonyaccount 1 year ago
does anyone else want to cry, watching that beautiful Classic car get demolished?
husskat 1 year ago 45
Does anybody else want to cry, knowing that millions of people were killed in minor accidents in these old cars because they weren't regulated and it was cheaper to pay out lawsuits than to install $15 seat belts? A work of art in this case killed people.
myphonyaccount 1 year ago
Shed no tears - they died in style.
It was the insurance industry, and not government regulations that made cars safe.
ROBdeLIS 1 year ago
Ralph Nader influenced Jimmy Carter to create NHTSA and the first safety laws that forced automakers to install $15 seatbelts and later airbags while meeting other crash criteria, not the insurance companies. IIHS only helped later, in the 1990s when their offset tests made it onto television and humiliated car makers even further.
myphonyaccount 1 year ago
Insurance companies do not care what automobile manufacturers pay to create safe cars, they only care about how much money they will have to pay out to settle claims. "Safe" cars reduce settlements.
Nixon created the NHTSA.
Nader just seized on the moment and wrote a book about what a lot of people had been talking about.
Seat belts were mandated under LBJ. Most people didn't wear them until Clinton.
ROBdeLIS 1 year ago
You're right, it was Nixon who created NHTSA only after Nader created a firestorm of truth nobody could ignore any longer.
Until seat belt laws requiring the public to actually wear them came, you're right about that too, many people didn't wear them. That's why the US death rate declined during those years less than other countries.
myphonyaccount 1 year ago
@husskat
YES.
Bodyworx25 1 year ago
@husskat This american classic car is piece of junk. Get the japanese car better
Timx4 1 year ago
@Timx4 FAGGOT
chevy0500 1 year ago
@husskat Yes, I was Completely Idiotic to destroy a mighty fine automobile like that Bel-Air to demostrate that. They could have used a Shitty car like a late 50s Nissan or something like that. NOT a nice American Classic!
Motorfordtoyota 1 year ago
@husskat yes
cookie1749 11 months ago
@husskat Old cars were junk then and are junk now. I know, I own one.
efvee351 5 months ago
It would be nice to see the 09 vs 69 impala, 79 impala, 89 full size, 99 full size to see what changed over the years.
smackthis 1 year ago 2
Fluids and oils are far better today than they were back then. Radial tires are better on the suspension. Also, today's roads are easier on the cars. These are major contributors of how reliable the car is, and the cars engines, & transmissions of then easily do better, now. The one detriment is that rust prevention wasn't developed & there is a lot more salt used on the roads these days. This is cosmetic, and you can use modern methods in restoration today to compensate.
mutleybird 1 year ago
nice dices decoration for the 59 chevy
nirvray 2 years ago
wow...what a shame for that 59 chevy..and i'm a ford guy...look at 1:11..you will see all the fine dust and dirt come out of the rocker panel...it looked like someone took care of the car before it was ruined here
390merc65 2 years ago
not a bankrupt one
or one that need billions
in help from tax payers
wasjunk 2 years ago
GM will repay it's loans in full by June. It was cheaper to loan them money than to pay 3 million unemployment insurance claims and suffer the loss to the economy.
myphonyaccount 2 years ago
New cars cost more to fix, but they need far fewer repairs if bought from a reputable automaker.
myphonyaccount 2 years ago
Comment removed
wasjunk 2 years ago
Do you know what the IIHS is? You think it's a sales arm for GM? Old cars were death traps. Not even a $15 seat belt.
myphonyaccount 2 years ago
Comment removed
wasjunk 2 years ago
Old cars just weren't made to protect people in them. Deny it all you want because you like old cars. No different from Taliban.
myphonyaccount 2 years ago
These cars weigh the same. Old ones were pathetic for safety.
myphonyaccount 2 years ago
@myphonyaccount yeh but that's only because they didn't have crumple zones. They are still far stronger and better made. Look at how the metal on the malibu just folds like tissue paper.. the bel air metal just bends at certain points..
rawhemi 2 years ago
@rawhemi Thicker sheet metal won't protect in a crash. Crumple zones on a Bel Air would still have been an incomplete solution without a stronger A pillar and X frame.
myphonyaccount 2 years ago
@myphonyaccount Yeh i know. Bel airs would get destroyed in crashes, but i am saying that they would last longer because they were still better made. I seriously doubt there will be any of the cheap and tacky malibus around in 50 years.
rawhemi 2 years ago 2
@rawhemi Old cars required massive amounts of maintenance and work to keep them going. They were easy to repair, but didn't "last long". 50,000 miles was "a lot" back then. Transmissions and engines had to be rebuilt at 50,000 miles. They were a joke in terms of long term durability compared with today's cars.
myphonyaccount 2 years ago
@rawhemi Old cars were made better? How do you figure that when they constantly needed engine and transmission rebuilds, chronic tune ups, frequent maintenance? What, just because average joe could do the work that means they were better made? Please. The technology was not there for long term durability. You could never get the high mileage you can out of many GOOD new cars.
myphonyaccount 1 year ago
@rawhemi Longer lasting is relative. They were easier to fix, but needed lots of maintenance, overhauls, etc. New cars don't need all that. But they do cost more to repair. So they end up being scrapped before their time.
myphonyaccount 1 year ago
@rawhemi Old cars were not "better made" they were made of simpler materials and technologies that were easier to fix. But they didn't last 300,000 miles on original transmissions like Hondas do.
myphonyaccount 1 year ago
Has anyone on here seen stock car racing from the late 50s early 60s where these cars are running into walls and other cars and none of them ever folded up like that
6D9fbird 2 years ago
roll bars, and maybe the IIHS weakened the older car so it made it look like they "helped" the industry.
DamnStraightM35A2 2 years ago
The IIHS didn't need to weaken the old car, it had a pathetic X frame and A pillar where the door meets the windshield. The new car simply was designed to stay together in a crash where somebody veers into an oncoming lane. This crash puts all the force on ONE side of the car, not both.
myphonyaccount 2 years ago
well thank you mister obvious, are you gonna spam the piss outta this video too?
DamnStraightM35A2 2 years ago
It's not obvious if people think it's a conspiracy to make the old car look bad.
myphonyaccount 2 years ago
the metal in the cars was also brand new at the time, this 50 year old metal has seen many freeze that cycles and lost much of its strenght because of it.
DamnStraightM35A2 2 years ago
lets hopte that they never gets a anniversery again.you stupids!
ceppodo 2 years ago 6
i hope so, people like the IIHS made cars what they are today, shit
DamnStraightM35A2 2 years ago 2
Comment removed
wasjunk 2 years ago
Oh, look, an engine in the 59 after the test... /watch?v=RoG9wDAmkcQ
myphonyaccount 2 years ago
For me it looks like a 3D animation...
Opelmaster 2 years ago
damm... i will cry :-D
ClanOfSteel 2 years ago
Comment removed
wasjunk 2 years ago
Actually, this video made the IIHS test look great and every time Taliban like yourself try to defend "the old way" with these poorly made old cars, you just look ridiculous considering the millions these old cars killed because the public didn't know better. Isn't the internet contradictory to you're Talibanish need to "be a man" as you said?
myphonyaccount 2 years ago
Is that all rust at 1:11 ??
noplan724 2 years ago
appears to be, hopefully this car has a rusted out frame, and was just painted nicely.
DamnStraightM35A2 2 years ago
NOOOOOOOOOO!
THE COOL CHEVY... Crash??? ARE YOU CRAZY
TheRockBam 2 years ago
Comment removed
wasjunk 2 years ago
to bad Jon Corzine wasn"t in the belair
johntandboots 2 years ago
you can tell that this is not a true bel-air. it is an impala fixed up using a bel-air front. when compared to the 1959 Chevy Bel Air, you notice trim marked the rear trunk deck lid center crease and on tail lamp lenses. the car has a dummy vent above the rear window (only on impalas) and the impala trim on th botton half of the dash.
ryankennell 2 years ago
@ryankennell who cares, it still crushed
sxhxixtx 2 years ago
but i think he means that this car was not as valuble as it was made to look.
DamnStraightM35A2 2 years ago
Holy Moly!!!
hauwinger 2 years ago
I get that classic car nuts are always going to defend that era of automobiles. But really, use your head. Most cars from the 50's would have this same result. If you want to get into a head on collision in a 50's era car with no airbags and only a lap belt go right ahead. I'll make sure they bring enough mops to clean up your carcass.
bigdukem69 2 years ago 3
Comment removed
myphonyaccount 2 years ago
@bigdukem69
Been there, done that, read my post. I sent two modern cars to the crusher and their inhabitants to the hospital sadly and drove my 57 home uninjurred both times. Outside of that, my father is a professional accident investigator for BIG insurance companies and half my friends are into new, old or race cars and NONE of them believe this video. NONE! This therefore has nothing to do with "classic car nuts" and everything to do with marketing for an industry that needs a booster shot.
JonDraeger 1 year ago
i am 57 i drive corvairs and have a 56 chevy in the real life the 59 would have cleaned its clock i have a 2002 grandprix no way would i want to hit a full frame car ...i have seen 59s in this type of smashups....they do not fold up ... this is bull
animalcorvair 2 years ago
Comment removed
wasjunk 2 years ago
It's a good thing the IIHS is here to show people older cars are not safer. People die because of that misconception.
myphonyaccount 2 years ago
Comment removed
wasjunk 2 years ago
If there was no motor, why did the aircleaner fly out at 1:00 ?
myphonyaccount 2 years ago
Did the 59 bel air used in this video even have a motor in it
6D9fbird 2 years ago
wel yeah! even though that wouldnt make an EXTREME difference
USFCARTWRIGHT 2 years ago
no.
lowlux1 2 years ago
didnt liked what ive seen ... malibu should be better ! the driver door has been damaged ! watch some european cars and see the differences ... but ... nice work chevo guys !
tianeves 2 years ago
Atleast you'd go out in style...
irvingklaw57 2 years ago 2
Somehow I don't believe it.
superallye 2 years ago
At 1;12 checkout the explosion of 50 years of internal rust from the rocker panel, not to mention metal fatigue over decades of time. I think there was a bit of sensationalism and shock value incorporated into this video, to help GM climb out of it's self made hole. Keep your Malibu. I'll rely on my Dependable and safe Toyota Camry. And drive my classic 59 with pleasure.
327caprice 2 years ago
RIP 1959 Chevy , I nearly shat upon myself to see such an iconic classic automobile destroyed in seconds. In the words of Miss Carrie Underwood " Jesus take the Wheel" .....guess Jesus was out taking a piss.
327caprice 2 years ago
how can this be helpful at all, for one they destroyed a beautiful car and it was not the Malibu, no one drives the 59 anymore unless they are going to a car show. another prime example of the government wasting time and money. the guys that put this together are retards. there are folks out there without a job and these einsteins want to crash a classic car while getting payed be bucks, you go boy.
kennieg72 2 years ago
Since when is the IIHS gov't related?
marlon2k9 2 years ago
If the car has no motor why can u see the tailshaft collapse under the car in the first scene.
robbo882 2 years ago
oh oh. Better get Macco
PCGAMEfreak 2 years ago
A classic like that come on for real
mwr0585 2 years ago
Comment removed
mwr0585 2 years ago
1959 HAS NO ENGINE! Of course it would win
Freakin Media...
Looks like a job for the Mythbusters lol
sschevysjs 2 years ago
Comment removed
sschevysjs 2 years ago
oops I mean MYTHBUSTERS
sschevysjs 2 years ago
You are right... I'd rather be caught dead, than in a Malibu.
long live the 50's
1300356 2 years ago 3
Too bad the mileage improvement is not as significant.
MarkSDCA 2 years ago
Yeah, but which car gets you more 'tang?
averyellis 2 years ago
that shit is rigged, Cool vid but you can clearly see no engine in the Bel air.
and apparently its missing quite a few bolts in the front end fenders/bumper/hood.
59 vs 09. That bel air shouldve ripped that malibu in HALF!
ZZ327 2 years ago
Or not. There was an engine in the car at the time of impact. If you want an impartial source the New York Times wrote an article about the 50th Anniversary Event with details. This is as real as a crash with a 50 year old car can get ... er ... well ... and not be on the road, that is.
ANPACInsurance 2 years ago
maybe next time you can use a real belair instead of an impala?
you want to show facts then figure out what sort of car youre using!
spyderstomper 2 years ago
Obviously, you don't know much about antiques...That is definitely without a doubt a '59 Bel-Air, the Impala's bodyside molding was only painted white from the back to apprx the front door. From there to the front, it was all brushed aluminum, no paint, plus it was much wider, at least twice the width... google both and see the diference...
jumbojetac 2 years ago
nope i dont know much about antiques! got me there jumbo...but i do know about 59 chevys...if your first car was a 59 impala because you couldnt afford a 59 belair youd also know the difference!
im all for admitting when im wrong...when in fact i am...this time i am not!
spyderstomper 2 years ago
You're not making any sense, The Impala was more expensive than the BelAir by at least $500. My Dad had a 59 Impala and I still have pictures of it. Identical body style, only visible difference is the side molding....
Like I said, google both cars and you'll see the diference...chk out the side molding on each....Also, if you chk the other youtube video of the same crash, It shows the interior and the steering wheel is different on this belair...
Impala's cross bar had finger holes.
jumbojetac 2 years ago
jumbo, apparently some classic car enthusiast's are not up on their facts and figures, as you stated this is indeed a Bel Air, spyder should checkout 1:12 in the video and see the Bel Air nameplate on the front fender.
327caprice 2 years ago