I am starting to think this crash test is fake many people have told me that IIHS cut the frame on the bel air then used industrial clamps to hold it together for anyone reading this comment type in 1962 cadillac vs 2002 Cadillac crash test and you will see what I mean and the 62 Cadillac held up well.
The '59 Chevy is the same as the one my parents had all those years ago. It is a Bel Air as you can see the Bel Air script on the front mud guard (fender) just below the "A" pillar and above the side trim. I think that it would have had an engine and that it could have been the Chevy 6 cylinder of the time. There was a load of space under the bonnet (hood) with the 6 and, as well, I can't see an engine in the Malibu either. That's not rust but a cloud of well earned dust as you would expect.
I love old cars, and having an engine in the old Chevy would have been a better test I think, but I would still like to be in a new car during a crash like that. There's a reason that vehicle fatalities in crashes have gone down over the years.
That chevy was so mocked up it's pathetic. You can see the fender bolts have been cut, no engine and rust cloud coming from a rusted out hulk that was repainted. If that chevy was a solid car it would have teared thru the newer car. What do you think?
@fiddlerpin I think you're deluded and have no way of knowing any of that shit you just said. How do you know the fender bolts were cut? Why would they make a fake test? It's a scientific crash testing organisation for the serious aim of public safety they don't fake tests.
@Gazpacho8 I care what other people think , just not you because you are a know it all and you called me deluded. I think you need to adjust your attitude . Why don't you attack someone else like D3at4not3. This person agrees with me that there is no engine in the car and believe me the fender bolts are cut. They are just trying to make people think that the newer cars are stronger than the old. Please don't reply to me thanks have a great day
I guess it was important to take the nicest 59 chevy they could find for this test. Yeah, don't bother taking off all the rare trim and everything else because we need a 100% accurate test. Okay, results are in: The priceless Chevy is totalled. Who could have guessed that would happen? Now we're all the wiser for this brilliant test. The first time they ever crash-tested any car on the planet, we knew what happens. That was 120 years ago. They needed this, the 7,893,538th test, to confirm it?
@hardogeidesu We aren't retards, it's a fact. The air bags and such in new cars make up for the lack of body strength that old cars had. Look at the collision, it's obvious that the Bel Air's underside was completely rusted out because you can see the rust cloud that flies up from it. Plus if it had an engine in it, it wouldn't have crumpled so easily. They took a rusty car and repainted it so it would look nice. If the frame is in bad shape on any car, this will happen.
@mhtube01 Actually new cars front and read ends crumple by design to absorbe damaging impacts that would kill you. You notice there is no intrusion into the cabin on the Malibu, this is because there is an extremely strong metal cage that protects the passengers. But if you want to make excuses and prentend the test was invalid and set up go ahead.
@Gazpacho8 I can't believe you said in another comment that old cars sucked. You criminal. Old cars are so much simpler, easier to work on, and nicer to drive than any car built today. That's why people keep them alive. Plus they were built like tanks. This Bel-Air was built on the X frame which was apparently one of GM's worst frames in accidents. But it YOU look closely, look at the rust cloud that flies up after the collision. The test was a fake to make old cars look bad.
@mhtube01 Yes I'm such a criminal, l like old cars lots and daily drive a 40 year old volvo and would love to have a 59 impala. But as a auto mechanic by trade and as someone who works on both new and old cars daily, older car designs were less efficient and less reliable than current ones, there is a reason they don't make cars like this anymore and it's not some sort of conspiracy.
@Gazpacho8 New cars NEED these crumple zones to absorb the impact because of their lack of build quality. Old cars have STEEL bumpers and ZERO fiberglass/plastic on the exterior. It really is just common knowledge. Had they tried this out on a different classic with a better frame, like say an older Bel-Air or an old Chrysler, that Mailbu would never have stood a chance. But how dare they waste a beautiful American classic as it is. Stop bashing old cars on here.
@mhtube01 New cars have far better quality control than cars 50 years ago, most 59 impalas rusted away due to poor quality steel and lack of undercoating. Your statement about old cars being all steel and strong demonstrates a common misunderstanding of how vehicle safety works. If you don't believe this test then look up any of the other dozens of tests done on older vehicles showing how car safety has improved. I don't hate old cars I just don't have my head in the clouds.
There's a lot of people who still want to hold onto that "my old car is safer cause it's all steel" theory. Ironically, the "cheap piece of plastic" 2009 Malibu weighs more. Google it if you don't believe me. Them old cars were never designed for safety, it was all about style. New cars are designed with safety in mind. Just look at the dashboard and buttons, like how they're all rounded? and airbags...huge improvement. Keep your old clunker, Let's just not meet by accident.
@TheProGamerHW No engine plus this one here was a weakened rust bucket with a fresh paintjob. See brown dust clouds coming from under the panels. But the X-frames really weren´t as good as the ladder frames.
fake !!! the 59 chevy has no motor , they install a plastic motor , removed from bracket and fenders were install with minimal bolts & nuts ( che the video the right part of the car )
This video was made just to demostrate tha they ar doing something and they need funds to keep americans safe.....(fenders and hood are made in asia aftermarket low gage)
@PhilipM0nroe I feel much safer protected with 4000 lbs of American steel rather than with plastic ugly-ass Toyota Prius which has no engine, no style, no comfort...
Notice the lack of the much wider side trim which would have included the name "Impala" next to 2 crossed flags. Biscayne and Bel Air had thinner side trim without any ornamentation... as with this car.
@suriya56922 It has Bel Air scripts on the sides, but Bel Air doesn't have the roof ornamental on the top of the rear window. This one does, as you can see.
AWW YOU SONS OF WHORES HOW ABOUT YOU QUIT WRECKING FUCKING CLASSICS I COULD HAVE FUCKING TOLD YOU THE 59'S NOT AS SAFE! ITS A FUCKING X FRAME FOR GOD SAKES. FUCK YOU GUYS!
fine - the passenger compartments are safer in new cars, and they have modern safety features. But that '59 was rusted out as you can see from the red dust cloud that comes out of it.
The Chevy was without a doubt the worst possible 1959 car they could have used for this test because of that X-frame it used (1958-64 models) which allowed the newer car to crush more of it in this frontal offset crash. I guess they used a Chevy because it was the most common 1959 car still available, though Fords that year sold about equally or a bit more. Wouldn't want to see another classic car destroyed, but how about trying it again with another 1959 car that has a better frame?
All this proves is that if you take a rust-bucket and crash it, it'll disintegrate. You can see the huge amounts of brown particles coming from the older car as the rust, held together by paint, disintegrates. So yeah, it shows the effects of ageing on an old car much more than the advances in safety.
@Mausome This test is fake and that's not a Bel Air, it's an Impala. The Bel Air only has 2 doors where the bigger Impala has 4 and they look different. So right off the bat, they lie about the car they test or they're too stupid to know a real car. They did remove the Impala's engine and notice how they only show the Malibu coming at the crash scene while the Impala appears to be moving very slowly.
@mhtube01 The car in the video IS a '59 Bel Air. Bel Airs had a post and Impalas were hard-tops... otherwise same car. Both were available in 2 and 4 doors. Also, the 4 door car is the SAME size as the 2 door car, just different sized doors. This is true of all American cars of the era that offered 2 and 4 doors within one bodystyle. Check it out. It's true!
@mopardan65 Yeah I know. At first I didn't know that cause when I first saw the car I thought "that's an Impala." I've only seen older Bel Airs and they look very different from this. Still though what a waste of a nice car and the test is fake since regardless of what car it is, it still has no engine and you can see the rust could that flies up in the air. But I've heard the frames on these weren't that great to begin with.
@mhtube01 Agreed! I hated to see it wrecked too. I watched an analysis on this video a year or so ago and the guy said the car had a straight 6 in it (which was the base engine in these cars), but I can't seem to find it now... hmmm? X- frames were trouble. A ladder framed car would have been a more "fair" comparison. I guess it only makes sense that they would try to compare the "worst" structural car with the "best" they had today. I'm into old Chryslers, but would have gladly taken it!
@mopardan65 Yup me too! I love old Chryslers, they are tanks! As much as I love old cars over new ones though, I gotta say I find their current line up very impressive. But one day I intend to save an old classic such as this from getting wrecked or scrapped when it's salvageable. *Cough cough Cash for Clunkers!! That's a horrible program I'm so glad they went bankrupt.
I'm glad they did this. Old car fans who are upset about this are not familiar with science, our even mechanics and physics or basic engineering and are stuck in the past because they don't understand the future. They are afraid of it because it's something new to learn.
@myphonyaccount Go fuck yourself, I drive an old car because I am replacating the greatest era in american history, my 1960 Bel air is 10x better looking than the peices of shit that are made today. If I die in a crash, oh well, im keeping that in mind that I have a peice of MidCentury america in my possesion is cooler than any peice of new tecnolgy out there. And these days people have become so desensitised over tecnolgy its discusting, that is something new for you to learn
@myphonyaccount I've restored many 55 and 57 Chevys and was an aerospace technician for 21 years. I have to agree with you. This video is 100% honest and accurate.
@myphonyaccount It's hilarious, everyone is making excused in the comments and claiming it had no engine and was staged and stuff. Like it's a conspiracy or something. Of course in reality old cars sucked and they don't make them that way anymore for good reason.
Bel Airs are as sturdy as hell, its heavier than a malibu. AND WHY THE MALIBU HAS BETTER SAFETY? ANSWER-Bel air had a badly rusted chassis. look at the smoke coming out from under the bel air chassis. its brown smoke. they may be rust particles. AND NO. AFTER THIS, I WAS MORE DETERMINED TO GET A BEL AIR INSTEAD OF A MALIBU.
cars designed for accidents not style. Enjoy old cars, own some, but in accidents they're death traps. Recalled an accident a few years ago between a Duesenberg and late model Volvo. Driver of Duesenberg and his 12 year old daughter died, Volvo occupants walked away. Face it, cars are safer today in part to technology that came out of auto racing. If you want to comment I welcome it. If you can't think of anything but like to print vulgar language-save your electrons.
What is all that brown dust blowing out of the old chevy at 59 seconds ? Could this be a set up car ? You dont actually think someone would lie about this now would they ?
I am amazed at how well the modern car survived that. The passenger compartment was completely sound. A shame about the BelAir. I'd like to know what the reason behind this test was.
good test MY ASS!!! normaly with a head on collision,you would see the tailpipe(or exhaust) fromthe bel air coming out from under the rear bumper........now ya see nothing....it does't even move!!!!fuck that man.....this is a bullshit test!!!the hole front- bench is moving???????no way man.......no way....
@harlyspuitje1 fuel tanks and flammables removed from vehicles for fire hazards. Vehicle pulled by cables. There a book out with a collection of accident photos pre 1960. Unfortunately that's consistent w/ those period photos. (Own or owned "53,"57, '66, '68 Chevies, '53 Chevy truck, '52 Pontiac, '55 Olds, '65 GTO, '61 Plymouth I'm not an old fart that these in the day I'm just a 30something that likes old cars.)
The stupid of you people is shocking. Read and learn. Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. Google "Accidental Death and Disability, the Neglected Disease of Modern Society", and see how glorious automobiles were in the 1950s.
My '87 Olds Delta 88 smashed a deer at about 50. The only thing that happened was my headlight pointed to the sky like the Bat Symbol. If I was in the Malibu the car would need about 5K in repairs.
@manfromtx90 your right , but this dosent prove enything, ive droven through a volvo with my 62 buick ,the volvo was a 82,one of the most secure cars so what does that prove...abselutly didly
@manfromtx90 not at that time , read about it ,volvo nmade the safest car at that time, and still holds the best record of safty even thruout the new times . i have a friend who restored a 59 impala some years ago and was in a accident as a older male got a hart attac in a 2010 previa (toyota) and walked away with frontal driverside wing/fender and bumper bent ,could drive away, the toyota was crushed ,and i dont think toyota got thier repu for nothing, they make damn good cars.
The engine is there twats...you can see the air filter when it crashes...and yes, that's the real safety of and old american car...why are you so surprised?
now i call bullshit, the engine is missing, body panels flew off and no bel air crumples up like that. next time get one factory, O.E.M. then try it see that bel air push that damn malibu out the way. Just more people trying to manipulate with smoke and mirrors
They picked one of the weakest cars from the 1950's to compare the 2009 Malibu with, and it was further weakened by years of corrosion. I'd like to see that Malibu hit a 1974 Chrysler Imperial head on. The old Imperial is still banned from many demolition derbys because of it's legendary crashworthiness. In any case, all they accomplished here was to destroy a beautiful work of art.
I wish there was one company that would recreate old car designs and keep the interior and exterior the same, just make them a tad safer and updated that they were back then.
yes, very useful and valuable information, next, I expect the institute to step back another fifty years and pit a modern passenger car against a team of oxen and buckboard, properly driven by period correct crash test dummies.
always the same comment over and over. Of course any newer car is much safer than an old car like that. they were not designed to take such hits, even less offset like that versus plain frontal. you can crash pretty much any modern car, even a small one, and be much better off.
My dad used to tell me how much safer cars were back then because of how huge they were and how they were made entirely out of metal....boy, was he full of shit.
and the Bel Air quite a bit less. Of course, the Malibu would still be safer, as it has 50 more years of advances in safety features, but this test is a sham.
lol, the Bel Air has no engine. There isn't even a fake exhaust system shooting out of the back. An engine block won't crumple. If it were mounted, it likely wouldn't have even gone into the passenger compartment. If it did, the mounts would have absorbed most of the impact themselves. If the engine block does slide back, the exhaust tips would have shot back as well, but, alas, there is no sign of an exhaust.
With that said, the Malibu would have taken a bit more damage.
What!? X-frame or not, I would've imagined the Bel-Air to fair a *lil* bit better... then again, look at all the rust that flies out of it lol. To the person that says there was "silver" shit flyin out of the newer car, that is actually the talcum powder or whatever they use from the airbags. The bags are dusted with the stuff when they are packed, to keep the material from stickin to itself. When it deploys, it makes a big ol cloud of that stuff.
I'm ignorant? You're imagining things. There is absolutely no reason to remove the engine and again, you cannot see inside the engine bay. You my delusional friend should seek therapy.
This has been flagged as spam show
I am starting to think this crash test is fake many people have told me that IIHS cut the frame on the bel air then used industrial clamps to hold it together for anyone reading this comment type in 1962 cadillac vs 2002 Cadillac crash test and you will see what I mean and the 62 Cadillac held up well.
mrdestoryit 5 days ago 8
Screw you i have a all original 62 bel air no rust in upstate new york that one most likely had no engine
tobyrocks3 1 week ago
what a waste of a rare chevy it makes me mad just watching the video.FUCK ALL WHO CAME UP WITH THE IDEA!!!
CamaroManTed 2 weeks ago
No engine
D3at4not3 4 weeks ago
The '59 Chevy is the same as the one my parents had all those years ago. It is a Bel Air as you can see the Bel Air script on the front mud guard (fender) just below the "A" pillar and above the side trim. I think that it would have had an engine and that it could have been the Chevy 6 cylinder of the time. There was a load of space under the bonnet (hood) with the 6 and, as well, I can't see an engine in the Malibu either. That's not rust but a cloud of well earned dust as you would expect.
Holdncaulfield 4 weeks ago
Even though the Bel Air is not as strong, it still is way better looking and way better built than the Malibu.
XXXCompAssesXXX 1 month ago
I love old cars, and having an engine in the old Chevy would have been a better test I think, but I would still like to be in a new car during a crash like that. There's a reason that vehicle fatalities in crashes have gone down over the years.
zizwop 1 month ago
I loved the background music in the other crash vid here: /watch?v=r9YbDCvrBBk
For this one, should be a '59 automotive hit: "Car Trouble On The Lonely Road."
EgaoNoGenki 1 month ago
That chevy was so mocked up it's pathetic. You can see the fender bolts have been cut, no engine and rust cloud coming from a rusted out hulk that was repainted. If that chevy was a solid car it would have teared thru the newer car. What do you think?
fiddlerpin 1 month ago
@fiddlerpin I think you're deluded and have no way of knowing any of that shit you just said. How do you know the fender bolts were cut? Why would they make a fake test? It's a scientific crash testing organisation for the serious aim of public safety they don't fake tests.
Gazpacho8 2 weeks ago
@Gazpacho8 just watch the video I don't care if you think I'm correct or not.
fiddlerpin 2 weeks ago
@fiddlerpin Not caring what other people think is a good way to never learn.
Gazpacho8 2 weeks ago
@Gazpacho8 I care what other people think , just not you because you are a know it all and you called me deluded. I think you need to adjust your attitude . Why don't you attack someone else like D3at4not3. This person agrees with me that there is no engine in the car and believe me the fender bolts are cut. They are just trying to make people think that the newer cars are stronger than the old. Please don't reply to me thanks have a great day
fiddlerpin 2 weeks ago
what's with the brown cloud
Rarrin9378 1 month ago
I guess it was important to take the nicest 59 chevy they could find for this test. Yeah, don't bother taking off all the rare trim and everything else because we need a 100% accurate test. Okay, results are in: The priceless Chevy is totalled. Who could have guessed that would happen? Now we're all the wiser for this brilliant test. The first time they ever crash-tested any car on the planet, we knew what happens. That was 120 years ago. They needed this, the 7,893,538th test, to confirm it?
aaardvarkkk 1 month ago
@aaardvarkkk It's an old four door not super rare, they made millions of those cars.
Gazpacho8 2 weeks ago
Whoever decided to smash that beautiful Bel-Air, should go to a mental hospital, and obviously cuz that was pretty stupid.
racing202 1 month ago
i bet we'll still get the retards that say old cars are safer because they're made of steel and new cars are made of plastic
hardogeidesu 1 month ago
@hardogeidesu We aren't retards, it's a fact. The air bags and such in new cars make up for the lack of body strength that old cars had. Look at the collision, it's obvious that the Bel Air's underside was completely rusted out because you can see the rust cloud that flies up from it. Plus if it had an engine in it, it wouldn't have crumpled so easily. They took a rusty car and repainted it so it would look nice. If the frame is in bad shape on any car, this will happen.
mhtube01 1 month ago
@mhtube01 Actually new cars front and read ends crumple by design to absorbe damaging impacts that would kill you. You notice there is no intrusion into the cabin on the Malibu, this is because there is an extremely strong metal cage that protects the passengers. But if you want to make excuses and prentend the test was invalid and set up go ahead.
Gazpacho8 2 weeks ago
@Gazpacho8 I can't believe you said in another comment that old cars sucked. You criminal. Old cars are so much simpler, easier to work on, and nicer to drive than any car built today. That's why people keep them alive. Plus they were built like tanks. This Bel-Air was built on the X frame which was apparently one of GM's worst frames in accidents. But it YOU look closely, look at the rust cloud that flies up after the collision. The test was a fake to make old cars look bad.
mhtube01 2 weeks ago
@mhtube01 Yes I'm such a criminal, l like old cars lots and daily drive a 40 year old volvo and would love to have a 59 impala. But as a auto mechanic by trade and as someone who works on both new and old cars daily, older car designs were less efficient and less reliable than current ones, there is a reason they don't make cars like this anymore and it's not some sort of conspiracy.
Gazpacho8 2 weeks ago
@Gazpacho8 New cars NEED these crumple zones to absorb the impact because of their lack of build quality. Old cars have STEEL bumpers and ZERO fiberglass/plastic on the exterior. It really is just common knowledge. Had they tried this out on a different classic with a better frame, like say an older Bel-Air or an old Chrysler, that Mailbu would never have stood a chance. But how dare they waste a beautiful American classic as it is. Stop bashing old cars on here.
mhtube01 2 weeks ago
@mhtube01 New cars have far better quality control than cars 50 years ago, most 59 impalas rusted away due to poor quality steel and lack of undercoating. Your statement about old cars being all steel and strong demonstrates a common misunderstanding of how vehicle safety works. If you don't believe this test then look up any of the other dozens of tests done on older vehicles showing how car safety has improved. I don't hate old cars I just don't have my head in the clouds.
Gazpacho8 2 weeks ago
YOU CAN SEE THAT CHEVY 1959 IS A REBUILD CAR IS NOT THE ORIGINAL MODEL BECAUSE 1959 CAR WHERE 100% METAL
rock858965 1 month ago
make a good derby car that chevy .
craig0david 1 month ago
There's a lot of people who still want to hold onto that "my old car is safer cause it's all steel" theory. Ironically, the "cheap piece of plastic" 2009 Malibu weighs more. Google it if you don't believe me. Them old cars were never designed for safety, it was all about style. New cars are designed with safety in mind. Just look at the dashboard and buttons, like how they're all rounded? and airbags...huge improvement. Keep your old clunker, Let's just not meet by accident.
Richaag 1 month ago
Maybe the bel air was rusty, but no one destroys a classic car like that. Smashing a car like that means that you r a stupid idiot without a brain
blackmetalofnorway1 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
А потом их ремонтируют и продают нам!!
XPEHOTEP 1 month ago
THERE WAS NO ENGINE IN THE CHEVY BEL AIR!!!
YOU CAN CLEARLY SEE THAT IF YOU LOOK CLOSELY!!
FUCK NOWADAYS CHEVROLET, THE ONES FROM 1950s USED TO BE THE BEST AROUND
TheProGamerHW 1 month ago
@TheProGamerHW No engine plus this one here was a weakened rust bucket with a fresh paintjob. See brown dust clouds coming from under the panels. But the X-frames really weren´t as good as the ladder frames.
knaagi 1 month ago 14
@knaagi blah blah blah believe what you hear i guess
Pianoguy32 3 weeks ago
@TheProGamerHW If by clearly you mean, not at all. Then yes.
Gazpacho8 2 weeks ago
Even though the newer Chevy is safer, I still would rater drive the Bel Air. Cars had a certain quality back then that cars now just can't mach.
TheTarrMan 1 month ago
@TheTarrMan It sure as hell wasn't safety.
Bobby525i 1 month ago
I just died a little inside.
MrTopNotchTexan 1 month ago
Its not a fucking bel air its an impala the people who did this should be shot and to call it a bel air is just adding isult to injury
CallMeLightning68 1 month ago
this is complete BULL SHIT!! that 59 is gutted and rotten underneath and is barley bolted together.
RedneckDerek1969 1 month ago
fake !!! the 59 chevy has no motor , they install a plastic motor , removed from bracket and fenders were install with minimal bolts & nuts ( che the video the right part of the car )
This video was made just to demostrate tha they ar doing something and they need funds to keep americans safe.....(fenders and hood are made in asia aftermarket low gage)
red070809 1 month ago
I would rather drive with style than with safety
PhilipM0nroe 2 months ago
@PhilipM0nroe I feel much safer protected with 4000 lbs of American steel rather than with plastic ugly-ass Toyota Prius which has no engine, no style, no comfort...
Broadway30062009 1 month ago
i wanna kill this person who did this
boyes0n 2 months ago
Dying in a Cool Car >> Rest of life as a plant
(The Malibu is as cool as an electric wheelchair tho.)
BodyOnFrame4L 2 months ago
What a fail...it's a '59 Impala, not Bel Air.
Tibb91 2 months ago 6
@Tibb91 Umm, wrong! '59 Bel Air. I'd bet your paycheck!
mopardan65 1 month ago
Comment removed
Tibb91 1 month ago
Comment removed
Tibb91 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mopardan65 No, it's an Impala.
Do you see the roof ornamental on the top of the rear window?
Bel Airs didn't have because they were cheaper models.
Tibb91 1 month ago
Notice the lack of the much wider side trim which would have included the name "Impala" next to 2 crossed flags. Biscayne and Bel Air had thinner side trim without any ornamentation... as with this car.
mopardan65 1 month ago
@Tibb91
Bel Air and Impala look very similar. UR GETTING CONFUSED.
suriya56922 2 weeks ago
@suriya56922 It has Bel Air scripts on the sides, but Bel Air doesn't have the roof ornamental on the top of the rear window. This one does, as you can see.
Tibb91 2 weeks ago
@Tibb91
WELL, WHO CARES?? IT'S A PILE OF $HIT!!
suriya56922 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
ryanbogaerd 1 week ago
@Tibb91 actually, they look exactly the same
ryanbogaerd 1 week ago
Any some say the olders car were safer becuase of their size and weight. It must not be true
displayfireworks1 2 months ago
AWW YOU SONS OF WHORES HOW ABOUT YOU QUIT WRECKING FUCKING CLASSICS I COULD HAVE FUCKING TOLD YOU THE 59'S NOT AS SAFE! ITS A FUCKING X FRAME FOR GOD SAKES. FUCK YOU GUYS!
masterbawth 2 months ago
fine - the passenger compartments are safer in new cars, and they have modern safety features. But that '59 was rusted out as you can see from the red dust cloud that comes out of it.
RDHalmon 2 months ago
The Chevy was without a doubt the worst possible 1959 car they could have used for this test because of that X-frame it used (1958-64 models) which allowed the newer car to crush more of it in this frontal offset crash. I guess they used a Chevy because it was the most common 1959 car still available, though Fords that year sold about equally or a bit more. Wouldn't want to see another classic car destroyed, but how about trying it again with another 1959 car that has a better frame?
alwanner 2 months ago 3
All this proves is that if you take a rust-bucket and crash it, it'll disintegrate. You can see the huge amounts of brown particles coming from the older car as the rust, held together by paint, disintegrates. So yeah, it shows the effects of ageing on an old car much more than the advances in safety.
NewFormofSilence 2 months ago
Bel air= no engine
Malibu= engine
AFTERNOONSTUFF 2 months ago
Hogwash---I have seen cars of this vintage that were wrecked in junk yards--they do NOT fold up that easily.
This car was either acid-dipped or otherwise compromised.
351460 2 months ago
I heard they removed the engine from the Bel Air.
Mausome 2 months ago
@Mausome This test is fake and that's not a Bel Air, it's an Impala. The Bel Air only has 2 doors where the bigger Impala has 4 and they look different. So right off the bat, they lie about the car they test or they're too stupid to know a real car. They did remove the Impala's engine and notice how they only show the Malibu coming at the crash scene while the Impala appears to be moving very slowly.
mhtube01 2 months ago
@mhtube01 The car in the video IS a '59 Bel Air. Bel Airs had a post and Impalas were hard-tops... otherwise same car. Both were available in 2 and 4 doors. Also, the 4 door car is the SAME size as the 2 door car, just different sized doors. This is true of all American cars of the era that offered 2 and 4 doors within one bodystyle. Check it out. It's true!
mopardan65 1 month ago
@mopardan65 Yeah I know. At first I didn't know that cause when I first saw the car I thought "that's an Impala." I've only seen older Bel Airs and they look very different from this. Still though what a waste of a nice car and the test is fake since regardless of what car it is, it still has no engine and you can see the rust could that flies up in the air. But I've heard the frames on these weren't that great to begin with.
mhtube01 1 month ago
@mhtube01 Agreed! I hated to see it wrecked too. I watched an analysis on this video a year or so ago and the guy said the car had a straight 6 in it (which was the base engine in these cars), but I can't seem to find it now... hmmm? X- frames were trouble. A ladder framed car would have been a more "fair" comparison. I guess it only makes sense that they would try to compare the "worst" structural car with the "best" they had today. I'm into old Chryslers, but would have gladly taken it!
mopardan65 1 month ago
@mopardan65 Yup me too! I love old Chryslers, they are tanks! As much as I love old cars over new ones though, I gotta say I find their current line up very impressive. But one day I intend to save an old classic such as this from getting wrecked or scrapped when it's salvageable. *Cough cough Cash for Clunkers!! That's a horrible program I'm so glad they went bankrupt.
mhtube01 1 month ago
I'm glad they did this. Old car fans who are upset about this are not familiar with science, our even mechanics and physics or basic engineering and are stuck in the past because they don't understand the future. They are afraid of it because it's something new to learn.
myphonyaccount 2 months ago
@myphonyaccount Go fuck yourself, I drive an old car because I am replacating the greatest era in american history, my 1960 Bel air is 10x better looking than the peices of shit that are made today. If I die in a crash, oh well, im keeping that in mind that I have a peice of MidCentury america in my possesion is cooler than any peice of new tecnolgy out there. And these days people have become so desensitised over tecnolgy its discusting, that is something new for you to learn
dogsaremykids 2 months ago
@myphonyaccount I've restored many 55 and 57 Chevys and was an aerospace technician for 21 years. I have to agree with you. This video is 100% honest and accurate.
...but I still want another old Chevy!
1971SuperLead 2 months ago 3
@myphonyaccount It's hilarious, everyone is making excused in the comments and claiming it had no engine and was staged and stuff. Like it's a conspiracy or something. Of course in reality old cars sucked and they don't make them that way anymore for good reason.
Gazpacho8 2 weeks ago
The stupid bastard who did this should be tarred and feathered!
SunsetSix 2 months ago
NOOOOOOO not the classic!
JoeK2000 2 months ago
wow
gmdriverer 2 months ago
Bel Airs are as sturdy as hell, its heavier than a malibu. AND WHY THE MALIBU HAS BETTER SAFETY? ANSWER-Bel air had a badly rusted chassis. look at the smoke coming out from under the bel air chassis. its brown smoke. they may be rust particles. AND NO. AFTER THIS, I WAS MORE DETERMINED TO GET A BEL AIR INSTEAD OF A MALIBU.
Nintendy123 2 months ago
You people are going to hell for that
TheJohn212212 2 months ago
What a waste, I'm not talking of the Malibu lol
Cappamike82 2 months ago
cars designed for accidents not style. Enjoy old cars, own some, but in accidents they're death traps. Recalled an accident a few years ago between a Duesenberg and late model Volvo. Driver of Duesenberg and his 12 year old daughter died, Volvo occupants walked away. Face it, cars are safer today in part to technology that came out of auto racing. If you want to comment I welcome it. If you can't think of anything but like to print vulgar language-save your electrons.
cleoshepardchou 2 months ago
What is all that brown dust blowing out of the old chevy at 59 seconds ? Could this be a set up car ? You dont actually think someone would lie about this now would they ?
12salem 2 months ago
do a 1984 crown victoria, let's see that hit anycar of today. pos cars and vans and trucks they are all fucking plastic made.
matteoiseuro 2 months ago
It's all because the 1959 Chevrolet was made with the really stupid GM X-frame.
LDSPikachu 2 months ago in playlist Car Stuff
I am amazed at how well the modern car survived that. The passenger compartment was completely sound. A shame about the BelAir. I'd like to know what the reason behind this test was.
pintosnfiats 2 months ago
NOOOOO!! why a belair, thats like car cruelty
nathan7687 2 months ago
why wuld they waste a classic like that wtf
xGHOSTx05 3 months ago
American cars are worser than worse. You should try to learn from german engineers :-D...
DrSnuggles22 3 months ago
good test MY ASS!!! normaly with a head on collision,you would see the tailpipe(or exhaust) fromthe bel air coming out from under the rear bumper........now ya see nothing....it does't even move!!!!fuck that man.....this is a bullshit test!!!the hole front- bench is moving???????no way man.......no way....
harlyspuitje1 3 months ago
@harlyspuitje1 fuel tanks and flammables removed from vehicles for fire hazards. Vehicle pulled by cables. There a book out with a collection of accident photos pre 1960. Unfortunately that's consistent w/ those period photos. (Own or owned "53,"57, '66, '68 Chevies, '53 Chevy truck, '52 Pontiac, '55 Olds, '65 GTO, '61 Plymouth I'm not an old fart that these in the day I'm just a 30something that likes old cars.)
cleoshepardchou 2 months ago
The stupid of you people is shocking. Read and learn. Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. Google "Accidental Death and Disability, the Neglected Disease of Modern Society", and see how glorious automobiles were in the 1950s.
tnemt31283 3 months ago
My '87 Olds Delta 88 smashed a deer at about 50. The only thing that happened was my headlight pointed to the sky like the Bat Symbol. If I was in the Malibu the car would need about 5K in repairs.
Noblehammer16 3 months ago
im on the bel air side
TheChevyBelair 3 months ago
you can obviously see the dust made by rust (grr. i hate rhymes) coming out of the bel air at 1:00.
OmmTigers 3 months ago 2
who will win???
mp1101ful 3 months ago
The person who let to destroy that beutifully Chevy get crashed, should have the balls kicked in...anyone agree with me ??
1979ascona 3 months ago 32
@1979ascona Fuck yeah
MrLinkReturns 3 months ago
@1979ascona i agree with you that was crazy what a waste of a classic car
stag82danny 3 months ago
@1979ascona This was a promo video done by chevrolet showcasing the progression of safetey over the years.
hunterziegelmann 2 months ago
@1979ascona, yes it was a total waste. At least get a less pristine car.
K7classicrockfan 1 month ago
@1979ascona The person who destroyed your crap Chevy had his balls kicked in, he was driving the piece of crap in the crash demo.
OBAMASTINKSLIKEANAPE 1 month ago
that shit aint true, comon. u know that chevy impala would eat the living shit out that plastic shit
ToEazy238 3 months ago
What a waste of a sweet "Bat-Wing" '59 Chevy! As for the 2009 "Malibu"... Who cares! Those damn things are a dime a dozen.
CosmicFork 3 months ago
FAKE! the dummies still one piece
SuperRonville 3 months ago
pretty sure they took out the engine on the bel air
TheSoundDoctors 3 months ago
@bliesberg
It is (was, sadly) a Bel Air. Four-door sedans were unusual.
3511putman 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Wicked sick chevy, guys!
Also, do check out the chevy that i'm dealing with at,
triple w [dot] youtube [dot] com [slash] user [slash] 1925chevyforsale
1925chevyforsale 3 months ago
WHY DID U NOT GIVE THAT PIECE OF HISTORY TO ME !!!
kimi450 3 months ago
I'd rather to be in the news: "Driver died driving 1959 Chevrolet Bel Air", than survive in this crappy Malibu only to be a vegetable afterwards…
petershaman 3 months ago
The Chevy Bel Air has no Engine!
ChannelNotFound 3 months ago
As a fan and former collector of classic cars, I want to beat the shit out of the guy whose idea it was to conduct this test.
sweet58441 3 months ago 14
@sweet58441 national highway safety dumbass
GentrySmith1 1 month ago
@GentrySmith1 Thats not a person dipshit
sweet58441 1 month ago
Thats not a Bel Air........
And even so why would they ruin a classic car?
bliesberg 3 months ago
i think the bel air did good NOT!
stogi5959 3 months ago
idk why yall are so shocked the truth is back in 59 saftey wasnt a big concern and this video proves it
manfromtx90 3 months ago
@manfromtx90 your right , but this dosent prove enything, ive droven through a volvo with my 62 buick ,the volvo was a 82,one of the most secure cars so what does that prove...abselutly didly
transdetendal 3 months ago
@transdetendal 82 was a bad year for saftey to
manfromtx90 3 months ago
@manfromtx90 not at that time , read about it ,volvo nmade the safest car at that time, and still holds the best record of safty even thruout the new times . i have a friend who restored a 59 impala some years ago and was in a accident as a older male got a hart attac in a 2010 previa (toyota) and walked away with frontal driverside wing/fender and bumper bent ,could drive away, the toyota was crushed ,and i dont think toyota got thier repu for nothing, they make damn good cars.
transdetendal 3 months ago
did they remove the engine of the Bel Air??
Jake7206 3 months ago
oh bullshit this is a set up anyway do you really think if they had a 59 that clean they would wreck it
XMSTARSHIP2 3 months ago
Comment removed
XMSTARSHIP2 3 months ago
bullshit try that in a 1965
megaman5043 3 months ago
Very criminal to to destroy this car
RalphReagan 3 months ago
that is some real fuckin bullshit my friend got in a bad accident with a newer car in a 56 bel air n it didnt crumple like that
fdsdfewfdsfewfs 4 months ago
The engine is there twats...you can see the air filter when it crashes...and yes, that's the real safety of and old american car...why are you so surprised?
adynegrean 4 months ago 2
Look at the freaking angle, they were TRYING to kill it. who the fuck would kill a bel air?
ZeeJayStudios 4 months ago
NNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!
you fucking destroyed it!!!! :-(
1thehammerhead 4 months ago
but i want to be in air bel
it is classic
saintunid 4 months ago
now i call bullshit, the engine is missing, body panels flew off and no bel air crumples up like that. next time get one factory, O.E.M. then try it see that bel air push that damn malibu out the way. Just more people trying to manipulate with smoke and mirrors
Captain25011 4 months ago
FAKE!!!!!
regionoved1 4 months ago
maybe you should keep the engine in the bel air the next time. :(-
oldsmobile98boy 4 months ago 2
@oldsmobile98boy yep, that way we can see how the engine crushes the dummy's legs when it comes flying into the cockpit
dunti21 4 months ago
They picked one of the weakest cars from the 1950's to compare the 2009 Malibu with, and it was further weakened by years of corrosion. I'd like to see that Malibu hit a 1974 Chrysler Imperial head on. The old Imperial is still banned from many demolition derbys because of it's legendary crashworthiness. In any case, all they accomplished here was to destroy a beautiful work of art.
COMO10110 4 months ago
LOOLOLOOOLOLOL. Do the same test with a immaculate Bel-Air , under an impartial observation.
Fucking corporations trying to deceive the masses with rigged tests.
Elena10110 4 months ago
That'll buff out.
991blur 4 months ago 8
The chassis of that bel air was rusted to shit.
eurotruckholland 4 months ago 41
@eurotruckholland Not if it was well taken care of.
droidfan2010 4 months ago
@droidfan2010 it has been proven, + it didn't had an engine.
eurotruckholland 4 months ago
I wish there was one company that would recreate old car designs and keep the interior and exterior the same, just make them a tad safer and updated that they were back then.
milodaman2 4 months ago
why in the flyin fuck would you wreck a classic that is all done up. its idiots like them that don't know how rare that old cars are getting
KHS212 4 months ago
i hate the government now
darkfang776 4 months ago
0:05 and 0:47 thumps up
tucula 4 months ago
Comment removed
tucula 4 months ago
BULLSHIT!!! now try it with a complete 1959 Chevy Bel Air without removing all the nuts and bolts first
XMSTARSHIP2 4 months ago 34
Missing nuts and bolts wouldn't have caused nearly as bad damage if that were actually a safe vehicle.
humanparody12 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@XMSTARSHIP2 Why is it BS?
santran 3 months ago
poor little oldtimer :(
dollarman3364 4 months ago
@dollarman3364 u are soo right poor thing i hated to see that
djlau1 4 months ago
yes, very useful and valuable information, next, I expect the institute to step back another fifty years and pit a modern passenger car against a team of oxen and buckboard, properly driven by period correct crash test dummies.
Steverinomeister 4 months ago
always the same comment over and over. Of course any newer car is much safer than an old car like that. they were not designed to take such hits, even less offset like that versus plain frontal. you can crash pretty much any modern car, even a small one, and be much better off.
calou1966 4 months ago
My dad used to tell me how much safer cars were back then because of how huge they were and how they were made entirely out of metal....boy, was he full of shit.
trafficjam10 4 months ago 2
they took out the bel air engine so that the chevy malibu would look better and get you to buy the new car.
TheSoundDoctors 4 months ago
and the Bel Air quite a bit less. Of course, the Malibu would still be safer, as it has 50 more years of advances in safety features, but this test is a sham.
JimmyGTA 4 months ago
lol, the Bel Air has no engine. There isn't even a fake exhaust system shooting out of the back. An engine block won't crumple. If it were mounted, it likely wouldn't have even gone into the passenger compartment. If it did, the mounts would have absorbed most of the impact themselves. If the engine block does slide back, the exhaust tips would have shot back as well, but, alas, there is no sign of an exhaust.
With that said, the Malibu would have taken a bit more damage.
JimmyGTA 4 months ago
I like how there's dice hanging from the rear view mirror in the Bel Air, classy.
TheDCdudeADS 4 months ago
I'd say the Bel Air had excellent impact absorption. The collapse zone(?) was the front seat.
driftboy23 5 months ago
y pensar q se ve mas fuerte el bel air q el malibu pobre mueñeco jajaj
lascosasqsevan 5 months ago
What!? X-frame or not, I would've imagined the Bel-Air to fair a *lil* bit better... then again, look at all the rust that flies out of it lol. To the person that says there was "silver" shit flyin out of the newer car, that is actually the talcum powder or whatever they use from the airbags. The bags are dusted with the stuff when they are packed, to keep the material from stickin to itself. When it deploys, it makes a big ol cloud of that stuff.
dixie460 5 months ago
That Bel Air was rigged to fall apart. That heavy road boat would have destroyed that aluminum can car!
howtobible 5 months ago
brutal...
timmytumy1966 5 months ago
am i the only won that want to see dodge ram vs smart? :D
SajdoO 5 months ago
waste..your killing off the classics and endangering the speces!!
925goodfella 5 months ago
Good ole Malibu. The cabin didn't even twist. I thought old Cars were suppose to be built like tanks.
d8112m 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Waste of a nice car .
paulb4uk 5 months ago 14
I'm ignorant? You're imagining things. There is absolutely no reason to remove the engine and again, you cannot see inside the engine bay. You my delusional friend should seek therapy.
itsmegp46 5 months ago
both would have died
TheSundayScoop 5 months ago
wow what a waste!
TheSundayScoop 5 months ago
Oooouucchh...... That pains!
globalmilind 5 months ago
It's sad for this good looking Chevy :(
iosltd 5 months ago 2
0:30 look at the top middle the bel airs windshield is super man
wachter206 5 months ago
the bel air didnt even have an engine block... totally biased test to make new cars look more safe
triynizzles 5 months ago
@triynizzles not to seem rude or anything but how would you even know that? you know cars werent built back then like they are now.
hornbytrainsets 5 months ago