09 Chevy Malibu vs 59 Chevy Bel Air crash test

[boriloko21]

Its rigged..theres NO way the belair wouldve gotten crushed like that from a car made almost completely of plastic.. Its chasis was probably cut at vital points to cause an easy collapse, like dynamite on a buildings foundation.

[91RTaylor]

They just made the body panels look pretty, the frame is clearly rotted out and thats why it didn't hold up, 50 years of rust will do that to a cars frame! it probably was barley capable of supporting its own weight let alone crashing into another car and winning! Shameful that retards would crash it instead of restoring it! I had a 1969 Fairlane, got rid of it a month ago but some old woman backed into its front bumper and completely destroyed her cars rear end! Didn't even scratch my car!

[TheHeavynecker1]

PLEASE, DON´T LET IIHS DECEIVE YOU: IF THEY MADE TRICK IN THE VIDEO, THEY WON´T CONFESS. IT´S IMPOSSIBLE A CAR MADE IN THE 50´S BE DESTROYED LIKE IT. CRASH TEST ARE SO OLD THAN AUTOMOTION, AND YOUTUBE ARE FULL OF THEM TO PROVE CLASSIC´S RIGIDITY. A WITNESS SAW IIHS CHANGED ENGINE FOR SMALL V6 AND FRAME WAS RUSTED AND... LADDER! THEY PLAYED DIRTY TO GET UP MALIBU´S SALES AND TRY TO CHANGE PUBLIC OPINION. THEY CAN TO SAY THAT THEY WANT, BUT IMAGES ARE UNBELIEAVLE.

[mrjim271]

@TheHeavynecker1 ,

Maybe it is my eyes or did the 1959 Chevy have no engine, I do not trust what any of these say.They are trying to sell cars.The new Chevy had an engine it.

[TheHeavynecker1]

@mrjim271 I have a 1965 w110 Mercedes, I know that kind of cars, and I feel very safe on it when I see the 60s Mercedes crash test images. Mercedes invented in 1951 cabinet rigidity and deformable coachwork, and many car brands follow it after.

[bloodshotcomedy]

we all know old school cars were not safe, thats like saying fire is hot! why did you have to ruin a perfectly good bel air for this, its like throwing a flaming log that would burn and give heat for hours, at your buddies face, to see if it would hurt.

[drfeelnothing]

Try running in the drivers door from the side.

[blertdrax]

What a waste of a classic. Yeah, newer cars are safer, we know that. They didn't need to pull a stupid stunt like this to prove it. They could have modelled this up on a computer if they really wanted to.

[carib0055]

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!!!!!!!!­­!!!!

[ruthlessone3k]

Wow, I really expected the 59' to destroy that malibu just from its sheer weight. I guess we have to chaulk that one up as a win for technology.

[wildbloodydragon]

That WAS a pretty nice Bel Air.

[Phonxer]

Song: (as written on top.) True Love Always - 127 M.P.H.

[Ronnie51026]

The bel air was a bad choice. Most cars from back then wouldn't have crumpled like that. They were made to last and barely break. Like a ford f series.

[whereeaglesdare83]

I wish I could see this crash but intead of the Bel-Air, a 1973-1979 Ford F-series pickup,,,,just to settle an old argument,,,,,,because from 1959 to the 70's safety features increased drastically,,,and no one seems to believe this

[superlegoman64]

What a waste of a good Bel Air

[manga12]

Ugg tell me about it, a waste of a perfectly good car, many would love to buy those kind of cars to fix up.

[superlegoman64]

@manga12 yeah i would too, and im not even a big chevy fan

[marksmang36]

why the hell would you desrtoy an old car?

[falatalane]

Omg poor Bel Air :(

[matteoiseuro]

you need 80's vehicles and early 90's for this, my 92 caravan got rear ended by an hhr and it crushed her car!!!!

[mustangrules]

i cant belive the malibu didnt have much damage to the inside of the car everyone says the older cars are better,,,,yeah my ass!!

[PCGAMEfreak]

@mustangrules

The real reason, they did this test, was to show how the safety features improved over the last 50 years.

[mustangrules]

@PCGAMEfreak belive me i can tell that have ALOT lol

[cagalera07]

@mustangrules yes u right atualy i think the same of u , cuz my mom says all the time the older cars are better , and i see in this clip the news cars are more strong. well i htink cuz. there are more tecnology. i think..

[huntingandfishing1]

May the worst car win.

[ryangrasby]

@huntingandfishing1 You`re clever

[startha7]

Look at those tail lights, what a scream, thats just crazy. I want to see them smash more old cars, that was fun!

[raulsaav]

whether the engine was removed or not or if the car was rusty; the Bel Air lacked all the safery features, even those that would show during the late 60's to mid 70's (energy absorbing steering column, padded dash, side door beams, crumple zones, let alone air bags or ABS). Even worse, as the car didn`t have a full perimeter frame, but the X chassis, the middle of the car's body was not reinforced, and made the car vulnerable to side impacts.

[myphonyaccount]

@raulsaav Guy48065 made a video showing the motor inside after the crash to prove these old car fanboy idiots wrong about it's removal.

[dbonanno]

I can't believe that someone who claims to be a car enthusiast could be so ignorant about car technology that they would actually think that a 50 year old car is built as strong as a modern car.

Maybe these deluded, nostalgic fools can only afford to drive old beaters so they have to put newer cars down.

[ALIENATIONRIMS]

put some airbags and the other safety stuff in a chev that isnt rusted out then see who wins

[dbonanno]

@ALIENATIONRIMS Don't you know that crumple zones and a strong, rigid passenger compartment were non-existent in old cars? There's no way to make this old Malibu as safe as a new one.

[Spazum888]

nice ad in the beginning......

[keven977]

oh my.. the belair got owned

[jogart43]

Though I do find the dust cloud from the '59 suspicious, new cars are way safer. No doubt. The thing I often wonder, if new cars *weren't* as cocoon-like, as insulated to the outside world, were less idiot-proofed, would people be more conscientious about their driving? I know when I drive an old car, like my '77 Firebird, or the '72 Beetle that I commuted with one summer, I pay WAY more attention to what I'm doing.

[dardum2001]

Ok so new cars are safer (except for the burns to your face from the airbag). To bad they make the cars ugly and out of plastic now.

[theARMONexchange]

holy shit the only reason that it crumbled like a piece of tin foil was because it was so rusty. did you see all of the dust shooting out? the whole car was unsafe to begin with. but still, what a complete shame to waist that car. they wrecked such a gorgous car. its such a great yeard for the car, i love the tail lights. i dont see what was gained out of destroying that car though.

[myphonyaccount]

They had to sacrifice the old car to show old car fans in denial that their precious works of arts used to kill people in minor accidents. More metal doesn't mean more safety.

[theARMONexchange]

i didnt say that, but the fact that the metal that's used to hold the car together was structurally unsound, then it just makes things worse bud.

[myphonyaccount]

It wasn't structurally unsound. There was minor, superficial rust in the body cavities. The overall metal thickness was not reduced or weakened. A brand new 59 would have performed just as poorly because of the faulty X frame, A pillar and lack of interior safety equipment.

[theARMONexchange]

the car crumpled like a soda can under a boot. that is waaay to much orange dust to be coming out to just be "superficial". the car's frame should have been able to hold up a bit better to that crash. judging by how poor the rust was taken care of on the body panels and doors, i really doubt they bother to check or fix any frame problems.

[myphonyaccount]

Even new cars of this era collapsed like this in minor crashes. The cloud you see is also dirt and recent paint dust. It's not purely superficial rust. Old car fans want to deny their beautiful favorites were poorly built for safety, but that won't change the millions of people they killed.

[theARMONexchange]

im not denying that the car was unsafe, im saying that it could have held up much better. And also, paint doesn't turn into dust like that in the video and shoot out of crevices in the car. and i also doubt that dirt is orange color. if you find some, please tell me that would make my day.

[myphonyaccount]

You're trying to hold out hope that in some scenario, your favorite car would somehow have a chance. Get over it. Vehicles are appliances that kill people. Not works of art that reward you with eternity.

[theARMONexchange]

you are a fucking moron. im saying that if this car was in better shape structurally it would not have crumpled like tin foil. hmmm brand new belair vs a used one... who would win? the one with 50+ years of rust, or the one that was kept new and was rust free. this car would have not been squashed so easily. how ignorant can you be?

[myphonyaccount]

Your fantasy is that a new 59 wouldn't be compromised by the pathetic X frame and weak A pillar. Well it would be in a crash of this kind. The results would have been the same. Faulty design is faulty design. Get over your fantasy and accept reality. Old cars were death traps new or used.

[theARMONexchange]

you are still not understanding my point. im no longer waisting my time. good bye.

[stone69cj]

@myphonyaccount you are an idiot

[CelticArchangel]

@theARMONexchange Its dirt, don't worry yourself. Many locations in say Texas for one.. have reddish tinted clay coil. Just accept what you see and move on. Don't pick apart and analyze everything you see. Not everything on this damn website is fake or rigged. Believe it or not, some things in life are real.

[dbonanno]

@theARMONexchange No, old cars just had flimsy passenger compartments and weak frames. New cars are MUCH more solid. Get over it.

[stone69cj]

@myphonyaccount your still an idiot

[PCGAMEfreak]

I don't remember the name of the song. SORRY!

[carcrusher1]

that is a shame to destroy that 59 chevy. whats the point?

[wasjunk]

GMca just got more 3.8 billion

they are not paying back there getting more

our cars were made to last here till the IIHS

was started and have sucked ever since...

paint that comes off in a year,engine that need a valve job

in 20 ,000 miles,blown head gaskets,vega,2-4-6-8 caddys,rust in the 1st year of life78 till 98 they just

SUCKED all tru the 80s ,no one wants one1971 was the last good GM car nor a good looking car

AUTOLINE DETROIT called this a stunt.....

[myphonyaccount]

GM doesn't own GMAC anymore. Cerberus does. Cerberus also owned Chrysler till FIAT bought it. Honda plants in Japan are unionized and make excellent new cars. Some of Ford's newest cars are almost as good. IIHS has nothing to do with auto quality. You keep implying it's the government. Look it up.

[myphonyaccount]

GM will repay it's loans in full by June. Slam dunk for Obama :)

[wasjunk]

all it shows is how low the IIHS will go

for no reason they fake this,to sale more new cars

buy a new car or die

the 1959 was not no saferthan any other 1959 car

but they do last,,they will never find a 2009 car in 50 years from now .we will look back that theses cars

and think what a shitty car they made back then

[ExcrementOfTruth]

TO wasjunk -- IIHS is NOT in the car sales business! The IIHS is a Non-Profit Organization. It would make NO SENCE for them to spend that kind of cash on the cars, labor costs for the engineers, SID-II Dummy Maintenance etc, on a fake! NEW CARS ARE MUCH SAFFER & FAR MORE RELIABLE then old cars! The reasons for that fact are way too numerous to list in this comment. Back in the 60-70s you'd NEVER buy a car with 75k or more miles on it because cars then reached their life cycle by about 100k miles

[myphonyaccount]

Only American carmakers are having a hard time. The quality was so bad for American cars nobody wanted them. That's changing now, but it's a little late.

[myphonyaccount]

wasjunk doesn't want to learn reality. He prefers paranoia and gun hoarding.

[GFBracing88]

thatis SOOOOOO bullshit that 59 was rigged

i know personally they are stronger then that

i ran a 4dr rust bucket of a 59 in a demo and it held up better then that one

its fake

i feel safer in the old cars

[myphonyaccount]

Did you run your old car into a wall at 40mph? I doubt it. That's the same as 2 cars of equal weight hitting eachother in the corner like in this test. The 59 had a terrible X frame and A pillar where the windshield meets the door. Cars back then were not designed for this kind of crash or safety in general.

[myphonyaccount]

Old cars were death traps.

[myphonyaccount]

Truth hurts a bit much? Old cars are crap.

[myphonyaccount]

It's not fake. Old car fans are just in denial because new ideas threaten their security blanket of the past they cling to like a Taliban child.

[myphonyaccount]

Old cars sure are garbage. Glad we have safety laws today.

[6D9fbird]

I call bull crap on this i have seen people first hand use 58-64 GM fullsize cars ( x frame) In demo derbys and none of them ever folded up like that, I own a 60 pontiac which is comparable to the belair used in this video that was hit by a 95 contour and it just put a dent in the fender

[DamnStraightM35A2]

I like the classics too, but was any of them going 40mph in a demo derby?

[myphonyaccount]

This test simulates veering into the oncoming lane or passing. It concentrates all the crash force on only ONE side of the car, not both like a regular full frontal collision. That's why it folded up. The X frame and A pillar weren't designed to hold up in a crash like this. Newer cars like the Malibu are. Both cars weigh the same.

[GFBracing88]

@myphonyaccount no they dont

that 09 is about 3000lbs

that 59 is 3500-4000lbs

not quit the same

[myphonyaccount]

Look up the weights of both cars on the interweb. You will see that both about 3500 pounds or within 150 pounds of eachother. But if the Malibu is that much lighter, it would have been pushed rearward by the heavier older car which it wasn't. There was no faking here.

[GFBracing88]

@myphonyaccount there is one more MAJOR factor in this test

we cannot prove that the frame on the 59 was solid rust free we know the body was rusty but a little rust in the right place will weaken a car drastically no matter wat year

id still like to see the 90 and 2000 cars in as gooda cond. as most 50s 60s and 70s cars in 30 40 50 years from now

some parts will last only cuz there plastic

[myphonyaccount]

From all the stories online, the frame was not compromised by rust. The X frame was a terrible design as was the A pillar. These cars were not designed to take a 40 mile per hour hit all in the corner of the car. If the force were spread out over the entire front end, it would have done "better". There are photos and videos that show X frame cars collapsing at speeds lower than 40.

[myphonyaccount]

You comments are so stupid. Please make more.

[mandarina89]

could you tell me the name of the band?

cool video by the way, I feel sorry for the brand new car though

[PCGAMEfreak]

Thanks, but I don't remember the name of the band. Sorry.

[Zando24]

Well what would you expect? That's a 50 year difference in technology. Should this have been a suprise to anyone? Not that I like either car that much, but I'd still take the 59 for rarity.

[bobbymcbad]

what's the name of the song?

[2010mustang1]

STOP IT! That 59 impala was a nice car and they destoryed it why not use a beetle or station wagon?

[myphonyaccount]

They didn't use a beetle because it wasn't a mid size sedan or the day. A wagon isn't a sedan either. This test is to show how far car safety has come when comparing yesterday's family car to today's. If they didn't sacrifice the old car, people would still think older cars are safer. That's how lives are lost. And that misconception is what the IIHS (not a government agency) is trying to change.

[myphonyaccount]

Beetle isn't a family sedan. The 59 is just garbage because it wasn't designed to keep the structure together. Crash safety was not a priority back then. That's why millions of people died back then. Since 2004, almost all new cars have passed IIHS tests.

[jeffdaharper]

Carsmasher, who gives a fig, if you were in the '59 then you were dead, so a full restore would be pointless, well for you anyway. Bloody numbnuts.

[carsmasher]

I have seen cars as bad and even worse than this rebuilt. I can tell you have little experience with the US automotive aftermarket, which could rebuild this car.

[carsmasher]

A good bodyman with plenty of time could rebuild the 59, the 09 is questionable. The 59 had a full frame, the 09 is unibody.

[L2LiSlide]

no it was fucked, the 59 is absolutely fucked

[truechop10]

why whould u guys do that 2 a 59 CHEVY that model is really rare 2 get what fucking dicks fuck the malibu.

[PCGAMEfreak]

it shows improvement in automoblie safety over the past 50 years.

[283impala]

I'm not sure what the point of this video is? Looks like the 59 held it's own. What a waste of a beautiful 59 car that was a work of art to prove a pointless point against a cookie cutter car such as the '09 Malibu.

[saudifresh]

if you were driving the 59 you would be dead, thats the point lol

[L2LiSlide]

The 59 did not hold its own, the driver died instantly. The 09 guy survived, go look for a better camera angle.

[myphonyaccount]

The point is dumb people think older is safer and they don't shop smart for new cars that do well in IIHS tests.

[myphonyaccount]

Because stupid white trash Americans who believe in God not science need to be shown that older and heavier cars aren't safer than newer lighter cars.

[mrwhimpy1]

I'd still prefer the 59 over the 09 any day

[myphonyaccount]

Show your family this video, then tell them they have to drive an unsafe car like this because you prefer the 59 to the 09.

[mrwhimpy1]

Dude I do just that already, if they want to ride in a classic with an experienced driver that couldnt afford that 09 anyway. My children are grown. I dont give rides to children who require seat belts obviously so safety is taken into account but I WILL drive classics and YOU do whatever floats your boat friend. Thanks for your concern for my family but its not needed.

Peace

[DerAdventurer]

You can observe safety achieved high levels that weren't imaginable 50 years ago. People still have an image of old automobiles as safer, by being bigger and full of steel. However the structure proves what safety really is, not size.

A shame they destroyed one nice old automobile, yet for information purposes. But that was predictable. The old car would kinda disappear while crashing a brand new satefy standard automobile.

[spyderstomper]

maybe if they used a fricken belair instead of an impala the results would be different...

dont these people check their info?

[myphonyaccount]

All old cars were unsafe. That's the point. There was no IIHS back then to force the car companies to do better.

[1969pontiac1]

It looked like the 59 did not have a motor in it. It caved in way to easy.

[purplehazenils]

Yeah, thats true it really doesent seem like there was a motor in the 59.

[myphonyaccount]

Oh, look, an engine in the 59 after the test... /watch?v=RoG9wDAmkcQ

[DodgeChallengerules]

Your comments are fucking dumb and annoying you just hate everything old don't you you can't prove nothing that car is full of rust has all the frame weakend and the trans and tail shaft are missing!

[myphonyaccount]

Old people have value in the community. Old buildings can be retrofitted cost effectively. Old cars are beautiful historic artifacts, but they are also death traps. Take the emotion out of it. Cars are appliances that happen to look good. They are not emotional expressions that happen to be tools.

[myphonyaccount]

It had a motor in it, it caved in because it wasn't designed to keep the structure together in a corner-to-corner crash where all the force is concentrated on one side, not spread out across the whole front. And it was at 40 miles per hour which is faster than slamming your breaks and slowing down to 20 before hitting.

[1969pontiac1]

Thanks for the info, That was before the steering column would take part of the crash. I think GM called it collaspeable steering colunm. On my moms 72 Cutlass you could look under the hood and see the 8 or 9 inches it had to move down in a direct hit., i forgot to say steering column the part under the hood. They say that is what us to kill people the steering column would come at the driver like a bullett. Thanks again for sharing mr. account.

[327caprice]

Rest in peace, 1959 Chevrolet Bel Air, I nearly shat upon myself to see such a classic destroyed in seconds, in the words of Miss Carrie Underwood......"Jesus take the wheel" guess Jesus was off that day?.

[myphonyaccount]

Trust in God, but wear your seatbelts. Believe in God, but KNOW science.

[283impala]

I'm glad that you didn't shit on yourself, cause that would be messy and smelly. I really don't understand the test and why they would use a classic care to test against a 2009 car. We already know what the result would be and should be that the 2009 vehicle is a safer vehicle. It's like comparing apples and oranges and we already know what they are like. I'm not going to buy a classic car such as the '59 Impala for it's safety features, but because it's vintage and a work of art.

[irvingklaw57]

Waste of a beautiful classic. But it was fun to watch.