The crash test was bogus. they deliberately choose a flawed vehical. The X frame of the 1959 Bel air has serious safety flaws compared to other vehicles of it's time. They also choose the model with the Six cylinder which proved even more dangerous If they were to try this with a car that was designed properly in the 50’s the Malibu would be toast. I think this is one for Myth Busters
@cezardoborn The Mercedes might come out looking a little better, however, anyone in the Mercedes would probably be dead. There are huge forces involved in car crashes, and when the car doesn't absorb the forces, the person in the car does. Large amounts of acceleration and deceleration will destroy the brain. Honestly, I don't think that in the 1960s any car manufactures were all the concerned about safety, and I wouldn't be surprised in the Mercedes came out the same as the bel-air.
@asdehaan you are so wrong....Mercedes has created some of the safest cars in the world, and history proves it....they are the ones that invented the thing we call "crumple zone"...and yes a 1960s benz would be much safer.....i myself have totaled a benz at 80mph full frontal accident....there was nothing wrong with me, i was able to walk out of the car and still close the doors without any problems....try that with any other car and let me know what happens
@cezardoborn We have been improving on crumble zones for 50 years. Your personal experience crashing at 80MPH is not a scientific test. There are to many variables involved to know why you survived that crash. The 1980 240D received 1 star for side impact and 2 stars for front impact. The 190e did not fare much better. Kia's from 1995 get 4/3. Engineering has greatly improved safety with structural design, not to mention the improvement in materials.
This video is legitamate. After consulting with upperclassmen Mechanical Engineering students at the Colorado State University Motorsports Engineering Research Center, members of the CSU FSAE team, I know this video is very real. I myself am starting out as a freshman seeking to enter the mechanical engineering program at CSU. Back in the 50s, they did not design car structures based on energy absorption physics and they did not follow the law of the conservation of energy, but they do now.
I personally think this is horse crap because doesnt everyone notice the bellowing clouds of rust dust coming from the 59? Obviously they found a junker somewhere and made it all up to be nice, when underneath it was rotted out. Then to make matters worse, the engine is gone from it as well. This is not a realistic "like new cars" crash.
They need to make those cars with stronger metal they make them out of fiberglass and tin they are a death trap. I wonder if a thick hard rubber car would be safer than metal one if they was weighed down with some alloy inside of the rubber to hold its duriability shouldn't take that much to move one of them maybe a 2 cylinder motor would go along way with one of them if they would create something like that i believe they would be safer they would probably bounce if they corrided into each 1.
@jb98ish If it was a 57 Belair it would have crushed the malibu the reason this 59 failed is because it has a X shapped frame witch is very dangrous in front offset and side crash's I think they used the X frame from 1958-1961.
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?
well I am 10 years old and I even know that that 1959 chevy bel air was to old to test against a 2009 chevy malibu is more solid because it is brand new with no rust at all! because I love 50's cars and i love chevies! P.S. I love cars!
Oh yeah, there is an engine in the bel air, the inline slid to the passenger side, so everyone can go to hell saying that there is no engine in the bel air
Ya know, this is only model of a car, out of the many from back then, some of those old models, are just as safe or safer than these new things, just add seat belts, and a couple small saftey modifications, then you can have a really safe car. And also that 59' had no damn engine in it, which makes a big difference. There were many cars and trucks then with different frame deigns, some would do better than others. Frankly I think this is a shitty narrow-minded test.
@wv02m You are exactly correct. There is NO ENGINE IN THE '59! Thus not a valid test.
What is does do, is confirm that the frames (the part right under the surface layer of the car) is faaaaaaar superior in the new vehicle. Even though we all see them as looking and feeling like cheap pieces of fiberglass junk, the new frames steer the engines away from the driver.
Also notice that the top/roof of the '59 caves in due to the force. Having an engine in it would not change the forcefulness.
Only a moron would ruin a fine work of art by wrecking that little piece of shit into it. I wonder how badly they weakened the '59 to load their "test"?? I know old cars don't mush like that, they must have removed some structural components, and yes, the motor as well. People who believe this wasn't rigged probably believe 9/11 was really caused by some dumb camel jockeys with boxcutters, and not an inside job...
@CrazyBear65 I think this is simply a damn con, or promotion, i think, im sure they took out pieces of the frame and engine, and possibably even replaced some of the panles with newer thinner sheets.
Well it's obvious that the 59 belair would lose because the frame is made x style shape witch has no protection. In fact it was discontinued in the 60's because they found that there was no side protection. They should have conducted a test with a different type of frame of a car from the late 50's
if hillbillies weren't so vehemently opposed to technology, proclaiming how much more solid their el camino is, maybe they wouldn't have done this. i blame hillbillies for the loss of the belair. damn you appalachia.
I just received this video in an e-mail from a friend..... This is NOT a Head On Collision. Now lets try it again but make it a bumper to bumper head on collision. The Bel Air has a full frame you will see a much different scenario. I'd drive a car from the 50's-60's in a heartbeat. Safer and they lasted longer! Just to say.... Try it!!! Watch what you'll see.
I just received this video in an e-mail from a friend..... This is NOT a Head On Collision. Now lets try it again but make it a bumper to bumper head on collision. The Bel Air has a full frame you will see a much different scenario. I'd drive a car from the 50's-60's in a heartbeat. Safer and they lasted longer! Just to say.... Try it!!! Watch what you'll see.
I love how there is a giant cloud of pure rust just flying out of the older car. I have actually seen the results of old vs new . The first one I saw was a honda civic cut off a 1957 chevy bel air and was rear ended. The 1957 chevy's front nose was caved in, the honda was bent in half and the entire boot was nearly above the roof. The next a 1958 corvette that was hit by a 90's Aurora the vetts fender was cracked and the new alloy rims broke, but the olds was off the road, front caved in.
0:34 I like how the Malibu gets hit using half of the car where as the Bel Air only gets to use 1/3 of it's body to absorb the blow. Very inaccurate test that was set up in the new Malibu's favor.
old cars just do not perform as well in crashes and their passengers fare even worse as they are impaled by steering wheel columns and smashed against that lovely hard steel. modern cars have improved a passengers chance of survival significantly because of engineering, science and testing - which so many here seem to have so little knowledge of.
and there is an engine - the 1/4 frontal hit is deliberate as a worst case test and its about saving people (inside and out) and not the car.
First off....you can thank the lying insurance institute for enforcing seat belt laws, and putting in air bags that will take your head off. The older cars get bad gas mileage, but you could survive a crash even without a seatbelt and airbags. The only advantage of the new cars....are survivability at high speed crashes, but lower speed collisions, the old cars are unmatched....not only that...your car is totaled with a even a low speed collision on a new car. Old? buff it out.
Of course they cheated. Anyone that knows anything about cars back then....would know that a 1950s car would crumple today's models, and not hve a scratch. I'd also like to see slow speed collisions. Damage on todays car $1000s, 1950s car.....rubbing compound or chrome polish.
That's not even a Bel Air, it's an Impala!! The Bel Air looks much different from that. I saw a beautiful 1957 last month and it had single head lights and a different body. Plus I think the Impala is bigger and it looks identical to the 1960 model.
@mhtube01 The 1959 and '60 model Chevys were virtually copies of the other. The differences include side trim, and different front and rear end styling.
@thespeez Hmm didn't know that. I've seen a 57 Bel Air and it looks completely different from this but this looks like an Impala from the front and back. Still though what a waste of a beautiful American classic and the test is fake to begin with. It's got no motor in it, it's moving very slowly compared to the Malibu, and look at that rust cloud that comes up after the collision. Too many people anymore have no appreciation for these old cars which is such a shame.
@mhtube01 The 1955-57 Chevys were virtual copies of each other. The 1958 was a one-year only body style and the 1959 was a different style altogether. The '59 Chevy her IS a Bel Air! Look closely at the insignia on the front fender. The '59 Impala had thicker side trim with the insignia in the trim piece on the rear fender and had vertical trim strips in the rear taillights.
This video is fake. First, the Bel Air had no engine in it so right there is a huge difference. Second, it is impossible for a car that old and well built to be crushed by a Malibu that new. Had the Bel Air had an engine, that Malibu wouldn't stand a chance!! An idiot could figure that out. All you have to do is look at them side by side. Steel bumpers, solid frame on the Bel Air, fiberglass bumpers, much cheaper frame on the Malibu.
If this video was true, they would have shown the after result. Even if this video was true, I would still think the new Malibu is a bland, butt-ugly POS.
Notice how the reverse-angle driver's side winsdhield pillar on the BelAir folds like scissors. Makes the knees banged on the panoramic windshield posts look like just a coming attraction. Add the hideous distortion of the compound-curve windshield, and you have a real dream car: a nightmare!
Chrysler, Studebaker, and Checker never went for that stupid design fad.
I'd like to see a 2011 Impala crashed into a Checker Superba or a Packard Cavalier!
These comments make me laugh. If you watch the dash in the '59, you will see it deform in the center. Thats the engine (the inline 6's sat in the center of the engine compartment) being pushed back into the fire wall. See the steering column? Yeah, its being pushed into the driver. Real safe, eh? Sure it sucks they ruined an old car, but I would rather be in a soul-less appliance in a crash like that than dead with a steering wheel in my grill.
Stop the video at 16 seconds. Why would you drill large holes in the frame behind the front wheel? The original frames did not have the holes so it leads me to believe that the frame was intentionally weakened to increase the damage in the head on crash, So what else was done to weaken the car? For me the holes in the frame realy takes away from the honesty of this demonstration. I am not saying the old cars didn't fold up in accidents or that the new cars are not safer but the holes bother me!
@3977nomad I AGREE ,WHATS WITH THE FRAME HOLES THAT SHOULD NOT BE THERE ? !!!!!! IIHS IS KINDA STACKING THEIR DECK, HUH ! SHAME TO WASTE A GREAT CLASSIC !! I'LL TAKE IT NO MATTER WHAT,,NO COOKIE CUTTER CARS PLEASE !!! CLASSICS FOREVER !!!!
Destroy a decent old car just to celebrate an anniversary...lotta money to throw around, notta lotta grey matter to trade on. I'm not a Chevy fan but I've always had a soft spot for the '59- what a waste of good metal.
This proves what I have always thought. Old cars are unsafe at any speed. As much as I like them and have had several of them, I always felt a bit uneasy driving them. This was proven out one day as I was T-boned in a '54 Ford pickup; the doors flew right open and I was ejected from the vehicle.
One of my teachers had a Ford Torino Elite, he was rear ended by a new Buick, and the front end was all smashed and stuff was coming out of the radiator, the only damage to his car was a bent license plate.
Proves what? The newer car simply absorbs via its crumple zones the impact, lessening injury to its occupants, and indeed to the older car occupants. If we drove a brick, and crashed out two bricks into one another at speed, the bricks will survive, but the occupants will not as THEY absorb the impact energy. Think about it.
I call major bullshit!! No way should that 2009 won that. First that belair had no motor in it and the offset purposly missed the frame. Had the engine been in that tank it would have suvived
yo digo que al vel air le quitaron el chasis porke vi a un royal monaco en cun choque contra un accord y lo hizo garras el accord quedo inservible mientras el royal monaco solo se daño la polvera y el cofre
this is fake at 1:28 they showed a over head view but the second the cars touched they showed the side because there is know engine in the bell air if there was this video would have ended differently
i can not and will not give this a thumbs up, purely on the fact of destroying an old classic car to show shit that we all know in the first place...... waste.
i know they were trying to prove a point with all this...and i think alot of people think old cars are built like tanks which would make you safer but wow..
No slicing of the frame required; the ’59 car is an “x-frame” model, which were notorious even back in the day for folding up into steel origami. When this clip first appeared, a lot of people were accusing IIHS of stacking the deck by choosing an x-frame, as it was one of the worst designs ever from a crash safety standpoint.
A more interesting test would have been to pit the modern car against a Chrysler of that era.
I thought this made sense til I realized this bel-air had lost serious structural integrity cuz it had been rusting since 1959 lol look at all the rust! No engine either. For real, they did NOTHING to the body of this car except for some new very expensive paint, this is why it crumpled so severely. Now the passenger probably would die either way but it would not crumple like this, so it is inaccurate
I used to have a 85 cadillac fleetwood brougham in 98 an old guy used to drive a brand new toyota land cruiser pick up which is known to be the toughest toyotas pick up in production crashed to my rear end of my cadillac and the car is totalled while my cadillac only needed is left tail light from that day i loved all pre 90s car are the best from repairing,fixing and durability so there is no chance whats so ever this staged play.
Why don't they try with classic Russian cars like Volga 1972 (not vodka)the weight of this car is almost the weight of 2 chevy cobalt full of metal (iron)
I say its bullshit 1st of all that 59 didnt even have a motor, an 2nd that that bel air was rusted out with some paint slapped on top thats y it crumpled so bad if the test was for real that malibu would have been crushed
The car is 50 years old and corrosion has taken its toll on the structure, no matter how rust-free the IIHS says the car was. Spot welds are weakened, frames and panels are thinned by rust and crumple away it goes.
Of course, that means this is what would happen if you wrapped your 1959 Bel Air, but if you are a safety freak, much of this horrorshow can be averted with some common modifications.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@805ryder If you knew ANYTHING about car safety, you would delete your comment. You think the ENGINE is going to protect you in a crash???? If this 59 bell air had an engine in it, the thing would have ended up on the drivers lap pushed straight through the dash. Modern cars force the engine to drop down BELOW the floor. As far as your rust comment, simply ignorant.
@COMO10110 I'm not saying that at all. To seriously think that a 1959 vehicle would fair better in a crash test than a new car is moronic, and simply incorrect, rust or no rust, engine or no engine.
@dannyc9997 The negative votes on your comment just proves the ignorance of people.
How do they figure that 50 years of engineering plus computer aided structural design can result in a car that fares worse in an accident? The stupidity of people never ceases to amaze me.
@805ryder No actually it wouldnt. Modern cars have ULTRA high strength steel put in a thin sheet of metal. Like how phones have all this tech packed in a thin peice of plastic and metal. Oh and theres such a thing called buying a restored classic.
@805ryder You hit the nail on the head. If you watch the video closely you can actually see the rust cloud after the impact. Those old cars were tanks and what made them unsafe was the fact they didn't have seatbelts.
Does anyone else notice the amount of rust-dust? That 59' may have had a new coat of paint, but the film clearly shows it was total rust-bucket. In which case it's "All bets off". The bodily danger of old cars was always the 'secondary crash' that occurs within passenger compartment, never structural failure. I'm going to call it "Myth Busted."
I've watched this and I believe something is just not right, when you consider the heavy gauge steel used in cars of the past in comparison with the composite panels, plastic and aluminum alloys used in cars today. I have cars from the 60s 70s and 80s; just sit or even stand on these cars and then try to do that with a car made today, the difference is self evident. And I have been in a head on collision with a newer saturn in my 87 caddy, I had a cracked headlight, the saturn was totalled.
@taylorlael Just like with my old Ford I've ran that thing through a house, Over loaded it, Hit the side of it with a brick wall, had someone rear end me, hell I take sledge hammers to its old steel flat bed for fun and literally seen it shatter sledge hammers like glass and not even as much as chip the paint. And my Grand am looks worse from everyday wear and tear on the roads -_-. Fuck new cars they're made to break, break down, and hurt you
what a waste wreck a classic car over a pos new Chevy you tube need a reaction option of stupid cause that was this is. I wanna see two $75,000 Cadillac escaldes hit head on! Junk!
the steel used then was low grade unlike high strength steel used today I drove those cars in the 60's don't get me wrong I liked them then but they required constant work to keep them running and the batteries and generator/regulators of the day were notoriously unreliable those x frames were notoriously weak so were the other car companies imports were even worse would like to see a 68 Buick Electra 225 in this test.
I can not belive that they did that to that 1959 chevy bel air that sucks!!!!!!!!!!!!
jrickabaugh10 2 days ago
The 59 chev looks riddled with rust, not really a fair comparison.
MrZeberfuckingdee 2 days ago
Chinese car is better
Timx4 4 days ago
The crash test was bogus. they deliberately choose a flawed vehical. The X frame of the 1959 Bel air has serious safety flaws compared to other vehicles of it's time. They also choose the model with the Six cylinder which proved even more dangerous If they were to try this with a car that was designed properly in the 50’s the Malibu would be toast. I think this is one for Myth Busters
jgarruba2 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
both cars collide inexplosion of metal Plastic glasses & Rust
HeinekenBeer9 4 days ago
Comment removed
HeinekenBeer9 4 days ago
Our 66 Ford Falcon was T-boned by a big rig a few months back, and it is still completely driveable, despite the lack of windows....
1964FordFalcon1964 6 days ago
nobody is using bel air as the daily driver these days...
raliux 1 week ago
suprising that cars back then were made with metal and now its fiberglass. i rather die in style
TheMasiker 1 week ago
@TheMasiker 99% of all cars are not made out fiberglass. The Corvette and a Lotus are the only two I can think of off the top of my head.
asdehaan 5 days ago
Why so many suicidal comments below?
wokeupthismorning100 1 week ago
Do it with a 1974 Buick regal those were built like a tank
mrspeedteddy 1 week ago
do this with a 1960 Mercedes and see what happens :)....I bet you anything that this so called Chrapolet Malibu would be destroyed
cezardoborn 1 week ago
@cezardoborn The Mercedes might come out looking a little better, however, anyone in the Mercedes would probably be dead. There are huge forces involved in car crashes, and when the car doesn't absorb the forces, the person in the car does. Large amounts of acceleration and deceleration will destroy the brain. Honestly, I don't think that in the 1960s any car manufactures were all the concerned about safety, and I wouldn't be surprised in the Mercedes came out the same as the bel-air.
asdehaan 6 days ago
@asdehaan you are so wrong....Mercedes has created some of the safest cars in the world, and history proves it....they are the ones that invented the thing we call "crumple zone"...and yes a 1960s benz would be much safer.....i myself have totaled a benz at 80mph full frontal accident....there was nothing wrong with me, i was able to walk out of the car and still close the doors without any problems....try that with any other car and let me know what happens
cezardoborn 6 days ago
@cezardoborn We have been improving on crumble zones for 50 years. Your personal experience crashing at 80MPH is not a scientific test. There are to many variables involved to know why you survived that crash. The 1980 240D received 1 star for side impact and 2 stars for front impact. The 190e did not fare much better. Kia's from 1995 get 4/3. Engineering has greatly improved safety with structural design, not to mention the improvement in materials.
asdehaan 5 days ago
@cezardoborn watch?v=NpsVqW-4pwU&feature=related
XCFBowling 3 days ago
honestly, I'd rather die in a bel air than live in a malibu
MrTennisballs 1 week ago 19
@MrTennisballs Better a malibu that Japanese junk
FGalaxie 3 days ago
poor bel air 1959!!
jeremlosangeles 1 week ago 4
This video is legitamate. After consulting with upperclassmen Mechanical Engineering students at the Colorado State University Motorsports Engineering Research Center, members of the CSU FSAE team, I know this video is very real. I myself am starting out as a freshman seeking to enter the mechanical engineering program at CSU. Back in the 50s, they did not design car structures based on energy absorption physics and they did not follow the law of the conservation of energy, but they do now.
1992CamrySedan 1 week ago
I personally think this is horse crap because doesnt everyone notice the bellowing clouds of rust dust coming from the 59? Obviously they found a junker somewhere and made it all up to be nice, when underneath it was rotted out. Then to make matters worse, the engine is gone from it as well. This is not a realistic "like new cars" crash.
bs5990 2 weeks ago
Why is everyone so pissed about breaking a damn Belair. They're fucking everywhere. Not like they just wrecked a Hemi Cuda or something.
800hennessy 2 weeks ago
how horrible it is to destroy a 1957 chevy bel air!!!!!!!!!!!!
jrickabaugh10 2 weeks ago
You are retarded... I can't believe you would ruin a classic car just to prove the advancement of the modern car. Retarded.
0352USMC1408SAPD 2 weeks ago
@0352USMC1408SAPD Moreover it's not a Bel Air, but an Impala...
Tibb91 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
brianfreardon 2 weeks ago
They need to make those cars with stronger metal they make them out of fiberglass and tin they are a death trap. I wonder if a thick hard rubber car would be safer than metal one if they was weighed down with some alloy inside of the rubber to hold its duriability shouldn't take that much to move one of them maybe a 2 cylinder motor would go along way with one of them if they would create something like that i believe they would be safer they would probably bounce if they corrided into each 1.
BanAllCheaters 2 weeks ago
the 59 dosent have engine :)
jezda034 2 weeks ago
like if you clicked on this to see the 59 bel air crush the shit out of the malibu
jb98ish 3 weeks ago
@jb98ish If it was a 57 Belair it would have crushed the malibu the reason this 59 failed is because it has a X shapped frame witch is very dangrous in front offset and side crash's I think they used the X frame from 1958-1961.
mrdestoryit 1 week ago
Take the engine out of the new tin can.... I mean malibu..... And let's see how tht goes for it
coffeeman220 3 weeks ago
blah blah blah NO ENGINE! blah blah blah U.S.A.! U.S.A.! U.S.A.!
muttlol 3 weeks ago
ESSA É A MAIOR FARSA CLARO QUE O ANTIGO TERIA ESMAGADO FEITO UMA SANFONA O NOVO........
DanielSteel1945 3 weeks ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
All American "classics" are pieces of shit. The only ones worth saving are ones like Dusenbergs...
VhUgGz 3 weeks ago
POS 1959!!!!
cosmophonic12 3 weeks ago
I would still rather have the 59.
hearsemonkey 3 weeks ago
i never would have thought this would happen.i thought the '59 would have demolished the newer one.m shocked.
rogerbahakel 3 weeks ago
@rogerbahakel You must be MORON
terrible714 1 week ago
@terrible714 fu too buddy.MORON I WISH WE WERE IN PERSON.I'D SHOW WHO THE MORON IS.
rogerbahakel 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
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 4 weeks ago
Bel air has no motor just a plastic bracket tha looks like a motor and no front support
red070809 4 weeks ago
This wouldn't have happened if the crash test dummies hadn't been texting and driving!
ayelvington 1 month ago
@ayelvington yes a lot of accidents were caused by texing in 1959!!
brettknoss 3 weeks ago
well I am 10 years old and I even know that that 1959 chevy bel air was to old to test against a 2009 chevy malibu is more solid because it is brand new with no rust at all! because I love 50's cars and i love chevies! P.S. I love cars!
jrickabaugh10 1 month ago
way to fucking ruin a perfectly good classic to prove what we already know. SO FUCKING DUMB. god this pisses me off.
04suzuka 1 month ago
whyyyyyyyyyyy a classic
matilion25 1 month ago
Differnce is, that in 1959, people knew that accidents were bad, Not like "I can hit you head-on, driver attitude today
notabadog 1 month ago
Oh yeah, there is an engine in the bel air, the inline slid to the passenger side, so everyone can go to hell saying that there is no engine in the bel air
TheSlenderFan 1 month ago
Ya know, this is only model of a car, out of the many from back then, some of those old models, are just as safe or safer than these new things, just add seat belts, and a couple small saftey modifications, then you can have a really safe car. And also that 59' had no damn engine in it, which makes a big difference. There were many cars and trucks then with different frame deigns, some would do better than others. Frankly I think this is a shitty narrow-minded test.
trippberry 1 month ago
@trippberry It wasn’t just the airbags and few other things. It’s the improvement over past 50 years.
Just to name one here:
1959 = same strength through the entire frame so entire engine compartment SLIDE INTO the passenger compartment during an impact.
2009 = softer in engine frame and harder in passenger frame so engine part will slow down the car while passenger compartment stays intact
jplonmar 1 month ago
Seriously what did we learn about this video ?
TheFireflies91 1 month ago
That Bel Air is a rust bucket underneath in 50 years that Malibu frame won't be half as strong either.
ronmann606 1 month ago
Bullshit look close there is "NO" engine in the 1959 the newer car has nothing to stop it other than the dashboard , or grille of the 59 !
wv02m 1 month ago
@wv02m You are exactly correct. There is NO ENGINE IN THE '59! Thus not a valid test.
What is does do, is confirm that the frames (the part right under the surface layer of the car) is faaaaaaar superior in the new vehicle. Even though we all see them as looking and feeling like cheap pieces of fiberglass junk, the new frames steer the engines away from the driver.
Also notice that the top/roof of the '59 caves in due to the force. Having an engine in it would not change the forcefulness.
KCCSRT4 1 month ago
not much worse then a chini car
MegaZombieland1234 1 month ago
ruin a 09 with a 59 piece of crap
scott14705 1 month ago
@scott14705 Ur a dumbass, go to hell
jtangjerd 1 month ago
Only a moron would ruin a fine work of art by wrecking that little piece of shit into it. I wonder how badly they weakened the '59 to load their "test"?? I know old cars don't mush like that, they must have removed some structural components, and yes, the motor as well. People who believe this wasn't rigged probably believe 9/11 was really caused by some dumb camel jockeys with boxcutters, and not an inside job...
CrazyBear65 1 month ago
@CrazyBear65 I think this is simply a damn con, or promotion, i think, im sure they took out pieces of the frame and engine, and possibably even replaced some of the panles with newer thinner sheets.
trippberry 1 month ago
did no one notice the amount of rust that flew out of the Bel Air? Obviously it was compromised.... maybe they even removed the engine...
Genners111 1 month ago
dammit that was a martian too.
Vaicurious 1 month ago
Well it's obvious that the 59 belair would lose because the frame is made x style shape witch has no protection. In fact it was discontinued in the 60's because they found that there was no side protection. They should have conducted a test with a different type of frame of a car from the late 50's
ymxctrails 1 month ago
if hillbillies weren't so vehemently opposed to technology, proclaiming how much more solid their el camino is, maybe they wouldn't have done this. i blame hillbillies for the loss of the belair. damn you appalachia.
burblx 1 month ago
i like wasting old cars, they're crap
TheSlenderFan 1 month ago
@TheSlenderFan ur an idiot
ymxctrails 1 month ago
@ymxctrails TROLOLOL
TheSlenderFan 1 month ago
@TheSlenderFan You're crap!
trippberry 1 month ago
@trippberry i feel safer in a Toyota than in some crap Bel Air, Chevy has been making bad cars ever since
TheSlenderFan 1 month ago
what a waste of a Bel Air. :/
MrNevakonaza 1 month ago
The old car looks rough now after the collision...but any modern car starts out looking like a piece of crap!
NateMayfield1 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I just received this video in an e-mail from a friend..... This is NOT a Head On Collision. Now lets try it again but make it a bumper to bumper head on collision. The Bel Air has a full frame you will see a much different scenario. I'd drive a car from the 50's-60's in a heartbeat. Safer and they lasted longer! Just to say.... Try it!!! Watch what you'll see.
19Bob57 1 month ago
I just received this video in an e-mail from a friend..... This is NOT a Head On Collision. Now lets try it again but make it a bumper to bumper head on collision. The Bel Air has a full frame you will see a much different scenario. I'd drive a car from the 50's-60's in a heartbeat. Safer and they lasted longer! Just to say.... Try it!!! Watch what you'll see.
19Bob57 1 month ago
This is all very nice but did they have to wreck that Be;l Air to do this?
Pablo668 1 month ago
A modern car's passenger cell is a hell of a lot stronger than a car's from the 80s or earlier.
demoskunk 1 month ago
I love how there is a giant cloud of pure rust just flying out of the older car. I have actually seen the results of old vs new . The first one I saw was a honda civic cut off a 1957 chevy bel air and was rear ended. The 1957 chevy's front nose was caved in, the honda was bent in half and the entire boot was nearly above the roof. The next a 1958 corvette that was hit by a 90's Aurora the vetts fender was cracked and the new alloy rims broke, but the olds was off the road, front caved in.
FurettiLamborgini 1 month ago
0:34 I like how the Malibu gets hit using half of the car where as the Bel Air only gets to use 1/3 of it's body to absorb the blow. Very inaccurate test that was set up in the new Malibu's favor.
OldboySaint 1 month ago
Put a new car up against a 60's or 70's unibody Mopar and I bet the out come would been a lot different.
OldboySaint 1 month ago
@OldboySaint Couldn't care, for safety I'll choose the Malibu over any car 40-50 years old any day of the week.
Wookieman008 1 month ago
@Wookieman008 Who buys a car for safety?
OldboySaint 1 month ago
Comment removed
Wookieman008 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@OldboySaint Point taken. I'm just saying that today's cars can be safer than the ones of old.
Wookieman008 1 month ago
old cars just do not perform as well in crashes and their passengers fare even worse as they are impaled by steering wheel columns and smashed against that lovely hard steel. modern cars have improved a passengers chance of survival significantly because of engineering, science and testing - which so many here seem to have so little knowledge of.
and there is an engine - the 1/4 frontal hit is deliberate as a worst case test and its about saving people (inside and out) and not the car.
MrDriller9000 1 month ago
Notice how the passenger fender of the 59 comes loose since it's like not bolted on and stuff? The whole 59 was loosened, drilled, etc.
GolfClapperxx 1 month ago
First off....you can thank the lying insurance institute for enforcing seat belt laws, and putting in air bags that will take your head off. The older cars get bad gas mileage, but you could survive a crash even without a seatbelt and airbags. The only advantage of the new cars....are survivability at high speed crashes, but lower speed collisions, the old cars are unmatched....not only that...your car is totaled with a even a low speed collision on a new car. Old? buff it out.
TreesInDahHouse 1 month ago
Of course they cheated. Anyone that knows anything about cars back then....would know that a 1950s car would crumple today's models, and not hve a scratch. I'd also like to see slow speed collisions. Damage on todays car $1000s, 1950s car.....rubbing compound or chrome polish.
TreesInDahHouse 1 month ago
@TreesInDahHouse
Exactly
KinglyEntertainment 1 month ago
That's not even a Bel Air, it's an Impala!! The Bel Air looks much different from that. I saw a beautiful 1957 last month and it had single head lights and a different body. Plus I think the Impala is bigger and it looks identical to the 1960 model.
mhtube01 1 month ago
@mhtube01 The 1959 and '60 model Chevys were virtually copies of the other. The differences include side trim, and different front and rear end styling.
thespeez 2 days ago
@thespeez Hmm didn't know that. I've seen a 57 Bel Air and it looks completely different from this but this looks like an Impala from the front and back. Still though what a waste of a beautiful American classic and the test is fake to begin with. It's got no motor in it, it's moving very slowly compared to the Malibu, and look at that rust cloud that comes up after the collision. Too many people anymore have no appreciation for these old cars which is such a shame.
mhtube01 1 day ago
@mhtube01 The 1955-57 Chevys were virtual copies of each other. The 1958 was a one-year only body style and the 1959 was a different style altogether. The '59 Chevy her IS a Bel Air! Look closely at the insignia on the front fender. The '59 Impala had thicker side trim with the insignia in the trim piece on the rear fender and had vertical trim strips in the rear taillights.
thespeez 1 day ago
@thespeez Ahh ok gotcha.
mhtube01 1 day ago
This video is fake. First, the Bel Air had no engine in it so right there is a huge difference. Second, it is impossible for a car that old and well built to be crushed by a Malibu that new. Had the Bel Air had an engine, that Malibu wouldn't stand a chance!! An idiot could figure that out. All you have to do is look at them side by side. Steel bumpers, solid frame on the Bel Air, fiberglass bumpers, much cheaper frame on the Malibu.
mhtube01 1 month ago
If this video was true, they would have shown the after result. Even if this video was true, I would still think the new Malibu is a bland, butt-ugly POS.
hottdylan1993 2 months ago
Waste of a good classic
64oldsf85man 2 months ago 3
erm i can make you go crazy
LoiseErnavc229 2 months ago
Notice how the reverse-angle driver's side winsdhield pillar on the BelAir folds like scissors. Makes the knees banged on the panoramic windshield posts look like just a coming attraction. Add the hideous distortion of the compound-curve windshield, and you have a real dream car: a nightmare!
Chrysler, Studebaker, and Checker never went for that stupid design fad.
I'd like to see a 2011 Impala crashed into a Checker Superba or a Packard Cavalier!
5610winston 2 months ago
True, a Chrysler Imperial of that era would destroy that ugly melon Malibu.
What a waste of a Classic car.
apatheticempathy 2 months ago
To me the Bel Air is ugly
IdentifiableUser 2 months ago
These comments make me laugh. If you watch the dash in the '59, you will see it deform in the center. Thats the engine (the inline 6's sat in the center of the engine compartment) being pushed back into the fire wall. See the steering column? Yeah, its being pushed into the driver. Real safe, eh? Sure it sucks they ruined an old car, but I would rather be in a soul-less appliance in a crash like that than dead with a steering wheel in my grill.
Erics5th 2 months ago 8
@Erics5th Where does the red dust come from ?
MrMikedevon 3 weeks ago
Stop the video at 16 seconds. Why would you drill large holes in the frame behind the front wheel? The original frames did not have the holes so it leads me to believe that the frame was intentionally weakened to increase the damage in the head on crash, So what else was done to weaken the car? For me the holes in the frame realy takes away from the honesty of this demonstration. I am not saying the old cars didn't fold up in accidents or that the new cars are not safer but the holes bother me!
3977nomad 2 months ago
@3977nomad I AGREE ,WHATS WITH THE FRAME HOLES THAT SHOULD NOT BE THERE ? !!!!!! IIHS IS KINDA STACKING THEIR DECK, HUH ! SHAME TO WASTE A GREAT CLASSIC !! I'LL TAKE IT NO MATTER WHAT,,NO COOKIE CUTTER CARS PLEASE !!! CLASSICS FOREVER !!!!
CBERRY1972AL 2 months ago
Bottom line: I'll take anything from the 50's over that so- called malibu lil hunk a junk
oreokookie1000 2 months ago
Hey next time, try and put the engine in the bel air. Then post the results.
VEROmaniac 2 months ago
Try drivin' the '09 in 50 years and you'll notice that todays cars are just crap
raihol 2 months ago
@raihol Try finding an 09 Malibu in 50 years :)
Adam19822000 2 months ago
@Adam19822000 Haha, yeah that´ll be even more difficult :P
raihol 2 months ago
@Adam19822000 Haha, yeah that´ll be even more difficult :P
raihol 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Adam19822000 Haha, yeah that´ll be even more difficult
raihol 2 months ago
Destroy a decent old car just to celebrate an anniversary...lotta money to throw around, notta lotta grey matter to trade on. I'm not a Chevy fan but I've always had a soft spot for the '59- what a waste of good metal.
OldcarsNmusic 2 months ago 2
You punch through those cars... WOW!
DVDFerrari5 2 months ago
This proves what I have always thought. Old cars are unsafe at any speed. As much as I like them and have had several of them, I always felt a bit uneasy driving them. This was proven out one day as I was T-boned in a '54 Ford pickup; the doors flew right open and I was ejected from the vehicle.
tlfrantz1 2 months ago
@tlfrantz1
I had an 89 Jimmy get hit by a kid in a new accord.
My Jimmy has a bent bumper, fender, and brokent turn signal bulb. His car was totaled. Do not underestimate Steel
Soldat251 2 months ago 2
@357CUI - Yes lol! Definitely. Such a waste of a REAL car.
GermanDieselFanatic 2 months ago 8
Comment removed
GermanDieselFanatic 2 months ago
Now all car lovers hate Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. Ill go burn the Mona Lisa to check advancements in fire retardant paint.
357CUI 2 months ago 19
It was apparently a 6 cylinder Bel Air
Adam19822000 2 months ago
One of my teachers had a Ford Torino Elite, he was rear ended by a new Buick, and the front end was all smashed and stuff was coming out of the radiator, the only damage to his car was a bent license plate.
Adam19822000 2 months ago
@Adam19822000
Proves what? The newer car simply absorbs via its crumple zones the impact, lessening injury to its occupants, and indeed to the older car occupants. If we drove a brick, and crashed out two bricks into one another at speed, the bricks will survive, but the occupants will not as THEY absorb the impact energy. Think about it.
MotAdvNSW 2 months ago
The new one is a soulless appliance
Adam19822000 2 months ago 3
I call major bullshit!! No way should that 2009 won that. First that belair had no motor in it and the offset purposly missed the frame. Had the engine been in that tank it would have suvived
dkhill27 2 months ago
@dkhill27 I'm sure you have proof that there was no engine in the '59.
jelloslug 2 months ago
@jelloslug There was an engine, but they picked the less common straight 6 vs the V8 model, so being an offset collision the motor was not hit.
Soldat251 2 months ago
@Soldat251 The straight-6 (a 'stove-bolt' 235 CID) was actually heavier than the base V-8 (283) that year.
thespeez 1 month ago
@thespeez
But that really does not matter in an offset collision where the impact will just miss a straight six.
Soldat251 1 month ago
Nope
kennystln8mx 2 months ago
No way 2009 safer than 1959 ,1959 is a fuccin tank total fake
kennystln8mx 2 months ago
Yeah but, back in 1959, you would be crashing into another 1959, not a purpose designed crash car like we have today.
pookatim 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
hihi i love try new things and thats why im here
04victoriaKlatt835 2 months ago
publicity stunt...FAIl...if ur informed ...of course
hollowman113 2 months ago
yo digo que al vel air le quitaron el chasis porke vi a un royal monaco en cun choque contra un accord y lo hizo garras el accord quedo inservible mientras el royal monaco solo se daño la polvera y el cofre
milton1521 2 months ago
i guess "i love air conditioning" is related to this video...
AGreedyTree 2 months ago
had no idea how bad the older cars were
redzie52 2 months ago
… on the other hand, the 2009 model looks so shitty and "Japanese" compared with the beautiful '59 Bel Air.
MooPotPie 2 months ago
Who would fucking test a Classic Bel Air and CRASH it?
SmurfDaWeb 2 months ago
Bel-Air vs Toyota Tacoma
wokeupthismorning100 2 months ago
u kidding comparing a new car to an old car dont make sence i mean over 50 years i hope cars protection improved
1992hotwheelsbaby 2 months ago
It goes to show you that figures ( or stick figures in a rusted out old car) don't lie - but liars figger
midtownfordsales 2 months ago
this is fake at 1:28 they showed a over head view but the second the cars touched they showed the side because there is know engine in the bell air if there was this video would have ended differently
WRFA101 2 months ago
That's why you don't buy a Chevy. Then or now. Especially now. Ugh
CrispyRick 2 months ago
Drunk tank!
Ifindthevids 2 months ago
Thank god it was a 4 door and not a 2.
dkcarroll13 2 months ago
ouch!!!
TheMiamiHfan 2 months ago
i can not and will not give this a thumbs up, purely on the fact of destroying an old classic car to show shit that we all know in the first place...... waste.
BENNYBANANA666 2 months ago
Oh, my I didnt know that the '59 Bel - Air worked without an Engine
RhinoBlindado 2 months ago
i know they were trying to prove a point with all this...and i think alot of people think old cars are built like tanks which would make you safer but wow..
sprintbass 2 months ago
No slicing of the frame required; the ’59 car is an “x-frame” model, which were notorious even back in the day for folding up into steel origami. When this clip first appeared, a lot of people were accusing IIHS of stacking the deck by choosing an x-frame, as it was one of the worst designs ever from a crash safety standpoint.
A more interesting test would have been to pit the modern car against a Chrysler of that era.
SarryRide 3 months ago 23
@SarryRide Chysler Imperial of that year would eat the Malibu alive!! my dad had a 1961 and it was a beast!!
nahpoli 1 month ago
they can improve all they want , but howcome they still run on gasoline? with 40 psi pumps
silverbird58 3 months ago
I thought this made sense til I realized this bel-air had lost serious structural integrity cuz it had been rusting since 1959 lol look at all the rust! No engine either. For real, they did NOTHING to the body of this car except for some new very expensive paint, this is why it crumpled so severely. Now the passenger probably would die either way but it would not crumple like this, so it is inaccurate
Nextmillionare27 3 months ago
I used to have a 85 cadillac fleetwood brougham in 98 an old guy used to drive a brand new toyota land cruiser pick up which is known to be the toughest toyotas pick up in production crashed to my rear end of my cadillac and the car is totalled while my cadillac only needed is left tail light from that day i loved all pre 90s car are the best from repairing,fixing and durability so there is no chance whats so ever this staged play.
aldaloo3 3 months ago
Why don't they try with classic Russian cars like Volga 1972 (not vodka)the weight of this car is almost the weight of 2 chevy cobalt full of metal (iron)
MyHurtlocker 3 months ago
I say its bullshit 1st of all that 59 didnt even have a motor, an 2nd that that bel air was rusted out with some paint slapped on top thats y it crumpled so bad if the test was for real that malibu would have been crushed
805ryder 3 months ago 10
@805ryder you sir, are a retard. the malibu would NOT be crushed. the bel air would have still lost
triggerhappybullets 3 months ago 2
@triggerhappybullets
The car is 50 years old and corrosion has taken its toll on the structure, no matter how rust-free the IIHS says the car was. Spot welds are weakened, frames and panels are thinned by rust and crumple away it goes.
Of course, that means this is what would happen if you wrapped your 1959 Bel Air, but if you are a safety freak, much of this horrorshow can be averted with some common modifications.
COMO10110 3 months ago
Comment removed
COMO10110 3 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@805ryder If you knew ANYTHING about car safety, you would delete your comment. You think the ENGINE is going to protect you in a crash???? If this 59 bell air had an engine in it, the thing would have ended up on the drivers lap pushed straight through the dash. Modern cars force the engine to drop down BELOW the floor. As far as your rust comment, simply ignorant.
dannyc9997 2 months ago
@dannyc9997
Are you saying that the fact that it was rusted, played no part in the wholesale destruction of the vehicle?
Do you really buy this shit?
COMO10110 2 months ago
@COMO10110 I'm not saying that at all. To seriously think that a 1959 vehicle would fair better in a crash test than a new car is moronic, and simply incorrect, rust or no rust, engine or no engine.
dannyc9997 2 months ago
@dannyc9997 The negative votes on your comment just proves the ignorance of people.
How do they figure that 50 years of engineering plus computer aided structural design can result in a car that fares worse in an accident? The stupidity of people never ceases to amaze me.
idontcare80 2 months ago 6
@805ryder None of that even matters, modern cars are much, MUCH stronger than older cars.
idontcare80 2 months ago
@805ryder No actually it wouldnt. Modern cars have ULTRA high strength steel put in a thin sheet of metal. Like how phones have all this tech packed in a thin peice of plastic and metal. Oh and theres such a thing called buying a restored classic.
forsmers1 2 months ago
@805ryder You hit the nail on the head. If you watch the video closely you can actually see the rust cloud after the impact. Those old cars were tanks and what made them unsafe was the fact they didn't have seatbelts.
DoWiseThings 1 month ago
Does anyone else notice the amount of rust-dust? That 59' may have had a new coat of paint, but the film clearly shows it was total rust-bucket. In which case it's "All bets off". The bodily danger of old cars was always the 'secondary crash' that occurs within passenger compartment, never structural failure. I'm going to call it "Myth Busted."
constitutionfst 3 months ago
The guy who sold unknowingley his classic for it to be totalled must be shitting himself.
Vintageadrian 3 months ago 3
I agree! That was really stupid of them to ruin a $20,000 classic.
Vintageadrian 3 months ago 2
What a waste of a cool classic car. : (
patton303 3 months ago 2
I've watched this and I believe something is just not right, when you consider the heavy gauge steel used in cars of the past in comparison with the composite panels, plastic and aluminum alloys used in cars today. I have cars from the 60s 70s and 80s; just sit or even stand on these cars and then try to do that with a car made today, the difference is self evident. And I have been in a head on collision with a newer saturn in my 87 caddy, I had a cracked headlight, the saturn was totalled.
taylorlael 3 months ago
@taylorlael Just like with my old Ford I've ran that thing through a house, Over loaded it, Hit the side of it with a brick wall, had someone rear end me, hell I take sledge hammers to its old steel flat bed for fun and literally seen it shatter sledge hammers like glass and not even as much as chip the paint. And my Grand am looks worse from everyday wear and tear on the roads -_-. Fuck new cars they're made to break, break down, and hurt you
14omega28ok 3 months ago
Ok i want to see a 1956 Chevy hit a 2011 camaro SS head on at 55 mph!
MrVideoman44 3 months ago
what a waste wreck a classic car over a pos new Chevy you tube need a reaction option of stupid cause that was this is. I wanna see two $75,000 Cadillac escaldes hit head on! Junk!
MrVideoman44 3 months ago
why the heck would u destroy a car like that,.....the "59"
MrOseetah 3 months ago 22
@MrOseetah to educate the ignorant
DanFrederiksen 3 months ago
Thumbs up if u said "ouchh" 0:50
10CIRL 3 months ago
You can have the video and yet morons still believe otherwise. Plus, those old cars were butt ugly.
zzap999 3 months ago
the steel used then was low grade unlike high strength steel used today I drove those cars in the 60's don't get me wrong I liked them then but they required constant work to keep them running and the batteries and generator/regulators of the day were notoriously unreliable those x frames were notoriously weak so were the other car companies imports were even worse would like to see a 68 Buick Electra 225 in this test.
02vector 3 months ago