Head-On Crash Test: 1959 Chevrolet Bel Air vs 2009 Chevy Malibu

[Randomasesino2012]

Just face it people. Any car from this era of even earlier would not hold out well compared to a car of today. It is hard to say they were very safe and well built when my dad (car and diesel mechanic) who had a 1979 trans am (new) said that it shook too much and was a safety hazard.

[killbucket1]

GOOD CALL on the cloud of rusted metal that erupts from the '59. This is a great example of new vs aged, not new vs old.

[TheMostAwesomeMan242]

is it me or is just a waste of classic?

[killbucket1]

@TheMostAwesomeMan242 Virtually EVERY American car made before 1970 is now considered a "classic" by its owner. "Waste" would imply that there was a problem with destroying one. Current re-sale prices show the reality, they are neither valuable or desirable as automobiles to the extent that this could be called a shame. I'll give them credit for not killing a two-door..

[TheMostAwesomeMan242]

@killbucket1 where did your info from? sorry being blunt but my former friend once told me that 1950's Chevys are classics and beautiful cars. now i'm seeing that 1950 Chevys are "piece of shit cars"? i thought the 1970's to 1980's Honda Civics were piece of shit cars!!!! and i still do!!! what kind of society do we live in when a piece of history like the '59 Bel Air is nothing but piece of crap to the majority of the people?

[killbucket1]

@TheMostAwesomeMan242 I'm sorry, I used none of THOSE words. :) My point was: a lot more of these have been preserved than you would think, and your passionate response is proof.They trashed a rust-bucket. I would CRY if this was a 2-door, low-mileage example. The cloud of dirt that spews from it, tells me that better examples are out there for restoration.

[killbucket1]

@killbucket1 The real problem with the video is it uses a compromised 59 Chevy.

[TheMostAwesomeMan242]

@killbucket1 oh okay. i'm sorry about that. i didn't know the car in this video was in such in decrepit shape. i mean it looked like it was in good shape. i mean the exterior was all shiney!!!! and speaking about "rust buckets" or shall i say "rusty cars" would you like to see a video of mine that shows a rusty Chevy in front of a Auto repair shop?

[amtrack88]

People, do a little research and look up accident investigation photos from this era. What happened to this Chevrolet at 45MPH was a very typical result in a collision prior to the 1970s. The point of this test is show how far we have come in automotive safety. 50 years ago vehicles did not have unibody frames, laminated glass, airbags, or even standard seatbelts - you usually died in a collision you might otherwise survive today.

[ValiantBandit]

@amtrack88

I got news for you buddy. The person in that new Chevy would be dead too lol...Look at the dummy's neck snap..

ALSO, this isn't even a head-on test. It's a frontal offset test.

PLUS, the dummy in the Bel Air only smacked into the steering wheel AND it wasn't even buckled in lol.

This is pure BS and is HIGHLY inaccurate.

[lori21929]

why would they waste a classic car!

[cowboyjake100]

the funny thing is the there is no drivetrain in the bel air



[RAS4915]

@cowboyjake100 Wrong. you can see pieces of the engine flying out of the Bel Air at around 1:17. The old cars were not built to withstand these types of impacts. In a fender bender the Malibu would need to be towed away or have serious damage verses banging out the dent in the old bomber but in these types of accidents the new cars will win every time.

[tryby12]

so? a lifted 4x4 would kill both.or a brick wall.just drive safe

[Trendyrapslut]

look at the rust dust SHOOT out on each angle. that's a weakened frame right there.

probably no drivetrain in it either.

[markVIIchick]

I find it funny they picked a car with a *x-frame*; its a flawed test to begin with and they chose the weakest frame for a reason (to sell new cars). I say do a retest with the same '09 Malibu versus ANY late 60's-80's similar sized car, preferably another make; lets see *those* results >8-)

[ValiantBandit]

@markVIIchick

Agreed!

I mean c'mon, do you REALLY think they'd show an old car plastering a new car? There would be mass panic everywhere.

Plus look at all that rust flying out everywhere. They probably took some rusted out 59 Chevy from a bone yard, painted it, re-did the interior, and crashed it.

Also, Chevrolet were the unsafest cars back in the day.

[Naterz100]

The thing (1959) Chevy Bel Air was spot welded together. There was little to no structural integrity to the vehicle. They new this before making the crash test from data I am sure is available to anyone who wants to look. They chose this match-up to make the biggest impact on people. Had they of picked some of the more solid well built cars this would have been a very different video. Some call this kind of reporting propaganda.

[Naterz100]

@Naterz100 knew^ having one of those days lol

[redrobin41]

That Bel-Air looked like something from Rigs of Rods...

[trip520]

My 1963 Bel air is my daily driver, has been for 6 months and never gave me a problem. Pulled it out of a field where it sat since 1997. towed it home, put a clutch and battery in it and its all good. It looks like they did the same with this, just pulled it out of a yard where it sat for a couple decades, put some paint on it and its good as new right? That right fender just popped right off. I know their put together ALOT better than that. anyway, Check out my vid. Old cars forever!

[Pentecostal19]

Look at all of the people on here in denial about the '59! lol Face it people, old cars like this one are death boxes on wheels. A big metal coffin. There is a reason car companies went into a uproar when the iihs first started doing these tests. They did not want the public to know how unsafe their products were! Research and common sense will save your life..

[markVIIchick]

@Pentecostal19

I just hope no one in a new car tries to knock *any old car* off the road thinking its super duper safe LOL. Heaven forbids someone hits their new car into a old 70's truck or Caprice thinking it'll crumple as this Bel Air did; they will be in for a RUDE awakening (if they don't get killed first).

[SiberianDawg]

When we see the Bel Air hitting the Malibu, we can see rust dust.. So that car frame is probably already rotten...

[logik316]

@SiberianDawg

I once saw a 98 Ford Explorer rear-end a Crown Victoria cop car at 55, and a huge amount of dust came out of both cars. The brown dust that came out of the Bel Air might have been rust, but I think it could have also been residue from it's copper paint finish.

[acjif98]

How did the 1959 Chevy Bel Air do against a 1909 Horse and Buggy? Since we are on the 50 year comparison program

[TheAutoChannel]

@acjif98

It did very good. The problem is that since there were no video cameras in existence in 1909, and the testers wanted to be accurate in their reporting, they could not record the tests. They did, however make multiple drawings, which when flipped through quickly display a realistic animated account of the event. I think you can request a copy of the drawings from IIHS.

[m44kts]

@TheAutoChannel Why would they need a video camera in 1909 to record a crash test that would take place 50 years later?

[UAL2842]

@TheAutoChannel That is the Best smart-ass comment I think I have ever read! You sir / lady are quite whitty!

[markVIIchick]

@TheAutoChannel

That comment made my day LOL!!!!

[SeeProfileForDetails]

@acjif98 we ain'tses gonna faintses the prince of bel air ain'ts they pay a good fair we ain'ts got hair

[rustydog0329]

CHUCK NORRIS COULD HAVE SURVIVED THAT.

[HappyDiscoDeath]

so... the 1959 Chevy Bel Air is about as safe as a sardine can. crunch.

[CK9101982]

This test is real. The 1958 to 1964 Chevrolets of this car size where built on the X-frame. Even back then the x-frame was known to be incredibly dangerous in side impacts. And in a front off-set impact the frame would bend-in on it self like in the the video. Keep in mind that cars back then were designed for style not safety. There is a reason the General Motors designers went back to a ladder-type frame for cars in 1965, this crash test is a great example of why.

[andy26111]

if i ever get the chance to own a 59 i will drive it everywhere

[MrPlymouthfury58]

i bet if the 59 didnt have so much rust it woulda laid a better hurtung on the new car i bet the floor boards were rusted out , i mean look at it billow out !had to be like 25 ponds of rust cloud.

[benzbubblecat]

@MrPlymouthfury58 this is just how new cars are designed. It could have been head on with a land rover and still very little cabin intrusion.

[vejet]

Also, last time I checked the IIHS was a "independent, nonprofit, scientific, and educational organization dedicated to reducing the losses, deaths, injuries, and property damage" from car crashes. For what nefarious purpose would they tamper with the vehicles for? Because they don't like old car fans?? Your argument makes no sense and that's why I consider most conspiracy's theorist rather pathetic. Because the motives they present make absolutely no sense.

[HappyDiscoDeath]

@vejet even better, the human brain's pattern-based approach to processing stuff around us sometimes leads to patterns that do not exist. conspiracy theorists take this tendency and blow it out of proportion (with an added dose of paranoia), seeing stuff that is not there; a face in the moon, a robot head on mars, secret mind-reading government agents, and the list goes on and on.

[logik316]

@vejet

So what you're saying is that the IIHS has nobody to answer to. Which explains why they have nothing better to do with their time than destroy beautiful old classic cars.

[vejet]

First off, the weight disparity between the 2 vehicles is less than 10%, i.e not very significant. Also just because one vehicle weighs more than the other doesn't mean that it will automatically push the other one in the opposite direction. How simplistic can you be? A significant amount of the energy from a vehicles moment can be absorbed within the structure itself.

[the454engine2009]

Beautiful car, or um, it was

[snipinggod29]

@757K they used a structurally unstable 59 chevy, you cant say that a 59 chevy would have been that torn up if it were actually in the condition of "factory new" theres so much rust that comes out of the door jamb that i dont think anyone who understands cars would say that a car in that condition is a viable candidate for a crash test

[aleajactaest11690]

FAKE!! , what the hell .. do they think that we are stupids? xD , a 1959 impala weights about 4000lbs xD , it has chassis.. tha new one doesnt even have chassis.. and its very funny to watch how the 1959's doors are like paper at the impact.. come on! its a freaking fake.. xD

[wrif197]

@aleajactaest11690 You sir are incorrect. a 1959 Bel-Air is constructed of mainly Mild Steel throught the vehicle. This includes doors, outer body panels AND frame. The 2009 Malibu is made of High Strength Steel and Boron-Reinforced steel which does not begin to be effected until 100,000psi is applied. The Boron is not effected until 196,000 +psi is applied. the Bel-air can be crushed at a measly 60,000 psi compared to the Malibu.

[wrif197]

@aleajactaest11690 On top of that the Bel-Air was designed on looks and doesn't contain 5% of the safety features that the Malibu does. So where would you rather be? Sincerely a Washtenaw Community College Student in the AutoBody Repair Field.

[kadvid]

@aleajactaest11690 So? Who cares about the weight? It all depends on what materials were used, where they were used and with what intention they were used. A F1 car weights about 440 kg. And look at the crashes those drivers survive unharmed (admittedly with helmets etc., but still). Or other race cars. For safety, I'd rather drive a smart than a huge oldtimer. Though I'd rather drive the oldtimer. But it's dangerous.

[snipinggod29]

@kadvid ITS PHYSICS! you cant have one object push another back unless it weighs more than the object it hit, in real life, the 59 is heavier, it should have pushed the 09 back. it wont mean that the 59 will take less damage, but if the malibu was the one that pushed the bel air back, then i refuse to believe that it was a factory restored 59

[ahamburger111]

Why would they use an X frame car?

[snipinggod29]

@ahamburger111 it was for the IIHS 50th anniversery

[Hype679]

Regardless, whether the car is new or old, if you fuck around too much, YOU COULD DIE! Drive with some sense people.

[Dulein]

Big and old isn't necessarily safe.

[snipinggod29]

@Dulein no, but being rusted all to hell isnt either

[OchawanKenobi]

Mottainai !!

[inokinohahaB]

ホーンリングが非常に危険・・・

[kureyoon]

50年代の車ってこの素人でもわかるくらいレアなのに・・・

[hayate0626]

搭乗者の生存性が凄まじく明らかだな、操縦席の潰れ方が全然違う­。

[chafeisho]

期待したほどの差はなかった…と感じたのは私だけ？

[dyt878]

やっぱ現代の方が強化されてるか…

[lawlesslife]

ああ！５９が～！なんてことおおお！泣

[goodloop]

あ～あっ

もったいない

パーツでも良いから欲しいよ

[MrMarokichi]

なんてこった!!!!!!!!!

[candyyamaguchi]

もったいねー！

[PlecoBoy69]

I think either the frame was weakened or that the percentage of frontal crash area was played with to give favorable results. I had a 70 impala and a drunk driver hit me head on in the city and just bent the bumper and crumpled the fenders. no way the damage shown here ... rather have full frame then unibody ... tell the truth or are you just trying to sell cars.... thought they were suppose to protect us and tell us the truth ... oh yeh car company's pay better ....

[MrMr1970dodgecharger]

you know i think the company made the 59 impala into fiberglass just to sell the malibu.i know old cars are tougher

[snipinggod29]

@MrMr1970dodgecharger the physics of this video dont add up, a heavy car collides with a lighter car at the same speed and the lighter car continues to move foward??? they either lightened the 59 or strengthened the 09, also, the amount of rust that comes out of the door jamb of the 59 is simply amazing, there are so many things thaat say this is fake, and the general public (which knows almost nothing about cars) is seeing this and believing all of it

[Supergungun]

I bet if Bonnie & Clyde were in a Honda the first BAR bullet would have ripped right through the car. The Model A they drove took a few shots before faltering. Since I know you don't know history I guess I have to explain to you several people ambushed them, all people were armed with large caliber automatic firearms.

And yes it will, the few bullets that would hit my old cars would be stopped by my solid sheet metal.

I'm assuming you're an ignorant liberal who thinks spanking is a bad thing

[mikzebik]

Dommage pour cette jolie Bel-Air! Beaucoup d'humour de la part des préparateurs de la voiture pour le crash, qui ont laissé les fuzzy dices accrochés au rétro interieur...

[firstmusic00]

Ask my friend about his head-on collision with an '06 VW Passat in his '69 Camaro. He had to be cut out is car and sustained horrible injuries to his legs, chest and head. The struture simple folded up around him. 2 minutes after the crash the driver of the VW was out and calling her husband on her cell phone. Don't let the "plastic" you see in modern cars fool you. Under the plastic are high-strength steel cages and crumble zones. Todays cars are worlds safer than the oldies.

[Supergungun]

Someone in my family bought a 2010 Camaro and I went to inspect it. I knocked everywhere and I all I could feel was cheap plastic, rubber, and cloth. It's terrible low quality crap the automobile industry is throwing out nowadays. Nothing in comparison to my 59 Cadillac's build quality.

[demoskunk]

@Supergungun The new Camaro would destroy the much weaker passenger compartment or your 59 Caddy in a crash. Don't let your emotions make you delusional.

[Supergungun]

@demoskunk Plastic is now stronger than metal? When did this happen?

[myphonyaccount]

@Supergungun Old car fans sure are stupid. The new car uses it's metal weight where it needs to be used, in the structure, not as useless thick sheet metal which does nothing to protect people inside.

[snipinggod29]

@myphonyaccount old car fans are stupid? you tell me how this works out: A heavier car hits a lighter car at the same speed, and the lighter car pushes the heavier car back. this video either completly defies physics, or the IIHS weakened the 59, instead of talking about what they are made of, look at the amount of rust that comes out of the door jamb of the 59, there is no way in hell that the 59 would have been that ruined

[myphonyaccount]

@snipinggod29 Yes, old car fans are stupid. Look at them. Look at you. You and they all say that these two cars don't weigh the same. You are all too stupid to look up the weight of each car to see they both weigh 3500 pounds. Instead, you get caught up in your religion that older is better. You're like a terrorist. Stuck on a stupid ideology.

[snipinggod29]

@myphonyaccount hahahaha, you are really uneducated about old cars.... let me explain, the 1959 150 weighed 3500lbs, the bel air, which came with more options, weighed 3750lbs. and i never said either one was better, im like a terrorist? its called having a fucking opinion that i believe in, you obviously strongly believe in the opposite of what i think, doesnt that make you a terrorist too?

[demoskunk]

@Supergungun Modern cars' passenger cells are now made of plastic?

When did this happen?

[myphonyaccount]

@Supergungun Your old 59 is a death trap. Thank god they don't make em like they used to.

[Supergungun]

@myphonyaccount I drive my 1959 Impala everyday and I'm not dead.

[myphonyaccount]

@Supergungun That's cause you haven't been in a serious accident yet.

[Supergungun]

@myphonyaccount I'll be charged for manslaughter because Metal>Plastic

[myphonyaccount]

@Supergungun Nah, the new car driver will be fine. Go ahead and hit him nice n hard with your old car and see.

[Supergungun]

@myphonyaccount Perhaps we should see how well his plastic stands against a clip from a Tommy gun.

[Supergungun]

@Supergungun I bet the METAL of my older car would stand a far better chance.

[myphonyaccount]

@Supergungun Pretty stupid comment to make considering it has nothing to do with auto safety. Go play with your GI Joes and fantasize about the past.

[Supergungun]

@myphonyaccount It does when you live in the bay area. It's filled with liberals who ban the use of guns, meaning that only criminals have them. My cars are far safer in my area than the new ones, not because of its safety features, merely the fact the thick sheet metal of it protects me from gunfire. Whenever I have to drive to Oakland I ALWAYS drive my 1948 Pontiac, it has the thickest sheet metal of my 2 cars.

[myphonyaccount]

@Supergungun What about Bonnie & Clyde? Didn't they have "real sheet metal" to protect them? You're really paranoid AND delusional if you think driving an old car through a ghetto is going to save you from bullets. Did you vote for Sarah Palin to save you from liberals new car technology?

[demoskunk]

@Supergungun Modern steel is stronger than steel from the 50s, and modern car structures are made of modern STEEL not PLASTIC, moron.

Tell me you're not really this dumb.

[MrMr1970dodgecharger]

well 50s cars are stronger then new shitty cars so fuck you

[snipinggod29]

@MrMr1970dodgecharger best comment EVER!!!! about time someone sees the truth

[snipinggod29]

@myphonyaccount my 1976 truck has 4 feet of boxed frame and engine in front of me, and 8 feet of boxed frame behind me, go ahead and try, but i guarentee that ill be fine

[thesaxsoloist]

Couldn't help but notice the cloud of dust coming off the old bel air on impact. That car had some serious rust issues! Maybe that's why it was completely crushed....the chassis basically broke away from the rusted out frame.

[myphonyaccount]

@thesaxsoloist The frame was in good shape. The cloud is mostly dirt and paint dust from a recent partial restoration. Everybody who saw the car before it was sold attested to that. Old cars are just crap, that's all.

[Supergungun]

@myphonyaccount partial restoration? See that 1960 Bel Air in my video? Its speedometer works unlike the 1959 Chevy's in this video. With that knowledge I can assume this is in worse shape than my 60 which was a rust bucket. That thing was painted over to look attractive. It was obviously full of cancerous rust.

[myphonyaccount]

@Supergungun If you do some research you'll see the car's story before it was bought by the IIHS. It was in great shape. Do you know what the IIHS is? Do you think it's "the government"?

[Supergungun]

@myphonyaccount What car in great shape has a speedo that doesn't work?

[myphonyaccount]

@Supergungun Perhaps one that had it disabled? Have you looked at the car's history online yet? The previous owners history? Of course not! You just want to sit here and defend old cars with conspiracy theories!

[Supergungun]

@myphonyaccount Yes I read about it, they said it was in a field since the 1970s.

[myphonyaccount]

@Supergungun The conspiracy websites might say that, but the owners friends and people who handled the transaction say the car was in good condition, stored, with only minor ENGINE rust. Research it again, this time not picking and choosing to read only what you want to satisfy your incorrect notions about old cars.

[Supergungun]

@myphonyaccount yeah, I bought a 1947 Cadillac that "ran good" by the word of the owner and the damn thing gave out on me after a few miles of driving. Owners words don't mean shit.

[myphonyaccount]

@Supergungun Then by that logic, the one who said the car was "in a field since 1970" also don't mean shit. Deny it all you want, cause that is the typical behavior of old car fans, but your precious crap death trap is NOT safer or better than a modern car. Emotion is no substitute for science.

[Supergungun]

@myphonyaccount Like I said, that bel air was rusted through. No doubt about it. That sub par paint job cannot hide it.

[myphonyaccount]

@Supergungun A rusted out car wouldn't have been worth $10,000. Everybody who saw the car said it was in good condition with no body or chassis rust.

[Supergungun]

@myphonyaccount I bought a 1965 Plymouth that was a rust bucket but it had a nice red paint job. Underneath the paint the rust was so bad there were holes.

[myphonyaccount]

@Supergungun This car was gone over very well before purchase. Just because you bought a bad car doesn't mean the IIHS did. The documentation shows it had no structural rust.

[Supergungun]

@myphonyaccount Paint can hide structural rust.

[myphonyaccount]

@Supergungun The facts speak for themselves. The car was evaluated publicly and the proof of the car's good condition is all over the internet if you choose to read it.

[Supergungun]

@myphonyaccount Like I said, the plymouth looked very pretty to.

[myphonyaccount]

@Supergungun There was nothing wrong with this car as you can see. The pathetic A pillar had no rust and it collapsed. The joke of an X frame also had no rust. Hollow parts of the outer body on the bottom had a buildup of dirt mainly. Rust was superficial and minor by expert evaluation, not average Joe The Plymouth collector who bought a bucket.

[Supergungun]

@myphonyaccount You're not getting the fact that rust can be hidden under paint if done well enough and in enough layers

[myphonyaccount]

@Supergungun I get it, but in the video, you can clearly see that the problem areas are not rusted. The A pillar was not rusted and the X frame was not rusted. The cloud or dirt, paint and rust you see comes from the lower body cavity and metal folds, not the frame. The body isn't responsible for front crash protection in a body on frame car. You should know that. It's the frame's responsibility. It was not unibody.

[Supergungun]

@myphonyaccount I think the results would be different if it was a 46-48 Model. Those cars had the engines and frames of WW2 battle tanks. You're saying new cars are safer than WW2 tanks?

[myphonyaccount]

@Supergungun Wow. You're REALLY living in a demented fantasy world if you think cars from the 40s were stronger than cars from the 50s. The 40s cars were not built on WW2 tank chassis. You're really making old car fans look really stupid. But keep going. I'm glad you're taking the movement down a notch lower than I could have on my own.

[Supergungun]

@myphonyaccount My 1947 Cadillac had the engine and transmission of a WW2 Light Tank (The M-24 and M-5 tanks)

[myphonyaccount]

@Supergungun Wrong. The tank had TWO Cadillac engines, not the other way around. And the transmission was not the same as was in the car. It was specifically designed for the tank, but made by Cadillac. Either way, your car weighs 600 pounds more than these 2 cars in the test. And it didn't have the pathetic A pillar or X frame. But it will would have killed it's occupants in this type of crash. So the debate and defense of your car is pointless.

[Supergungun]

@myphonyaccount No, you're wrong. Look it up. The M-24 Tank used 2 hydramatic transmissions.

[myphonyaccount]

@Supergungun Still, the body was junk. Couldn't take a crash like this and keep itself together or it's passengers alive. Would have folded in on itself.

[Supergungun]

@myphonyaccount So a 2009 Malibu can take bullets?

[myphonyaccount]

@Supergungun A bullet could pierce a crap 59 death trap too. They just didn't have as many sensitive technologies inside to get damaged that's all.

[Supergungun]

@myphonyaccount looks like the idiot finally made a fatal error. Did Al Capone build his bulletproof limo out of plastic? No so that's the reason the 59 had the upper hand. That thick sheetmetal and bulletproof engine block (not plastic like newer engine blocks) would protect the car far better than materials of today. Notice how some Mexicans still use "old school lowriders" to do drivebys? Why do you think they do that?

[myphonyaccount]

@Supergungun Engine blocks aren't made out of plastic. Body skeletons on new cars aren't made out of plastic. They simply have more stuff than yesterdays spartan go carts. Any modern car can be reinforced to be bullet proof. Old cars are driven for style or because they cost less than new cars and can be repaired by owners. Not because they are better.

[snipinggod29]

@myphonyaccount the a pillar had no rust? sure, not from the outside, but how could you say for sure on the inside of the a pillar

[snipinggod29]

@myphonyaccount and they pulled those door panels down to check? they pulled out the carpet to check for floor rust? they probably dont know what a 59 X frame is supposed to look like

[snipinggod29]

@myphonyaccount i defend cars with physics, not what everyone says happened

[snipinggod29]

@myphonyaccount old cars aare crap? look at the physics, if a light car and a heavy car colide at the same speed, the heavy car should be moving foward after impact because it has more momentum, not so in the video, either the 09 was strengthened or the 59 was weakened, and "everybody" who saw the car before it sold never worked on 59s in the factory so how can they say it was the way it came from the factory. paint dust? give me a break. automotive paint takes days to harden, which means it wil

[snipinggod29]

@myphonyaccount will have all settled into the wet paint and hardened to the metal with all the other paint

[1959chevy]

I'm Sure glad my 59 has brakes that always work and a gas pedal that wont get stuck.

[myphonyaccount]

Old cars sure are crap.

[wasjunk]

50 years from now you will never find a 09

[vincomputer]

how about having old one with all new safety feature.

why was an retro wasted like this......?we all know safety is better now than earlier days...

[TheLevoy]

poor retro car :-(

[Max9507]

Just goes to show what good engineering is all about, shame about the classic. ;(

[yasuisaaan]

that just shows how in 50 years chevrolet has gone nowhere

[snipinggod29]

@yasuisaaan its fake anyway, i dont see why everyone believes this video as fact

[meldon100]

omg

[MakeLoveNoBabiez]

WOW did u see the windshield fly off the old car JESUS!.....A waste of a classic & beautiful car indeed.....The 59 (in excellent condition)was probably worth more than the 09 today!......

[bertocaster]

@MakeLoveNoBabiez

They con probably produce millions of that.

[37474748]

i would rather be in the new one incase of an crash... but i would rather own the old one :)

[CHARLIETWW]

This is such a good video. I won't ever spend a lot of money to buy a antique or collectible car and drive it when it is extremely unsafe.

[chopedandsectioned]

damn wut a waste of a beutiful car

[Smear4111]

@chopedandsectioned

Well i think it wasn't a waste because american cars suck!(except for the ford gt, corvette, solstice, viper gts, charger, saleen S281, S7, and calloway, and some other cars that are tight)(Malibu is ugly what are you talking about?!

[snipinggod29]

@Smear4111 and the reason america is now in a recession is because you buy toyota mitsubishi nissan etc. congratulations on sending american money to japan

[juanpablofx]

Dang, the A pillar in the '59 could have impaled the driver.