Crash test: 1959 Chevy Bel Air

Crash test: 1959 Chevy Bel Air The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety conducted a unique crash test to demonstrate the advances in motor vehicle safety over the last 50 years.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Crash
• test:
• 1959
• Chevy
• Bel
• Air
• animation
• short
• film
• video
• blog
• car crash
• car
• chevrolet
• crashes

[knaagi]

@TheProGamerHW No engine plus this one here was a weakened rust bucket with a fresh paintjob. See brown dust clouds coming from under the panels. But the X-frames really weren´t as good as the ladder frames.

[Tibb91]

What a fail...it's a '59 Impala, not Bel Air.

[fiddlerpin]

@Gazpacho8 I care what other people think , just not you because you are a know it all and you called me deluded. I think you need to adjust your attitude . Why don't you attack someone else like D3at4not3. This person agrees with me that there is no engine in the car and believe me the fender bolts are cut. They are just trying to make people think that the newer cars are stronger than the old. Please don't reply to me thanks have a great day

[Gazpacho8]

@fiddlerpin Not caring what other people think is a good way to never learn.

[Gazpacho8]

@mhtube01 New cars have far better quality control than cars 50 years ago, most 59 impalas rusted away due to poor quality steel and lack of undercoating. Your statement about old cars being all steel and strong demonstrates a common misunderstanding of how vehicle safety works. If you don't believe this test then look up any of the other dozens of tests done on older vehicles showing how car safety has improved. I don't hate old cars I just don't have my head in the clouds.

[Gazpacho8]

@mhtube01 Yes I'm such a criminal, l like old cars lots and daily drive a 40 year old volvo and would love to have a 59 impala. But as a auto mechanic by trade and as someone who works on both new and old cars daily, older car designs were less efficient and less reliable than current ones, there is a reason they don't make cars like this anymore and it's not some sort of conspiracy.

[mhtube01]

@Gazpacho8 New cars NEED these crumple zones to absorb the impact because of their lack of build quality. Old cars have STEEL bumpers and ZERO fiberglass/plastic on the exterior. It really is just common knowledge. Had they tried this out on a different classic with a better frame, like say an older Bel-Air or an old Chrysler, that Mailbu would never have stood a chance. But how dare they waste a beautiful American classic as it is. Stop bashing old cars on here.

[mhtube01]

@Gazpacho8 I can't believe you said in another comment that old cars sucked. You criminal. Old cars are so much simpler, easier to work on, and nicer to drive than any car built today. That's why people keep them alive. Plus they were built like tanks. This Bel-Air was built on the X frame which was apparently one of GM's worst frames in accidents. But it YOU look closely, look at the rust cloud that flies up after the collision. The test was a fake to make old cars look bad.

[fiddlerpin]

@Gazpacho8 just watch the video I don't care if you think I'm correct or not.

[Gazpacho8]

@myphonyaccount It's hilarious, everyone is making excused in the comments and claiming it had no engine and was staged and stuff. Like it's a conspiracy or something. Of course in reality old cars sucked and they don't make them that way anymore for good reason.

[Gazpacho8]

@TheProGamerHW If by clearly you mean, not at all. Then yes.

[Gazpacho8]

@mhtube01 Actually new cars front and read ends crumple by design to absorbe damaging impacts that would kill you. You notice there is no intrusion into the cabin on the Malibu, this is because there is an extremely strong metal cage that protects the passengers. But if you want to make excuses and prentend the test was invalid and set up go ahead.