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

The crash test was conducted at an event to celebrate the contributions of auto insurers to highway safety progress over 50 years. Beginning with the Institute's 1959 founding, insurers have maintained the resolve, articulated in the 1950s, to "conduct, sponsor, and encourage programs designed to aid in the conservation and preservation of life and property from the hazards of highway accidents."

TheAutoChannel.com has photos and the reason why they did this test.

Category:

Autos & Vehicles

Tags:

• 59
• bel
• air
• vs
• 09
• malibu

[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?

[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.

[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?

[killbucket1]

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

[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.

[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]

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.

[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..

[Naterz100]

@Naterz100 knew^ having one of those days lol

[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.