something to think abuot, safety now and then........

[Sweede64]

http://izismile.com/2009/09/17/1959_chevrolet_bel_air_vs_2009_chevrolet_malibu_i_50_years_of_safety_improvement_3_6_mb.html

[The Tassie Devil(le)]

Just goes to prove what I have always said.

"If I am going to be involved in an accident, I want to be in the latest, newest, vehicle possible, only because of the 'Occupant Safety' improvements".

But, having said that, I am sure that the owner of the '59 Chevrolet would have wanted to die so he didn't have to witness the damage done to his lovely vehicle.   And, seeing as he would have been driving the vehicle with the care and consideration that the car deserved, the driver of the new car would still be alive to be able to continue to financially support the surviving relatives of the deceased.

Bruce.

[Chris Conklin]

Were there engines in those cars? It sure didn't seem like it and I couldn't identify any parts from one.

[Otto Skorzeny]

I thought the same thing about the '59. It sure crumpled up more than I would expect. I wouldn't be surprised if they rigged it.

Both cars weigh almost exactly the same. I would have expected the Malibu to crumple as they are designed to do - absorbing most of the energy of the impact.

[The Tassie Devil(le)]

In a Head-on, the Driver of the '59 would have:
(1)   Been impaled by the Steering Column,
(2)   The Head would have gone through the Windscreen, and probably still be there,
(3)   Both knees smashed by the Metal Dash Board,
(4)   Both Legs badly broken by the collapsing Firewall and floor,
(5)   And anything not tightly secured in the Trunk would have pushed the rear seat forward.

At least, there would be a lot of good salvageable parts from the '59.

Bruce.

PS.   Wouldn't be much blood to clean up as death would have been instantaneous.

[Bob Hoffmann CLC#96]

I think it was rigged. The RH fender just peeled away from the cowl. It just wouldn't do that if the bolts were there. Plus the LH door popping up. Just looks like the car fell apart. Bob

[Wayne Womble 12210]

Yea, there is no engine in the 59. That compromises the structural integrity of the unit. There are also no upper rails like on the uni body to resist that type of crash. It would have been much less with an engine and a frontal crash that involved the frame. That would probably be the absolute weakest point to whack a 59.

[The Tassie Devil(le)]

That is why they crashed it in an "Off-Centre" crash.

Funny things can happen when people want to stress their own point of view.

Bruce.

[Sweede64]

Honestly guys, theese old cars are really bad in an accident, seats com off their brackets, steeringcolumn impale driver, doors opens and occupant fell out etc. Dont lie to your selves, no rigging is necessery, this is fact..........

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41nzxPDt7uw&feature=related

[Chris Conklin]

I'm not disputing the human damage incurred in an older vehicle, just curious why they staged the test with cars sans engines (if they did, still not sure). And I had heard that they don't test for direct head-on crashes because they are extremely rare. One of the drivers will swerve to some extent in a real world situation, so they want to simulate those conditions and engineer for the best protection.

[Brian Laurance]

The '59 Chevrolet was a straight-6 Powerglide car.

It's my understanding that the X-frame of the '59 Chevrolet was relatively weak.  The frames of the upper series GM cars were evidently significantly stronger, or so I'm told. 

The Chevrolet also had a forward mounted steering box, so the steering column was less protected in a collision than was the case with some of the other '59 GM cars.

[Otto Skorzeny]

I agree that overall new cars are safer in general.

Imagine a '56 Cadillac with airbags, seat belts, 4 wheel anti-lock disc brakes, and all the other modern safety features incorporated into its construction. You'd be invincible.

[CEC #20099]

CEC  #20099
In 1974 I was involved in a real-world same crash @ 60 mph. On coming driver was drunk & going wrong way on the Interstate. He had a 72 Caprice V8, full frame car. I had a 71 Chry NP V8 unit body car. I was wearing  belts ;he was not. The impact was absolutely awful. The seat belts saved me , but caused massive internal injuries. 79 days in the hospital. Drunk rolled around inside the Caprice, resulting in a paralyzed left arm. I was concious thru the whole thing. I have the pictures of my car. I was crushed on left side as his car ripped thru the Chry, tearing out the rear susp. & gas tank on the way out. I never did see the Caprice remains.

The lawsuit was no problem. Today I still suffer from the injuries. I now drive a 72 Chry & an 88 F150 pickup. My wife`s 90 SDV is too small for me. CEC.

[Barry M Wheeler #2189]

While I was selling cars, we had a '94 Seville come in that had been involved in a 70 mph crash. I had a guy come in on his lunch hour that I'd sold the same car. After gabbing for a minute, I got up and said, "Come on out back. I want to show you something." We wandered out to the back fence and I didn't say anything, just walked to the driver's door, opened it up, and then shut it easily. Continued on around the car, doing the same thing with each door, opening and closing them as easily as a car on the showroom floor. Other than that, there wasn't a panel on the car that didn't show damage. The driver and his passengers escaped with minor injuries. My customer was impressed at how safe the car I'd sold him was.
Along about the same time, an '85 Riviera came in, that had smacked into something on the right front. It appeared that an 18" triangle had been cut from the damaged area, being mashed flat quite neatly back against the engine compartment. ALL of the force of the impact was concentrated in this 300 square inch area, and all at once. I wasn['t aware of the driver's injuries, but was glad it wasn't me!
We had a four car accident yesterday morning involving school children. All modern cars, and every one escaped with only bumps and bruises while all four cars were totaled. The car that caused the pileup showed no skid marks, so it was accelerating back towards town (to get a doughnut) at highway speeds from the school parking lot.  Thank goodness for crumple zones.

[Walter Youshock]

You MAY want to cover your eyes.

These are vintage 1957 GM Crash Test photos.

[jeff1956]

the 55 caddy looks like it could be driven away from that. 

Jeff

[The Tassie Devil(le)]

And a '57 Chev Convertible at that.   I am crying now.

Bruce.

[ronw]

The IIHS maintains that the 59 had an engine (6 cyl). You can read about it here:

http://www.jalopnik.com/5364071/yes-the-iihs+crashed-59-chevy-had-an-engine

Ron

[tozerco]

Just below the Youtube item in one of the posts above was this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRbwTutw-Hk&NR=1&feature=fvwp

Just have a look at the distortion around the 'A' pillar and decide which one you want to be in. I sometimes wonder what all this is supposed to prove. Reminds me of all the discussion about drowning or burning up in car accidents when compulsory seat belts were brought into law in my country:

"Just be sure you can pick which prang you are going to have!"

Seems to me the same message applies here - you can get whatever result you want from any "test" that you specifically design to test the theory you want to prove.

For my money, I'll take a modern car with all the modern bits in it any day, thanks! (as long as it's a dual cab and not one of those 2 1/2 cylinder f--t boxes).


John Tozer

[Steve W]

Isn't it amazing that any of us over 50 are still alive? I remember being in the car w/ mom and dad...seat belts?? Car seats? Air bags? Never had 'em.
Lots of great cars from that era are STILL alive and well...I wonder what the typical cvcc is gonna look like in 40 years?
Sure, lots of modern safety stuff in the newer cars...but I still think the best protection is learning how to drive...I mean REALLY learning how to drive!
And I will still take my chances in my big old, 68 CVD vs any ToyoHonMitzuFinity.
I'm not sayin', I'm just sayin'....