Do not let these very manipulated results change your mine. Buy your new 1959 Bellair and change the problematic X-frame and you will have a great car that will go through any modern car. The Bellair was chosen for this test intentionally because of the design flaw X-frame. Only the GM vehicles had this very dangerous frame. Ford, AMC, Chrysler, Hudson, Willy's, Kaiser, all had ladder frames that would make their vehicles crush through a modern vehicle. Many car collectors will get rid of the dangerous X - frame in Impalas, Bellairs and Buicks of the era. So get your new 1959 Bellair and come to Uranium City in Saskatchewan, Canada and I will put your new Bellair on a huge ladder frame that will go through a lorry.
I’m not sorry 🤷♂️ it deserved to be totaled to show how much of a death trap it is because people back then seemed to care more about the look and style vs the safety
@@JamesK7911 it's not that simple, the technology was not there yet, driving was relatively new and the understanding of the physics of a collision weren't up to par with today's
@@Weeblicker Nah not really. They just didn’t care much until the 1970s oil crisis in the US when they started to make safer designs as well as fuel efficient designs.
I totaled a "59 Bel Air at 45mph in 1978, when it was less than 20 years old. They had to cut me out. The steering wheel ripped through my chest and the motor ended up under the back seat.
And that's just a chevy malibu, not exactly the pinnacle of modern safety either. This year of chevy malibu actually received 3/4 safety in a lot of areas, and 1/4 when it came to driver and passenger head injuries. 💀
The 1959 car is one of the weakest cars of its era. I'm not trying to defend it because it was obviously a weak car. But they put an average modern car up against one of the weakest classic cars you can get. Also, whatever impact the car doesn't take, the driver will. That's why crush zones are a thing.
@@ChrisPatrick-q6kThe 1959 car is one of the weakest cars of its era. I'm not trying to defend it because it was obviously a weak car. But they put an average modern car up against one of the weakest classic cars you can get. Also, whatever impact the car doesn't take, the driver will. That's why crush zones are a thing.
@@luckyaustin Ok, but it's crazy to say any car of that age is going to do well against a modern design. Very little protection in a head on crash, virtually none in a side impact.
I worked in salvage. Seat belts are essential. A driver was killed in a low speed 25mph crash in a 1972 Monte Carlo. His head struck the passenger side A pillar. The hood, fender and bumper were bent and thats about it.
Worked in a Rehab Unit (many car-crash folks) about 20 years ago. Older cars typically had engines coming up into the passenger compartment (lower limb loss etc), and modern 'chunky tyre' utes and SUVs tended to roll and cause head injuries (as well as the SUVs causing disproportionately severe injuries to pedestrians). Staff could fairly accurately predict the vehicle class by the client injuries. Also, spending serious money on protective gear if you ride a motorcycle will be the best investment you ever make ...
I agree with everything except the "spending serious money on protective gear if you ride a motorcycle". I have been a dispatch rider in London UK for about 20 years. Protective gear isn't substitute for knowing how to ride. Wear leather jacket and trousers.
@@mirkograveho1388 I'll take the plates in my riding equipment any day. When you go for a slide it's nice to have plates to slide on instead of azz meat and elbow skin.
I wish I was an adult back in the days where you could tinker with your own car. I'm an 80's baby...by the time I got my first car, you needed an IT degree to change the damn oil.
I remember in approx 1979, I worked part time at my 1st job, picking parts at a wrecking yard. Never forget the 67 camero, basically turned inside out from hitting a tree at way, WAY OVER 100mph. The back of the front seat was pushed out the back window. My job....strip it. I saved the right side, rear pass, glass...that was literally all that was left.... There was a beer can 1/2 opened, stuffed into the speedometer, with basically a scalp and shoes smashed between the firewall and the underside of the dash. This car would have fit in the bed of a truck. Before you ask..."Olympia" The driver clearly had zero chance. Think before you drink... Iv seen it, so you dont have too
Even in a new car you´d be dead at 100mph. The only difference today is, that the paramedics can keep their food inside their stomach when they see the victim
first of all its spelled camaro not camero anyways how would the newer cars fair at over 100 mph. i kind of have the feeling that any car at that speed and impact, will be completely destroyed. that is why is it so unwise to drive at those speeds. just because something is capable of going that fast does not mean that you SHOULD go that fast.
I used this clip in my auto tech classes. Shocking to some, but glad I was not in the '59. Did that in a 50 Olds. Didn't end well either. At least I had the forethought to add seat belts to the Olds, Walked away! After 60+ years of driving, with no at fault accidents, I am thankful for air bags and good safety belts. They do come in handy!
WS .............I got you in years ...........and I use this to shut my old car guys up ..........and remind them of the yearly tune ups ,water pump replacements , brakes ,mufflers altinators by 60 thou !!!!! and drying the brakes out after each water crossing .........it made me a good half ass mechanic
@@dannycalley7777water pump replacements? Stop using the hose and use distilled water like they do in newer cars or the same thing goes wrong. Also this video is flawed. That car was clearly a rust bucket that was structurally compromised before the test. I mean look at all that red dust lol. Wouldnt have had the same out come if they were both new. Also new cars have alternators too i changed one on a 2011 Mercedes about 3 months ago for my friend. It only has 80k
@@taylorsopko5807 How many "never" cars have distributors? You know, the ones that have points that have to be cleaned and cam has to be lubricated. Also, point dwell has to be adjusted every 5k miles, along with filling the oil cup at the base of distributor. Then there is the matter of lubricating a dozen zerks under the car every 1k miles, etc. It is interesting that you mentioned distilled water ONLY to mix with anti-freeze. If you have a dealer or shop change your coolant, how many shops do YOU think would stock distilled water? I have NEVER seen bottles of distilled water on the shelves at a parts department! Those "classic" cars were fine IN THEIR DAY, but in today's world, they just don't belong!
@@TheOzthewiz the only thing that doesn't belong is your comment lol. Distributors from the 60s and early seventies had points dude. Later ones were actually electronic. Also what's so bad with the points and if they were that bad that you had to adjust them every couple of weeks then why does my corvair still run after years I haven't touched it I set it "correctly" one time. I think that's their problem they don't know how to set it correctly. Also your oil cup delusion must be something from the 30s cause i aint seen it 😂 ever seen a honda or nissan distributor they're on their side LMFAO 🤣 you know nothing.
@@TheOzthewiz and if I found out they were putting tap water in my car I would file a law suit but i dont have that issue i work on my own cars as well as everyone's in tucson daily im a mechanic LMFAO 🤣
Poor guy in the Bel Air was racing to get home to in time to catch his old lady with the Maytag repairman. Mr. Wipple down at the A&P told him about it
@@lt4324 Rather have the '59 any day. You coulda told me the '09 was a Chevy, Toyota, Suburu, Honda, Dodge, etc., and I wouldn't have known the difference, because there aren't many......
Way too much time and materials required to shape body panels like that. Also the car design was a style of the times it was in. A 1950's car just won't sell in todays times. Sure you may like it and so may a bunch of others, but fact is most do not or just simply want a car to get around. These cars are for out to have fun and cruise around in on your weekend off. Then you put it back in the garage for another sunny day.
@@cherrylove3656 Because that's the most realistic scenario! I don't care about X Frames, I don't give a damm about Ladder Frames. I couldn't give a hoot about lap belts, or silly rumours of engines being taken out, or structures cut through. No car from this period in time, or even 25-30 years later is going to hold up well in a crash. It's called PROGRESS!!!
When I got my first drivers license (1973), 50,000 people died in car accidents per year. Now, with with 50% more people, 30,000 die per year. That's progress.
and more people are killed with Knives, clubs and fists than AR15's every year, but they want to ban AR15's.....since cars kill 30k a year, Why do we not want to ban them ? and motorcycles, bicycles, skateboards, trampolines and swimming pools......The Horror...The Horror.....
@@lrlapua8035 lol he clearly wasn't advocating for things to be banned, he was just stating how it's impressive that the death toll of car accidents can goo down, despite the number of drivers going up thanks to advances in the design of car monocoques, compared to older body on frame designs that don't divert the force around the occupants. why even bring up the discussion of gun rights in a conversation about vehicle safety anyways?
It is incredible to see how much of that impact energy is absorbed in the modern car - the cabin hardly shudders during the collision, a stark contrast to what happens in the older car.
tjf4375 Yeah, the good old days are missed. Back then you actually had to give a shit and pay attention because it was more than likely only a body that would be recovered from a wreck. I miss the days stupidity would get you killed.
Pitviper1979 Not gonna lie, that's a real dumb statement. Being a stupid driver these days will still get you injured, your car might be written off or even worse, you can certainly end up dead still. The only difference is that nowadays you are less likely to die from a car crash because of improved safety. Harking back to the old days because you could die more easily in a car crash is ridiculous, especially considering you can still get in an accident caused by someone else. Think.
You mean the stupidity of, for example, drunk drivers getting innocent bystanders/drivers killed? What an idiotic and awful comment, which suits the idiotic and awful person who wrote it.
phxcppdvlazi Think he's trying to say people need more real consequence for their actions is all. Or maybe the stupidity of commenting on the stupid comments on stupid RUclips.
Coming to this video to say the 2009 malibu saved my life as well as my passengers in a crash I had. I bought another one after. Love this year model and car.
@@brandon8900 I suggest you have a closer look through the comments. There's claims that the Bel Air was a replica, rusted though, cut through, had the engine removed etc. So many stupid people in this world.
Not any 80s car. Some were much better than others, just like today. There's a video on here with the crash test of a 90 Crown Vic, but the body and chassis were changed very little until 92. It actually does a little better than the Malibu. The Malibu is only a few inches smaller too. I actually didn't know that till I looked it up just now. I drive an 89 Grand Marquis, and I feel a lot safer driving it now.
THUNDER STORM VOLTAGE All vehicles are currently required by law to be able to support their own weight upside-down. They're all like that. That's why newer cars almost always have double side mirrors. They have blind spots the size of the moon.
lol seriously. people always say old cars were safer and stronger because they saw a video of an old volvo barely getting dented while the driver takes on all the shock
And the new ones look like garbage too and can't cope with anything but smooth paved roads. Good thing the wheels on new cars have to be 20" tall with no sidewall height to absorb any road roughness and the bumper covers need to look like the car is in Nascar so that small snow drifts (front) or gravel spray(rear) can destroy them in record time. Oh and who can forget the failure of traction control in loose surfaces. I am glad for better safety of crumple zones but modern cars leave a lot to be desired when it comes to everyday durability.
Well... I'm a mechanic, we do obviously mechanical and collision work. I've smacked a few deer with my truck going 65+ mph. It's a 1980 truck. I mean it when I say not a dent and I was perfectly safe. A new car hitting a deer would got torn up to shit, but the driver would still be safe. We just had a GMC Denali that hit a deer and it costed him $12000 to fix the front end, ouch. My truck not even a scratch on the front bumper after 3 deer have smacked it. However, I guarantee if I hit that Denali head on going 50mph my truck would have less damage overall but I would be severely injured where as he would be fine but with a a completely wrecked car. so yeah, they don't make em like they used to but that's because of crumple zones during major crashes, those crumple zones do suck tho when you just barely tap a deer and now your front end is all fucked up. That's takes and gives when it comes to modern safety technology.
Wolf Coyote the Bel Aire would have faired better had its engine and drivetrain in place and wasn't filled with rust. The new cars are still much safer than the old will ever be, but when they were new, we weren't traveling at high speeds. This made crashes much less severe. I honestly believe it we reduced the died we travel at today to that if 40+ years ago, there would be no traffic fatalities with how safe today's cars are.
Notus Notus They did not go on their website of the vehicles after the crash they take pictures. You can see the engine in both cars. They are not a government company that scams people The are run by insurance teams. This is a true test I don’t understand how people can be so hurt to not just admit old cars are not as safe. Like why would they make unsafe cars today in the first place. New technology brings better things no matter how much you want to argue it.
I’ve always been under the impression that an older metal car would demolish modern day cars if involved in an accident but this completely blew my mind
Modern cars are designed to crumple the front and rear ends while keeping the passenger compartment intact. Yeah, it means higher repair bills for smaller accidents, but the soft squishy parts stay intact in high impact collisions. Notice in the video what happens to the passenger compartment, how the Bel Air folds up like an accordion mashing the head and torso down while the Malibu stays intact inside.
Robert Wallis If the Bel Air had its engine it would have been even worse, too. A lot of work goes into making sure the engine isn’t going to crash into the passenger compartment in a collision nowadays. Back then the engine would rip out fast.
GG Bro don’t believe everything you see. That rust dust from the frame of the bel air doesn’t look good. Compromised frame junker was used to show off the 2009...
This is all a matter of perspective. I played this video backwards, simulating each car running in reverse, and the net result was BOTH cars came out just fine in the end. So, NTSA would do well to promote legislation that reflects these findings.
Certainly the engine was still in the old Chevy, the car needs to be intact to perform these tests. Those old engines/transmissions just broke off their mounts and slid under the car/into the firewall in a crash like that. The U joints on the driveshaft just allow it to fold. You can see from the interior shots the whole dashboard caving in, it's the engine that did that.
@@ChrisPatrick-q6k the car was clearly a rust bucket I would never bother to restore. Modern cars completely bounce off my Cutlass, I've completely decimated them and I still drive the Cutlass lol. This video is beyond flawed I can't believe people are so gullible.
@@taylorsopko5807 It was on display in a publically accessable reception, nobody has reported seeing any rust. Photos of these modern cars that have bounced off your Cutlass, (lol) or it's never happened.
Thinking back as a kid in the 60s in our local newspaper almost every week on the front page was a picture of some car that was totaled. The speed of the highways was 65 where now it’s 55. Yet the roads were much narrower, steeper hills, and sharper curves let alone the low quality of tires and suspension. It was cool to drive fast and drunk! It’s good to know that some things get better.
Funny that I noticed a rust bloom pouring out of the rocker panel of the 1959 impala at 1:03, showing its age internally despite its very nice condition. Old age affects everything.
There was never a doubt that a car designed with crumple zones would be far safer, but the old Bel Air didn't just crumple, it fell apart. I can't help but think there was more than frame rot going on there. I wonder if there weren't a bunch of fasteners removed as well for visual "impact"...
In class I was told that in those days, most of the ambulances were actually run by funeral homes. First responders were hardly a thing. It wasn't until 1969 that the USA developed its first paramedic program, which adopted a lot of techniques used in the Korean war.
@@darthvader6533 Neither were these. Two cars hitting head on at a closing speed of 80 mph isn't the same as one car hitting a stationary one at 80. Newton's third law, bet you wish you'd worked harder at school.
@@ChrisPatrick-q6k *at a closing speed Closing is not plural, i wont even touch the rest of that sentence lol Laws of English grammar :p Jokes aside, that wasnt my point, but.. ok? Haha The point i was trying to make was that, as poor as the safety design was back then, in comparison, modern collisions are likely far worse because of the gigantic increase of speed, and therefore force. Thats entirely my opinion, i havent researched it and cant back it up, im just spitballing an idea. Its great that you just learned or remembered a law of physics, but I never referenced the cars in the video, nor did i reference a parked highway strike. It helps to read what someone says before you make half cocked assumptions and insult them haha Take a chill pill lad
@@darthvader6533 That was a typo you sad xexk. I just can't stand the BS people come out with in relation to car safety, it's bordering on Flat Earth levels of stupidity. The big jump occurred in the early to mid 90's, before then it was all mild steel and collapsing passenger compartments.
+DJ Jesus.He Died for your spins The ladies been laughing at you as you drive by in your Prius? Don't cry man. I bet your mom still loves you. Sort of...
I've got to say, this one surprised the hell out of me! I was a fan of those big older cars and I drove them all through the 90s for pennies on the dollar! I could buy an awful lot of gasoline with what I saved on the car, but I really thought I was safer! THANK YOU!!
@@ChrisPatrick-q6k They actually are, maybe not this model, but lets say u got rear ended by a new toyota for example while ur in a 69 charger, the charger would not have a dent while the toyota is completely totaled, same with front end collisions depending if you or the other drives is going faster
@@swefishers9529 They're not, stop making up silly things. There's no evidence that old cars are safer and plenty to the contrary. Please educate yourself before writing such misleading nonsense.
Did you read what i said? everything i said is true because it has been tested by my father, most of it is because of the massive weight of a old classic muscle car, and that makes the impact heavier for the toyota, so no, i am not wrong dude@@ChrisPatrick-q6k
There's no way to prove that, buy in any case the engine in the Bel Air likely would've been more of a danger of being pushed back into the passenger compartment through the firewall.
Victor Melchy it's just a ladies car, such as all those retro modern cars. Real man have the guts to drive the original ones, but women have to make a statement without sacrificing modern car technology. As far as I know there will never be a car as stylish as those old car but able to reach modern standards. All they can do is fuck up the original to meet the modern norm. The Ford Flex is called a retro styled car, not in the way that the fiat 500 or Volkswagen Beetle try to mimic their predecessor, but just try to imitate the old station wagons (but making it a crossover to make it US-market-friendly). The closest you can get to old school cars are morgans and they did change through the years to meet regulations. But I have never seen them crash tested and I doubt they would get close to modern cars, but at least they don't try to mimic the old school, they are doing the old school
@Brecht Schatteman "Real man have the guts to drive the original ones, but women have to make a statement without sacrificing modern car technology." Seriously? Why do you have to inject sexism into this? It has fucking nothing to do with men vs women. Everyone likes creature comforts. It has nothing to do with "guts". Some people just like classic cars enough to forget about the deficiencies, and some do not. You're basically cherry picking the perfect car-guy and comparing him to the average woman with no interest in cars. This is not a realistic comparison, most guys don't give a shit about cars either.
Why are people getting upset about this? It's obvious modern cars are more secure, how is anyone surprised by the result? And this doesn't mean you can't own and love your classic car, it's just a display of the clear difference technology and engineering made through the years. We should be happy about it.
@@kingofroses302 It is not even ugly. Even old cars are not ugly. Because its design is completely rare on newer vehicles. So I would rather use a classic vehicle(But not on dangerous roads).
It's always interesting to watch the "Signal 30" (1959) video from the Ohio State Patrol. Signal 30 is the call sign for a traffic fatality. The Signal 30 video is here on RUclips.
I still think this video is an awesome demonstration. Before I saw it several years ago, I was of the mindset that those big old classic heavy steel-filled cars were somehow safer because of how much metal is there, but that concept went into the toilet for me very quickly after watching this.
Yup.. I showed this video to my grandparents a few years ago.. it blew their minds. They immediately called farce because big 'murrican cars were built like tanks. I said, well so are the newer domestic cars, and all cars. Something like the Smart ForTwo is a good example of how extreme engineering can get in impact absorption nowadays in automobiles.
Did you not notice how there is no engine in the bel air and when they collide a huge cloud of rust comes from the bel air? It looks like they went to a junkyard and gave a clapped out bel air a new paint job and brought it back for a "legitimate" crash test.
Tony Allen oh please, this car doesn't have an engine, and it is rusted. If you were to put a ford falcon or chevy chevelle. It would eat right through that malibu.
One thing is for sure is this ‘59 Chevy Bel Air is on the X-frame chassis and it was the worst chassis for safety since there was no side rails on the sides and this is why the front end caves in. The last GM vehicle to ever use the X-frame chassis was the 1970 Buick Riviera, and all other GM vehicles by that point switch to a different chassis designs by that point.
My first car was a 1965 Chevy Bel Air (seafoam green, of course). While I miss it, I do think about how badly things would have gone if I were ever in a wreck in that thing.
Your 1965 Bel Air would have been a bit safer since it wasn’t on the x-frame like all 1958 to 1964 GM cars with the exception of Oldsmobile since they had their own frame vs all the other GM divisions at the time. By 1965, all GM vehicles (with the exception of a few) went to a perimeter frame chassis since they probably got a lot of negative feedback (more than likely from insurance companies) since most had issues with the frame bending even in a fender bender which totaled the vehicle since the frame would have been distorted along with the body that was on it.
Put air bags, seat & shoulder harnesses in the 1965 & it would be just as good! I had a '68 Bel Air & it was a 'tank'! It hit a tree & it just had a small dent in the hood! A new car would have been a wreck!
@@rongendron8705But who's going to do that? Your crash into a tree sounds impressive though dude, got to give you that! Pictures, or it didn't happen.
In the winter of 1976 I slid on some ice in my first car at the age of 16. It was also a 1965 model. A Chevy Impala convertible. I sure did love that car! I hit another car head on about about 20 mph. I hit them at an angle, so his front corner struck the middle of my fender. Caved my fender in good, but I still was able to drive it home. I sold it weeks later for 75 bucks and got me a 1970 Ford LTD.... that thing was a monster by today's standards. My Impala only had a six cylinder in it.
I've been in the automotive collision business since 1975 amd i can tell you without batting an eye that modern cars are infinitely safer than old cars of the 50s, 60s and 70s. The Chevy Malibu is hardly the best 2009 car in a crash either. match that 1959 Chevy to an E series Mercedes (or VW) and I can promise you that the 1959 Chevy driver would be dead and the E series driver would suffer only minor bruises from the airbag. The fact that automotive technology has improved over the last 50 years has been well documented in the automotive trade journal "DUH".
I disagree with comments that say the '59 in the video is a rare car. There are plenty of them out there in classic car salvage lots etc., but no one wants to spend the time and money to restore a 6 cyl. 4 door like the one in the video.
Problem isn't availability, its the perceived value being way higher than the real value, when a roller with no floorboards, windows, seats, and missing half the doors sells for $9000 there's a problem
To restore one of these it’s not just about expertise, time, cost, and materials. It’s about the wife threatening to divorce you if you spend one more fucking minute on that pile of rust !!
@@ChrisPatrick-q6k Oh really go watch how solid steel fairs in a crash and then watch this as someone who has hit new cars in his old Datsun 280C and seen firsthand how an old car held together by chicken wire and zip ties absolutely mangled the modern Suzuki Swift this car was clearly fake the of course new cars are safer thanks to things like airbags and whatnot but nobody is denying that the argument is it will not fair good in a crash it will not be fixable in a crash and the older cars are safer in low speed crashes on account of the giant bumpers made to absorb the low speed hits
the worst part about the old cars when it comes to safety is the lack of a seat belt . i read in a car magazine from the early 60's that to hold yourself back from hitting the dashboard in a 30 mph collision into a fixed barrier you would have to be strong enough to do push ups with 15 people on your back . seat beltslessen your chance of serious injury a lot , ones with shoulder belts even more so . a lot of times in a collision it is not a question of whether you get crushed or not , but whether you hit the dashboard hard or go through the windshield because you did'nt have seat belt on. and they will keep you in the car too if you are hit on the side or roll over at high speed .another important safety feature is a collapsible steering column . the old beetles where bad about causing injuries because the steering box is mounted far forward and the column is solid until the 68 models . volvo , saab , and mercedes benz cars from the seventies are probably the safest cars
Lol. Everyyyyone forgets peugeots with their integrated roll cages, crumple zones, 3 stage bonnet retention, cardan joint collapsible steering collumns, and active safety in the shape of excellent steering and brakes (drive a 70s volvo. Theyre fkn awful. So were saabs). Put a mercedes up on a hoist next to a peugeot from then. Only difference is the merc has a bigger engine and recirculating ball steering instead of rack and pinion. Theyre both built tough enough for africa and australia.
Plenty of other little improvements in the actual passenger cabin as well. When you say "dashboard" it's notable how many older cars had a steel dash perfect for smashing up bones, compared to the plastic-and-foam safety dash we have today.
I think in this video you can kind of see where the misconception about older cars being more solid comes from. The hood of the bel air is still intact after the crash, and the passenger's side is damaged but not destroyed. But the Malibu's entire front end is gone. The bel air honestly would probably have a better (albeit still slim) chance of being repaired as where the malibu is totaled. The difference of course being the malibu driver is banged up but mostly fine and the bel air driver is definitely dead. So yeah, older cars could take an impact better, but that was only because they were putting all the force of the impact on the driver and passengers where as modern cars take the impact themselves and save the lives of the people in the car. EDIT: hey guys, please stop responding to this comment. It's from years ago and I just do not care about this conversation one way or another anymore, I'm just tired of getting notifications about it years after the fact.
They removed the Engine in the '59 for this demo to talk about body construction, with the engine inside with all that solid metal I am sure the result would have been different
The bel airs frame was very clearly bent in the impact. And the bel air is also likely totaled. A car being totaled doesn't mean it can't be repaired. It means the cost to repair the vehicle exceeds the value of the vehicle.
@@jigga2jones It would have been even worse. That extremely heavy V8 would get shoved right trough the firewall into the passenger compartment. The much smaller engine in the Malibu was directed under the car to prevent exactly this from happening.
I have seen these two vehicles at the IIHS facility in Ruckersville, VA. Seeing them up close really is eye opening as to how far we've come in vehicle safety.
@@ChrisPatrick-q6k yea your just a troll lol everyone who knows old cars knows this is a terrible example they set up on purpose. X frame cars do this when hitting other 60s cars they simply are flawed.
@@ChrisPatrick-q6k I think you should read your own comments man you keep telling everybody off. Your just being a troll. You've apparently never even owned older cars and hate them for some reason, probly an environmentalist.
Found some info on the Malibu on the internet: 1959 Bel Air to crash-test there was one thing the organization didn’t want and some things it did. “We didn’t want to crash a museum piece,” Mr. Zuby said. “We were not looking for one that had been restored for museum or show quality.” But the vehicle had to have a solid structure, although a little surface rust would be acceptable. They found what they wanted in Indiana. “The frame was sound and all the body panels were sound,” he said. It had a 3.9-liter 6-cylinder engine and was in driving condition. The car was bought for about $8,500 and had about 74,000 miles on the odometer, which was broken. It was trucked to the test center in Virginia. Mr. Zuby said the cloud that shows in the crash video wasn’t rust. “Most of that is road dirt that accumulates in nooks and crannies that you can’t get it,” he said. Source:wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/18/more-details-about-1959-bel-air-crash-test/
It is so sad that we are so used to being lied to and deceived that no one who didn't inspect the car himself, and witness the crash will believe this. Anybody get to keep their doctor?
yeh they didn't have to destroy a classic car in very good condition (possibly my favorite classic cay body, in fact) to demonstrate something everyone already knew. Fuck these assholes.
Then the guy that sold it to someone who he thought was going to fix it up. Yeah honey I just sold the bel air. Some guy said he was going to buy it to wreck it. Anybody who says that I know is going to take good care of it. Clicks on video.......huh, that looks like my old Bel air. Hey baby come look at this car. Doesn't that look like my old car. It sure does. Huh?🤨🤔😲🤪😵🤯😱
@@BARelement That's not true, these cars were known to start up and run perfectly even after 40+ years of neglect. Also the parts are way more cheaper and easier to repair than the modern electronics in cars nowadays
What most people do not know is that that the old Chevy has the infamous X-frame construction. Even when car restorers plan to restore a Chevy Belair with an X-frame, they always pull the stock X-frame and build a different frame. The Belair was picked purposely to give the illusion that all older cars are not as safe as the new ones. I would like to see the Malibu go against a 1956 Buick Road master, any year Crown Victoria, or old Cadillac or Lincoln. The X-frame was the reason the Belair line was terminated.
+Indrid Cold "The Belair was picked purposely to give the illusion that all older cars are not as safe as the new ones." No illusion. Safety records show that newer cars are significantly more crash worthy than older ones. I think what the critics here are perhaps viscerally reacting to is the concept of old versus new without consideration of the engineering and technical aspects. Yes, there are a lot of gorgeous classics out there. But if your loved one was in an accident like the one shown in this video, would you rather they were in a new car with a "good" safety rating (highest possible from IIHS), or in a typical 1950's sedan?
+Indrid Cold Every car restorers I know who worked on 59 Chevy didn't change the frame... Pro touring or custom builders are more used to do that kind of modification :) Anyway I agree with Hector, my 59 is not safe, I know this, but I won't feel safer in another 50's classic, old cars were not made to resist to crashes, they were made to be beautiful, comfortable, powerful and huge, laws about deformations during crashes arrived later :) (Sorry for my approximative english, this is not my native language)
+Indrid Cold The 1956 Roadmaster would probably be in pretty good shape. You'd be able to wash the remains of the driver out with a hose so that someone else could drive it. There is a tremendous amount of kinetic energy involved here. That energy has to go somewhere. It can either bend sheetmetal or it can break bones. A modern car is designed to act as a giant shock absorber. It will crush in a controlled fashion to protect the passenger compartment. The engine is designed to go under you rather than end up in your lap like the old days. At the end of the day it's what the occupants look like after the accident, not the car.
+Indrid Cold Welcome to the world of "cherry-picking". I suspect you're right. There's a reason why the Crown Vic was the vehicle of choice for cops and cabbies in the 90s. I don't know how the 1950s era version stacked up but it wouldn't surprise me if it was a similar design.
Cars were once built on two rail-like beams that were usually a hollow rectangular frame that was contoured to the mount the body. Pickup trucks are still made this way. It is called body on frame construction. Sometimes the frame was not a hollow rectangular frame. Some were just a squared, "C," and not fully boxed in. Well, the Chevrolet Bel Are had a frame that instead of having two parallel beams running the length of the car and having joining cross beams to support the body, GM decided to make a frame that made an, "X," under the car. This was just fine for the front and back, but he middle was very thin and week. In a gentle collision, the car bent in the middle because only the flimsy body was providing any sort of support. The very thin junction where the X met in the middle bent very easily. The X-Frame idea was quickly abandoned by General Motors. Today's vehicles have what is known as unibody. The body has stamped contours and reinforcing patterns to take the place of the frame. This makes the modern cars very easily crushed. This is why modern cars have so many air bags. They need all the airbags to make them safer. In a way, the car crushing around you makes for safer small collisions. But in a large collision, the car will crush you and trap you inside tinfoil.
not really if you pay attention you can see all the rust dust in the air most likely this was a junk yard find and had rust issues but they just painted over it made it look pretty and crashed it i doubt they would actually use a solid road worthy car. but if they did use a fully restorable car who ever's idea this was should be castrated with a rusty dull bic razor blade. cause people like that have no need reproducing 💁
As a classic car owner I can see the point ! however I still think classic cars are safer due to the fact they spend 80% of the time in the garage in bits and are there for less likely to be on the road at the time of the accident! Lol.... :-) only fooling classic car owners will know what I mean! Best wishes all
Jimmy Tragle they actually didn't. They repainted the exterior of a junk car and sprayed krylon on the seats and put a reproduction engine in it. You could see all the rust and the unusually shiny and offset hue of the seats. Or maybe they found an old dusty car in a garage with no owner.
This was shown to us at my factory job (big emphasis on safety in and out of the plant) to remind us of safety protocol importance. One good ol' boy afterward said he didn't believe it that '59 wasn't the mightier vehicle.😑
At lower speeds and better angles, maybe that solid steel box would do more damage and not feel any itself. In this worst-case scenario? Neither car would have a chance to survive, but with modern designs the people might survive.
Who cares about a mightier vehicle? I prefer to walk away and buy another car. The SUVs and pickups of today have the same problem, they do terrible in crash tests and people believe they are invulnerable.
Yikes! I learned to drive in a 1959 Chevy; Biscayne, not Bel Air, but same body. And my family took a vacation trip in it to California from Texas. I’ve always missed that car until seeing this.
So you don’t respect a symbol of your life? Dude it’s the car you learned to drive in! Any car can be safe as long as you do routine maintenance and you are a safe driver.
@@rylan642 Skateboarding down a 60 degree incline while naked, covered in loose razor blades carrying a plastic bag filled with salt can be perfectly safe, if you maintain your equipment and are a good skateboarder (i.e don't fuck up). These safety systems are there for when people do fuck up. It's always happened and it always will.
@@rylan642 You can be the safest and most responsible driver in the world, but there's only so much you can do to account for *other* drivers. If some crazy/drunk driver crosses the double-yellow and hits you head-on, you are entirely at the mercy of your own vehicle's design and engineering.
It’s paint, I’d like to believe it’s rust but if you look you see silver powder around the new car... unfortunately we can’t blame the rust for this...
when buying appliances, do you really care what it's like visually? no, you just get something that has better performance and gets the job done, and that's all a car is. an appliance of transport to get people from a to b
It's just sheetmetal. The only structure with any strength is the frame, and it doesn't run the full length or width of the car. The frame doesn't protect the driver at all in that car. A Chevy that old was designed by the styling department, and engineers had to figure out how to make the sheet metal into the required shapes and make it go. The frame is there for workers to attach stuff to it as it goes down the assembly line. A modern car actually has structural shapes designed for rigidity and crash safety. Engineers are no longer subordinate to the styling department. Some fan of old cars complained that the 2009 car had a roll cage installed but in reality *that's how cars are made now*
The 59 bel-air was an X-frame car and the location of the impact was right in the bel airs most vulnerable spot. There is no protection in a side swipe collision with an x frame car. Also….LOOK AT THAT CLOUD OF RUST come from under the Bel Air! That car was rotten underneath its pretty paint job. This is not a fair comparison for how the bel air would do in a collision.
noahmeme2 I found a pic when they made some 1950/1960 oldsmobiles and it was a NEW pic :/ i dont know if its real or a copy but if its real they still make SOME old cars
Sound better?. Ya, if you can hold a conversation at highways speeds without having to scream over all the highway and engine noise. You can probably just wait until the old car overheats or blows a muffler on the jersey Turnpike and then car thieves put it up on bricks and light it on fire on the side of the highway after they steal the wheels off of it before the tow truck gets to it. Yup, those are the good old days.
They made the VW Type 1 Beetle till the 2003 in South America ;) the Beetle first showed up in 1938 so if you're looking for a classic car that is less than 20 years old it is still possible haha
I was surprised that the '59 crumpled that bad, note the steering column coming out like a missle to the dummy's head! I don't think a human would survive in the '59, or if they did, they would be severely injured. And to think back in the 60's, I used to, as a child, ride standing up in the front seat between my Mom and Dad, my only restraint being my Dad's right arm!
The Malibu is actually more dangerous because anybody driving it would die of boredom. At least the Bel Air has character, but I am glad they didn't ruin a '57!
Kevin Carlson lol, not all nostalgia is good. If you have that much faith in it, buy a few of them and sell them for the equivalent of today's $100k in 2075. The '57 Bel Air has been highly sought after for decades. I still think 80s cars are boring as hell.
MrChevypower i'm saying that the bel-air is nothing special, as is the same with the malibu. its overpriced because of nostalgia, the current malibu might not recieve that same kind of attention in time (but it could) regardless it would be unwarranted (in my opinion), these cars are average examples of cars from their times, and that is my point.
Kevin Carlson The fins on the back of the 57-59 were innovative for their time (though everyone did it) and it was challenging and expensive for them to do. I don't believe car companies (especially GM) puts as much effort into building cars anymore. Actually Bob Lutz even admitted that while he still worked for GM.
MrChevypower you bring up fins as a engineering challenge, and then also bring up that everyone else was doing it, its nothing special, they were simply following what trends more innovative car companies have set. the Bel-air fit into its market segment and sold well, just as did the Malibu, they are simply responding to the demands of the customers of the times.
“Old cars have a reputation of being rock solid”. Yes, including the steering column. It’s almost like there is a solid bar linking the front of your car directly into your face and chest.
Yeah highly educational. Who could have figured out there has been some development in 50 years at safety stuff and cars today look like shit (partly by the safety regulations)
Yes, I know... they had to let one go for the test... HEY! Would it be better if they still kept cars the classy look and added modern features? We would have a blast on the roads!
Jack Hintze - Didn't you notice the Rust on the old one when it crashed and how it blew dust off. The classic has weakened cause of the rust, otherwise it's strong
All af you claiming this test was rigged or old cars are safer let me tell you something. I owned several classic cars, i restored all of them myself and i drive a '55 Chevy Bel Air two door as a daily driver with over 180.000 miles on it. And even as a classic car fan I have to accept the fact that these old cars are unsafe to all occupants in a crash. First of all, when these cars were designed safety wasn't important in the car industy. People wantet big cars, big engines, comfortable suspensions and a design that looked like it was out of this world. These cars weren't made to crash, there were little to no crash tests with them when they were new. Nobody knew exactly what would happen if you had an accident. And that's why these cars perform so badly in nowadays crash tests because they weren't designed to be safe they were desiged to be beautiful and reliable. If you've taken an old car apart you see some things that can only make you wonder like steering columns completley solid from the steering wheel to the front axle, buttons and switches made of metal often with screws or sharp pins behind them, a parking brake that is aiming for your knee, rear view mirrors that are sharp enought to scalp your head, heater controls that stand out far enough of the dash to impale you, backseats that aren't boleted down, badly designed and weak door locks and all that chrome trim comes of the dash and cuts you in every possible way. My grandfather told me he rear-ended someone with 35 mph in his '49 Buick Roadmaster back in the days and besides having a broken rib he got his ignition key stuck in his knee cap because of the lack of seatbelts, he hit the dashboard and the key impaled it. He told me those were common injuries in a crash back then. And then there's the everlasting argument about these cars having a FRAME! So what? Old cars have a sturdy frame that's true but the body of the car isn't sturdy nor very rigid. It's just sheet metal bolted toghether, the whole body of the car is a hollow stucture. No reinforced pillars, no crumple zones, just plain sheet metal. While a new car has specially designed reinforced areas and pillars, it crumples where it should but stays super strong where it shoudn't. If you collide these two cars like in the video the modern car overrides the low frame of the Bel Air or bends it to the side. Most cars from the late 50's also had no A-pillar that could support structural integrity , it's basically just a windshield frame. So all there is left to absorb the crash energy is a metal bumper, a sheet metal fender and the firewall before it crushes the occupant compartment. And don't forget the steering wheel which hits you in the head and the pedals that crush your feet. So what I want to say here is that without a doubt new cars are a lot safer when it comes to crashes not because the old cars are "bad" or "shit", but simply because safety was no major concern in the design of these cars. Today cars are tested and redisigned over and over again for a good safety result on the passengers, back then it was all about the looks and the power of your engine. Sincerely: A classic car enthusiast Show less
All af you claiming this test was rigged or old cars are safer let me tell you something. I owned several classic cars, i restored all of them myself and i drive a '55 Chevy Bel Air two door as a daily driver with over 180.000 miles on it. And even as a classic car fan I have to accept the fact that these old cars are unsafe to all occupants in a crash. First of all, when these cars were designed safety wasn't important in the car industy. People wantet big cars, big engines, comfortable suspensions and a design that looked like it was out of this world. These cars weren't made to crash, there were little to no crash tests with them when they were new. Nobody knew exactly what would happen if you had an accident. And that's why these cars perform so badly in nowadays crash tests because they weren't designed to be safe they were desiged to be beautiful and reliable. If you've taken an old car apart you see some things that can only make you wonder like steering columns completley solid from the steering wheel to the front axle, buttons and switches made of metal often with screws or sharp pins behind them, a parking brake that is aiming for your knee, rear view mirrors that are sharp enought to scalp your head, heater controls that stand out far enough of the dash to impale you, backseats that aren't boleted down, badly designed and weak door locks and all that chrome trim comes of the dash and cuts you in every possible way. My grandfather told me he rear-ended someone with 35 mph in his '49 Buick Roadmaster back in the days and besides having a broken rib he got his ignition key stuck in his knee cap because of the lack of seatbelts, he hit the dashboard and the key impaled it. He told me those were common injuries in a crash back then. And then there's the everlasting argument about these cars having a FRAME! So what? Old cars have a sturdy frame that's true but the body of the car isn't sturdy nor very rigid. It's just sheet metal bolted toghether, the whole body of the car is a hollow stucture. No reinforced pillars, no crumple zones, just plain sheet metal. While a new car has specially designed reinforced areas and pillars, it crumples where it should but stays super strong where it shoudn't. If you collide these two cars like in the video the modern car overrides the low frame of the Bel Air or bends it to the side. Most cars from the late 50's also had no A-pillar that could support structural integrity , it's basically just a windshield frame. So all there is left to absorb the crash energy is a metal bumper, a sheet metal fender and the firewall before it crushes the occupant compartment. And don't forget the steering wheel which hits you in the head and the pedals that crush your feet. So what I want to say here is that without a doubt new cars are a lot safer when it comes to crashes not because the old cars are "bad" or "shit", but simply because safety was no major concern in the design of these cars. Today cars are tested and redisigned over and over again for a good safety result on the passengers, back then it was all about the looks and the power of your engine. Sincerely: A classic car enthusiast
@@jimkeskey BS. This isn't just some idiot looking for views. This was done by a legitimate organization. Do some research before making yourself look foolish.
This is a great demonstration and shows how far safety technology has come. My issue is this: we all know that old, classic cars aren't safe. They really didn't have to destroy a really nice 1959 classic to prove it. Like Discofelsi, I too have restored old cars and driven them. Even knowing they're not very safe in a high impact crash, there's nothing like cruising your 1951 Pontiac Star Chief down the road.
I disagree. If you want to show that an older car is less safe than a newer car, the best way is to put both through exactly the same crash in the same conditions - and the most dramatic and quickest way to do that is to crash them into eachother.
@@stephenwest798I had for twenty years three russian mid-sizes, Volgas, from different years to have see little-stepped improvements for safety in one brand. There was only two mid-size mass production platforms in Nizhniy Novgorod factory (GAZ) for 60 years. The 1st based on pre-war Opel and led in m20 Pobeda ("victory") and m21 Volga cars until 1970. They had semi-frame body with long uncollapsed steerind column and lack of seatbelts (front seatbelts became an option in 1965). Even in case of minor accidents drivers often crashed their chests by steering wheel and passengers can broke his heads and necks while a car still could go. In high-speed accidents front semi-frame with engine goes back through the firewall into the cabin to kill anybody inside. These cars was still very heavy and solid compare to little 1960s-70s european cars and could smash them into pieces (europeans called Volga 21 "a Tank") but have no chance against really big cars. The second platform have a monocoque body with front seatbelts in basic and rear seatbelts in option that make it safe in minor accidens but steering column continued to be uncollapsed until 80s. You can see this cars a taxi in "The Bourne Supremacy" and notice its body is quite durable for 1970s cars but still have no deformation zones and airbags even in 1990s restylings. Suddenly a progress of this brand almost stopped in 90s after USSR failed and latest Volgas had the same platform and body inside that 1970 model (except few hundreds, at most thousands, of semi-prototype luxury models at the turn of century brought only losses to the company) and in 2008 GAZ finished production mid-size cars only vans and trucks left.
0:52, if the collision in its self didn't kill the Bel Air driver, being impaled in the face by the steering column would have. That was a common injury in those old cars, along with any one in the back seat being thrown forward into the people in the front seat. The front seats of cars of this era often had no catch levers and would fold forward with the slightest effort, nor did they have any seatbelts front or rear. I can personally attest to that as we HAD a 59 Bel Air in the late 1960's when I was a small kid, one day while standing in the backseat my mom had to emergency brake quickly, it threw me against the front seat, which immediately flopped forward since it had no catch, allowing me to hit the solid steel and sharply edged dashboard, cutting my head, few stitches, but my parents quickly realized just how dangerous that car could be in even a minor collision and dumped that deathtrap of a car.
One time while on an ambulance run we had back in the '70s, a drunk crossed into the oncoming lane and hit another car with a half overlap, just like this. It's no fun trying to get the hand of a dead person out from between a broken steering wheel and the jagged edges of a broken A-pillar.
I am tired of people thinking an old car is safer because it's "stronger," and criticizing new cars for crumpling so easily... they crumple easily on purpose. In fact, old cars crumple more easily at higher speeds because the shock is not absorbed. That's the kind of crumpling one does NOT want.
Well I'm certainly not going to buy a brand new 1959 Bel Air now
@Mr. Awesome buy a Ford f150 or whatever model it was, it got very good rating
@Mr. Awesome Better yet just another company that got bailed out by government. Ha.
Bryan Holland they took the engine out of the 59 chevy
I don’t think anyone can buy a *brand new* Bel Air
Do not let these very manipulated results change your mine. Buy your new 1959 Bellair and change the problematic X-frame and you will have a great car that will go through any modern car. The Bellair was chosen for this test intentionally because of the design flaw X-frame. Only the GM vehicles had this very dangerous frame. Ford, AMC, Chrysler, Hudson, Willy's, Kaiser, all had ladder frames that would make their vehicles crush through a modern vehicle. Many car collectors will get rid of the dangerous X - frame in Impalas, Bellairs and Buicks of the era. So get your new 1959 Bellair and come to Uranium City in Saskatchewan, Canada and I will put your new Bellair on a huge ladder frame that will go through a lorry.
2009: Driver walks home
1959: "We cannot find the driver, anywhere"
1959: We found the driver here, and here, and here, and here and here and here. We need a bucket.
Found the driver. He was in the glove box.
“I found the driver! He is uhh..he is merged with the dash board!”
We found the driver, he was at home because he didn't have a wreck, since he didn't have his face glued to a freaking cell phone!
Look in the ashtray,,
This is a very impressive demonstration of improved safety.
However, I'm sorry to see the '59 destroyed.
I’m not sorry 🤷♂️ it deserved to be totaled to show how much of a death trap it is because people back then seemed to care more about the look and style vs the safety
@@JamesK7911 it's not that simple, the technology was not there yet, driving was relatively new and the understanding of the physics of a collision weren't up to par with today's
@@Weeblicker
Nah not really. They just didn’t care much until the 1970s oil crisis in the US when they started to make safer designs as well as fuel efficient designs.
it's possible they used a replica
@@JamesK7911 you're trying to say the oil crisis had anything to do with safety systems? I'd try to argue you but obviously you're too far gone.
It still breaks my heart to see that old classic car get destroyed.
Me too! I was petrified when I read the title hoping they really didn’t do it! 😢💔
Completely unnecessary
Not me. It was a sarcophagus on wheels. lol
Very unnecessary. Plus, they used the worst car to test, as the Bel Air is X-FRAME, meaning it was a bad construction even when it was new.
What would your doing if you actually crashed in one of them?
I totaled a "59 Bel Air at 45mph in 1978, when it was less than 20 years old. They had to cut me out. The steering wheel ripped through my chest and the motor ended up under the back seat.
Holy shit you sound like a very lucky man
Pretty sure if the steering wheel ripped thru your chest you’ll be dead but okay
@@SepaloidTV There's a guy that survived a metal rod through the skull, its possible.
Show us. I want pictures. Let's see that wicked scar lol
That’s terrifying
My eyes are bleeding from seeing the bel air destroyed
Wammles 123 my ancestors haunt me for watching this...
So would your eyes in the final several minutes of your life had you been in that Bel Air in a crash like this
Imagine the lives saved by keeping that death trap off the road. I think that's 40 mph. Imagine 60.
I believe that’s a replica of the actual ‘59. Made with the blueprints of the original for that test
@My Beautiful and amazing Princess
Recreating an old car would cost a lot, so it is not worth it.
Questionable results. Both cars should have had fuzzy dice.
The new one should have my fuzzy ball sack on it cuz new cars SUCK BALLZ ! 666 OUT
@@666mrjimbo no they don't but old cars are very cool
😂
Chris konte he said something exactly I’ve said on other videos NEW CARS FUCKING SUCK AND SO DO YOU
666mrjimbo I don’t like your username but I 1 billion percent agree FUCK NEW CARS
I "knew" about most of the safety features newer cars had, but "seeing" the difference was still quite impressive.
And that's just a chevy malibu, not exactly the pinnacle of modern safety either.
This year of chevy malibu actually received 3/4 safety in a lot of areas, and 1/4 when it came to driver and passenger head injuries. 💀
@@domenik8339Exactly, modern cars will always crush classic's in a head on.
I question whether this was a replica or classic car.
@@rusty1491 You can question whatever you want, it obviously wasn't. Why would they do that? Old cars aren't safe, deal with it.
@@ChrisPatrick-q6kThis car was stripped down and a replica
1:39 “in the past 50 years, the institute has made a great impact”
I see what you did there
Indeed. Caught myself muttering: "Pun intended" 😄
Yet the speed limits are still 25 and pigs happily take your money for safetly going 35
@@jasonbenso, sadly, pedestrians weren't upgraded as much as vehicles in the past 50 years :(
@@GoklasM Well, they do tend to have more fat protecting them.
@@drh3b Hahahahahha good one
At least you can change a headlight on the Bel-Air without taking the bumper off
Dude..., duuuuuuuuuude..., omfg....
Hmm.. that IS what matters when you crash..
@@druidofthefang, don't drive like a idiot and you'll be fine.
@@zasadacrew Everyone else drives like an idiot...
@@zasadacrew Doesn't matter how good you drive if an idiot hits you.
Can't y'all just have an anniversary cake like normal people?
OMG that is so funny
😂😂
hahaha 🤣
Nope. They've got to fucking ruin the 50 year old car that their celebrating. And btw I'm your 420th like. You're welcome.
EXACTLY.
"They don't make them like they used to"
"Thank GOD for that"
Yet the FanBoys still prattle on about how the video was faked, or biased in some implausible stupid way.
The 1959 car is one of the weakest cars of its era. I'm not trying to defend it because it was obviously a weak car. But they put an average modern car up against one of the weakest classic cars you can get. Also, whatever impact the car doesn't take, the driver will. That's why crush zones are a thing.
@@ChrisPatrick-q6kThe 1959 car is one of the weakest cars of its era. I'm not trying to defend it because it was obviously a weak car. But they put an average modern car up against one of the weakest classic cars you can get. Also, whatever impact the car doesn't take, the driver will. That's why crush zones are a thing.
@@luckyaustin Ok, but it's crazy to say any car of that age is going to do well against a modern design. Very little protection in a head on crash, virtually none in a side impact.
@@luckyaustin Stop duplicating posts.
The crash test dummy on the 59 Bel Air needs a lit cigarette in one hand.
🤣🤣🤣🤣😂😂😂
And 2 kids climbing around from front to back seats while one lays in the back window
And a can of Budweiser.
And a beer!
@@lannamama2034 heh I did that! Watched the stars as Mom drove...
Needs bigger fuzzy dice for safety improvements
right LOL
No it needs to be lifted higher
And a high visibility jacket
The Malibu driver should be distracted while on a Cellphone.
I worked in salvage. Seat belts are essential.
A driver was killed in a low speed 25mph crash in a 1972 Monte Carlo. His head struck the passenger side A pillar. The hood, fender and bumper were bent and thats about it.
@@LTNetjakI believe a 72 already had a collapsible column. The 59 did not. Can be added though.
@@taylorsopko5807 It would make little difference.
Worked in a Rehab Unit (many car-crash folks) about 20 years ago. Older cars typically had engines coming up into the passenger compartment (lower limb loss etc), and modern 'chunky tyre' utes and SUVs tended to roll and cause head injuries (as well as the SUVs causing disproportionately severe injuries to pedestrians). Staff could fairly accurately predict the vehicle class by the client injuries. Also, spending serious money on protective gear if you ride a motorcycle will be the best investment you ever make ...
"client"?.............So you were an ambulance chaser? Free initial consultation?🤣
SUV's are unnecessary death machines
I agree with everything except the "spending serious money on protective gear if you ride a motorcycle". I have been a dispatch rider in London UK for about 20 years. Protective gear isn't substitute for knowing how to ride. Wear leather jacket and trousers.
@@mirkograveho1388 I'll take the plates in my riding equipment any day. When you go for a slide it's nice to have plates to slide on instead of azz meat and elbow skin.
I had a 59 Bel Air. The engine compartments are hollow compared to cars today. I could stand inside it to work on it.
I wish I was an adult back in the days where you could tinker with your own car. I'm an 80's baby...by the time I got my first car, you needed an IT degree to change the damn oil.
Mr. Ras Lyon THATS because your dumb.
@@BARelement ok normie
@@mr.raslyon6626 you can still do it yourself. They arent that hard to figure out.
@@BARelement You're* If *YOU'RE* going to correct someone, make sure you are correct as well.
2009: We need safety
1959 Chevrolet: Whats a safety
To be fair, they make what was sold. People weren't concerned with safety back then. They wanted cool looking,powerful cars
1959: We need style
2009 Chevrolet: Whats a style
You say 1959 Chevrolet like it was specifically Chevy that was making unsafe cars. Seatbelts didn't exist in ANY brand until the 1960s.
@Mr Cabot How do old cars like that affect you if you don't even drive them? So what if they don't have seat-belts
why did they remove the engine from belair ?
I remember in approx 1979, I worked part time at my 1st job, picking parts at a wrecking yard.
Never forget the 67 camero, basically turned inside out from hitting a tree at way, WAY OVER 100mph.
The back of the front seat was pushed out the back window.
My job....strip it.
I saved the right side, rear pass, glass...that was literally all that was left....
There was a beer can 1/2 opened, stuffed into the speedometer, with basically a scalp and shoes smashed between the firewall and the underside of the dash.
This car would have fit in the bed of a truck.
Before you ask..."Olympia"
The driver clearly had zero chance.
Think before you drink...
Iv seen it, so you dont have too
Even in a new car you´d be dead at 100mph. The only difference today is, that the paramedics can keep their food inside their stomach when they see the victim
first of all its spelled camaro not camero
anyways how would the newer cars fair at over 100 mph. i kind of have the feeling that any car at that speed and impact, will be completely destroyed. that is why is it so unwise to drive at those speeds. just because something is capable of going that fast does not mean that you SHOULD go that fast.
Andrew, that word is spelled "fare", not "fair". And you forgot the question mark at the end of the sentence.
Wow, very good description of what had to have been a horrific moment back then.
@jackthegamer It's 2019, people drive looking down now. (pisses me off too)
I used this clip in my auto tech classes. Shocking to some, but glad I was not in the '59. Did that in a 50 Olds. Didn't end well either. At least I had the forethought to add seat belts to the Olds, Walked away! After 60+ years of driving, with no at fault accidents, I am thankful for air bags and good safety belts. They do come in handy!
WS .............I got you in years ...........and I use this to shut my old car guys up ..........and remind them of the yearly tune ups ,water pump replacements , brakes ,mufflers altinators by 60 thou !!!!! and drying the brakes out after each water crossing .........it made me a good half ass mechanic
@@dannycalley7777water pump replacements? Stop using the hose and use distilled water like they do in newer cars or the same thing goes wrong. Also this video is flawed. That car was clearly a rust bucket that was structurally compromised before the test. I mean look at all that red dust lol. Wouldnt have had the same out come if they were both new. Also new cars have alternators too i changed one on a 2011 Mercedes about 3 months ago for my friend. It only has 80k
@@taylorsopko5807 How many "never" cars have distributors? You know, the ones that have points that have to be cleaned and cam has to be lubricated. Also, point dwell has to be adjusted every 5k miles, along with filling the oil cup at the base of distributor. Then there is the matter of lubricating a dozen zerks under the car every 1k miles, etc. It is interesting that you mentioned distilled water ONLY to mix with anti-freeze. If you have a dealer or shop change your coolant, how many shops do YOU think would stock distilled water? I have NEVER seen bottles of distilled water on the shelves at a parts department! Those "classic" cars were fine IN THEIR DAY, but in today's world, they just don't belong!
@@TheOzthewiz the only thing that doesn't belong is your comment lol.
Distributors from the 60s and early seventies had points dude. Later ones were actually electronic. Also what's so bad with the points and if they were that bad that you had to adjust them every couple of weeks then why does my corvair still run after years I haven't touched it I set it "correctly" one time. I think that's their problem they don't know how to set it correctly. Also your oil cup delusion must be something from the 30s cause i aint seen it 😂 ever seen a honda or nissan distributor they're on their side LMFAO 🤣 you know nothing.
@@TheOzthewiz and if I found out they were putting tap water in my car I would file a law suit but i dont have that issue i work on my own cars as well as everyone's in tucson daily im a mechanic LMFAO 🤣
Poor guy in the Bel Air was racing to get home to in time to catch his old lady with the Maytag repairman. Mr. Wipple down at the A&P told him about it
Please, dont SQUEEZE the Charmin!, you must be from NY, A&P , used to shop there.
@@lt4324 Rather have the '59 any day. You coulda told me the '09 was a Chevy, Toyota, Suburu, Honda, Dodge, etc., and I wouldn't have known the difference, because there aren't many......
Milo, babe, I actually care about my grandkids.
I will take the ‘09, as anyone with some semblance of intelligence would.
You get the ‘59.
Now just make the new car look cool like the old car and we’re good.
Way too much time and materials required to shape body panels like that. Also the car design was a style of the times it was in. A 1950's car just won't sell in todays times. Sure you may like it and so may a bunch of others, but fact is most do not or just simply want a car to get around. These cars are for out to have fun and cruise around in on your weekend off. Then you put it back in the garage for another sunny day.
Most new cars look the same, I can’t tell one from the other, I’m mad as hell, not gonna take it!!
Leo Verran ikr there all cross overs now, just ugly things
The PT Cruiser proves that old cars are ugly af, and they do not fit in the current era. Then again, looks are subjective.
@@samt.8533 Nice joke.
I can't believe these two drivers were such dummies, no attempt to brake or steer away. lol Cheers from John, Australia.
Used to 'driving ' Camrys?
Lol, they ARE dummies, because they are test dummies
Hahaha
Dummies, I see what you have done here.
They actually are dummies
I'm not a classic car enthusiast, but I even felt this.
a small masterpiece of history obliterated!
Because of the FanBoys, it's important
Yeah that hurt me 2.. Bad...
They always conduct these test with an off set collision never a head on no matter what the 59 is a better looking car well was a better looking car 😄
@@cherrylove3656 Because that's the most realistic scenario! I don't care about X Frames, I don't give a damm about Ladder Frames. I couldn't give a hoot about lap belts, or silly rumours of engines being taken out, or structures cut through. No car from this period in time, or even 25-30 years later is going to hold up well in a crash. It's called PROGRESS!!!
When I got my first drivers license (1973), 50,000 people died in car accidents per year.
Now, with with 50% more people, 30,000 die per year.
That's progress.
Correlation does not equal causation.
You tried though.
@@bLackmarketRadio But he's not wrong.
and more people are killed with Knives, clubs and fists than AR15's every year, but they want to ban AR15's.....since cars kill 30k a year, Why do we not want to ban them ? and motorcycles, bicycles, skateboards, trampolines and swimming pools......The Horror...The Horror.....
@@lrlapua8035 lol he clearly wasn't advocating for things to be banned, he was just stating how it's impressive that the death toll of car accidents can goo down, despite the number of drivers going up thanks to advances in the design of car monocoques, compared to older body on frame designs that don't divert the force around the occupants.
why even bring up the discussion of gun rights in a conversation about vehicle safety anyways?
It really should be getting higher, we need to control the population somehow don't worry though just buy a Chevy and it'll get higher.
It is incredible to see how much of that impact energy is absorbed in the modern car - the cabin hardly shudders during the collision, a stark contrast to what happens in the older car.
tjf4375 Yeah, the good old days are missed. Back then you actually had to give a shit and pay attention because it was more than likely only a body that would be recovered from a wreck. I miss the days stupidity would get you killed.
Pitviper1979 Not gonna lie, that's a real dumb statement. Being a stupid driver these days will still get you injured, your car might be written off or even worse, you can certainly end up dead still. The only difference is that nowadays you are less likely to die from a car crash because of improved safety. Harking back to the old days because you could die more easily in a car crash is ridiculous, especially considering you can still get in an accident caused by someone else. Think.
Pitviper1979 that makes no sense. That also means those are the days that people die from OTHER people's stupidity. You miss that too?
You mean the stupidity of, for example, drunk drivers getting innocent bystanders/drivers killed? What an idiotic and awful comment, which suits the idiotic and awful person who wrote it.
phxcppdvlazi Think he's trying to say people need more real consequence for their actions is all. Or maybe the stupidity of commenting on the stupid comments on stupid RUclips.
Love how they made sure to include the mirror dice in the BelAir 😂🎉
Coming to this video to say the 2009 malibu saved my life as well as my passengers in a crash I had. I bought another one after. Love this year model and car.
Yet the FanBoys still claim this was rigged.
@@ChrisPatrick-q6knobody is claiming this is rigged sit down
@@brandon8900 I suggest you have a closer look through the comments. There's claims that the Bel Air was a replica, rusted though, cut through, had the engine removed etc. So many stupid people in this world.
@@ChrisPatrick-q6k Yes, and they get to drive cars-----Watch out!!
"They don't make 'em like they used to." Yeah, thank God!
Is like when someone wants a f250 cause on the eighties or early nineties had a f150 and didn't have enough power
+crazy wheel in my opinion any 80s car is a death trap from what I've seen
Not any 80s car. Some were much better than others, just like today. There's a video on here with the crash test of a 90 Crown Vic, but the body and chassis were changed very little until 92. It actually does a little better than the Malibu. The Malibu is only a few inches smaller too.
I actually didn't know that till I looked it up just now. I drive an 89 Grand Marquis, and I feel a lot safer driving it now.
btw it had a roll cage in the silver car so it BS
THUNDER STORM VOLTAGE
All vehicles are currently required by law to be able to support their own weight upside-down. They're all like that. That's why newer cars almost always have double side mirrors. They have blind spots the size of the moon.
Nostalgic people: "They don't make them like they used to!!!!!"
Me: "Good"
lol seriously. people always say old cars were safer and stronger because they saw a video of an old volvo barely getting dented while the driver takes on all the shock
@@johnsmith4432 I've seen some old cars barely dent but those are the ones with very small windows, built like tanks and of course, little to no rust.
And the new ones look like garbage too and can't cope with anything but smooth paved roads. Good thing the wheels on new cars have to be 20" tall with no sidewall height to absorb any road roughness and the bumper covers need to look like the car is in Nascar so that small snow drifts (front) or gravel spray(rear) can destroy them in record time. Oh and who can forget the failure of traction control in loose surfaces. I am glad for better safety of crumple zones but modern cars leave a lot to be desired when it comes to everyday durability.
Yeah, I like my cars going 50 mph top speed too! Take off your nostalgic helmet, guys
Well... I'm a mechanic, we do obviously mechanical and collision work. I've smacked a few deer with my truck going 65+ mph. It's a 1980 truck. I mean it when I say not a dent and I was perfectly safe. A new car hitting a deer would got torn up to shit, but the driver would still be safe. We just had a GMC Denali that hit a deer and it costed him $12000 to fix the front end, ouch. My truck not even a scratch on the front bumper after 3 deer have smacked it. However, I guarantee if I hit that Denali head on going 50mph my truck would have less damage overall but I would be severely injured where as he would be fine but with a a completely wrecked car. so yeah, they don't make em like they used to but that's because of crumple zones during major crashes, those crumple zones do suck tho when you just barely tap a deer and now your front end is all fucked up. That's takes and gives when it comes to modern safety technology.
Thank god the Fresh Prince wasn’t in there.
Because the test was not done in the "Summer Summertime..."
"...listen MISS-would a lunatic drive a car like this?!" (based on the above-YES)
If he was, it would surely be a systematic hate crime....
No it wasn’t.
Underrated 😂
Yo home, smell ya later!
1:30 Finally! We get to see the overhead shot.
1:33 Psych! It’s the same side shot you’ve seen five times.
Why did they cut away the top view 1:30 right at the moment of impact! That was going to be the best view!
Exactly
Cuz they fuckin suck ass dude
Ikr i wanted to see where the hood and windshield were going
In the original overhead shot you could see there was no motor in the '59 chevy
Too graphic ;)
The 59 Chevy's steering wheel also came out and hit the driver in the head. A common design flaw in older cars.
Jason Schwartz and the back bench was completely air born
Yeah i would love to have a bel air but in a crash its really sketchy
Wolf Coyote the Bel Aire would have faired better had its engine and drivetrain in place and wasn't filled with rust. The new cars are still much safer than the old will ever be, but when they were new, we weren't traveling at high speeds. This made crashes much less severe. I honestly believe it we reduced the died we travel at today to that if 40+ years ago, there would be no traffic fatalities with how safe today's cars are.
Agree! and good observation, I noticed the rust as well.
Look at the video very closely. That is the front bench that is air born.
01:30 why would you cut this shot? It's a great shot.
Agreed! It looks from the other views that the left side of the car pretty much shears off, would be great to see it from above.
I guess it’s too expensive
It'll take too long to render from that view.
Notus Notus They did not go on their website of the vehicles after the crash they take pictures. You can see the engine in both cars. They are not a government company that scams people The are run by insurance teams. This is a true test I don’t understand how people can be so hurt to not just admit old cars are not as safe. Like why would they make unsafe cars today in the first place. New technology brings better things no matter how much you want to argue it.
One reason could be, they didn't shoot the film . . . maybe . . . ya think?
"They don't build them like they used to." Yes, and we're better off because of it
Not in all cases.
Not to mention the horrible MPG and exhaust of these things.
Worse off, can't work on new vehicles for shit. Don't give me that garbage
@@LindeSir Learn how to work on them, then. I'll take complicated cars that save my life any day.
@@toddbarton1049 I have worked on them they are a joke
I’ve always been under the impression that an older metal car would demolish modern day cars if involved in an accident but this completely blew my mind
Modern cars are designed to crumple the front and rear ends while keeping the passenger compartment intact. Yeah, it means higher repair bills for smaller accidents, but the soft squishy parts stay intact in high impact collisions. Notice in the video what happens to the passenger compartment, how the Bel Air folds up like an accordion mashing the head and torso down while the Malibu stays intact inside.
Robert Wallis If the Bel Air had its engine it would have been even worse, too. A lot of work goes into making sure the engine isn’t going to crash into the passenger compartment in a collision nowadays. Back then the engine would rip out fast.
Ambient Morality The Bel Air did have an engine in it - straight 6. Less than a minute to look it up online.
I saw brown dust, they rigged the Malibu
GG Bro don’t believe everything you see. That rust dust from the frame of the bel air doesn’t look good. Compromised frame junker was used to show off the 2009...
This is all a matter of perspective. I played this video backwards, simulating each car running in reverse, and the net result was BOTH cars came out just fine in the end. So, NTSA would do well to promote legislation that reflects these findings.
Where's my time machine?
Certainly the engine was still in the old Chevy, the car needs to be intact to perform these tests. Those old engines/transmissions just broke off their mounts and slid under the car/into the firewall in a crash like that. The U joints on the driveshaft just allow it to fold. You can see from the interior shots the whole dashboard caving in, it's the engine that did that.
You are correct, the engine was inside. It was a V6 btw.
@@kalinandonov2799 Chevy didn't make V6'es in 1959. It would be an inline 6
Yes, no car that age is going to do well in a test like this. The modern car is made using high tensile steels and computer designed load paths.
@@ChrisPatrick-q6k the car was clearly a rust bucket I would never bother to restore.
Modern cars completely bounce off my Cutlass, I've completely decimated them and I still drive the Cutlass lol. This video is beyond flawed I can't believe people are so gullible.
@@taylorsopko5807 It was on display in a publically accessable reception, nobody has reported seeing any rust. Photos of these modern cars that have bounced off your Cutlass, (lol) or it's never happened.
Thinking back as a kid in the 60s in our local newspaper almost every week on the front page was a picture of some car that was totaled. The speed of the highways was 65 where now it’s 55. Yet the roads were much narrower, steeper hills, and sharper curves let alone the low quality of tires and suspension. It was cool to drive fast and drunk! It’s good to know that some things get better.
It unfortunately is still cool to drive fast and drunk. We have just grown up.
A significant proportion have Not 'grown up'.@@evocatus989
@@evocatus989 I graduated high school in 2009, and driving fast was still cool but driving drunk absolutely not. it was heavily stigmatized
Funny that I noticed a rust bloom pouring out of the rocker panel of the 1959 impala at 1:03, showing its age internally despite its very nice condition. Old age affects everything.
dannyp67 The rust wasn't inevitable; probably built up over years of neglect until they repainted it and crashed it.
Good eye
Well spotted, plume of rusty
I noticed that too. Imagine if the amount of rust in the Impala was transferred to the Malibu? It would have exploded in that accident.
There was never a doubt that a car designed with crumple zones would be far safer, but the old Bel Air didn't just crumple, it fell apart. I can't help but think there was more than frame rot going on there. I wonder if there weren't a bunch of fasteners removed as well for visual "impact"...
I feel bad for the 1st responders of the 50’s,collisions that are fender benders today were life altering back then
In class I was told that in those days, most of the ambulances were actually run by funeral homes. First responders were hardly a thing. It wasn't until 1969 that the USA developed its first paramedic program, which adopted a lot of techniques used in the Korean war.
Cars werent going 80 mph
@@darthvader6533 Neither were these. Two cars hitting head on at a closing speed of 80 mph isn't the same as one car hitting a stationary one at 80. Newton's third law, bet you wish you'd worked harder at school.
@@ChrisPatrick-q6k *at a closing speed
Closing is not plural, i wont even touch the rest of that sentence lol
Laws of English grammar
:p
Jokes aside, that wasnt my point, but.. ok? Haha
The point i was trying to make was that, as poor as the safety design was back then, in comparison, modern collisions are likely far worse because of the gigantic increase of speed, and therefore force.
Thats entirely my opinion, i havent researched it and cant back it up, im just spitballing an idea.
Its great that you just learned or remembered a law of physics, but I never referenced the cars in the video, nor did i reference a parked highway strike. It helps to read what someone says before you make half cocked assumptions and insult them haha
Take a chill pill lad
@@darthvader6533 That was a typo you sad xexk.
I just can't stand the BS people come out with in relation to car safety, it's bordering on Flat Earth levels of stupidity.
The big jump occurred in the early to mid 90's, before then it was all mild steel and collapsing passenger compartments.
my stomach hurts seeing a classic ruined
i am glad that there's one less fire hazard, unsafe death machine pile of metal garbage on the road
So sad
Why
+DJ Jesus.He Died for your spins
The ladies been laughing at you as you drive by in your Prius? Don't cry man. I bet your mom still loves you. Sort of...
myk sanchez i don't care what people say. At least when i crash into a "Classic car" I won't be the one dying on the hospital bed.
people that drove model "T",S and model "A",s were the bravest except for motorcycle riders
I've got to say, this one surprised the hell out of me! I was a fan of those big older cars and I drove them all through the 90s for pennies on the dollar! I could buy an awful lot of gasoline with what I saved on the car, but I really thought I was safer! THANK YOU!!
People think old cars are safe, they're not..
@@ChrisPatrick-q6k They actually are, maybe not this model, but lets say u got rear ended by a new toyota for example while ur in a 69 charger, the charger would not have a dent while the toyota is completely totaled, same with front end collisions depending if you or the other drives is going faster
@@swefishers9529 They're not, stop making up silly things. There's no evidence that old cars are safer and plenty to the contrary. Please educate yourself before writing such misleading nonsense.
Did you read what i said? everything i said is true because it has been tested by my father, most of it is because of the massive weight of a old classic muscle car, and that makes the impact heavier for the toyota, so no, i am not wrong dude@@ChrisPatrick-q6k
@@swefishers9529 COPE
Cough- Bel Air -Cough
Removing the engine is cheating
Is it seriously removed in both vehicles? I can’t seem to spot it.
There's no way to prove that, buy in any case the engine in the Bel Air likely would've been more of a danger of being pushed back into the passenger compartment through the firewall.
I was thinking the same thing. That bel air crumbled as if nothing was there. I call a bluff.
@@chaddsteinberg3758 The '59 was too heavy for the catapult so they removed the engine and transmission to make the weight.
I don't think there would have been much a difference
Now we just need something that has the safety of a new car, and the beauty of an old one.
Fiat 500
+MK3424 The 500 is a great piece of shit
Victor Melchy At least it's not as ugly as the new Mini's (although you can't call them 'mini')
Victor Melchy it's just a ladies car, such as all those retro modern cars. Real man have the guts to drive the original ones, but women have to make a statement without sacrificing modern car technology. As far as I know there will never be a car as stylish as those old car but able to reach modern standards. All they can do is fuck up the original to meet the modern norm. The Ford Flex is called a retro styled car, not in the way that the fiat 500 or Volkswagen Beetle try to mimic their predecessor, but just try to imitate the old station wagons (but making it a crossover to make it US-market-friendly). The closest you can get to old school cars are morgans and they did change through the years to meet regulations. But I have never seen them crash tested and I doubt they would get close to modern cars, but at least they don't try to mimic the old school, they are doing the old school
@Brecht Schatteman "Real man have the guts to drive the original ones, but women have to make a statement without sacrificing modern car technology."
Seriously? Why do you have to inject sexism into this? It has fucking nothing to do with men vs women. Everyone likes creature comforts. It has nothing to do with "guts". Some people just like classic cars enough to forget about the deficiencies, and some do not.
You're basically cherry picking the perfect car-guy and comparing him to the average woman with no interest in cars. This is not a realistic comparison, most guys don't give a shit about cars either.
Why are people getting upset about this? It's obvious modern cars are more secure, how is anyone surprised by the result? And this doesn't mean you can't own and love your classic car, it's just a display of the clear difference technology and engineering made through the years. We should be happy about it.
they are mad about destroying a classic car
@Rata 4U So classical music or architexture is ugly?
Such a non-car guy... >_
@@kingofroses302 It is not even ugly. Even old cars are not ugly.
Because its design is completely rare on newer vehicles. So I would rather use a classic vehicle(But not on dangerous roads).
@Matthew Dawood Khaghani dude fuck yourself if you look at the comments you are in way over your head.
It's always interesting to watch the "Signal 30" (1959) video from the Ohio State Patrol. Signal 30 is the call sign for a traffic fatality. The Signal 30 video is here on RUclips.
I still think this video is an awesome demonstration. Before I saw it several years ago, I was of the mindset that those big old classic heavy steel-filled cars were somehow safer because of how much metal is there, but that concept went into the toilet for me very quickly after watching this.
Yup. Modern engineering trumps inert mass.
Yup.. I showed this video to my grandparents a few years ago.. it blew their minds. They immediately called farce because big 'murrican cars were built like tanks. I said, well so are the newer domestic cars, and all cars. Something like the Smart ForTwo is a good example of how extreme engineering can get in impact absorption nowadays in automobiles.
its some what true but this test was a little riged
Did you not notice how there is no engine in the bel air and when they collide a huge cloud of rust comes from the bel air? It looks like they went to a junkyard and gave a clapped out bel air a new paint job and brought it back for a "legitimate" crash test.
Tony Allen oh please, this car doesn't have an engine, and it is rusted. If you were to put a ford falcon or chevy chevelle. It would eat right through that malibu.
I really don't think an airbag would've helped at 0:54.
An entire new frame would be also needed
@@marios9992 and a new person lol
@@jwalster9412 and a new life 😁
@@jobripalange1717 And a new soul
In the future we will have ceiling airbags to
One thing is for sure is this ‘59 Chevy Bel Air is on the X-frame chassis and it was the worst chassis for safety since there was no side rails on the sides and this is why the front end caves in. The last GM vehicle to ever use the X-frame chassis was the 1970 Buick Riviera, and all other GM vehicles by that point switch to a different chassis designs by that point.
The result would be the same either way, old cars aren't safe.
@@matthewking5612 old cars aren’t safe if the driver doesn’t drive safely 😉
@@seana806 Ok, but we're discussing crash performance here.
But in the 50's especially, x frames were common. Yes a full frame is safer, but those weren't nearly as common in the 50's.
@@isaakwelch3451 Which means those were all just as bad. The Tucker's uni-body was ahead of it's time.
The '59 Impala was and is one of the best looking cars ever made.
I agree. Not sure why the "batwing" tail lamps were dropped for the next year. I really like them.
58, 59 and 60 impalas were beautiful cars. Each year was very unique. I can see why they chose a Bel Air instead of an impala to use in this crash.
My first car was a 1965 Chevy Bel Air (seafoam green, of course). While I miss it, I do think about how badly things would have gone if I were ever in a wreck in that thing.
Your 1965 Bel Air would have been a bit safer since it wasn’t on the x-frame like all 1958 to 1964 GM cars with the exception of Oldsmobile since they had their own frame vs all the other GM divisions at the time. By 1965, all GM vehicles (with the exception of a few) went to a perimeter frame chassis since they probably got a lot of negative feedback (more than likely from insurance companies) since most had issues with the frame bending even in a fender bender which totaled the vehicle since the frame would have been distorted along with the body that was on it.
Put air bags, seat & shoulder harnesses in the 1965 & it would
be just as good! I had a '68 Bel Air & it was a 'tank'! It hit a tree
& it just had a small dent in the hood! A new car would have been
a wreck!
wear a motorcycle helmet!
@@rongendron8705But who's going to do that? Your crash into a tree sounds impressive though dude, got to give you that!
Pictures, or it didn't happen.
In the winter of 1976 I slid on some ice in my first car at the age of 16. It was also a 1965 model. A Chevy Impala convertible. I sure did love that car! I hit another car head on about about 20 mph. I hit them at an angle, so his front corner struck the middle of my fender. Caved my fender in good, but I still was able to drive it home. I sold it weeks later for 75 bucks and got me a 1970 Ford LTD.... that thing was a monster by today's standards. My Impala only had a six cylinder in it.
I've been in the automotive collision business since 1975 amd i can tell you without batting an eye that modern cars are infinitely safer than old cars of the 50s, 60s and 70s. The Chevy Malibu is hardly the best 2009 car in a crash either. match that 1959 Chevy to an E series Mercedes (or VW) and I can promise you that the 1959 Chevy driver would be dead and the E series driver would suffer only minor bruises from the airbag. The fact that automotive technology has improved over the last 50 years has been well documented in the automotive trade journal "DUH".
I disagree with comments that say the '59 in the video is a rare car. There are plenty of them out there in classic car salvage lots etc., but no one wants to spend the time and money to restore a 6 cyl. 4 door like the one in the video.
I personally wouldn't mind.
But you're 100 % right.
The desire and market is just not there.
Problem isn't availability, its the perceived value being way higher than the real value, when a roller with no floorboards, windows, seats, and missing half the doors sells for $9000 there's a problem
If this was restored then fine but if this wasn't restored then damn...
4doors need more love, and station wagons are getting some, but not enough recognition too.
To restore one of these it’s not just about expertise, time, cost, and materials. It’s about the wife threatening to divorce you if you spend one more fucking minute on that pile of rust !!
This video is what the people who says “Old cars were real hard metal cars” need to see
They'll not be told sadly, just read the BS excuses they're making for the Old Tin!!
@@ChrisPatrick-q6k Oh really go watch how solid steel fairs in a crash and then watch this as someone who has hit new cars in his old Datsun 280C and seen firsthand how an old car held together by chicken wire and zip ties absolutely mangled the modern Suzuki Swift this car was clearly fake the of course new cars are safer thanks to things like airbags and whatnot but nobody is denying that the argument is it will not fair good in a crash it will not be fixable in a crash and the older cars are safer in low speed crashes on account of the giant bumpers made to absorb the low speed hits
Cadillacs and Lincolns were
the worst part about the old cars when it comes to safety is the lack of a seat belt . i read in a car magazine from the early 60's that to hold yourself back from hitting the dashboard in a 30 mph collision into a fixed barrier you would have to be strong enough to do push ups with 15 people on your back . seat beltslessen your chance of serious injury a lot , ones with shoulder belts even more so . a lot of times in a collision it is not a question of whether you get crushed or not , but whether you hit the dashboard hard or go through the windshield because you did'nt have seat belt on. and they will keep you in the car too if you are hit on the side or roll over at high speed .another important safety feature is a collapsible steering column . the old beetles where bad about causing injuries because the steering box is mounted far forward and the column is solid until the 68 models . volvo , saab , and mercedes benz cars from the seventies are probably the safest cars
Only 15 people?
Lol. Everyyyyone forgets peugeots with their integrated roll cages, crumple zones, 3 stage bonnet retention, cardan joint collapsible steering collumns, and active safety in the shape of excellent steering and brakes (drive a 70s volvo. Theyre fkn awful. So were saabs).
Put a mercedes up on a hoist next to a peugeot from then. Only difference is the merc has a bigger engine and recirculating ball steering instead of rack and pinion.
Theyre both built tough enough for africa and australia.
Many classics in the 1970s and 1980s had seat belts...
Plenty of other little improvements in the actual passenger cabin as well. When you say "dashboard" it's notable how many older cars had a steel dash perfect for smashing up bones, compared to the plastic-and-foam safety dash we have today.
The seat belt was invented in 59.... it's obvious previous cars wouldn't have them in.
Still those 50`s cars were like a living room on wheels.
I know, modern cars even 'larger ones' are very claustrophobic and packed in.
May I introduce you to the Stout Scarab?
Mine was more like a bedroom on wheels!
Pity they handled like boats
Emppu T. My mom drives a Escalade but even that looks small compared to old cars!!
I think in this video you can kind of see where the misconception about older cars being more solid comes from. The hood of the bel air is still intact after the crash, and the passenger's side is damaged but not destroyed. But the Malibu's entire front end is gone. The bel air honestly would probably have a better (albeit still slim) chance of being repaired as where the malibu is totaled. The difference of course being the malibu driver is banged up but mostly fine and the bel air driver is definitely dead. So yeah, older cars could take an impact better, but that was only because they were putting all the force of the impact on the driver and passengers where as modern cars take the impact themselves and save the lives of the people in the car.
EDIT:
hey guys, please stop responding to this comment. It's from years ago and I just do not care about this conversation one way or another anymore, I'm just tired of getting notifications about it years after the fact.
So basically at the end, it is better to have a higher repair bill, then having your family pay a funeral bill
They removed the Engine in the '59 for this demo to talk about body construction, with the engine inside with all that solid metal I am sure the result would have been different
The bel airs frame was very clearly bent in the impact. And the bel air is also likely totaled. A car being totaled doesn't mean it can't be repaired. It means the cost to repair the vehicle exceeds the value of the vehicle.
@@jigga2jones It would have been even worse. That extremely heavy V8 would get shoved right trough the firewall into the passenger compartment. The much smaller engine in the Malibu was directed under the car to prevent exactly this from happening.
I think the best piece of advice I’ve heard is “classic cars are cool, but a new car is cheaper than a new coffin”
I have seen these two vehicles at the IIHS facility in Ruckersville, VA. Seeing them up close really is eye opening as to how far we've come in vehicle safety.
Yup, F the FanBoys.
@@ChrisPatrick-q6k yea your just a troll lol everyone who knows old cars knows this is a terrible example they set up on purpose.
X frame cars do this when hitting other 60s cars they simply are flawed.
@@taylorsopko5807 I do have an issue with people claiming old cars are safe, it's childish BS.
@@ChrisPatrick-q6k I think you should read your own comments man you keep telling everybody off. Your just being a troll. You've apparently never even owned older cars and hate them for some reason, probly an environmentalist.
@@taylorsopko5807 I just understand that each generation of car's safer than the last. It's called progress, you're just delusional.
They could’ve at least used a beat up classic, BUT NO THEY USE A MINT CLASSIC😢
At least it’s an ugly color, but nevertheless I still agree they should’ve used something less mint
I mean it wouldn't be an accurate test if it wasn't on like-new condition
If they used a shitty one filled with rust holes it would be an unfair test
Did you see the cloud of rust. This was not a mint bel-air.
yea that poor belair
Found some info on the Malibu on the internet:
1959 Bel Air to crash-test there was one thing the organization didn’t want and some things it did.
“We didn’t want to crash a museum piece,” Mr. Zuby said. “We were not looking for one that had been restored for museum or show quality.” But the vehicle had to have a solid structure, although a little surface rust would be acceptable.
They found what they wanted in Indiana. “The frame was sound and all the body panels were sound,” he said. It had a 3.9-liter 6-cylinder engine and was in driving condition.
The car was bought for about $8,500 and had about 74,000 miles on the odometer, which was broken. It was trucked to the test center in Virginia.
Mr. Zuby said the cloud that shows in the crash video wasn’t rust. “Most of that is road dirt that accumulates in nooks and crannies that you can’t get it,” he said.
Source:wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/18/more-details-about-1959-bel-air-crash-test/
It is so sad that we are so used to being lied to and deceived that no one who didn't inspect the car himself, and witness the crash will believe this.
Anybody get to keep their doctor?
Model Cars .mr. zuby should have been in that 59.
yeh they didn't have to destroy a classic car in very good condition (possibly my favorite classic cay body, in fact) to demonstrate something everyone already knew.
Fuck these assholes.
Frank Van Den Dool I gotta say, I don't care if classic cars are "dangerous" or not. They look better, and are a hell of a lot more fun to drive.
Then the guy that sold it to someone who he thought was going to fix it up.
Yeah honey I just sold the bel air.
Some guy said he was going to buy it to wreck it.
Anybody who says that I know is going to take good care of it.
Clicks on video.......huh, that looks like my old Bel air.
Hey baby come look at this car.
Doesn't that look like my old car.
It sure does. Huh?🤨🤔😲🤪😵🤯😱
2009 zoomer vs 1959 boomer
Electric boogaloo edition
*siiiiip*
@Burleon ok boomer
Burleon THATS still dumb and a waste of cash. You’ll need to constantly fix it, with hard to find expensive parts if it’s anything worth money.
@@BARelement That's not true, these cars were known to start up and run perfectly even after 40+ years of neglect. Also the parts are way more cheaper and easier to repair than the modern electronics in cars nowadays
I’m a zoomer and would take the 59 anyday over any mordorn car
Sad to see the loss of a genuine classic. Nice to see how the engineering works to keep passengers safe. And yeah, I'd still rather have the classic.
Yeah, but it would be nice to also have the newer car if you ever felt like you were going to be in an accident. 😉
Not really a classic... it was a Bel Air. Now if they did that to an Impala, I'd be crying.
@@petemcintire4339 An Impala would fold up the same
@@ChrisPatrick-q6k Folding isn't the issue. Impala is the classic from that time period, not the Bel Air.
That was a total surprise!! I expected the older car to plow through the new model with very little damage. Boy was I wrong.
Good job!!
Same here!
@Corn Fed Good point.
@Corn Fed it would have made safety even worse on the Bel air, to be clear
@Corn Fed engines are not structural members in anything except for racecars
Had it been a full frame classic, it would be very different. The '59 Bel Air is X-frame, which is a horrible design even when it was new.
Seeing them destroy a Bel Air like this makes my skin crawl
庄司 慎吾 - Shōji Shingo
They probably got a bunch in a warehouse.
Aw, poor materialistic baby.
@@christopherscottb Wow, you're so woke. Stunning.
Same
To prove the point of how fucked up it got
props to the two people who sacrificed themselves for such a informative video
Nice sarcasm.
Pah. Only a dummy would volunteer for this.
they’re a load of dummies for that
And don’t forget the two camera men who sat on the back seat and recorded the video
Actually the Malibu driver survived.
"Why did Consumer Reports trash a classic antique car in a crash test?"
"Cuz it's cool."
What most people do not know is that that the old Chevy has the infamous X-frame construction. Even when car restorers plan to restore a Chevy Belair with an X-frame, they always pull the stock X-frame and build a different frame. The Belair was picked purposely to give the illusion that all older cars are not as safe as the new ones. I would like to see the Malibu go against a 1956 Buick Road master, any year Crown Victoria, or old Cadillac or Lincoln. The X-frame was the reason the Belair line was terminated.
+Indrid Cold "The Belair was picked purposely to give the illusion that all older cars are not as safe as the new ones." No illusion. Safety records show that newer cars are significantly more crash worthy than older ones. I think what the critics here are perhaps viscerally reacting to is the concept of old versus new without consideration of the engineering and technical aspects. Yes, there are a lot of gorgeous classics out there. But if your loved one was in an accident like the one shown in this video, would you rather they were in a new car with a "good" safety rating (highest possible from IIHS), or in a typical 1950's sedan?
+Indrid Cold Every car restorers I know who worked on 59 Chevy didn't change the frame... Pro touring or custom builders are more used to do that kind of modification :) Anyway I agree with Hector, my 59 is not safe, I know this, but I won't feel safer in another 50's classic, old cars were not made to resist to crashes, they were made to be beautiful, comfortable, powerful and huge, laws about deformations during crashes arrived later :) (Sorry for my approximative english, this is not my native language)
+Indrid Cold The 1956 Roadmaster would probably be in pretty good shape. You'd be able to wash the remains of the driver out with a hose so that someone else could drive it.
There is a tremendous amount of kinetic energy involved here. That energy has to go somewhere. It can either bend sheetmetal or it can break bones. A modern car is designed to act as a giant shock absorber. It will crush in a controlled fashion to protect the passenger compartment. The engine is designed to go under you rather than end up in your lap like the old days. At the end of the day it's what the occupants look like after the accident, not the car.
+Indrid Cold
Welcome to the world of "cherry-picking".
I suspect you're right. There's a reason why the Crown Vic was the vehicle of choice for cops and cabbies in the 90s. I don't know how the 1950s era version stacked up but it wouldn't surprise me if it was a similar design.
Cars were once built on two rail-like beams that were usually a hollow rectangular frame that was contoured to the mount the body. Pickup trucks are still made this way. It is called body on frame construction. Sometimes the frame was not a hollow rectangular frame. Some were just a squared, "C," and not fully boxed in.
Well, the Chevrolet Bel Are had a frame that instead of having two parallel beams running the length of the car and having joining cross beams to support the body, GM decided to make a frame that made an, "X," under the car. This was just fine for the front and back, but he middle was very thin and week. In a gentle collision, the car bent in the middle because only the flimsy body was providing any sort of support. The very thin junction where the X met in the middle bent very easily. The X-Frame idea was quickly abandoned by General Motors.
Today's vehicles have what is known as unibody. The body has stamped contours and reinforcing patterns to take the place of the frame. This makes the modern cars very easily crushed. This is why modern cars have so many air bags. They need all the airbags to make them safer. In a way, the car crushing around you makes for safer small collisions. But in a large collision, the car will crush you and trap you inside tinfoil.
Shame to see an old Bel Air terminated like this. One less classic to be had.
I'd be more sad if it was an Impala two-door hardtop or convertible. The four-door Biscayne and Bel-Air sedans are more plentiful.
atleast it was a four-door
You say "It had four doors" but you do NOT say "It was a four doors". You DO, however, say "Two words for you" and not "two woprd for you".
not really if you pay attention you can see all the rust dust in the air most likely this was a junk yard find and had rust issues but they just painted over it made it look pretty and crashed it i doubt they would actually use a solid road worthy car.
but if they did use a fully restorable car who ever's idea this was should be castrated with a rusty dull bic razor blade. cause people like that have no need reproducing 💁
also it was in mint condition
As a classic car owner I can see the point ! however I still think classic cars are safer due to the fact they spend 80% of the time in the garage in bits and are there for less likely to be on the road at the time of the accident! Lol.... :-) only fooling classic car owners will know what I mean! Best wishes all
Mad Dog Survival I agree with that! Cars nowadays usually spend their time in harsh weather, you know?
Modern cars generate more effin' bad drivers.
Good point. Better yet, remove all 4 wheels and voila! Safest car in the world!! 😁
I'm just pissed off they ruined a nice vintage car in a display of the obvious. :-(
Jimmy Tragle they actually didn't. They repainted the exterior of a junk car and sprayed krylon on the seats and put a reproduction engine in it. You could see all the rust and the unusually shiny and offset hue of the seats. Or maybe they found an old dusty car in a garage with no owner.
This was shown to us at my factory job (big emphasis on safety in and out of the plant) to remind us of safety protocol importance. One good ol' boy afterward said he didn't believe it that '59 wasn't the mightier vehicle.😑
At lower speeds and better angles, maybe that solid steel box would do more damage and not feel any itself. In this worst-case scenario? Neither car would have a chance to survive, but with modern designs the people might survive.
Who cares about a mightier vehicle? I prefer to walk away and buy another car. The SUVs and pickups of today have the same problem, they do terrible in crash tests and people believe they are invulnerable.
@@Kopernicus67 I want to deal with the insurance hassle - not make my widow do it.
Yikes! I learned to drive in a 1959 Chevy; Biscayne, not Bel Air, but same body. And my family took a vacation trip in it to California from Texas. I’ve always missed that car until seeing this.
So you don’t respect a symbol of your life? Dude it’s the car you learned to drive in! Any car can be safe as long as you do routine maintenance and you are a safe driver.
@@rylan642 Skateboarding down a 60 degree incline while naked, covered in loose razor blades carrying a plastic bag filled with salt can be perfectly safe, if you maintain your equipment and are a good skateboarder (i.e don't fuck up).
These safety systems are there for when people do fuck up. It's always happened and it always will.
@@rylan642 You can be the safest and most responsible driver in the world, but there's only so much you can do to account for *other* drivers. If some crazy/drunk driver crosses the double-yellow and hits you head-on, you are entirely at the mercy of your own vehicle's design and engineering.
@@rylan642 Accidents happen, even to the best drivers, that's why I'd rather be in a safer car.
Just convert the X-frame into perimeter frame with a V8, and you're good.
1959 Chevy bel air
safe: no
styling: beatiful
2009 Chevy Malibu
safe: yes
styling: ugly
Faaaaaaaaaaaaacts
Yes.
Would u rather drive a ugly style car and live? Or drive a classic car with non of the safety standards and die?
True indeed
@@huskerman8850 I'll take the die one
You wrecked a perfectly good classic.
Except it's not really perfect. 30 mph crash and you're dead lmao
Yeah they shouldn't have wasted a perfectly good 2009 Chevrolet Malibu
It was a fake remake it truly isn’t real
@@notafamousyoutuberalt9744 r/whooooosh
@@bfun4615 but the Malibu is ugly
This is the video I'm going to suggest next time I hear someone say "those things are built like a tank."
Aye i been Riding with someone who constantly sounds like they are taking a dump on themselves is there anything you can do to help me!!!!!???
dang the cloud of rust that blew out of the bel air!
That was just a pollen bloom. The Bel-Air, sensing it's demise, attempted to quickly spread it's genetic material to the wind
They wouldn’t have tested a rusty car
@@m0rthaus This comment is underrated
Dust and dirt.
It’s paint, I’d like to believe it’s rust but if you look you see silver powder around the new car... unfortunately we can’t blame the rust for this...
NO one:
The fast and Furious when they get their hands on a nice car: 0:06
Too bad the Malibu doesn't look as good as the bel air
59 Malibu is an ugly car.
when buying appliances, do you really care what it's like visually? no, you just get something that has better performance and gets the job done, and that's all a car is. an appliance of transport to get people from a to b
@@smoketrash6807 Well, you're definitely not a car enthusiast. Probably still roll around on your mom's hand-me-down 1996 Toyota Camry!
Sam T. Get out hipster
I don't really care about looks. I just care about getting from point A to B in one piece.
Re-watching this video, I'm mind-boggled that the Bel Air's hood crumpled together like that despite being longer than the Malibu's!!!
It's just sheetmetal. The only structure with any strength is the frame, and it doesn't run the full length or width of the car. The frame doesn't protect the driver at all in that car. A Chevy that old was designed by the styling department, and engineers had to figure out how to make the sheet metal into the required shapes and make it go. The frame is there for workers to attach stuff to it as it goes down the assembly line.
A modern car actually has structural shapes designed for rigidity and crash safety. Engineers are no longer subordinate to the styling department.
Some fan of old cars complained that the 2009 car had a roll cage installed but in reality *that's how cars are made now*
The 59 bel-air was an X-frame car and the location of the impact was right in the bel airs most vulnerable spot. There is no protection in a side swipe collision with an x frame car. Also….LOOK AT THAT CLOUD OF RUST come from under the Bel Air! That car was rotten underneath its pretty paint job. This is not a fair comparison for how the bel air would do in a collision.
Its a fake video, the 59 would destroy the malibu
@@acmecompany BS
@@MikeN-cs8qe No, it was a solid example. Old cars aren't safe, deal with it. Then move on.
Why can't they build a modern car with the looks and materials of a classic. Old cars look better and sound better.
noahmeme2 I found a pic when they made some 1950/1960 oldsmobiles and it was a NEW pic :/ i dont know if its real or a copy but if its real they still make SOME old cars
the mod is brought forth in the dodge line up take a look not to mention the gm camaro
ford also(mustang) what more do you want
Sound better?. Ya, if you can hold a conversation at highways speeds without having to scream over all the highway and engine noise. You can probably just wait until the old car overheats or blows a muffler on the jersey Turnpike and then car thieves put it up on bricks and light it on fire on the side of the highway after they steal the wheels off of it before the tow truck gets to it. Yup, those are the good old days.
They made the VW Type 1 Beetle till the 2003 in South America ;) the Beetle first showed up in 1938 so if you're looking for a classic car that is less than 20 years old it is still possible haha
I was surprised that the '59 crumpled that bad, note the steering column coming out like a missle to the dummy's head! I don't think a human would survive in the '59, or if they did, they would be severely injured. And to think back in the 60's, I used to, as a child, ride standing up in the front seat between my Mom and Dad, my only restraint being my Dad's right arm!
Looking at the results, you were probably better off catapulting through the windshield than being restrained inside the car.
The Malibu is actually more dangerous because anybody driving it would die of boredom. At least the Bel Air has character, but I am glad they didn't ruin a '57!
the malibu in 60 years will be viewed the same as the bel-air today, don't kid yourself.
Kevin Carlson lol, not all nostalgia is good. If you have that much faith in it, buy a few of them and sell them for the equivalent of today's $100k in 2075. The '57 Bel Air has been highly sought after for decades. I still think 80s cars are boring as hell.
MrChevypower i'm saying that the bel-air is nothing special, as is the same with the malibu.
its overpriced because of nostalgia, the current malibu might not recieve that same kind of attention in time (but it could) regardless it would be unwarranted (in my opinion), these cars are average examples of cars from their times, and that is my point.
Kevin Carlson The fins on the back of the 57-59 were innovative for their time (though everyone did it) and it was challenging and expensive for them to do. I don't believe car companies (especially GM) puts as much effort into building cars anymore. Actually Bob Lutz even admitted that while he still worked for GM.
MrChevypower you bring up fins as a engineering challenge, and then also bring up that everyone else was doing it, its nothing special, they were simply following what trends more innovative car companies have set.
the Bel-air fit into its market segment and sold well, just as did the Malibu, they are simply responding to the demands of the customers of the times.
“Old cars have a reputation of being rock solid”. Yes, including the steering column. It’s almost like there is a solid bar linking the front of your car directly into your face and chest.
Yet the Clowns cry foul 😂
If they didn’t want that bel air they could’ve gave it to me
you'd wreck it even worse bruh
Looked like it was built in 2009 f dry on factory 59 blue prints
Andrew Diaz sameee
Can I give you my dictionary?
Andrew Diaz
No me
Why, you killed a fresh classic!!!!
Yeah highly educational. Who could have figured out there has been some development in 50 years at safety stuff and cars today look like shit (partly by the safety regulations)
So, that this car did not kill the first one
Yes, I know... they had to let one go for the test...
HEY! Would it be better if they still kept cars the classy look and added modern features? We would have a blast on the roads!
Noooo the bel air :( such a great car though
Jack Hintze - Didn't you notice the Rust on the old one when it crashed and how it blew dust off.
The classic has weakened cause of the rust, otherwise it's strong
Golden 47 it wouldn't be very strong even without rust. But thats not the point of owning a classic.
Thank you to everyone that has helped make cars so much more safe and comfortable!!!!!!😀😀😀😀
All af you claiming this test was rigged or old cars are safer let me tell you something. I owned several classic cars, i restored all of them myself and i drive a '55 Chevy Bel Air two door as a daily driver with over 180.000 miles on it. And even as a classic car fan I have to accept the fact that these old cars are unsafe to all occupants in a crash. First of all, when these cars were designed safety wasn't important in the car industy. People wantet big cars, big engines, comfortable suspensions and a design that looked like it was out of this world. These cars weren't made to crash, there were little to no crash tests with them when they were new. Nobody knew exactly what would happen if you had an accident. And that's why these cars perform so badly in nowadays crash tests because they weren't designed to be safe they were desiged to be beautiful and reliable. If you've taken an old car apart you see some things that can only make you wonder like steering columns completley solid from the steering wheel to the front axle, buttons and switches made of metal often with screws or sharp pins behind them, a parking brake that is aiming for your knee, rear view mirrors that are sharp enought to scalp your head, heater controls that stand out far enough of the dash to impale you, backseats that aren't boleted down, badly designed and weak door locks and all that chrome trim comes of the dash and cuts you in every possible way. My grandfather told me he rear-ended someone with 35 mph in his '49 Buick Roadmaster back in the days and besides having a broken rib he got his ignition key stuck in his knee cap because of the lack of seatbelts, he hit the dashboard and the key impaled it. He told me those were common injuries in a crash back then. And then there's the everlasting argument about these cars having a FRAME! So what? Old cars have a sturdy frame that's true but the body of the car isn't sturdy nor very rigid. It's just sheet metal bolted toghether, the whole body of the car is a hollow stucture. No reinforced pillars, no crumple zones, just plain sheet metal. While a new car has specially designed reinforced areas and pillars, it crumples where it should but stays super strong where it shoudn't. If you collide these two cars like in the video the modern car overrides the low frame of the Bel Air or bends it to the side. Most cars from the late 50's also had no A-pillar that could support structural integrity , it's basically just a windshield frame. So all there is left to absorb the crash energy is a metal bumper, a sheet metal fender and the firewall before it crushes the occupant compartment. And don't forget the steering wheel which hits you in the head and the pedals that crush your feet. So what I want to say here is that without a doubt new cars are a lot safer when it comes to crashes not because the old cars are "bad" or "shit", but simply because safety was no major concern in the design of these cars. Today cars are tested and redisigned over and over again for a good safety result on the passengers, back then it was all about the looks and the power of your engine.
Sincerely: A classic car enthusiast
Show less
copy paste
All af you claiming this test was rigged or old cars are safer let me tell you something. I owned several classic cars, i restored all of them myself and i drive a '55 Chevy Bel Air two door as a daily driver with over 180.000 miles on it. And even as a classic car fan I have to accept the fact that these old cars are unsafe to all occupants in a crash. First of all, when these cars were designed safety wasn't important in the car industy. People wantet big cars, big engines, comfortable suspensions and a design that looked like it was out of this world. These cars weren't made to crash, there were little to no crash tests with them when they were new. Nobody knew exactly what would happen if you had an accident. And that's why these cars perform so badly in nowadays crash tests because they weren't designed to be safe they were desiged to be beautiful and reliable. If you've taken an old car apart you see some things that can only make you wonder like steering columns completley solid from the steering wheel to the front axle, buttons and switches made of metal often with screws or sharp pins behind them, a parking brake that is aiming for your knee, rear view mirrors that are sharp enought to scalp your head, heater controls that stand out far enough of the dash to impale you, backseats that aren't boleted down, badly designed and weak door locks and all that chrome trim comes of the dash and cuts you in every possible way. My grandfather told me he rear-ended someone with 35 mph in his '49 Buick Roadmaster back in the days and besides having a broken rib he got his ignition key stuck in his knee cap because of the lack of seatbelts, he hit the dashboard and the key impaled it. He told me those were common injuries in a crash back then. And then there's the everlasting argument about these cars having a FRAME! So what? Old cars have a sturdy frame that's true but the body of the car isn't sturdy nor very rigid. It's just sheet metal bolted toghether, the whole body of the car is a hollow stucture. No reinforced pillars, no crumple zones, just plain sheet metal. While a new car has specially designed reinforced areas and pillars, it crumples where it should but stays super strong where it shoudn't. If you collide these two cars like in the video the modern car overrides the low frame of the Bel Air or bends it to the side. Most cars from the late 50's also had no A-pillar that could support structural integrity , it's basically just a windshield frame. So all there is left to absorb the crash energy is a metal bumper, a sheet metal fender and the firewall before it crushes the occupant compartment. And don't forget the steering wheel which hits you in the head and the pedals that crush your feet. So what I want to say here is that without a doubt new cars are a lot safer when it comes to crashes not because the old cars are "bad" or "shit", but simply because safety was no major concern in the design of these cars. Today cars are tested and redisigned over and over again for a good safety result on the passengers, back then it was all about the looks and the power of your engine.
Sincerely: A classic car enthusiast
This is why I laugh when people say “I’d rather be in an old car in a car crash, they’re made out of steel so they’re obviously safer”
Standard old guy comment.
This Impala looks like it was altered so it failed miserably in the crash. Don't be fooled by internet videos.
Don't forget seat belts just keep you stuck in the crash... if you don't wear a seat belt you can be thrown out of the car to safety!
@@jimkeskey BS. This isn't just some idiot looking for views. This was done by a legitimate organization. Do some research before making yourself look foolish.
The car shown in the video was suffering from massive amounts of rust and it didn't have an engine
They whacked a 59? Oh God...I am weeping.
To be fair it was probably broken and no longer functional.
We shall take vengeance on the bastards who did that!
I noticed with the Bel air the steering column punch through the dash board nearly piercing the dummy.
So dangerous, all pre 90's cars are I'm afraid.
But damn did cars in the 40s and 50s look good! Drop dead gorgeous machines! I'd drive one over any thing on the road today
late 50 like this one and early 60 were a great time for huge rear fins, and other "space age" features, very unique interiors too
Nick Tasy Same.
Fjolfrin the Silk Beard that's true I own one
'59 Bel Air vs dorky '09 Malibu: No competition
This is a great demonstration and shows how far safety technology has come. My issue is this: we all know that old, classic cars aren't safe. They really didn't have to destroy a really nice 1959 classic to prove it. Like Discofelsi, I too have restored old cars and driven them. Even knowing they're not very safe in a high impact crash, there's nothing like cruising your 1951 Pontiac Star Chief down the road.
I disagree. If you want to show that an older car is less safe than a newer car, the best way is to put both through exactly the same crash in the same conditions - and the most dramatic and quickest way to do that is to crash them into eachother.
Its not like they wasted a classic.
Its a 59. You couldnt give those heaps of crap away not that long ago.
Discofelsi. A man of culture, I see
What the test really shows is how dangerous GM's x-frame was and is, just another reason I never owned a GM of that period.
@@stephenwest798I had for twenty years three russian mid-sizes, Volgas, from different years to have see little-stepped improvements for safety in one brand.
There was only two mid-size mass production platforms in Nizhniy Novgorod factory (GAZ) for 60 years. The 1st based on pre-war Opel and led in m20 Pobeda ("victory") and m21 Volga cars until 1970. They had semi-frame body with long uncollapsed steerind column and lack of seatbelts (front seatbelts became an option in 1965). Even in case of minor accidents drivers often crashed their chests by steering wheel and passengers can broke his heads and necks while a car still could go.
In high-speed accidents front semi-frame with engine goes back through the firewall into the cabin to kill anybody inside.
These cars was still very heavy and solid compare to little 1960s-70s european cars and could smash them into pieces (europeans called Volga 21 "a Tank") but have no chance against really big cars.
The second platform have a monocoque body with front seatbelts in basic and rear seatbelts in option that make it safe in minor accidens but steering column continued to be uncollapsed until 80s.
You can see this cars a taxi in "The Bourne Supremacy" and notice its body is quite durable for 1970s cars but still have no deformation zones and airbags even in 1990s restylings.
Suddenly a progress of this brand almost stopped in 90s after USSR failed and latest Volgas had the same platform and body inside that 1970 model (except few hundreds, at most thousands, of semi-prototype luxury models at the turn of century brought only losses to the company) and in 2008 GAZ finished production mid-size cars only vans and trucks left.
Well, I'd still love the '59. Gorgeous car. 😭
古い車は頑丈そうな印象ですが違いますね。現代の居住スペースが守られるクルマの安心さがわかりました。
0:52, if the collision in its self didn't kill the Bel Air driver, being impaled in the face by the steering column would have. That was a common injury in those old cars, along with any one in the back seat being thrown forward into the people in the front seat. The front seats of cars of this era often had no catch levers and would fold forward with the slightest effort, nor did they have any seatbelts front or rear. I can personally attest to that as we HAD a 59 Bel Air in the late 1960's when I was a small kid, one day while standing in the backseat my mom had to emergency brake quickly, it threw me against the front seat, which immediately flopped forward since it had no catch, allowing me to hit the solid steel and sharply edged dashboard, cutting my head, few stitches, but my parents quickly realized just how dangerous that car could be in even a minor collision and dumped that deathtrap of a car.
One time while on an ambulance run we had back in the '70s, a drunk crossed into the oncoming lane and hit another car with a half overlap, just like this. It's no fun trying to get the hand of a dead person out from between a broken steering wheel and the jagged edges of a broken A-pillar.
They're literally death traps
I am tired of people thinking an old car is safer because it's "stronger," and criticizing new cars for crumpling so easily... they crumple easily on purpose. In fact, old cars crumple more easily at higher speeds because the shock is not absorbed. That's the kind of crumpling one does NOT want.
Crumpling is crumpling.
+JAMES HAY Have you never heard of CRUMPLE ZONES? Stop spreading bullshit "Crumpling is crumpling." UNSAFE ideas. Idiot.
Do you not know what a crumple zone is?
in Newer cars you can have an open casket funeral But in older cars because of lack of Airbags you cannot.
Payam yazdi because you die in older cars
Payam yazdi just in general older cars crumble faster
Payam yazdi Yeah an open casket funeral, 70 years after the fact
Russell Allen But the chance of a fatal injury has been significantly reduced, even just in the last 7 years.
isn't that nice
Can't wait to see how the 2009 Chevy Malibu holds up in this kinda test in 2059.
How do we know if it'll even be around anymore? Old cars were built to LAST, modern cars are NOT!!!
@@OtomoTenzi Better rust protection on a modern car, but in less than 50 years cars will be autonomous.
No they will not
@@JacobSeed_2018 Yes they will.
@@ChrisPatrick-q6k nope