In an IIHS crash test, the driver of the 1959 Chevrolet Bel Air would have been killed instantly while the 2009 Chevrolet Malibu's driver would walk away with a minor knee injury. (Photo courtesy Insurance Institute for Highway safety via Youtube)
How far has auto safety come in the last 50 years?
The Insurance Institute for Highway safety chose to demonstrate this dramatically: putting a massive 1959 Chevrolet Bel Air sedan into a head-on collision with today's midsize Chevrolet Malibu. The results are visible in the video below:
The test mimics ones the IIHS ran earlier this year where it orchestrated collisions between subcompact and midsize cars to illustrate the effect of sheer mass in an accident. But as this test demonstrates, size isn't everything either.
“What this test shows is that automakers don't build cars like they used to. They build them better," IIHS president Adrian Lund said.
Comments
Re: size isn't everything
Kinetically speaking, these cars are the same size -- their mass (weight) is roughly the same -- around 3,500 pounds. Depending on how the cars are equipped, the 2009 Malibu could even outweigh the 1959 Chevy by 200 pounds or so.
The IIHS won't be providing details of the test until later this week, including the specific weights of the two tested vehicles. There has also been some question I've seen on message boards of whether the Bel Air had an engine in it, which would affect both weight, presumably, structural performance.
But for now, all we have is the video.
I applaude the dramatizaton, but have to wince at the "waste" of vintage car - even a 4-door, non-sexy, utiltarian people hauler. Isn't there something inherently criminal, maybe even evil about destroying 50 year old survivor just for the sake of an article which will fade from public awarness in less than a week, a month at most?
Not that the deck was loaded, but how about a 60 - 70's Chrysler Imperial as a worthy opponent?
I see this as a complete waste of classic car. I really don't see the point of this. Was it really necessary? I don't know anyone who feels that the insurance institute hasn't helped vehcile safety. This entire video to me was a waste of two perfectly good cars.
Looking at this again, it doesn't appear as though there was an engine in the car. If there was, wouldn't the dash have to have been pushed into the car? The interior looks totally complete.
Also, the driver of the car would have died because the car didn't have seatbelts... not because of the accident.
Was this planned by liberals? Something looks shady here...
The 59 in the video appears to be heavily "doctored" The inner fenderwells are missing in the slow motion; windshield has not rubber gasket which allows it to blow out freely and although it would have effect on the outcome. The fender trim does not have all the hardware to attach it. The huge plume of rusty dust coming from the car after impact suggests it's actual condition.
This is another attempt by insurance and government agencies to brainwash the public.
I have seen a similar car (59 Cadillac) damaged like this but it was struck by a tractor trailer!
Also, there is a big question of the integrity of the 1959. Many cars of that era have thoroughly rusted-out frame rails. Look at the volume of brown dust (rust particles likely) thrown off by the 1959.
My Buddy's dad had the very same 59 and got into a pretty good fender bender in about 65-69. Somewhere in that period. The car shredded and was a total junk. We looked at the remains and this video brings back a lot of memories. Maybe this particular vehicle represented a low water mark in terms of this element of it's construction. These things fell apart like this. Rust evidence is in play here I'll admit.
Todd, given that the IIHS's mission is to increase profi-, er reduce the costs of the automotive insurance companies, I doubt they are liberals.
It sounds like many posters are trying to say cars aren't safer today or the efforts of the Insurance Institute over the last 50 years haven't played a part making us safer today than we were in those old death traps. I welcome their efforts and appreciate the work they've done. The auto industry as a whole has resisted many of the facts that cars can be built safer. Our highways are much safer today also. I remember more people being killed each year in auto accidents as there are today even though there are many more cars and miles driven today. The Darwin Awards are waiting for the names of those that deny these facts.
Wow, this is interesting. I'm really shocked about the weight - I would have thought the 59 was lots heavier. I was in a serious accident in 1977 with my 1963 Belair - the car was demolished but a lot of people said the bulk of the car saved my life. This type auto was somewhat unique with the "Y" or "X" frame - there was only one frame member in the center and the front and rear both looked kind of like a slingshot. This has two important outcomes. (1) it folds up like an accordion, absorbing a tremendous amount of kinetic energy, potentially shielding the passenger(s) and (2) because of the way it fold up you could never rebuild one of these after it had been in an accident.
I see no engine. I see huge plumes of rust dust spewing out of the wreckage of the Bel Air. This care was painted up and mocked up. It is NOT indicative of a real test. The Bel Air driver would have been killed due to no seat belt.
Not surprised at all. New cars crumple like raisins on impact, but that is so we don't. Thanks for the info., Brady.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!