Video Linky
Posted on 09/17/2009 2:30:09 PM PDT by Dallas59
This test was for IIHS's 50th year anniversary in the safety research business! Congrats on your 50 years guys! May many more come your way!
The dummy in the Malibu suffered only minor leg injuries while the dummy in the Bel Air would have dies instantly, this really shows how auto safety has progressed!
I like how they labeled the cars.
Just so we don’t get them mixed up.
I’ll let the sissy sisters worry about crumple zones, air bags, and the like.
Wonder how that Malibu will be doing in 2069?
I think they should have asked the Dear Comrade to drive the ‘59 Bel Air.
I was thinking the same thing. Doubt if you’ll be seeing any at Barret Jackson.
Yep. 50 (or maybe even 30) years from now there won’t be even one ‘09 Malibu in existence. But mid-late ‘50s Bel Airs will live forever.
I wonder if the driver of the ‘59 would have just avoided the wreck because he did not have a Nav system, satellite radio, cell phone, Blackberry, or a handful of fries to distract him while driving.
Also, back when people thought a car crash would KILL them, they tried much harder to avoid them. Now, they just figure they can walk away and sue for soft tissue injuries later.
Remember, just recently someone died in a simple 35mph roll-over in a Ford Focus.
Bel Aire driver fared far worse than the Malibu
I will let nostalgic retards drive the death trap from the 50’s.
Rebuild tranny every 30k miles. Rebuild engine every 60k miles.
Planned obsolescence. No thanks.
That's true. Sometimes, I don't even drive on the right hand side of the road. What's the point?
They could have given it to me and I would have given it a humane feath by mileage.
On another note, the only reason the guy in the Malibu would have survived is due to the air bag.
So in 50 years, they invented an air bag.
Hoorayyy </sarc>
Snort!
We must redistrinbute the wealth !
Sarc off....
It’s far more likely that the driver of the 2009 would have been able to avoid the crash because of the newer car’s far superior handling and brakes.
Did it have a 409?
Did the ‘59 have seatbelts? (57 didn’t)
Nope.
Inline 6. Three on the tree.
Andddd...... The 409 didn’t come out till 1961.
(I am probably totally wrong about that.)
(I am probably totally wrong about that.)
Hah! My memory is correct.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Bel_Air
What really sticks out in my mind is that there are people walking on this planet who are SOOOO FRACKIN’ STOOPID that they’ll destroy a classic automobile JUST to get their rocks off about safety.
They breath our air.
They eat our food.
They vote.
They may even reproduce.
God save us all!
They had a 348 in 59, Same block
The only car I ever owned that the transmission(notice how it is spelled, it isn't a sex change victim it is a car part)went out early was a 2000 Ford Taurus, it went out at 70,000 miles, and pi**ed me off to no end when it did it.
Yes, you are definitely wrong about the 409, it came out in the 1959 chevys. I remember them well because a friend of mine had one.
That’s a terrible, terrible crime; killing a 59 Chevy like that.
However....
On another note, the only reason the guy in the Malibu would have survived is due to the air bag. So in 50 years, they invented an air bag.
It's far more than that - crumple zones, steering columns, extensive computer analysis, prototype testing - and yes, the explosive component known as an airbag. Keep in mind, that final one's development and manufacturing took a tremendous amount of work, skill, and even literal costs of human lives (when the plants that make them occasionally blow up).
We have come a tremendous way in automotive safety, performance, quality, and efficiency - all through a huge amount of hard work and capital (there's Zer0's least favorite word) investment. It's just that this video is a dumb, dumb way to show it.
Ditto, you can always identify these ignorant fools who don’t even know what they’re talking about when they start spewing off babble like that. Whether we’re talking cars of the 1950’s/60’s or cars today, the one key critical component is MAINTENANCE, *preventive* maintenance and in the vehicles of the past, it was far easier (and encouraged) for the owners to do much of their own upkeep and the cars were designed to make that upkeep simple and straightforward, unlike these computerized digital pieces of plastic crap that have only one thing in common with their namesakes of the past, and that is: the name/badge on the fender.
Man, you got that right. Along with no fault insurance we've ended up with hordes or drivers who would just as soon have a wreck as not to. Three people ran into each other at an intersection near me last week, two were on cellphones and the third was messing with his on board DVD. All three of them were running a red light or flooring it through an amber according to the witnesses. They'll all have replacement vehicles and the same insurance premium next week and be back at it.
Regards
The first car I bought was a ‘59 Chevy. It was a flipping tank. I am suspect of the video.
The best drive in movie - in the world!!! Two bench seats.
LOL.
What a waste of a classic. Of course, had it been a ‘55 or a ‘56 that would have been sacrilegious.
Not quite the Bowtie.
Re: 348/409
One of the more remarkable features of that engine (and you may both know this already) is that Chevrolet engineers used a very shallow intake/exhaust valve area in the cylinder head, combined with what would appear to be lopsided pistons, effectively gave the 348/409 a fully machined combustion chamber at virtually no cost, which meant more efficient burning of fuel, i.e., more horsepower. The 409 was truly ahead of it’s time, and will remain a legend.
I say that as a diehard Ford fanatic too.
This is bogus - there is not seatbelt in the Chevy - thats why the driver would have died.
Actually, I am surprised that the Chevy came out as good as it did - I expected a lot more from the crumple zones, etc of the modern jelly bean.
PS - the Chevy’s ladder chassis might have made for a far different ending in a head on.
Anybody who would deliberately destroy one like that ought to be whipped.
I could not determine from the video if the ‘59 had a motor in it.
Good catch. I believe you are correct.
And you could fit 6 people into it without crowding.
You also have to wonder whether the ‘59 had corrosion issues that might have weakened its structure.
Yes. Good point. I would have preferred an in depth video.
Ya think? Did you see the cloud of rust that came off the ‘59? Whoa.
Give me the ‘59 Chevy anyday.
I looked again, you’re right-that cloud could only be rust!
...upholstered with plastic which could be washed off with a garden hose. Not that you would have had any reason to, of course.
hummm. Not my car but then I never tried to water the inside. I did not have padding on the dash, however.
We have come a tremendous way in automotive safety, performance, quality, and efficiency - all through a huge amount of hard work and capital (there's Zer0's least favorite word) investment. It's just that this video is a dumb, dumb way to show it.
In 1959 after a typical accident they towed the car to the body shop and the occupants went to the morgue. Today, the car goes to the scrapyard and the occupants walk away. Cars have become so safe that about the only way to get killed in an accident is to get ejected from the vehicle for not wearing a seatbelt. Not always but very, very often.
Take a trip in time:
http://www.superchevy.com/features/pre1977full/sucp_0801_348_409_w_engines/index.html
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.