Head on collision test between 1959 Chevy and 2009 Chevy.

[abeo]

Interesting video .....

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8f9_1253308261

[kdt]

Not what I would have expected.

[emelvee]

Interesting.

[Iaaaiws]

Car safety engineering has come a long way.

But I do notice they lined up the strongest part of the 2009 to hit just outside the frame rail on the '59. If these two cars hit directly head on or if the '59 t-boned the 2009 I bet the '09 would be completely farked up.

Plus, see how well a 2009 will fare in any crash test 50 years from now. There probably won't be any left to test. :lol:

[General Ghoul]

What they fail to mention, is the Bel Air had no seatbelts, and the Malibu obviously did.

[emelvee]

What they fail to mention, is the Bel Air had no seatbelts, and the Malibu obviously did.
Same with airbags. :dontknow:

[General Ghoul]

Same with airbags. :dontknow:

True, true, if the Bel Air had modern safety measures, it would be a tank on the road.

[Putz1103]

The Mercedes vs. Smart Car for Two video was pretty funny. The little Car for Two got thrown like a rag doll. I would not want to be in an accident in one of those...

[newjerseygirl]

Holy cow!!!!!!!!! :eek:

[Iaaaiws]

The Mercedes vs. Smart Car for Two video was pretty funny. The little Car for Two got thrown like a rag doll. I would not want to be in an accident in one of those...

I wouldn't want to be in one of those little coffins on wheels but I was impressed with how well the passenger compartment held up in that one.

[WoodyWoodPecker]

It does look like the angle of the hit was chosen to make the 2009 come out the best ! :nod:

[Putz1103]

It does look like the angle of the hit was chosen to make the 2009 come out the best ! :nod:

The two other collisions I saw tested used the same offset. So I don't know if it was designed to favor one or another or if that's where they set the test to more resemble real world things (rarely direct head to head).

[SlickChik]

My mom got in a bad accident last week. Some guy ran a stop sign in his Jetta, she was going 45 mph in her new accord. His car was toast. Her care actually wasn't too bad and it was amazing that she wasn't severely injured. Yay for safe cars!!

[sillymcnasty]

Wow that thing got smushed...

[ForeverDcember]

It is really interesting to see all the parts flying all over the place and the windshields pop out. Wow.

[Count_Chocula]

Same with airbags. :dontknow:

No air conditionin neither & probably just a crappy 8 track tape player!

[Ram|bunc|tious]

It does look like the angle of the hit was chosen to make the 2009 come out the best ! :nod:

Possibly - but how many 59' Chevy's do they have just sitting around to test different angles?

[Dr. J]

I knew a kid in HS that drove a Galaxie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Galaxie) - he hit a deer once and the car only had some hair in the grille :lol:

[emelvee]

Possibly - but how many 59' Chevy's do they have just sitting around to test different angles?Here, or in Cuba?

[Ram|bunc|tious]

Here, or in Cuba?

They'd need to equip the '09 model with flotation devices ...

http://www.americandigest.org/mt-archives/capt.mh10102041628.cuba_boat_car_mh101-thumb.jpg

[larrymoencurly]

True, true, if the Bel Air had modern safety measures, it would be a tank on the road.Probably not, judging by how much the passenger compartment was penetrated, the windshield came off (air bags depend on the windshield to position the bag correctly, especially for the passenger), and the steering wheel moving backward about a foot? One GM safety engineer said the steering wheel penetration and windshield integrity standards are the most important safety factors, after seatbelts or airbags. Also if you look at the front frame members, in old cars they were essentially battering rams (Ford's S-frame, introduced I think in the 1970s, was an exception), but in newer cars they're designed to crumple and may even have visible accordion areas to help this. The government publishes not just star ratings for crash performance but also the raw numbers for how hard the chest is slammed, the thigh bones are crushed, and the head is slammed, and sometimes the differences in forces can be 3:1.

[Ram|bunc|tious]

I want to see this crash test against any hybrid.

[chazjr]

Can you guess who wins..?
See Video..

On September 9, 2009, the Insurance Institute of Highway Safety destroyed a perfectly good 1959 Chevrolet Bel Air. This wanton dispatching of a perfectly good 50-year-old Chevy dismayed lovers of vintage cars, but it did add a “Thank God” to the old saying, “They just don’t build them like they used to.”
http://autos.aol.com/article/crash-1959-chevy?icid=main|main|dl4|link4|http%3A%2F%2Fautos.aol.com%2Farticle%2Fcrash-1959-chevy

[zmarko]

Repost (http://slickdeals.net/forums/showthread.php?sduid=22556&t=1573461).

[shhaggy]

I always hear this argument, but people don't seem to understand some fundamentals of physics when they look at car crashes. Yes, the old land yachts hold up well is car crashes, but is the concern really the condition of the car? Or the people inside? When a car gets hit and stays in tact, it usually gets pushed forward with a great impact, leaving passengers at risk for whiplash type injuries and seatbelt injuries just from shear force (it could cause serious internal injury). People sometimes shudder when they see the condition of a new car in an accident, but take a look at the cabin of that car and the people inside before you pass judgement. New cars are designed to absorb impact so that the entire car isn't bounced around. It means a lot of damage of the exterior but it helps with the impact that the actual cabin and passengers inside feel. The older car may win the battle, but the newer car's passengers win the war.

[Drio]

Following link and reading article fail in 3.... 2.... oh hi Shagggyyy.

[larrymoencurly]

I always hear this argument, but people don't seem to understand some fundamentals of physics when they look at car crashes. Yes, the old land yachts hold up well is car crashes, but is the concern really the condition of the car? Or the people inside? When a car gets hit and stays in tact, it usually gets pushed forward with a great impact, leaving passengers at risk for whiplash type injuries and seatbelt injuries just from shear force (it could cause serious internal injury). People sometimes shudder when they see the condition of a new car in an accident, but take a look at the cabin of that car and the people inside before you pass judgement. New cars are designed to absorb impact so that the entire car isn't bounced around. It means a lot of damage of the exterior but it helps with the impact that the actual cabin and passengers inside feel. The older car may win the battle, but the newer car's passengers win the war.As late as the 1980s, Mercedes cars crumpled about half as much as most cars in the US government's 35 MPH frontal crash test, and the forces on the crash dummies tended to be higher than average because of this. Mercedes has since "softened" its cars and now sometimes even puts crumple zone right in the middle of the passenger compartment -- to lessen the impact on the other car.

Another test, done in the late1980s, was meant to provide evidence against higher fuel economy standards by crashing an ****American**** 2-ton Ford Crown Victoria into a foreign 1-ton Suzuki Swift, with the cars closing in at 30 MPH. The smaller car crumpled a lot worse than the Ford, of course, but its crash test dummies actually fared well, even better than they did in the 35 MPH barrier test, but most of the public just noticed that the small car got squished a lot more than the big car.

[Zoe Moon]

:bigeye:

http://www.wimp.com/cartest/

[Count_Chocula]

Didn't shock me 1 bit?

[marg_fan]

I vaguely remember something similar to this being posted here before.

[iconian]

:jawdrop:

[Count_Chocula]

Does this help? (http://slickdeals.net/forums/showthread.php?sduid=80644&t=1573461)I vaguely remember something similar to this being posted here before.

[marg_fan]

Does this help? (http://slickdeals.net/forums/showthread.php?sduid=80644&t=1573461)

Yup. You have better search skills than I. Or at least quicker skills.