1959 Chevrolet Bel Air vs. 2009 Chevrolet Malibu IIHS crash test
Вставка
- Опубліковано 1 жов 2024
- IIHS 50th anniversary demonstration test • September 9, 2009
In the 50 years since US insurers organized the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, car crashworthiness has improved. Demonstrating this was a crash test conducted between a 1959 Chevrolet Bel Air and a 2009 Chevrolet Malibu. In a real-world collision similar to this test, occupants of the new model would fare much better than in the vintage Chevy.
"It was night and day, the difference in occupant protection," says Institute president Adrian Lund. "What this test shows is that automakers don't build cars like they used to. They build them better."
The crash test was conducted at an event to celebrate the contributions of auto insurers to highway safety progress over 50 years. Beginning with the Institute's 1959 founding, insurers have maintained the resolve, articulated in the 1950s, to "conduct, sponsor, and encourage programs designed to aid in the conservation and preservation of life and property from the hazards of highway accidents."
More information at www.iihs.org - Авто та транспорт
I think the general consensus is that we're grieving for the loss of the Bel Air.
Indeed
THE OLD CAR WERE BETTER. THATHAS A HIG EENGIN AND LOT SOF MET. THIS TEST IR RIGGED BECAUSE THERE NOT WERIGN SEAT BELT. MY MONEY ON ON THE 59 VEL AIR - ITS A CLASSOC!
@@ilovecops5499 Is this sarcasm?
Agree.
@@creditelectric I DONT KNW IS IT? THANSK YOUS AND THUMMS UPPERSES!
As a Firefighter I was called to an accident which turned out to be a head on collision between 60's model Chrysler and a 2000 model Subaru. The Chrysler looked to have held up pretty good but the driver was taken to hospital with life threatening injuries. The Subaru was totalled back to the windscreen yet the mother and daughter in the car walked away without a scratch.
The Subaru absorbed the energy with the crumple zone - the old Chrysler obviously not. If you would crash in a military tank against a concrete wall thick enough to withstand the tank the impact would be far worse compared to a crash with a modern car against the same wall
@@simonm1447 Yes, the tech built into modern cars is far superior to the old heavy is better thinking.
And the Subaru driver was probably at fault...
@@Bikeduederjust because someone has a classic doesn’t mean they know how to drive. Seen plenty of those videos around where old people crash their old shit and blame everyone else.
@@sciontcfanclub what are you even talking about there's like maybe 300 of these left driving in the world. I imagine there are far more dipshits driving newer cars. In fact I KNOW that to be a fact judging by people I see driving every single day.
"They don't make 'em like they used to."
"Yeah, here's why."
@Mike legally you can't because of what you just saw.
Yeah bruh leave the bel air 50 years in a barn clean it up a bit and it’ll start right up but take your 2009 Chevy Malibu leave it in a corner for a decade and later tell me if the car cranks over
@@aboyplays7278 what point are you even trying to make?
Cars were built with better materials I’ve seen 90+ year old car that have sat 60 years in a garage that the very least just need a little TLC and they start right up and cars like that Malibu need an engine rebuild all that good stuff after like 15 years
@@aboyplays7278 we both know a car sitting in a barn 50 years isn’t going to start no matter how much dust you knock off. While modern cars are more susceptible to sitting for many years due to their complexity, all cars are susceptible to nature, and there’s a good chance any 50 year old barn find is going to need more than a wash, and we’re talking more than a jump too… if you put a 70 year old car and a 2009 Malibu next to each other in an air conditioned showroom for 10 years, it’s unlikely either would have trouble starting as long as the batteries were maintained over that time period. Neglect and mistreatment claims all things
I can't believe they destroyed such a future classic like the 2009 Malibu.
I know right.. why did the destroy they 2009 malibu
@@Xian..because it deserves it. It’s a characterless blob.
Well, that’s what it deserves. It was a piece of garbage.
@@unitedcity_mc4421it is just a car
😂😂😂😂😂
The guy in the Bel Air looked really really cool while crashing
The guy in the Bel Air looked really really cool while dying.
He didn’t even spill his latte
Lost those teefers tho....
The guy in the Bel Air was listening to Elvis on his am radio, the guy in the Malibu was listening to rap, he wanted to die.
@@gordonwalls3482 Lmao
My dad once told me of a relative who was in a crash in the late 1960s, and was in fact driving a Bel-Aire. He said that the man's organs were pushed upwards in the crash due to the man hitting the steering wheel. He was taken to medical facility in San Antonio where surgery saved the man's life.
New cars warp easily, but this shows the purpose for that.
Seat belts?
@@lr5397 The Bel Air didn't have seat belts
Mh, so much for unadvanced medical technology. You prove one thing for yourself and I prove another for myself.
@@WitchKing-Of-Angmar What the fxxk are you on about?
Exactly. A car can be replaced. A liver, not so much.
We've gone real far in terms of car safety. Back then they thought that massive amounts of steel and long hoods would do the trick. The difference of interior damage between the two cars is insane.
I don't really think that that is what they were thinking back then. In fact, I don't think that they were thinking about safety much at all. Certainly they were not thinking, "If we make the cars long and heavy they will be safer." The cars just happened to be long and heavy because the public wanted roomy cars that could comfortably fit the whole family and the groceries. There were no small family car options for the American market in 1959. The VW Beatle was the first.
The problem with a heavy car in an accident is that that car in motion possesses a lot of energy. There is weight in front of the driver and also weight behind. The mass in front of the driver might absorb a lot of the energy from and oncoming car, but there is nothing to stop the mass in the back of the car from wanting to be in the front. And there is nothing to keep all that mass from continuing to move with a lot of energy if an initial impact doesn't happen to stop it.
@@kennethpaquin6692 Thank you , this is an educating comment
The improvements in safety have been astonishing. I know I'll get shit canned for saying it but Ralph Nader was a major influence on this.
@@kennethpaquin6692 The Nash Metropolitan went on sale in the US in late 1953 and was still around by '59.
@@thethirdman225 didnt Ralph Nader just bitch about how unsafe the Corvair was?...mostly unsafe because people don't understand the physics of a rear engine car..
This video is spot on. I've been a volunteer Firefighter and Advanced Life Support Tech for almost 3 decades. When I started most vehicles were late 1970"s, 1980's, and early 90's. if I cut someone out of a pre mid1990's car it was definitely a recovery because I had a corpse. Cars built after mid/late 1990's cars 50/50 death and critical condition trauma. After 2000's there have been significant improvements in survival and injury reduction. Wrecks That I cut people out of today 85% -90 are serious to severe injuries betwene 10%-15 are fatal.
Thank you for helping to save lives
🐱👍🏿
I'm sorry, I can't let this one pass by. The only reason you would have to cut someone out of an older car was because it was so bad no one could have survived in most cars period. Otherwise they would have opened the door. Major downfall of older cars were the seat belts or lack thereof.
@@sirreus3003 I'm sorry too, but you couldn't be more wrong. Older vehicles were just bodies sitting on a frame. What would happen to them in an accident was an afterthought. They didn't even start crash testing until the late 1970s. Modern unibody vehicles are designed to survive crashes. There's hundreds of videos on UA-cam that describe the engineering that goes into making modern cars safer. Old cars are death traps.
Now about the rest of you nonsense. If there's a serious accident ,be it rollover, t-bone, or head on collision. There's a very good chance regardless of the vehicle you're in that the frame or unibody will distort and you wont be able to open the doors. It happens all the time. They cut the roof off and pull you out. In a modern car you have a chance at survival. Older car they are recovering your body. This isn't even debatable. The science has been in for decades. I know it bothers some people that a new Toyota Camry is s safer than dads old Cadillac, but it's a fact.
@@mjwbulich So you are telling me the seatbelt or lack thereof was not a major factor of traffic deaths in older cars? is that why I'm so wrong?
Thank you for your years of service!
When I was 5 and my mom had to run errands she would take me along in our 1965 Ford whatever and the front seat child restraint was her right arm.
In The event of a crash that would have worked as the engine would be pushing her arm towards the rear ! smart mama
OLD SCHOOLW AS WAS BESTS. NO CAR DSEATH SBACK THEN. NOW IT ALL SNOWFALKES AND AIR BASSEG AND CRYIGN TO THE GOVEMNT!
I love cops... You should go crying to your spelling teacher, demanding your money back.
@@blipco5 THEY DIS NOT HAS NASTRAN OR PATRAN BACK IN 1959S!!
blipco5
Highlighted reply
blipco5
15 minutes ago
I love cops... You should go crying to your spelling teacher, demanding your money back
I remember being about 6 yo and my mom driving a '64 Dodge Dart sedan . She saw we were about to be rear ended and swung her arm out in front of me . We got hit but weren't hurt . All my little army men in the glove box came flying out though . My mom weighed about 95 lbs !
can we all take a moment of silence for that poor Bel Air
Everyone get loud
WOOOOOO!!!!!
I’m grieving more for the loss of the Malibu I drive the same make and model year Malibu
Love that thing
@ElectroCarsSuck Ik it ain’t but I was just sayin it cause that’s my baby
Yes
Why did they have to waste a 59 Impala? The car seemed perfect though a sedan. It was worth at least 15k . They probably knew the results ahead time. What was the purpose. I owned a 60 Nomad and it drove like a dream.
The steering wheel coming at the Bel Air driver was freaking scary! Holy crap that thing almost hit the drivers seat it was so displaced. Good thing the drivers face was checking out the volt meter on the dashboard.
Thats why GM went to colapsable steering wheels in 1967 for that reason alone.
The programmed crumple zones and the innovation in energy dispersal also does a good job even in small cars when area made of right way
@StrangeElf1 don't speak too soon. This isn't a brand new vehicle if you forgot what 50 year rotting away in a field exposed to the elements anniversary means. Don't be gullible into thinking that this is fair, its so easy to shut you people up.
@StrangeElf1 you sound like you don't know. I was there, in 1959 the Chevrolet Impala and BelAir both used a frame design with a lower body closer to the wheels, that allowed for easy cruising ability, and an overtly lengthened front that bent inward on purpose. You should see a modern vehicle trying to survive a 50 mile per hour crash, which is usually the speed these drivers were going in the 1950's, you just couldn't believe a vehicle went over 30 back then so you would have assumed it was a minimal crash for maximum damage.
I will continue to say that there was NEVER a line for upward advancement, society just pretended that was the case to make people believe them up until still clearly today. You people boast about your modern product, forgetting that yours is just the rehash of the original product when they created and made it. If you people knew the era you talked down to, you wouldn't be talking down to it at all. The safest body years was the mid 1930's, but no one can even name a vehicle from that time that goes beyond basic company motifs, so I doubt they would know any other fact then beside the great depression which was already over by 1935.
@@WitchKing-Of-Angmar so let me get this straight, car companies are making cars LESS SAFE?
Jesus your logic sucks
I remember as a country-boy teenager in the early 80s, guys would buy 60s & 70s big cars as their first ride. I also remember the shocking number of funerals held for young accident victims, drivers and passengers. The simple fact of the matter is that today, we can walk-away from a twisted wreck, now that cars are engineered to protect the occupants in the event of an accident.
Old cars are way sexier and meaner looking fuck modern cars especially EV’S I purely hate ev’s 😡
Yet we average the same number of fatal crashes year after year with some years being higher and some years being lower. I am retired law enforcement and spent 13 years in traffic homicide, I hate to be the one that tells you but just as many people die today in automobile crashes as died in the past.
@@mustangecoboosthpp3869How many more cars are on the road today, and what’s the average number of miles driven per year? I’m pretty certain that the collision/miles driven or fatality/miles driven numbers are lower today.
@mustangecoboosthpp3869 that's due to behavior. Cars are safer, people are willing to take more risks, it balances out
@@mustangecoboosthpp3869My brother in Christ, if the number of crash deaths stays the same but the population increases…
Its amazing how the efforts of improvement in safety have made progress over the years. Changing the concept from the 'strong car' that killed it's passenger to the car with the 'safety compartment/ cage'' where the car is deformed but the contents of the safety cage ie the passengers suffer much less harm and are likely to survive as was evident in this clip.
Fake news, Bel Air engine was removed to ensure the result.
@@9avedon even if the bel air had no engine (i dont belive in but hey ho) the driver would still get killed because of no airbag and crumble zones
Yeah, everything you said here is truth. But look what happened to american society since then. Cars got "safe" and smart. People got soft fat and stupid.
@@southernNCfamily Safe, so safe in fact , they ruined all the playgrounds and all the children are bored.
see my coment
RIP Bel Air 1959-2009
😂😂😂
A true tradgity if you ask me
Fifty years and still drivable until some marketing stooge had an "idea".
Ugly that Bel Air. Looks angry!
@@svasianfilipiname6603 Better than your Plastic Chevy Malibu
Send this to all the old timers that think that the older, big, heavy, metal cars built like tanks are safer than modern engineered cars. The entire cabin crumpled in on the driver in the Bel air, but it barely moved for the Malibu.
You aren't as smart as you think you are. Talk to a real old timer, not the 60's kids who never experienced the 1950's, we know the automobile industry and can turn your theory on its head.
Those two cars weight almost exactly the same. If the Malibu has the V6 it might even weight slightly more than the Bel Air.
The one that impressed me was a (modern) rally driver who drove off the side of a mountain, bounced to the bottom, and walked away from it. I know those cars have more safety equipment than road cars, but still. We have come a really long way.
PERIOD
@@mjwbulich There's only a 100 or 200 Lb difference between the cars, last I checked. *EDIT* after the below reply: The engine (a *straight 6 engine, not a V8)* was in the engine bay, I have an alternate video of this on my channel, and one still of it shows the air cleaner under the hood during the collision...
Pity about using the Chevy, but it does show how much safety has improved. The improved road toll statistics speak volumes. (For Australia) in 1959 there was 85 road fatalities for every 100,000 vehicles, in 2014 it was down to 4.5 per 100,000.
Hmmm, that statistic does not prove it's all car safety improvements. It sums up all accident deaths, many of which have been reduced by speed limits, policing, driver education, better roads, etc, etc.
Lets hope that the sacrifice made by one Bel Air is worth the thousands of classics that is actually driven gets driven with responsibility
@@thedolphin5428But we're in agreement cars are safer? I mean, they obviously are!
@@ChrisPatrick-q6k
Sure. No doubt. But that particular statistic, and a BelAir vs a Malibu, does not specify the reasons for the improvement in fatalities. You would need to see a detailed breakdown into all the different causes and preventions of accidents (eg, poor weather, driver inattention, speed, mechanical failure, divided carriageways, etc) versus survivability caused by vehicle safety innovations (eg, seat belts, air bags, ABS, crumple panels, etc). A statisic just about fatalities is a conglomeration of factors. That's my point. And, the video above is only indicative of a crash at that angle in those models. An old BelAir vs a modern Mini or tiny Hyundai Van would not look so good for the newer cars. I'm not being argumentative for no reason, just saying how one test does not prove a general rule.
@@thedolphin5428 A new Mini or Hyundai would do the same, they're even stiffer than this Malibu.
If the furry dice in the Bel air were bigger they would act as an air bag.
Did you know in many states having something hanging off your mirror is an excuse for police to pull you over?
Then they can take your cash and "stuff" using civil forfeiture laws.
I am not kidding.
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Absolutely! - The incompetent Testers had not made sure that the correct Furry Dice safety equipment had been installed...
@@MP-zf7kg Quite !, And THEY drive around with all sorts of speed camera, number plate recognition, blah, blah, etc, completely covering the Windscreen, to facilitate not being able to see any real crimes going on...
@@MP-zf7kg,
That's why they're known as coproaches
watching a beauty like that '59 Bel Air getting smashed makes me wanna puke
I absolutely agree with you! How could they?
It wasn't... didn't you see the rust cloud??? None of that came from the Malibu.
@@kyleteal5888 If the rust was really that bad, I suppose it was worth smashing up, but still, it could have at least been used as a parts car? (The interior of the 59 looked pretty clean!)
crap, USA never made a decent car since the 1930s, ride like stuck pigs 7 litre mill, 9 mpg slow as a snail
@@stuarth43 Put a cork in it Limey.
We are ALL thinking the same thing. Are you crazy destroying that nice car ?
If as a kid you rode in one with moms and sis, you'd protect it with your life.
No engine, I think not
@@Drumsticksmcgee what does it matter if there is an engine in the car or not? Doesn't take away from the fact that they destroyed a nice car that many people would do just about anything for, for a pointless video to show what anyone with basic vehicular knowledge could tell you without wasting a car.
Iittttssssse fooorrr science
Exactly. They have to be jerks to destroy such a beautiful car.
A roll cage, shoulder belts, and a collapsible steering shaft joint are the best safety upgrades you can do in a classic car.
And airbag
If you wanna lower the value
@@mateuszkostecki29 those classic steering wheels usually can't fit airbags
@@SpikeyDeeSpicy What's the point of caring about resale value? I don't buy things with the plan on re-selling them, I buy them because I *want* it and intend to either use it until it can no longer be repaired or until I'm done with it and can give it to a friend or family member possibly as an heirloom.
@@Exarian As things were intended! Bravo Exarian.
They made all these improvements to cars right when I was about to get my license. They saw me coming, and decided to protect you all. You're welcome.
I'd have thought that big old HEAVY Bel Air would have won that battle.
Rust Clouds from the old car tell the real story.
i can asure you that the big old HEAVY Bel air, actually weighs less than the chevrolet malibu
@@9avedon Rust clouds or no rust clouds, I can't believe these clowns would destroy a cherry 59 Bel Air to make some lame 50th anniversary video.
They are pretty close in weight the Bel Air was 3,225 pounds v/s the Malibu 3,415 pounds.
@@rayjr62 nah nah fr i was mad crying while watching this video
I guess those safety engineers actually know something after all. What would be left of the Bel Air driver you could clean up with a hose. It is not weight, but how the forces are directed. The 1950's cars may have had some style, but there was nothing other than the bumper to protect the riders. No belts, not even unbreakable glass. Think of how many lives have been saved because of this. Not something that we often see.
@@Remembering-rq6si Really ... so why all the safety glass now?
@@Remembering-rq6si So what do you think of unibody, seat belts and air bags? I remember my father cutting the lap belts out of our '66 Parisienne because no one was going to tell him how to drive his car ... later it was the only ticket my mother ever got.
Makes sense as I heard a lot of folks died hitting the windshield. If they were fixed and thicker it would be like hitting a brick wall.
@@Remembering-rq6siThe glass isn't even bonded to the chassis, old classics are death traps.
@@henrivanbemmel It's probably a "yes that's correct but the context is ass" question. It's specifically called "safety glass", not "shatterproof" -- it shatters fairly easily, but the layers and lamination are designed to make it so that it doesn't spray shards all over the place, instead coming out basically as a large sheet of glass chunks between two layers of laminate. Those fragments are also typically a lot less sharp, believe it or not -- if you've ever seen the aftermath of someone punching in a modern car window you can observe this yourself. There's a ton of rough glass pebbles everywhere and you still wouldn't want to walk on them, but you couldn't impale someone on what's left of a modern window.
The car glass from the 1950s will indeed take a lot more work to shatter, because it's thicker and built for rigidity, but when it DOES break it throws sharp glass fragments everywhere. So less sturdy, but more "safety".
@@InchonDM What on earth are you on about?
One walks away severely shaken up, one’s carted away in a body bag, amazing technology to absorb that kind of energy
Or paralyzed, bruised and scared physically and mentally
@luigigamer7631 that's why we have lawyers.
So many people don't understand the science behind today's modern unibody construction. This was an offset crash. The front ends on today's unibody cars are designed to absorb the full impact of the hit by spreading it to other structural members. On old cars like the Impala, you have two frame rails---that's it. The fenders, hood, doors and floorpan are not structural members, so once that frame rail collapses, YOU become the crumple zone.
Not even.
Chevies of this era used an X frame which sounds strong but isn’t. The two front frame rails meet in the middle to become one which is why the car folds in half.
@@calvinnickel9995 Aren't the "A Pillars" also doing a bad job?
Ignore the FanBoys, no pre 90's car's even remotely safe.
Where's the motor during all thus?
@@101Volts they got fired 3 months before the test by the looks of it.
Nobody stops mid-sentence with their mouths hanging open to watch a 2009 Malibu drive by.
This is very true. I guess my choice would be to drive the '59, and avoid crashing it like a dummy...
@@nonolaporte3195 All of those american 1959 cars were super fugly.
@@johnabuick
You're obviously not a car guy.
@@leekronforst4589 Obviously not an OLD car guy.
@@leekronforst4589 I like cars but 59 chevy's were and still are fugly. I was twelve in 59 and I thought they were ugly then and I still do.
I’m a big classic car guy with my own 60s chevy in the garage. Yet i always turn folks to this video when people say “man i hate plastic cars. they just don’t make em like they used to..”
And aren’t we glad? RIP to this beautiful 59. She died in the name of science.
Imagine a car with modern safety and availability, but old looks and build quality.
@@walter_248 unfortunately new cars look the way they do mostly because of that safety equipment. a lot of it's for aerodynamics and fuel efficiency, but the high sills, very thick pillars, ridiculously big dashes and overall weight is in the name of crash safety. you could never package all that equipment into a classic shape. these old cars are beautiful because the designers had no restrictions.
That’s why I quit going to car shows. I really can’t believe people are this stupid. George Carlin was right.
Wow, this really tells a story. Just look at the roof support column on the Bel Air and body frame cave like aluminum foil. This crash test dummy definitely did not survive, the steering column went right through his throat.
You say wow as if it surprised you that in a classic car without a collapsible steering column, and crush zones ECT. You'd be more hurt than in a modern car....what's surprising about that?
WRONGE! LOOK AGAIN AND YOUE WILL SEE HOW TH ESHEETE METAL CRUMPLED AND ABSORBVED THE IMPACKT. TH EENGINE ALL TOO AK LOT OF FRCE. THE STEERENG WHEEL; CLEVERLY WHENTE UP AND AWT FROM TEH DRIFERS FACES THEYT KNEW HOW TO DIT RIFGHT BACK THEN. NEW CARS IS A DEATH TRAPS!!!!
@@treverdrew6993 One would absolutely not be more hurt in a modern car.
@@thenormalberries6767 please, read my comment again to see if you can comprehend what I said before allowing your misconception of my words to make you look silly.
@@ilovecops5499 Lay off the booze and sober up a bit, then come back and see if you can post something that's coherent.
If I recall correctly the 59-61 Chevys used an 'X' frame as opposed to a ladder type frame. X frames were woefully inadequate in any crash and lethal in sustaining side impact. A good impact to the side could break the car in half. Also unstable in a crosswind due to the fins...
NOT TRUES. THE SHEETE MENTAL AND HUG EENGINS IS A LARGE SHOCK DMAPER FOR IMPACT. THEY KNW WHAT THEY WAS DOIGN BACK THEN.
True, that X member frame was a bad design, but this car was compromised. Notice how the exhaust pipe didn't move while the front end was being smashed in? Notice the rust-colored dust cloud coming out from under the car? This car had no engine and a rusted frame. One WITH an engine and a GOOD frame would not have faired as badly as this one did. Another thing, why did the back wheels of the 59 come up off the floor, but the Malibu's did not? As if the Malibu was a much heavier car. Could it be that the Malibu was beefed up?
I didn't know that. Thanks for mentioning
@@michaelbenardo5695 there's pictures of the car on display. it had its motor in it at the time of the crash.
@@manz7860 Why didn't the exhaust pipe move while the motor was being pushed to the right side then? None of you guys that believe what insurance companies say will answer that question.
It's a shame the Bel Aire was destroyed, but this serves as a lesson for those who claim that cars in the past were robust enough to protect you from collisions...
They should keep doing it, until people learn.
They were this one was weakened by rust
@@YankeeDoodle2 No they weren't, EVERS. This car was left on display afterwards, many people observed it was solid, unmodified, complete and rust free. Everytime one of these old Vs modern crash tests is conducted the stupid Butt Hurt Fanboys start peddling their sxxx.
@@YankeeDoodle2 NUH UH. People argue that old cars were robust, with varying accuracy, but most of these gorgeous rolling boats are certified coffins.
Don't forget the dashboard is all steel and no seatbelts. Fun times!
you guys wondering.....
a lot of your car is meant to absorb energy in a crash. that's why it crumples like a beer can, and why in some cars the engine may actually "dive" beneath the car.
My entire Prius is a crumple zone.
We had a car just like the 59 chevy, no seat belts. Didn't even think of something like that. I was quite young but seemed ok then. Definitely save lives and disability.
Well that’s cause the cars back then weren’t like the 09, they all had similar construction so incidents like this wasn’t a big concern. Definitely not okay these days with what roams our modern streets.
I knew a couple who were in a 63 chevy when a drunk guy ran a stop sign--thanK god it was in the city the this couple got BRUISED UP real bad !!
i've been t-boned in a Mazda 3 by a kid running a red light. I nearly took a head-on from an idiot who was in my lane coming across a four-way. The problem is never so much how good somebody is at defensive driving; it's surviving the enormous number of morons who are out there driving with us.
You'd think we could SIMULATE this whole thing and not ruin that museum piece.
I read about this collision test. They figured that the 59 Bel Aire driver was DRT (dead right there). They figured that the other driver might have suffered a sprained ankle.
Notice that the 2009 didn’t really deform back of the A pillars.
Modern crush zones plus seatbelts plus air bags equals survival.
Really crush zones??? How about that dust cloud didn't come Malibu. Get Year One and Auto Metal Direct together have them build a couple of cars together. Then get different cars from different manufacturers and smash those fresh metal with fresh metal.
@@kyleteal5888 What?
@@demef758 He's saying he thinks that the test is invalid because they used an example that had surface rust on the frame. (Really though, the IIHS said that it was clay that got stuck in the X frame, not rust.) After that, he's saying "Why not make a reproduction Bel Air and test that instead."
@@kyleteal5888Garbage, things have moved on. Deal with it
Then why do we still have 44k dead traffic deaths yearly?
Look at the way the two cars crash. The Mailbu front end pushes and crumples inward in the sections of impact and energy stays OUT of the occupant compartment. The Bel Air's structure just gets compromised and if you look at the bumper you can see the way the structure leans and twists to the compartment.
The FanBoys disgust me
I had always wondered how these vintage tanks would fare in a crash with modern vehicles. This and other videos online are clear and convincing evidence of the safety advances made by modern engineers. Thanks to everyone.
Edit: I was a child in the 60’s riding between my parents while my three older sibling rode in the back and no one wearing a seatbelt (first law requiring seatbelts was a federal law in 1968). We were among the fortunate ones not involved in an accident.
Also clear in wasting perfectly good cars.
That car had a rusted frame. It would have held up better if the frame was solid. Not saying that today's cars don't have important safety advances, just pointing out that the testers deliberately skewed the outcome.
It was common to have kids on your knee in the UK around then.
There was not many break through in cars since 2009.
There was only one vintage car in the video.
@@michaelbenardo5695 look again - the floor pan and rocker panels didn't fail.
It pains me to see that Belair destroyed.
@cannonball It still would have lost. Safety standards weren't great at the time. Still, a shame for such a beautiful car.
One less horror in the world
@@adg1355 Exactly. I just don't see the appeal (never did), with old rusty eye sores like that brown "classic" scary looking thing!
@@svasianfilipiname6603 Classic cars from 70s look gorgeous. But not this abomination.
@@adg1355 Well it's better then 90s Kias and 80s Yugos.
So many people still say how much stronger the good ol' cars were.
This clearly shows the strength of the passenger cell of the newer car.
But today's cars scratch easily
The thing is older cars are stronger
@@tylerm6765 yeah...strong...passing all that impact to the occupants.
@@sailorgabbie There’s a reason why those cars would last thousands of miles and never break down. American made
exactly.
That fake ass metal, you must think I’m stupid, I literally tow vehicles like these away all the time and that bel air won’t crumble easily like that ESPECIALLY at that speed
see my coment
No doubt car-safety technology has come a long way
Cars have gotten safer but uglier.
@@conbro0985 Lol, this Bel Air It is neither of the two cases
No it hasn't
Today's car break in half...
@@ralphabreu5022What on earth are you on about???? Cut the BS, now!!!!!👺
@@ChrisPatrick-q6k
A unibody car if hit right breaks in half.
Thanks modern plastic fantastic car's.
They need to bring back body on frame cars and trucks
Good thing the driver's body would prevent Bel Air from taking more damage 👍
even with safety belt i hit my mouth to steering wheel,an accident before airbags,and i was waiting for red light, direct hit without any brake to back of my car.
I still remember that metal dash and spear steering post.
@@tatarramazan8202 Sounds like your airbag was faulty. That's not supposed to happen
@gumshoesoul Sad.
NOT SOE! THE ENGIN AN DLOTS OF SHEETY METAL DAMPESN THE IMPACT. THEY KNEW HOW TO DO TI RIGHT BACK IN THE DAY. LOTS OF CATSHIGN UP TO DO TO GET TO 1959 STANDERDS!
Sad as the loss of the car is, the dummy was very lucky actually. In a head on crash it was very common for the steering column to go right through the driver's chest.
Imagine I was the driver in that test in the Bel Air, I would have easily been killed instantly
Sammy Davis had it rip out his eye. True story. Then, his white friends had to try to find a "colored hospital" in California as he's holding his own eyeball. Took 45 minutes
Stunning advances in technology, safety, and a regression in style.
looks are subjective.
function over form every time.
This is just an idea of mine and you're free to disagree, but the way I see it, every car design trend is a product of its time. 1930s cars are all about slick streamlining, 50s cars contained space-age and jet-age styling to reflect new technology, 80s cars emphasized bright colours and clean lines, and today's cars seem to be going for an angular 'high-tech' look. Using features that have long been out of use on mass-produced cars might be interesting, but does it make sense for the era it's _made for?_
At least that's my two cents.
@@jerrycoob4750 Early 50s and late 50s are a far different world, though. Early 50s to mid 50s still somewhat had the hefty, heavy, round 1940s airliner looks.
@@101Volts My 1953 Ford Customline has kind of both. The front grill looks like a plane's propeller, but the tail lights look like jet afterburners. And on the side it kind of looks like a plane or jet leaving a con trail.
Aerodynamics, crash and pedestrian safety amongst many other things. Plus, you're a stuck in the past Dud!! Most people want to see new designs.
Hate you !!! How could you do this ??? That was 1959 Chevrolet Bel Air !
So sad they wasted a vintage rare Chevy Bel Air just to show its inferior to new cars
It suck dude I know R.I.P. the 59 bel air
@@t-artist7291 yeh RIP Bel air
Cry more.
Was a mint looking Bel Air. So Sad
Yes, I agree, such a test would be much more interesting had the Malibu been matched up with a 2009 Chevy Silverado.
NO Maverick, Pinto or Edsel was harmed in the making of tis video.... unfortuneately
👍🤣 Ford - Flip Over and Read Directions..
This made me laugh out loud!
@@whyputaname at least Ford didn’t go bankrupt
Not to mention the Vega's and the Gremlins. Let's throw in the Cybertruck for good measure.
Or AMC Gremlin!
Love that collapsible steering wheel rim on the bel air
The rim collapses but the column still goes through your face.
Test a real car not a rust bucket with a brand new paint job
Same results, boomer
“ they just don’t build them like that anymore “
Thank goodness...
Grew up in Michigan during the age of carburetors. Besides the clip above I'll take fuel injection any day of the week.
They darent!
@@kevinsutton4966 my feelings exactly!
thank god
Old cars were built like a tank the old man would say...a bloody water tank.
There's no engine or transmission in the 59 also I don't believe that there is a radiator or support so what do you think a sheet. metal box would do
Where are you getting this from?
Edit.
IIHS replied to another comment below. It did have an engine in it.
Newer cars are made to protect you. Older cars weren't made to protect you.
Craigslist the next day:
Classic 1959 Chevrolet Bel Air. A real beauty! Low miles, a few dings, a little buffing will bring the paint right back to new. You don't see them like this every day. No lowballers...I know what it's worth.
And no title!
It ran when I parked it
my take is the crush zones and high strength steel makes 1 hell of a difference now days. they did not have this back in the 50's.to me good demo for those who wonder how far we come in safety. i know a lot about this collision stuff after 35+ yrs. ford has 1 hell of a safety net lots of crush zones. more so than a gm. cut into a car it will amaze you? now days they are manufactured with safety in mind. they even have black boxes now..
Exactly but you will have a hard time convincing some people, which is the purpose of this video. Too bad people only care about the Bel Air and its "status" as a "classic"...
Ya, all that high strength Chinese steel compared to that old weak ass Pittsburgh made in USA steel, hahahahaha LOL !
What I take from this video: If there's a car coming towards you, drive around it.
Are we just going to ignore the clouds of rust pouring out of the Bel Air? I bet the frame and other structural components were swiss cheese under that pretty body.
good point. hard to tell how much it have weakend the metal.
Irrespective of the frame rust, the steering wheel still became a projectile that implanted a unicorn horn on the crash dummy's face. ua-cam.com/video/C_r5UJrxcck/v-deo.html
Exactly !.....Look at the Rust Pouring out of the Rocker Panels like Ant Hills on the Floor.....they took an old rusty body with an X frame painted it up and hit it in the Left Front corner of Course its going to Fold its an X frame....( Weakest Frame ever made ) .. They did that on Purpose to make the New Car Look Stronger and Safer. Put that New Junk up Against a Car with a Straight Ladder Frame and it will Destroy that Malibu.
I drive a restored 67' F100 pickup with lap belts I put in it. Every time I drive it I am well aware that it is a death trap. The original brochure for my truck touted an "Extra padded dash for safety", with seat belts being an option you had to pay for. Vehicles have come a long way.
Right. A sixty seven foot long pickup.
@@machjuan you sure know your apostrophes, or maybe not.
Back around 1998 I was living in Calgary, Alberta, I loved these trucks so much I quickly responded to an ad for a 67 with a 6 banger in it. $600. Well I show up to give it a test drive, it was 3 on the tree, standard steering and standard brakes. I walked away. Driving it scared the crap out of me. Sure, I could have outfitted a brake booster and power steering, and maybe had the shifter moved to the floor, but it all would have added up beyond my means.
Another interesting video brought to light recently by the UA-cam algorithm. Sad to see a Bel Air destroyed like that.
What a beautiful car that the IIHS just destroyed for no reason. It pains me every time this pops up in my recommendations
they destroyed it to prove a point since people claim that "old cars are made of pure steel and can withstand a heavy impact"
Waist of a 59 😢
no its not a waste
@@little_kopy It is
@@ramp7857 how
That’s my grandpa’s car they’re smashing there! I’ll always remember that unique copper color!
And yet, I'd still take the Bel Aire!
Same here. Rather die in style.
U wouldn’t be saying that if u were actually in a situation like that, idiots
@@ballshd6356 Sure I would we all got to go sometime. I was born and grew up in the time of these cars, 60s and 70s so no big deal to me.
@@ictpilot ^Focus/Volt driver, would die in either in head-on, regardless of safety features...
@@Cracktaculus, honestly that’s true, I know 2 people who have died from accidents in a focus
And everyone says those cars are built like a tank
I owned a 59 Bel-Air convertible. Damn I miss that car!
So you like Driving a heavy submarine tank of a thing? Made you feel "powerful" like Arnie from Christine haha. Okay now I get it, I get why people go gaga for oldies! Very interesting.
@@svasianfilipiname6603 The fuck is wrong with you? You live a truly sad life if you feel the need to go shitting on people for liking classics. I am saving up to buy a 60s fiat 500, it's a tiny harmless little thing, and i love the 59 bel air too! Get rid of your prejudice and stigma, you poor, pathetic soul.
@@svasianfilipiname6603Well its their hobby and interest so plss dont mind them and do your own things. thx
Seems a shame to destroy a great looking car from 1959 just to prove a point.
I think the Bel Air was the cheapest of the line.
@@bradmason4706 you would be incorrect.
Yes, but the remaining examples will grow in value as there's one less of them available.
@@StupidEarthlings Wasn't the cheapest one the Biscayne? Maybe not, I just know they stopped making the Biscayne line in the mid 70s.
I still prefer the Bel Air.
Same here. Today's Japanoid boxes just don't appeal to me.
Most likley that bel air was chosen as the under carriage/frame was possibly waifer thin from 60 years of corrosion, a slick paint job hides a lot , This video was made by people to push an agenda after all.
also I didn't see the massive (5.7 L) Big-Block V8 engine inside the bay (or powerglide trans) when the collision hit only the radiator at the front that gets pushed back into the firewall at the rear of the engine bay
@@chinabluewho Probably. Also, I think they unbolted the front clip to frame mount that is ahead of the front wheel, right up near the radiator bulkhead. This car was supposedly a Stovebolt 6, so it is even more likely that it would push the firewall inward due to it's length.
@@chinabluewho
IIHS has confirmed it has the Blue Flame i6.
The fact that the Bel airs rear glass didn't break is pretty amazing
Something had to survive!
yes, fortunately the driver was turned into jelly so that the glass-breaking energy was safely dissipated.
Back when things were made with genuine quality.
Modern cars are much safer, there is no arguing this, however, that particular Belair seemed to explode with rust dust on impact. Probably not the most sound example of that car.
wishful thinking.
Huge cloud of rust. Good catch!!
@Ford Prefect to a point i agree with you but it could really be a good representation of what's being sold as a good car now a day's. You're the first person to take this conversation further than anyone.
@Ford Prefect "They probably didn't want to destroy a classic car that was in good condition"
Could be, but we're talking insurance companies here. More likely, they didn't want to PAY FOR a pristine classic. Moreover, seeing it perform so poorly suites their narrative. I'm sure modern cars are far more crashworthy, but as an actual comparison this is highly suspect.
Not rust dust, red Oklahoma dirt.
It is clear that we have come a long way in terms of safety. The driver in the vintage car would be dead that is one thing I am sure of. The modern car driver might be able to even walk away.
YOUS IS DEAD WRONGES! THE BEL AIR HAS PL;ETEY OF SHEETE MENTAL AND A HUGE ENGINE STO ABSORBE THE IMPACTED! NOEW CARS ARE JUINK AND NEEDS AIR BAGGES. PLEASE LOOK AIAN AND YOUE WILL SEE IT WAS RIGGED!!@!
@@ilovecops5499 all you have to do is look at the damage to the Bel Air, the driver would obviously be dead. The new cars are infinitely safer. The driver of the new car would be out walking around while the Bel Air Driver dies.
@@johnmajane3731 Pay no attention to him, he's a troll.
Aside the devastatingly scaryness of this......OMG that poor 59. Still my favorite Chevy. So, can I have the rear clip? I’d like to make a couch out of it?
"Wow, just saw the crash test between the 1959 Chevrolet Bel Air and the 2009 Chevrolet Malibu, and the difference is insane! The Malibu holds up like a champ, while the Bel Air gets absolutely decimated. It's impressive to see how far safety in cars has come since the '50s!"
I had a 59 Bel Air exactly like that, 4-door and all. Only the color was different on mine. Look at the dash board. Solid metal, with big round things sticking out toward the driver. Not even any padding on the dash board. Forget about air bags, collapsing steering column, or even seat belts. Seat belts didn't become standard until about 63, and then only in the front seat. I would love to have a 59 Impala convertible, just for fun. But the modern daily drivers are much, much, much more safe.
La deformación " programada" de los coches modernos es increíble, el habitáculo casi intacto, sencillamente espectacular.
Only a dummy would wreck a nice vintage car.
Yep, and it did!
Gives a whole new meaning to they don't make it like the good old days
To go that fast in an iron framed locomotive is asking for it. In a low-speed collision, the malibu would be totaled and the bel air have a dented bumper. I assure you, someone driving a classic car is going very slow and quite alert to the idiot crossing the lane while watching tiktak videos on their phone.
Thank god, I rather not be seriously injured in a 30 mph accident or be thrown from my car because it didn't have seatbelts.
grandpa definitely died
The point of destroying a classic car?
Rust never sleeps...
The point is to show that newer cars are far safer for the occupants.
That's why old cars suck in a crash. If you was in the 59 impala you wouldn't walk out of it. The 09 Malibu you would be hurting BUT you'd be alive.
Somebody here actually gets it
imagine 2 old cars crashing into eachother
If you were in any car and hit something at 80mph your not going to walk away from it.
In a 5 mph head on crash, the Belair gets a scrape on the bumper and the Malibu has $3,000 worth of body damage. In a 35mph head on crash, you are dead in the Belair and sore in the Malibu. Car safety is so much better today.
What a waste of a Bel Air. This was not a fair "fight". Not sure I see the point.
Eh, not a huge loss, it’s a crappy car anyway.
@@joriuschuwa No it wasn't, it was a good car. The 57 Chrysler products were crappy, and I am a Chrysler fan.
@@michaelbenardo5695 still a crappy car. If it wasn’t crashed, it would be scrapped or been garaged in some guy’s collection and never ever being driven. I would rather have it crashed than have it being sat for the rest of its life in some air-conditioned garage
@@joriuschuwa Sorry to disappoint you, but I LIKE 59 Chevys and would DRIVE one if I had one. I would NOT scrap it, nor would I keep in only in the garage. Especially if it had a solid-lifter Big Block! Would drive the hell out of it!
@@michaelbenardo5695 that’s good, I personally believe all cars should be driven and not be garaged. Garaging a car is like killing the car’s soul, a car’s soul is in the driving experience.
Repeat this test when that 2009 Malibu is 50 years old and spent most of it's time out in the weather. It'll crumble like a soda cracker.
The Malibu won't see 50 years.
Sad they even call that thing a "Malibu"
Total BS based on zero facts.
@@generalyellor8188 Cars today are not built for longevity and as the body is the frame comprised entirely of sheetmetal stampings it's a fact. Even many older unibody cars had a different structural makeup.
I loved my 2003 malibu, but that was previous to the 09 gen. I know a lot of people give it flak, but it was my first car to myself and i had such a nice sounding audio system (quality, not bass driven)
In the year my 1965 Chevelle Malibu SS was built and sold, rear seat (lap) belts were an "option." They were not optioned-in and installed on my car. However, I do have a set of rear seat belts ready to install, and I don't currently carry passengers.
I'm glad we have become safer even at the cost of a vintage car to show everyone how so
I find it odd the full crash report is not available on iIhs' website.
I think that we all hate it that the Bell Air was lost during that test but after all It's good to know that the real value, A persons life, is much safer today than it was back in 1959. There is always a cost for education and the Bel Air was a small price to pay for this comforting knowledge.
I for one don't care about being comforted. I want that Bel Air back.
Nah, humans are replaceable and mortal. Countless billions came before us on the planet, we will all inevitably die and our places taken by countless billions more. The miracle of life. We have to die, vintage cars can live forever. We can reproduce, Vintage cars can't.
Watch .50sec. plus; how the side fender bends right in. There's no engine in that old car. Lol.
That would make a huge difference.
it's pretty good leveled without engine still shame
You can also tell at 0:08 . Clearly no engine.
I have questions about the bel air passenger fender only showing 1 bolt hole being ripped out
Ive been on this for about 3 years, its so clear that the bolt is missing.
Impossible that the bel air is going to get that damage,cars from the 50s,60s and 70s those cars was a tank, if u guys can notice the bel air underneath is empty
Amazing just how much higher the traffic fatalities were with the old cars with no seat belts or airbags.
It was staggering!!!!!
The Bel Air steering column killed that driver. Wow.
Everything killed him. The wheel, the column, the dash, the roof, the firewall, the...
I had a friend who claimed that older cars were a lot safer in crashes because they had less plastic and harder bodies. This video proves him wrong, no question.
Yes and no, there are safety advancements but most of the time they remove key parts on the older cars to make the crashes look so much worse then they really are
@@chadweinrich4597no they didnt
@@little_kopy yes go watch it again
@@chadweinrich4597 point it out
@@little_kopy look at the engine bay of the older car
But it was a classic!!!!
It was a death trap!! You see that A-pillar fold right down? And the dummy ate the dash and steering wheel. Major trauma w/arrest if real person.
@@sailorgabbie Sure its a deathtrap if you drive an old car like an idiot. Most, if not all cars are. You get what you deserve.
There's no doubt that a modern car is safer. However I am 68 years old and lived through the 50-60 and still alive to tell about it. I also drive a 1937 Plymouth w/o seat belts. I know the seriousness of getting into an accident as my parents did in the 50s & 60s. When you know that something very bad can happen you are more cautious and drive with greater care. You don't just, Jump in and go with an arm out the window, one hand on the wheel, day dreaming about owning a classic car or such. You are vulnerable and anyone who rides a motorcycle in traffic knows what Im talking about.
@@stever4181 FACT!
@@stever4181 The problem with accidents is they don't just happen when YOU do something stupid. Which is why in part people on motorcycles die at 34x the rate of people in cars.
@@42judge I got my first motorcycle are the age of 16 and rode one until my late 30's. What I learned: the smaller the bike the more dangerous, 50cc and mopeds. They can't keep up to traffic and can't be seen that well, also they haven't the power to get out of tight spots when needed. My first bike was a 55 cc Suzuki. Top speed, 35-40mph. My last bike was a XS750SF Yamaha Special 100+ mph. The problem with this bike is the speed. So I would totally agree with you, "accidents don't just happen when YOU do something stupid". It's your own fault for doing stupid. Lesson learned.... the hard way!
Wow! My hats off to the engineers of that 2009 Malibu. I would have thought the 1959 Bel Air would have pulverized the Malabu! I feel terrible for the dummy in the Bel Air.
The clear winner; the 1959 Bel Air! It's obvious, who in their right mind would want to survive after being involved with destroying a classic???
It’s just a car and not even that great of one.
From a similar mind set (2021-2009 = 12 1959 + 12 = 1971) that 1959 Bel Air was a $50 jalopy or demolition derby special. Even the convertible and hard top Tri-Fives were pretty lukewarm at the time...
To put it in perspective, they thought absolutely nothing of destroying Harrison Ford’s 1955 Chevy in the filming of American Graffiti... and even being a film star only appreciated Ron Howard’s 1958 Impala to $3000, while the T bird and the Deuce Coupe remained unsold.
@@Bartonovich52 Gee whiz, I guess you have never been subjected to humor...
idc what other people said this comment is funny as heck and totally described what I felt 👍🤣
People always complaining about “regulation”, yet passive restraints (airbags, collapsing steering columns, etc) and crash testing has saved so many lives and prevented a lot of pain and misery.
Funniest part of all this is easily the huge cloud of rust dust from the bel air on impact! Curious to know how much was corroded underneath the paint and if that affected the results in any way.
Possibly a slight effect but overall, I think the results would have been very similar.
Bel Air was altered.
No A arms
X frame removed
@@josemejia9349 False
@@rgk9ruler777 engine was pulled as well.
They were testing the sheet metal only.
No Frame either.
You would have seen radiator fluid ect.
The car wasn’t even running
@@rgk9ruler777 and both vehicles were not traveling at the same speed
How about a Chevy Malibu vs an Amish buggy with horses. Or a Chevy Malibu vs an Abrams tank. Or a Chevy Malibu vs a monster truck. Or a Chevy Malibu vs a Molotov cocktail. Chevy Malibu vs a grizzly bear.
Really impressive difference between modern car design and the 1950's vehicle, which didn't have crash engineering like a reinforced passenger compartment, crumple zones, and airbags.
In an older car, *YOU'RE* the airbags.
@@svasianfilipiname6603 LOL! Yes indeed.
The entire car was a crumple zone, crumpling you with it.
They should redo this test, using a Bel-Air retrofitted with 3-point seat belts, and a driver's side airbag...just to silence the naysayers commenting here.
I will concede that the Dummy may then be in somewhat Better shape.
The Deformities in the passenger compartment may still cause Fatal forces, however.
The Fools Defending Old Cars probably don't like seat belts or airbags, Either.
Those Driver's Ed Scare films; like the "Signal 30" and "Red Asphalt" series, were made to encourage Safe driving, and seat belt use. Looking back in our Retroscope, However, you could also see how the lack of seat belts (in the earlier Signal 30, and other 1950s films) No Airbags, of Course, and the lack of crumple zones, were causing Many Catastrophic injuries and Deaths. Signal 30 showed a High School Athlete impaled by his steering column (they didn't collapse back then.) Before the Superhighway system, some of the old interstates were only divided by a painted yellow line, or a small median. Head-on crashes must have been much more common back then. Freeways (while they screwed up our Big Cities) have concrete barriers dividing oncoming traffic.
Whoever had this accident in that 1959 car did not make it. Amazing the difference
Whoever donated this '59 Chevy to perform this "test" is an idiot bordering on the criminally insane. The results seen in the video have been known for at least 40 years, so the Chevy was just used up for no purpose. Modern Chevy Malibu's are crap, and have been for the same 40 years.
You would be surprised on how many people did survived accidents like that in 1959.