1959 Chevrolet Bel Air vs. 2009 Chevrolet Malibu IIHS crash test
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 6 ม.ค. 2014
- 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 - ยานยนต์และพาหนะ
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!
"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
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.
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.
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
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 TH-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!
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 😡
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..
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
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.
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
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
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 !
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
@@SpikeyDee 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.
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.
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.
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
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!
@@user-sf7kl9uh7k
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.
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.
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
@@DrummerDelight 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.
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.
💥 The occupant in the 59 was pulverized.
The one in the 09 didn’t even spill their Starbucks coffee.
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 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
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.
One walks away severely shaken up, one’s carted away in a body bag, amazing technology to absorb that kind of energy
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.
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.
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.
The handful of people here who seem intent on insisting there was something wrong with the Bel Air or that a different classic would have “fared better” are missing the point.
The old formula 1 cars of the 1950’s and 60’s were built like tanks too. They suffered very little damage in a crash and yet killed their drivers anyway. What was discovered is that the energy in a crash has to go somewhere. If it doesn’t go into destroying the car, it will go into destroying the human body inside the car. So engineers started designing cars to absorb crash damage and keep that energy out of the passenger compartment. That’s why modern formula 1 cars disintegrate into a million pieces in a crash these days and the driver still jumps out and walks away.
Indy Cars, Too. And, in NASCAR, the doors (which ordinarily don't open) fly off in rollovers to absorb some of the rotational momentum.
Don't forget the dashboard is all steel and no seatbelts. Fun times!
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.
You are incorrect. 50s era car glass was actually less prone to shatter.
@@Remembering-rq6si Really ... so why all the safety glass now?
@@henrivanbemmel One of my cars is a 50s model. The safety glass is much thicker. There is no comparison. The glass in cars from the 1950s is more resilent by orders of magnitude. Newer isn't always better. The crash test above is extremely biased, because the 59 hit at an angel which absorbed most of the impact. In a head-on collision, both cars would have been decimated.
Two of my cars are from the 50s actually.
@@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.
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.
Love that collapsible steering wheel rim on the bel air
The rim collapses but the column still goes through your face.
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.
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
@@szt1980 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.
@@szt1980 Well it's better then 90s Kias and 80s Yugos.
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
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
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
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.
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’s my grandpa’s car they’re smashing there! I’ll always remember that unique copper color!
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.
Does anyone not believe cars are safer now? Did they have to destroy a classic to prove it? This is just sick.
It's a damn shame that they do that, but this 59 had a rusted frame. They use cars in that shape to ensure that the old car will crumple like cardboard.
@@michaelbenardo5695 And you know this how? A rusted frame would be a great disadvantage and therefore not an accurate
or fair conclusion.
@@gremmann Which is exactly why they would use a car with a rusted frame. Maximizes the results that they want. Plus, this car has box-section members, which can rust from the inside, looking fine on the outside. Channel-section and C-section rails are opened on the inside, so they stay dry, and are visible.
By 1959 the Bel Air was no longer the valuable collector car the 55-57 models were. It’s a stretch to call it a "classic". The top of the line was by then the Impala., and even the 59-60 Impala models with their really crappy styling haven’t held value like the 55-57s. A quick check of Hagerty car auction values puts this care at about $15000 today, not a great deal to spend for the test. And a 4 door sedan wouldn’t have been anywhere as collectible as a 2 door hardtop. This baby got a far better place in history than the thousands of its brothers and sisters which quietly rusted away in junkyards across the country. 😊😊
@@a1ar127 We know the Bel Air was no longer Top-Of-The-Line in 59, and that 59 Chevys are not worth even close to what 55 - 57s are worth, but they are still nice cars. Nice and roomy, smooth-riding, stylish, (yes, some of us LIKE their styling), and well suited to pleasure cruising. And really no Chevrolet is truly a Classic (capital C) Car, but many are still red-hot Collector's Cars.
“ 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
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
I smashed into the side of a huge truck in my 99 saturn a few years ago, and I had taken my seatbelt off moments before that because I dropped something into the gap between the seat.
Truck ran a stop sign, saw me, and hesitated, sitting there blocking the entire road.
I smashed so fucking hard into the airbag. I was covered in burns on my arms and face, but I walked away without a single broken bone.
I owned that saturn for four hours.
Had just finished the paperwork at the dealership and driven off with it that morning.
Me and the car didn't really get time to bond, but it definetely saved me from flying through the windshield.
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.
Why would you destroy such a beautiful vintage car?
To make a point- that 50 years of research and development have made cars a lot safer.
@@sailorgabbie The tests should be done to new cars. They can show photos of many old cars that were destroyed in accidents.
@@Lommy9999 Maybe the most realistic comparison could be in this way
@@serdardenktas6348 bence gerçekçi olmamış onca yılın metal yorgunluğu var sonuçta.
@@tatarramazan8202 belki de belki (maybe) kaçamağımın altında bu vardı, çok haklısınız. Ama metal yorgunluğunun oluşmamış halinde de çok büyük bi değişiklik olacağını düşünmüyorum. Bildiğim kadarıyla o dönemdeki kazaların can almasındaki en büyük sebep araçların çok sağlam olmasından dolayı çarpışma enerjisini emememesinden kaynaklanan travmalar.
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.
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.
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!
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!!!!!👺
@@user-sf7kl9uh7k
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
I find it odd the full crash report is not available on iIhs' website.
And to think people talk about how solid and substantial old cars were……
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 !
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.
“They just don’t make em like they used to” Annnnndd thank god for that. That Bel Air got pile drived
The fuzzy dice is what did it in.
La deformación " programada" de los coches modernos es increíble, el habitáculo casi intacto, sencillamente espectacular.
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.
This reminds me of the "Car Talk" brothers examining a 1960's Volkswagon mini-bus whose engine was in the rear and nothing between the driver and the road than the flat front of the bus commenting, "the bus's impact-absorbing system are the driver's knees." 😵
Another interesting video brought to light recently by the TH-cam algorithm. Sad to see a Bel Air destroyed like that.
Amazing just how much higher the traffic fatalities were with the old cars with no seat belts or airbags.
It was staggering!!!!!
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.
The way the wrists broke on the old school got me.
Why did someone take a beautiful 1959 Chevrolet Bel Air that looked like it had a great body, and if it was not good. It could had been restored. But some smart heads had to put it in a crash test and waist a beautiful old classic car. That is so sad, I really want a Cadillac or a Chevrolet from that time period. And here I live, it's hard to get a hold on one. So seeing people do things like this, is heartbreaking.
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.
Old cars were built like a tank the old man would say...a bloody water tank.
The guy in the '59 may have died in the crash, but the guy in the 2009 died inside the moment he sat in the driver's seat.
incredible!!!
That '59 in green was our first car: my sister and I used to curl up on the shelf of the back window and wave at the cars behind us. Yikes.
NICE!
Did the same in a ‘65 Impala w/ my sister.
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.
In most of these vids you get the silent slow motion footage. Seeing the crash in real time with accompanying audio was something scary shit.
I do always lol at the cut to the shot inside the classic car and watching the dummy just get fucking destroyed.
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.
Yes, the classic cars are beautiful and elegant but this is clear evidence of how far safety has advanced over the years. This is a great video, thanks for posting.
What I take from this video: If there's a car coming towards you, drive around it.
The old Impala has pretty paint but did it have structural issues also?
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.
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. th-cam.com/video/C_r5UJrxcck/w-d-xo.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 can personally tell you that a 2009 Chevy Malibu was totaled after hitting a 1000+lb cow. Happened September 9, 2021.
I’m not convinced , it’s like the bel air was put together with aftermarket parts , cheaper parts .
Crashing into another classic car and crashing into a modern car are 2 different things.
The technological advances in engineering that make safer cars possible is a remarkable achievement, no question. But please tell me that no actual, classic 1959 Chevy Bel Air's were harmed in the making of this video . . . .
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.
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.
Chevy Malibu: A bit of damage
Chevy Bel Air: *FRONT SEATS DESTROYED*
The old Chevy was not a museum piece, but a drivable example with an engine: David Zuby, the senior vice president at the institute’s crash-test center in Virginia:
“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. “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 final mystery is what the speed at impact was--it looks fast, but how fast? Found it: each at 40 mph, so the collision for one vehicle was like hitting a stationary wall at 40 mph (that is the non-intuitive physics on this--see Mythbusters etc.).
If they were each going 40mph that is a closing speed of 80mph. So the collision for 1 car is like hitting a solid wall at 80mph.
@@stever4181 Check the physics on this--you repeat an error that I intuitively gravitated toward, too. The math on this is at: "Mythbusters on Head-on Collisions."
@@philliplbeard1481 I understand the logic and also stand corrected.
Closing speed of 80 mph shared by 2 cars = 40 mph impact, each car.
@@stever4181 40MPH not 80.Impact is the same as 1 car doing 40 hitting a stationary car. 2 cars head on the impact is equal to the speed of the faster car you don't include the speed of the slower car.
The frame was NOT solid, it was rusted!
I always loved the '59. I remember seeing them everywhere as a kid on the freeway. They were easy to spot from any distance.
Sad to see the Bel Air die but as a person that drives a Malibu of the same body style I’m happy to see how well it performed, especially considering that I currently commute 140 miles a day for work.
specific plastic compound could bringing blindness, organization like these didnt tried to put them ovvn video research purposely approaching safety interior for real daily use of malibu & bel air. Its just stupid when politician use these kind of video to raise tax and push ovvner (american & natives) to paid more for politically associated insurance companies. Why dont gave helmed and specific jacket ?? Bcz big crash not allways happend with way they described it
230km to and from work, wow!!
Gee, that’s a part time job just driving to & from the job.
The Bel Air's probably still sitting in the IIHS' Vehicle Museum.
It wasn't mint, BTW - it was a survivor. A driving survivor with a Straight 6.
@@rumaabba8875 That literally makes no sense
Note that the cabin and the dummy in the '59 is destroyed. The cabin in the '09 stays intact. Makes you think.
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 a 50th year anniversary demonstration test: September. 9 2009
I'm glad we have become safer even at the cost of a vintage car to show everyone how so
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.
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?
This crash test made a believer out of me that the modern design is safer than the older cars.
No. Modern design makes your eyes bleed
And they said cars were built tougher back then.
That 59 was CLEAN .....Glad they didn't destroy a two door.
Spray bomb restoration.
Yea watch after they collide... instant dust storm from the rust
@@kyleteal5888 Rigged test 4 sure.
That's what I said Pin, a two door would have a travesty. My father had a '60 two door when I was a wee one. The '59s were styled better IMO.
Its just wild how far safety has come. The dash in the malibu barely moves!