Crash test: 1959 Chevy Bel Air

StephenAnnells Says:

May 2, 2012 - was in mint condition too

Crxracing9 Says:

May 7, 2012 - @Scorpionsson7087 Didn't even see all that rust dust fly until I watched it again. I agree with you. Flawed

mudboger307 Says:

May 8, 2012 - My dad derby a car like that 6 times and won 3

digitalq Says:

May 12, 2012 - Body on frame design means that the body panels do not play a significant role in distribution of forces for the Bel Air.What may have more to do with the 59 coming out so poorly was that it was one of two model years (59 and 60) when Chevy used their "X frame" construction. What does X frame mean? No side rails on the frame! (source Wikipedia)

Beatlejoose56 Says:

May 13, 2012 - Waist of a classic, too bad the 59 got wrecked to.

G8GTJav Says:

May 13, 2012 - Ok, now do the same test against a late model full-size truck and see how good the Malibu would do.

countryboy77351 Says:

May 14, 2012 - If this test wasnt rigged to prove a point the bel air woulda destroyed the malibu. Plain and simple. The bel air would of acted like a battering ram (due to stiffer frame, etc), simpler to a knife through soft butter. New cars are safer when it comes to hiting things like a tree, or other hard object, but when a super hard object (like a 59 bel air) hits something soft the malibu would of basically submitted to the bel air, Kinda like a forklift driving through a bunch of empty boxes.

ChristopherMast Says:

May 17, 2012 - DISLIKE! DISLIKE! What a huge waste! Classic '59 used to crash into a crappy '09 Malibu? Damn! I thought I was going to see a crash video from back in the day, not a modern-day waste of an nice antique car!

carryclass Says:

May 21, 2012 - if cars built in the 1950's were safer, the insurance industry would be pushing for them to be built like that again. remember, its their money that gets spent to pay injury claims, and they want to keep those claims as low as possible. the notion that the insurance industry would have rigged this test makes no sense at all. the insurance industry has every reason to want the truly safest car on the road, IMO.

obieezx11 Says:

May 21, 2012 - whats the bet they cut a few things on the older chev to make it fold like that ive seen them hit tree's and they dented the bumper if you beleave this you need a brain overhale

Trikster1of4 Says:

May 22, 2012 - You faggots why would you destroy an old impala??????????????

Trikster1of4 Says:

May 22, 2012 - Sorry I meant a an old Bel Air

EeezyCheeezy Says:

May 23, 2012 - This video is bullshit, this 59 was substantially weakened a full frame car weighing two tons does not fold like this. Hell they didn't even have an engine in it. I don't even really know the point of it anyway, what are the chances you'll be crashing head on with a car built in the 50's? Pretty fuckin slim.

loveanianimeme Says:

May 24, 2012 - The reason they make cars like they do today is so that when they break, there is now way in hell an average Joe can fix it so you have to send it in to one of the companies own mechanics to fix it and there for make even more money. There is no reason for car companies to make a reliable car that anyone could fix if something broke, or that doesn't rust as bad cause they wouldn't get any more mony from it.

Gazpacho8 Says:

May 24, 2012 - Do you have any evidence for you claims mr crash expert?

Gazpacho8 Says:

May 24, 2012 - How do you know it's not just dirt because it's an old car?

EeezyCheeezy Says:

May 24, 2012 - @Gazpacho8 Don't need any Mr. smart ass expert, crashed many pre 80's cars a few from the 60's, 2 50's , lost count how many from the 70's none folded like this. Car companies rely on consumerism to remain profitable, hence will do anything to portray their product in a positive light. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out.

crazymike65 Says:

May 25, 2012 - That's one 59 that would be a bitch to re-restore.

Jimpank90 Says:

May 26, 2012 - No, the reason for airbags is to make sure you dont hit the steeringwheel as you do without an airbag in older cars. And if the frame of the 59 was as new it would still done bad since it wasn't developed in the same way as new cars. and if you bild a car to stiff the passengers will absorb all the energy in the seatbelts leading to interna ldamages, that is why we have crumple zones.

Jimpank90 Says:

May 26, 2012 - the weight doesn't effect how it folds, an older construction not built and developed as new constructions fold easily, but ofcourse with an engine and a transmission it wouldn't fold that bad, but it would still be bad in a crash test.

Jimpank90 Says:

May 26, 2012 - The malibu would get wrecked, but the point of this test is not to show how good the malibu is, its just showing that older cars are not good in crash tests, that is all.

ilovety65 Says:

May 27, 2012 - whew, thanx for pointing that out ,I'm going to buy a 1950's model car.I've always loved the old models,not all the computer crap that are in cars now.I figured it would be safer if hit.

ilovety65 Says:

May 27, 2012 - you're right,no engine,flawed test.

Larrabeeman Says:

May 28, 2012 - I Agree that today's car are have much better survivablilty in a crash, However, I question that the the right front fender pops off near the door with out distortion, There are at least three bolts that attach the fender at the cowl. One by the rocker panel, two near the top by the cowl and maybe one in the middle of the cowl between the door hinges. the fender should have crumpled at least a little near the cowl, even if the fender brackets pulled through the bolts or spot welds tore.