Crash Test: 1959 Chevy Bel-Air VS. 2009 Chevy Malibu

supervetteZ06
Oct 27, 2010 at 8:34 am

Lets compare apples to apples here! The GM X frame was in the belairs and impalas,the engineers who put this little display knew what they were doing.The hands down worst frame to ever come out of detroit,in a car 50 years old.So lets crash test it to prove one of the worst designs from the late 50′s will fail against 50 years of mechanical evolution!Lets do this,lets take a 1955 pontiac chieftain and slam it up against a 2010 pontiac G8, i would love to see the 55 shave the side off the G8,or lets go newer,1965 impala vs. 2010 impala that would be a bit better comparison.I have a 1958 belair 2dr,and ill be honest,i would hate to get hit in the door,no frame there,its in the center of the car.It is a shame to see that car go down like that i could have used some chrome off that car.

PrimerDuster
Sep 18, 2009 at 9:07 pm

“There are those who will bitch that a Bel-Air was destroyed in this test, but as far as I’m concerned…”

I was hoping this would be followed by:

“…it was only a 4 door.” HA!

Team61RaceCars
Sep 18, 2009 at 5:04 pm

There IS an engine in it, a 6 banger, as you can see the oil bath air cleaner flying off.

dgaf88
Sep 18, 2009 at 1:38 pm

By the way, those new cars, are pretty massive themselves, some even surpassing the weight of older cars by 800+ lbs.

dgaf88
Sep 18, 2009 at 1:36 pm

“I’d love old cars and I drive them daily, but if you gave me the choice of which I’d rather be in during a collision, say between my 1968 Charger or a new Hyundai… I’d choose the Hyundai every time, it just much better engineered to absorb the impact so the driver doesn’t have too.”

I’ll crash the hyundai too, not because its safer, because its a Hyundai. I’ll crash a hundred of them if it meant keeping my (mine meaning yours) badass ’68 Charger in pristine shape.

Robb31
Sep 18, 2009 at 12:06 pm

There is no engine in the bel air. That just about says it all..

13sDatsun510
Sep 18, 2009 at 11:04 am

its been over a century since the first automakers started building cars(125-ish if you wanna get real technical) and it truly shows that each year an each car crash we can learn from it and prevent it from happening. like mr angry said CRUMPLE ZONES are a vast improvement, taking racing technology an putting it into civillian street cars is definetly one of the smartest an safest things to do. a car thatll do 300+kmh can penetrate a wall an the driver will get out unhurt an walk off. shows how the malibu driver wouldve only sustained knee injury. i own a 79 datsun 510 it weighs 3000+lbs and i know for a fact itd get dominated by anything out there due to again like mr angry said its just steel bolted onto more steel. instead of complaining “oh they ruined a beautiful bel air” think more of the fact its cause of those guys your ass is gonna be safe in an accident.

loproneon
Sep 18, 2009 at 9:58 am

wow. simply said, simply amazing.

MrAngry
Sep 18, 2009 at 9:26 am

Lot of opinions on here, interesting. Let me start by saying this – I LOVE OLD CARS and I’d challenge anyone out there who can prove they put more miles on a pre-1970′s car than me.
.
With that being said, understand – THERE IS NO COMPARISON SAFETY WISE BETWEEN NEW AND OLD CARS. Old cars give the illusion that are safer due to the use of heavy steel and their sheer mass, but please understand that this is not the case. In pre-1970 there were no such things as “Crumple Zones” or “Impact Absorbing Foam” – it was simply steel bolted to more steel. The engineering that goes into today’s cars is simply staggering and that fact that most people today can walk away from accidents is due to this.
.
I’d love old cars and I drive them daily, but if you gave me the choice of which I’d rather be in during a collision, say between my 1968 Charger or a new Hyundai… I’d choose the Hyundai every time, it just much better engineered to absorb the impact so the driver doesn’t have too.

grandamtuner1113
Sep 18, 2009 at 7:56 am

I am only 21 years old and I have already seen a hand full of wrecks between old cars that have been completely rebuilt from the ground up using brand new steel like a chevy caprice and brand new cars like 06 monte carlo and normally in a head on collusion its the person in the older car that ends up dead or hurt worse than the other and I am not saying to stop driving older cars because they are not as safe because I have an 1970 chevy caprice and I love it but I am just glad that someone is proving that old myth wrong new cars are safer in a crash. harder to work on but safer.

_black_devil_
Sep 18, 2009 at 1:08 am

i agree with most. that was a waste. new cars now for sure has a lot of progress than older ones (50 years???) but they still need to destroy the bel-air? lots of waste there… some people even can’t afford to buy a car and that one was a classic too. that one was sure for keeps. and for me, the safety is in the more on the driver not in the car

LedZeppelin
Sep 17, 2009 at 8:32 pm

@_Engineer-
No…What I am trying to say is we as enthusiast know how to handle these cars, and we are more invested in them and wouldn’t be caught dead in the middle of the night in the middle of nowhere in these rides. And if we were, we would more than likely be extra cautious about how we handle them. I don’t mess much with trailer queens. I prefer drivers. Cars were meant to be driven. Thats my stand.
The video is aimed at those still pondering turning their Granada’s, and Monte Carlo’s in for the CFC program. (yes I know, its over…)
Its for idiots who still claim that just becaus that 454 is one hell of a piece of iron that a two ton plastic fantastic car wont plant the 454 engine in the front seat of the car its in. Bumpers are great on pold cars. But hit it hard enough, even with a fiberglass car with an aluminum block, and it too is damaged beyond belief.
Look….we like these cars because of how they look, and how the ride. We take pride in them, have clubs and events. we take them out for the simple drive…to go nowhere, but spend time behind the wheel on a destinationless trip just to drive them. We post them online here and spend countless hours talking and bragging about them. There is over a half million (MILLION!!!) users on this site alone. We love our cars world wide. But still, as true enthusiasts, we are still the minority. Most car owners like the color of thier car, or talk about the great deal they got when they bought them. And some keep them or aquire them from another family member. They really don’t know what to do with the classic Grandma had hidden away all those years. The drive them, but the dynamics of that old Caddy is much different than the Ford Taurus they have now. They don’t realize the amount of attention it takes to operate an older car. Some one said earlier, Make idiot proof cars, make more idiots. True. The Ford here is easier to handle than the Caddy. The average car owner still sees cars as appliances. Just a means to an end. And if its older, then its a cool retro appliance. We as the enthusiast see something a bit more profound. We see the freedom, we feel the nostalgia.
No this video was aimed squarly at those who don’t see old cars as something special.
As far as the new cars versus old cars go, say what you want, take a side for the sake of being argumentative. Whatever. A true car guy doesn’t care the year of a car’s manufacture. Old or new, a car guy loves cars. period. Of course there are those cars that don’t make much sense. The Aztek does t make sense to me. But that is a different story….

bordasel
Sep 17, 2009 at 7:31 pm

holy crap!!..the malibu literally just drove through Bel Aire..lol

privateryan2
Sep 17, 2009 at 6:58 pm

sooo i understand completely that newer cars crash better, but wouldnt the age of the steel have alot to do with this. I mean motor aside a car should be engineered to crash well without the motor having to act as a blockade (porsche,lambo,ferrari,engines all in the back) but if the steel is more than fifty years old than yea i would expect it to fail miserably. It would be interesting to see the bel air built brand new to exact spec of when it rolled off its assembly line Ithink that would be more fair. Pick up an old stick out of the woods than break a brand new one off a tree, swing em at each other, see which one wins

XTZTwinTurbo
Sep 17, 2009 at 6:58 pm

Modern cars are about safety, more than durability people. If you want a metal bumper. get a truck, or an old car.

pvr007
Sep 17, 2009 at 6:35 pm

dood, this bel air is toupher than that platic malibu, that bail air didnt have an engine! if it had, the malibu would have been made into splinters! nothing is toupher than a steel v8 engine! like a 454 or a 350

retroman
Sep 17, 2009 at 6:10 pm

Older cars are alot easier to work on and they do last longer. I prefer to fix my ’66 Mustang than having to work on my ’93 Dodge, but even the Dodge is easy compared to my ’00 Buick Century. I still like the style of the older cars better too, even though my newer rides are safer. The old cars weren’t as cookie cutter in the design. If IIHS ever does a test like that again, hopefully they’ll use a mid 70s Impalla vs. a brand new one. Not that I want them to keep destroying our hot rods and classics, but I’m curious to see if the boat would plow right on through. Construction changed alot in the few years after Ralph Nader filed his complaint. Old cars have the fenders and pretty much everything else screwed into place which may or may not pop out in a collision. The new cars’ fenders are held in place by I don’t even know, but I do know a 2010 Mustang’s body snaps together like legos. Comes apart alot easier than it’s 1964 1/2 ancestor which uses screws for everything. Well I could go on, but the technological differences are a mile and a half long.

PIchillin456
Sep 17, 2009 at 6:02 pm

yeah ok you’ll die if you wreck one of those bel-airs but at least they have real bumpers. Those plastic bumpers on modern cars are worthless. These bumpers can be damaged beyond repair in an accident that happened at 5 mph. Those old steel bumpers are real bumpers. You can wack something pretty hard without sustaining damage. Not that long ago my friends 1993 Cadillac came back from the shop. I looked at the rear bumper and it looked like there was a huge hole around 6 inches in diameter on the corner. When I got closer I realized that one of the workers had misjudged when backing it up and had hit another car. My friends caddy was fine but that thing that I thought was a hole was actually a huge piece of paint off of another car. It literally ripped the paint clean off. I’m not talking about a scuff. I’m talking about a huge chunk of paint just ripped off the car. There wasn’t even a scratch on the caddy.

BitchFunky
Sep 17, 2009 at 5:36 pm

That was interesting to see. I’ve never seen a crash test between cars that far apart in years.

vapoor
Sep 17, 2009 at 5:25 pm

I didn’t expect that

Devildog214
Sep 17, 2009 at 3:03 pm

Yeah i am bitching, it was a waste, older cars may not be the safest but their full frame made them last longer, and easier to repair after most accidents, and it didnt look like their was an engine at all in that thing.

_Engineer
Sep 17, 2009 at 2:43 pm

@Led Zeppelin: Are you saying vintage cars shouldn’t be driven at all?
but showed with as much “speakers and screens” as possible?

90silverceli
Sep 17, 2009 at 2:07 pm

this is a great video!! I’m convinced even if there weren’t engine in it at least they are showing that the car as a whole is not as great structurally as recent cars. Good job Guys!!!

LedZeppelin
Sep 17, 2009 at 1:23 pm

You morons that saw this as *gay* or thought the engineers who dreamed this up shoulda been sitting in the Bel Air. Whatever. This wasn’t for you anyway. This was for the idiots who seem to think that Older big cars are safer because of the miles of so called iron those were made of. Sure I love old cars.
Now those frontal offset collisions *never* happen right? Wrong. There are morons out there who don’t understand how to drive, and find themselves on two lane roads here in Northern California at 2 in the morning spread all over the asphalt in just that type of crash. We have names for some of those hi-ways. We call them “Blood Alley” Alcohol is usually involved. And in some cases, cars like the Bel Air here were wrecked as a result.
We here at Cardomain dont drink or drive or txt or talk on the phone while we drive. We don’t have kids in the car distracting us, we don’t consume McDonalds while we drive. We dont even listen to the gaddang freekin radio because its a distraction…

Riiiiiiiiiight.

I have respect for you and your fantastic rides. I love the they look under Expo Lighting at the local show and shine.

I’m facinated with how many speakers and video screens you can squeeze into the interior of a 60 yearold car. That interior is amazing. When was the last time you saw a show piece like that involved in a wreck?
We have to save these relics and turn them into the cars we like as enthusiasts, before some schlub gets ahold of it and wrecks it because he doesn’t understand how to treat fine old cars. This video is needed. We need to show the idiots why their old cars would be better off in our hands while they bob around in the new safer stuff.

Use this for our needs. Dont slam it because you think its stupid.

Go to that guy driving the 69 Impala around the Safeway parkinglot. Show him the video and convince him he should buy a new Chevy, and sell that diamond in the rough to you….

dgaf88
Sep 17, 2009 at 11:55 am

Too bad the people who thought this up weren’t in the front seat of that Bel Air. Waste of classic iron, two BIG THUMBS down on this one dude, BIGS ONES.

wsbob
Sep 17, 2009 at 10:35 am

I’m bitching for one reason: How often do head-on collisions happen compared to side swipes or t-bones or minor fender benders?

99SSArcticWhite
Sep 17, 2009 at 10:07 am

Interesting, but I would like to know if there was a motor in that Bel Air at all???
Either way, new cars should be better engineered for crashes…it has been 50 years!
I still find it hard to believe that the lighter, unibody car can protect better than a full frame heavy Bel Air.
Need more information!

DAVIDFICK
Sep 17, 2009 at 9:29 am

try that with a 76 lincon and there would not have been any malibu left

chevyman327nova
Sep 17, 2009 at 8:48 am

yea that was set up and way to waste a classic machine ill still take old over new anyday!

RavenAegis45
Sep 17, 2009 at 8:48 am

I agree this is a pretty impressive demonstration and _Engineer has a point these older Straight 6 engines are pretty slim not like the JZ and RB series many are used to seeing. So its quite possible the engine was displaced in the collision. Really there is no guaranteed way to prevent injury in a crash especially after 40 miles an hour but if they can soften the blow that much compared to the Bel Air they that’s some damn good Engineering.

_Engineer
Sep 17, 2009 at 8:37 am

@dudefromthenorth: The straight-6 is pretty slim, might have been forced to the right side.

kbevere
Sep 17, 2009 at 8:10 am

It would of been even better if they used real drivers. lol

dudefromthenorth
Sep 17, 2009 at 7:43 am

Yeah, BUT, you might notice that there’s NO ENGINE in that rather compacted hood, and that a LARGE CLOUD of RUST emerged in the collision. It was just a superficially “new” old car.

Never mind the argument that the perception of safety seems to make most people drive like oblivious idiots.

megaanaustin
Sep 16, 2009 at 9:17 pm

But old model cars are made by good and and thick metal.

tavares86
Sep 16, 2009 at 8:56 pm

Damn, I would of never thought.

___nes___
Sep 16, 2009 at 7:36 pm

Waste of a good car but man was that impressive!

buickpimpin101
Sep 16, 2009 at 7:31 pm

cool to see this, BUT thats pretty gay that they wrecked a car so beautiful, but none the less, i dont give a crap that it’s unsafe, like Goudystyle said we dont own and love these cars for safty features! Lol.

dkrum
Sep 16, 2009 at 7:24 pm

WTF why would they crash such a nice car dang

GoudyStyle
Sep 16, 2009 at 6:25 pm

Great Vid BUT, You don’t buy a classic car for its safety, You buy a classic for its style and unique features. Don’t get me wrong it’s good to see that the world of auto safety has come a long way but, a classic will Never die!!!

sarahsmile90
Sep 16, 2009 at 3:47 pm

This may make you think twice about getting in one of those classic oldies…..no thanks.

gold94corolla
Sep 16, 2009 at 2:09 pm

Awesome!! I love the Bel Air’s windshield flopping out like that.

boywithGT
Sep 16, 2009 at 11:19 am

Wow…
Didn’t expect the Bel-Air to just die like that.
Anyway, I never liked 50s cars so this doesn’t make me upset at all.

_Engineer
Sep 16, 2009 at 10:22 am

Necessary? You’re kidding, right?
I think it’s a fucking waste for a publicity stunt.
Why not take a car from 1909? That would have been even more impressive!

Of course technology as evolved and you need that to see it?
I’m not saying crash tests are bad or new safety features souldn’t be invented and tested. I’m saying THIS is bad for the classic car hobby and the public’s view on old cars.

“Build idiot-proof machines, and you make better idiots.”

(Yes i’m bitching: I own a ’54 Bel-Air.)