Crash test compares crashworthiness then and now

Seen this last week and just couldn't belive how the 59 held up. I would have though it would have done much better against a new car! Whats ironic, the 59's dash looks just like the dash boards and steering columns do in those old wreck photos that I've seen. Very erie seeing what happens to that 59 on film too. Prolly brings back memories for the medic guys here from back in the day to. Wonder if the 59 was an original, junker or a restored car?
 
I saw that clip too. Hurt my heart to see those Chevies destroyed esp. the '59 (should have used Fords:D). I believe that if it had been a true head on collision the '59 would have fared much better. The shown collision missed the engine and both frame rails which whould have taken up a lot of the impact energy. The '59 does look to have been restored. I doubt that they would have used a vehicle that had a lot of rust issues.
 
I would love to see more data on how the test was performed. Speed has a lot to do with the impact damage. If the institute were to do the same test with a 1909 and a 1959 vehicle, I would assume that show that the 1959 would have faired much better also. A lot changes in 50 years.
 
they were going for the year comparison. a 58 would have held up a lot better with out the x frame. but the air bag deploying rally makes a lot of difference as does the engineered crumple zones. the 59 would not have the braces in the doors to keep that opening intact. the not much of a front bumper on a 59. there is no doubt that they are making the compartment more secure. but both of the cars were totaled. it's just who gets to walk away
 
I doubt there are too many '09 Mailbu vs. '59 Bel Air crashes.

But the front-left to front-left crash is not at all uncommon, especially in a rural area like where I live, with 2-lane, 55mph roads. Someone drifts just a little over the yellow line, but not far enough for a direct head-on. So that aspect of vehicle safety, which is what is being demonstrated in the video, is quite important.

I would say, from watching, that the driver of the Malibu with seatbelts and airbags would have survived with minor or moderate injuries. Looks like the driver of the Bel Air would have broken his neck - and I'm surprised he wasn't ejected through the detached windshield or opened door.
 
check it again Steve. the steering wheel and the dash folded up at his waist. he was pined. he "it" could not get out of the 59. also when you see the way it folded you would understand that seat belts and air bags in the 59 would not have done any good to prevent injuries. a lot of what they are creating those two things, but mainly the seat belt for doing are really the better built interior compartment. did the dummy in the Malibu have his seat belt and shoulder harness on?? I also agree with Steve it is the next most common car accident here, first is one vehicle leaving the road. the headlight to headlight hit all most always results in a fatality.
 
Ok I looked again they had the harness on the 09 you got to look hard for it.
the 59 the roof comes down the guy goes up and is sent back down. had he be been belted in it would have keep him alive about a nano sec longer.
 
From "the horse's mouth:"

Hello,

This is probably more information than you wanted but this link will explain why we do frontal offset tests:

http://www.iihs.org/ratings/frontal_test_info.html

Yes, it was a beautiful car but any older car we would have used would have been just as lovingly maintained as the Bel Air was.

Karen S. Koger
Communications Associate
703-247-1536



From: Steve Loftin
Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2009 8:16 AM
To: Karen Koger
Subject: 1959/2009 crash test video

Good morning! Two questions for you:

1. Why wasn't the test done as a direct head-on, instead of LF fender to LF fender?

2. Why did you waste (what apperas to be) a very nice '59 Chevy, when a ratty/rattier car (whatever make/model) could've been used?

Just curious...

Thanks,
Steve
 
Back
Top