When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
If a 2009 Chevy Malibu got in a head-on collision with a 1959 Chevrolet Bel Air, which car would emerge with the least amount of damage? At first glance, you’d expect an old tank like the Bel Air to obliterate the Malibu, right? But nothing could be further from the truth.
As you’ll see in the video below, the Bel Air is destroyed in this dangerous head-on collision that was posted in 2009 on Consumer Reports’s YouTube channel and rediscovered by Kottke.
The light Malibu is much better at absorbing the shock of the impact, and the airbags deploy well ahead of the impact. The passengers will undoubtedly feel a jolt, but they’ll have a much better chance of surviving accidents.
While the recent advances in passenger safety are impressive, cars figure to only get safer in the coming years. In fact, Volvo has said that it wants to make a “death-proof” car by 2020, so the days when human beings suffered fatalities from car accidents on a mass basis may come to an end in the coming decades.
If a 2009 Chevy Malibu got in a head-on collision with a 1959 Chevrolet Bel Air, which car would emerge with the least amount of damage? At first glance, you’d expect an old tank like the Bel Air to obliterate the Malibu, right? But nothing could be further from the truth.
As you’ll see in the video below, the Bel Air is destroyed in this dangerous head-on collision that was posted in 2009 on Consumer Reports’s YouTube channel and rediscovered by Kottke.
The light Malibu is much better at absorbing the shock of the impact, and the airbags deploy well ahead of the impact. The passengers will undoubtedly feel a jolt, but they’ll have a much better chance of surviving accidents.
While the recent advances in passenger safety are impressive, cars figure to only get safer in the coming years. In fact, Volvo has said that it wants to make a “death-proof” car by 2020, so the days when human beings suffered fatalities from car accidents on a mass basis may come to an end in the coming decades.
How do the "airbags deploy well ahead of the impact"? Airbags need an impact, that would cause a sudden deceleration, to deploy.
How do the "airbags deploy well ahead of the impact"? Airbags need an impact, that would cause a sudden deceleration, to deploy.
Originally Posted by PhilipMSPT
Perhaps they meant the impact of the driver onto the steering wheel or dashboard.
Now that I have had a chance to watch (and re-watch) the video, I think they meant the moment of perceived impact. Even after the initial impact (obvious from the folding up of the Malibu's hood) when the airbags inflate, the Malibu continues onward, without seeming to slow down, as though nothing has happened. Only a bit later, when it seems that the Bel Air has hit the windshield and when the airbags have fully inflated does the Malibu seem to suddenly jerk, as you would expect to see and feel during a collision.
Does anybody know if there are other videos of this crash that show the condition of both vehicles after the crash? I am wondering if it is still possible to open the Malibu driver's door. The Bel Air driver's door is obviously too badly damaged to be opened.
Interesting that the public perception of old cars is that they were tanks. The reality was that they collapsed like tin foil. They were built with a lot of heavy steel but there was no safety engineered into the structure of the car. No passenger reinforced safety cage of course. Total death traps. You'd be much safer in today's Smart car running into a big 1950's land yacht.
All that heavy steel without crumple zones or airbags meant impact forces went straight to the passengers. Old cars with metal bumpers might be stronger in low speed impacts whereas new cars have bumpers and body panels that crumple, but at high speeds those old cars are deathtraps.
I've read that 1959 Bel Air didn't have an engine in it when they crashed it.
Anyways, the reason it performed so poorly in that crash is due to the GM X frame used at the time.
Not a very safe design in a side impact, or offset frontal impact. I think the reason they went with that unusual design, instead of the regular perimeter frame, was to get the cars lower to the ground. Remember in 1959, the design was all about lower, wider, longer. Compared to the more upright sedans of the early 1950's, the 1959 GM line was pretty radical looking.
I've read that 1959 Bel Air didn't have an engine in it when they crashed it.
Anyways, the reason it performed so poorly in that crash is due to the GM X frame used at the time.
Not a very safe design in a side impact, or offset frontal impact. I think the reason they went with that unusual design, instead of the regular perimeter frame, was to get the cars lower to the ground. Remember in 1959, the design was all about lower, wider, longer. Compared to the more upright sedans of the early 1950's, the 1959 GM line was pretty radical looking.
While the design (and construction) of the X frame no doubt contributed to the poor crash results of the 1959 Bel Air, the design and construction of the body that sat atop that frame would also have contributed. GM engineers probably knew very little about controlled crumple zones and a rigid passenger compartment (this work on crumple zones was only first starting at Mercedes-Benz in the 1950s). That whole car was a crumple zone!
The results probably would have been worse if the engine had been in there, as it likely would have been pushed into the passenger cabin in those poorly designed cars of the 1950s. The subframes and front frame rails of modern cars are designed and constructed to purposely fail and collapse at certain points, to absorb crash forces and to ensure that the engine does not end up as a front-seat passenger.
I'm not surprised, really. New cars have stronger steel, airbags and better designed crumple zones. What's worrying. however, is the huge amount of fools in little hatchbacks rated with a five star safety rating
who think they would be fine in a crash against an SUV rated with a four star safety rating.
And it doesn't have to be an SUV to obliterate an small car, even a sedan will do the job.
Both cars rated with a five star rating by the Euroncap and TSP by the IIHS and yet the driver in the Fiesta driver died instantly, while the Fusion driver broke his left leg, but he's alive and already out of hospital.
I'm not surprised, really. New cars have stronger steel, airbags and better designed crumple zones. What's worrying. however, is the huge amount of fools in little hatchbacks rated with a five star safety rating
who think they would be fine in a crash against an SUV rated with a four star safety rating.
And it doesn't have to be an SUV to obliterate an small car, even a sedan will do the job.
Both cars rated with a five star rating by the Euroncap and TSP by the IIHS and yet the driver in the Fiesta driver died instantly, while the Fusion driver broke his left leg, but he's alive and already out of hospital.
thats because crash tests basically test them hitting same car. It is like a mirror.
However, if you hit stationary object, larger car might be a liability since all that weight will work against you.
02-02-16, 07:51 AM
Crash test video pits 2009 Chevy Malibu against 1959 Chevy Bel Air – guess who wins?
