Progress

[pauldun170]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CU-k0XmLUk&feature=player_embedded#t=96

[Adeptus_Minor]

Rather shocking.
I had erroneously assumed that the older 'more metal' cars were stronger.

[101lifts2]

Neat.

I would say a 2009 Malibu wouldn't fair too well against a mid to late 1970s GM vehicle say a 1976 Grand Prix. Those were reinforced tanks. It's amazing how the 09 Malibu pushed its way into the BelAir driver compartment rather easily.

Now run the BelAir into a 2009 Hyundai. The Hyundai may not fair so well.

[unknownroad]

That poor, poor car! :(

Keep in mind that despite being 7" wider and more than 17" shorter, the Malibu only weighs 200lb less than the Bel Air. So even aside from design considerations, it's substantially denser than the '59.

[Sean]

But but but but...GM is an evil corporation that doesn't care about crash standards or their customers, only their bottom line and corporate jets!!!!11!!one!

[Homeslice]

That poor, poor car! :(

Keep in mind that despite being 7" wider and more than 17" shorter, the Malibu only weighs 200lb less than the Bel Air. So even aside from design considerations, it's substantially denser than the '59.
And has side-impact beams, and probably stouter pillars, firewalls and shock towers. 50 years ago they didn't use CAD to design the sheetmetal for optimal rigidity. Pretty common sense.

[unknownroad]

Like I said, even aside from design. If you're referring to exterior sheetmetal, it's absolutely not designed for rigidity in most modern cars. All the strength is in the unibody. The sheetmetal is essentially skin.

Of course, on an old body-on-frame sedan, there's almost no structural hard parts more than a foot or so off the ground. It's pretty much all skin. As 101 mentioned, against a heavy unibody car like a '73 Imperial, they'd be pulling pieces of Malibu out of the walls.

[Adeptus_Minor]

Of course, on an old body-on-frame sedan, there's almost no structural hard parts more than a foot or so off the ground. It's pretty much all skin.

Ah, I didn't even think about the construction. That makes sense.

[101lifts2]

Leading the World in Safety....GM

[pauldun170]

They have an interior shot in this one

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xwYBBpHg1I

[goof2]

One issue I have is the amount of rust that appears to come out of the Bel Air. In both videos, the shot from the Bel Air side, the car absolutely pukes what appears to be a cloud of dust from rust. I can only assume some of that cloud is comes from the frame. Depending on the degree the frame is rusted that could have an effect on the test. If the IIHS wanted to actually run a real test the Bel Air should have been in the condition it would have been in 1959. As it is this is an interesting self congratulatory video, but doesn't really show what the IIHS wants it to show.

[Kerry_129]

Yup - unibody structure & crumple-zones FTW.
I think the 'old cars are tougher/safer' myth comes from minor fender-bender accidents where a steel bumper sustains little damage vs. molded w/ styrofoam absorbers.
Also, it doesn't matter how well a 'heavy' car holds up in a crash if the occupants are turned to goo inside due to lack of crumple-zones & high deceleration G's.


Now run the BelAir into a 2009 Hyundai. The Hyundai may not fair so well.

You think?

http://www.automotive.com/2009/12/hyundai/sonata/crash-tests/index.html

http://www.automotive.com/2010/12/chevrolet/malibu/crash-tests/index.html

(Though it does look like the Sonata has more likelyhood of trauma to legs/pelvis).

[101lifts2]

Yup - unibody structure & crumple-zones FTW.
I think the 'old cars are tougher/safer' myth comes from minor fender-bender accidents where a steel bumper sustains little damage vs. molded w/ styrofoam absorbers.
Also, it doesn't matter how well a 'heavy' car holds up in a crash if the occupants are turned to goo inside due to lack of crumple-zones & high deceleration G's.



You think?

http://www.automotive.com/2009/12/hyundai/sonata/crash-tests/index.html

http://www.automotive.com/2010/12/chevrolet/malibu/crash-tests/index.html

(Though it does look like the Sonata has more likelyhood of trauma to legs/pelvis).

The Accent? lol

The late 1970s and early 1980s are tanks. I think if you ran a new car against one of those, the older car would cream the new ones. There is no substitue for metal. But...if you run a 1970s car into a fixed wall, then you are correct. You will sustain internal injuries.

Also, side impact standards and airbags have helped greatly to keep occupants in the same location after a crash.

[Kerry_129]

The Cobalt? lol

http://www.carsdirect.com/hyundai/accent/safety

http://www.carsdirect.com/chevrolet/cobalt/safety

Apples to apples, man.


Big 80's (or better yet, 60's) tank cars would crush a modern econobox, yes. But again, whether a car is 'crushed' or not doesn't necessarily mean squat about the occupant protection/safety. Crushing & spreading the impact G's over a bit more time is the point.

[unknownroad]

Pet peeve- late 60s/early to mid 70s were the peak for US auto size. In the early 60s the average car wasn't that much heavier than cars of today. By 1980 OPEC had forced automakers into downsizing across the board. But any fullsize sedan from about 1969 to 1974 is a monster.

[CasterTroy]

One issue I have is the amount of rust that appears to come out of the Bel Air. In both videos, the shot from the Bel Air side, the car absolutely pukes what appears to be a cloud of dust from rust. I can only assume some of that cloud is comes from the frame.

Actually, the report stated the "cloud" was not in fact rust, but 40 yrs of road grime. I'll try to find where I saw that....but in the mean-time

September 18, 2009, 11:21 am
More Details About 1959 Bel Air Crash Test
By Christopher Jensen
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety released on Thursday a video of a crash test between a 1959 Chevrolet Bel Air and a 2009 Malibu to demonstrate how car safety has improved. Not to simplify matters too much, but the Malibu won. And several Wheels readers speculated in comments that the car didn’t contain an engine, which would have affected the test.

Armed with these conspiracy theories, I returned to David Zuby, the senior vice president at the institute’s crash-test center in Virginia. He explained that when the institute went looking for a 1959 Bel Air to crash-test there was one thing the organization didn’t want and some things it did.

“We didn’t want to crash a museum piece,” Mr. Zuby said. “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.

They found what they wanted in Indiana. “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 car was bought for about $8,500 and had about 74,000 miles on the odometer, which was broken. It was trucked to the test center in Virginia.

Mr. Zuby said the cloud that shows in the crash video wasn’t rust. “Most of that is road dirt that accumulates in nooks and crannies that you can’t get it,” he said.