VIDEO: IIHS celebrates 50th anniversary by crashing modern Malibu into '59 Bel Air
2009 Chevy Malibu versus 1959 Chevy Bel Air - Click above to watch the video after the break
They just don't build 'em like they used to. While that old saying is constantly bandied about in regards to modern-day cars and trucks, it's once again worth saying and was the first thing that popped into our heads after watching the video pasted after the break.
You see, most of the time, we like to think of our old automobiles as tank-like hunks of metal with full frames and acres of dead space in front of the driver and the massive chrome front bumper. While that may often be the case, all those thick bits of steel don't automatically equal safety. This point is driven home by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, which decided to celebrate its 50th anniversary by crash testing a 1959 Chevrolet Bel Air into a 2009 Chevy Malibu. The results were eye-opening. Says the IIHS of the Bel Air's performance:
Ouch.... an instant death according to the IIHS. And the '09 Malibu? "A high acceleration was recorded on the left foot, indicating that foot injuries would be possible." Well now, as much as we like our left foot (perfect for operating the clutch, ya know), we'd rather take our chances in the new car, thank you very much. Click past the break to watch the video in all its car-crushing glory, and take a moment to mourn the passing of what used to be a rather nice '59 Bel Air.The dummy's head struck the steering wheel rim and hub and then the roof and unpadded metal instrument panel to the left of the steering wheel.... The windshield was completely dislodged from the car and the driver door opened during the crash, both presenting a risk of ejection. In addition, the front bench seat was torn away from the floor on the driver side.
[Source: YouTube]
_opt_thumbnail.jpg)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 6)
Mike7 8:04PM (9/17/2009)
Very impressive video, it put something we already knew into perspective, but at what cost?
Reply
craighead 8:08PM (9/17/2009)
Not everyone knows it.
There is still that moronic percentage that laments the fact that "they don't build 'em like they used to".
Thank God for that.
Santosh Tiwari 8:29PM (9/17/2009)
Well I still think they don't build them like they used to (albeit with a different twist). ;)
Jim 9:05PM (9/17/2009)
"Thank God for that."
damn straight.
and not just because of crash performance. Up until the mid-70s, if you owned a car, you could plan on:
1) a set of tires every year (bias-ply FTL!)
2) your exhaust system rotting out every couple of years
3) paint bubbling by the time the car was a couple of years old, and rust holes in five or six
4) 100,000 miles was an *event* for celebration.
Nowadays, people gripe if their 150,000 mile car uses a quart of oil between changes; and when's the last time someone with a modern car has had their muffler fall off?
Dave 9:44PM (9/17/2009)
In a way, this video is actually a poor depiction.
The (dummy) driver of the Bel Air also benefitted from the crumple zone of the Malibu.
If two Bel Airs had crashed head on, the results would be worse.
zamafir 10:07PM (9/17/2009)
awesome, awesome awesome.
Derek 12:29PM (9/18/2009)
Jim, I have owned/own a '54 Bel-Air, '62 Cadillac and '65 Nova (to name the three oldest). Paint bubbling in two years and rust holes in 5-6? Sorry, in 40-50 the Bel-Air and Nova had paint worn through from years of wear and polishing but not a single rust bubble in sight. The Caddy has a few rust bubbles around some of the trim - in 2009. All have suffered from some underbody rust in the common areas but nothing un-patchable and certainly not very bad at all. This was when I lived outside the rust belt though! Even new cars ruse as fast as you describe there.
The tires and exhaust were simply the equipment of the day. Modern aluminized exhaust and radial tires fit just fine when things are replaced.
100K is driver dependent. I still know of a lot of people who think that by 100K a car is worn out and ready to go. Drivers who skimped on maintenance then got what they deserved just like those now.
daleam 11:26AM (9/18/2009)
At the cost of a beautiful classic. But the demonstration is something that needed to be seen. The modern automobile is simply light years ahead in safety over the classics. But I still love the classics. Just be very careful if you own one. They belong in shows or at cruises where people care for them as they should be cared for, not in modern traffic.
Taglane 8:06PM (9/17/2009)
I kinda saw this a few days ago, but my brother seriously rethought the "built like a tank" phrase that usually came with a classic car. He still blindly thinks classics are safer though... He calls the new cars "plastic" and classic cars "all steel". If that's the case, I want me some plastic.
Can't beat the classic styling though.
Reply
PJ 12:16AM (9/18/2009)
In response to mclrnmrcdz, while some (even most) of the folks at the IIHS may very well may be pro-regulation, "protect consumers from themselves" types, they're not the ones who keep the lights on. They're only in business because of funding from auto insurers, don't want to pay out any more of their profits, in damages and injuries, than is absolutely necessary. As always, follow the money.
The consequences for regulation might be the same, but it's oversimplifying to pin this one on just one mindset or political orientation.
Edsel 9:02AM (9/18/2009)
As the owner of a classic muscle car, I am always fearful of an accident. Knowing the design and technical limitations of vintage and classic cars can save your life by moderating your behavior behind the wheel. This video is speaks volumes to the inherent dangers of operating old cars in modern traffic.
Polly Prissy Pants 10:56AM (9/18/2009)
That's what made me reconsider driving a classic. It sounds fun until you realize how prehistoric those things have become compared to modern autombiles.
Jared 4:05PM (9/27/2009)
Airbags and crumple zones do a lot more then people think. haha
Brian 8:08PM (9/17/2009)
Disgusting. Destroying a classic car for the sake of a bunch of nanny staters.
Reply
Brian 8:09PM (9/17/2009)
BTW, so when do our insurance rates finally go down since cars are so much safer. Damn crooks.
acuradogchow 8:51PM (9/17/2009)
The IIHS is a private organization funded by the car insurance industry. There's nothing "state" about it.
Taglane 9:02PM (9/17/2009)
Never saw someone get half a star and three stars in the same thread....
AngeloD 9:48PM (9/17/2009)
Quote: "Disgusting. Destroying a classic car for the sake of a bunch of nanny staters."
+1
Almost as bad as watching Boyd Coddington's (RIP) old show where he trashed so many classic 1940's and 1950's autos to crank out his street rods.
And I'd like to see a modern Malibu crash into a late '70's vintage one. The Bel Air used was prior to most safety standards.
why not the LS2LS7? 9:57PM (9/17/2009)
The IIHS isn't a state agency.
Second of all, just to get this straight. You want to tell someone who paid for a 1959 Bel-Air that they cannot crash their own property on purpose? Isn't that being a nanny?
mclrnmrcdz 11:15PM (9/17/2009)
I don't think acuradogchow or why not the LSS2LS7? are wrapping their brains around the comment. IIHS doesn't have to be state owned to be a bunch of nanny staters, just as I don't have to work for the government and could easily be a "nanny stater". I thought the comment was pithy. The idea being that the IIHS enjoys the opportunity to gloat over their own importance by destroying a beautiful classic to reiterate the fact that we need them and legislation to ensure we're not dumb enough to buy a car that we could die in, and car companies to produce cars that our feeble little minds wouldn't be fooled into believing a false state of safety.
Moreover, I doubt that this changes the viewpoint of anyone who actually believes that somehow with the advent of technology, R&D, and time, we haven't been able to improve the automobile. Tagline's brother seems to support this.