You know we love our vintage cars but..............

[MrObsessive]

Came across this YouTube vid of a the IIHS crashing a new 2009 Malibu into a 1959 Chevy. Now I don't think the comparisons are quite fair as the Malibu has a 50 year techno advantage over the '59.

BUT you gotta see what happens when a new car crashes into an old one!

I think the frame on the '59 was a bit tired as I see rust----so I'm not sure if this comparison is valid at all. It also hurts to see the old Chevy get creamed in this way.......how many '59 Bel Air sedans are left now?

Take a looksee here

[Nick Winter]

That video can't be right for 2 reasons,

#1 Why wreck a '59 Bel Air

#2 they musta picked the worst most rusted out '59 , because well there a mound of rust that looks like the rocky's, after the crash

BTW: look at the size of the rust cloud at 1:14.

Edited September 18, 2009 by Dukefan69'

[elan]

Interesting, considering that the '59 was one of the ugliest Chevrolets ever made, I'm surprised they could find any left to crash.

[george 53]

Oh Jeeze Bill, that was just plain WRONG!!! WHAT are the chances of a 59 Impala hittin a 09 chevy whatever? That was just bein mean for bein mean! There was absolutely no reason for this comparison,regardless of what the advertisment

said! Duhhhh, Yeah, I woulda thunk Chevy's had become safer in the last FIFTY YEARS!!!!! It was just a waste of a 59 Chevy. Even if it was rusted out!

[Guest promodmerc]

Interesting, considering that the '59 was one of the ugliest Chevrolets ever made, I'm surprised they could find any left to crash.

To each their own. I think the '59 Chevy was one of the most beatiful American cars ever made.

[ismaelg]

GREAT DEALS!

FOR SALE

Famous 2009 Malibu used in a film. Extra Low miles! Used only in the filming. Never exceeded 40MPH

Treated a little rough for a short period and that's why you get such a great deal!

If you call in the next 10 minutes, we'll include nostalgic '59 Chevy memorabilia (bits and pieces)!

CALL NOW!

[MrObsessive]

Jody's comment was funny! I never thought the '59 Chevy as an ugly car-----just very different as all the GM '59 line was for its time.

Styling IS subjective...............some may have thought the later '61 Chevy's were not so pretty because the fins had been mostly shorn.

Still I didn't see the point of the crash 'cept to say that was a perfect waste of a restorable car.

[Harry P.]

I'm very surprised at this. If you look at the last angle they show (the overhead view), you'll see that the amount of damage is roughly equal on both cars. The '59's windshield came out, but apart from that, the amount of compression to the bodies looks roughly the same to me... which basically disproves that old misconception that old cars were "safer" because they were made of thicker metal, they were sturdier, etc. Apparently not true, as the old car got just as smashed as the new one. The real difference is seatbelts and airbags.

[crazyjim]

Hey Ismael - you didn't include the telephone number.

[vizio93]

wow that windsheild on the belair just flew outta there !!!

[MrObsessive]

wow that windsheild on the belair just flew outta there !!!

And remember there were very few if any seat belt usage in those days.........Anyone who was sitting in the front seat in an actual crash would've flown outta there!

[Rick Schmidt]

And remember there were very few if any seat belt usage in those days.........Anyone who was sitting in the front seat in an actual crash would've flown outta there!

Well Least they wouldn't have had to worry bout hitting the glass on the way out

[BigGary]

Well Least they wouldn't have had to worry bout hitting the glass on the way out

Its interesting that the '09, greatly outweighed by the '59, spun to a greater angle than the '59. The driver needed side air bags to survive the violent spin to the right. I'm guessing this won't convince very many that smaller cars are safer in a wreck than a big car. A frequently stated reason for buying a large SUV? Safer in a crash!

Hmm...

gary

[Harry P.]

one of the lamest thigns done in automotive press since the "exploding" Chevy gas tanks.

anyone notice how "new" cars come with a disclaimer on the sun visors that claim "driving this automobile may be fatal"?

Dave

That's not because the car is unsafe, it's because of the lawyers.

[Lownslow]

That was a cool video,50 year old junk vs brand new junk! My daughter wants a new Malibu or the sister to it made by Saturn. Maybe this will help me talk her out of it. I don't think many restorers will cry over a 4 door Bel Air.

why? so your gonna get your own kid a even more dangerous car like a suv?

[Eshaver]

I have owned both a 1959 Bel Air and a 1961 Bel air . I would still own either one compared to any 2009 any thing ! Ed Shaver

[Jon Cole]

Isn't it just like a bunch of bureaucratic 'business suits' to go to all that trouble to film a clip so... royally irrelevant? What's the point? If you discount every 1959 Chevy you have ever seen in 1:1 that was at, or going to or coming from a car show, I have seen maybe... NONE! Yeah, maybe in SoCal there may be some, but still not enough to verify the film!

Yeesh! Politicians & bureaucrats! Use one to start a compost pile!

[lorider]

Completely nonsensical. A lot of people (myself included if I had the space) would love to have a beautiful old '59 like that to restore or customize. What a waste.

[Dragline]

Well Least they wouldn't have had to worry bout hitting the glass on the way out

[mageckman]

Did anyone else notice that the 59 was a stripped down shell, or is it just me? No motor or trans, no wheelwells, no radiator or radiator support. They took alot of the weight out of the 59 to get it to crumple like that.

[Harry P.]

Did anyone else notice that the 59 was a stripped down shell, or is it just me? No motor or trans, no wheelwells, no radiator or radiator support. They took alot of the weight out of the 59 to get it to crumple like that.

How do you figure that? How in the world can you say there was no trans in that car? On what basis do you say that it was a "stripped down shell"?

[Modelmartin]

What I really noticed is that the interior was not compromised on the 09. Everything was shoved into the interior on the 59 and don't you love how the A pillar went away. I am sure the engine and trans were pushed in there too. For transportation purposes I would never drive one of those old crocks. As an automobile the 2009 is better in every measurable way. The subjective ( styling) is a different story. I think it is a decent looking car. It is an apples and oranges thing, though. Collecting and restoring one of those old crocks is something else entirely. I always liked '59 Chevs. I would love a '59 Camino or an Impala HT!! And I wouldn't mind commuting in the '09!

[Harry P.]

That's exactly right. The interior on the new car was not compromised because new cars are designed to crumple around the passenger compartment. They are designed to fold up like an accordion and absorb the impact of a collision, so that the passenger compartment remains relatively undamaged. New cars are light years ahead of old cars as far as passenger safety is concerned. Styling, however? I gotta go with old school. Those 50s cars had it all over the new bland genericars. Give me fins and chrome any day!

[Modelmartin]

Did anyone else notice that the 59 was a stripped down shell, or is it just me? No motor or trans, no wheelwells, no radiator or radiator support. They took alot of the weight out of the 59 to get it to crumple like that.

[george 53]

wow that windsheild on the belair just flew outta there !!!