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

[Harry P.]

the '59 didn't fare well because it was a rotten car to start with and as i mentioned earlier structurally compromised. the seat ripped loose from the floor because there was a rotten floor.

Dave

And how exactly do you know that?

[Harry P.]

who knows Harry, maybe Obama picked it out himself from GM's warehouse. just another way to get those "clunkers" off the road. all in the name of public awareness and stimulating the economy.

Dave

I really doubt that there are any '59 Chevies still left in GM's warehouses...

You can't just go making claims like you did without any basis in fact. You have no idea what the actual condition of the '59 was, so how can you claim that it was a "rotten car" and "structurally compromised?" That's pure speculation on your part–you have no factual evidence whatsoever to back that up.

I don't want to pick a fight here, but let's at least try and stick to the facts as we know them, and not make unsubstantiated claims.

[Rob Hall]

I really doubt that there are any '59 Chevies still left in GM's warehouses...

You can't just go making claims like you did without any basis in fact. You have no idea what the actual condition of the '59 was, so how can you claim that it was a "rotten car" and "structurally compromised?" That's pure speculation on your part–you have no factual evidence whatsoever to back that up.

I don't want to pick a fight here, but let's at least try and stick to the facts as we know them, and not make unsubstantiated claims.

[Lownslow]

No,just nothing by GM.

[dave riggs]

The 1959 to 1964 Chevys were built structurally unsound when they were new because of the "x" frame design. I have heard in the past that the owners would die in "T" bone accidents because the frame rail wasn't there to stop the crushing of the second vehicle until the middle of the car. It also makes sense to me that the frame rail would fold over behind the front suspension in an offset front end accident allowing the second car to travel into the passenger compartment.

I would still take the 59 anyday of the week though! It doesn't look like a Honda!

[62rebel]

Harry, i work on old crocks all the time. after 50 years in normal weather cycles even the best prepared sheetmetal is going to develop rust inside the framework (and GM wasn't spending money rustproofing ANYTHING in '59, none of them were) so i will stand out there on a limb and claim structural compromise added to (ADDED TO) the inherent insufficiency of the '59 design. i'll stand a little further out and state that even the seatbelt mounting points were probably not a designed-in factor for that year car. and 50 year old windshield gaskets will probably fail.

i smell a rat. it's a rat i've smelled before; it's the same rat that tries, every so often, to get older cars legislated off the roads, and every time he tries, he wins a little, and he loses a little. the trick is how much he wins and how much loses.

i personally hate and despise modern cars as being too complex, too expensive, and too gimmicky for their own good. it's people like ME that the rat is trying to defeat; the rat wants my old cars gone and new, monthly payment obligated ones in their place, and is using misinformation like this set-up public service announcement to get his point across.

so while the old crock has problems in it's design, they are problems that can be addressed and dealt with in many cases.

[Guest Davkin]

Unless someone has a time machine and can go visit 1959 and pull a '59 Chevy off the assembly line and bring it back for this demonstration it's not an apples to apples test. This was little more than a publicity stunt, not some kind of scientific experiment so there's no reason to argue about the specifics. I don't see the point anyway, we all know modern cars are safer, so why destroy a perfectly good vintage car to prove what we already know? What a waste!

David

[Joe Handley]

In some ways, I'm not as concerned about that as I am after watching videos like this

where a late model extended cab, three door Ford folds up just as bad at lower speeds

I do not trust IIHS much though after watching some of their crash tests on Dateline NBC though. There were several occasions on low speed tests that they docked vehicles because of the price of repairs for the body damage, yet because a motor mount cost less to fix after breaking in a 5mph rear impact, that car got better ratings...even though the freakin' motor mount broke after a couple minor impacts and the last one of which being at the opposite end of the car Then there was the test like the one I posted above where the dummy "broke his ankle" in one car because the foot was placed on the gas, not the brake and the car had been designed with a break-away brake pedal too keep that from happening, but since the IIHS puts the foot on the gas, they told the manufacturer too bad, you get to be rated our way. IIRC they even knocked a SUV because then it backed into a pole, the standard equipement trailer hitch prevented any damage to the bumper and tailgate and they claimed that if the hitch hadn't been a standard part, the truck would have recieved major body damage

[Joe Handley]

That was well before the windows became a "structural member" of the car body IIRC Dave I also seem to remember reading an article about how somebody wrecked an early B-Body Mopar while street racing a GM product (GTO I think) and swerved to miss an on coming car (pulled in front of them while they were running 120+ ) and hit a bridge. The front of the car had been pushed back nearly to the firewall and the hood was folded in half and the bend pointing straight up in the air when things came to a stop. Amazingly the driver, who had been wearing a seat belt and I htink the author of this story, not only survived but walked away and was extremely sore afterwards! Only other problem was that the police refused to end the investigation until they were told where the driver's body was and took some work to convince them that one of the guys they were talking to was the car's owner and driver at the time of the crash!