Notices

Be honest, who'd have thought

Old 06-30-2013, 09:19 AM
  #1  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 10,224
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
Default Be honest, who'd have thought

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=4f0_1372004243

1959 Chevrolet Bel Air vs. 2009 Chevrolet Malibu Crash Test
Old 06-30-2013, 09:21 AM
  #2  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 3,059
Likes: 0
Received 57 Likes on 30 Posts
Default

somewhere, some old school hotrodder is crying
Old 06-30-2013, 09:24 AM
  #3  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Greenville/MHC, NC
Posts: 2,891
Received 4,876 Likes on 1,480 Posts
Default

What idiot would total a '59 Chevy to prove what we already knew? Wonder how the 2009 would do against a Greyhound ?
Old 06-30-2013, 09:27 AM
  #4  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: FL Gulf Coast & NYC
Posts: 2,681
Received 243 Likes on 115 Posts
Default

Who'd of thought that 50 years of technology and engineering would result in safer cars? Is that the question?

Tipsy
Old 06-30-2013, 09:44 AM
  #5  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 10,224
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by TipsyMcStagger View Post
Who'd of thought that 50 years of technology and engineering would result in safer cars? Is that the question?

Tipsy
That a car made of "much stronger components" would crumple like it did when hitting a much smaller/lighter car.


Amazing how it seems some people look for an argument, maybe it's just me. If you thought the smaller car would do far better then the old kudos to you.
Old 06-30-2013, 09:55 AM
  #6  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Greenville/MHC, NC
Posts: 2,891
Received 4,876 Likes on 1,480 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by 08087 View Post
That a car made of "much stronger components" would crumple like it did when hitting a much smaller/lighter car.


Amazing how it seems some people look for an argument, maybe it's just me. If you thought the smaller car would do far better then the old kudos to you.
Depending on options, both cars weigh approx 3500 lbs. Plus crash test have been done before on the older cars, so the results were already known.

The only non Ford I have ever owned was a 59 Chevy convertible. Video breaks my heart !!
Old 06-30-2013, 09:58 AM
  #7  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Landlocked, Wi
Posts: 48,779
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Miss the frame bumper horns and the results are predictable.


1959 Chevy frame

They must have been fantastic in side impact crashes.

.
Old 06-30-2013, 10:00 AM
  #8  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,501
Likes: 0
Received 85 Likes on 53 Posts
Default

frame was rotted out on the 59 and no motor in it
Old 06-30-2013, 10:42 AM
  #9  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: NJ
Posts: 958
Received 197 Likes on 112 Posts
Default

Looks tippy
Old 06-30-2013, 10:53 AM
  #10  
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Garett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 24,905
Likes: 0
Received 1,165 Likes on 661 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by TipsyMcStagger View Post
Who'd of thought that 50 years of technology and engineering would result in safer cars? Is that the question?

Tipsy

The part that frosts my enthusiasm about owning a GM product is: GM is showing us how great they are; well Volvo has had that level of safety in their cars all the way back to the late 50 and early 60's!!!! This video just show GM is some 50 - 60 years behind innovation!
Old 06-30-2013, 11:04 AM
  #11  
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 53,964
Likes: 0
Received 28 Likes on 21 Posts
Default

But the '59 was still running 55 years later.

Wonder how long the '09 would be around?
Old 06-30-2013, 12:08 PM
  #12  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: holdem and beatem beach
Posts: 641
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

The 09 will make it to maybe 20 or 21... after that its junk. All that electronic gadgetry and wizardry and technology will fail. And be more than the car is qorth to fix. The old cars last because they didn't have "cutting edge technology" they had basic mechanics. Steel parts. Simply technology. Get the job done parts. Back then they built cars just like tractors. Now adays how many cars companies advertise quality electronic components? A) NONE. How many advertise the latest in technology?A) ALL OF THEM IN SOME WAY. Just like the truck commercials. Bolts so strong it can support the entire wieght of the truck. Frame made from box steel. Can pull a jersey barrier on asphalt without straining... but how long will the switches on the dash last? How long will the alternator last, or the window and wiper motors. Or any of the 25-30 sensors?. Back in those days we didn't have a society that was so dependant on technology and the cars were built accordingly. Having an old car was still cool. Now it must keep up with the technology to sell. If its 10 years old its outdated and no one wants it and most dont want to keep dumping money into sensors and what not just to pass inspection.
Old 06-30-2013, 06:10 PM
  #13  
Senior MemberCaptains Club MemberPLEDGER
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Northern Ohio
Posts: 15,961
Received 1,849 Likes on 989 Posts
Default

Wow that is shocking! I wonder how much more the 59 weighed compared to the current cars? I would have thought the old heavy iron cars would protect you better. No, I would have never thought that.
Old 07-01-2013, 05:13 AM
  #14  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 9,444
Received 941 Likes on 593 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by RussH View Post
I wonder how much more the 59 weighed compared to the current cars? I would have thought the old heavy iron cars would protect you better.
Russ - cars today for a given dimension (l x w) are much heavier than what we considered tanks in the 1950's, 60's & 70's. The lightweight era for cars was from about 1976 to 1990, when all the safety regs and crash testing hit. A 1965 Impala, which is about as big a car as that era produced - 210" long, weighed 3,460 lbs; a 2013 Ford Taurus, which is 202" long weighs in at 4,196 lbs. That mass comes from all the extra materials to meet the 40 mph offset test and other crash tests that the early cars didn't.
Want to see a real contrast in what safety adds to the heft of a vehicle: a 2013 Fiat 500, which is 144" long weighs 2,519 lbs; a 1976 Chevy Chevette was 158" long and weighed 1,824 lbs.

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.