2009 Malibu vs 1959 Bel Air

Status
Not open for further replies.
addguy,

Most people I talk with that aren't car nuts believe that old cars are safer than new cars. This crash proves that is not necessarily the case.

I didn't read their hypothesis. Was it posted on their website?
 
Originally Posted By: Bill in Utah


PS: Found a crash video for the F150 truck. look at the cab! F150 ext cab crash video

(Man a TON of crash videos there...)


Ford should have been totally embarrassed and humiliated by how poorly designed that model was, yet they sold it from 1997 until 2005.

The cab just collapses.
 
Originally Posted By: mrsilv04
Originally Posted By: Bill in Utah


PS: Found a crash video for the F150 truck. look at the cab! F150 ext cab crash video

(Man a TON of crash videos there...)


Ford should have been totally embarrassed and humiliated by how poorly designed that model was, yet they sold it from 1997 until 2005.

The cab just collapses.

thatvideo is CRAZY. I almost thought of getting one of that generation when they were new.
OTOH, the crash video of the current generation holds up REAL well; the windshield didn't even break!
 
I was not impressed with the seatbelt anchors in 1980-96 F150s. The outboard floorboard anchors sit in a rocker panel spot that just rots right out.

That NYTimes article has people doubting the existence of an engine; they could certainly have found a "core" V8 that bolted in.

It is nice that they noticed and mandated things like collapsible steering columns that we rarely think about nowadays.
 
Originally Posted By: mrsilv04
Originally Posted By: Bill in Utah


PS: Found a crash video for the F150 truck. look at the cab! F150 ext cab crash video

(Man a TON of crash videos there...)


Ford should have been totally embarrassed and humiliated by how poorly designed that model was, yet they sold it from 1997 until 2005.

The cab just collapses.


The Pontiac Montanna was just as bad:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XP82TYoqLd8&feature=related

And go figure, was also produced in this form from 1997-2005.

Now, neither of these are even CLOSE to being the worst.

THIS is the worst:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPpU5azjCB8
 
No surprises from this video. As much as I like old iron, I am aware of the safety advances we've made in the past 50 years. If you watch the video closely you can see that the '59 Chevy is not designed to absorb the crash impact. The hood doesn't even fold up as it should to help absorb the impact. The passenger compartment ends up failing because it is not designed to be stronger than the front end - like a modern car. Notice the A-Pillars on the '59 and how easily they failed? Notice how poor the door latches held? Notice the steering column didn't absorb energy? These are all things that were later improved with safety standards.

Although these old full frame cars are often thought to be "tougher" and "stronger", I've often thought there is really little structure in front of the firewall to absorb impact. Really, the front fenders are bolted to a rad support, neither of which are very strong (even though the sheetmetal is thicker, there is little structural strength).

Tthe '59 Chevy did use an X-frame, which wasn't the best design. GM used this frame to help have the car sit lower for that lower,longer, wider look. The idea behind it was to make the body more structural than the old bodies which just sat on the frame. Although this was the case, these cars probably were not the safest design even in their day. Oldsmobile actually added side frame rails in their '59's to add strength to the frames. Pontiac, and Olds switched away from X-frames in 1961, Chevy continued until 1964. The Perimeter frames were across the board in 1965, for both GM and Ford. Both companies designed the body assist with giving the car structural strength and rigidity much like the X-frame cars.

That said, I doubt there'd be much difference with any car from that vintage, even one much stronger than the Chevy. I am sure even if the car faired better in the crash (in terms of body damage), the occupant would still suffer just as badly. There is a reason Ralph Nader wrote unsafe at any speed, and it wasn't just about the Corvair. It hammered the entire car industries lack of saftey design. Just because a car is strong, doesn't mean it's safe.
 
Originally Posted By: Oldswagon
No surprises from this video. As much as I like old iron, I am aware of the safety advances we've made in the past 50 years. If you watch the video closely you can see that the '59 Chevy is not designed to absorb the crash impact. The hood doesn't even fold up as it should to help absorb the impact. The passenger compartment ends up failing because it is not designed to be stronger than the front end - like a modern car. Notice the A-Pillars on the '59 and how easily they failed? Notice how poor the door latches held? Notice the steering column didn't absorb energy? These are all things that were later improved with safety standards.

Although these old full frame cars are often thought to be "tougher" and "stronger", I've often thought there is really little structure in front of the firewall to absorb impact. Really, the front fenders are bolted to a rad support, neither of which are very strong (even though the sheetmetal is thicker, there is little structural strength).

Tthe '59 Chevy did use an X-frame, which wasn't the best design. GM used this frame to help have the car sit lower for that lower,longer, wider look. The idea behind it was to make the body more structural than the old bodies which just sat on the frame. Although this was the case, these cars probably were not the safest design even in their day. Oldsmobile actually added side frame rails in their '59's to add strength to the frames. Pontiac, and Olds switched away from X-frames in 1961, Chevy continued until 1964. The Perimeter frames were across the board in 1965, for both GM and Ford. Both companies designed the body assist with giving the car structural strength and rigidity much like the X-frame cars.

That said, I doubt there'd be much difference with any car from that vintage, even one much stronger than the Chevy. I am sure even if the car faired better in the crash (in terms of body damage), the occupant would still suffer just as badly. There is a reason Ralph Nader wrote unsafe at any speed, and it wasn't just about the Corvair. It hammered the entire car industries lack of saftey design. Just because a car is strong, doesn't mean it's safe.


Very well said!
 
lol.gif
 
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
I would say in the VW example, that they use the entire population of the vehicle as the crumple zone!
Heehee -ya that baby mushroomed like a hollow point!
 
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
In 2004, Ford redesigned the F150 and made it WAY better. Suffice it to say, they don't disintegrate in a crash any more. :)


The problem really only pertained to the Supercab's because they lacked a center b-pillar which allowed the cabin to accordion. Regular cabs and Supercrews seem to handle crashes a whole lot better.
 
From a lay perspective, I think most of our safety gains were made with the adoption of crumple zones and move to 3 point belts (and laws making them mandatory). Dual airbags up front later made a contribution as well, though an argument can be made that fewer gains have been since and some of them may be even questionable us to just how much safety they add.

I write that with the electronic stuff in mind. My car somehow manages year round in the full range of conditions with only the appropriate tires for the season. Its predecessors, all similarly lacking the techno fluff, also taught me how to actually drive in a safe manner that adapts the driving to the road and weather conditions. I think the nanny stuff, whatever it adds in safety, is dubious and then only in speaking on its safety merit while leaving other things out of the equation as well (such as added cost, weight, etc).

I think a case could be made that it so insulates the driver from the experience that it leads some of them (particularly newer drivers unfamiliar with anything else) to exceed safe conditions the roads dictate, and this same "safety" technology can then let them down.

I call it too much of a good thing syndrome. And I'd go from there to state that the mainstream safety measures in place pre-2000 were the ones that make the real difference. What's followed has been more of a cash cow for the industry than true safety improvement.

-Spyder
 
Originally Posted By: Spyder7
I think a case could be made that it so insulates the driver from the experience that it leads some of them (particularly newer drivers unfamiliar with anything else) to exceed safe conditions the roads dictate, and this same "safety" technology can then let them down.
-Spyder


I would disagree.

Having driven for 50 years, per capita there were just as many poor drivers in the 1950's, 1960's, 1970's, 1980's and 1990's as there are today. The only difference is in 1950 there were some 152 million people in the U.S., compared to 300+ million today. The population has doubled, therefore there are more drivers, more congestion and the perception of more poor drivers.
 
Meh.

A 50's belair would have no reinforced frame mounts, no seat belts, not collapsible steering wheel, no safety glass, c frame the entire length.....

By the time we hit the 70's and the cars TRULY got big, it was a different story. Id like to see this repeated with a 1976 caprice....
 
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Even my 69 or 70 Impalas would have fared a bit better, but the fact is the DRIVER is safer in a newer car. Sad but true.


Oh Im not saying its not true, but its not as bad as they made it out. When is the moving bar for car safety supposed to be adopted? in 2006 when I got my Jetta it was the highest rated car ever, now that model is old news.
 
And people wonder why cars today weigh more. This is the big reason, better metallurgy, more bracing, etc. Would you rather put your family in a malibu, or a bel air?
 
Originally Posted By: Nick R
And people wonder why cars today weigh more. This is the big reason, better metallurgy, more bracing, etc. Would you rather put your family in a malibu, or a bel air?


Today's car of similar size to the 59 Bel Air has a much lighter frame and body. The safety of the modern car is in its design, not a factor of any weight gain there (that's not where the weight gain is).

Remember the Bel Air was built of extremely heavy - by today's standards - material throughout it, from its frame to its entire body structure. Not true today. Cars today - in terms of their safety oriented structural design and the skin itself - weigh less, not more than the Bel Air. Much less. Stronger structure and better design does not equal heavier composition.

Cars today are heavier than those of the 90s, but it isn't because of structural improvements. I doubt anything on the road today weighs what its 50s or 60s counterpart did, when you take two equivalents in footprint and rough interior room. Today's car is still lighter. Just heavier than it was a decade ago when little has been accomplished since in terms of structural safety improvement.

-Spyder
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom