Crash test: 1959 Chevy Bel Air
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety conducted a unique crash test to demonstrate the advances in motor vehicle safety over the last 50 years. In this test, a 2009 Chevrolet Malibu and a 1959 Chevrolet Bel Air are both going 40 mph and the vehicles collide offset, driver side to driver side. This is the same crash configuration represented by the Institute’s 40 mph frontal offset barrier test, which is used to rate the frontal crash performance of new cars.
For information comparing the safety performance of new vehicles, go to the Institute’s website at www.iihs.org/ratings/default.aspx.
Duration : 0:1:54
X frame and A …
X frame and A pillar were faulty designs. $100 for a seatbelt is worth waiting an extra week to buy a car.
guess it didnt get …
guess it didnt get posted but as I was saying that you might not care how much people made back then but in the end phony wants to act like a know it all and think cars didnt have safety features because people thought they were safe when they were new. That wasnt the case it was money issues that prevented people from getting cars fully loaded.Thats why if you look at the cars 9 times out of 10 the avg car on the road then didnt even have a radio or heater.But people restore them and add them
cause in the end …
cause in the end phony has been on here from day one posting every single day since this video has been posted and he has done nothing but spouted bullshit lies with zero proof to back up what he says.Like wise he has done nothing but call people white trash as well as twisting what people says.Just like phony things im an idiot in total denial.He also thinks I think older cars are safer when I never once said that and I never will because I know new cars are safer,he is a moron dont be like him
do be retarded like …
do be retarded like phony. This test is flawed because the 59 has structural damage in the form of rust. The rocker panels makes up the body structure which is what the A pillar and the door pillars afix to for their strength. From them being rusted out the A pilliar had a higher chance of collasping than if it wasnt. This test should be thrown out but in the end as I stated safety has to start somewheres and that was better than nothing.
Yeah, people think …
Yeah, people think older bigger heavier cars are safer. But they are not.
IIHS never does …
IIHS never does closeups in any of their videos. Conspiracy?
Your old cars are …
Your old cars are not as safe as new cars. Get over it.
Milner is an idiot. …
Milner is an idiot. Total denial.
Milner, you sound …
Milner, you sound like it’s still the 50’s! Nobody cares about how much people made back then or what little features the cars had. These vids are about SAFETY, compared to the cars of today. NO comparison. The older cars, even though heavier, would not stand a chance with todays cars, as you see in this vid!
Oh well, I’m sure a …
Oh well, I’m sure a padded visor and padded dash board would save someone from death while the roof is collapsing down on them. Sign me up for those splendid safety features!! LOL
Likewise as far as …
Likewise as far as the aircleaner which isnt called an aircleaner on this car its called an oil bath cleaner not an aircleaner. But in the end they want to say it flew out from under the hood so the engine has to be there. Ok I can listen to that but what about the fact that is an Inline 6 aircleaner?What about the fact the aircleaner sits on the driverside just above the steering shaft?What about the fact the aircleaner doesnte ven have a dent or a torn arm where it was ripped from the carb.
in the end …
in the end regardless how primative the safety features were starting in 1956 and 1957 doesnt change the fact that the automakers had to start somewheres. Disc brakes have been around since the 50`s but it wasnt till the late 60`s that they started to come out. But down side to that is that the disc brakes required power assisted brakes because it takes more pedal effort with disc brakes than drum brakes.Same with rack and pinion steering its stiffer and requires power assist to be used easily
Cars of the 50`s …
Cars of the 50`s just started to get safety features with the start of ford offering their double latch doors to help keep doors closed in a wreck, the deep dish steering wheel so the hollow tube rim of the wheel would cushion the chest instead of being thrown against the solid steel steering column, padded visors, padded dashboards, and seat belts in 1956.Chevrolet started offering roughly the same starting in 1957.Thing is though this 59 is what would be called a poor mans car its bare bones
Consideirng the 59 …
Consideirng the 59 was a rust bucket with obvious structural damage due to the rust (you can see the rust flying out of the rocker panels) seat belts and padded dashboard would have only had a possibility of being useful if the car was brand new. In anycase its a flawed test from a scientific stand point. phony doesnt comprehend that so it is best to ignore that retarded idiot since he cant comprehend anything. In the end new cars are safer but doesnt change the fact this test was flawed.
Havn’t you ever …
Havn’t you ever heard of special effects! Why no close-ups after the fact? NO ENGINE!
If it didn’t have …
If it didn’t have an engine in it, the air cleaner wouldn’t fly out at 1:00 The IIHS is legit. Check out it’s other videos and website.
bodyvegas, I agree …
bodyvegas, I agree that todays cars are much safer Im not disputing that fact. I love my GPS, head restraints, crumple zones, ABS seatbelts , airbags LED lighting ans so on. You made an assumption that the car had an engine in it …I suspect that it didn’t …I have owned many cars of this vintage, and still think it was an uneven playing field, correographed for dramatic effect only. Nevertheless I will think twice next time i get into my 50’s Titanic Cruiser Deluxe! Kindest regards, Caprice
enlightening
enlightening
Cars of the 50’s …
Cars of the 50’s had no safety features whatsoever. Look how easy the roof collapsed! Those cars had no crumple zones, no reinforced areas, not even seat belts. I don’t care how heavy the car was, it’s nothing but a death trap. Of course it had an engine in it, or the crash would have been worst then it already was. Good luck if you drive one of those!
gosh I hope the …
gosh I hope the driver is okay
I call BS. I want …
I call BS. I want a Redew and i want to be there
I really doubt that …
I really doubt that there was even an engine in that 59 I suspect it was rigged. And look at 1:01 the plume of rust expelled from the rocker panel. With 50 years of metal fatigue no less. I think this vid was made solely for dramatic effect and nothing really substantial. Granted todays cars are much safer ! But this was not a fair playing field . Caprice
After seeing this …
After seeing this crash test, I seriously doubt that seatbelts in the 59 would have helped! The driver would have died on impact!! Cars to day are much safer than the cars in the past. Look at the result of the crash test. The 09’s right tire didn’t even deflate. I love the cars of the past, but would never be caught in one today!
Ok, so they wait a …
Ok, so they wait a week for a seatbelt. Big deal. Public transit costs less than $100 a month. Car ownership costs many times more than $100 per month. Nations that use it have lower car ownership, higher income, better quality of life.
but hey this is …
but hey this is just in theory though. How many people on here can say right now that they got $3,000 on hand. Not many thats why its hard to sell a car over $2,000 cause not many people have that kind of cash to spend. Like wise how many people have $18,000 on hand. Might be more people now but in the 50`s and 60`s the avg person kept about $1,000 on avg in the bank. The rest of the money that they brought in was spent on day to day living.