This is a sick way for the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) to “celebrate” its 50th anniversary, but we do love us some crash test video. Apparently, “the driver of the 1959 Chevrolet Bel Air would have been killed instantly while the 2009 Chevrolet Malibu’s driver would walk away with a minor knee injury.” As someone who suffers with that affliction (head fake Bob), I’d ask the IIHS to define “minor” and will henceforth avoid speeding to my local car show in a 1959 Bel Air. Meanwhile, note to the IIHS: in fifty years you couldn’t have added sound? Gary Numan’s Cars, anyway. [Thanks to DC Car Examiner for the link.]
68 Comments on “IIHS: 2009 Chevy Malibu vs. 1959 Chevy Bel Air (Just Because They Can)...”
Back to TopLeave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
You can also login using Facebook Connect.
Was the Bel Air dummy wearing a seat belt?
For, if it wasn’t, it is bloody obvious a driver of a Bel Air would die in such an accident.
so sad . . . this really wasn’t necessary. Celebration my ass. The IIHS are a bunch of monsters.
Was there an engine in that Bel Air?
Curious… but entertaining.
Celebrating 50 years of progress …..and proving IIHS to be the car-haters we always suspected they were. A 1959, with the classic rear bat eye brake lights destroyed! Horrible.
That sucked, but at least they destroyed a 4 dr.
With all this progress, when do my insurance rates go down?
Seat belts may have been optional on a 1959 Bel Air, but not standard. More interesting, if also more tragic, would have been to pit the Bel Air against a 1959 Volvo. That Volvo had seat belts and a crumple zone designed into it.
Apart from, maybe, the heads-up infrared display, I’m having a hard time remembering when GM was a leader in safety.
IIRC, those 59-60 GM cars with the X frames were always horrible in collisions. As much as I would hate to lose the cars, I would love to see that same crash tried with a Ford or Plymouth with a ladder frame. While they would still fare poorly compared to a 2009 model that is designed to do well in a crash, I bet they would do significantly better than that Chevy.
findude: Apart from, maybe, the heads-up infrared display, I’m having a hard time remembering when GM was a leader in safety.
GM was actually the first to offer airbags, albeit as optional equipment, in the early 1970s.
I am not surprised that the Malibu fared better but I am surprised by how much better. Good show for modern auto safety.
It is a disgrace however to destroy a 50 year old car in such a fashion.
It is a disgrace however to destroy a 50 year old car in such a fashion.
We’re talking about a mass produced, assembly line assembled car that thousands were made and you can find a dozen at any sizeable nostalgia gathering.
It’s not like they destroyed anything special, here.
“We’re talking about a mass produced, assembly line assembled car that thousands were made and you can find a dozen at any sizeable nostalgia gathering.
It’s not like they destroyed anything special, here.”
I completely disagree, it’s an antique, like it or not, mass produced or not, and shouldn’t be destroyed to simply make a point.
Part of the cash for clunkers program
Did you see the cloud of rust fly from the Bel Air?
I’m betting it was sitting in a junkyard somewhere, and they painted it to make it look pretty, but the frame was swiss cheese.
I don’t trust the IIHS – their job is to minimize risk for automobile insurance companies, and that is it.
Call me a sucker if you want, but I find this video impressive. I briefly owned a 1960 Chevy similar to this and the sheet metal was really thick on that enormous car. It is a telling reminder of how mass does not equal structural integrity, which is contrary to most people’s gut instinct.
Also, lucky for the 2009 Malibu that the other car’s massive hood sailed harmlessly above it! That would be a decapitation hazard right there.
A video like that is designed to be viral. Hence, no sound, which makes for a smaller file.
Y’all been punk’d.
A display as significant as Lutz taking on all comers to race the CTS. 59s were rust buckets, most were long gone within a decade of service up here in MA. I saw a 60 at Limerock, first one seen in yrs.
I worked as a personal injury attorney before taking up traffic law full time.
We cleaned out a deceased attorney’s files a few years back. He had all of the 50-60’s whiplash cases “back in the day”.
Those car accident cases were not a scam. People really did get hurt in what we consider today minor incidents. (I’m also not factoring in less seat belt use or bias ply tires)
Those old cars were really nasty compared to today. Common were injuries against metal dashboards. Interiors designed only for style were not really helpful in a crash.
Computers to evaluate crush zones were not yet common.
Today, you can have a fender bender at 30 mph or even hit a divider on a highway at 60 mph. The car will be a “total” but you have a much, much greater chance of walking away than before.
Having said all that, I’m sure the IIHS chose a car which was a very crappy example of crashability. IIHS studies are usually written like the Red Queen says: Sentence First, Verdict After !
And in related what-if news, NASA has announced that the Starship Enterprise would definitely waste the Death Star.
Makes you glad they don’t make ‘em like they used to.
BTW, what would the crash sound like in super slow motion…
Exactly.
Nothing like a snuff film before I’ve even finished my coffee. (shudder…)
taxman100: I’m betting it was sitting in a junkyard somewhere, and they painted it to make it look pretty, but the frame was swiss cheese.
Krause Publications published a book that consists entirely of photographs or car accidents during from the early 1950s to the late 1970s. The wrecked cars – most of which were nearly new at the time – don’t look much better than the 1959 Chevrolet does after this crash. Plus, GM’s X-frame wasn’t noted for its crashworthiness.
+1 on the huge rust cloud. I’d agree that it looks as though it was pulled from a dormant state in the northeast well after the frame had turned to oxygen… And I’m not convinced that there’s an engine in there either… Some paint and bondo make it look the part for this ad.
That said – are we meant to be surprised that a 2009 model is safer than a 1959?
“Apart from, maybe, the heads-up infrared display, I’m having a hard time remembering when GM was a leader in safety.”
Back in the 1950’s GM actively opposed selling cars based on safety features. GM management was of the belief that any mention of driving hazards was blasphemy. During the mid-1950’s Ford heavily advertised its “Lifeguard” safety option package — seat belts, padded dash and some other bits. GM responded by going nuts and running ads depicting wrecked Fords, to “prove” that Fords were not any safer than GM products.
GM’s corporate criminality goes back decades.
The windshield glass on the Bel Air shatters everywhere, where the Malibu windshield remains intact.
The engine I think is there. There is lots of engine compartment room, esp. if a 6 cylinder and the sheetmetal folds up against the engine as the engine is torn from motor mounts.
Naders Unsafe At Any speed mentions that designing a crumple zone car was possible back then in 50’s but ignored.
speedlaw :
September 16th, 2009 at 9:25 am
Having said all that, I’m sure the IIHS chose a car which was a very crappy example of crashability.
I think that would encompass just about every car made back then, frankly.
taxman100 :Did you see the cloud of rust fly from the Bel Air?
I don’t trust the IIHS – their job is to minimize risk for automobile insurance companies, and that is it.
You nailed it on the rust. And I trust the IIHS even less now…after this pointless act of horn-tooting. We all know that rusty metal has none of the malleable properties of the original stuff, right?
The ‘59 Chevy is a deathtrap by today’s standards, but not because of IIHS’s obviously flawed testing. I think the Malibu would be in more hurt if the ‘59 wasn’t a rust bucket.
Not sure I agree on the rust cloud theory. Look at the video – the ‘59 emits a brownish cloud, while the ‘09 emits a silver cloud, both colors corresponding to the color of each car. Could have something to do with the paint perhaps.
That Chevy was obviously a ringer. No engine, no transmission, and a special nature-modified lightweight panel substance known scientifically as “FeO” aka “The Carbon Fiber of the Fifties.” We call it by its more common name: Rust.
–chuck
The IIHS is on the east coast. I doubt very much that they spent what they would have had to to obtain a rust-free 1959 Chevy for this video. They found a cheap one, which practically by definition would be a rust bucket, and prettied it up for the video. They are part and parcel of the chickensh_t lawyer division of the mainstream media, and not to be trusted.
I’ve put in a call to the IIHS re: the soundness (soundosity?) of the Bel Air in question.
The full speed (with sound) video can be found on this page:
http://abcnews.go.com/Travel/technology-reduces-severity-car-crashes-fatalities-injuries/story?id=8523234
I agree with the others, I think this was a drive-train free rusty car of questionable structural integrity.
What they should have done is completely restore the car to factory tolerances using new metal in the structural areas. (IIHS has the money to do it)
Fifty years of freeze/thaw cycles, oxidation, road stresses, and so forth would absolutely weaken a car’s structure.
Further, it’s sad that a mass-produced, disposable car that managed to beat the odds and survive for a half-century met such a violent, unnecessary death. OF COURSE it would do worse in a crash against a new car of similar weight (they’re only off by a couple hundred pounds, and I’m sure the lack of engine brought the ’59s weight to below the ’09s). While dramatic, this was just brutal to watch.
I would love working at the IIHS. I’m sure their conversations go something like this:
“Hey Bob, what are we destroying today?”
“Well, as soon as I finish this here coffee and donut we have a 1959 Bel Air we’re crashing into a new Malibu”
What a sweet job.
I dont trust the IIHS – their job is to minimize risk for automobile insurance companies, and that is it.
Yes, and the biggest source of those claims is medical and life-insurance payouts. The insurance industry has a vested financial interest in making sure we’re all driving ultra-safe transport pods. In this case, the profit motive really does work as intended. This is why I would take the IIHS’ verdict over the NHTSA’s theoretically-compromised-by-the-automaker’s-lobbyists tests eight days a week. I don’t trust them in the sense that I think they’re morally upstanding citizens, but I trust their judgment for the same reason I’d trust a convicted bank robber’s opinion of a bank’s security system over that of the FDIC’s. The bank robber owes nothing to the bank, just like the IIHS owes nothing to the automakers while the NHTSA does.
This is rather like the health insurance industry, except that the automobile insurers can’t just let you die because that would cost even more money, so they lack that convenient “out”.
@vww12
I don’t think it would have mattered if the dummy was wearing a seatbelt. It appears that the dummy was pinned in by the crushing sheetmetal almost immediately. The seatbelt is effective mainly because it prevents ejection (and the corresponding injuries that happen when you are flying through the air at an accident scene) and second because it reduces deceleration injuries. In this car it would probably be the javelin-esque steering column that took out the driver.
I think it would be interesting to see two identical new Malibus crash into each other. Would the Malibu driver still walk away with only a knee injury, or would he be much more injured?
Right. I mean, I don’t like that the IIHS is going to totally ignore such things as “driving fun” in their ratings, and not even acknowledge that tradeoffs between speed and safety or anything and safety might be worth making, but I absolutely trust them on trying to make cars ridiculously safe.
I too doubt that they used anything other than a rust bucket for the 59 Chevy. But really, unless a car that old has been restored, they’re all rust buckets. But that car wasn’t designed with safety in mind, so I believe the end results are correct.
The one thing that stuns me is the fact that the ‘09 Malibu weighs as much as a ‘59 full size vehicle. There just has to be a way to make a car lighter without sacrificing safety and costing a fortune to impliment, isn’t there?
The one thing that stuns me is the fact that the ‘09 Malibu weighs as much as a ‘59 full size vehicle. There just has to be a way to make a car lighter without sacrificing safety and costing a fortune to impliment, isn’t there?
Nope. Big, safe, cheap. Pick two.
That said, there are ways you can get the mass down: the Malibu’s four-cyl and six-speed certainly are more efficient. Aerodynamics are worlds better on the ‘Bu. Engine management can make a big difference. And there’s far more useful space in the Malibu versus the Bel-Air. Most of this stuff was already done, though.
I would have liked to see the high-scoring lightweight car (say, a Civic) rammed into a car like this. It’d be an interesting test of the mass-wins theory.
The next time an older relative tells me “they don’t make ‘em like they used to,” my reply will be a simple “damn straight.”
Buick61: What they should have done is completely restore the car to factory tolerances using new metal in the structural areas. (IIHS has the money to do it)
True, but then who wants to wreck it?
Sajeev Mehta: The ‘59 Chevy is a deathtrap by today’s standards, but not because of IIHS’s obviously flawed testing. I think the Malibu would be in more hurt if the ‘59 wasn’t a rust bucket.
On youtube, someone posted a video of early 1960s full-size Dodges and Plymouths being used in crash tests by a university when they were new, or fairly new. The results were equally gruesome. The worst was the 1960 Plymouth Savoy hit on the driver’s side by another 1960s full-size Mopar. The passenger-side front door of the Savoy popped open and the entire front bench seat flew out the door.
skor: GM responded by going nuts and running ads depicting wrecked Fords, to “prove” that Fords were not any safer than GM products.
Do you have a link to those ads? I’ve never seen any of this type, and there are lots of vendors at the big Carlisle and Hershey swap meets who specialize in ads for cars and automotive products from the 1950s and 1960s.
What I had read is that GM brass was upset about Ford’s ad campaign – the thought was that implying safety had anything to do with automobiles would hurt everybody’s sales – but what killed the Ford campaign was that Chevy whipped Ford in the sales race for 1956.
In addition to being the first to install air bags on a production car, GM also developed the collapsible steering column, which was a major safety advance.
Nope. Big, safe, cheap. Pick two.
OK , I was just wondering if automakers were just taking the easiest way out since US standards are different than the rest of the worlds.
Another problem with those old cars – they had wrap around windshields. People who hit the inside of the windshields got their skulls badly out of alignment and bone surgeons had a terrible time trying to figure out what shape the skull was originally.
Interesting vid.
Talk of a rigged car is 100% speculation – the burden of proof is on you if you want to make such accusations.
In the 50s GM whined about making their cars safer.
In the 60s GM whined about making their cars less polluting.
In the 70s GM whined about making their cars more efficient.
Other auto companies (European and Japanese) didn’t whine they just met the challenges and took GM’s market share.
I really think it is as sound as can be, for a fifty year old car. There wouldn’t be much point if it was just a rolling cloud of rust dust, the whole point of it is to have the car structurally intact.
OK , I was just wondering if automakers were just taking the easiest way out since US standards are different than the rest of the worlds.
The core platforms and basic safety measures aren’t all that different, and the differences aren’t about core safety as much as things like pedestrian-impact standards (in Europe) or bumper-bash resiliency (int he US).
Then you get cars like the Jetta, which weigh as much as the Malibu, despite being a) smaller by a longshot and b) European.
PartsUnknown : Not sure I agree on the rust cloud theory. Look at the video – the ‘59 emits a brownish cloud, while the ‘09 emits a silver cloud, both colors corresponding to the color of each car. Could have something to do with the paint perhaps.
That silver cloud is probably the airbag gas (white) leaving the car. I seriously doubt any of the stuff you see near the ground came from the Malibu.
Just look at all the brown junk on the floor after the ‘59 met its doom. (at 0:59) That’s not paint, that’s a lot of dirt and of RUST.
I actually wanted to see something like this before. Now I have I am throughly entertained but am crying a little bit on the inside.
“I think it would be interesting to see two identical new Malibus crash into each other. Would the Malibu driver still walk away with only a knee injury, or would he be much more injured?”
All else being equal, the softer the thing you run into, the lower the crash forces will be. Running into another Malibu, the other Malibu’s crush zone would soften the crash for both cars, and both drivers would suffer less injury than the Malibu driver in the Malibu/Bel Air crash.
And to think millions of people drove billions of miles in those “death traps” and lived to tell the tale….
How did we all ever survive before the IIHS ?