What's Wrong With This Picture: "You're Not Wrong, Walter" Edition

Edward Niedermeyer
by Edward Niedermeyer

The IIHS still can’t believe A) how far safety features have come and B) how it cool it was for them to destroy a perfectly good car. Oh, and may you meet the Bel Air’s fate if you don’t get the headline reference. [via Autoblog]

Edward Niedermeyer
Edward Niedermeyer

More by Edward Niedermeyer

Join the conversation
4 of 33 comments
  • Jmo Jmo on Sep 29, 2009
    “What do you do for a living?” “I smash cars together — to save people’s lives.” That's cool and all - but shooting things into jet engines would also be fun. http://www.techeblog.com/index.php/tech-gadget/jet-engine-test Or there is always moose testing SAABS. http://www.sover.net/~cbrandon/cbrandon/moose.html
  • Dmrdano Dmrdano on Sep 29, 2009

    The movie industry destroys nicer cars than this every day for nothing more than a few seconds of celluloid. At least this sacrilege had a purpose. Weight as a factor in safety is only one element. For example, smash an Indy car into a Malibu; you will be less likely to be injured in the Indy car. They design the car to fly apart to dispel energy. Sure, it is totaled, but the driver walks away. The old Chevy probably sold for less than a day in intensive care.

  • Christy Garwood Christy Garwood on Sep 29, 2009

    @jmo - thanks for the smiling memory jog. I was a co-op engineering student at Allison Gas Turbine in Indy when GM still owned it. On a test lab tour we saw chicken sized silicone figures (hmmm, now that's a picture) 'tossed' into the engines. Of course, the experienced engineers told us the pre-PETA days stories of live chickens, geese, ducks and teased our olfactory imaginations... Back on topic - where did the Bel Air's rear fender skirt go?

  • ZekeToronto ZekeToronto on Sep 29, 2009

    TEXN3 wrote: I’m not quite sure why the Volvo 940 keeps being brought up, I guess because of Volvo’s safety image… but it’s a late 70’s design when it came out in the form of the 700-series. It’s still body on frame ... What? The 940 might be rear wheel drive, but it's most certainly not body-on-frame. I don't mean to blow your mind, but Volvos have had unibody construction since the 444 in 1947! Actually that Volvo model was very carefully chosen to make a point. All 940s that were ever sold in North America had at least a driver's side airbag (and the vast majority had a passenger bag as well), whereas the model shown in the crash test had none. Also, shortly after replacing the 740, the 940s were modified to incorporate the SIPS (Side Impact Protection System) developed for the 850. A 940 that was a year or two newer (or even just a North American spec model) would have faired much better in that test. And an early 90s 850--with a full complement of airbags, SIPS, laser welds, a transversely-mounted engine (to spread the impact) and a front crumple zone specifically designed for offset crashes such as this--would have almost certainly demolished the Renault.