VERY interesting crash test between 1959 and 2009 vehicles

[NCBRIJEN]

Click on the link and watch the third video called;

1959 Chevrolet Bel Air and 2009 Chevrolet Malibu in 40 mph frontal offset crash test .....I was very suprised at the results....

http://www.iihs.org/webvideo_index.html

[NTX5467]

That was a pretty nice looking Chevy! I guess it gave it's life "for science"?

[msmazcol]

The fuzzy dice in the 59 are a nice touch!

[60FlatTop]

If they had used a Buick I bet it would have done much better than the X framed Chevy.

Bernie

[NTX5467]

Better look under your '60, Bernie. I strongly suspect it's the same X-frame situation, but I could be wrong. I know our '61 Chevy BelAir was the X-frame. Ford was using a "perimeter" frame back then and Chrysler was "UniBody". The X-frame might have been very stiff, with the "backbone" and such in the middle, but all that was everywhere else was just "sheet metal".

Just some thoughts,

NTX5467

[RICK YOUNG]

I was in a identiical accident in a 64 Impala on Jan 6th , 1971.

My friend was a passenger , his head went through the windshield.

I ate the steering wheel. It took 18 stiches to replace my nose.

[Guest Jim_Edwards]

The "X" frame, and I use the word frame very loosely, can best be described as a bean counter approach to cheaply engineering something to set a car body on and on which to attach a drive train. It's main attribute was it provided job security for frame shops. Absolutely no possible way to keep that sucker in square for very long. One good chug hole and it's all over! My '57 Cadillac Eldorado Seville has that tribute to engineering stupidity and the only way to describe the "X" frame is "100% pure crap." Possibly the worst idea to ever hit Detroit, and there have been a bunch of those as we all know.

Jim

[Centurion]

When this video first appeared, we discussed this on the '59 Buick forums.

Despite the common use of cowls and inner body structures throughout the General Motors lineup, each division still maintained responsibility for chassis design at the time of the 1959 models.

Buick utilized a reinforced "K"-frame set-up in '59 and '60, and the consensus was that this frame design was considerably stronger than Chevrolet's "X"-frame in '59/'60.

[60FlatTop]

Oh, I know the underside of my cars. Here she is resting on the perimeter frame rails. No X on this one. The rear end comes back detailed April 1st, so I have a few days to get intimate under there to make it nice for the Nationals.

[60FlatTop]

There is also a great difference between the Chevy X frame and the Buick X frame. when I was doing my '64 Riviera I visited a frame off restoration of a 1964 Chevy. It was surprising to see how much more material and welding went into the Buick frame. It was boxed and gusseted way more than the Chevy. It is still an X frame and would probably suffer a lot from a corner hit compared to a perimeter frame.

I remember a couple of guys who staged an explosion of a Chevy van for a news story. Maybe they did this clip with Chevy, too.

[Guest djohn81641]

60Flattop: Thanks for your comments. I feel a lit more safe driving my 1960 Buick LeSabre convertible. After first watching that video last week, I was a little leery about driving the car. After thinking about it some more, I said to myself, well I don't drive it a lot on the highway, but I have taken a couple trips, and I don't speed, and if I let that video dominate my thoughts, I will never drive the car again so I pushed it out of mind. I got seats belts, and I pray I am never in an accident with it.

Edited March 20, 2011 by djohn81641 (see edit history)

[Guest my3buicks]

It was a good comparison because it was basically like model cars from different era's.

Although I would believe even if it had been a 59 Buick, the damage to the driver would have been similar as the force of the impact was just not absorbed in the old ones as it is on the new ones. The car may not have blown apart like the Chevy did, but the g-forces on teh driver would have been the same.

Love my old cars to death, but if I am going to be in a bad crash, I pray I am in one of my newer ones and not just because I don't the old ones harmed.

Edited March 20, 2011 by my3buicks (see edit history)

[Guest Kingoftheroad]

You can find all kinds of old crash test videos like that on the web.

[Guest my3buicks]

The REALLY scary one is of the VW Bus pickup into the flat wall

[buick5563]

Love my old cars to death, but if I am going to be in a bad crash, I pray I am in one of my newer ones and not just because I don't the old ones harmed.

+1 for me, my family, and my extended family in this hobby.

[NTX5467]

Bernie, IF I'd thought about it, the Buick frame would have to be different due to the torque tube drive setup and rear suspension setup.

I seem to recall some information on torsional stiffness between the GM X-frame and other frames. "Torsional stiffness" means "bending", which would relate to how tight the body feels when new and how it maintains that with age and use. This will have NO bearing upon crashworthiness, especially in an offset collision as the video had.

Usually, the GM X-frame's "tunnel" was where they hid the carrier bearing mount for the two-piece drive shaft.

In 1958, Ford had a television advertisement (which you might find on YouTube) of a bare frame from a 1958 Ford Fairlane (with engine, trans, driveshaft, rear axle, springs, steering system, and full steering column) with a crossbar where the front seat was mounted. A well-dressed man was seat-belted into the driver's side of the front seat. Then a wrecking ball was swung down to his side of the car. The wrecking ball contacted the side of the perimeter frame and knocked the car over a few feet. Nearby was a Chevy X-frame, similarly equipped as the Ford's frame. Graphic depiction of what was not-so-good about the X-frame setup.

I also found a crash video on YouTube of a 1920s or 1930s Chevy coupe running into a brick wall. The whole car basically collapsed.

While these crash videos have some value in seeing just how a particular vehicle reacts to crash impacts with barriers and such, there is ONE thing missing. That one thing is that the instrumented manequins in the vehicles lack two high-definition (usually) visual receptors and also servo-motors to change the course of the vehicle in an effort to avert the collision.

The other thing is that modern vehicles have pretty much "brick-stiff" body structures. In watching a crash video of a Honda several years ago, it was obvious that its body stiffness might have minimized damage to the vehicle, but it ALSO resulted in a very significant rebound/bounce-away situation (think positive body acceleration suddenly stopping and then REVERSING until it hits something else of stops by itself!). Therefore, the two different types of body construction (between the newer Malibu and the '59 Chevy) make things basically as if the '59 Chevy had hit a bridge guard rail's end post. After which, it would have spun around as the forward energy motion was diminished.

One thing about the '59 Chevy, there was PLENTY of room inside the passenger compartment for the passengers to fly around, unrestrained.

Just some thoughts. My apologies for my indiscretion, Bernie.

NTX5467

[LINC400]

I am so tired of this video, and the supposed claim that all new cars are better than all old cars in collisions.

First, the 1959 Chevy is 50 years old. Anything 50 years old is going to have 50 years of wear, tear, rust, abuse, etc. A new car will not have that. This is an unfair comparison based on that alone.

Second, not all 1959 (or any year old) cars had an X-frame. While an X-frame is not good, we would probably be seeing some different results with a 1959 Ford or Chrysler. I'd be willing to bet that an Imperial, king of the demo derby circuit, would wipe out that Malibu.

I had 2 Mark V's totalled in collisions (not my fault) with new cars. Both Marks were totalled because they were not worth enough to fix. The cars that hit them were damaged beyond repair. The occupants of one were taken to the hospital. The other had injuries. I had no injuries. In fact I did not feel a thing or have even the smallest scratch from either accident.

So this video should be taken with many, many grains of salt

Edited March 22, 2011 by LINC400 (see edit history)

[Guest my3buicks]

My Son recently had a head on collision with a cement highway barrier in his 98 Camaro Z28 and walked away unharmed just shaken up - I shutter to think what the outcome would have been if he had been in his 75 Nova that he sold to buy the Camaro Z28. Thank God daily that he was in the Camaro!! In fact, didn't blink once when he wanted to replace it with another one.

Edited March 22, 2011 by my3buicks (see edit history)

[NTX5467]

After thinking about frame styles some more, today, I realized that the issue is more "body-on-frame" vs "unit-body". About the only current vehicles with body/frame construction are generally pickup trucks, now that the Ford Panther platform (Crown Victoria, Grand Marquis, Lincoln Town Car) has been removed from production.

Perimeter frame vs X-frame? If ANY side-collision impact is ABOVE the frame line, then all that's there is "sheet metal". The 1958 Ford commercial would have been shown no difference in the outcome if the wrecking ball had been centerlined about 1 foot higher. On the X-frame car, the rocker panel area could be stiffened to help with lower-level side impacts, for example, but we don't know if it might have been or not. NOR do we know if the same area in the Ford might have been a little less substantial due to the close proximity of the frame's perimeter in that part of the car. I have some other observations on perimeter frames, from what I've seen on the 1977+ GM B/C platform cars, but you'll have to request them.

Back to the Unit Body vs Body/Frame situation. UniBody cars (notably Chryslers, AMCs, and some FoMoCo products) needed more sound deadening materials and subframe isolators to get anything near the smoooothn and quiet GM Body/Frame construction "ride". I recall seeing in a "Motor Trend Magazine New Car Annual", circa 1970, that a UniBody car would take 150% more force to permanently deform the body than a body/frame vehicle, which made them safer due to crash energy absorption and body stiffness ("rattles" were an assembly issue, not a "body design" issue). Ford used S-shaped pieces on the front frame sections of their 1969-era big cars, for additional energy absorption on these body/frame cars (which an article noted that skeptical GM engineers tested to see if they really worked . . . which they did). It was also observed that if a car was longer than a certain wheelbase, there was a weight penalty for the car in UniBody configuration rather than body/frame.

Over the years, body resonances and undesired weak points have been engineered out of UnitBody constructions. Now, almost every vehicle is UnitBody, especially the smaller ones. In theory, EACH type could be designed to meet similar crash impact standards, but there are certain economic issues in trying to do that, plus weight issues, which also related to fuel economy ratings. BUT if you compare coarse pavement road noise, the older cars were generally quieter than most of trhe newer ones, by observation.

To be sure, the crash video is an extreme case. An offset lh headlight to lh headlight collision, with a closing speed of 80mph. UnitBody Malibu (with an impact area about 4" tall, under the front bumper fascia, which attaches to a very stiff body structure) against a body/frame '59 Chevy, with a three-piece front bumper (another thing Ford criticized them for in their advertising . . . the one-piece Ford bumper being stronger than the Chevy 3-piece item, which might not have been completely true, in some respects), about 3/16" thick, attached with similar thickness brackets, to "a frame". Not really a "fair fight", but one which might play out on almost any weekend night in the USA, or elsewhere.

Key thing is to "drive responsibly" and, as they used to say, "Watch the 'other guy'" (because they probably aren't watching you!

I believe it was the 1967 and later UniBody Imperials which were generally outlawed from the demolition derbies, rather than the earlier body/frame Imperials of 1966 and prior. That's what I remember reading.

Just some thoughts,

NTX5467

Edited March 22, 2011 by NTX5467 (see edit history)

[Dave@Moon]

To be sure, the crash video is an extreme case. An offset lh headlight to lh headlight collision, with a closing speed of 80mph.

This is a standard IIHS "Frontal Offset Impact Test". Every car sold in America gets tested this way.

======================

For a long, detailed discussion on this, see the AACA thread on the video from when it first came out ( http://forums.aaca.org/f169/those-you-profess-how-safe-our-268741.html ). Every criticism of this test has been addressed, from vehicle condition to weight to whether the cars were prepped differently for the test.

This is real, and it IS what happens when things go wrong. As for those who'd like to enlighten others who think that 50 years of engineering didn't improve safety, don't bother trying to change their minds. Peple can ignore anything to continue to believe what they want to be true.

[LINC400]

I never said 50 years didn't result in some safer cars. Look at a micro/mini car meet. I can't believe some of those cars were allowed to be sold back then.

However, this video implies that all old cars are unsafe. This is simply untrue. It also scares many people into stopping or reducing driving of their antique cars. Each car is different. They cannot all be lumped together because of one video. Are all new cars considered safe because of this video, or does every new car have to have its own safety tests? Do they all rate the same in tests? No they don't. That is why they have different safety ratings. Same deal with all old cars. They will not all do the same as this 1959 Chevy.

Plus the age difference is a very valid. I collect antiques. some materials, plastic, paper, wiring, some metals etc. simply do not age well, especially when exposed to elements. Everyone here has had to replace items on the car due to age and wear. Do you really think that the dry rotted and disintegrated weatherstripping is the only thing with age wear on the entire car? No, the entire car aged. Do you really think that that Malibu will do as well 50 years from now with 50 years of cracked and brittle plastic and possibly dead computer chips?

I had a 1979 Cougar that had a fist size dent in the rear bumper when I bought it. For some odd reason, people continually rear ended it. It was rear ended 7 times in the 6 years I owned it (usually sitting at a red light). I never got any damage, but I got paid every time it got hit because the much newer cars that hit it always had extensive damage, so no one even questioned the dent in the bumper. They just paid for it. By comparison, our 2006 Monte Carlo SS was hit twice at less than 5 mph. Each time resulted in over $2500 in repairs.

By the way, the Imperial that is the demo derby king is 1961-66, not 1967 and later. Specifically 1964-66. I hate that so many were destroyed, but even in the new Green Hornet movie, they stated that they could not believe how tough these cars were. No new cars would have held up the way the Imperials did. (yes they were modified for the movie, but I am talking about the ones they tested before the movie).

Also, if 2009 is new and wonderful and 1959 is old and no good, what is the magic cut-off date that makes all cars safe? Is 1979, 1985, 1990 old and no good or new and wonderfully safe?

Edited March 23, 2011 by LINC400 (see edit history)

[Rawja]

Also, if 2009 is new and wonderful and 1959 is old and no good, what is the magic cut-off date that makes all cars safe? Is 1979, 1985, 1990 old and no good or new and wonderfully safe?

You're completely missing the point.

Lemme ask you which car you would rather have been in in that crash? You'd have about 10 seconds to enjoy all that chrome and the wonders of its color-keyed interior before it was lights-out. Perhaps a fitting end for you, but I'd rather not end just yet.

You're well within your rights to continue to believe that disco-era cars are the pinnacle of style, but they're demonstrably not the final word in occupant safety. I primarily only drive old-ish pre-airbag cars myself, but I have no illusions about their comparative level of safety vs. current-production vehicles. It's an additional risk, but one I willingly make without the need for ludicrous rationalizations.

I'd also hope and expect that the 2059 Chevy whatever will handily outperform a 2009 Chevy Malibu when it comes to occupant safety; and who knows, maybe it'll even have opera lights and a landau roof.

Edited March 23, 2011 by Rawja
typo (see edit history)

[LINC400]

First, I see no reason to insult 1970's cars. They may not be to your taste, but I probably wouldn't like what you do either. And for some reason, everyone on here thinks those are the only cars I am interested in, They are not.

Plus I am not talking about a 2009 Mailbu vs. 2059 Chevy. I am talking about a 2009 Malibu vs. brick wall when it is brand new, and when it is 50 years old. Think it is going to perform exactly the same when everything has aged 50 years, and been used for 50 years? I don't think so. But that is what they expect with the 1959 Chevy.

Also, while I wish they were, a 1970's Lincoln is not the safest or strongest car ever made. Imperials, 1970's Fleetwoods, Eldorados, and GM clamshell wagons are all far tougher.

Ask any demo derby driver. They do not want any cars made after 1990. Why, because one good hit and they are dead. A 1964 Imperial can take many, many hits, and even run in 5 or 6 derbies before they die. That is why they are outlawed in most derbies. Many derbies now also forbid 1980 cars because a Dodge Intrepid or Taurus simply is not going to hold up against a 1970's GM clamshell wagon.

Everyone is swayed into believing all old cars are unsafe based on this one video. Sorry, I don't buy everything that supposedly works in an infomercial either. Usually it doesn't.

My personal favorite is that a lot of these "tests" show identical cars such as Grand Marquis and Ford Crown Vic. One has a 5 star safety rating, and the other, with huge change of verticle vs. eggcrate plastic grille is unsafe.

I have also been in actual real live accidents with old vs. new cars. Most other people simply speculate on what they think will happen based on one video which was purposely filmed to show how much better new cars are supposed to be. We wouldn't be seeing it all over Youtube if a 1959 Imperial destroyed a 2009 Sebring.

As I have said many times, one test is not used for all new cars, and so one test cannot be used for all old cars either.

In an accident with a 2009 Malibu, I would not want to be in a BMW Isetta or 1975 Chevette. Apparently, according to this video a 1959 Chevy is not too good either. But I would definitely be willing to take my chances in a 1964 Imperial with seatbelts or 1975 Fleetwood vs. 2009 Malibu.

I don't think it is delusional to base an opinion on what decades of demo derbies prove or personal experience in real life. Some old cars are safe, some are not. And not all new cars are safe either. Wouldn't want to be in a 2011 Focus vs. 1975 Suburban.

Also, one thing that is overlooked, if this for NHSA 50th anniversary, does that mean they did absolutely nothing for the first 2 decades if 1970's cars are not safer and stronger than a 1959 Chevy? If so what magic year did they do something?

I'd rather take my chances in far more intersting cars that have proven their strength than drive nothing but new blandmobiles on the off chance that maybe, perhaps, they might be in an accident, and maybe, perhaps they might be safer in certain circumstances.

Edited March 23, 2011 by LINC400 (see edit history)

[Rawja]

I didn't insult 70's cars and the reason everyone thinks you're really into 70's cars is from reading YOUR posts.

A car being able to withstand the punishment of a demolition derby does not equate to real-world occupant safety. The reason that newer cars crumple (ha-ha look at those silly "tin can" new cars) is to protect the occupants of the vehicle. One could very easily (and inexpensively) design an extremely rigid battering ram of a car but when it hits that proverbial brick wall the occupants will be reduced to jelly.

The referenced IIHS site has identical ratings for the Crown Vic/Marquis, Town & Country/Grand Caravan, Intrepid/Concorde, Taurus/Sable.. then I got bored with looking these things up.

No one is saying you shouldn't drive whatever you want to drive, but you're being overly pedantic and defensive about something that is undeniable: New cars are safer in a crash than old cars.

[Guest Jim_Edwards]

I am so tired of this video, and the supposed claim that all new cars are better than all old cars in collisions.

First, the 1959 Chevy is 50 years old. Anything 50 years old is going to have 50 years of wear, tear, rust, abuse, etc. A new car will not have that. This is an unfair comparison based on that alone.

Second, not all 1959 (or any year old) cars had an X-frame. While an X-frame is not good, we would probably be seeing some different results with a 1959 Ford or Chrysler. I'd be willing to bet that an Imperial, king of the demo derby circuit, would wipe out that Malibu.

I had 2 Mark V's totalled in collisions (not my fault) with new cars. Both Marks were totalled because they were not worth enough to fix. The cars that hit them were damaged beyond repair. The occupants of one were taken to the hospital. The other had injuries. I had no injuries. In fact I did not feel a thing or have even the smallest scratch from either accident.

So this video should be taken with many, many grains of salt

I'll guarantee that any vehicle in a similar collision as in that video encountering a Lincoln Mark IV will not fare well at all; and it might even be possible to drive the Mark off afterward. The box rail ladder frame underneath a Mark IV is stronger than the majority of light trucks rated for 1-1/2 to 2-1/2 tons and the front bumpers are basically two bumpers, the chrome plated steel one you see and the heavy aluminum alloy I-beam behind it, which you don't see. A nearly three ton tank that at 40 mph will hit with the impact of nearly 1/4 million foot pounds of force. No less than 2,500 lb piece of crap is going to fare well against that. Crumple zones or no crumple zones, the whole damn thing becomes a crumple zone!

Jim

[Guest my3buicks]

:confused:They just don't get it:eek:

[LINC400]

The 2008 Ford Crown Victoria got a “marginal” rating. “Marginal” is one step better than the institute’s worst rating of “poor."

Latest Crown Victoria Crash Tests

<TABLE style="WIDTH: 100%; BORDER-COLLAPSE: collapse" id=ctl00_ctl13_ctl00_rptDrilldownSections_ctl00_dlDrilldownItem border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="WIDTH: 50%" vAlign=top><TABLE style="BORDER-COLLAPSE: collapse" id=BlurbContentTable border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR><TD id=ctl00_ctl13_ctl00_rptDrilldownSections_ctl00_dlDrilldownItem_ctl00_ctl00_tdImageColumn>

</TD><TD id=ctl00_ctl13_ctl00_rptDrilldownSections_ctl00_dlDrilldownItem_ctl00_ctl00_tdContentColumn class=pad5>2007 Ford Crown Victoria <TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0><TBODY><TR><TD>Front Impact: </TD><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD>Side Impact: </TD><TD></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>More Ratings | Standard Safety Features

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

</TD><TD style="WIDTH: 50%" vAlign=top><TABLE style="BORDER-COLLAPSE: collapse" id=BlurbContentTable border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR><TD id=ctl00_ctl13_ctl00_rptDrilldownSections_ctl00_dlDrilldownItem_ctl01_ctl00_tdImageColumn> </TD><TD id=ctl00_ctl13_ctl00_rptDrilldownSections_ctl00_dlDrilldownItem_ctl01_ctl00_tdContentColumn class=pad5>2006 Ford Crown Victoria <TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0><TBODY><TR><TD>Front Impact: </TD><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD>Side Impact: </TD><TD></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>More Ratings | Standard Safety Features

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

</TD></TR><TR><TD style="WIDTH: 50%" vAlign=top><TABLE style="BORDER-COLLAPSE: collapse" id=BlurbContentTable border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR><TD id=ctl00_ctl13_ctl00_rptDrilldownSections_ctl00_dlDrilldownItem_ctl02_ctl00_tdImageColumn> </TD><TD id=ctl00_ctl13_ctl00_rptDrilldownSections_ctl00_dlDrilldownItem_ctl02_ctl00_tdContentColumn class=pad5>2005 Ford Crown Victoria <TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0><TBODY><TR><TD>Front Impact: </TD><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD>Side Impact: </TD><TD></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>More Ratings | Standard Safety Features

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

</TD><TD style="WIDTH: 50%" vAlign=top><TABLE style="BORDER-COLLAPSE: collapse" id=BlurbContentTable border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR><TD id=ctl00_ctl13_ctl00_rptDrilldownSections_ctl00_dlDrilldownItem_ctl03_ctl00_tdImageColumn> </TD><TD id=ctl00_ctl13_ctl00_rptDrilldownSections_ctl00_dlDrilldownItem_ctl03_ctl00_tdContentColumn class=pad5>2004 Ford Crown Victoria <TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0><TBODY><TR><TD>Front Impact: </TD><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD>Side Impact: </TD><TD></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>More Ratings | Standard Safety Features

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

</TD></TR><TR><TD style="WIDTH: 50%" vAlign=top><TABLE style="BORDER-COLLAPSE: collapse" id=BlurbContentTable border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR><TD id=ctl00_ctl13_ctl00_rptDrilldownSections_ctl00_dlDrilldownItem_ctl04_ctl00_tdImageColumn> </TD><TD id=ctl00_ctl13_ctl00_rptDrilldownSections_ctl00_dlDrilldownItem_ctl04_ctl00_tdContentColumn class=pad5>2003 Ford Crown Victoria <TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0><TBODY><TR><TD>Front Impact: </TD><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD>Side Impact: </TD><TD></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>More Ratings | Standard Safety Features

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

</TD><TD style="WIDTH: 50%" vAlign=top><TABLE style="BORDER-COLLAPSE: collapse" id=BlurbContentTable border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR><TD id=ctl00_ctl13_ctl00_rptDrilldownSections_ctl00_dlDrilldownItem_ctl05_ctl00_tdImageColumn> </TD><TD id=ctl00_ctl13_ctl00_rptDrilldownSections_ctl00_dlDrilldownItem_ctl05_ctl00_tdContentColumn class=pad5>2002 Ford Crown Victoria <TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0><TBODY><TR><TD>Front Impact: </TD><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD>Side Impact: </TD><TD></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>More Ratings | Standard Safety Features

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

No different grill and nameplate even required. So which is it, best or worst, same car? Plus there is a lot about exploding gas tanks on the internet for Crown Vics. Don't know if any of it is true, but how would that rate 5 star safety. These places simply cannot make up their minds. Yet one video with a 1959 Chevy is supposed to prove everything:rolleyes:

[Guest my3buicks]

Could be that the standard changes each year and by 2008 the Crown no longer meets what the standards are in the industry? Just sayin!

But more likely it's a dark secret government cover up to put Ford Motor Co. out of business by saying their cars are not safe;) That fit your thinking better??

Edited March 23, 2011 by my3buicks (see edit history)

[LINC400]

No. Much more likely is that the tests by all these different groups are unreliable. How else could the same car be 5 star in most reviews, and marginal or worst in others, and even blow up in others? I didn't feel like spending all day looking for all years of Crown Vics in the 2000's, but the car is basically unchanged for 2008 and has 5 star ratings as well.

Plus just because something happens in one test does not mean it will happen the exact same way again even if you try to replicate all factors.

So if you have all these different results for the same car, how can you use this 1959 Chevy test to speculate what is going to happen to old cars that share absolutely zero with it, and are not shown in this video? You can't.

Edited March 23, 2011 by LINC400 (see edit history)

[Rawja]

Golly.

The test was of "generic 1959 American family car" vs. "generic 2009 American family car" to coincide with the IIHS's 50th Anniversary (hence the 50 year spread in model years) and not a knock on liking, collecting or driving an old car. Drive whatever you want.

However if you're gonna get your panties in a bunch with "why didn't they destroy an Imperial?" or "why not a car from from the 70's?" you are still completely missing the point.

Given the awful choice of having an offset crash with an 80 MPH closing speed, I'm gonna take the new 2009 car over the old one, even if the old one has been transported in a time-machine fresh off the assembly line in 1959. If you would make a different choice, so be it. Just natural selection at work.

Edited March 23, 2011 by Rawja (see edit history)

[LINC400]

Yes, I guess I fail to see the point of this video.

Was the point supposed to be that any and all new cars are safer than any and all old cars? Because that is not true. It depends on what the cars are.

Is the point supposed to be so that the IIHS can puff out its feathers and claim how much safer they have made cars over the last 50 years? That seems to be the point. Except as far as I know the IIHS has never had anything to do with any of the innovations that are supposed to make new cars safe, such as anti-lock brakes, crumple zones, air bags, etc. Automakers or perhaps a parts supplier or even third party that sold it to the automakers are responsible for those, not the IIHS. They just want to take credit for it.

Was the point supposed to be to scare people that have old cars that are nothing like the 1959 Chevy in the video into never or rarely driving them? Because it has done that.

Or is it to encourage people that drive like it idiots to continue doing so, because they will be safe no matter what as long as they are in a new car.

Or maybe it was to inspire clueless politicians into trying to enact laws that restrict or prohibit us from driving our cars because they are so unsafe. Or maybe starting useless safety inspections. I can definitely see that happening.

Yeah, I guess I fail to see the point of this video.

And yes I have made my choice as to what I am driving. I had no injuries compared to the people that hit me in a new car, and were hauled off by an ambulance. I'd say that choice worked pretty well for me. But I guess my accidents would have had to have been on Youtube in order for them to be proven inarguable fact.

And if you are really concerned about safety, here is something no one concerned with safety is concerned about. Visability. Each decade visibility is worse. Many cars 1950's-1970's had optional outside rear view mirrors. I can't even imagine trying to drive the 2006 Monte Carlo without them. It would be an accident waiting to happen. You can't see anything out of that car. And the new Camaro and Challenger are even worse. Personally I would rather be able to see to avoid an accident than just hope all my new safety features are going to save me when I can't see anything and hit something.

Edited March 23, 2011 by LINC400 (see edit history)

[Guest my3buicks]

I think the test was done strickly to get your panties in a bunch:rolleyes:

Let's put the test this way - no other car included - Take your biggest heaviest safest car from 1959 and slam it into a wall with you in it and then take a, well, let's just stick with the 2009 Mailibu and slam it into the same wall. Which person is more likely to walk away with minor injuries and which person is going to be in the next movie, Dead Man Walking?

Edited March 23, 2011 by my3buicks (see edit history)

[buick5563]

Linc,

You have said the same thing over and over and over in this thread and the last time this video was brought up. We hear you. You were hit in an old car and you made it out OK. Good. The other people didn't. Good?

Apparently 64 Imperials are good demolition derby cars.

Where in the Hell is Paul with the popcorn????

[Guest reatta1991]

All this talk brings back vivid memories of Palm Sunday in 2004.

The wife and I were about 9 miles from home in our '97 Bonneville with air bags. A Ford Taurus pulled out in front of us at an intersection, and we t-boned it on its passenger side at just over 40 mph, slightly offset - the Bonneville's drivers side front half took most of the damage, while the impact collapsed the side of the Taurus, leaving the front passenger seat about 14 inches wide. An ambulance rushed the Taurus's occupants to the hospital (where the driver got her friendly "greetings" from the nice officer). We thankfully walked away with no injuries at all, because of air bags and shoulder belts.

Both cars were totaled, but if I had bought the Bonneville's hulk, and put it back together with used parts, it might have still been on the road today. The air bags were the major expense, the insurance company told me, accounting for half of the damage.

I sure wouldn't have any desire to be in my '67 under similar circumstances. We wouldn't have fared nearly as well. Though that doesn't stop us from driving it. We just pray a lot and drive defensively!

But you can bet our replacement daily driver was another Bonneville...this time a 2004.

Courtney

[Guest wildcat465]

I can't ignore a request.

Where in the Hell is Paul with the popcorn????

I wasn't following this one, I think I will now.

[RICK YOUNG]

Paul is back !!!!!!!!!!!!!

and thank goodness for that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

BUICK ON!!!!! Paul

[Dave@Moon]

I'll guarantee that any vehicle in a similar collision as in that video encountering a Lincoln Mark IV will not fare well at all; and it might even be possible to drive the Mark off afterward. The box rail ladder frame underneath a Mark IV is stronger than the majority of light trucks rated for 1-1/2 to 2-1/2 tons and the front bumpers are basically two bumpers, the chrome plated steel one you see and the heavy aluminum alloy I-beam behind it, which you don't see. A nearly three ton tank that at 40 mph will hit with the impact of nearly 1/4 million foot pounds of force. No less than 2,500 lb piece of crap is going to fare well against that. Crumple zones or no crumple zones, the whole damn thing becomes a crumple zone!

Jim

The reason that newer cars crumple (ha-ha look at those silly "tin can" new cars) is to protect the occupants of the vehicle. One could very easily (and inexpensively) design an extremely rigid battering ram of a car but when it hits that proverbial brick wall the occupants will be reduced to jelly.

See what i mean.

BTW, the Malibu weighs 3415 lbs. Not even a Chevy Aveo, weighs less less than 2500 lbs.

[LINC400]

I think the test was done strickly to get your panties in a bunch:rolleyes:

Let's put the test this way - no other car included - Take your biggest heaviest safest car from 1959 and slam it into a wall with you in it and then take a, well, let's just stick with the 2009 Mailibu and slam it into the same wall. Which person is more likely to walk away with minor injuries and which person is going to be in the next movie, Dead Man Walking?

I wouldn't assume that you would be all safe and fine hitting a brick wall just because you are in a 2009. And I wouldn't assume that you would automatically die because you are in a 1959. Hitting a brick wall is nothing like hitting another car. And I have never had a brick wall run into me.

Ever seen those barrels filled with water? They are energy absorbing crumple zones to replace the rigid concrete or steel barriers previously used. Know what that means? The car you are driving does not need to have energy absorbing crumple zones to benefit from them. A 1964 Imperial would sustain less damage hitting some of those than a concrete barrier. Equally a 1964 Imperial would act as a battering ram and benefit from the crumple zones if it hits a new car while sustaining less damage itself. That is what happened with my accidents.

And I wouldn't have to keep repeating myself if people would realize that just because a car was built prior to 1995 or 2000, it is not necessarily a death trap. As I have said numerous times, a 1959 Chevy is not designed, built, or have the same materials as all cars built prior to 1995. You can get an airbag and seat belts in a 1974 Toronado. I'd rather be in that any day over a 2011 Focus.

[Guest my3buicks]

Once upon a time there was a place known as the Twilight Zone.......get more popcorn!

[LINC400]

1958 BMW Isetta, 1959 Chevy, 1974 Toronado with airbag, 1986 Ford Taurus. What do these have in common? Nothing, except they are all antiques, and 2 are made by GM.

So why would anyone ASSUME you are going to get exactly the same test results for all 4 vs. ANYTHING built in 2009 (which have crash results varying from excellent to poor)?

I suppose that requires reasoning. It is not something that can just be watched on Youtube.