1959 Chevrolet Crash Test - safety photo

[X-Frame]

This post makes me want to rethink what to buy for my next antique vehicle. I wonder if they are about as safe as anything on the roads these days, excepting of course for things like air bags, ABS and shoulder belts which except for the latter I could care less about.

What year range are we talking about here?

Any Imperial built prior to 1967 had a seperate chassis frame and all were heavy like you see in the above picture between 1957-1966. Those are basically the ones banned from demos. I remember a time I wanted to add a right hand side mirror that my 1963 LeBaron didn't have but the '64 model did. I used a hammer and a steel punch to mark a pilot hole and it simply bounced off the fender like rubber and left no mark. That is how thick the steel was on these cars! The frames were massive and some may say overkill but all Chrysler products prior to unibody and after 1956 had this style frame but the Imperial was heavier and had more large cross beams.

[Dave@Moon]

This post makes me want to rethink what to buy for my next antique vehicle. I wonder if they are about as safe as anything on the roads these days, excepting of course for things like air bags, ABS and shoulder belts which except for the latter I could care less about.

What year range are we talking about here?

A rigid, indestructible iron box will shock/slam you to death inside in an accident (if anything) faster than a reasonably complaint box that folds up and absorbs energy so that your body doesn't. That's why new cars have crush zones. The idea that vehicle survivability is related to passenger survivability is simply not valid.

Older cars are dangerous in a wreck. There's not getting around it no matter what vehicle you're talking about.

That said, people ride the highways every day on motorcycles. If we're taking chances riding in old cars, what must they be doing?:eek::confused:

Relax, enjoy, but be safe as possible.

[Guest my3buicks]

A rigid, indestructible iron box will shock/slam you to death inside in an accident (if anything) faster than a reasonably complaint box that folds up and absorbs energy so that your body doesn't. That's why new cars have crush zones. The idea that vehicle survivability is related to passenger survivability is simply not valid.

Older cars are dangerous in a wreck. There's not getting around it no matter what vehicle you're talking about.

That said, people ride the highways every day on motorcycles. If we're taking chances riding in old cars, what must they be doing?:eek::confused:

Relax, enjoy, but be safe as possible.[/quote

+1

[Bleach]

Dave without a doubt that is true. I'm sure there were some cars back then that did have some safety padding in the interiors. I do plan on being safe and driving safe. It's the other driver I worry about. It would be ideal if the errant driver that would hit me would crumple up and absorb all of the impact and leave me unscathed.

[X-Frame]

Want to bring this thread back to life and hope to get to the library again now they have digital readers to save that famous picture and post here. In the mean time I ran across this one of a 1998 Honda Civic in Vineland, NJ which was in a racing match but ran out of control and slammed into a telephone pole and then into a tree while doing about 80-mph... can see it too split half.

Edited July 3, 2012 by MCHinson (see edit history)

[avgwarhawk]

[X-Frame]

What's the story behind this one Chris? The frame is still in one piece even if the skin has been peeled off.

[avgwarhawk]

I have no idea. I believe someone was looking for a specific picture of a car from the 50's split in two from a accident. I'm not sure if this was the image they wanted.

[earl e rizer]

I am surprised you would omit the Imperial as a safe car over other lighter ones. But I would rather have a pre 1967 model that had a massive side rail frame. I have owned both... a 1963 LeBaron (forest green, white leather), a 1972 LeBaron (black on black in black leather), and a 1975 LeBaron (white on white in white leather). Granted, the '72 is sleek looking but the '63 I was more safe feeling in and had much thicker gauge sheetmetal too. The early Imperials were often banned from demolition derbys due to their indestructibility.

Picture of a 1972 Imperial and a 1963 Crown body/frame diagram below.

Even though the 63 has a body on frame and heavier gauge metal I think the crash test results will show the chance of injury/survival will be better in the 72 due to a more advanced engineering from Chrysler. Also by then the NHSTA was publicly more vocal about automobile safety. The steering column issue is the 1st that comes to mind for me. I prefer the '63 Exner design to the Fuselage '72 anyday.

[Rusty_OToole]

If they used a 52 Chrysler or Buick instead of a cheap ass 59 Chev the results would be different. I know the Chrysler would wreck everything. They had more steel in the bumpers than Chev had in the whole frame. If you don't believe me, come out to my garage and try to lift one.

By the way "hardtop convertible" was the original name for a hardtop. Sometimes "convertible hardtop" although that one sounds more like a Ford retractible.

[smithbrother]

There is no way a Buick or Chrysler had more steel in the bumpers than the Chevy had in its frame, NO WAY, PERIOD........

I have had too many cars where I have taken the body off the frame, and know from where I speak.

I will say that the 1950 Buick had probably the heaviest bumper, but still NOT more steel than the Chevy frame.

Nothing personal, for sure.

Dale in Indy

[Guest Kingoftheroad]

I don't know about what car had more steel but I do know that the mid 60s Chryslers weren't allowed to compete in the weekly / monthly demolition derby because the Chryslers were said to be sturdy as railroad cars out lasting other cars much of the time. Everyone thought those Mopars had an unfair advantage so they were barred from that competition.

[smithbrother]

The only Chrysler cars that I ever heard were banned were the 64-66 Imperial models.

Large cars, and station wagons were mostly used.

Dale in Indy

[NTX5467]

Here's a few thoughts and observations about some of the Chrysler-related comments, from my own experiences and observations.

Sheet metal "gauge" is most probably close to the same for all vehicles, due to the fact that it's got to be pliable enough for the presses to stamp it into the desired shapes and contours. Some might be a slight bit thicker than others, but I believe it's THE SHAPE and THE ALLOY that can have more bearing upon how strong it might be. We know that two thin pieces of sheet metal become very strong when they are formed and welded together, much stronger than individual flat pieces of sheet metal. Even the form itself is important in torsional strength and such.

In 1962, we went to the local Chevy dealer to get an outside rear view mirror added to the 1 yr old BelAir my parents had just purchased. The mechanic took a small punch and easily (it seemed) added two holes to the door's upper area for the mirror. Almost "to size" for the supplied screws. Of course, there was a paper template laid on the door for correct positioning. This was on a slightly convex body surface below the vent window, but the metal was still reasonably "new", so it worked easily and well.

As for the sheet metal "alloy", it's just like cast iron . . . it looks the same but it's really not. Example . . . in the world of Chevy engines, I learned that the more powerful small block V-8s were of a different cast iron "mix" than the base model 2bbls and also the inline 6-cylinders. The "HB" cast 283 blocks were desired, if you were doing a 283. One night, at my machine shop associate's shop, he'd set the boring bar on a Chevy inline 6-cylinder. I noticed that the boring bar was going through that "cast iron" much easier than it did for 350 V-8s, almost "like butter" in comparison. Less nickel in the mix, he noted. Which is what the "HB" denoted on the 283 blocks.

I'm not going to discount the fact that Chrysler probably did use a thicker gauge of sheet metal in their unibody vehicles. I know for a fact that a BARE '76 Cordoba front fender weighed significantly MORE than a similar-size '76 Chevy Monte Carlo fender IN THE CARDBOARD SHIPPING WRAPPER. Chrysler shipped their sheet metal "bare" back then, so the fender weight I saw for the Cordoba fender was "au naturel", with oxide primer. But you also have to understand that for a strong unibody, you have to have strong sheet metal segments welded together for enhanced strength.

Also, back to design . . . the Chrysler "front clip", the "add-ons" to the cowl (fenders, hoods, supports, etc.) were ONE solid piece when bolted together. They attached to a strong front subframe assy which then bolted to the underbody (on the unibody cars). The front bumpers were also strongly-attached to the front of the subframe. I do believe that the Chrysler bumpers are of a thicker gauge of metal than what GM used . . . comparing our '66 Newport to my '68 Buick LeSabre. Key observation was that the front section of the Chrysler unibody was one "brick" of sorts that had much strength in it, from the license plate rearward. The radiator core supports were also "up front" in that mix, too. I've seen a few "rear enders" where the '66-era Chrysler C-body was the offending vehicle. Much greater damage to the rear of the other vehicle than to the front section of the Chrysler, usually, especially if the other vehicle was a body/frame vehicle. But as with newer vehicles, that increased frontal stiffness/strength puts much more emphasis on the use of seat belts and padded instrument panels and such, for occupant protection.

When the '69-'73 C-body cars came out, they had much more space between the grille and the radiator core support than the earlier cars did. Still with the stiff front sheet metal attributes, too, especially with the front loop bumpers. MUCH harder for the demo derby opponents to hit them hard enough to take out a radiator! The main body areas were probably of the same strength as the '66-era cars, but probably not as strong as the later '74-'78 C-body cars. All of the "softness" that was designed in to the Fuselage cars was replaced by the prior "brick" attributes of the '66-era cars, which I believe make them the strongest C-body cars at that time, plus having the many sound isolation upgrades in body mounts and such. Plus all of the things for which we had to "band-aid" fix on the '69-'73 cars were fixed on the '74 models! Things like more interior volume with '65-era a/c capacity (blower cfm and condenser/evaporator sizing, plus a/c case leaks) somewhat overpowering the legendary Chrysler AirTemp's capabilities. In these body strength comments, I'm not being concerned with the addition of safety bumpers to the '74-'78 models, although these energy absorbing bumper mechanisms (which have weight to them, too!) need a stronger structure to be tied to.

One thing about "big cars" from the '70s (and such), as mentioned in some comments a person made when asked about why they persisted in driving large luxury cars when it was more fashionable to drive smaller and more fuel economical cars. The reply was something like . . . "In a large car, if you have an accident, it's 'out there somewhere'. If you're in a small car, it's 'in your face'. With the bigger car, I end up with bent sheet metal and it still runs." And, that tended to explain why there were so many "bent" older luxury cars (in the hands of their 3rd or more owner) with bent sheet metal still driving around. The front bumpers were at the front of the car and the front wheels were about 1 foot or more behind it . . . early "crumple zone". If it was a bad impact, the frame area behind the front suspension crossmember would also deform, but that's about as close as things got to the passenger compartment, back then. But IF you were in something near in size to what were termed "compact" cars (which is about what we now call "full-size" cars!!!), less crumple distance and more significant "metal bending" to absorb the same crash energy.

In possible crash situations, it gets somewhat scary to realize that only 6 bolts keep the front subframe of my '77 Camaro bolted to the body floorpan (4) and the front end sheet metal (2). Assisted by about 6 bolts where the fenders attach to the cowl. One reason why it should be "normal maintenance" to replace the 4 floorpan subframe bolts with Grade 8 bolts every 10 years or so, especially in salt-laden humid climates. Same on many modern unibody vehicles!

BUT we seem to be forgetting about ONE item! "Active Safety" where the driver steers away from impacts rather than freezing and hitting things "dead on". ALL vehicles have had some sort of steering device to change the vehicle's direction of travel. Not to forget about "brakes"! But the driver's visual information receptors and processors need to be working for these things to happen, with all due respect.

I don't know too many vintage vehicle enthusiasts (other than possibly some vintage road racers who still race their vintage vehicles every so often, in sanctioned events for such vehicles) who would actively go out and deliberately run into something just to see what might happen. Which kind of tends to make this "bench racing" session just that . . . talk and speculation. I know that I'm going to try to steer around anything that's trying to collide with my vehicle, IF I see it coming OR the possibility of "it coming" exists. That means that I'm going to also be concerned about Active Safety Sub-Systems (tires and inflation pressure, suspension, brakes, steering, etc.) are operating as good as they can be. PLUS remembering the need to feather the brake application with power drum brakes, compared to power disc brakes with anti-lock!

Pretty much ANY car can have a safe and solid feel. Just go over it EVERYWHERE and tighten EVERY bolt and nut you can get a wrench/socket onto. You'll be surprised how much difference it can make, even if you think things are good as is! Then use some quality lube for the hinges and locks so they operate easily and quietly. Add some rubber dressing to the door weatherstrips, too, for longevity and quietness. You might have some difficulty finding all of the retention bolts/nuts on the more modern "snap fit together" cars, but on the older ones, it's something that I recommend doing just to check bolt torques to see what they are.

AND THEN MAKE SURE THAT "THE NUT BEHIND THE WHEEL" SEES "THE OTHER GUY"!!!

NTX5467

Edited July 4, 2012 by NTX5467 (see edit history)

[Dave@Moon]

I ran across this one of a 1998 Honda Civic in Vineland, NJ which was in a racing match but ran out of control and slammed into a telephone pole and then into a tree while doing about 80-mph... can see it too split half.

When I was 11 years old I was eating lunch at my great-grandfather's house in Pittsburgh when there was a HUGE explosion sound up the street. We all got out and walked 2 blocks up the street to see what had happened. A 1959 Chevy (dark green, BelAir 4 door hardtop) had been driven into an iron light pole at what was probably at least 70 mph. (The driver had used the 3/4 mile long Swindell Bridge to get up as much speed as possible.) It hit dead center. (Later my dad told me the news reported the accident as a suicide.)

The light pole stayed vertical, and was sticking straight up through what used to be the back parcel shelf and the panel ahead of the trunk lid. The engine and transmission were sticking out through the fascia under the trunk lid. The car had been split longitudinally almost completely through. There was a low stone wall immediately behind the pole, and the unrecognizable front portion of the car was splayed open against it. Were it not for that wall it's certain that the car would have been completely split in 1/2 the long way.

My parents got me out of there quickly as soon as they knew what had happened, but it was too late.

The point being that using extraordinary events to illustrate the structural integrity of a car, or the lack thereof, is futile. 80 mph will pretty much destroy anything. It more a matter of what kind of shape the driver is in after a 40 mph collision that is the point.

[Guest Kingoftheroad]

64-66 Imperial models.

Dale in Indy

Those might be the ones I'm thinking of...

[X-Frame]

OK Guys, I finally have the infamous Ralph Nader photo he mentions in his book of the Chevrolet Impala split in to two. Not a great scan grab but better than nothing...

Eric Huffstutler

[Rusty_OToole]

For those who doubt the strength of the old Chryslers, again I invite you to inspect the bumper off a 52 model. They resemble a hiway guard rail and it takes a strong man to lift one. A 59 Chev bumper can be lifted easily by a ruptured 12 year old. There is no comparison between the strength of a Chev and the strength of a Chrysler. Not only the bumper but the frame, body, suspension, engine, transmission, everything.

If the crash test had been between a new Chev and a 52 Chrysler the Chrysler would have crushed the Chev.

I was involved in an accident once where a 1985 Pontiac (the small front drive model) spun out on a rain slick road, and hit my 1970 Dodge pickup from behind, while going backwards at 50 MPH.

The back of the Pontiac was crushed in so bad the back bumper was under the rear window. They towed it straight to the junk yard with a tow truck.

My Dodge had a dented rear fender and a broken tail light. I drove it home, replaced the tail light and drove it for 4 more years. The rear bumper wasn't even bent.

Edited October 27, 2012 by Rusty_OToole (see edit history)

[Guest Skyking]

A 59 Chev bumper can be lifted easily by a ruptured 12 year old.

Now that's funny!

[Dave@Moon]

The back of the Pontiac was crushed in so bad the back bumper was under the rear window. They towed it straight to the junk yard with a tow truck.

They're designed to do that. If it had been another 1970 Dodge truck that hit you at that speed from behind most of that energy would've been absorbed by your neck instead of the Pontiac's sheet metal (at least until your head hit the glass behind you).

[Rusty_OToole]

They're designed to do that. If it had been another 1970 Dodge truck that hit you at that speed from behind most of that energy would've been absorbed by your neck instead of the Pontiac's sheet metal (at least until your head hit the glass behind you).

My neck did snap back and my head did bounce off the back window, hard. I went to the hospital and had my head Xrayed but they didn't find anything.

[LINC400]

I went to the hospital and had my head Xrayed but they didn't find anything.

I suppose I shouldn't comment on that.

[mrspeedyt]

Old cars are dangerous in a bad collision but they are still safer than a motorcycle.

[James B.]

There is a lot published and seen about this test crash but was there any pictures published to see of the Chevrolet frame afterwards (body off) to see exactly the extent of the damage and what failed?

[Guest Skyking]

From what I read in Hemmings Classic Car this month, they destroyed a very nice original car.:mad:

[James B.]

From what I read in Hemmings Classic Car this month, they destroyed a very nice original car.:mad:

Details... what was the circumstances and what did they destroy?

[Guest Skyking]

The article was by Bob Palma, too long to post here. Buy a copy. It's worth reading. It debunks all the theories that were posted here.

[Guest]

What the author Bob Palma says at the end is the most significant as I quote.

" Isn't it cheaper for corporate members of The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety to replace a $30,000. Malibu than to pay stacks of hospital bills and settle personal-injury and/or wrongful death lawsuits? Why wouldn't they consider a nice 1959 Chevrolet to be disposable collateral damage to promote safer cars? "

The article is worth the time to read. The mindset of reasoning the 59 Chevy's demise is fascinating.

[James B.]

Thanks helfen. Must have been ESP because I had no idea that Hemmings was revisiting this topic and thought the article was about some other rare car being destroyed or something. I would like to see the frame of the 59 Chevy after the accident and know how it failed... how twisted it actually was?

[Guest]

Thanks helfen. Must have been ESP because I had no idea that Hemmings was revisiting this topic and thought the article was about some other rare car being destroyed or something. I would like to see the frame of the 59 Chevy after the accident and know how it failed... how twisted it actually was?

James, I would like to see too. I don't think that the "X" frame split at the front, but after the front "X" there is no frame except the central backbone linking it to the rear portion of the "X". Compared to some other GM cars of 1959, the Chevy has front steering, and in the film you can see what happens to the steering wheel/column on cars with front steering in a front end collision. Also I would like to know if that car was a V-8 or a six, because the six is narrow and if your only taking out 1/2 of the front end the Malibu would have a glancing blow and keep on going. A wide 348 W engine would stop that Malibu better.

[Dave@Moon]

I would like to see the frame of the 59 Chevy after the accident and know how it failed... how twisted it actually was?

Why? The video from inside the car documents so much structural failure that the event was almost certainly unsurvivable. The hit was directly into the left fork of the Chevy's x-frame. Of course it twisted, most of that arm had to have been obliterated in the wreck for the Malibu to come through the engine compartment as far as it did. That force transferred to the other branches had to have distorted them somehow.

There is no defending the safety of old cars. They're not safe relative to modern iron. That much is a fact, hopefully the IIHS video was enough to convince the last holdouts for the old car "battleship" theory of accident safety. Hoping that an aspect of the car's structure remained intact when the visible damage is so catastrophic just doesn't make sense.

[Dave@Moon]

A wide 348 W engine would stop that Malibu better.

Or maybe the battleship theory will live on.

[Guest]

Or maybe the battleship theory will live on.

I'm not a subscriber to that theory, just saying a wide "W" engine is more of a chance of stopping the Malibu, ....so as you say Dave, "Whisper words of wisdom" Just "Let it be" Dave.

Let's not make it into something it isn't.

[Dave@Moon]

Let's not make it into something it isn't.

I'm not, and I don't think you are either. However someone reading about the 348 engine "stopping" the Malibu might believe that there was a factor of inadequate mass for the battleship theory to work. Sadly there are many people (I know some) who insist on it, especially when defending large SUVs as a safety device despite their real world statistics.

Secondly I don't think the 348 would have made a bit of difference. The frame rail it would have been bolted to was smashed into the driver's footwell. That wouldn't have changed, the Malibu was already most of the way through the engine compartment when it got to the engine/motor mount. It might have made a bigger mess of the Malibu once the serious damage was done, but the impact on the frame rail would be the same.

[Guest Magoo]

There can't be any question that today's cars are far superior in impact protection. Until the 1970s, impact energy management didn't really exist.

Just to show the primitive state of GM's impact testing technology in 1959, here's a video we posted today at Mac's Motor City Garage.com.

Look at around 4:55 for staged impacts between 1960 Corvair and various 1959 Chevrolet full-sized models. Also, staged rollover tests of the Corvair using a '58 Buick tow vehicle. The video is well worth watching from a number of angles, check it out.

Video: The Corvair in Action, 1960 | Mac's Motor City Garage

[Guest Skyking]

There can't be any question that today's cars are far superior in impact protection.

EXACTLY, so why ruin a perfectly good car to prove otherwise?

[Guest Magoo]

EXACTLY, so why ruin a perfectly good car to prove otherwise?

It's not simply a proof, it's also a demonstration. Obviously a demo has real value to the world (and to the IIHS) given that so many people assume wrongly.

In crash studies, vehicles are destroyed. That is a fact, no way around it. Why are we crying for the '59 Chevy but not for the new Malibu? They're both "perfectly good cars," with the Malibu having greater practical and economic value, if you don't mind my saying so. What's a '59 Belair four-door post sedan in condition 4 worth, anyway? Less than a new Malibu, surely.

Not to be heretical here, but it's only a '59 Chevy. It's a car, not an object of worship. As we speak, there are easily dozens of '59 Chevrolets rotting into the ground while their owners never "get around to" restoring them. At least this car ended its life with a purpose.

I don't have any great point to make here, only noting that in any pastime, we tend to bend values out of place. It's in the nature of enthusiasm.

[John348]

The 348 wieghs about the same as the 235 six, maybe 100 to 150 pound difference, and both the 283 and the 348 are held in to the frame by the exact same frame mounts (engine mounts are different because of overall height) I looked at the video many times and in horror because I have a few of X frame cars. The frame is connected in the front under the engine with a rather large craddle, same frame for all engines. The steering box is mounted to the frame and is forward of the engine, when that corner was impacted, it drove the column back through the crash dummies chest. The open sides of the X frame were to be supported by the rocker panels which were made with several internal channels of steel, the outer rocker over lapped the floor and was welded over that edge. There are four sets of braces two that run from side to side and two that run across the floor to the tunnel, they were trying to use some of the uni-body technology.

I think the point has been made with this video that driver safety has gone in leaps and bounds since 1959, and as it should have!

We can only hope that in 2059 if the same test is done they can find 2009 Malibu and people will still be on this site upset that an old 2009 car got destroyed, most of us will be gone is a safe bet lets just hope the hobby lives on

Edited January 22, 2013 by Biscayne John (see edit history)

[Guest Skyking]

It's not simply a proof, it's also a demonstration.

Yes, a demonstration. How many times do we have to prove it? These test have been done over and over throughout the years. It's no different than pointing a guy at someone and pulling the trigger. We all know the end results. We don't do these test periodically to see if that changes, it don't. And yes, it's only an old '59 Chevy 4 door sedan. If somebody bought that car and started changing everything on it to modify, everyone here would come out of the woodwork and crucify him, or her. Just my 2 cents on the matter.

[Guest]

Steel in the new cars is far superior to what the 59 car was using, plus the folding zones to make that steel absorb energy prove what we saw in the video, but already knew before hand is what made the test as I said before a publicity stunt.

If the engine would have been a "W" there is a better chance of distributing it's energy against the firewall more evenly, and a better chance for the Malibu to get a chance of hitting it instead of a glancing blow with a straight six.

I made a comment earlier about front steer vs. rear steer, and now in reference to Biscayne John I will say that say a 59 Pontiac as a example which uses rear steer, that the steering box is well protected behind the "well" for the coil spring on the frame would not send the column into the drivers chest unless everything was pushed up to the firewall and in that case nobody would live. Pontiac and some other divisions also have a core support that is thicker and three times as large as the Chevy and a very large full bumper, unlike the Chevy's thin blade bumper with a thin sheet metal valance under it. Just the same it was a needless demonstration, destroying a nice car that maybe someone who grew up with one might want or a entry level car for someone to get started into our hobby.