1959 Chevrolet Crash Test - safety photo

[James B.]

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.

I think what is deceiving here is the fact that what is "better" in new cars is under the skin. Outside they look horrible and the sheet metal gauge is thinner so dents easily. But on the other hand I have also seen cars from the 1930s-1940s rolled off cliffs and flip over and over yet sometimes come out looking like they could be driven away. There is no denying that The sheet metal on cars up to the early 1970s was heavier and resisted denting better but the frame in question on the Chevrolet was considered a failure in general and GM knew it skirting around the issue and even admitting that the Oldsmobile and Buick of this era were safer since they incorporated side rails. Yet, why did Buick change at the last minute to this cruciform style if they considered their original frame safer and knew of the issues? Oldsmobile I believe never used this type frame? I would like to see some sort of published study or development on these frames without side rails to see why they considered them safe at the time?

Jim

[rocketraider]

We cry for the 59 because it had survived 50 years in nice condition and was destroyed simply to prove a point that any modern driver should have already known and accepted. I did not need to see that video to know the 50-year-old car would have fared worse in an impact with a modern car.

How often can you realistically expect a collision between modern iron and old iron to occur in current traffic? When it does, it's usually caused by some idiot in a modern car who is not paying attention.

What this test HAS done is convince "enlightened moderns" that all old cars are unsafe, should be taken off the roads, and that children should not be allowed anywhere near them. All of us have heard that prattle from people who think nothing of operating their latest electronic gadget while driving down the road, yet condemn our old cars as unsafe. See last sentence of preceding paragraph.

Waste of a perfectly nice old car that someone could have cherished and enjoyed. Don't care if it's a mid-line four-door sedan, a bare-bones price leader, or a fully optioned high-dollar mainstream popular old car, to do something like this to a car in that condition was nothing short of wasteful. As an old car owner/enthusiast and AACA life member, I consider it highly offensive.

[James B.]

Glenn, I hope you did not take offense to my post? I too love and have owned many older cars and enjoy them over modern fodder. But my questions are more along the lines of a reasoning "why" this frame failed?

[Guest Skyking]

The wasteful money spent by the IIHS conducting this ridiculous test could have been well spent on how to disarm cell phones while driving...............the real culprit in today's modern driving. Nobody today wants to face the real facts.

[rocketraider]

No, James, no offense taken to your post. The offense was the IIHS destroying the 59 Chevy for sensationalism.

On the X-frame's failure, all I can say about that is that it was a design evolution that when designed, looked like a good idea. Real-world performance proved otherwise.

I don't believe any engineer or designer goes into a project with intent of killing or maiming someone, no matter what these insurance and safety weenies claim. The insurance companies' sole interest is to reduce or deny claim payouts, nothing else. The safety advocates have a better claim to interest in the frame's design, but what they fail to take into account is that zero risk is unrealistic. You can reduce risk, but you can never eliminate it.

I've said for years that most peoples' hurt and anguish is self-inflicted, but sometimes things just happen- acts of God, I think is the legalese for it. Can't be explained, can't be justified, it just happened.

[Guest]

I think what is deceiving here is the fact that what is "better" in new cars is under the skin. Outside they look horrible and the sheet metal gauge is thinner so dents easily. But on the other hand I have also seen cars from the 1930s-1940s rolled off cliffs and flip over and over yet sometimes come out looking like they could be driven away. There is no denying that The sheet metal on cars up to the early 1970s was heavier and resisted denting better but the frame in question on the Chevrolet was considered a failure in general and GM knew it skirting around the issue and even admitting that the Oldsmobile and Buick of this era were safer since they incorporated side rails. Yet, why did Buick change at the last minute to this cruciform style if they considered their original frame safer and knew of the issues? Oldsmobile I believe never used this type frame? I would like to see some sort of published study or development on these frames without side rails to see why they considered them safe at the time?

Jim

Jim, Many people believe "X" frames started with 1958, however look at a 1957 Cadillac frame;

http://forums.aaca.org/attachments/f169/119473d1330014287-1957-cadillac-chassis-design-1957-cadillac-frame.jpg

1959 Olds frame has side braces to it's "X" frame and Olds uses leaf springs.

http://www.oldcarbrochures.com/static/NA/Oldsmobile/1959%20Oldsmobile/1959_Oldsmobile_Brochure-Cdn/1959%20Oldsmobile%20%20Cdn%20-26-27.jpg

chevrolet continued with the "X" through 1964 in full size cars;http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR7fgHrMepFKmnHQp1upzdBVf4Xq5ykTktz70V0RKo6D63AqCW2v5QRWSPuRA

Pontiac changed it's frame in 1961 to the perimeter type.

Cadillac frame for 1959 "X" with no side rails;http://www2.cadillac.cz/zajimavosti/brochure1959/15_soubory/engine.jpeg

[Guest Bob Call]

I have seen the photo but can't remember where on the net. It is a 58 Impala not a 59 and it is split in two across the midsection.

[John348]

In an earlier post there is a photo of the 58 Chevrolet with the nose clip off to the side. I can not see how one of these cars could split at that point and a rather clean cut if you ask me. I think there is more to that photo then we know. I posted a photo of a 62 Chevrolet frame, it is still pretty outboard at the firewall.

On that crash test it is a head on collision at a rather good rate of speed, with all due respect guys do you really think a heavy bumper would make that much of a difference?

[Guest]

In an earlier post there is a photo of the 58 Chevrolet with the nose clip off to the side. I can not see how one of these cars could split at that point and a rather clean cut if you ask me. I think there is more to that photo then we know. I posted a photo of a 62 Chevrolet frame, it is still pretty outboard at the firewall.

On that crash test it is a head on collision at a rather good rate of speed, with all due respect guys do you really think a heavy bumper would make that much of a difference?

[ATTACH=CONFIG]173860[/ATTACH]

It's not exactly a straight head on it's a fifty fifty hit. If I was building a 62 Chevy I would put in a collapsible steering column. See where the steering box is on a 62 Pontiac compared to the Chevy and the Pontiac has another crossmember brace with the sway bar inside it in front of the main engine crossmember . This will be the second season for the perimeter frame for Pontiac. Of course the Canadian Pontiac will have the Chevy frame and Chevy engine and no Hydramatic. This is why many feel Canadian Pontiac's are not really a Pontiac.;

http://www.cliffave.com/media/library/pages/gallery/gallery95/62_G.P_._frame-_finishing_.jpg

Edited January 23, 2013 by helfen (see edit history)

[James B.]

I have seen the photo but can't remember where on the net. It is a 58 Impala not a 59 and it is split in two across the midsection.

Is this the post - photo you saw? http://forums.aaca.org/f169/1959-chevrolet-crash-test-safety-photo-320879-3.html#post1093651 I believe what Ralph Nader said it broke where the front fork connected at the center section. I also would like to see a better copy of this picture and see more details.

[John348]

Is this the post - photo you saw? http://forums.aaca.org/f169/1959-chevrolet-crash-test-safety-photo-320879-3.html#post1093651 I believe what Ralph Nader said it broke where the front fork connected at the center section. I also would like to see a better copy of this picture and see more details.

Yes it was James, I just don't see it without any severe sheet metal damage, and the front "Y" connects under the front seat, there is way too much heavy steel connecting everything together.

Helfen, If I were driving it every day in this cell phone/text message world we live in I would make the mods, but I am a nut and bolt pureist, and again the column is just one of many problems as seen from the test demonstration, all the collapsible column allows for is an open casket at the funeral wake, the force of your body slamming into the hard steering wheel before hitting the windshield is enough to kill anyone.

I don't think any of us restored these cars with the anticipation of 50/50 hit, I don't think it would really matter what 59 passenger car was used on that test, the driver would most likley get killed and the car would be a total

[James B.]

John, my theory in the severed car photo is that there may have been a flaw at the welds and there is only a couple of bolts and rubber holding the body to the frame.

Edited January 23, 2013 by James B. (see edit history)

[Hudsy Wudsy]

I'm a little puzzled that some who have participated in this thread seem to think that the Malibu/Impala crash was staged to impress upon people that old cars are inherently unsafe in accidents. I think that it's very important to simply recognize that Institutes aim was to demonstrate how their efforts (along with others, of course) have brought about great change for the better in the area of vehicle crash survivability. I, honestly, applaud their efforts. I won't imply here that the '59 Chev was without much worth, because there are members of this forum to whom it meant a great deal. I'll only say that a picture is worth a thousand words and though I know a fair amount about modern alloys and crush zones, even I was shocked at the Malibu's penetration into the '59 Bel Air. Much earlier in this thread, mention was made of a persons aorta being broken as a result of a collision. That's a somewhat interesting subject to dwell upon for a moment. If you can, imagine a person being so completely wrapped in bubble wrap or other cushioning that they couldn't suffer any external trauma (broken bones, skull fractures or even skin tearing) in an impact. Now drop them off of increasingly higher buildings until they finally succumb to death. (Don't actually do this, you might get caught). An autopsy would confirm that the cause of death was the pulmonary artery (not the aorta) rupturing. This a large, heavy artery which is postioned between the heart and the lungs. Because of it's mass, it simply bursts open when sufficient impact jars it beyond a certain point. This artery bursting was the cause of Princess Diana's death, as well as many, many others over time. In the real world, you won't come upon the scene of a tragic accident and find bodies wrapped in bubble wrap. You would likely see all manner of injuries that weren't survivable, but in the absence of these, a simple explosion in the chest could be the cause of death. I go to the bother of dwelling on this to make this point -- the sudden impact of a substantial crash will kill a person even if the vehicle that they are riding in, whether it be a Suburban, an Imperial or an Abrams tank, suffers little damage at all. The advancements in metalurgical science and the studied design of crumple zones saves lives by allowing the body of the car to simply absorb the energy of the impact incrementaly. It's probably difficult for some to imagine this because it all takes place in an instant. I think that is why this staged collision has great merit, but only to someone who is open minded enough to see what's really taking place. I'm amazed that some people can't understand what their own eyes behold -- riding in a battleship of a car can easily put a person at a disadvantage in an accident with a modern car. Summing up, I say first that the '59 Chevrolet appeared to have greater mass by far than the modern car but it was all largely sheet metal and spaces in between that gave it the appearance of mass. Also, mass alone, in the absence of carefully studied design and modern alloys, can well be the cause of death and not be an advantage at all.

Edited January 23, 2013 by Hudsy Wudsy (see edit history)

[Steve Braverman]

The '59 is only about 200lbs. heavier than the '09 Malibu. The illusion of greater mass is just an illusion.

[Hudsy Wudsy]

The '59 is only about 200lbs. heavier than the '09 Malibu. The illusion of greater mass is just an illusion.

Exactly...and mass is just a red-herring, anyway. What does matter if your shiny mass survives relatively intact if it's failure to absorb impact energy means your dead?

[Hudsy Wudsy]

In regard to the severed '58 photo, I would also like say that the photo is taken from the front and might lead some to believe that the car sheared at the point of the firewall. I'm sure that is not the case. If we could see the front end of this car from the rear, I'm reasonably certain that we would see some of the frame remaining back to the point where it broke at the center union of the X frame. (Approximately near the front drive shaft U-joint).

[John348]

John, my theory in the severed car photo is that there may have been a flaw at the welds and there is only a couple of bolts and rubber holding the body to the frame.

Not at that point the body cushions are pretty well forward of the door end of the front fenders, at least a foot. I don't see it. I have done several frame off restos on these "X" frame cars, thee is no distress to the sheet metal, it appears to have been cut maybe for a rescue. As I remember Nader was on a mission also. Maybe a collision with a chop saw?

[Guest Bob Call]

Re the 58 Impala photo, the one I saw was taken from the drivers side, not the front, and it looked as if it hit the tree at the rear edge of the drivers door, 2 door car, and was split between the seats across to the passenger side rocker panel.

[Hudsy Wudsy]

Re the 58 Impala photo, the one I saw was taken from the drivers side, not the front, and it looked as if it hit the tree at the rear edge of the drivers door, 2 door car, and was split between the seats across to the passenger side rocker panel.

Was there any indication of where the frame itself sheared (as opposed to the sheet metal)?

[James B.]

Re the 58 Impala photo, the one I saw was taken from the drivers side, not the front, and it looked as if it hit the tree at the rear edge of the drivers door, 2 door car, and was split between the seats across to the passenger side rocker panel.

Bob, that may have been a different car? I have seen others posted that were not Chevy but Oldsmobile or Buick and cut in half after hitting trees broadside at a high speed. The '58 Impala shown also hit the tree broadside at a high speed on a slick road. All seemed to have been convertible models I saw. From what Nader stated the frame did break at the joint I mentioned and GM officials came to the scene to investigate what happened. I never found out their findings though (has anyone?). There was other incidents I have read where other GM cars had been hit broadside and killed people and lawsuits were filed against GM. Problem was that at the time the company was only liable to make a safe car from manufacturer defects, not from a collision. That changed after 1966 I believe?

[Bleach]

Getting back to the original subject, the '59 Bel Air, I have been studying the video of the crash. There are center-lines marked on both vehicles. If you look carefully from the top, you can see that the '59 Chevy is not getting hit at exactly the center-line while the '09 is. The '09 looks like it is shifted a few inches to the right of the '59. Looking the other way the '09 is getting hit at the center-line. You can see this at about 1:24 in the time

This shift appears to be deliberately made to avoid the '59's narrow profile in-line six engine and thus makes the crash appear more devastating to the '59. In fact I would agree with a previous post that if the '59 had a V8 the crash outcome would have appeared quite differently. I honestly believe if the '59 would have been aligned to include the in-line six in the crash, it would have looked differently as well. I have read comments elsewhere where viewers thought that the '59 didn't have an engine. By the looks of the crash it gives that very impression.

[James B.]

And that gets back to wanting to see the final result. There was a reason for this crash test, not just to sit and watch a crash in slow motion. I am sure they studied the physical damage between the two and that has to include the difference between unibody versus body on frame cars and the damage of?

[Guest]

And that gets back to wanting to see the final result. There was a reason for this crash test, not just to sit and watch a crash in slow motion. I am sure they studied the physical damage between the two and that has to include the difference between unibody versus body on frame cars and the damage of?

Since not very many old cars make up the mix out there on the street these days, I would rule out the Uni-body vs. full frame outcome for test purpose. There are body on frame suv's and trucks today but you cannot compare their frames with the 59 Chevy. New body on frame vehicles have crush zones built into the frames as well as their bodies.

Read the article in Hemmings. It makes sense.

[Dave@Moon]

This shift appears to be deliberately made to avoid the '59's narrow profile in-line six engine and thus makes the crash appear more devastating to the '59.

Maybe, if the 235 6 cylinder engine was less than 4 inches wide, or nearly entirely shoved over to the right side of the car before the crash.

BTW, just in case someone thinks it might matter, the 235 cubic inch straight 6 outweighs the 283 cubic inch V8 by about 55 lbs, roughly 630 lbs. to 575 lbs. It also outweighs the 620 lb. 348 cubic inch big block by 10 lbs. ( Is Chevy's 250 inline six heavier than the 350 SBC? - Yahoo! Answers ).

We need to face it, what happened is what should have happened.

[Guest]

Maybe, if the 235 6 cylinder engine was less than 4 inches wide, or nearly entirely shoved over to the right side of the car before the crash.

BTW, just in case someone thinks it might matter, the 235 cubic inch straight 6 outweighs the 283 cubic inch V8 by about 55 lbs, roughly 630 lbs. to 575 lbs. It also outweighs the 620 lb. 348 cubic inch big block by 10 lbs. ( Is Chevy's 250 inline six heavier than the 350 SBC? - Yahoo! Answers ).

We need to face it, what happened is what should have happened.

Thanks for the link Dave

[Guest Skyking]

We need to face it, what happened is what should have happened.

And all this should have been determined before this test in 2009.

[James B.]

Just putting this out here showing the frame of a 1960 Chevy. They highlighted in darker color the body frame structure which includes the rockers, to show that there was some side impact protection even if it wasn't deep side rails.

I think with the 1958 Impala crash photo where Nader said it split at the fork meeting the center section, the engine's weight slamming up against the tree acted a major part in the breaking of the front section. It wasn't a matter of the floor pan tearing but the frame breaking and then the bolts, however many at that point of left, shearing off from the floor.

[Guest]

here is a great link to all of this;

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=images%20of%201960%20olds%20hitting%20a%20pole&source=web&cd=9&cad=rja&sqi=2&ved=0CFwQFjAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.curbsideclassic.com%2Fautomotive-histories%2Fautomotive-history-an-x-ray-look-at-gms-x-frame-1957-1970%2F&ei=VroCUZP_N6W7iwL28oGgBA&usg=AFQjCNHFuZBedsWKKyLNY-qyDAFNKtAlcg

[James B.]

here is a great link to all of this;

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=images%20of%201960%20olds%20hitting%20a%20pole&source=web&cd=9&cad=rja&sqi=2&ved=0CFwQFjAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.curbsideclassic.com%2Fautomotive-histories%2Fautomotive-history-an-x-ray-look-at-gms-x-frame-1957-1970%2F&ei=VroCUZP_N6W7iwL28oGgBA&usg=AFQjCNHFuZBedsWKKyLNY-qyDAFNKtAlcg

Good starting point for the layman but not 100% accurate.

[Guest]

Good starting point for the layman but not 100% accurate.

What interested me most was that Buick used the "X" in Riviera to 1970.

[Bleach]

Maybe, if the 235 6 cylinder engine was less than 4 inches wide, or nearly entirely shoved over to the right side of the car before the crash.

BTW, just in case someone thinks it might matter, the 235 cubic inch straight 6 outweighs the 283 cubic inch V8 by about 55 lbs, roughly 630 lbs. to 575 lbs. It also outweighs the 620 lb. 348 cubic inch big block by 10 lbs. ( Is Chevy's 250 inline six heavier than the 350 SBC? - Yahoo! Answers ).

We need to face it, what happened is what should have happened.

You appear to missing my point. It's not whether if the engine is only 4" wide or whatever the real dimension is. The 235 is a tall slender engine and an offset impact will cause it to act as a wedge in the crash and deflect the force of the energy toward the side as can be easily seen in the video and stills. The weight of the engine in this crash was not as big a factor as the engine deflecting the force of the crash to the one side.

If the crash would have been centered appropriately it would have probably even caused the engine to shear into the passenger compartment on the '59. It would have also caused the '09 to suffer more damage as well since the '59's engine would have been a bigger factor in absorbing some of the crash's energy and perhaps deflecting some of it back.

[James B.]

What interested me most was that Buick used the "X" in Riviera to 1970.

True... that is a bit baffling and also wonder why they not only continued using the obsolete frame thru 1970 on the Riviera but also Buick abandoned the X with side frame late in the game using the questionable cruciform style starting with 1962 when other GM models was abandoning it except Chevy? Anyone have any ideas? And to add to this puzzle, the 1960 Chevrolet pickup (C-10) had a x brace frame used only 3 years and wonder why they decided to go with that and only 3 years?

[John348]

For some reason I don't think the intent of this test is about damage to the cars, and it was never was.

As far as the center of the X breaking on the frame that part is behind the front seat,

[rocketraider]

I have to offer this as rebuttal, though in all honesty the old gent would likely have been killed outright in a 55 or even 65 Cadillac:

Wreck slices car in half; charges pending - YourGV.com

[Guest Skyking]

Glenn, I agree, so the question would be, would we take a nice original '55 or '65 Caddy to prove it?

[rocketraider]

No, because WE as old car owners are inherently aware that OUR machines do not have the same safety features and engineering as a brand new car.

I find that's where a lot of neophyte old car owners miss the boat- they're used to driving modern stuff. Then when they decide they want an old car (for cool factor much as anything), they expect it to be engineered the same as new production.

Then when they find it's not, they immediately rant and rave about how unsafe and unreliable it is and worst case, start modifying everything. The better solution for people like that would be to stick with modern cars and turn their oldie over to someone who understands and appreciates it for what it is and for the era of design and engineering it represents. And, more to the point, will OPERATE it accordingly.

Edited February 12, 2013 by rocketraider (see edit history)

[Guest]

No, because WE as old car owners are inherently aware that OUR machines do not have the same safety features and engineering as a brand new car.

I find that's where a lot of neophyte old car owners miss the boat- they're used to driving modern stuff. Then when they decide they want an old car (for cool factor much as anything), they expect it to be engineered the same as new production.

Then when they find it's not, they immediately rant and rave about how unsafe and unreliable it is and worst case, start modifying everything. The better solution for people like that would be to stick with modern cars and turn their oldie over to someone who understands and appreciates it for what it is and for the era of design and engineering it represents. And, more to the point, will OPERATE it accordingly.

Glenn, It's not only just "they expect a old car to be engineered the same as new production". Some people just have to have all the conveniences of a new car too. A/C, where their was none, AM-FM stereo-CD/MP3 etc. They really don't want to drive a car for what it was like in the day. They really don't want to experience what it was like when those cars were new. Sad they are so caught up in today's world that they have to bring it with them into the antique car. In my opinion that's what turns one of those cars into just another modified far.

[Guest Skyking]

They really don't want to drive a car for what it was like in the day.

Don, I really believe most people today couldn't drive the cars we drive. That's what's scary!!

[James B.]

What I find fascinating and possibly someone can elaborate on this, is the fact that the GM central tunnel X frame introduced on the 1957 Cadillac, was both controversial and dangerous with at least a couple lawsuits filed (all lost).

But when GM decided to start ditching this design for a more conventional perimeter box frame in 1961 starting with Oldsmobile and Pontiac, there was little fanfare or even advertising within ads or brochures about this new frame. In fact, I only saw a 1/8 page size section in the 1961 Oldsmobile brochure and that is about it. If this new “Box Strength Guard-Beam Frame” was so revolutionary and superior to the X style, why wasn’t it advertised more? Brochures had a habit of showing frames regularly up to this point and even beyond like when Cadillac itself dropped it in 1965. But when first introduced it was a different story apparently?

Ideas? Comments? Suggestions?

Jim

[Hudsy Wudsy]

To tout the qualities of the new frame would be to admit the shortcomings of the prior one, wouldn't it?