09-18-2009
|
#1
|
|
R U DTF bro?
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Oak Point, TX
Drives: C8 Stingray Z51
Posts: 20,620
|
1959 Chevrolet Bel Air Vs. 2009 Chevrolet Malibu
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Murlo26
I agree with Kracka.
|
Last edited by Kracka; 09-18-2009 at 01:19 PM..
|
|
|
|
09-18-2009
|
#2
|
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Crystal, MN
Drives: 1991 Saab 900 Turbo
Posts: 19
|
Re: 1959 Chevrolet Bel Air Vs. 2009 Chevrolet Malibu
Check out the crumple zones on that Bel Air.
Crash safety has really gone down hill since the 50's.
|
|
|
|
|
09-18-2009
|
#3
|
|
R U DTF bro?
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Oak Point, TX
Drives: C8 Stingray Z51
Posts: 20,620
|
Re: 1959 Chevrolet Bel Air Vs. 2009 Chevrolet Malibu
Quote:
Originally Posted by ctruss53
Crash safety has really gone down hill since the 50's.
|
Are you kidding me?!?! You obviously didn't watch the video or read the text at the end.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Murlo26
I agree with Kracka.
|
|
|
|
|
|
09-18-2009
|
#4
|
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Crystal, MN
Drives: 1991 Saab 900 Turbo
Posts: 19
|
Re: 1959 Chevrolet Bel Air Vs. 2009 Chevrolet Malibu
Yes, I am kidding.
|
|
|
|
|
09-18-2009
|
#5
|
|
flips McGee
|
Re: 1959 Chevrolet Bel Air Vs. 2009 Chevrolet Malibu
LOL the front of the bel-air was in the passenger compartment!
|
|
|
|
|
09-18-2009
|
#6
|
|
Shit Rocket Pilot
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Shoreview, MN
Drives: 2003 Evolution VIII
Posts: 7,752
|
Re: 1959 Chevrolet Bel Air Vs. 2009 Chevrolet Malibu
That's amazing. The Malibu's passenger compartment remained intact while the Bel Air basically fell apart.
__________________
"If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough." -Mario Andretti
03 Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution VIII
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tachyon
Every minute you spend in your Evo, not in boost, is a minute of your life you'll never get back.
|
|
|
|
|
|
09-18-2009
|
#7
|
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Circle Pines
Drives: 1992 talon tsi 1995 corolla
Posts: 2,048
|
Re: 1959 Chevrolet Bel Air Vs. 2009 Chevrolet Malibu
wow!
|
|
|
|
|
09-18-2009
|
#8
|
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Crystal, MN
Drives: 1991 Saab 900 Turbo
Posts: 19
|
Re: 1959 Chevrolet Bel Air Vs. 2009 Chevrolet Malibu
I think it probably has to do with how narrow the frame is in the front of the Bel Air. If you think about it most of what the Malibou hit was just inner and outer fender sheet metal and the front suspension.
The wonders of unibody construction.
|
|
|
|
|
09-18-2009
|
#9
|
|
'2of9'
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Inver Grove Heights
Drives: Racer Van V6
Posts: 2,125
|
Re: 1959 Chevrolet Bel Air Vs. 2009 Chevrolet Malibu
quite amusing. I dunno about knee injury though. I'd be pretty bustd if I ever crashed into a Bel-Air. lol.
__________________
ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)
|
|
|
|
|
09-18-2009
|
#10
|
|
wants to be sideways...
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Winona Minnesota
Drives: Loud cars
Posts: 2,764
|
Re: 1959 Chevrolet Bel Air Vs. 2009 Chevrolet Malibu
Quote:
Originally Posted by ctruss53
I think it probably has to do with how narrow the frame is in the front of the Bel Air. If you think about it most of what the Malibou hit was just inner and outer fender sheet metal and the front suspension.
The wonders of unibody construction.
|
That is a very good point. Since the bodies were not meant to take most of the weight and stress, and the frame being narrow, the unibody has a much better chance at that sort of crash.
It would be very interesting to see the same test performed with a 60's vehicle with unibody construction.
__________________
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Matt D.
Leave the straight line highway dick wagging to the ricers and people who think they are good drivers.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 93GSX5SD
I'll second that. Its your car your choice. Enjoy your dsm experience.
|
|
|
|
|
|
09-18-2009
|
#11
|
|
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Boulder, CO
Drives: Conquest
Posts: 5,049
|
Re: 1959 Chevrolet Bel Air Vs. 2009 Chevrolet Malibu
Quote:
Originally Posted by ctruss53
I think it probably has to do with how narrow the frame is in the front of the Bel Air. If you think about it most of what the Malibou hit was just inner and outer fender sheet metal and the front suspension.
The wonders of unibody construction.
|
Doesn't matter. The video isn't about 60's cars, it's about a car that was new when the standards were first instituted.
Did you see the 50 years worth of dust and shit that flew off the bel air upon impact? Also, I bet the bel air internet forums are up in arms about this. |
|
|
|
|
09-18-2009
|
#12
|
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Crystal, MN
Drives: 1991 Saab 900 Turbo
Posts: 19
|
Re: 1959 Chevrolet Bel Air Vs. 2009 Chevrolet Malibu
Quote:
Originally Posted by FattyBoomBatty
Doesn't matter. The video isn't about 60's cars, it's about a car that was new when the standards were first instituted.
Did you see the 50 years worth of dust and shit that flew off the bel air upon impact? Also, I bet the bel air internet forums are up in arms about this.
|
All I am doing is pointing out why the huge old car crumpled like it did. I never meant to justify it's behavior in the crash.
thx |
|
|
|
|
09-18-2009
|
#13
|
|
Transmission destroyer
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Cambridge
Drives: G37, 91 TSi
Posts: 7,150
|
Re: 1959 Chevrolet Bel Air Vs. 2009 Chevrolet Malibu
What a waste of a classic...
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by scheides
I swing from the nuts of cold hard data. Anything less is a guess.
|
|
|
|
|
|
09-18-2009
|
#14
|
|
R U DTF bro?
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Oak Point, TX
Drives: C8 Stingray Z51
Posts: 20,620
|
Re: 1959 Chevrolet Bel Air Vs. 2009 Chevrolet Malibu
Quote:
Originally Posted by goodhart
What a waste of a classic...
|
Not at all. It went to a very good cause and shows us just how far we've come in 50 years. What was once a deadly accident is now something you can most likely walk or at least limp away from.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Murlo26
I agree with Kracka.
|
|
|
|
|
|
09-18-2009
|
#15
|
|
wants to kick mark
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: No Hope
Drives: Battery with wheels
Posts: 1,064
|
Re: 1959 Chevrolet Bel Air Vs. 2009 Chevrolet Malibu
I would like to just say my 70 charger destroyed a subaru wagon all i had to do was loosen the fender bolts to straighten everything back out.
__________________
Fast, Cheap, Reliable. Pick 2.
|
|
|
|
|
09-18-2009
|
#16
|
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Cottage Grove
Drives: Silver '02 IS300, Blue '06 Suzuki SV1000
Posts: 5,293
|
Re: 1959 Chevrolet Bel Air Vs. 2009 Chevrolet Malibu
Quote:
Originally Posted by ctruss53
I think it probably has to do with how narrow the frame is in the front of the Bel Air. If you think about it most of what the Malibou hit was just inner and outer fender sheet metal and the front suspension.
The wonders of unibody construction.
|
There was actually quite a bit of frame damage to the Bel Air. The front bumper is practically into the firewall on the driver's side, and the left front corner is about where the middle of the engine bay was, You can't tell me the frame didn't take the majority of the stress there. Hell, the passenger side windshield post was buckled at almost a 45 degree angle. That kind of damage wouldn't happen if all the Malibu hit was sheet metal and suspension.
__________________
'02 Lexus IS300
'06 Suzuki SV1000: Back on the road and ripping hard as ever!
|
|
|
|
|
09-18-2009
|
#17
|
|
Crash Course Racing
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Skid Row
Drives: in circles
Posts: 2,623
|
Re: 1959 Chevrolet Bel Air Vs. 2009 Chevrolet Malibu
Seat belts weren't manditory until the mid 60's. Old cars were certain death.
The term they don't make them like they used to is reffering to the the fact that they were made out of metal. (no plastic inside or outside)
Plus you could actually repair a minor collision instead of scrapping the car because of the crumple zones.
And they had style, people actually wanted to by them 
I'd like to see that test again with a direct front hit instead of offset
Last edited by 1QUICK4; 09-18-2009 at 09:14 PM..
|
|
|
|
|
09-18-2009
|
#18
|
|
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Boulder, CO
Drives: Conquest
Posts: 5,049
|
Re: 1959 Chevrolet Bel Air Vs. 2009 Chevrolet Malibu
Yeah, one thing I noticed was the difference in the hoods of each car. Bel Air: almost perfect. Malibu: not so much.
|
|
|
|
|
09-18-2009
|
#19
|
|
15min late to the world
|
Re: 1959 Chevrolet Bel Air Vs. 2009 Chevrolet Malibu
Just because it is big and heavy does not make it strong. I would guess they have the offset head on crash test for crossing over crashes or 2 lane high way crashes.
~John
__________________
Moon taxi: 9.45@156.9 mph 41psi 2011... Letting people down sense 2012.
|
|
|
|
|
09-18-2009
|
#20
|
|
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Boulder, CO
Drives: Conquest
Posts: 5,049
|
Re: 1959 Chevrolet Bel Air Vs. 2009 Chevrolet Malibu
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pushit2.0
Just because it is big and heavy does not make it strong. I would guess they have the offset head on crash test for crossing over crashes or 2 lane high way crashes.
~John
|
It may not be strong, but the big and heavy part does play a significant role. In certain types of crashes, the bel air would decimate the 'bu. |
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
Linear Mode
