Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
wrong.. so very wrong... You have no idea what the shape the 59 was in at the crash.. You are assuming too much.. Crumple zones are what made new cars safe.. Old cars lacked this.
Uhhh... yeah thats what everyone has been saying the whole damn time here.... go back and read all the posts. Old cars didn't have crumple zones... correct! Crumple zones were created because cars had no give, they would hit stuff at high speed and quickly come to a halt while the occupant was flung forward and maimed. It appears the Bel Air was in very poor condition... no way would it disintegrate like that in its prime, should be the opposite (while still killing the driver, no one argues that).
This proves what I have been saying for years.. Old cars are NOT nearly as safe as some old timers *think* that were.. Weight does not make a car safer.. Thanks for posting this..
Still if my 1972 Chevy Caprice station wagon (weighing 5000 pounds) was going to crash head-on into a 2009 Chevy Aveo (weighing around 2200 pounds), I would rather be in the 72 wagon. It would smear the Aveo beyond recognition. :O
As far as cars of the same years/safety features, you are better off in the heavier car in most cases. Example - a 60 Cadillac DeVille hitting a 60 Ford Falcon... rather be in the Cadillac....
A 2009 Ford Focus hitting a 2009 Buick Lucerne... rather be in the Buick.
look at the footage of the interior of the 59.. wow is all I can say. The car disintegrated inside while the interior of the Malibu stayed almost intact.. Just proves what I have been saying for yours
oh and the 59 was in very nice shape before the crash..
look at the footage of the interior of the 59.. wow is all I can say. The car disintegrated inside while the interior of the Malibu stayed almost intact.. Just proves what I have been saying for yours
No one disputes the fact that the 2009 Malibu is safer in every regard. When driving an older vehicle one must accept a higher degree of risk, just like riding a motorcycle. However, its up to the individual to make that choice.
I just hate how liberal commentators on MSNBC, for example, use this footage as an argument for nanny state government safety mandates.
The irony is one of our posters (I won't bother calling out his name) claims a 59 Bel Air to be unsafe but actually thought highly of his 83 T-1000 which is a rebadsged Chevette for Pontiac (for those not in the know). Yet I believe Chevettes and T-1000's were also death traps...well they at least had seat belts.
The irony is one of our posters (I won't bother calling out his name) claims a 59 Bel Air to be unsafe but actually thought highly of his 83 T-1000 which is a rebadsged Chevette for Pontiac (for those not in the know). Yet I believe Chevettes and T-1000's were also death traps...well they at least had seat belts.
Oh, you just asked for it, bub.
First: How old are you? Where were you when these cars were new to market? Huh? Were you even able to drive in the fifties, son? I was, I have, and I did. So yes, I can confirm '50s cars are unsafe, period.
Secondly: Let me tell you a story you won't forget - In a rain in fall of 1964, I was stopped at a light in my 1956 Chrysler Windsor. A drunk driver carrying six kids in an old Ford plowed right into the rear end of the Chrysler. None of us were wearing seat belts, because neither car was equipped with the optional seat belts. Both cars had no safety features. So what happened? I was laid up for three weeks with a sore neck, eight stitches in my forehead from the steering column. As for the other party...well, it was NOT a pretty sight! Even the meat in a slaughterhouse was neater! The drunk driver and six kids never had a chance. It was just a mess of guts. What I saw in that car still bothers me. Both cars were total losses and junked.
Just a small correction: Only the "T1000" nameplate belong to the 1981/82 Pontiac T1000. IN 1983, Pontiac left off the letters in their numbered vehicles thus the 1983/87s were called Pontiac 1000s.
It's only your narrow-minded that a Chevette is a "death trap". Let me guess - small car - instant death warrant! It has much more safety features than a '59 heap of junk. I have driven and is still driving the 1000 for over 25 years without major accidents. My buddy, about 25 years, got in a head on collision with a Chevette at around 40 mph on a country road. Same type of collision in the video. He walked away with minor injuries. Another person I knew whose Chevette stalled on some tracks. He got out, and when he came back with a tow truck, it already had met its fate with a freight train. The side held up surprisingly good for a subcompact.
That is because they have vastly improved by then.
The changes began in 1966 when the Federal Government created National Highway Safety Bureau (NHSB), which later became the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).
I recall 1968 was the biggest change in cars yet -- so big, there were little difference between a '67 and a '68 car even if they look the same!
NO, NO, Not the Manny State!?!?!? How can this be?
Kinda OT, but I once saw a crash test (full-frontal) of a older Chevetter and while it held up fairly well... there were signs that the passenger cage was starting to collapse. Against a larger car, it probably would have. Also, if the Chevette had of hit his 09 Malibu off-set, I cant imagine that the results for the Chevette would have been better.
Remember, crash tests are really only relevant against cars of the same size and weight.
FWIW, here are the crash test scores from NHTSA for the 1979-84 Chevette. There was some sort of belt design change which resulted in lower ratings for the 84 model. Remember a crash test from the NHTSA dont mean how well a car held up in the crash, but rather the injury ratings on the dummy inside the car....
* = bad
** = poor
*** = average
**** = good
***** = excellent
First set is for the driver... second is for the passenger.... Notice that the 1984 had dreadful ratings.
1979--- Chevrolet Chevette--- 4HB-- 2720 (**** ) (**** )
1980--- Chevrolet Chevette--- 2HB-- 2641 (**** ) (**** )
1982--- Chevrolet Chevette--- 4HB-- 2827 (*** ) (**** )
1984--- Chevrolet Chevette--- 4HB-- 2746 (* ) (* )
- - - -
The other early 80s Chevrolets also did very well!
1982--- Chevrolet Cavalier--- 2HB-- 2830 (**** ) (**** )
1982--- Chevrolet Celebrity-- 4Dr-- 3273 (*****) (*****)
1984--- Chevrolet Celebrity-- 4Wa-- 3590 (*****) (*****)
1986--- Chevrolet Celebrity-- 2Dr-- 3360 (**** ) (*** )
1986--- Chevrolet Celebrity-- 4Dr-- 3250 (**** ) (**** )
1980--- Chevrolet Citation--- 4HB-- 3260 (**** ) (*****)
1984--- Chevrolet Corvette--- 2Dr-- 3680 (**** ) (*****)
the 79 Impala did not! 1979--- Chevrolet Impala----- 4Dr-- 4179 (* ) (** )
1982--- Chevrolet Impala----- 4Dr-- 4110 (*** ) ( N/A )
1983--- Chevrolet Impala----- 4Dr-- 4120 (**** ) (*** )
nor did the 80 Malibu! 1979--- Chevrolet Malibu----- 2Dr-- 3740 (*** ) (**** )
1980--- Chevrolet Malibu----- 4Dr-- 3815 (* ) (*** )
1979--- Chevrolet Monte Carlo 2Dr-- 3799 (**** ) (*****)
1979--- Chevrolet Monte Carlo 2Dr-- 3816 (*** ) (**** )
1984--- Chevrolet Monte Carlo 2Dr-- 3700 (**** ) (*** )
big Chevy truck did excellent! 1984--- Chevrolet PU C10----- 2Dr-- 4830 (*****) (*****)
85 Sprint didnt and this was hitting another small car! Imagine being hit by a Caprice in this Sprint! 1985--- Chevrolet Sprint----- 2HB-- 2042 (* ) (* )
The fuzzy dice in the Bel Air was a nice touch. A little unnerving to see where the steering column ended up in that interior shot.......
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
