Chevy Crash Test: 1959 Bel Air vs. 2009 Malibu

**Todd_Scott** · September-17-09, 02:08 PM

Ah, they don't build 'em like they used to. Ouch.

http://online.wsj.com/video/chevy-cr...91DE4035D.html

Warning: This video might be difficult to watch for some classic car buffs.

**WKL** · September-17-09, 03:26 PM

So much for getting throwen clear of the crash.

Loved the tail fins.

**cman710** · September-17-09, 03:41 PM

Great video showing the advances in automotive safety, but who was willing to crash a classic Bel Air that looked to be in quite good shape?

**Gsgeorge** · September-17-09, 03:55 PM

Originally Posted by cman710

Great video showing the advances in automotive safety, but who was willing to crash a classic Bel Air that looked to be in quite good shape?

Haven't you heard? GM is liquidating its assets... This must've been left over from the "Old GM".

**KENSINGTONY** · September-17-09, 04:08 PM

Typical of the idiots from the IIHS to waste a good old car.

**Fury13** · September-17-09, 04:30 PM

Ahhh, c'mon, it's just an ugly-ass '59 anyway... not even a '55 or '56. Plus, a four-door to boot... not a collector car, just an old car.

Too bad, though, if it was 348-powered. Those engines are slightly rare.

**Warrenite84** · September-17-09, 07:18 PM

Fury13, GRRRRRR!!!
55-57 Chevys are so plentiful at car shows that they look pale to me. Sameness.
'59 and '60 Chevys on the other hand, have style, uniqueness, roominess, & variety. They LOOKED new. Not a warmed-over version of last year's model.

Since I have a 1960 Chevy Impala POST SEDAN, and a 1959 Chevy 9-passenger Kingswood Wagon, I have to take exception to the, "ugly-ass", and ,"four-door to boot", comments.

My eyes are still burning from viewing such heresy in the name of consumer safety.

The loss of another fine finned-mobile deserves a moment of silence.....

**Linda from Detroit** · September-17-09, 08:24 PM

I loved our 4 door 59 Chevy Imapa! That was my dads first new car and had the biggest fins, lol. We drove out to California and ended up not being able to get through that giant redwood you could drive though due to those huge fins. Those were the good ole days.

**Grundyke** · September-17-09, 08:57 PM

Originally Posted by Todd_Scott

Ah, they don't build 'em like they used to. Ouch.

http://online.wsj.com/video/chevy-cr...91DE4035D.html

Warning: This video might be difficult to watch for some classic car buffs.

Oh the humanity! The 59' looked pretty cherry. I guess they figured the video would not have the same effect with a cluncker. Can you imagine the old lady's face if she saw what the new owner's did to here beautiful car.

**Fury13** · September-17-09, 09:10 PM

Originally Posted by Warrenite84

Fury13, GRRRRRR!!!
55-57 Chevys are so plentiful at car shows that they look pale to me. Sameness.
'59 and '60 Chevys on the other hand, have style, uniqueness, roominess, & variety. They LOOKED new. Not a warmed-over version of last year's model.

Since I have a 1960 Chevy Impala POST SEDAN, and a 1959 Chevy 9-passenger Kingswood Wagon, I have to take exception to the, "ugly-ass", and ,"four-door to boot", comments.

My eyes are still burning from viewing such heresy in the name of consumer safety.

The loss of another fine finned-mobile deserves a moment of silence.....

Well, at least you're different... admitting you're a fan of those '59 and '60 Chevs.

You'll notice I DIDN'T include the '57 Chevy as a positive styling example... by '57, the original '55 design looked tired and high-sided, with wimpy tacked-on fins.

You do know that the '59 GM lineup was a direct response to Chrysler Corporation's stunning, groundbreaking '57s, right? [[Put a '57 Chevy up next to a '57 Plymouth... the Chevy looks downright tall and stodgy.)

I think Harley Earl just didn't know what the hell to do in '59 to counter Chrysler, so he and his staff went a little nuts. Sorry, the only 1959 GM car that I think came off well was the Buick... those delta-wings looked pretty clean!

**Supersport** · September-18-09, 09:10 AM

I found it interesting that they chose the short lived X-Frame based car to go head to head with a modern Malibu. The X-Frame was arguably one of the weakest designs of the day. Hardly like comparing a TRUE full frame car to the unibody crap that is standard fare today. Let's put that baby up against a 5000 lb full framed Cadillac from back in the day and see how the unibody fares. Scratch that, it would simply be another pointless reason to destroy another classic car. Pick a Plymouth Fury next time for god's sake!

**Supersport** · September-18-09, 09:12 AM

One more jab at Fury13....

Yeah, it's not as though GM owned over 50% of the market back then eh? Surely, they were shaken in their boots over the new Chrysler I'm sure.

**CountrySquire** · September-18-09, 10:45 AM

The three big areas I noticed on the '59 were:

-The driver door coming open on impact.
-The non colapsing steering column protruding into the dummy folding the steering wheel on his shoulder [[ouch!)
-The Bench seat becoming detached from the floor.

Whoa! Are we really taking our lives into our hands when we tool around an old car! My two old ones are a 1968 and 1974 which feature more safety updates then the '59.

**RickBeall** · September-18-09, 12:08 PM

I always wonder how well the 2009 Malibu [[or any modern car) will fair in a test once it is 50 years old, or even 15 years old. I imagine those old airbags to exploding like rotted balloons. I wonder what other high tech safety technology might fail.

**luckycar** · September-18-09, 12:18 PM

We had a 59 Impala when I was a kid.No seat belts,and we would stand up on the back seat.Better for getting thrown out of the back or side window!Does the steering wheel,head hitting the roof near the b-pillar,or seat bracket bolts shearing off finish off the 59 driver?How fast were they going?Was the 09 driver texting?

**DetroiterOnTheWestCoast** · September-18-09, 01:50 PM

OMG that was painfull to watch. I have to agree with Warrenite - the '59 Chevys were beautiful - love those gull wings.

**Sandhouse** · September-18-09, 02:50 PM

Yup, old cars were lethal, which is the main reason why the fatality rate is now around one per hundred million vehicle miles traveled, versus maybe 4 or 5 in 1959 [[too lazy to look it up, sorry). It's also why I seldom transport the family in my `61 Lincoln. [[I suspect the unibody Lincoln would do a bit better against a modern car than the X-frame Chevy in the IIHS sacrifice, but I know all that steel wasn't used to good effect in its design.) Even though I've put in seatbelts, that steering column pointed at my chest is a good inducement to safe driving.

Does anyone paying Detroit insurance rates wonder why insurers have money for this sort of thing?

**Fury13** · September-18-09, 05:47 PM

Originally Posted by Supersport

One more jab at Fury13....

Yeah, it's not as though GM owned over 50% of the market back then eh? Surely, they were shaken in their boots over the new Chrysler I'm sure.

Actually, they were. Chrysler reached 20 percent market share in 1957 and it did alarm GM. And, Harley Earl, when he saw early photos of the new '57 Plymouth, threw them on his top Chevy designer's desk and said in disgust: "Why don't you just quit?"

You can look it up, Sport. Nice jab, though.

And that '59 Chev Batwing is STILL ugly.... sorry.

**jerrytimes** · September-19-09, 07:36 AM

WOW! Why would they destroy such a nice old car like that?? Also, I'm shocked that it crumpled up like that.

**Fury13** · September-19-09, 07:38 AM

It was a four-door, Jerry. Four-door sedans are worth very little, comparatively, to collectors. Two-door hardtops and convertibles are the coveted body styles in that market.

**Gannon** · September-19-09, 12:28 PM

If the older car were not updated at all, it is likely all the welds, rivets, and bolts suffered at least some stress weakening...let alone rust. It was not a fair fight from the get-go.

Just another reason to bash things to smithereens...in the name of science.

Because they can, doesn't mean they should. What a waste.

What are the odds of this happening in real life?! I'm sure the classic buffs living on Route 66 are shaking in their old boots.

**Meddle** · September-19-09, 01:18 PM

Originally Posted by Supersport

Pick a Plymouth Fury next time for god's sake!

My '68 Fury III was built like a tank. Handled like one too.

**Supersport** · September-19-09, 02:13 PM

My 69 Camaro now has a full frame [[via frame connectors), a 12 point roll cage [[tying all corners together) and soon to have 5 point racing harnesses. Putting it up against a 2009 Malibu would be like a scene outta Quentin Tarantino's move Death Proof.

That being said, these unibody cars are throw away pieces of shit compared to that 1959 Chevy. I've already seen the 20 year effects taking place on my 1989 Pontiac Formula. Though the unibody frame seems to be holding up fine, the floor pans are shot, and the floor pans are an integral part of the body structure. I've already priced out buying a new set...and a 12 point roll cage will likely be in order later on down the road as well. Death Proof II. LOL

**izzyindetroit** · September-19-09, 06:18 PM

Anyone else notice the dice hanging from the rear view mirror of the Bel-air? That was amusing to see.

Also, did anyone see the Lexus advertisement, advertising their new drowsy driving alert system? I bet this technology would be very useful when driving home from a late night at the bar.