[VIDEO] 59 Bel Air / 09 Malibu head on crash test
 

Is it me, or does it appear that there's no motor in the Bel Air?

http://abcnews.go.com/Travel/technol...ory?id=8523234

Sure doesn't look like it!

it looks that way, which if true makes the 59 fold up much worse than it should have.

Exactly what I was thinking, too.

granted that the 59 would not absorb the energy (does not appear the engine is there as Scott stated) as the 09 because of engineered crumple zones, with the empty space of the engine bay of the 59 would cause much more damage because the engine mounting points and the chassis would help deflect some of the impact from the passanger compartment.

Its a shame that they would total a 50yr old vehicle. I get upset seeing these old classics being destoryed for no reason. Just like the last Dukes of Hazzard movie. No doubt I would rather (God I pray not) be in a collission in my 06 Accord then my 67 Chevelle. Its also easy to replace the accord, but they are not making anymore 42 year old Chevelles the last time I looked...:thumbsup: Interesting find Scott....:cool:

Blessings,
AMS

I guess I wont be driving my engineless Impala around with the wife and kids anymore. It sure got great mileage, but boy was it gutless. But if it is that dangerous, That would be irresponsible.

What a load of crap, Is that an actual engineering experiment or a Dan Rather investigation? Give me a break.

am i the only one who is pissed they ruined (what looks like) a pretty prestine 59 chevy ? LOL

I am sure it is GM's way of showing a larger safety margin on their vehicle. More mass (w/the motor in the '59) = more kenetic engery that would have been transfered into the 09 Malibu. Too bad they had to waste that '59......

Watch it again, you can see a round black oil bath air cleaner pop off the top of the engine and fly out! You can also see it spinning to the left of the frame on the overhead shot.
David

You know what? I enlarged the video and it looks like your right.... my mistake.... Still it sickens me that they wrecked a 50 year old car to prove no point.... thanks for pointing out this...

Blessings,
AMS

LOL. Thanks for the first laugh of the day.:rofl:

The front structures on todays are far superior to those in the past, along with better welds stronger steel and crumple zones they can take a hell of a hit and they sure are alot harder to fix.

This kind of test is just plain Bull ****. No engine in the 59. Plus the car has rust on it. Look at the dust cloud comming out of it.

however it does look like you guys need to consider impact when building. A decent roll cage, with some thought to where the block and trans would be pushed in a crash would be a wise move in any older car, especially something with 600bhp

new meaning to crumple zones
 

This is an accident that happened last week in Montreal Sorry for the french text, but all you really need is the picture. It is/was a Mazda 3 and the driver came out with a couple of broken bones and a cut on his head .....

http://fr.canoe.ca/infos/societe/arc...14-054300.html

He had burns on his face from the truck battery acid. He even had an arm free so that he could talk to his wife on a cell phone while still under there !

cheezer

Did anyone watch and listen to the rest of the video? I can't explain it exactly, but my first thought when I watch people talk about all the "crash avoidance" features is LEARN HOW TO FREAKING DRIVE and maybe learn to pay attention? Dammit, I can see the lawsuit already when some idiot hits something despite his new Taurus having all these features. 99% of the moron drivers out there will think they can stop paying attention completely and let the car keep them safe...like the first class moron who tumbled his RV when he set the cruise control and went in the back to make coffee....
There is no substitute for being an aware, alert, defensive driver, these things should be used as a last chance safety net, not a primary safety device. Unfortunately I dont' see most people treating them that way.
off my soapbox, sorry.....

I have this argument with my father in law every other weekend. He drives a late 60's Buick and laughs thinking it is safe just because of it's size.

There is so much technology in the newer car there is nowhere even to start. People see a new car with all the plastic and how a front end crumples in a crash and call it junk. They do not realize the engineering that causes the car to crumple and absorb the impact saving the passenger compartment.

Anybody who has worked on an old car knows they do not build like they used to line is nonsense because they build them better. From the welds to the materials.

Thanks can't wait to show him that this weekend.

Merde!!!!

I think its in the drivers lap now

Except that, as far as I can find, and as far as Snopes.com can find, there was no such accident, law suit, etc. (http://www.snopes.com/autos/techno/cruise.asp) Whole thing looks to be an urban legend.

Shiny Side Up!
Bill

You mean things like the steering shaft that is one 3 or 4 foot long piece of steel rod! :wow:

Shiny Side Up!
Bill