Check out these crash pics of an old chevy vs new chevy

I always bragged about my over size cars and how they had 5foot of steel anchored by a big block motor in front of me, and how I could take out anything in a head on collision.... But now I second guess


This


vs

This

 

wow just wow

 

Why in the wild, wild world of sports did they have to tear up a perfectly good 59 Cheby. I mean like how many are there still tooling around these days. It doesn't prove much to me. Just MHO

They might as well have run a Lexus into a Model A

 

Well they picked one hell of a subject to crash into. That X-frame wasn't that strong and who knows what condition it was in when they crashed it 50 years later.

 

Which is precisely why they picked that particular car. Like most think tanks, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety has an agenda. They also know they can increase the probability of a desired outcome by picking and choosing samples that have the characteristics they need to get that outcome.

Is the 09 car safer overall? Yes, it is. But there are two things very wrong with this picture. The biggest is that the odds of an 09 car encountering a 1959 car on the highway are slim to none. The second is that in the video of the crash, rust flakes were flying everywhere out of the 59 on impact. That would lead me to believe the 1959 car had structural issues before it was hit, and is probably why that car was chosen- it was almost guaranteed to deliver the desired outcome.

One thing I learned in college statistics class was that numbers can be skewed to give any desired result.

"There are lies, damned lies, and then there are statistics."

The biggest thing they accomplished was destroying yet another old car.

 

Nice body rotton frame.........Give me a air bag in the old car please!

 

That looks like an offset and not a head-on crash?
I dig the fuzzy dice sitting on the dash.

 

The X frame would not help too much on a corner impact like that. I would say the test is a better testament to the weakness of the X frame corner, than to the strength of the new Impala. In a head on impact, the 59 would have held up much better. I helped a friend try to get his 63 Belair fenders to fit better and we determined that the X frame LF corner was bent up. We figured that it must have hit a ditch or a major hole because no impact signs were left anywhere else. The car has 31K miles and appears to be actual. I would hate to see what a side impact would look like on a X framed Chevy. It may even be uglier.

 

You can clearly see rust dust going everywhere on impact.
The 59 does not have much of a front bumper on it either.
Makes me wonder what motor was in the 59 - a tiny straight six??

 

I bet the '59 was probably even posed by cutting into the frame in structural places first. I would like to see a test like that against a '57 Chevy with a real frame, I bet it would be different. I think they are just pulling an "unsafe at any speed" type thing on us. Get these junky old cars off the road. I also think most of us with classics are good at defensive driving the way people drive around our treasured cars.

 

Just more lies spread by the government. It seems to me that no one really tells the truth these days. All smoke and mirrors and nothing to see here! This reminds me of the pickup truck that catches fire in a collision. I think NBC rigged that one. What a croc and a waste. I would take the new car for my kid and drive the 59.

 

I agree that it does not look like a true head-on collision. That would have been more fair. But judging from the damage to the 59, was there even a motor in there? Unless it was a six, I can't see how it would look like that unless the eight ended up in the interior.

Overall, I still believe my old cars are safer than a new one. Of course, three point safety belts and head restraints are a must in my opinion. I was rear ended twice in my life, one time while driving in an 02 Intrepid and another in a 74 Impala. I was hit both times with the person behind me going about 30mph. The Impala bumper was pushed in with only damage to the bumper getting scratched and slightly bent and the plastic fillers cracking. The Intrepid sustained damage to the rear bumper, trunk lid, both quarters, and the unibody. But the most important thing to me was I barely felt the impact nor did I get injured in the Impala. However, I was out of work with the accident with the Intrepid for 3 months with a concussion, two herniated discs in my neck, and surgery needed to fix my shoulder.

 

The X frame is supposedly stronger torsionally than a ladder frame, but as stated it's weakness is in an offset or side impact.

What everyone needs to remember is that an X frame allowed the car body to sit lower over the frame than a ladder frame does, and in the late 50s it was all about longer, lower, wider.

Even though a perimeter frame accomplishes the same styling effect, some of those are pretty weak in a side impact. Most use a C-channel section between the front and rear suspension carriers. That's why convertible frames are desirable. The side pieces on those are fully boxed. A boxed frame and boxed rocker panels make a pretty strong body structure, but it's more expensive and weighs more, so the carmakers didn't use them.

1959-60 Oldsmobiles used a combination X and perimeter frame that was probably one of the strongest frames they ever used, but it was expensive and heavy. They went to a full perimeter frame with huge torque boxes in 1961.

I still believe this video was staged,and I still think it was a waste of a perfectly nice old car. Even if the frame were rotten, it would have been a simple swap to put another frame under it.

 

If you notice all the rust under the 59 was cleaned up be for the after shots were taken. Which makes me believe the car may have been an original unmolested surviver that was used for publicity such a shame.

 

I bet the dummy in the back of the 59 wasn't hurt. LMAO

 

Sad, sad. As was already said, staged to accomplish the desired results.....statistics.

 

this is more like it