Head-On Crash: 2009 Chevrolet Malibu vs. 1959 Bel Air (2009)

Definitely worth watching the video. Even though the results not surprising, it is still amazing to see how well the interior space around the 2009 driver stays intact. And how much the space around the 1959 drive does not.<p>From the article:<p>&gt; According to safety engineers at the scene, the driver of the 2009 Chevrolet Malibu would likely have suffered slight knee injury. The driver of the 1959 Chevrolet Bel Air would have died instantly.

A big thank you to all the engineers who made my car safer. Feels good after watching this

The 59 GM Full Sizes with an X frame did perform particularly poorly in overlap crashes - it would have performed better with a full head on - or a earlier&#x2F;later one with a full permitter frame. Nevermind the virtual indestructible nearly contemporary unibody mopars and fords (59 or 60 for mopar, and 61 for lincolns - the lincoln continentals were banned from demolition derby for a reason).<p>While a full permitter frame (or early unibodies) does not negate the benefits of crumple zones - they absorb the impact of the crash, shielding the occupants from the forces of the impact - the X-Body GM Full Size does still perform exceptionally poorly.<p>I don&#x27;t think anyone car argue that modern cars don&#x27;t perform several orders of magnitude better in severe crashes - however for light crashes, your hunk of 50&#x27;s-70&#x27;s metal will often end up with significantly less damage, and at a minimum can be driven home.

This is ultimately why minor fender benders have become so expensive with new cars. They are designed to be destroyed. Having a huge solid chrome bumper <i>seems</i> safer. But it actually just transfers the energy of a crash directly to your body.

It&#x27;s alluded to briefly in other comments, but one of the biggest problems in our country is the fact that our built environment was completely reconfigured for the automobile - and not simply due to &quot;demand.&quot;<p>Since the 1960&#x27;s there have been tremendous advances in safety for people INSIDE of automobiles, but the safety of people outside of automobiles continues to be largely ignored.<p>There is a kind of arms race underway toward larger and heavier vehicles, which are far more deadly than small cars.<p>We have inherited so many tragedies from our grandparents&#x27; generation - the dominance of the car is on spar with nuclear weapons in the threat it poses to humanity.

I had a friend some years ago who wrote survival advice. Not just SHTF stuff, but how to best survive everyday life situations.<p>He had some car advice:<p>&gt; Forget &quot;crumple zones&quot;. You want to be in the biggest, heaviest car. That&#x27;s the one that will win the collision. It will often be an older car.<p>In this case, the &#x27;09 Malibu and the &#x27;59 Bel Air are almost exactly the same weight (about 3500 pounds), so you might think it would be an even draw. Or counting the fact that the Bel Air is almost 20 inches longer, it should win!<p>I have a feeling that my friend would have felt much safer in the Bel Air.

The speed of the airbag is remarkable. It&#x27;s fully deployed and waiting moments after impact (see 54s, easier to see with 0.25 playback speed). Perhaps a rare example of an explosion that saves lives.

Horrifying to think that back then people were basically driving with a spear pointed at their heart.

It is too bad the 2nd generation (and final) Corvair was not more popular because it was one of the first cars with a crumpling steering column!

Why were they offset side-to-side about half a car width? Was this on purpose, or just poor aiming?

What about the passenger with their feet up on the dash, though?

The closest UK equivalent is the Fifth Gear Discovery vs. Espace from a few years ago.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;youtu.be&#x2F;mLLanPwRgio" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;youtu.be&#x2F;mLLanPwRgio</a>

Be a different story if it was a mercedes from that era<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;group-media.mercedes-benz.com&#x2F;marsMediaSite&#x2F;en&#x2F;instance&#x2F;ko&#x2F;September-1959-First-crash-test-at-Mercedes-Benz.xhtml?oid=9908016" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;group-media.mercedes-benz.com&#x2F;marsMediaSite&#x2F;en&#x2F;insta...</a>

There was recently a souped up car from the 60s crashing in traffic in LA due to the brakes failing. Has anyone got the video link? They had GoPro&#x27;s so pretty amazing to see their reactions.

Are there any statistics on how much higher the survival rate is in a larger car rather than a smaller car? (assuming roughly equivalent safety technology).

But why do they make car bumpers small, and paint them the same color as the car rather than leave them the way they are? ... is what I always wonder.

This was well-publicized at the time.

From [2009]

What&#x27;s the weight difference? It&#x27;s tragedy of the commons without controlling for weight.

If only something could be done to keep modern cars from looking like a rolling abomination.

A friend of mine is of the opinion that all safety improvements in cars should be reverted on the grounds that killing more motorists is good for the planet. At first I thought this was ridiculous. But now that we&#x27;re deep into the climate hypercrisis, I&#x27;m not so sure...<p>My slightly more moderate view is that safety improvements should be focussed solely on preserving life outside the vehicle (both in terms of safety from crashes and damage to the environment).<p>Put a giant spike sticking out of the steering column that protrudes more and more as you drive above 30 mph for instance...

Even if they hadn&#x27;t strategically picked that model of old car for maximum crunch factor anyone without a seat belt may as well be on a motorcycle.<p>Edit: Deleted the rest of the comment, It is not worthwhile to have a nuanced discussion about the merits of the various safety improvements with this community.