Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
1959 Chevy vs 2009 chevy
I thought the old cars were "built like a tank"
http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/17/a-2009-chevy-malibu-destroys-a-1959-b- el-air-literally/
http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/17/a-2009-chevy-malibu-destroys-a-1959-b- el-air-literally/
Tagged:
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
But that doesn't seem to be the case here, as that 2009 Malibu tore into the 1959 pretty severely. Now in all fairness, both cars were reduced to scrap metal. But it is an eye opener, to see what a difference airbags, seatbelts with shoulder straps, collapsible steering columns, controlled crumple zones, etc make in car safety.
That being said, I've also heard that the 1959 Chevy isn't exactly the cream-of-the-crop when it comes to old cars. That old wasp-waisted/hourglass shaped "X-frame" evidently isn't so tough. I always knew it was a bit marginal in side impacts, but I've heard that it ain't the best with front-end collisions, either. A more conventional ladder frame or perimeter frame probably would have held up better. I imagine something like a 1957-58 Buick would have held up very well, as they had a ladder frame with an X-member in the center! You'd still have the problem of an unbelted occupant getting thrown forward, though.
Also, GM used to have the bad habit of mounting the steering box way too far forward in the engine compartment. In those days, that was one of the biggest safety factors, since if you mount it too far forward, even a slight impact to the front could send the steering column back into the passenger compartment. However, that might apply mainly to older GM cars...I'm not sure about the 1959 models. Now it's mounted awfully far forward on my '85 Silverado pickup, but at least by that time they had collapsible steering columns.
I'd also like to know what was going on with that '59 Chevy, when the front seat pulled loose on the driver's side. Did the whole seat rip from the floor, or did that side of the seat just come loose from the track? That might have been something attributable to old age, and not necessarily poor design.
Still, that crash test was an eye opener. Now I never had any delusions of invincibility when I drove around in my '57 DeSoto, but seeing that test convinces me that it's even less safe than I thought it was!
Old cars are merely a series of parts hung on a ladder frame like clothes on a clothesline. Think of a cardboard box with no top and a weak bottom at best.
Why do you think that 60s cars with huge engines often cracked their frames? There's really not much structural strength ---just weight and a bunch of bolts.
A 59 Chevrolet IS built like a tank---and that's precisely the problem.
I am lucky in that my fintail is the first production car with crumple zones, and it has many interior safety features - so I think it would fare better. The ancient seatbelts in the front might not do a good job at restraining, though.
Does that price sound right for a good driver 59 Bel Air Shifty? Not a #1 show queen car just a good driver.
Did any American automaker perform crash tests back then? I've seen a good amount of footage of period MB crash tests, but nothing from NA.
I agree. I've gotten some negative responses on some discussion boards when I try to tell somebody's daddy not to buy a 'neat 60's car' for their son or daughter's first car. Just a bad idea all the way around.
Many years ago, I saw a film, "Small Car Crashes". In the film Impalas vs Vegas,
Galaxie 500 vs Pintos and a full size Plymouth vs Colt.
In all three headon crashes, the bigger car penetrated the passenger compartment of the smaller car. In the case of the Vega, its hood lifted up, went through the windshield and decapitated the two dummies in the front seat.
"Mrs Dummy? I'm afraid there's been an accident".
I remember seeing a picture somewhere of two 1956 Fords running into each other at an angle. However, it looked like a bit of a stupid test, where one car was hitting the other at a 90 degree angle. However, instead of doing a T-bone at the passenger compartment, the car was getting hit at the front right fender.
Also, I have no idea where the picture originally came from, but here's a pic of a 1956 Chevy hitting a solid block of concrete...
It actually looks like the car is crunching up quite well, in a controlled fashion, but I wouldn't take this one pic to be the gospel truth or anything. Plus, who knows how far back the steering wheel is getting pushed in that car? Or how fast it's hitting that wall?
I remember when my 66 Galaxie got hit, it did that trick that seems to have been common with period cars - the hood didn't crumple, rather it was pushed up a little and just kind of bent. The passenger side corner off it hit the windshield hard enough to crack it. I have to imagine back then many hoods flew off in collisions, or injured people in the car.
The GM X-frame wasn't noted for its ability to resist collisions. I believe that Ralph Nader brought up this very issue in his first book.
Ford also compared the X-frame to its ladder frame in sales brochures (without specifically naming Chevrolet or GM), asking prospective buyers which one they would prefer in a collision.
Do you remember how far in that Riviera got smashed in? I'm kinda shocked that the car wasn't driveable, unless it was a really hard hit. And if it smashed the Renault up to the windshield, it might have been! Back in 1992 I got run off the road and hit a traffic light pole sideways in my '69 Dart GT. The pole hit at the passenger-side door, maybe a foot ahead of the rear quarter. Overall the car got punched in about a foot, but inside it only penetrated to where the door panel pushed up against the passenger seat. The hit was enough to mis-align the trunk and hood though, and the seam where the rocker panel joins the rear quarter on the driver's side ripped apart, so the car had started to fold around that light pole before it snapped off.
The part where the B-pillar would have been still appeared level, but underneath the rear window there was a stress crease on the quarter panel from the twisting motion.
Surprisingly though, that car was still driveable! Well, maybe I shouldn't have driven it, but I was able to drive it the rest of the way to school that day (although I got a rather embarrassing ride to class in the back seat of a police car), and it made it home with no trouble, although I had a friend follow me just in case.
Monocoque cars, even those re-inforced in plywood or balsa, proved to be a lot stronger in all the weird forms of collision that beset the average car.
Ladder frame passenger cars were cheap and easy to build. It's no coincidence that they pretty much disappeared when stricter safety requirements came into being.
I think the '63-65 Riviera actually used an X-frame, so it would've been every bit as vulnerable in a side impact as a 1958 or 1959-64 Chevy.
For 1966 through 1985, the Riviera was on a perimeter frame, a style where the body of the car sinks down around the frame rails, rather than just sitting on top of them. It's supposed to be stronger, because you have the frame rails further outboard, but also the creases of the floorpan and body as it folds around the frame rails add some strength.
From 1986 onward, the Riv was unit body, but they weren't hardtop by that time, either.
As for my Dart, it was Unibody, so maybe that actually helped it a bit in my little pole-vault exercise? I dunno how a BOF car would compare...but by the 1960's nobody did BOF compacts...they were all unitized, with the exception of Studebaker I guess.
I wonder how those old unit body Nashes held up in a collision?
*edit...yep, the '63-65 Riviera was indeed X-frame. Here's a pic of a '65 frame...
One reason that my Monte might have gotten it so bad though, was because I was moving, so the Tempo left a pretty wide swath of destruction. The damage started at the right wheel, which got thrown out of alignment, and I lost the hubcap. The right fender was gouged out behind the wheel opening. The passenger side door was gouged pretty deeply, and the rear quarter under the opera window was also gouged out. The impact was also just enough to move the A-pillar and crack the windshield. The rocker panel seemed okay at a glance, but who knows? That design was pretty "fuselaged", so the rocker itself might have been out of harm's way.
If the window had been down it probably would have shattered, but it was up all the way. After the hit, it would roll down to the point of the smash. And surprisingly, that door could still be opened and closed.
I have no idea how fast that kid was going. Since it was just a parking lot, you wouldn't think too fast, but it's amazing what people will do in a parking lot! The hit was hard enough that the Tempo pretty much stopped dead in its tracks, while my car got thrown over a few feet...initially I thought I was going to hit oncoming traffic!
I wonder though, how the circumstances would've been if that kid had been just a little bit faster, gotten out in front of me, and been the T-bone-ee, rather than the T-bone-er? I'm sure my Monte would've done a good little number on that car.
Probably best it turned out the way it did though. I got hit on the passenger side, and other than an adrenaline rush and being shook up, no real body damage done. And the kid driving didn't get hurt. However, if it had been the other way around, I would've gotten her on the driver's side, and with a much heavier car. That might've been messy.
When I say ladder frame, what I really mean is a car where you can lift the body off the frame.
I think it was a 65 or 66. It's been a while since that happened.
That X-frame looks like a really bad design, almost no thought to side impact collisions.
I remember what a revelation the Mercedes 280SL was to American car magazines because the convertible structure was so rigid during road testing.
I don't think my '67 Catalina convertible is too bad. The only real issue I see is how the back of the car is a bit out-of-sync with the front on rough surfaces...you can really see it where the back of the doors meets the quarter panel. I've seen newer cars, both convertible and fixed-roof, that jiggled worse.
I'm actually impressed at how squeak and rattle-free the car is. My '76 Grand LeMans coupe and '79 New Yorkers are much worse in this respect.
One of my coworkers had a 1973 or so Benz 450SL convertible for a few years. I rode in it once or twice and even drove it once. That thing WAS a solid little car. It also had something like 182,000 miles on it, and had a little surface rust in the doorjamb, yet still felt brick-like. Much more than the 1982 Corvette he'd had prior to that!
There's just too much overhang on these cars. The frames bend and twist too much.
WVK
http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=4443507&postid=59379986
Of course now we make sure you don't even hit the windshield. We want to keep you IN the car in the year 2009.
It's pretty funny---Tucker wanted you to duck under the dashboard in case of collision---LOL! :surprise:
The engine came out of a helicopter, and was originally air-cooled, and was modified to be water cooled. That's why it looks kinda funny. Transmissions were rebuilt used Cord transmissions with electric shifter on the column.
Remarkable car, nonetheless, and for 1948, it went like stink. If you romp it in 1st gear, you can break the axles.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LO10OzJPC3U
Crash tests start at 0:30 or so. Some later detail shots are not actually of fintails.
The crumple zones worked anyway. This was a car designed at essentially the same time as that 59 Chevy.
In fact, seeing a wrecked Diplomat/Gran Fury and a wrecked 80's Caprice copcar, side-by-side, swayed me to go Mopar. This was back in 1998, and I needed a car. There was a place about an hour away that sold refurbished police cars, and they'd also have wrecks and other junked cars around to use for parts. The Mopar they had sitting there had basically deformed like a decent modern car, where the front-end "accordioned" to a degree, and the passenger cabin was intact. Meanwhile, with the Caprice, it looked like the whole front-end clip stayed fairly intact, but then shoved back into the passenger compartment.
Of course, that's hardly a scientific survey, as it's possible, I guess, that the Caprice had taken a harder hit. Those Mopar M-bodies were beefy little cars, though. They were about 7-8" shorter than a Caprice (204-205 versus 212), a couple inches narrower (~75" versus ~77), and on a 3.3" shorter wheelbase (112.7 versus 116), but they were about the same weight.
Here's the result of a '65 T-bird that tangled with a Crown Vic police cruiser that was in a chase...
More on the story here. Now, the driver of the T-bird was killed, while the officer was hospitalized, so in occupant protection, the newer car still "won". However, the T-bird driver was also 91 years old, and I'm sure much more fragile than the 27 year old cop.
All things considered, the T-bird looked like it held up very well, crumpling in a fashion similar to a modern car. I'm guessing the unitized construction of the T-bird definitely helped here. Those things were pigs, but they were sturdy, heavy little pigs.
Now, if she had been driving, say a 1965 Volvo 122, I'm sure the situation would have been different. Volvo was installing safety features in its vehicles way before other manufacturers would.
"sturdiness" is the last thing you want in a collision. Would you rather jump off a roof with cinder blocks tied to your feet or coil springs? :P
Nope. Check out this picture...
If anything, I'd say it was the cop who ended up with the steering wheel in his chest. Just thankfully, it was a collapsible steering wheel with an airbag! Besides, elderly bodies are very fragile. If you had the cop in the T-bird and the 91 year old lady in the Crown Vic, you probably would have ended up with the same result. With the way the passenger compartment crumpled, the steering column shoving back, and the airbag going off, it probably would have been too much for an elderly body to take.
If anything, I'd say this just shows the advantages of unit body versus body-on-frame. That T-bird crumpled up just like a car should, with the front-end absorbing most of the damage, and the passenger cabin remaining intact. Note that the windshield's not even damaged, and the driver's door was able to open. And the driver's side took the brunt of the impact! Doubtful that the steering wheel moved much, if any, as the front wheels themselves don't appear to have moved back significantly.
But then, look at the Crown Vic. It did what body-on-frame cars usually do...the front end only deforms so much, before the whole thing shoves back into the passenger compartment, compromising it. In essence, it's basically that '59 Bel Air from the NHTSA test with an airbag and collapsible steering column.
Heck, I say re-issue the '65 T-bird, just with a collapsible steering column and airbags, and you'd have a pretty safe car!
And you definitely DO want sturdiness in a collision, to a degree, at least. You want the passenger cabin to be sturdy enough not to crumple up and crush you. Basically, your car needs to be "hard" in the center and "soft" at the ends.
Hey, I called them the exact thing on one of these forums once!
Yes, they certainly were for a number of reasons.
While the Crown Vic is a "modern car" with air bags and such it is still BOF and a platform that has been in existence since 1979.
Not exactly modern compared to a car designed this millennium..
But, I guess a '65 T-bird is a harder hit than a deformable IIHS barrier. And running a car at 40 mph into a deformable barrier is a whole 'nother ballgame than running two ~3600 lb Chevies into each other at 40 mph. Or a ~4500 lb T-bird into a ~4200 lb Crown Vic that's in hot pursuit.
And wow, no wonder those things were pigs! At ~205" long on a 113.2" wb, they're really not that big...in range of my 2000 Intrepid...and some 70's compacts, for that matter! Yet 4500 lb is about what the Cadillacs started at in 1965. I guess compact dimensions and luxury-mastodon weight don't exactly add up to sports-car handling! I wonder if those suckers were hard on tires, too?
Our local paper notes whether accident victims were wearing safety belts, and more often than not, people killed in accidents were not. People around here aren't getting killed in cars from the 1960s (or even the 1970s and 1980s). Most of those cars are either junkyard material or trailer queens.
Even newer cars don't provide much protection in high-speed collisions if the occupants aren't wearing their belts.
While those are a lot better than nothing, they're not going to restrain you as well as shoulder belts.
Ever see those police pursuit videos? It's amazing what people live through in those crashes.