59 Chevy Crash "Test"...

[Larry]

Ins Inst for Hwy Safety STAGED this test for bogus results!

1959 vs 2009 Crash.jpg (3.48 KiB) Viewed 12472 times

The PR hacks from the Ins Institute for Highway Safety went to great lengths to tell us how much safer we are in today's boring, pedestrian, automotive "toasters" than we would be driving our old classic cars. Think about the cars that they ran in this "test". We know that some cars will always fare better than others, but this was nothing more than a staged PR stunt for the greedy Insurance Industry.

I'm calling BULLSHIT on this one!!!

In the late 50's GM went to an X-frame design for their big cars when others used a traditional design shaped like a ladder. This choice of cars would ensure that the Bel Air would fold up spectacularly in an offset crash test. That's what makes good video for today's consumers, right? A GM car from any other era or one from the competition would have shown MUCH more damage to that safe, comfortable, new Malibu, but that doesn't make good telly does it?

In fact, why not show how badly the import crap fares... let's smash:
2009 VW Bug vs 1959 VW
2010 Nissan Z vs 1972 240Z
2008 Corolla vs 1968 Toyota Crown Super Deluxe

"Driving" that Toyota Crown Super, the last thing that would go thru the test dummy's mind would be it's electronic asshole!

Check out the propaganda for yourself:

Murphy was an optimist...

[hhn]

...lets face it - most of them guys did drugs down to the university
before their brains were developed !! They never worked anywhere
- just got a job at Anything (dot) gov. Its about like when the
cops got in the evidence locker in the old days.

[theHIGHLANDER]

Well let's see here...I did 5 years+ in crash and safety for Ford. I see some things done to 'help' the end result. 1st is that the crash position of the cars takes no account for avoiding the hit. All the tests we did had that consideration, you know, real world scenarios? Any tech data on the speed, weight, decelleration? Guessing no. The reality is as we all know, yes new cars are much safer in regard to crash results/injuries/fatalities. Who fuckin cares? The OEMs. That's because of our lawsuit happy society. It's amazing what lawyers and judges will litigate against OEMs these days. A woman who'd divorced her husband with no add'l income coming as a result of the divorce sued Ford for his death which resulted from him being intoxicated by twice the legal limit, apparently upset with the break-up, and had crashed into a tree head on at well over 40MPH. The case was heard because the divorce was not 'officially' final (not signed by the judge but settled). Another case was a drunken teen who'd run up a curb and smashed into a store sideways suffering some untold bodily injury, the case going against them because the airbag system didn't prevent the injuries. They tested 5 cars to the exacting scene and could not get the bags to deploy, well, because the sensors are not in the suspension (good thing with Motown road conditions).

We also did crash prep for their legal dept. That's how I knew of these and several other ridiculous claims. It's more about the legal costs and liability than anything else. Safety? Walk, don't drive. Does anyone really consider what where and how they drive as a right? They shouldn't if they do. Cars are not safe. Never will be. 2 tons of steel and plastic rolling 40+MPH is gonna leave a mark. We can only hope those are skidmarks in our underwear instead of our heads. Old cars? Hey, Jane Mansfield was decapitated in her car crash. That's rare these days when back then it was common. "They don't make em like that anymore..." You all know that's a good thing.

[stevebarth]

I agree this is a bull shit test. This is just more junk science generated by idiots that do not have no common sense. There is no point to this test. You are testing a 50 year old vehicle that has been on the road for half a century with unknown history. Next they will want to crash a 75 or 100 year old car. What's the point.

The auto manufactures meet the federal safety standards for when the vehicle was built. That 2009 Chevy Mailbu will not the meet the any federal standards for 2059 what does that prove. If they want to do this type of testing they should continue on testing vehicles of newer standards to show how vehicle have evolved and became safer over time. I would like to see a 1969 Chevy Impala or Malibu, 1979 Impala or Malibu, 1989 Impala or Malibu, 1999 Impala or Malibu.

But with this type of thinking. Maybe everyone in the country should move out and tear down and rebuild their old homes. And update to 2009 safety standards and building codes because new homes are built to new standards. Because we are in our homes(and garages) more then we are in our cars. That would not make a lot of sense.

Steve

[KDB]

I watched the video frame by frame, and noted few few interesting things...

Where is the Engine in the '59?
Does it appear to anyone else that the inner fender reinforcements are gone?
What is the huge cloud of rust colored dust exploding from beneath the '59 on impact? Could it be that the X frame, which is notorious for decay (after 50 years), disintegrated?

I am still not sure of the purpose for the test. To prove that the insurance companies have made the cars safer? I did not know they engineered the new Malibu. I do agree that the new cars are much safer, 50 years of engineering and development has a tendency to do that. As to demolishing a piece of automotive history... If they were going to create a BS test why wouldn't they use FEA and Computer animation since they are such an engineering powerhouse.