Crash test: '59 Chevy vs. '09 Chevy - The good old days, it turns out, weren't so good. An insurance research group pits some Detroit iron in a head-to-head test.

The Chevrolet Bel Air was the Toyota Camry of its time -- affordable, stylish and roomy -- and the best-selling car in America in 1959.

It was 17 1/2 feet long, nearly 7 feet wide and weighed more than 3,600 pounds. Mileage? Gas was 25 cents a gallon, and even if the Environmental Protection Agency had been invented, no one would have cared.

The 2009 Chevrolet Malibu, by comparison, is a tidy 16 feet long and nearly a foot narrower. Its 2.4-liter, four-cylinder engine gets 26 mpg highway/city combined, and it exhausts cleaner air than most baby boomers ever inhaled.

The video to the right shows what happens when past and present collide under controlled conditions.

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, an insurer-supported research group, brought the two together to demonstrate in dramatic fashion the improvements in car safety since its 1959 founding. The offset collision test pits two vehicles at 40 mph.

The driver in the Bel Air, its engineers concluded, would be in sorry shape. The car lacked seat belts, let alone air bags, allowing the driver to strike the unforgiving steering column, unpadded dashboard and roof.

highway safety then and now

The passenger compartment collapsed, crushing the crash dummy's legs. The seat was torn from the floor. The windshield popped out and the doors opened, possibly allowing the driver to be ejected.

On the other hand, the driver of the Malibu might have sustained an injury to his left foot, analysis of test data showed, but otherwise emerged unscathed.

Contrary to Internet suspicions, the IIHS assures us that the antique Chevy wasn't a ringer: There is indeed an engine in the car, and the red cloud of dust that shows during the slow-motion replays isn't rust, merely 50 years of road grime.

What changed in a half-century? The insurance institute cites the crush protection engineered into new cars, dissipating the energy in a controlled manner so that seat belts and air bags have time to do their jobs. (See MSN Autos' take on the 10 most significant safety features.)

View the videos in the gallery to see other recent crash tests.

Take a look at the other related stories and don't forget to leave a comment below (Passport or Windows Live ID required) or on our MSN Money Facebook fan page telling us what you think.

Join the discussion!
Sort by:
1 - 5 of 691
Sunday, December 27, 2009 4:33:18 PM
I'm sure glad I saved this, Pretty amazing people are still commenting on it. To all you " Yep been there done that, The old cars are junk people " If the old cars are so "Unsafe" and "Junk", Why are they so highly sought after by the Demo Derby crowd??? And why is the Chrysler Imperial 60- 65 outlawed @ the National Level as well as MANY local events???! And why Do the National Demo Derby rules have Year, Size & Type of car Classes?!! Well because the old cars SMASH THE HELL!!!!, out of the newer cars, hence all the different classes... to make it fair for people who can not get the older cars, So save all the Propaganda & Safety Statistics BS for someone else. I personally do not agree w/ people smashing up the Classics for a few minutes of fun, But having seen it, & currently participate every year I prefer the late 60's & 70's tanks, Although the mid 70's cars seem to be the toughest other than the Imperial... virtually indestructible hence the outlawing, But being a hot rod builder and have been through various body shops there are A LOT of old cars 49' Mercs, Lincolns and various others that are tough as hell!!! and would demolish the new cars under a legit test. So bring your fancy high dollar throw a ways into the ring lets see!? Oh that's right they would not run after having to meet the rules or be allowed to participate against the older cars for YOUR SAFETY!!! Don't get me wrong My wife & I own and drive every day 2 New GM trucks, yes because of the " Safety" for our family & convenience, but I Damn sure know which one would drive away in a crash against either my 62' Caddy fleetwood or 67 Buick Electra, & it sure wouldn't be the new overpriced trucks, Love GM vehicles but I got to say Sadly all the New vehicles are just High dollar throw a ways.  
Monday, December 07, 2009 11:02:29 PM

Apparently this has devolved into an argument for/against government regs.  Sure, there are folks who think that safety features and their technological advance only exist because of government regs.  They're wrong.  Just as a few examples: Ford pioneered the use of safety glass in 1928.  That's not a typo...nineteen-twenty-eight.  On the Model A.  In '55 Ford began offering seatbelts in their vehicles.  Seatbelts became ubiquitous by 1958 or thereabouts (though not always standard equipment yet, and many folks would remove them or tuck them behind the seat as it was "uncool" to wear them).  No Big Brother breathing down their necks to make it happen.  Disk brakes began making their way onto vehicles by the 60s.  The only thing the government can do is demand that manufacturers install components on their vehicles that they've already spent time and money developing for the very purpose of installing on their vehicles anyway.  After all, can the government insist that manufacturers install non-existent safety components?  Which central-planning design bureau of the Federal Government is presently toiling away in an Eddison-style lab developing tomorrow's safety technology?  Oh, that's right.  No such thing exists.  What the government regs do is prevent manufacturers from offering base-line models with those features as options for entry-level or low-income buyers, ultimately putting any new car out of many of those peoples' price range.  Result?  They're forced to shop for an older used car that likely lacks the newer features anyway, and whatever features are present very likely are in some state of disrepair.

 

As for the crash itself, all I can say is "yeah....sucks to be you, '59".  I've owned two '66 Ford Fairlanes in my day, and I've always thanked God I never rolled the things or got caught in a head-on even at moderate speeds.  Don't get me wrong, I loved the cars.  But I shudder to recall the sight of that spear-like steering column drooling at the first opportunity to impale my heart or throat should I drift into oncoming traffic or a bridge abutment.  Not that I'd want to do that in any car....

Monday, December 07, 2009 10:16:53 PM
The old Chevy is heavier, therefore, more prone to be fatal in any accident, regardless of make or model; in my heydays I was a witness of an auto accident where a Chevrolet Camaro was hit by a pick-up truck(could not remember the make and model) and both cars were totally destroyed on the Vanwick Expressway, New York City in 1973, however, the driver of the Camaro suffered very severe injuries, while the truck were only minor, by comparison. One catch, both were going in the same direction, and a much higher speed than 40 MPH, for sure.
Monday, December 07, 2009 8:22:28 PM

Anyone who thinks old cars are safe because they are heavier and mostly steel has never crashed one before. A good reference for those that don't want to find out the hard way is a book called "car crashes and other sad stories". I believe the book is no longer published but there are used copies around. You'd be shocked.

Monday, December 07, 2009 6:40:31 PM
Interesting comments, but they appear mostly to be excuses for older, badder tech.  In my pre-retired years,  among some other things, I taught mechanical engineering at a major university and headed up an auto safety R&D program at an aerospave company.  Sorry, fellows, this test looks very fair from my perspective.  These were and are very real cars.  New cars gain a "ton" of safety from their chassis and body designs--better placed reinforcement, better designed passenger compartments, energy absorbing front and rear ends, reinforced seats and seat support structures, greater use of high strength materials, break-away steering parts, redirected engine movement (down), improved door and hood latches, door reinforcements, tougher door lock mechanisms, etc.  Then, throw in air bags, three-point seat belts (four would be better), and better protected gas tanks.. To prevent the accident in the first place throw in better handling, better (disc) brakes, anti-lock brakes, traction control, stability control, etc.  Note that the '59 (I owned one of that vintage) is a bigger car, slightly heavier, with a longer hood.  Better technology is the clear winner.  If you look at the other tests that I saw on this web site, note what happens with the test cars from the same manuacturer (where we might assume comparable newness and safety technology).  Here mass is the big differentiator when cars collide head-on.  Isaac Newton got this very right.  The energy and momentum conservation laws of classical physics reign supreme in this type of accident.  But, bigger is not always better.  Crashing into a rigid barrier can be nasty in a large, massive vehicle.  Why?  Because all that mass behind a "propotionately softer" front-end means that the mass behind the driver punches all that mass towards the front.  If the SUV/truck is loaded in the rear, it gets proportionately worse.  That's why a lot of small cars do very well hitting a rigid barrier.  The front ends are relatively strong and energy absorbing compared to the mass of the vehicle, which does the "pushing".  End of the short tutorial.  Old prof's never die they just fade slowly, inexorably away.  Adios. 
1 - 5 of 691
To add a comment, pleasesign in

Published Sept. 17, 2009

Become a fan of MSN Money on Facebook

Featured Tools

See all tools