They don't build cars the way they used to.

[jacksonbart]

A 1959 Chevy Bel Air vs a 2009 Chevy Malibu.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d309QCuve7c&feature=response_watch

[Rockets]

That was very interesting, but so WRONG!!!!

That 59' was probably worth more than the Malibu, there's bound to be a few LA low riders out thre crying their eyes out

[picky]

And it's a good thing, too. In the older cars, the occupants' bodies had to absorb severe amounts of the energy from crashes, whereas today's car bodies are designed to crush and therby absorb the crash energy so our bodies don't have to. The airbags increase this effect..Another reason I'm glad they don't build cars like that any more is that, not only did the dummy in the Malibu sustain minor leg injuries (no mention of the other dummy that I noticed), but, unlike the older cars, modern cars rarely fail to start regardless of the weather conditions.

Don't get me wrong: I love the older cars and I've owned many of them over the years. But for weekday rush hour driving in traffic on the freeways, I'll take a newer model with ABS brakes and collision avoidance any day over the older ones.-Glenn

[JJkizak]

The biggest number one advancement in automobiles was computer controled low pressure fuel injection. The automatic overdrive transmission was another one. The biggest mistake was going to the new type air conditioning systems. The old ones would freeze your fingers off, the new ones don't even seem to work at all.

JJK

[jacksonbart]

(no mention of the other dummy that I noticed)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CU-k0XmLUk

Actually in this one they did, the dummy in the 1959 Bel Air most likly died instantly.

Of course the crash test dummies in 1959 where much tougher than the 2009 variety.

[DU73]

Thank goodness they don’t – if they did we will be winding up our cars to start instead of turning a key []

[jacksonbart]

Actually China like the good old days, here is the Cherry Amulet. Doubles as a coffin (not an original comment)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Swzbt76wBM&feature=PlayList&p=50EBA015C75E1AD2&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=8

[Mighty Favog]

I remember growning up having to hold my breath when a bus or a few cars drove by just from the exhaust. Now I can bearly tell the difference.

[sputnik]

I didn't see any mention of how the fuzzy dice ended up. It's also interesting to note the comparison of unibody vs body-on-frame construction. All in all, I'd still want the Bel Air - even though it was a four door.

[dtel]

I was a little surprised the newer car did as well considering the way older cars were built, weight and metal thickness were much greater back then.

[oldtimer]

The biggest number one advancement in automobiles was computer controled low pressure fuel injection. The automatic overdrive transmission was another one. The biggest mistake was going to the new type air conditioning systems. The old ones would freeze your fingers off, the new ones don't even seem to work at all.

JJK

Automatic transmissions let more idiots on the road more quickly. To me standards are safer because they require greater driver interaction and concentration and understanding of the vehicle the driver is supposed to be controlling. But what the 'ell, I'm an oldtimer.

[twistedcrankcammer]

The biggest number one advancement in automobiles was computer controled low pressure fuel injection. The automatic overdrive transmission was another one. The biggest mistake was going to the new type air conditioning systems. The old ones would freeze your fingers off, the new ones don't even seem to work at all.

JJK

Automatic transmissions let more idiots on the road more quickly. To me standards are safer because they require greater driver interaction and concentration and understanding of the vehicle the driver is supposed to be controlling. But what the 'ell, I'm an oldtimer.

oldtimer,

Having to drive a stick might keep these idiots from text messaging, applying makeup, and combing hair goig down the road so that they might actually have to watch the road.

Roger

[jacksonbart]

I was a little surprised the newer car did as well considering the way older cars were built, weight and metal thickness were much greater back then.

I think its all about crumple zones, a car that is equally strong from front to tail, transmits much more energy to the passenger. I think this is one reason that low speed crashes which exceed the bumper rating cost so much now to fix as more damage is caused to the front of today's cars as opposed to cars 50 years ago which didn't crumple but also had a tendency to crush your chest against the hard steering wheel. its a trade off I guess.

The fuzzy dice were actually on the car when the govt brought the car, its explained in another article. The Bel Air cost the Highway Institute approx $11,000. Besides being a 4 door, it only has a straight 6.

[Groomlakearea51]

When safety is a concern....

[tigerwoodKhorns]

I think its all about crumple zones, a car that is equally strong from front to tail, transmits much more energy to the passenger. I think this is one reason that low speed crashes which exceed the bumper rating cost so much now to fix as more damage is caused to the front of today's cars as opposed to cars 50 years ago which didn't crumple but also had a tendency to crush your chest against the hard steering wheel. its a trade off I guess.

I did accident reconstruction in the late 1990's. Actually, until about 1963, the steering wheel would go right through your chest. Then they added collapsable columns. They also added dual brake reservoirs about the same time (like 1965).

Gas tanks were right in front of the rear bumper, remember the license plates that folded down to get to the filler neck? The Ford Pinto had one of these. Behind the rear seat there was not a solid barrier to separate the trunk, really bad for fires.

And then construction. I had several muscle cars in the past (late 1960's Camaro's, Chevelle, Corvettes) and they were built as a bunch of separate pieces. The front end had a frame on the bottom, sheet metal above and separate wheel wells. Nothing attached all of this to make it a solid unit like European cars or new cars now.

Things have changed for the better. Take a look at those interior shots in the videos. The Bel Air did very poorly.

I think that someone mentioned it, but the 1950's guy did not make it. If he did he smokes 4 packs of Camel's a day, eats bacon with every meal and enjoys three martini lunches. The crash test dummie in the new car was probably sore for about 5 days, hired an attorney from a billboard and sued for soft tissue injuries even though he should just be thankful that he was not hurt. He will blow the nuisance fee that he gets on Starbucks, California cuisine, highlites in his hair and $150 low rider blue jeans. Jeeze, maybe the Bel Air is a better car.

[oscarsear]

That's why people used to drive more safely. Self preservation.

[BigStewMan]

I was a little surprised the newer car did as well considering the way older cars were built, weight and metal thickness were much greater back then.

exactly what i was thinking. i was quite shocked to see how that old chevy endured. my dad had a '66 chevy belair and that was built like a tank. got rear-ended in that thing once (please no comments) and barely put a scratch on it. my dad was a cop and of course i called him. he came to the scene; but, also had another cop show up to do the report. i was 17 years old. the cop looks at the car and then says to my dad "minor damage?" my dad looks at me and says "are my golf clubs in the trunk still?" I said yes, and dad says "moderate damage." the guy that hit me was a real jerk too. i'm 17 and he's about 45 and he tries to leave the scene. so here i am telling him that he isn't going anywhere until the cops show up. about two weeks later, he calls me on the phone and says "one of my friends just happened to be on the corner at the time of the accident and says he saw everything..." being a smart *** came in handy at times, so i said good for you--some friend though, saw you get in an accident and didn't come over to see if you were okay, and then waited two weeks to offer himself as a witness, bring him to court with you. never heard from him again.

[Oblio]

I think its all about crumple zones, a car that is equally strong from front to tail, transmits much more energy to the passenger. I think this is one reason that low speed crashes which exceed the bumper rating cost so much now to fix as more damage is caused to the front of today's cars as opposed to cars 50 years ago which didn't crumple but also had a tendency to crush your chest against the hard steering wheel. its a trade off I guess.

I did accident reconstruction in the late 1990's. Actually, until about 1963, the steering wheel would go right through your chest. Then they added collapsable columns. They also added dual brake reservoirs about the same time (like 1965).

Gas tanks were right in front of the rear bumper, remember the license plates that folded down to get to the filler neck? The Ford Pinto had one of these. Behind the rear seat there was not a solid barrier to separate the trunk, really bad for fires.

And then construction. I had several muscle cars in the past (late 1960's Camaro's, Chevelle, Corvettes) and they were built as a bunch of separate pieces. The front end had a frame on the bottom, sheet metal above and separate wheel wells. Nothing attached all of this to make it a solid unit like European cars or new cars now.

Things have changed for the better. Take a look at those interior shots in the videos. The Bel Air did very poorly.

I think that someone mentioned it, but the 1950's guy did not make it. If he did he smokes 4 packs of Camel's a day, eats bacon with every meal and enjoys three martini lunches. The crash test dummie in the new car was probably sore for about 5 days, hired an attorney from a billboard and sued for soft tissue injuries even though he should just be thankful that he was not hurt. He will blow the nuisance fee that he gets on Starbucks, California cuisine, highlites in his hair and $150 low rider blue jeans. Jeeze, maybe the Bel Air is a better car.

I've got a '64 Malibu SS and it has a single master cylinder, fuel filler neck behind the license plate, no firewall behind the rear seat, solid teering column, AND a metal dashboard.

[dtel]

I've got a '64 Malibu SS and it has a single master cylinder, fuel filler neck behind the license plate, no firewall behind the rear seat, solid teering column, AND a metal dashboard

Wow that sounds VERY dangerous, if you want for your own safety of course, I will take off your hands and make sure you never get hurt in it, you seem like a nice guy so I will even pick it up to save you any trouble.

[Islander]

It could be much, much, worse. There appears to be no safe seat in this truck:

This car doesn't do much better, getting 1 star out of 5:

However, even a very light and small car can be safe if it's properly engineered. The funny thing about this video is that the commentator first says that the car does very well in both frontal and side crashes, then goes on at length to say that in spite of the good results you just saw, you should still buy a bigger car. We have lots of Smarts in my town, but they're almost never seen on the highway, so there's little chance of one being involved in a high-speed crash.