Crash safety test: 1959 vs 2009
Guess who wins ![]()
Login to rate this video.
Embed this video
Send to a friend
This video has, amongst others, been embedded on mitekita02.blog100.fc2.com (more info).
Comments
24 comments posted so far. Expand all comments Login to add a comment.
2. Bender_Rodriguez 2 years ago
Looks like they made some real improvements in there. While old car got completely wrecked even inside probably killing the driver then the new car is stiff enough to protect people inside. Nice. I'd love to see it with even slower motion seeing ![]()
3. Comment rated too low. Show this comment minester 2 years ago
Eton Leung is looking for a girlfriend?!
I can't wait to sign up!
![]()
A bit pointless, I know that modern car's are safer than the old ones.
Don't have to destroy an oldtimer like that to proof that. ![]()
5. Comment rated too low. Show this comment Intricate 2 years ago
if you'd pit a 40ies or 50ies car against that modern car the modern car will be smashed completely, simply because compared to today's cars the older ones are built like tanks.
7. CorpseGrinder 2 years ago
damn... look at 0:47 ...the steering wheel is heading right for the dummies head..ouch
#5 ... Hmm!? No comment! - maybe ... But I agree with #4
A pitty to destroy a vintage Impala - it's a classic beauty with its dropformed taillights... ![]()
10. banzemanga 2 years ago
I don't think that it is an actual 1959 car but a replica of it. The metal used in the old cars are a lot less flexible and harder than the one used nowadays. But of course, it doesn't mean that the old cars are safer.
#2 Actually it is quite the opposite. The old car is stiff as hell and the new car is softer in front. Much of the kinetic energy is transformed early enough to lower the force that gets to the passengers. The stiff protective hull of the new car only comes in at the very end of the collision directing the collision force towards below the car (no engine nor steering wheel to the face).
The old car is stiff all over, but it doesn't really help at all because the forces are too strong for the steel to withstand. Moreover someone actually made a wooden car at some point in history that was able to drive through brick walls. The problem was that every person inside would die of the collision force anyway as the hull wouldn't eat up the energy by transforming ![]()
#12
Old car - harder outside, person inside takes the force of the crash.
New car - softer outside takes the force of the crash, person insides eats a pillow.
Do a style test between those too and see who wins!
I'll chose Chevy Bel Air over any piece of crap car made in 2009.
#9 It's not an Impala
. Chevy Malibu vs. Chevy Bel Air!
15. MsZoomy (admin) 2 years ago
#1 I've warned you about this before, mention yourself one more time and you're gone. It's irritating self promotion and I don't like it.
as #11 said,
older cars are indeed stiff all over.
in the new car, the impact of the crash is absorbed by the mallable material that makes up the bumper and hood.
Imagine hitting a concrete wall with a pillow tied to your head. Then hit it with a brick helmet. The latter case would hurt as hell because the force is directly transfered to your cranium.
17. Comment rated too low. Show this comment infernoburrito 2 years ago
hahaha #11 "stiff all over"
#14 LOL - I stand corrected ... viewed the vid again and saw the text on the door. Was a bit sloppy of me, only excuse is that I have had a lot to do long ago with Impala's. And one Bel Air ... they are generally the same car but Impala's where the top of the line as Bel Air was the mid level ...
To chose between these 2!? ... well?? I think I would go for the Bel Air
![]()
#5 Is correct that early 50's and prior cars being near indestructible but there was nothing to slow down the impact, newer cars have airbags, crumple zones, fortified passenger chassis and seat-belts to try and soften the impact.



-14
1. Comment rated too low. Show this comment ackz 2 years ago
If Eton Leung was in that 1959, it would be unbreakable, just like his will to find a girl friend.