1959 impala vs 2009 impala crash test video

   / 1959 impala vs 2009 impala crash test video #41  
Okay, I'm wrong. They are funded by insurance companies. I guess trustworthiness between the gov't and insurance companies is still a tossup.

Notice also they had to go back to 59 to find a car they could compete with. Why not a 69 or a 79?

I'm not gonna sit here all day in a food fight over this. You guys are right. It was a fair test. None of these organizations would ever cheat to get the results they desire. They would never go into a test biased. The check is also in the mail.


Not trying to win anything WCH. Simply mentioning the goal of the video was to highlight the safety advances made in the field of auto safety. The cars perform differently in crash tests because they had different design critera. The 09 had many years of refinements made because of the injuries of the unfortunate drivers of the past. This video just was there to show, dramatically so, that making safety a priority in design has paybacks to the occupants. ( That would be the Car companies customers! Keep them alive keep them as a customer. )
 
   / 1959 impala vs 2009 impala crash test video #42  
I would like to see the 09 impala go against a 74 chevy impala with the 200 lb factory front bumper. I think the 09 would have fit in the trunk of the 74 after the crash test.

Don't bet on it. The 74 is, was and always will be a POS. They don't have a crumple zone built into them and it would have not done any better than the other one. JMHO
 
   / 1959 impala vs 2009 impala crash test video #46  
My old man had a 4dr 59 Bel-air post that i had worked on when younger, just like the one in the vid, i helped dismantled the whole car in fact so i remember them well.

Good to see they didnt waste a 2 door.

The chev didnt get any reinforcing along the sill panels with the x frame chassis, there really isnt anything there but the shell/body, which is weak. The body steel is very soft on the 59's.

sucp_0810_09_z+custom_stainless_steel_lines+61_impala_x_frame.jpg


1958-chevrolet-chassis.jpg


This project car appears to have been re-inforced
hrdp_0812_11_z+1963_chevrolet_impala+chassis.jpg



From looking at this pic, the 59 olds got side rails and would be stronger? But i havent seen one in real life.

2007-12-12_59OldsChassisWeb-Large.jpg


I would agree that the unibody mopars and later GM would be stronger, would like to see the 09 car vs a 70's cadillac.

From the angle they hit the 59, it seems those behind the crash test know the 59's weak spot and exploited it, but at the end of the day the weak spot exists.

A front on impact would probably be much easier on the 59.

There be many conspiracies out there, but imo this aint one of them. :D
.
 
   / 1959 impala vs 2009 impala crash test video #47  
I think there is only one way to settle this. We need everyone on TBN to kick in a couple of bucks so we can buy two more cars and rerun this test. Oh, that and we need two volunteers to drive 'em. I have a hunch who wants the '59 :D
 
   / 1959 impala vs 2009 impala crash test video #48  
This project car appears to have been re-inforced
hrdp_0812_11_z+1963_chevrolet_impala+chassis.jpg

Yes, the "X" generally isn't connected in the middle except by a carrier bearing holding the long drive shaft up. Here are a couple of pictures of my '62 Biscayne frame that has a similar frame.

Well, I couldn't find where I'd scanned in a couple dozen pictures of the frame alone, but if you look, you can see a similar 'tunnel' in my frame like the one in the pictured '59. That 'tunnel' was an addition by me to tie the frame together to take the additional torque from the slight engine upgrade I did. The four link rear suspension on my frame is also not as it came from the factory. However, having personally removed and replaced every single nut and bolt on the frame I really have to wonder about the video.

Maybe it's true, but I have to wonder. If you ever watch any NASCAR video clips from way back then you'll notice that most of the cars racing were pretty well right off of the showroom, so to speak. All of the old drivers admit that. If you look at the videos and look at the crashes, you'll see that the cars held up extremely well for the most part. The problem with no 'crumple zones' was that when the cars then didn't 'crumple', the occupants absorbed a more sudden and violent stop of motion. The newer race cars rip apart seemingly easy but the vehicles get progressively stronger as the impact gets closer to the driver. Much of what has been learned safety wise for our vehicles has been from studying crashes and racing provides a lot of crashes to study. Our current vehicles do well with similar crumple zones, giving away body damage to dissipate energy before getting to the driver.
 

Attachments

  • frame off.jpg
    frame off.jpg
    46.6 KB · Views: 1,272
  • tractoring.jpg
    tractoring.jpg
    47.9 KB · Views: 355
  • notraction.JPG
    notraction.JPG
    366.9 KB · Views: 1,217
   / 1959 impala vs 2009 impala crash test video #49  
However, having personally removed and replaced every single nut and bolt on the frame I really have to wonder about the video.

Maybe it's true, but I have to wonder. If you ever watch any NASCAR video clips from way back then you'll notice that most of the cars racing were pretty well right off of the showroom, so to speak. All of the old drivers admit that. If you look at the videos and look at the crashes, you'll see that the cars held up extremely well for the most part. The problem with no 'crumple zones' was that when the cars then didn't 'crumple', the occupants absorbed a more sudden and violent stop of motion. The newer race cars rip apart seemingly easy but the vehicles get progressively stronger as the impact gets closer to the driver. Much of what has been learned safety wise for our vehicles has been from studying crashes and racing provides a lot of crashes to study. Our current vehicles do well with similar crumple zones, giving away body damage to dissipate energy before getting to the driver.

Well we can never know for sure, they do want to sell us new vehicles after all, not just parts to keep the old ones going. :D

But im just wondering if the old NASCARS had roll cages added, i have not seen old footage and it was before my time, but if they had safety cages welded in, that would change everything.

I dug up this pic from google images, and to me it looks like the nascars had bars added to the cabin, so they could have had more bars under the hood or across the inner fenders over the motor, im not sure.

125_59-24.jpg


If the crash test was doctored, and me knowing these cars a little, one way would be to remove the inner fenders, which can be unbolted on these chevys, and also remove some of the body to chassis bolts, all these things would make the assembly much less rigid and you cant pick it on the outer.

But ill say again, there is just nothing there on the side of the x-frame, where the body sill panels run, if someone was to run a couple of frame connectors front to rear, on the outside of the chassis, like my last picture above which has side rails, the 58-64 chevy chassis would do much better in a front corner hit.

This is from wikipedia, we can see that GM later added side rails to their chassis.

GM B platform - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

All B-body cars since 1965 have used perimeter frames with side rails, along with the 1961-64 B-body Pontiacs and Oldsmobiles. The 1958-60 Buicks used a ladder-type frame while an X-frame without side rails was used on 1958-60 Pontiacs and 1959-60 Oldsmobiles, 1958-64 Chevrolets and 1961-64 Buicks.

.
 

Tractor & Equipment Auctions

2006 CATERPILLAR D604S GENERATOR (A50854)
2006 CATERPILLAR...
12.7 LITER DETROIT GENERATOR SKID (A50854)
12.7 LITER DETROIT...
2013 Ford Expedition XLT SUV (A50324)
2013 Ford...
1994 Peterbilt 379 Semi (A50514)
1994 Peterbilt 379...
1994 Mack CH613 T/A Wet Kit Day Cab Truck Tractor (A49461)
1994 Mack CH613...
2012 MACK GU713 DUMP TRUCK (A51406)
2012 MACK GU713...
 
Top