Tweet
Why are they crash testing new cars into 50 years old classics? It is supposed to show how safe newer cars are compared to the big steel tanks we call classics. I wonder why? Are we about to loose more freedom, such as the choice to drive an older "unsafe" vehicle. Think about it....we no longer have the right to leave our seat belt off or ride a Motorcycle with out a helmet. My son can't even ride his bike minus helmet with out the possabilty of getting me a ticket or visit from DEFACS. We see all the prpaganda about seat belt and helmet safety on a daily basis. I worry this is the start of propaganda designed to make us feel good about loosing the right to drive a "dangerous vehicle". I see it coming while so many don't and whats worse is most people in this country could give a shit less as it doesn't affect them. Sad part is every thing the gov does to gain more and more power affects everyone who calls America home.
I see a very flawed test.
First 59 Chevys just like my Buicks have a X frame. Tough as shit in a head on collision but pretty weak in an offset crash. They would also wrap around a tree in the shape of a horse shoe with minimum effort. Once that was realized it was no longer used in any vehicle after 1964. They used a vehicle that would do very poorly in the test but due to its age and size makes you think it should have plowed through the new Malibu.
Second this is an apples to oranges test. They did not due crash testing to much of any extent in 1957 when the 59 was being finalized for production. Most of the minimal test done was frontal crash test at much lower speeds. Each car is traveling at 40mph giving an 80mph impact. It was common knowledge in the 50's you were not likely to survive in any crash over 55mph. That was fine since there were no interstates. It was a different time with different expectations from a crash. Anyone driving a 50 year old car knows that.
Third and very importantly in the failure of the 59 was what it hit and it's placement. All the impact that the frame should have absorbed had it hit something solid such as another 59 Chevy went where it would hurt the driver most. Both cars are strongest in the center behind the radiator. The 59 had 2 frame rails and the Malibu has the unibody structure and drivetrain. When they hit you can see in how the frame rail of the wide 59 missed the engine and tranny of the new car and sunk into plastic and aluminum around the wheel well of the Malibu while the solid center section of the new Malibu plowed right through the fender broke off the wheel and went right into the cowl crushing the foot well and dash into the driver. The Malibus engine and transmission hit some sheet metal a lot of air and not much else before crushing the driver. Worst representation of a crash test you could give the 59.
Some people point out a rust cloud that envelopes the 59. That is just dirt the car destroyed was a very well preserved original. It was used over a beater or restored car to get acurate test data. That gives me a stiffy because we all know there are a shit load of pristine unrestored 50's cars everywhere. I get so tired of seeing them everyday. They are everywhere and only getting more plentiful. By all means destroy more, it's not like there is a shortage and we know GM still makes more.
Comment