chevy malibu - Jalopnik

posts about #chevymalibu more →
Yes, The IIHS-Crashed '59 Chevy Had An Engine
Next Chevy Malibu To Drop In 2011 As 2012 Model
IIHS: No Mid-Size Cars Score "Good" In Low-Speed Collisions
Personalized 1977 Chevy Malibu Classic for $21,500!
2010 Toyota Camry Fuel Economy Increased To 33 MPG, Matches Chevy Malibu
Mr. Wagoner Makes It To Washington, Driving Volt Mule To Morning Senate Hearing
CNBC's "Saving General Motors" Is... Actually Quite Good
2008 Chevy Malibu Refuses to be Ignored, Tops J.D. Power Initial Quality Survey
2008 Chevy Malibu, Transformed, Rolling Out...As A Chinese Police Car
Malibu, American Axle's Through With You?

Your version of Internet Explorer is not supported. Please upgrade to the most recent version in order to view comments.

Dsmvwl Admin Promote to frontpage Approve user Ban user ×

Gaseous Clay
09/21/09

In reply to Yes, The IIHS-Crashed '59 Chevy Had An Engine
This old video still amazes me, in context of this post...
Reply

skitter promoted this comment Gaseous Clay was starred Gaseous Clay was unstarred

MushyHeirloom
09/22/09

@Gaseous Clay: Imagine both of those cars in a 10 mph collision. The Renault suffers bumper, headlamp, and hood damage and is totalled. The Volvo needs a bumper cover. The Renault's airbags go off. The Volvo's might. The Renault has the resale value of a severed goat arse. The Volvo most likely lives on.

Regardless, there are no injuries. And circumstances like these are how most collisions occur.

I'll risk having to undergo physical therapy in a car that's nearly as safe as those offered today, because the odds of my ever getting into a severe collision are far lower than the odds of my being bent over by my insurance company if I drive, and am hit in, a newer, bendy, plastic car.

Everything is a compromise, and I would not hesitate to see those I love in either vehicle. But I know which I'd rather repair.
Reply

MushyHeirloom was starred MushyHeirloom was unstarred

alowishus wants to run a Saab Sonett III at LeMons
09/21/09

In reply to Yes, The IIHS-Crashed '59 Chevy Had An Engine
I think this should also remind us that American auto manufacturers resisted safety equipment for years and were basically FORCED to install seat belts, padded dashboards, and other safety equipment in their cars. That's totally despicable, like comic-book villain despicable. Meanwhile, many European car companies actively pursued safety technology without being forced to do so.
Reply

FP: Your Volvo is awesome! Anyway promoted this comment

MushyHeirloom
09/22/09

@alowishus finally has his Miata: I remember reading that Ford offered seat belts as a low-cost option at least as far back as 1955. Only lap belts, though, so you'd still break your face on the wheel.
Reply

MushyHeirloom was starred MushyHeirloom was unstarred

FTGDWolverineEdition'09
09/21/09

In reply to Yes, The IIHS-Crashed '59 Chevy Had An Engine

Rather still have that old technology over this one tho...
Reply

DiExMachina
09/21/09

In reply to Yes, The IIHS-Crashed '59 Chevy Had An Engine
Somebody send in an 1961 Imperial, lets test out a few cars with that thing. You would even be able to get about 10 crashes out of the Imperial. So it saves money.
Reply

P161911 promoted this comment DiExMachina was starred DiExMachina was unstarred

nosirrahg
09/21/09

In reply to Yes, The IIHS-Crashed '59 Chevy Had An Engine
I added this video pretty late in the game on the original '59 vs '09 post; thought I'd take the liberty of putting it on here again, just because it includes some interior shots of the impact (as well as a real-time scene at the beginning with nat sound). Compare the mayhem of the '59 interior to the relative non-event of the '09, and then decide which you'd rather drive daily.

I have an '80 El Camino, and as much as I love it, I'm reminded every time I drive it of how dangerous it is compared to a modern vehicle. Forget the lack of airbags, ABS, etc...just the body flex going over a speed bump compared to a modern car makes you realize in a serious crash there's no way the El Camino would hold up. I'm all for having a classic in the garage as a hobby, but if I were looking for daily transportation I'd stick with something from the current decade.

The other problem with driving an old car is people pull out in front of you, because they figure they can beat the old car...which invariably they can, but what they fail to realize is the old car can't stop as quickly, so darting in front of me in traffic isn't the best idea when I'm up to speed. You have to drive MUCH more defensively, which is taxing day in and day out.
Reply

nosirrahg was starred nosirrahg was unstarred

slimwhitman
09/21/09

@nosirrahg: I agree. A decade ago I would drive my '60 DeSoto to work on occasion, but it wasn't much fun when everyone kept cutting me off. They see a couple extra car-lengths in front of me and feel they need to grab it. 98% of these drivers have never driven a car of that vintage (or at least it's been 40 years ago and they forgot), so they do not understand that they cannot stop on a dime like a new car. I think the reason we have road rage today and didn't hear about it 50 years ago is because cars got so good that you can drive like a jerk and not fear for your life. Drive wild in a '59 model car and expect to crash.
Reply

skitter promoted this comment slimwhitman was starred slimwhitman was unstarred

MushyHeirloom
09/22/09

@slimwhitman: Everyone assumes my Volvo is even slower than it is, and that my driving style is right-lane milquetoast when in fact I'm fairly assertive and generally travel at average speeds. (This is partly due to my usual brown fedora, I'm sure.) I don't have ABS, but I do have some plenty powerful four-wheel discs on my side.
Reply

MushyHeirloom was starred MushyHeirloom was unstarred

Flathead Smith
09/21/09

In reply to Yes, The IIHS-Crashed '59 Chevy Had An Engine
Fast_Nel in the last story about this crash-off posted a video showing the deficiency of the X-Frame design of this car and it was an excellent video. If the IIHS would have chosen a car with a ladder frame, like say a 65 Impala or another car of the same year with a standard ladder frame, the results would probably been much better for the older car. I am sure IIHS purposefully used this particular style vehicle with the knowledge that it would fail spectacularly in order to toot its own horn. So yes there was something seriously wrong with the video.

One might ask, "Why GM would use a frame like this?" My guess is that GM attempted to be innovative with the X-Frame concept and they failed, because all the ramifications had not been considered.
Reply

Flathead Smith was starred Flathead Smith was unstarred

engineerd
09/21/09

@Flathead McNabb: I was just going to point this out, too.
Reply

engineerd was starred engineerd was unstarred

ssspinball
09/21/09

@Flathead McNabb:
Ramifications, indeed!
Reply

Flathead McNabb promoted this comment ssspinball was starred ssspinball was unstarred

SagarikaLumos
09/21/09

@Flathead McNabb: I don't think they picked it because it would look bad, they picked it because it was a 1959 model ordinary family car which was tested against an equivalent model from the same manufacturer today.

Maybe the results would've been different if they used Fords or Chryslers, but I doubt it.
Reply

Flathead McNabb promoted this comment SagarikaLumos was starred SagarikaLumos was unstarred

Drujon
09/21/09

@Flathead McNabb: The IIHS was marking it's 50th Anniversary, not its 44th so a '65 Impala wouldn't fit the bill. And the X frame was widely used on all GM makes from '58 to '64 so I think it's a fair representation of what a VERY large portion of Americans were driving back in the day. Point is, good-bad-indifferent cars are alot safer now. jus sayin...
Reply

Flathead McNabb promoted this comment Drujon was starred Drujon was unstarred

TexanIdiot25- needs moar horse powah
09/21/09

@Flathead McNabb: The X-frame provided ride comfort as it allowed the car to flex over bumps. Using the frame as the suspension.
Reply

Flathead McNabb promoted this comment

Flathead Smith
09/21/09

@Drujon: You may need to do some research, I don't think it was used in all GM cars from 58-64.
Reply

Flathead Smith was starred Flathead Smith was unstarred

Flathead Smith
09/21/09

@ssspinball: I was wondering if anyone would get the pun.
Reply

Flathead Smith was starred Flathead Smith was unstarred

Otto Suksumake
09/21/09

@Flathead McNabb: "GM attempted to be innovative with the X-Frame concept and they failed, because all the ramifications had not been considered." --- the story of GM's last 50 years. They might as well have been run by the soviet gov't.

Sorry that this vid tugs at your emotions for old cars but dont disrespect the role of IIHS and the auto engineers and scientists. I mean this is really amazing how much safer they are. '59 for show, but '09 for everything else
Reply

skitter promoted this comment Otto Suksumake was starred Otto Suksumake was unstarred

skitter
09/21/09

@Otto Suksumake: They might as well have been run by the soviet gov't.

Someone does not know their Soviet cars.
Fear not, Jalopnik does an impressive number of pieces featuring them.
Reply

skitter was starred skitter was unstarred

Otto Suksumake
09/21/09

@skitter: Ive never driven one, but those Tatras seem pretty Cimarron-like.
Reply

Otto Suksumake was starred Otto Suksumake was unstarred

skitter
09/21/09

@Otto Suksumake: The handbuilt Tatras are the magnum-opus of not-particularly-soviet-cars. Only the more-equal of the party elite could ever dream of owning one.
Rather, consider the Trabant, or the fine vehicles featured above.
Reply

skitter was starred skitter was unstarred

skitter
09/21/09

@skitter:
Reply

skitter was starred skitter was unstarred

Drujon
09/22/09

@Flathead Smith Prefers the Days of Danger: I didnt say all GM cars, I said all GM makes. ie Chevy thru Cadillac.
Reply

Drujon was starred Drujon was unstarred

MaWeiTao
09/21/09

In reply to Yes, The IIHS-Crashed '59 Chevy Had An Engine
While I appreciate the history of the Bel Air, and certainly it's a great looking car, the fact is that it's just a car.

While we might intellectually know that the driver in the Bel Air would die in such an impact, there's nothing like actually seeing it to drive the point home.

Sadly, I think there are a few modern-day Chinese cars that would fare still worse than the 50-year-old Bel Air.
Reply

Edited by MaWeiTao at 09/21/09 12:50 PM MaWeiTao was starred MaWeiTao was unstarred

TexanIdiot25- needs moar horse powah
09/21/09

In reply to Yes, The IIHS-Crashed '59 Chevy Had An Engine

My '69 CST10 weeps for it's lost bow-tie brethren.
Reply

Armand promoted this comment Edited by TexanIdiot25- needs moar horse powah at 09/21/09 12:39 PM

mechimike
09/21/09

In reply to Yes, The IIHS-Crashed '59 Chevy Had An Engine
I will give you this, no more, no less: Modern cars are designed specifically to do well in crash tests. So they are pretty much uniformly safe to that degree. Older cars are pretty much a mixed bag of chocolates- you never know what you’re going to get. There were such a variety of designs, and such a variety of possible accident combinations, that its hard to quantify safety for them. Crashing a car that was not designed with an eye to passing a randomly-devised test into another that was specifically designed to pass that test shows absolutely nothing. NOTHING.
Reply

Edited by mechimike at 09/21/09 12:31 PM mechimike was starred mechimike was unstarred

Pessimippopotamus
09/21/09

In reply to Yes, The IIHS-Crashed '59 Chevy Had An Engine
It's not all that it had. It had a life and a soul.

Then it was sold in some sick body trafficking only to be killed in an explicit and gory snuff film. IIHS makes me sick.
Reply

Edited by Pessimippopotamus at 09/21/09 12:20 PM Pessimippopotamus was starred

mechimike
09/21/09

@Pessimippopotamus: That video made me sick on a lot of levels. Fuckers. No shit, old cars are dangerous. Big surprise. So you'd be dead if you were the driver of that '59. The driver of the '09 was already dead in spirit. At least the driver of the '59 had a soul.
Reply

mechimike was starred mechimike was unstarred

twnboarder
09/21/09

In reply to Yes, The IIHS-Crashed '59 Chevy Had An Engine
I think again, this is being taken too far out of context. All in all, I think this is meant to prove a point, that vehicles are much safer than they used to be, and I give huge props to all the engineers out there that worked to make it that way. Some day this could save your wife/kids/entire family, then we'll see what you'd rather be driving.
Reply

mechimike promoted this comment twnboarder was starred twnboarder was unstarred

mechimike
09/21/09

@twnboarder: Glad you give huge props to the engineers. The IIHS was too busy patting themselves on the back for all their hard work to recognize the people who actually came up with all that stuff to make cars safer.
Reply

mechimike was starred mechimike was unstarred

elwood
09/21/09

@mechimike: If the IIHS and similar organizations didn't test and regulate cars, there would have been no business incentives for companies to force those engineers to work on safety. All parties involved can take some of the credit for the improvements in safety.
Reply

mechimike promoted this comment elwood was starred elwood was unstarred

mechimike
09/21/09

@elwood: I dunno, Volvo made a pretty good business case out of selling safety. They had 3 point belts and anti-lock rear brakes long before they were mandated. And I don't think front disc brakes were ever mandated, were they? Yet auomakers started putting them in. Hell, all the way back in the 40's automakers were installing third, center brake lights. Point is, competition, not the government, will drive automakers to improve.
Reply

mechimike was starred mechimike was unstarred

protohiro
09/21/09

@mechimike: Oh libertarians, you guys always pop up on comment threads. If you weren't here it wouldn't feel like the internet
Reply

mechimike promoted this comment protohiro was starred protohiro was unstarred

mechimike
09/21/09

@protohiro: yeah, its amazing how much sense we make and how often we're right. The rest of the non-Jalopnik commentariat here might just as well head right on back to autoblog. I've no use for them, and they don't understand us. I guess that's why I mostly keep my commenting to the weekends, these days. People here now love to chastise, criticize, loathe and scorn. They take things out of context and read into them far, far too much. Shit, its sounding a lot like a big bunch of psychopathic women. So Jezebel invaded Jalopnik. Huh. Wow.
Reply

mechimike was starred mechimike was unstarred

wojo
09/21/09

In reply to Yes, The IIHS-Crashed '59 Chevy Had An Engine
I'd rather still have the '59. I think they had the right idea back then with the solid steel steering wheels, and tin dashboards with jagged metal appointments because, in those cars, getting into an accident meant you either lived or died, and knowing that your automobile was a screaming metal death trap probably made people drive a bit safer. And back then if you died, by god, you went out in style!

Unlike cars now (I'm looking at you, 2010 Camaro) that must have 6 airbags, seatbelt re-tensioners, traction control, ABS and The Gubbermint's mandate-of-the-week, which is whatever crazy idea Ralph Nader thought up in a dream last night. And all this, just because we as a people are so apparently much too stupid to operate a motor vehicle safely on our own.
I do realize that there are complete idiots out there, and I do believe that If you're doing anything more complicated than sipping coffee when behind the wheel, then you probably shouldn't be driving. The feds should spend their seemingly huge amounts of free time keeping these people off the road, and not turning my car into a rolling padded cell.

/RANT OVER!
Reply

Edited by wojo at 09/21/09 11:35 AM wojo was starred wojo was unstarred

NewbiusMaximus
09/21/09

@wojo: Oh no, the problem isn't the possibility that YOU are going to crash into someone or something; the problem is all the other idiot drivers on the road who can potentially crash into YOU.

You can be a racecar driver, but that won't save you if a texting teen decided to drop into your lane.

And shit happens. Again, you can be the best driver in the world but that means shit if something goes wrong and you do crash. It's nice to have that safety net. And I can imagine that most people who become parents wouldn't mind having a sports car with some safety thrown in, in case they get into an accident they can see their kids again.
Reply

NewbiusMaximus was starred NewbiusMaximus was unstarred

TTopJohn
09/21/09

@NewbiusMaximus: I for one won't let any of that stop me from driving a cool old car. The price of said cool old car may stop me from driving one, but the saftey angle sure won't. Everyone gets, or ought to get to decide for themselves what an acceptable level of risk is. For me, driving a 59 Chevy or the like is well within my acceptable risk zone. The IIHS and otehr agencies can advise all they want so long as this doesn't turn into any kind of government or insurance com mandated "you can't drive 'unsafe' cars" effort. Of course, insurance companies would never stop you from driving a classic car - because the actuarial tables reveal that the curently roadworty fleet of classic cars are still pretty dang safe - mostly because they aren't daily drivers and tend to not be driven in inclement conditions.
Reply

mechimike promoted this comment TTopJohn was starred TTopJohn was unstarred

BigHarv
09/21/09

@TTopJohn: And nor should you (or anyone else) let safety get in the way of driving a cool old car. You are wise to go into it recognizing the dangers though, just as any motorcycle rider is wise to sign their donor card. It's less inherently safe-doesn't mean it cannot or should not be done.

As for a more dangerous car making people drive more carefully, we, as a species, are very bad at assessing the personal risks we face driving. Threats to our cars are more of a deterrent than threats to our person; dunno why that is.
Reply

skitter promoted this comment BigHarv was starred BigHarv was unstarred

ShantJ
09/21/09

In reply to Yes, The IIHS-Crashed '59 Chevy Had An Engine
You know, I'd much rather die in the Bel Air than even drive the Malibu.
Reply

ShantJ was starred ShantJ was unstarred

elwood
09/21/09

@ShantJ: No you wouldn't. You may say that on the internet, but that's just the internet toughguy talking. I'm pretty sure you'd much rather survive a car accident, though.
Reply

beercheck promoted this comment elwood was starred elwood was unstarred

beercheck
09/21/09

@elwood: The Internet Righteous preaches to the Internet Toughguy. The cycle of life continues.
Reply

beercheck was starred beercheck was unstarred

Tyson
09/21/09

@beercheck: We just need someone to come in here comparing the Bel Air to something built by Hitler to kill Jews, then someone else to come up with some '59 Bel Air porn, and the circle of internets will be complete.
Reply

beercheck promoted this comment Tyson was starred Tyson was unstarred

beercheck
09/21/09

@Tyson: If I had the skillz, I'd do it!

But....I don't. The commentariat should hire ourselves an intern for projects such as this.
Reply

beercheck was starred beercheck was unstarred

mechimike
09/21/09

@beercheck: Hooray! Beercheck! Good to see you haven't been scared away by the Internet Self-Righteous! Damn, its been a long time since the last WRC Libertarian meeting, huh?
Reply

mechimike was starred mechimike was unstarred

P161911 probably shoudn't have
09/21/09

In reply to Yes, The IIHS-Crashed '59 Chevy Had An Engine
All that room in the '59 engine bay. It just looked empty with the little straight six in there.

I'd love to see this test redone with a late 60's vintage Imperial vs. say a Sebring.

The driver in the '59 died, seat belts OPTIONAL in '59. Maybe that had a little to do with it.
Reply

HurtsSoGood
09/21/09

@P161911: And those were lap belts, which were worse than useless.
Reply

HurtsSoGood was starred HurtsSoGood was unstarred

monsterajr
09/21/09

@P161911: keep throwing Sebrings at anything (60 Imperials, 78 Mack truck, brick wall, etc...) and I'll be happy.
Reply

Armand promoted this comment monsterajr was starred monsterajr was unstarred

that ain't the way to have fun, son
09/21/09

@P161911:

To be fair, the Imperial should be put up against, at the very least, a 3/4 ton pickup...though a Kodiak-based one is closer to the Imperial's unstoppable force.

/do NOT crash an Imperial!
Reply

P161911 probably shoudn't have
09/21/09

@so I goes to the local bar, y'know, people: I still remember the commercial Chrysler did when it first put standard airbags in all of its cars in the 1980's. A LeBaron crashing into a brick wall and the driver getting out and walking away. My first thought was try that with an Imperial and the wall would be shattered and the car would be OK, the driver's brains might be spread across the hood, but the car would be fine.
Reply

that ain't the way to have fun, son
09/21/09

@HurtsSoGood:

Funny, I did a paper in college about how lap belts in school buses would likely cause more severe injuries than not because of how difficult they are to place properly, and how the pelvis is bad to use as a fulcrum when decellerating the body, quickly.
Reply

Daniel Mittelman
09/21/09

In reply to Yes, The IIHS-Crashed '59 Chevy Had An Engine
Oh you silly non-engineers who think steel is this magical thing that can't be destroyed with enough force.

In truth it's not that cars are made out of anything different, it's just the geometry of the steal that is different. It's meant to collapse and channel energy down and away from the driver. The Bel-Air's frame simply allowed the force to go straight back, into the drivers lap.
Reply

Daniel Mittelman was starred Daniel Mittelman was unstarred

NewbiusMaximus
09/21/09

@Daniel Mittelman: There's also the little issue of the Malibu going straight into the passenger cell.

It's not just geometry- steel is now heat treated and processed differently too.
Reply

NewbiusMaximus was starred NewbiusMaximus was unstarred

elwood
09/21/09

@NewbiusMaximus: Steel isn't just steel either. The biggest components of steel by weight are still iron and carbon, but there's plenty of other alloying elements in a modern high-strength steel that make a great deal of difference in its material properties. Metallurgy has come a long way since the 1950's, along with every other engineering discipline that goes into making an automobile.

People who actually argue that the big, heavy boats of the 50's and 60's are safer are idiots. There's absolutely no other explanation.
Reply

skitter promoted this comment elwood was starred elwood was unstarred

Earlier discussions Other discussions Show all discussions Show featured discussions only Start a new discussion

SUBSCRIBE TO Jalopnik

Login

Reset Password

Register

Submit Your Comment