I've had my uncle tell me a story about how he crashed a car (don't remember what it was) into a shed back about a million years ago (hehe) and practically nothing happened to the car. Sure it's just an anecdote, but I know some of those old cars were tanks, just not the bel air it seems. But even those tanks back then were not designed with today's standards for passenger protection in mind.

Todays cars are designed to turn into metal accordins to keep the driver safe. I think that was the main point of the video and the test. I'm sure a number of huge old cars made later on, say in the late 60s, would fare better than a modern mid sized car, but would the passenger?

The bel air was very popular back then, lots of people drove them so they were a common vehicle of the era, bad frame design or not that is what people owned, so with that comment of someone in that other article arguing about a redesign 5 years later is a bit moot. That is what people drove then.

Also, it's weight is about the same as most mid size cars today (about 3600 lbs, most mid size sedans have gone on weight gainer lately and are about 3500 lbs., see the new accord or mazda 6 for some portly examples) so it was a comparison of about the same weight vehicles from different eras which takes the mass argument out of the equation. Something heavier like an Imperial would have to be crashed into a heavier modern vehicle for a more even comparison of salient safety features, design, and performance.

If the car doesn't do well in an offset crash (which is a not an uncommon accident) then that would suck for whoever was in one, however it was desiged. Arguing that things changed drastically in 1968 does seem to prove the other point, as those changes in design were due to new laws in place, not due to the US auto makers suddenly deciding to design for safety. I'm sure they did not. We've all seen how resistant to change the auto industry can be.

Now, I'm not trying to go out of my way to knock classics. I love good classic cars as I think they just have more style and soul than most cars today. I like the bel air too (well, not the 59 as much, 55 or 56 is nicer, and 57 was a good year for a lot of cars, bel air, t-bird... I could go on). Hell, my dad owned two of them. But sometimes people are arguing too much out of pride to protect "the way things used to be" and they just have to admit "the good old days wern't always good."

Generally speaking, cars are safer today. They are designed with that in mind, highway institute grandstanding or not. (and I know they were grandstanding with this test) And that the number of deaths per mile driven is lower is amazing in spite of most drivers being lazier these days with no awareness and not paying attention to what they are doing, which I agree with 100% that this is the case today.

So maybe from this test we can simply say a 59 bel air doesn't do as well as an 09 malibu and it is not necessairly representative of other cars of that era, or of this era. Maybe it does show what will happen, generally speaking, between old and new cars. Perhaps some more sacrifices are needed, heheh.

Good discussion my friends.

"Tutto fa brodo."

Todd Scungio
98 RS
15.173 @ 90.70 MPH

And also a 2011 Ralliart