Don't make'em like they used to

They don't make'em like they used to,but maybe that's a good thing. The 59 really takes a beating.
59 vs 09 crash test

Really surprising. Their was an incident a few years ago when my '49 chevy 1 ton pickup hit my 2001 2500hd. '49 was the clear winner, but that was a slow speed crash, just cosmetic damage (and none to the '49)
Josh

I remember when they did this test - the outrage in my Car and Driver magazine was off the edge. They did some research hoping it was a mockup, but they found out where the car came from and had pics of it before. It was a cherry vehicle that they paid a mint for. Sad.

I remember,probably 50 years ago seeing film of what I remember being about a 57 Plymouth hitting a utility pole. Split it all the way to the back seat.

So the 09 won the crash test. Let"s compare the two on the basis of style, beauty, and roominess. The Chevy was a gorgeous work of classic American big-car style and appearance with lots of chrome. It could cruise down the highway like it was riding on air, and you could hardly feel bumps in the road. The seats were spacious enough to seat 3 in the front, 3 in the back. Now look at the 09. It"s essentially a chromeless example or clone of an Asian cheapo with little tires and a short wheelbase and tiny steering wheel. While driving one, you feel every bump in the road, and they have a stiff, choppy ride compared to the 59. The newer cars are all butt-ugly with their plastic bumpers and trapezoid grilles and trunk lines, silver spoke wheels, and side mirrors mounted where window glass is supposed to be. Compared to driving a 50s or 60s full-size Chevy, driving a newer car feels like eating off a paper plate. I appreciate the crash-worthiness of newer cars, but it"s too bad they all have to look like one another, shaped like jelly beans, the Asian look. And all those spoilers on little cars look hideous. It used to be that a car didn"t get a spoiler unless it earned one at the drag strip or at the oval. Long live the 50s and the 60s!

Just my opinion from someone who"s owned and driven cars from the 30s to the present.

It's sad to see what's happened to Cadillacs too. Now they're trying to be like European sport sedans with their stiff, harsh rides and ugliness. And they're called luxury cars? Drive an elegant 76 Sedan de Ville and you'll find out what a luxury car feels like.

When I was a cement mason I worked with a laborer from Phoenix, Ar. who was pretty wild. He took a curve on US rte 20 about 85...45 mph speed limit in his 58 Impala. Cut the car clean in two right behind the front seats!
He was at work the next day!

I think a lot of the harshness is a side-effect of the extra weight being carried around to meet the crash test requirements, compounded by a stiffer suspension for better handling. So what"ll it be?

Watched one of the related videos- 10 worst crash tests- VW bus and Holden Commodore folded up like an accordian. Literally. Around the 4 minute mark in this video is a Cherry (chinese Chevy knock-off) that Tesla was planning on importing as a chassis for their electric cars.

wonder how cherry the car was with all that rust flying around after the collision. bill

We really aren't seeing the complete situation. The '09 looks like a square hit to the front, while hitting the driver front fender of the '59. It would have fared a square hit better.

There is something to be said for Ralph's ugly bumpers, even though they absolutely KILLED the looks of the beautiful muscle cars of the '60s.

Glenn F.

Women also.

Vito

That style and early sixties used an "X" shaped frame in an attempt to build lower cars. Easily bends in the middle. By the mid 60"s they were back to building ladder frames.

Would be interesting to see a test of the "09 vs. a "71-"76 Impala. I"d bet the results would be quite different....

The "X" frame was a POS then, and it hasn't gotten any better after 50 years of rust.

Try that with a Ford Ranch Wagon and see what happens.

My dad had a real bad crash in a new 58 Chevy. On a very dusty road going about 20 MPH he hit a dump truck doing about 50 MPH. He had to get about 50 stitches to his face and the engine of the car was pushed back almost like a passenger between the driver and passenger seats. There was a picture but I don't know what happened to it. I think my sister has it.

The old ladder frame would leave the car looking good while killing the occupants with the forces. No crush zones.

Chey never had much of a frame I'd like to see them using a Ford Galaxie or better yet a Packard.

If that "59 Chevy was S-O-O-O cherry, why was there SO MUCH rust dust flying around and falling off underneath? I"ve been around a few of those old Chevies, grew up around them, and even owned one. I KNOW from experience just how badly they can turn into a bucket of rust.

the cars with their X frame wernt good back then, try that with a truck, ive seen pictures of this '57 4400 truck im refurbishing, around 1970 it was parked out by the hiway with a load of apples for sale on it, a drunk dropped down off the hiway and hit the truck head on where it was parked, in a full size chevy car, it totaled the car, the truck suffered some scratches and a very slight crease on the front bumper thats all, there there to this day as i havent painted it yet, now thats a crash test!

It should come as no surprise that a fifties-vintage car doesn't do well in a crash test. Safety wasn't much of a design consideration until the sixties. Not only are the standards much tougher today, but engineers now have the tools to design safer cars than ever before. In particular, finite element analysis combined with very powerful computers makes it possible to simulate thousands of crashes before a single prototype part is ever made.

I am an old fart. However I am glad they do not build them like they used to.
How many 60's cars could you drive off the dealer lot and drive for over 100K without any repairs other than standard maintenance?
75K used to be time miles to get out of a car.

No carbs to rebuild, points to replace, plugs last 50K or more, etc.