NEW CAR VS OLD CAR CRASH TEST

[@kingalexander8152]

I Feel So Bad For that 59 Bel air

[@Peter_Pepper_Love]

Didn't stand uP as I thought it would!

[@bisnetodeportugues]

Me too 😢

[@rob5944]

Makes you wonder about people driving around in classic cars, I mean they don't do many miles but....

[@matthewgodwin3050]

@@rob5944 I happily run about in a 1981 Triumph Acclaim, because I prefer the way old cars drive. I know that if I was involved in an accident, I'd die, but I don't think about it. However, if I had children, there's absolutely no way they'd be travelling in that car. It doesn't even have rear seat belts.

[@rob5944]

@@matthewgodwin3050 I remember having to get under my mk2 Cavalier to fit the anchor bolts for a child's seat. He's 34 now!

[@davidgapp1457]

Having been involved in an offset head-on (someone making an illegal turn across traffic) I can certainly attest to the safety of modern vehicles. Although the passenger compartment of my 1985 MR2 remained completely intact - not even a broken windshield, the g-forces were physically devastating. Yes, I had my safety belt on. Plastic from the dashboard, and steering wheel, hit me in the face and head, creating deep lacerations and despite the safety belt my body slid downwards, under the belt and the non-collapsible steering wheel dug deep into my gut. Although this caused no serious damage, I was black and blue for many weeks and in considerable pain. The seat belt also did a number on my chest, making breathing after the accident extremely difficult and causing pain that took weeks to dissipate. Meanwhile, the people who hit me simply got out of their car, completely unhurt aside from being shaken up. Estimated g-forces were 43g for me, as the driver, and 8g for the other vehicle's occupants. The older cars, even when they are solidly built, do not dissipate energy over time the way that modern vehicles, with crumple zones, manage.

[@aloysiusbelisarius9992]

Ouch. That front-ending experience can be used in my own attestation to the safety of vintage vehicles...well, mine at least. Of course, I don't drive just any vintage vehicle; it's something not very common. But a reckless teen took a right turn too fast at an intersection (on a rainy day) with his 10-year-old Mazda 3, lost all control, and front-ended me, on *my* side. Except for the initial shock of being front-ended, I had zero injuries. Too bad my car didn't have zero injuries, but the damage looked worse than it actually was; the worst was a slight knocking-off of the front-wheel alignment and a broken tire valve. After putting the spare on I was able to drive away after the necessary police report was done up. But I was able to straighten out much of the body damage without having to accept the low-ball insurance pay-out.

[@mattiasjohansson1727]

A 1985 MR2 is a very light car too, anything modern will be heavier which means that the MR2 will have to take a hell of a hit in such a case.

[@aloysiusbelisarius9992]

@@mattiasjohansson1727 In my case the kiddo hit me hard enough to knock my front out of the left-turn lane where I was and into the adjacent lane; luckily there wasn't a car in that lane at the time. I think it was because of the slick surface from the rain that he didn't damage my suspension. On the other hand, it was because of the slick surface (and his speed) that he lost traction and plowed into me.

[@nikolenmrdja3961]

David, it likely would be relevant to hear what was other car in your crash? You mentioned your lovely MR-2, but other car was never specified

[@oi32df]

@@mattiasjohansson1727 and the engine is in the rear.

[@INWondeR]

The Nissan Tsuru may be a 2015 but it's based on a 1990 model, with little to no upgrades, so that should have been depicted as a 1990 and not a 2015.

[@jdgtastance9139]

I can't believe they made that car for so long

[@Semegamer009]

its a 2015 model indeed, the test's purpose was to demonstrate the disparities between developed counrties and developing countries, the tsuru you see there was sold in the US in the 90's but its been repurposed for developing markets, so its effectively a 2016 vs 1990 crash test

[@2005VolksWagenbeetle]

Fun fact: a 1990's nissan tsuru is way stronger than the newer models

[@lucianene7741]

Nissan Tsuru, 1992-2017, made in Mexico. A safety disaster.

[@alex1949]

The Tsuru was a very popular car for taxis. They replaced the old beetle. The Tsuru are being phased out but can still be found as Taxis. Retired ones are still on the road in Mexico.

[@brentboswell1294]

So what's up with the Tesla vs. 1965 Mustang tests? That's the clickbait that got me here...

[@acceso_directo]

This is AI images

[@Joepie-r3x]

​@@acceso_directoLuckily, I thought they also screwed up this classic.

[@maryrafuse2297]

Exactly! The 65 Mustang should be treated with reverence. I'm tired of clickbait.

[@Potasioconqueso]

Yep is from IA

[@Jay-jb2vr]

Welcome to KZbin

[@dave3657]

I once drove a 100% stock 1941 Chevy for a full year, just for the hell of it. No belts, no airbags, not even a radio. Looking back I am sure glad that I never got in an accident. 😳 This was very informative. 👍🏻

[@robertlawry434]

There were a lot less cars around back then and some say people weren't in such a rush. That said Australia's road toll peaked around the late 1970's despite the population being about half of what it is today!

[@mitchellbarnow1709]

The only better thing about older cars is that you can work on them yourself, provided that you don’t get into an accident and get killed.

[@aloysiusbelisarius9992]

Actually, it depends on the specific old car in question. Common as Chevys were in 1959, they were not the standard for *all* cars. Those who assume that all old cars will act the same way are fools. As far back as 1955 safety assessments had been done, though not yet officially done by the government. Chevrolet cars *never* fared well in any such tests; quite the contrary, they were at the bottom of the barrel. But Chevrolets back then were designed and built to be cheap, not safe. It was not until at least the '90s that Chevrolet started to take safety seriously, much of that contributed by increasing government pressures on safety. Other cars by other brands would behave differently...especially those that were not built with X-frames like the overly-showcased '59 Bel Air. It had been established back in the '60s that X-frames were the most treacherous and most dangerous structural bases for cars (look up Ralph Nader). That was why X-frames were eliminated from all cars by 1970; some abandoned that frame sooner, despite the higher costs in box frames or unibodies.

[@visionmodernclassics3062]

Thats the only disadavantage of older Cars! The safety standard is lower, but what else to you want more of a car. Reliability, Ride Comfort, low NVH, Airconditioning, low total cost of ownership Who need all the assistance system…NOBODY I also know when i have to fasten my seatbelt and when i have to switch on my light

[@mikee2923]

@@aloysiusbelisarius9992 I’d be interested to see if they would’ve used something like a 1976 Chevy Impala. Something with a full perimeter frame. As you point out the 59 used an X frame and it was hit at its weakest point. While the 76 lacks crumple zones, the chrome plated railroad tie bumper was made of pretty thick steel. Doubtful the 09 would’ve crumbled the fender back to the firewall in the 76 like it did in the 59. Perhaps hitting all that steel would’ve dislodged the transverse mounted engine in the 09 and rolled it through the firewall.

[@aloysiusbelisarius9992]

@@mikee2923 That would make for an interesting comparison test. Now, crush zones *did* exist; they became mandatory on all cars right at 1970 if not a year or two sooner; it just was not located on the level of the bulletproof bumpers, which in turn were attached to the frame structure.

[@nocapproductions5471]

You can still find a modern car that you can service yourself. For example a brand new VW Polo with a naturally aspirated 1.0 80hp engibe can be worked on, no turbo, no direct injection, plenty of space in the hood

[@davidsucesso2419]

Im feeling sad... Old cars getting crushed for science.... They are so beautiful

[@Zaky28_09]

Yeah this chevy bel air was looking great

[@chiboyife5456]

Wats is beautiful abt them

[@laurentmarandet4850]

No regreats for the Rover 100 😅

[@SBS7500T]

I personally think the Malibu oooks nicer

[@michaelbacon561]

But is it science? It's certainly not showing us anything we couldn't guess for ourselves. What is the point of this exercise other than gratuitous vandalism???

[@virgilwyatt4632]

1. Thankfully, owners of cars built in the 60's & 70's aren't driving those vehicles fast; the vehicles are collector's item of historical relevance. 2. That 60's model Chevrolet did not deserve to die like that; probably beyond restoration.

[@StatickyCat]

In 1959, Chevy wasn't building those masterpieces to be strolled around like grandpa cars. Impalas are warriors, they will sustain abuse for years to come.

[@redtra236]

I've definitely seen some people driving 60s and early 70s model muscle cars at high speeds in recent times.....

[@11C1P]

Tell me you've never owned a classic muscle car without telling me you've never owned a classic muscle car.

[@emjayay]

The US interstate highway system was mostly complete by the mid 1960s. You could drive coast to coast at at least 65 mph with some speed limits of up to 80 mph. By the mid 1950s typical American cars could get up to at least 100 mph. If an owner of any of these (not just muscle cars) today actually uses them for more than a cruise they are going as fast as any car on the road.

[@101Volts]

​@@ChrisPatrick-q6k He was replying to OP's first assertion that "people aren't driving old cars fast." by saying that the old cars *could* go fast.

[@Joepie-r3x]

Why crash a CLASSIC? These belong in a museum to be preserved for posterity!

[@thephilpott2194]

Bit of a pointless exercise isn't it? We know which car will win so there's no need to destroy both of them to prove it.

[@mahmus9196]

this is not the real classic car only demo the new cars will never stand against real old cars modern cars 60% plastic don't believe everything you see on KZbin

[@colinplaysgames7014]

why not

[@abdullatif-hc9pq]

Because ppl don't stop buying classic this shows why not to buy them

[@deanmartin2332]

Yeah a museum for death boxes 😂

[@ssssssss6889]

The Rover 100 is basically an Austin Metro of 80s. 97 was like the last year after a career of nearly two decades!

[@Luke-bz2td]

Rover 100 is death on wheels

[@crVic_r]

We need a 1979 Chevrolet Caprice for this test to see how modern cars can stand up to a Chevy tank.

[@ssssssss6889]

@@crVic_r I think , in term of occupant parotection , new cars would do much better. Cosmetic damage , the Chevy may appear to have less damage. Chevy tank , it's the huge metal bumper that makes the difference ( could not be homologated today) , that bumper once past thru , there is no big deal beside size and weight but nothing better structuralwise.

[@jean-guybadiane]

Oui, exactement. Austin Metro lancée en 1980 mais dont début le développement date de 1977.

[@russell5791]

@@Luke-bz2td It's no worse than any other small car designed in the 1970's. Just by the 1990's it should have been pensioned off, not recreated from a Metro into the Rover 100 with a pretence of modernity

[@buckdashe2571]

As a news reporter I covered a head-on between a ‘72 Buick Skylark and a ‘98 Ford T-Bird. Direct collision, like headlights to headlights… Dude driving the T-Bird was over talking to the CHP. Person driving the Buick was dead. Sold me on airbags and structural engineering. (BTW, not a Ford fanboy…)

[@billbonu1639]

YOU'RE A LIAR.Ford discontinued the Thunderbird in 97 besides the retro 55 redo between 02-05.you never seen a "98 Ford Thunderbird" because they don't exist.

[@buckdashe2571]

@@billbonu1639 well f*ck me. I was off by a year. Liar? The accident happened. I was there and photographed it. I’ll accept your apology.

[@buckdashe2571]

@@billbonu1639Liar? Maybe it WAS a frickin ‘97. Or a ‘95. Whatever. I was there and photographed it. See me out back, MF.

[@rob5944]

One year out, is it possible it was registered late. I hate to see what happened if the colour was wrong in dark lol.

[@nassar57]

Please - no crash testing Bugatti Royales!!

[@visionmodernclassics3062]

Seeing this comparission you always have to keep in mind the wight difference between modern and older Cars with the same length. VW Golf II 1000 kg VW Golf VIII 1500 kg

[@Pantheroful]

Yes. But, that significant weight difference is largely due to the advances and tech that make modern cars safer. Looking at the other comparisons in the clip where cars are crashed in to stationary objects, I am willing to bet that cars today would fare relatively much better against a car that is 500 kgs heavier than later cars. The bottom line is that car design today is way more focused on protecting passengers than older cars.

[@nikolenmrdja3961]

Probably should have worded that little bit differently: cars are not only gaining in mass, but also in length. Specific example you listed compares two cars that are 25-30 cm apart regarding length, not to mention newer Golf also being wider and likely taller. Current Polo is probably good match size-wise to third gen Golf...and likely noticeably heavier

[@chrishart8548]

​@nikolenmrdja3961 current polo is now bigger in every way and heavier than the MK4 golf and that still seems like a decent sized car with 4 star n-cap.

[@nikolenmrdja3961]

@@chrishart8548 Oh really...tbh haven't quite expected that. Point is, however, very much proven

[@chrishart8548]

@nikolenmrdja3961 a 1.0 VW up is heavier than a MK3 golf 1.8 16v gti.

[@Andrewlone174]

7:28 beautiful flight of Mercedes emblem.

[@Individuo80]

Apparently AI video generators really hate Teslas and classic Mustangs

[@brentboswell1294]

The 1959 Chevy Impala featured GM's controversial X frame, where the frame rails moved inboard in the passenger compartment and outboard again in the trunk area.

[@bobbyheffley4955]

Chevy used the X frame through the 1964 model year. Buick used it through the 1961-64 model years. Pontiac used the X frame in the 1959 and 1960 model years. It is easy to see why law enforcement agencies preferred Plymouth, Dodge, Ford, Mercury, and Oldsmobile at the time.

[@richardpalleschi4807]

Yes, a weak design. If they ran outer frame rails & kept the X also the car would have been much tougher. Many stock car race chassis run parameter frame rails & x brace the center section of the chassis.

[@krazi77]

@@richardpalleschi4807 it gets even weaker when important bolts are removed and holes are drilled in strategic places so a car would fold up dramatically in a "crash test"

[@YTChiefCritic]

I wonder how genuine the test between the '59 Bel Air and the 2009 Malibu is - the Bel Air looks like it's in pristine condition, so who's going to destroy something like that in a crash test? Is it possible they patched up some old rust bucket to use and in that case it would not behave like a car in original condition unless much expense and effort was put into re-creating the original car.

[@snowrocket]

The Tsuru was sold in the USA as the Nissan Sentra in the early 1990s. They were good cars in their time. Obviously they don’t compare well in terms of passive safety compared to newer small cars.

[@doughnutzz]

I was wondering about this and if the model years were a mistake. To me, it looked like a 2016 vs a 1995 Nissan.

[@snowrocket]

@@doughnutzz Me too, and several commenters said that that Nissan has been made for that market virtually unchanged since 1992-1995. It's similar to the Ladas that are in Europe. They're a slightly rebodied, slightly improved 1966 Fiat for the Communist countries. Apparently, they are reliable enough, but they fold up easily in a crash.

[@doughnutzz]

@@snowrocket It’s crazy to think I used to zip around in a ’92 Sentra for a good chunk of my 20s, no air bags and, although I drive like a granddad, to think how unsafe they are after watching these videos!

[@snowrocket]

@@doughnutzz "Unsafe" has always been a relative word. Newer designs are safer than older ones. Look at all of the old people. They apparently survived life up to this point. Sometimes safety is just being lucky.

[@doughnutzz]

@@snowrocket Not sure why you are manspaining me but no air bags and a passenger compartment that crumbles smashing test dummies to me would classify as “unsafe”.

[@cmartin_ok]

Part of me feels very sad that these cars were needlessly destroyed just to demonstrate safety.... especially those lovely old Chevrolets :-(

[@Артем-д2и8е]

Зато сколько жизни спасло не просто так ударяют их

[@StatickyCat]

But it was only one Chevy Impala. Better to use a Chevy Impala for crash testing than to leave it in the back yard to rot (Which most old Impalas are doing right now).

[@karldewstow2933]

It was probably a statutory write off and no longer road legal

[@richruksenas5992]

The flying tie wraps tell you some hanky panky went on structurally with the Chevy to make it appear worse in an accident.

[@snowrocket]

I always thought the 1959 Chevrolet was ugly, so not feeling much loss there.

[@2npowered]

7:42 the flying Space Mercedes Emblem ❤😅

[@Awesome-McPossum]

You either say that a 1950s car is safe, or you were in an accident in it. But then you don't say a word, because of dead men tell no tales. ☠

[@mattschiavone3383]

This is also the reason cars are so expensive. The amount of money going into safety measures is passed down to the consumer.

[@rob5944]

And gimmicks, although I don't mind paying in order that I may walk away.

[@markf4720]

And rightly so. If you want to have a car, you want it to be safe (as well as have good performance, economy, comfort etc etc) presumably...

[@mattschiavone3383]

@@markf4720 just merely stating the facts

[@nodammit]

@@mattschiavone3383 It's not the safety measures that make cars so expensive, it's all the convenience features. A base level Toyota corolla or Nissan Versa has all the current safety tech, but still falls within the average car cost from decades past when you adjust for inflation. The problem is that most people want an SUV, 4 wheel drive, heated seats, 8+ speaker stereo, touchscreens, and power everything.

[@rcgeneration824]

Daaang! The dash on the Malibu barely flinched! 😳

[@alexmore8527]

3:38 that rover 100's airbag was kinda funny though, I thought my life existance was pointless till I saw that 🤣😂🤣

[@autocad3227]

Waiting for them to test a 19 71 Chrysler. Versus a smart car. And leave the engine in and running

[@dennyj8650]

LOL! Used to drive a 72 Imperial - What a land yacht, fast as hell. Banned from demolition derbies. Someone else was driving it when a Chevy pickup (this was back in the 90s) cut across its path. Pickup was in pieces across the road, Imperial had a corner of the front fender bent about 2" to the side. Nobody was hurt fortunately, crash about 30 - 35 mph.

[@richardpalleschi4807]

@@dennyj8650 Beat me to it. Was going to comment on the Imperials. Built like tanks. My grandfather had 59 Imperial LaBaron.

[@emjayay]

@@richardpalleschi4807 Actually it was the body on frame Imperials from 1957 to 1966 that were banned from demolition derbys. They had different much beefier frames and bodies than other full sized Chrysler products (which became unit bodies in 1960). Imperials also had a lot of distance from the front bumper to the engine. After 1966 they shared basic bodies with all other full sized Chrysler products. Cars in demolition derbys are going fairly slowly, so the 1957-1966 Imperial superiority does not necessarily apply at 70 mph.

[@danielthoman7324]

The "Smart" car is like a little sardine can.

[@pavelcar37]

Дураков легко обмануть! Шевроле 1959года ударили без мотора и трансмиссии!!!

[@crVic_r]

It is good to use Chevrolet sedans from the seventies and eighties 💪 In this test the result will be decided 😁

[@SefaR_atoR]

Ну, с мотором результат мог быть не лучше: он бы просто пробил панель и зажал ноги водителя. Силовую часть каркаса в любом случае смяло бы почти так же.

[@jeffb9563]

​@@SefaR_atoRit was fabricated to crumble. Why?

[@HuckelberryFriend]

Even with the cons mentioned on some comments (the 59 car had rust and no engine, some cars are not as new as said, ecc), a frontal crash at 40 mph with another vehicle travelling at 40 mph too is like crashing against a wall at 80 mph (rust off your physics from High School). No matter how new or safe the car is, your chances to get hurt and/or die are pretty high.

[@ingerasulffs]

No, it's not. Energy increases with square of speed. The 80 mph collision has 2 times the energy of the 40 mph collision total.

[@HuckelberryFriend]

@@ingerasulffs true, I forgot that. It makes it even worse.

[@briansomething5987]

Yes, dust off your high school physics. What matters is force, and force is mass times acceleration, not speed. The acceleration can be determined from the initial speed and the distance it took to stop. If you are going to add their speeds together to get a total speed, you also must add their stopping distances together to get a total distance. The net result is that each car (assuming the cars are evenly matched) experiences the exact same force as if they drove into a wall at the same speed.

[@ingerasulffs]

@@briansomething5987 Deformable wall. If the wall is a concrete wall, it's worse.

[@HuckelberryFriend]

@@briansomething5987 You're right. And acceleration is m/s^2, so you need a change on the speed. No speed, no force. In case of a frontal crash the acceleration is negative. On the other hand... if the collision is frontal, how can you add the distance? Where can the objects go?

[@CaptainKedah]

Show Old Forks this Video who say Modern Cars are Junk ,they're made of Plastic vs their Generation of Cars made of Steel

[@CaptainKedah]

@@ChrisPatrick-q6k lol

[@melvinhunt6976]

We old folks could bump into a car, truck, Coca Cola machine with no damage! Try that with your new whatever! Other than that, this video is impressive.

[@melvinhunt6976]

@@ChrisPatrick-q6k Emissions? Please! It’s a Joke, Lie, Hoax ! Please!

[@jburner4299]

Yup 👆🏻. I had a 65 Bel Air 4 door. One day a brake line broke night before/while car was warming up in driveway. I put it in gear and it plowed over my fence and gate into the back yard before I could shut it off. It just had a small scratch on the fender from the latch on my other gate, but nothing else. Now...it don't look like id want to get in a crash in it. Kinda got me second guessing that wood steering wheel I got for my old Ford truck.

[@rickietatum4319]

some of us 'old forks🤣' understand all about crumple zones and safety cages.and it's 'folks' 😂🤣😂

[@venbas2]

The Jazz/Fit is an underrated legend 👏

[@mattwolf7698]

I wish they were still sold in the US

[@Francisco-j1e]

Newer cars are safer of course, but are also bigger. So testing a older corolla vs a new corolla is so different it would make more sense testing a older avensis vs new corolla. Also check that newer camry vs the newer yaris. The yaris was destroyed. Maybe try the 98 corolla vs the newer yaris, after all its more equivalent cars in size and weitgh. But as a general trend newer cars are safer. Still you dont want to be inside a smaller newer car if a '98 5 series plows into you

[@batsonelectronics]

the Honda Jazz ( Fit here in the USA ) is 2500 pounds. It still has a 5 star rating.

[@BoberMcBoberson]

Ok, I’m not saying that 50’s cars are safe by any stretch of the imagination, I mean they didn’t have seatbelts, and the dashboards of these cars, as beautiful as they were. Might as well have been cheese graters. BUT, the late 50s GM cars were especially bad. Because they used an X frame. Which was absolutely horrible for structural rigidity. So these particular cars would have been exceptionally bad in a crash, even for their time.

[@mauriciomonge5349]

And I swore that old cars were a thousand times stronger than news ones. In fact I considered them as disposable. Sorry news cars.

[@trm64]

Very interesting video that could be so much better if it contained descriptive analysis instead of obnoxious music.

[@oldbird-zm8qt]

Preach on. Agree 💯.

[@robertlawry434]

I'm pretty sure you can read full ANCAP reports if you're so inclined. Perhaps they also publish video's?

[@person.X.]

That Bel Air looks nice on the outside but it seems to be suffering from corrosion with the amount of rust particles blasting out the frame on impact.

[@rodshop5897]

@@ChrisPatrick-q6k " that's road dust, the car was left on display afterwards" Where did you hear that it was all road dust? Funny that much of it was the same color as rust.

[@GreatBirdOfHope]

​@@rodshop5897I saw that rust too right away. Seems like they repainted a rust bucket to sell new chevys "durability" compared to old. Flawed test

[@rodshop5897]

@@GreatBirdOfHope "repainted a rust bucket to sell new chevys "durability" compared to old." Well, I agree that it seems there was rust involved. However, I think it's a stretch to go so far as to say they repainted a rust bucket to sell Chevys. More like they found one of the few remaining cars of that make and model, and pretty much any of that age would be somewhat rusty unless it was a full restoration.

[@KDoyle4]

Any GM car with that X-frame will fold up like a five dollar suitcase in an offset head-on collision. I've read claims of rust, and I've read claims that it had no engine, but it was a structally solid example of a 6-cylinder 1959 Chevy. If you've ever witnessed a bad accident with an older car, a tremendous amount of road dirt gets expelled.

[@oldbuzzard76]

@@KDoyle4 You are exactly correct . Those making the goofy comments are young and unaware and they"' weren't there " back in the day . More than a few of my car buddies found out !

[@Voidthedominusguy]

old isnt always gold 0:36

[@davidh5429]

That ain't gold alright, that's rust on wheels. Look at it spewing rust.

[@a.j.s9013]

I feel these aren't real, old cars had full frames, they didn't crush like that.

[@emjayay]

You aren't an engineer or someone with any knowledge of the history of car structures and crash testing over the years, are you?

[@NonagonInfinity-zp3pq]

"Feel". There ya go.

[@brucebarker6272]

IMO, it's unfair to compare crash characteristics with truly old cars like that '59 Chevy. My daily driver is a 1958 Ford, and the biggest issue I encounter is with drivers themselves. Modern cars, with their crush zones and airbags, seem to provide many drivers the excuse to completely ignore basic rules like speed, signaling, and safe following & braking distances. Further, that old Chevy was already ancient when they crashed it; depending on where it was located throughout its life, it's at least reasonably likely that its structural integrity was nowhere near its as-new state. Final comment: none of the Mustangs at the end are real. Some sort of AI weirdness going on there, with oddly-shaped roofs and windows, incorrect badging, vague details on aftermarket wheels, inaccurate lighting fixtures, etc. Not sure why fake crashes would be included here.

[@Артем-д2и8е]

Ланжероны наверно гнилые в труху превратились)

[@rob5944]

I agree, modern cars certainly fill many drivers with a false sense of security. They throw all the benefits away by driving with impunity, and they're driving at you my friend. With respect, from what you day I'd take a long hard think.

[@jeffrobodine8579]

​@@rob5944Just like the SUV drivers with 4WD in a snow storm stuck in the ditch.

[@redtra236]

The good thing is your 58 ford is built with a much more rigid frame than the 59 chevy

[@teds7379]

A more rigid structure isn't going to do anything to help you other than transfer even more forces to your body instead of the cars structure. Your car doesn't even have seatbelts unless you've added them. You're safer than riding a motorcycle but that's about it. I'm sure it's beautiful though.

[@am_ma]

Ot is wierd that they rated the Rover 100 a single star it deserves ZERO stars.

[@hernantoro3898]

De todas las pruebas el impala es lejos el mas antiguo, las imágenes en camara lenta hacen ver mucho polvo de óxido en suspensión lo que delata un deterioro propio de su longevidad y ya es una desventaja que la tiene cualquier vehículo demasiado antiguo,peor aún en una prueba de esta magnitud,aparte de que el diseño estructural de antaño no visualisaba la seguridad con los estandares actuales,para mí éso es un punto que no dice toda la verdad u omite el comportamiento real como lo es un cero km o millas o un bastidor joven en mejor estado de conservación,lo del tsuru y el rover es mas evidente de que la marca tiene directa responzabilidad en las concecuencias por economía y costo final de producción, exponiendo gravemente a sus ocupantes. Exelente vídeo.

[@DopravniPoradce]

I always 🙄 when some old car enthusiast claims that bigger cars of old are safer. Don't get me wrong, I like old cars, I love old Volvos but compared to today's cars even then super safe Volvo like 740 is a dangerous paper box. Car's crash safety moved forward by heaps.

[@tommc3622]

They weren't safer when everyone was driving a 5000lb body on frame land yacht. But today, when everything around me is a rolling "crumple zone", my 5000lb body on frame car is a battleship. 1969 Mercury vs Honda Accord. Slow speed overlap head on. I crushed the Honda back until my front tire made contact with the Honda, at which point the Merc drove OVER the Honda's hood, crushing it further. It left on a flatbed. ... It threw my battery out of it's holder. Had to reconnect that. Then I drove home. Scraped my bumper a bit too. :(

[@JamesVivada]

If I can interject I'm a general motors mechanic it's all about the condition of your subframe, if your frame on your vehicle including the door panels of course, and you basically are looking for the weld spots when you are going under an older vehicle especially if you can take maybe a 5 lb hammer and slap very firmly you don't have to go crazy but just slap the frame? And you get a little bit of dust but it doesn't crush or crumple the metal you have a decent antique and I promise if that 59 Chevy was in mint condition and it was going in about 60 that Malibu would have been folded up like paper! Just thought I would throw down a little bit of advice I like older vehicles I worked on them for a long time! Before I started driving on my own and have had a family me and my wife we've had a 2006 Chevy suburban the last decent vehicle we had,And I also had the pleasure of working on a 1964 Chevy Impala 2-door just draining the oil and doing the spark plugs it was my pleasure it only took me 20 minutes to do it! It was a nice nice test drive it was one of the best cars I've ever driven and it was a mint condition, my father had a friend he was a mechanic 40 years, I thought it would be a nice idea when I was about 15 because I kept talking about wanting to do it for a career and he bought that over and said if you want to be able to work on cars do this job! I didn't really understand what he was talking about? At first why bring the 64 but he was pointing out all of the simple and practical facts about the original general motors V8 blocks, as well as having the pleasure of driving a 1989 Buick LeSabre estate station wagon for a little while unfortunately we had a few family emergencies and my dad was sick, with a mint condition frame, I hate to say this they overbuilt the Chevys, for a reason as well as your later model Buick to, I got to disagree as long as the subframe once again the framework is in mint condition it will stand the test of time but if it's not it will crumble up like that 59 Chevy, if you look and if you stop the video as soon as the impact happens you noticed all that powder those are rust particles, particles are flying everywhere, Leslie indicates to me that at 59 Chevy was long gone and the only painted it for the video, not trying to talk to anyone's ears off but the last vehicle me and my wife did have was a 2015 Chevy Malibu shoddy welding at best it was a very disappointing site for me, sometimes I get sentimental about the Chevrolet because not only was it one of the major companies and corporations have built this country? They used to take the time to make sure that our vehicles were safe in all situations in the Malibu LT I came back up from doing an inspection when we bought the car home and my wife asked me what was wrong? This Malibu 😅 that's what's wrong this f****** Malibu😂, it's not the original 1969 Chevy Malibu, put my wife liked it because it was nice and it was pretty decent for today's standards I'll give it that much and it did have a lot of punch under the hood for a little four banger.

[@tylerhamilton-nz8qs]

Well my 740 estate brushed off a big hit from a 2019 Mondeo just fine. Still running!

[@NikolaiVykhopen]

I want to say that this old car from 1985-1999 also has crumple zones, but these zones do nothing because the car body is weak. This means that the bodies of cars from the 2010s not only have crumple zones, but also a strong body.

[@Silverado2021]

I'm amazed with the first one......59 bel air vs the malibu

[@formatique_arschloch]

Older cars are very weak in crashes. It doesn't matter how much they weight or how thick their fenders are. The body and chassis are just death traps.

[@krazi77]

it was rigged to fold like that

[@tallpaul9475]

The old cars are at a HUGE disadvantage. I see rust flowing out of the first one, Impala, like a dust storm.

[@emjayay]

Not rust, just over half a century of dust.

[@Maximum_777]

No, not only are the ones being tested very clearly almost entirely rust free, rust doesn't change the fact that if you take the older cars and pick them up by a single wheel, simply lifting one wheel off the ground, leaving the 3 others touching the ground, the entire chassis bends A LOT under the force. Old cars are simple, they're a cool looking body on top of a steel ladder chassis and almost nothing else besides basic bracing intended really just to hold the things together. They are not "safe" by any means, and have next to no structure to their bodies, this is why in period, their crashes are even worse, and it's precisely why the amount of fatalities from accidents in period was WAY worse than it is today. Modern cars are unimaginably safer, and that first crash is a near perfect example of this, just look at how things bend and come apart, f it was a rust rotted car, it'd shatter like glass and you wouldn't see just a little dust, you'd watch the car explode into a mix of black and brown chips, which would coat the floor that color. That does not happen in that video, that car is very VERY clearly almost entirely rust free.

[@PJK-444]

To the people complaining about the Chevy not having an engine - it most likely minimized the destruction of the cab. Look how everything behind the dash moved forward. Now imagine an engine! The engine would have gone through the firewall and crushed whatever was left of the occupant(s). Modern cars are designed so the engine is pushed UNDER the cage in crash. Deflect what can't be absorbed in the crumple zones.

[@jeromevonloodwig5851]

That extra 700 pounds attached to the frame rails would’ve done some more damage to the Malibu

[@DmitriyT1000]

Любителям "лучше двадцатилетнюю таёту 11!!" посвящается😂

[@ЕвгенийКазанцев-н4ш]

Как человек разбившийся на двух машинах скажу,после дтп на 20 летней камри на скорости в 110 залетев под камаз, я вышел из машины с двумя царапинами и машина сама заехала на эвакуатор (хотя восстановлению не подлежала). И через год на скорости в 45км/ч на алмере 2015 при ударе в лоб с дэо нексия, как результат у меня сильнейшее сотрясение и внутренние ушибы. Старые машины надежнее. А тут они подозрительно разлетаются на части (даже салон). Возможно здесь не все так обьективно

[@DmitriyT1000]

@@ЕвгенийКазанцев-н4ш Я думаю ты прекрасно понял мой посыл. У меня одноклассник под КамАЗ заехал на гнилой старой восьмёрке, скорость не помню, отделался лёгким испугом, высморкав с утра кусок стекла из ноздрины.

[@janrdoh]

Smart 4 Two vs modern SUV would be something to see.

[@rob5944]

Not really fair, they're nuchal bigger.

[@mattwolf7698]

​@@rob5944I'd still say it's valid as they share the road

[@rob5944]

@@mattwolf7698 and there lies the key. Share the road and respect others, most of the accidents wouldn't happen in the first place. Drive at a safe seed and concentrate, nothing should interfere with it as the potential ramifications can obviously be dire.

[@krazi77]

they didn't want to send it through the roof of their facility. possibly into orbit

[@StatickyCat]

The '59 Bel-Air has the notorious X-frame - There is no framework directly in front of the front wheels, so in offset collisions, there is no impact absorption. It would have fared much better in a direct front-on collision for certain, and if this test were done to a unibody of the same era, the age discrepancy would have been much less substantial.

[@emjayay]

Incorrect. The X frame is like any other frame from behind the front wheels to the front of the car.

[@StatickyCat]

@@emjayay Then how else does a car’s crumple zone and safety cage work? 🤨

[@antoneelly9133]

Id put a roll cage in the old car to improve on strength

[@geniferteal4178]

Apparently road cages. Don't farewell in street cars. When the body impacts the bar, it doesn't go well. No helmet to protect your head. I've heard this from numerous E. M. S sources.

[@uncensored5104]

Every classic car owner should watch this, before they go out for a drive! I had a similar model to the Rover (MG Metro) years ago and had an offset head on, the steering wheel & column went through the windscreen and the pedals ended up near my knees! Luckily, I got out with just grazing on my legs.

[@e28forever30]

The 1997 rover 100 was in fact a heavy facelift of the early eighties Austin Metro, so it was already seriously dated by 1997.

[@jean-guybadiane]

Oui. Et le développement de l'Austin Metro date de 1977.

[@drewidrie2396]

7:22 You see? There's no protection in a DumbCar. The car may be "smart" because it's loaded with computer tech, but it's not a Smart Car. It's dumb to buy one!

[@raymondyeow2478]

I can't be the only one feeling extremely triggered at the sight of all those beautiful classics getting wrecked

[@tigerzero5216]

Imagine working there at IIHS. It's a short drive from where I live. I applied there for a tech job many years ago. Didn't make the cut. Interesting place to see in person. Most all of these clips were, in short, head on. They do have T-bone setups. The tracks are a lot shorter than you would expect. I bet they can accelerate that car up to speed faster than it can on it's own. All flammable fluids/objects have been removed from the cars. The place is bigger now. Huge canvas section bigger that the main building. No clue what is happening in there. Here's the funny part. They are located right next to a rock quarry, which sometime blasts the rocks out. I wonder if that blasting messes with their tests? Those blasts have messed with my drywall.

[@user-qc2cp6ks9m]

Bel Air vs Malibu fake because Bel Air without powertrain.

[@ChannelNotFound]

Also had the frame cut. It was originally pulled out of a Junkyard, and resprayed.

[@krazi77]

had some important bolts missing and the frame was cut and drilled so it would fold like that.

[@jburner4299]

X frame didn't help. I think it did have an engine. It was a straight 6 iirc, so the Malibu just passed it right on by.

[@MakoTheUndead]

I'd rather die horrifically in the old ones than be seen dead in the new ones. Old cars are just way cooler than any of the slop they've been making for the past 20 years.

[@kawaiijesus5987]

word

[@DTS1wastaken]

you pay attention to the WORST cars made in the past 20 years then

[@cipisekmanka3111]

less deformation zone space corelates with more Gs and more likelihood of death. These are modern cars, front engines and NO deformation zone. U are less likel to die in the old one.

[@CheapCheerful]

Darwin Award right here!

[@DJRavek]

Ok grandpa, it's past your bedtime

[@vexx5955]

Great video, keep up the great work ! Love the music used, finally no boring or annoying music.

[@bdavidson6444]

Interesting...but now it's time for me watch a watch a demolition derby.

[@willyappel7722]

These videos show what an amazing invention the airbag is.

[@kaischmidt8030]

I’ll still take the 59 Bel Air over the other cars in the video.

[@rob5944]

Just don't drive it whatever you do.

[@рулонобоев-о3п]

> old car vs new car crash test 7:22 2009 mercedes and 2009 smart so, which one is newer?

[@giuliopedrali4794]

The only quality of modern cars is safety

[@snowrocket]

They handle corners and bumps better, stop faster and more consistently, emit fewer emissions, and many are much faster. Better aerodynamics too and the newer cars don’t rust out as quickly.

[@giuliopedrali4794]

@@snowrocket Yes but now cars are all the same.

[@GeethaGeetha-wt9su]

Yes

[@javierfigueroab.4061]

Hagan está prueba con los autos electricos de todas las marcas

[@acceso_directo]

Bueno... Con lo de Tesla si fue canon...

[@61rampy65]

I noticed so many of these cars are not US spec. I also see that it seems like the seat belts seem to stretch about a foot, which still allows the driver to smash into the dash/steering wheel/ windshield. And whatever happened to collapsible steering columns? I saw a few columns get jammed right into the driver! (BTW the 59 Chevy had a one-piece shaft from the steering box [mounted ahead of the front axle centerline] all the way up to the steering wheel.) This is one of the main reasons collapsible columns were made standard from 67 onward.

[@starquestman1544]

All of my vehicles are old, but I feel like im able to see out of them easier. Ive driven newer vehicles and I can't stand the blind spots that the roof pillars have and the roofs that slope downward on the front and rear, creating an arch that blocks your view. I also feel too disconnected from the driving experience with how modern vehicles feel in terms of steering and pedal feel. I have never been in an accident and always drive defensively but ill never forget driving home one night when an vehicle coming towards me hit a full size pickup ahead of me and sent it flying off the road. The car swerved hard at the last second and hit the pickup head on so hard it flattened it up to the firewall. I new that had it been me in my late 80s compact 4x4 pickup that i would probably be dead.

[@ЮрийСалтыкарло]

Здоровья , долгих лет и благополучия семьям инженеров работающих над тем что бы очень большое количество людей оставались целыми и здоровыми . Результат их труда очевиден и понятен .

[@badgerbait8351]

Special note on the 1959 Bel Air: From 1958-64 Chevrolet used an "X" frame on all of their full sized cars, as did a few other GM cars such as the Cadillac. This allowed for more leg room as the floor pans could be lowered. But as illustrated in this vid, the car's integrity on impact was horrendous! This is why GM used an X frame model for this promo. As most of us more senior dudes are very much aware, most of the early iron would turn many of the new cars inside-out! But unfortunately, the occupants where like a something in a pinball machine!

[@Protoreon]

I immediately remember the adherents of the idea that - "Old cars to be better because they were made of thick metal, but now they are made as if from foil". Well, well. Old cars with thick body metal, which served only as a supporting structure, were not designed to withstand accidents. This video shows how old thick steel car bodies turn into deadly tin cans, randomly deforming and maiming or killing everyone inside.

[@denniscarroll7696]

Notice, not using any Imperials from 1968 to 1975, they would prevail every time.

[@jimmcclurg9885]

You know your car got a one star safety rating when the radio jumps to safety in a head on collision.

[@zsavage1820]

The 2 most important things I learned from this video .. DO NOT BUY EURO TRASH... Second. DO NOT BUY A GM,..

[@CatsMeowPaw]

"They don't build them like they used to!" Yes, I'm so thankful for that.

[@marksaunderson3042]

Ouch, someone just ruined a nice old car.

[@SavetheSheep]

Imagine reimagining old car designs to be safe and abide to new car safety technological requirements... How amazing would that be?

[@Sugurain]

I can see a lot of rust powder on the first crash test with the Bel air, this could mean the bel air was completely eaten by rust and had a fraction of the structural integrity it had when it was new.

[@emjayay]

It's not rust powder. It's a half century plus of dust. And the visible body of the car is rust free. The insurance institute was not trying to fool anyone.

[@Maximum_777]

I'm sorry but rust doesn't make the difference between the steering wheel staying in place like they do today because the column's are collapsible, vs ending up in the rear seats because it's a big chunk of steel tube (they're more complex than that but you get the point). Older cars were simply never engineered with crashing in mind to the degree that we engineer them today. That's why they're so simple underneath, and also why in period crashes were just as bad if not worse because the car hitting you was just as heavy. Just go look up pictures of car crashes from the period, or simply look at any automotive death statistics by year, older cars were never "safe" in the ways that newer cars are, there's not even an agrument to be had, they are objectively weaker and bendier in every single way you can imagine, the idea that old cars are "solid steel" and built like tanks is simply completely incorrect. The only cars this truly applies to is like Volvos and pretty much any older cars that did it first, and pioneered the safety standards we have in all cars today.

[@joumasepoes88]

I saw only 1 classic car and it performed EXACTLY like I thought it would. It’s amazing how some people think they are heavy and that they are more sturdy. They are light weight hollow shells rigidly mounted with Zero safety features. I’m a classic car guy and build hot rods but I am in no way disillusioned to what I’m driving

[@Matlaunn]

Losing rare care.. make me sad

[@janvang1050]

I would have loved to see a Volvo 240 against a modern Volvo!

[@RaymondKunkle-pk2sd]

Modern cars are built far better and safer than old cars.

[@jeepluv76]

Music is pretty chill.

[@magnamanv45]

There's no engine or wheel wells in the 59 Bel Air. that's why it crushed so easy. The metal on the Bel Air is three times the thickness of the Malibu. With that much damage, why didn't the engine end up in the front seat?

[@mikipari1]

and the frame was rusted to the bone...

[@marcushillerstrom25]

Sometimes I think about changing my Volvo V90 into something more “fun”. But then I watch videos like this and get remembered why I got it in the first place.

[@LITTLE1994]

The 1959 Bel Air crash wasn't quite fair, as the Chevrolets in that era had the infamous X-Frame design which was known to be bad even when it was new due to the sides having no reinforcement whatsoever. And the car itself, alongside rust, was found to have a Straight Six engine. That Bel Air was dead off the bat. Had it been a really large body-on-frame car from the 1970s, that classic would SMASH the '09 Malibu.

[@RockAnywayBand]

And you can tell by the dust the Bel Air is a very rusty one, not fair at all.

[@kevinW826]

Yeah no. Doesn’t matter what 70s car you bring to the table, they will all fold like paper houses. No crumple zones, no structural integrity for an offset crash test or head on crash test. Old cars are nice to look at but they would never survive any high speed crash.

[@formatique_arschloch]

No 70's land yacht would have a chance against a '09 car. Been a body tech for 27 years.

[@mikee2923]

⁠@@kevinW826 I wouldn’t be too sure. While the older cars lack crumple zone which absorb energy they were made of much thicker steel. Unitized cars count on the floor pans (sheet metal) for structural integrity with something resembling frame rails spot welded to it. Older cars with a full perimeter frame were constructed of much thicker steel. There’s a reason why trucks still use a full perimeter frame. Because it’s stronger than unitized construction. Also why trucks are safer than cars.

[@tommc3622]

I'm happy to drive my (rust free and structurally sound) 5000lb body on frame 1969 Mercury into your 2024 crumple zone. It's like a pillow.

[@taas1030]

The Jazz' A-pillars are strong.

[@ricardoriver3895]

Al Chevrolet 59 le cortaron el chasis y los componentes delanteros este video ya fue denunciado por información errónea

[@chorifome]

😂😂😂😂

[@765kvline]

Thank Ralph Nader and others like him.

[@gintarassalna4160]

New vs old ok.. nisan 2015 vs nisan 2016. ???? 1 year wtf??

[@gintarassalna4160]

And new vs old.. mercedes 2009 vs smart 2009 (0-o)

[@formatique_arschloch]

That 2015 Nissan is basically an early nineties model.

[@SurnaturalM]

The design was from the 90s.

[@mehdibashirinejad7798]

GREAT

[@philip4193]

The billowing orange-brown cloud of rust dust & particles pouring forwards from the rockers & underside of that '59 Chevy upon impact suggest the actual condition & structural integrity of the frame & body on that particular vehicle, and why it was evidently chosen for the crash test. That was certainly no collectible classic car as some here are suggesting, but rather a heavily rusted-out & rotted rolling shell from some junkyard that was hastily resprayed prior to the filming.

[@JimErvin-d2i]

Which would mean the test was rigged.

[@michaelbenardo5695]

I don't care how much safer the new cars are, I simply don't want a car that I can't work on myself and I simply don't want a Japanese car or a "Japanese type" car.

[@sonnylatchstring]

1:00 The panoramic A pillar of the old car is the weak spot.

[@jimmycline4778]

10:17 LOL 😏

[@ronaldkennedy3520]

They should get a 59 that not rusted out and fixed with Bondo you can't beat a older car or truck

[@htimsid]

Even when structurally intact a much older car will not perform well on those offset barrier crash tests.

[@althunder4269]

Those old X framed GM cars didn't do well in collisions.

[@emjayay]

@@althunder4269 The difference would be more in a side than a frontal crash.

[@Maximum_777]

Everyone hates on the Smart car, but all things considered, the integrity of that passenger compartment is shockingly good. Just look at all these larger older cars doing significantly worse, all these hits are also essentially the worst case scenario too, being head on and small overlap, meaning a lot of the time in a lot of scenarios, the cars are going to fair better, and although it obviously did worse than the Mercedes, that's probably the losing end of the collision with the highest chance of surviving out of what was shown here. Especially since it's meant to be a little city car as well, that thing's impressive. I wonder how a newer one would fair.

[@stv9906]

Hard to believe that new cars can be so strong, yet there have not been any demolition derbies in the past few dacades. On the contrary, these cars get totaled if you sneeze too hard in them...

[@joshruka4650]

They always put a x frame up against the new shit. Let's see that test with a 70 Newport.

[@auxmike718]

The 59 Belair used in that test had no motor!

[@RAS4915]

WRONG at 1:16 you can see part of the engine flying out of it Sorry but cars in the late 50's were not designed to pass a crash test

[@berkyuksel3226]

That slow mo flying Mercedes logo was crazy 😂

[@thais1964]

Why destroy so beauty cars? It’s obvious what can happen

[@AlexEssex8]

I think the Smart car did very well bearing in mind how much smaller than the C-Class is was!

[@Schaufelor]

I thought the same. The greenhouse was still intact despite the super short front.

[@jeromevonloodwig5851]

I agree too. The passenger compartment held up well

[@BenefilmsKa-ks2br]

in the bel air the engine was missing, but in the malibu not,so this ctash test is actually a scam

[@АлександрВ-м9к]

если бы там был двигатель, бельэйр бы малибу в салон заехал.

[@AUTOHAUSEUROPA]

how do you know ?

[@emjayay]

They put the crashed Chevy on display in their lobby. They had no incentive to cheat. This is a stupid conspiracy theory.

[@chorifome]

😂😂😂😂😂