They don't build 'em like they used to......THANK GOD!!!

[malthumb]

How many times has someone older than you said something to the effect of "I don't trust these new cars. They're made too flimsy" or "If I'm ever in an accident, I'd want to be driving one of the older cars. They were built tougher."

Well, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, which was started in 1959, recently celebrated their 50th anniversary by doing a head-on crash test of a 1959 Chevrolet Belair with a 2009 Chevrolet Malibu.

Some of the findings....(the text is from several reviews of the test that I've come across)

A video produced by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety shows a 1959 Chevrolet Bel Air hurtling into a collision with a 2009 Malibu at 40mph. The outcome wasn't pretty. The driver of the Bel Air would be close to dead, while the driver of the Chevy, may have walked away.


As this video illustrates, automotive safety has improved dramatically in the past five decades. The 2009 Chevrolet Malibu has as standard equipment: antilock brakes, stability control, occupant-sensing front air bags, and side air bags. Beyond the safety gear, advancements in vehicle engineering give the Malibu a clear advantage in this match up. In IIHS front- and side-crash tests, it earns the highest rating of Good. Likewise, in National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) tests, it earns top marks. (In the government rollover test, it was rated better than average.) While classic cars are often considered to be rock solid, this '59 demonstrates how much better today's cars are. And the IIHS has played a key role in driving these advancements.





See the video and the whole story here....

http://blogs.consumerreports.org/car...-bel-air-.html

My wife drives a 2009 Malibu, so I feel pretty good about this.

Peace,

James

[LAG]

Wow!

What a car - the new Malibu that is.

edit: I bought a 2009 Malibu for my wife also about a month ago.

[UnsungZeros]

Wow, that's quite remarkable. I've definitely heard lots of older folks go on about the quality of newer vehicles as well. They get a dent in one of their panels and they feel like they'll never live in a crash. When I try to explain that's actually a good thing for them safety wise, it always falls on deaf ears. I'd definitely rather have my front end crumple up than have the engine block propelled into the passenger compartment.

[DerHoggz]

Pwnt.

[MatticusMania]

If a new car built by my company leaves Chicago traveling west at 60 miles per hour, and the rear differential locks up, and the car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside, does my company initiate a recall?
You take the population of vehicles in the field (A) and multiply it by the probable rate of failure (B), then multiply the result by the average cost of an out-of-court settlement (C).

A times B times C equals X. This is what it will cost if we don't initiate a recall.

If X is greater than the cost of a recall, we recall the cars and no one gets hurt.

If X is less than the cost of a recall, then we don't recall.

[hover]

Originally Posted by MatticusMania

If a new car built by my company leaves Chicago traveling west at 60 miles per hour, and the rear differential locks up, and the car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside, does my company initiate a recall?
You take the population of vehicles in the field (A) and multiply it by the probable rate of failure (B), then multiply the result by the average cost of an out-of-court settlement (C).

A times B times C equals X. This is what it will cost if we don't initiate a recall.

If X is greater than the cost of a recall, we recall the cars and no one gets hurt.

If X is less than the cost of a recall, then we don't recall.

Tho I know where this comes from, what does it have to do with the thread?

[Pilgrim]

New cars are simply made better and to much closer tolerances than older ones. When I was a kid, if you got 100K miles out of a car it was either DONE or ready for a major engine rebuild. Now you can buy any car that has been well cared for and drive it to 150-200K miles. Doesn't matter whether foreign or domestic, they can all do it with regular maintenance and some repairs.

I love old cars, but I'm under no illusions as to their safety or engineering. Both are considerably better in new cars.

[Valerus]

Holy crap. That is insane!

[popinfresh]

I cry (figuratively) every time I see that video. Nice Bel Air.

Whilst I have no doubt at all how far safety has come in the Automotive industry (though at times slow IMO), the car forums I go on do ask the question if 50 years worth of driving stresses changed the results at all, and what condition the Bel was in (such as rust in chassis rails etc, you never know). Mainly just out of interest if it was a brand new Bel Air off the line and a brand new Malibu, if the results would be any different. Of course the Bel would still have come out much worse though.

I'd much rather be in the Malibu than the Bel Air in any accident though. Notice the A pillar on the Bel Air, whilst it was the style at the time for many cars, look how quickly it bends back and folds inwards, massive design flaw.

I must say, I haven't owned a car any newer than '86, and any accident I have been in the other car has come out worse. Namely the two in my old panel van which was rear ended. My van suffered bent in doors and damage to the bumpers, but the other cars (both after 1995) both had their front ends pushed right back and were write offs.

You can get some nasty modern cars as well, all I'm saying.

[popinfresh]

Originally Posted by Pilgrim

New cars are simply made better and to much closer tolerances than older ones. When I was a kid, if you got 100K miles out of a car it was either DONE or ready for a major engine rebuild. Now you can buy any car that has been well cared for and drive it to 150-200K miles. Doesn't matter whether foreign or domestic, they can all do it with regular maintenance and some repairs.

I love old cars, but I'm under no illusions as to their safety or engineering. Both are considerably better in new cars.

Eh, I wouldn't go that far with the engineering. We generally either own classics/projects or brand new cars in the family. The old birds are looked after by us, and new cars are taken to mechanics.

My '68 was my daily driver before I came to Canada and never once had issues with it other than needing an oil change or spark plug. Our new Falcon was in for service every month, the Lancer in a couple times for problems they couldn't fix (no one seems to know with computers these days), and the work Commodore was nearly (literally) off the road more than it was on.

Safety wise though I'd much rather be in a car with a cell and airbags (especially curtain).

[UnsungZeros]

Originally Posted by popinfresh

I must say, I haven't owned a car any newer than '86, and any accident I have been in the other car has come out worse. Namely the two in my old panel van which was rear ended. My van suffered bent in doors and damage to the bumpers, but the other cars (both after 1995) both had their front ends pushed right back and were write offs.

You can get some nasty modern cars as well, all I'm saying.

That's because newer cars are designed to do that. The focus is on occupant safety, not on body integrity.

[popinfresh]

Originally Posted by UnsungZeros

That's because newer cars are designed to do that. The focus is on occupant safety, not on body integrity.

In a 1995 Focus? No, they're just rubbish cars. Most 90's cars are. The other that hit me from behind was in a fairly new (looked around 02) Civic. I wouldn't like to have been in that car in the time of the accident though.

In modern cars now, yes I know how they work and thankful for it. I think a lot of the 'don't build them like they used to' comes from a lot of 80's/90's models auto's that were simply plastic pieces of junk.

[Simo98]

That outcome surprised me a bit, however the 1959 model was likely subject to alot of wear and tear, i have no sound here at work so i dont know if they mentioned that in the video.

id have expected the older car to stay more rigid as compared to the newer one, which would be designed to crumple under impact to reduce force on the driver.

not to mention the 59 belair doesn't have seatbelts, you never know, maybe the driver would have escaped safely through the windscreen to land in a pool or truck of pillows

[Steveaux]

Originally Posted by popinfresh

In a 1995 Focus?

The Focus was introduced to North America in 1999.

[Mike N]

What a waste of a 59 Bel Air.

[LCW]

Originally Posted by Steveaux

The Focus was introduced to North America in 1999.

yep , maybe he was thinking of an escort , both crap cars.

That kinda sucks to destroy an old car , but oh well. I would love that job smashing stuff all day

[popinfresh]

Originally Posted by Steveaux

The Focus was introduced to North America in 1999.

Brain fart, Laser. I'm Australian anyway

[UnsungZeros]

Originally Posted by popinfresh

I think a lot of the 'don't build them like they used to' comes from a lot of 80's/90's models auto's that were simply plastic pieces of junk.

Good point.

[L-A]

I'd like to point out that doing this video with a Volvo instead of the Bel-Air would have not been as impressive.


EDIT: And "don't build them like they used to" comes from the introduction of K-cars and punched steel frames

[Mike N]

Originally Posted by LCW

yep , maybe he was thinking of an escort , both crap cars.

I'd take an Escort over a Focus all day long.