You've probably heard the old adage "they don't make 'em like the used to" applied to cars, especially from Americans (my favourite example being a scene in Back to the Future but I've heard it spouted in real life too). However much car safety progresses some folk still seem to be under the impression that "back in the day" cars were just made of sturdier stuff...

Well to mark their 50th anniversary the IIHS (The less thorough version of NCAP they have across the pond) decided to do a "then and now" impact test with a '59 Chevy Bel-Air (architypal old american steel land-barge) and an '09 Chevy Malibu (essentially a last generation Vauxhall Vectra only less good looking) the results are pretty conclusive: 2009 meets 1959 (link goes to the full NY Times article, if you just want to watch the carnage here's a standalone YouTube link )

still, doesnt look as bad a a seicento lol

Funnily enough, a friend of mine was crashed into at speed while driving her Seicento a couple of years back, and she walked away from it uninjured. Emergency services on the scene told her if she'd been driving a different car she "might not have been so lucky"!



I was baffled, because they've never seemed particularly safe to me but that's a true story. She bought another Seicento because she felt safe in 'em!

Just goes to show I guess...

im confused, its marked up as a 59 Chevy Bel Air, but that car is clearly an Impala?

i dont really see the point in this test to be fair, i mean after 50 years of wear and rust, any car will fair worse in an accident.

granted it is to show the strength of the new car, but why not test it against something else new?

not terribly likely you are going to have a crash with a 59 anyway, most are sat in garages being polished.

the impala is a stunning car to look at, if you ever saw the Boyd Coddington 'Ghetto Princess' you will know what i mean.

drool away

dare ya to try one out

http://www.euroncap.com/tests/fiat_seicento_2000/73.aspx

Oh don't get me wrong, I've seen the stats too and wasn't saying for a second that they're exceptionally even moderately safe cars...

The fact remains though that a close friend's personal, first hand experience runs directly contrary to all that second hand data... which kinda makes you think.

Really? How do you tell 'em apart? see below

The '59 Bel-Air looks like the car in the video to me... it's a four door the Impala's a two door

hmmm interesting, i have to confess i'm not sure on this, but the Bel Air tag i think was a 'type' of model available - much like say a Golf GTI or similar as opposed to a Golf Driver etc etc.

however, as you have posted wikipedia does have them listed together, with the model versions being the 150 and 210 onwards.

im way too young to remember any of them so i'm not sure, but i am 100% sure the car in the clip is an Impala, Bel Air or not!

my 1997 bmw m3 ncap
now i would feel alot safer in that in a front end crash than the siecento but apparently ncap's dont lie

because that kinda misses the point of trying to show how much safer a new car is vs an old car-doh

yeah of course, but in the real world, you hardly ever see many older cars now.

think about it, when was the last time you saw an old nova or something like that?

especially a 50 year old car!

interesting to read some of the comments in the NY times bit, suggesting that the Chevy didnt have an engine in it...
i would imagine a big V8 lump wouldnt have crumbled as quickly...

I saw a nova tidal unfortunately.
I originally thought the old car didn't have an engine in but it's likely it was just pushed back into the drivers compartment.the test was done to show how modern cars are designed to crumple rather than fold.
it's estimated there are well over 10,000 cars still in circulation that are over 50years old in this country

i counted 6 novas tonight... but i do live in essex lol

the other week at castle combe, and they tend to be fast