Video: 2009 Chevy Malibu in an offset crash test against a 1959 Chevy Bel Air

[cpzilliacus]

"They don't build them like they used to."  And in my opinion, the 1959 full-size Chevys were remarkably ugly automobiles anyway (the 1955 through 1957 Chevys were great, as were the 1962 through 1969 models).

[nexus73]

I guess I'll use new Malibus for demo derby.  That will get rid of another appliancemobile and I'll be walking away without a scratch...LOL!

Rick

[bugo]

This video is highly offensive to me.  They ruined a classic just to prove a stupid point.  I'd rather see a snuff video than this shit.  And this is not hyperbole.

[cpzilliacus]

I guess I'll use new Malibus for demo derby.

The Metropolitan Police Department (the municipal police of the District of Columbia) have put quite a few Malibus to good use in that manner (I drive by the department's vehicle shop somewhat frequently, and there is usually an impressive collection of wrecked police cars on display behind the  fence).

That will get rid of another appliancemobile and I'll be walking away without a scratch.

In my opinion, both of the cars in this test wreck are rather ugly, but given a choice, I'll take the Malibu.

Now if they had chosen to use a 1956 Bel Air (or actually any Bel Air from its first year in 1950 through 1957), that would have been offensive.

A colleague of mine was at the Mecum auto auction in Florida recently (no, he did not purchase anything), but he came back with several images of gorgeous 1962 Bel Airs with the 409 cid V8 engine under the hood (true "sleeper" cars).

[bugo]

The '59 Chevy was a beautiful car, with radical, sporty styling.  It wasn't uglier than the '55-57, just different.

[cpzilliacus]

The '59 Chevy was a beautiful car, with radical, sporty styling.  It wasn't uglier than the '55-57, just different.

I strongly disagree.  Most of the 1958 and 1959 GM cars were, in my opinion, plug ugly, and the Bel Air was (again, IMO) especially hideous. 

The 1950's cars up to 1957 were much nicer looking, as were the early 1960's cars.

Case in point - the 1959 Cadillac, with the massive tailfins, was gaudy ugly. 

By 1961, the tailfins had gotten smaller, but much better scaled to the rest of the car, giving those big cars a sleek and dignified look (I love the styling of any 1961 through 1964 Caddy).

[corco]

I do wonder about corrosion and things like that- where did this 59 Belair come from? If it's a fifty year old car and it's been driven and used and exposed to the elements, it's not going to be as rock solid as it was when it was new. That plume of brown stuff suggests rust to me.

If it's a 59 Belair in showroom condition, then wait why did we just destroy a 59 Belair in good shape for no reason?

I mean, obviously I'd take the Malibu any day for safety, but I wonder how bad it would actually be.

[Stephane Dumas]

I strongly disagree.  Most of the 1958 and 1959 GM cars were, in my opinion, plug ugly, and the Bel Air was (again, IMO) especially hideous. 

The 1959 GM was originally planned to be reskinned and overchromed 1958 and some folks think then Harley Earl beginned to lose its touch. Some GM stylists like Chuck Jordan and Bill Mitchell saw thru a fence the new 1957 Chrysler-Dodge-Plymouth-DeSoto-Imperial and decided to go back to the drawing boards and do new clay models whol evolved as the 1959 we knew currently.  I spotted some scans of some ideas who didn't go further then the clay model, Hemmings posted some scans of proposed clay models from a old magazine.
http://blog.hemmings.com/index.php/2012/07/15/sia-flashback-gms-far-out-59s-when-imagination-ran-rampant-part-i/
http://blog.hemmings.com/index.php/2012/07/22/sia-flashback-gms-far-out-59s-when-imagination-ran-rampant-part-ii/

[cpzilliacus]

I strongly disagree.  Most of the 1958 and 1959 GM cars were, in my opinion, plug ugly, and the Bel Air was (again, IMO) especially hideous. 

The 1959 GM was originally planned to be reskinned and overchromed 1958 and some folks think then Harley Earl beginned to lose its touch. Some GM stylists like Chuck Jordan and Bill Mitchell saw thru a fence the new 1957 Chrysler-Dodge-Plymouth-DeSoto-Imperial and decided to go back to the drawing boards and do new clay models whol evolved as the 1959 we knew currently.  I spotted some scans of some ideas who didn't go further then the clay model, Hemmings posted some scans of proposed clay models from a old magazine.
http://blog.hemmings.com/index.php/2012/07/15/sia-flashback-gms-far-out-59s-when-imagination-ran-rampant-part-i/
http://blog.hemmings.com/index.php/2012/07/22/sia-flashback-gms-far-out-59s-when-imagination-ran-rampant-part-ii/

This is very  interesting.  I am reasonably familiar with these vehicles, but did not know their origin in terms of styling.

It is true that many of the 1959 GM cars shared the same windshield and frames, as these articles point out.

But I never liked the styling of any of them (and the 1959 Mopar offerings were not that much better).

[Duke87]

Now this is a story all about how
I crushed a classic upside-down
I'd like to take a minute, just sit right there
I'll tell you how I destroyed a car called Bel Air

[Molandfreak]

This crash test reminds me of a project my brother made a few years back, with the first crash dummies

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6_Sq7ljKKY

[nexus73]

1958 Impalas and Bonnevilles looked good to me.  That was a standalone year.

For 1959 I liked the Olds and Pontiac styles more than the 1960 ones while preferring the 1960 Chevy and Buick to the 1959's.  Cadillac's iconic 1959 was the ultimate batmobile but I believe Cadillac did better in 1965-66 when they went full modern contemporary in style and going back, the look from 1948 to 1956 was classic elegance befitting a luxury marque.

Rick

[cpzilliacus]

1958 Impalas and Bonnevilles looked good to me.  That was a standalone year.

I disagree regarding the Chevys.  1955 through 1957 were much nicer looking than the 1958s.

For 1959 I liked the Olds and Pontiac styles more than the 1960 ones while preferring the 1960 Chevy and Buick to the 1959's.  Cadillac's iconic 1959 was the ultimate batmobile but I believe Cadillac did better in 1965-66 when they went full modern contemporary in style and going back, the look from 1948 to 1956 was classic elegance befitting a luxury marque.

Rick

In 1959, the Chevys were the worst - IMO, hideously ugly, and a big drop off from the great styling of the 1955 through 1957's.  The 1959 Buicks and Oldsmobiles were better, but I intensely dislike the '59 Cadillacs (almost as much as the Chevys).  By 1961, the entire GM fleet looked better, especially the Cadillacs.

Agreed regarding the 1948 through 1956 or even 1957 Cadillacs (the tailfins on the '57s were relatively small) - those years were nice looking automobiles.

[cpzilliacus]

I do wonder about corrosion and things like that- where did this 59 Belair come from? If it's a fifty year old car and it's been driven and used and exposed to the elements, it's not going to be as rock solid as it was when it was new. That plume of brown stuff suggests rust to me.

That is an excellent observation.  Though the frame appeared to be sound.

If it's a 59 Belair in showroom condition, then wait why did we just destroy a 59 Belair in good shape for no reason?

I mean, obviously I'd take the Malibu any day for safety, but I wonder how bad it would actually be.

Because the 1959 Bel Air is one of the ugliest cars ever built by General Motors?

Those cars were not engineered to protect their occupants like current cars are.  I am not certain that a brand-new, kept in isolation 1959 Chevy  would have fared any better.

[NJRoadfan]

Keep in mind that the car used was a 4-door. They aren't all that sought out by collectors and usually have a much lower resale value then a 2-door or convertible example.

[seicer]

All the more reason for me not to invest in an antique automobile. As much as I admire them from a distance, I prefer a safe (yet fun) vehicle over something that is a death trap at any high speed. (IMO)