1959 Impala vs 2009 Malibu

[lazarat]

If this is well known or posted before, please forgive. Somewhat of a suprise to a lot of people though. I did recently install seatbelts...not that it will help much.

1959 Impala vs 2009 Malibu

 

[05snopro440]

If this is well known or posted before, please forgive. Somewhat of a suprise to a lot of people though. I did recently install seatbelts...not that it will help much.

1959 Impala vs 2009 Malibu

I've personally seen it a lot. A lot of people have the misconception that big heavy old american cars are better in collisions because they're made of thicker steel in the panels and they had body-on-frame construction and felt more robust. This test really highlights that new cars are designed to absorb the impact, so that less of it is transferred to the occupant. In vintage cars, the occupant absorbs the impact.

I love my vintage cars but I'm under no illusion that it will protect me in a collision, no matter how much safety equipment is retrofitted in. This is why it's even more important to drive defensively when driving a vintage car!

 

[Tripper]

I love my vintage cars but I'm under no illusion that it will protect me in a collision, no matter how much safety equipment is retrofitted in. This is why it's even more important to drive defensively when driving a vintage car!

Just like driving a motorcycle... you have to act like everyone on the road is trying to kill you! Friend of mine in his 30's was killed on his bike by a young woman taking on her cell phone!

BoB

 

[Bamamav]

The problem with this test was the car they used, a X frame GM. If a car with a normal perimeter frame had been used the result would have been different. It is a well know fact that the X frame cars didn’t do as well in crashes as cars with perimeter frames. This car was chosen to skew the results in their favor more than they would have been. The old thinking was to survive the impact with strength where current thinking is to absorb the impact, two different ways to protect the occupants. Try that same test with a big Lincoln or Chrysler and the results would be far different. Not saying nobody would have gotten injured, just not as badly as those in the X frame would have.

GM used the X frames from 59-64.

 

[05snopro440]

Just like driving a motorcycle... you have to act like everyone on the road is trying to kill you! Friend of mine in his 30's was killed on his bike by a young woman taking on her cell phone!

BoB

Absolutely. It's why I don't own a motorcycle.

 

[animal]

The problem with this test was the car they used, a X frame GM. If a car with a normal perimeter frame had been used the result would have been different. It is a well know fact that the X frame cars didn’t do as well in crashes as cars with perimeter frames. This car was chosen to skew the results in their favor more than they would have been. The old thinking was to survive the impact with strength where current thinking is to absorb the impact, two different ways to protect the occupants. Try that same test with a big Lincoln or Chrysler and the results would be far different. Not saying nobody would have gotten injured, just not as badly as those in the X frame would have.

GM used the X frames from 59-64.

Exactly! I've been making that point for years about this "test". They used an X-frame car on purpose to skew the results. Those things were horrible...I know, because I tried to race one on oval tracks. You couldn't get enough bracing to make that frame quit twisting.

 

[05snopro440]

The problem with this test was the car they used, a X frame GM. If a car with a normal perimeter frame had been used the result would have been different. It is a well know fact that the X frame cars didn’t do as well in crashes as cars with perimeter frames. This car was chosen to skew the results in their favor more than they would have been. The old thinking was to survive the impact with strength where current thinking is to absorb the impact, two different ways to protect the occupants. Try that same test with a big Lincoln or Chrysler and the results would be far different. Not saying nobody would have gotten injured, just not as badly as those in the X frame would have.

GM used the X frames from 59-64.

They used them up to 1970 in the Riviera as well.

You're right that the X frames are worse. In any case the newer car and its occupants still would have fared better than something 50 years older from any make.

 

[lazarat]

Someone I showed that too was surprised but did mention the X frame. When I removed my front bumper I checked the laws here in Florida and found I was exempt.

There was a time when you could not remove bumpers but now they make exceptions for certain years as well as hot rods. I was told it is because there is no crash data on the older cars, and I don't think bumpers would make a difference anyway.

 

[Bamamav]

Exactly! I've been making that point for years about this "test". They used an X-frame car on purpose to skew the results. Those things were horrible...I know, because I tried to race one on oval tracks. You couldn't get enough bracing to make that frame quit twisting.

Animal, there is at least one, maybe more, clips on YouTube of a 60 or 61 Chevy drag car, a black Impala I think. When that car leaves the line, it torque twists, the left front tire comes about 3 foot off the ground and the other three tires stay flat on the ground! It’s crazy how much that car twists!

 

[animal]

Animal, there is at least one, maybe more, clips on YouTube of a 60 or 61 Chevy drag car, a black Impala I think. When that car leaves the line, it torque twists, the left front tire comes about 3 foot off the ground and the other three tires stay flat on the ground! It’s crazy how much that car twists!

I've seen that video, and the first thing I said the first time I watched it was along the lines of "Stupid X-frame".

 

[Gastrick]

Animal, there is at least one, maybe more, clips on YouTube of a 60 or 61 Chevy drag car, a black Impala I think. When that car leaves the line, it torque twists, the left front tire comes about 3 foot off the ground and the other three tires stay flat on the ground! It’s crazy how much that car twists!

 

[Bamamav]

That’s the one![cl

How ya doing Gastrick?

 

[Gastrick]

I’m handicapped but getting better and living on my own in my own house By myself which was not expected.I’ve got a killer project in the works and my old coupe It’s still alive and kicking. And yes, I still have pictures of every possible thing ha ha. That’s a 1960. I had a 62 impala so I know most of the X frame cars

 

[Gastrick]

I met Lamar Walden With his worlds fastest 409 at an old super Chevy show because the magazines were photographing One of my cars at the same time. Can’t post it here but the slickest X-frame Chevy I’ve ever seen in person was troy trepineas seafoam 1960 Pro street. The detail was incredible

 

[forbigpicture]

 

[BlueNorther]

sorry, but that's not frame twist, the body is straight as can be, if it was frame twist the back would be more level. we can see the full roll cage through the windshield, it should be mounted to outriggers, and the out riggers would be tied to the inner rockers, the roll cage is stopping most of the frame twist.

it's the lack of a properly adjusted three link set up, the right rear tire is flattened out until the rim is almost touching the pavement, and the tire is pushed way up in the wheel well with the shock almost totally collapsed, and the left rear tire is almost off the ground because the shock is at full extension. the rocker panel on the left side must be higher than the top of the tire, while the right side is almost touching the pavement.

an anti-roll bar in the rear would be the first addition I would make, or better yet a fourth link. also the car is begging for a little heavier springs in the rear.

and if I'm wrong and it has a 4-link set up, somebody needs to learn suspension set up.

 

[forbigpicture]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_tHAHb8Y2U

 

[05snopro440]

sorry, but that's not frame twist, the body is straight as can be, if it was frame twist the back would be more level. we can see the full roll cage through the windshield, it should be mounted to outriggers, and the out riggers would be tied to the inner rockers, the roll cage is stopping most of the frame twist.

it's the lack of a properly adjusted three link set up, the right rear tire is flattened out until the rim is almost touching the pavement, and the tire is pushed way up in the wheel well with the shock almost totally collapsed, and the left rear tire is almost off the ground because the shock is at full extension. the rocker panel on the left side must be higher than the top of the tire, while the right side is almost touching the pavement.

an anti-roll bar in the rear would be the first addition I would make, or better yet a fourth link. also the car is begging for a little heavier springs in the rear.

and if I'm wrong and it has a 4-link set up, somebody needs to learn suspension set up.

Thank you, I looked at it the other day and didn't think it was frame twist either. While the X frames aren't the best, if they could twist that bad you wouldn't be able to drive it.

 

[Bamamav]

I think they were more prone to body twist than frame twist. The body strength was supposed to be in the rockers, if it was weak there it could let the body twist around the frame which ran down the center of the car.

 

[Dr Crankenstein]

I completely agree with BlueNorther.

I suspect it's a four link car, set (on purpose) to leave like that. I also suspect in the frame below (borrowed from fbp's video) he broke his diagonal link...

Some people live for drama, attention and "shocking" viral videos, while most racers live for consistency and round wins. Somewhere in the middle, there are (or were) lunatics like my good friend pictured here...

In my eye, the altered is getting out of the hole exactly like the big Bel Air. The little altered is stiff as a fence post and it could leave square and "flat", but the four link is set to add some excitement to an otherwise "boring" run. (His words, not mine.)

.