1959 Chevrolet Bel Air Vs. 2009 Chevrolet Malibu — Detroit “Iron” Challenge Video

By Thursday September 17, 2009



40 Comments
  1. Ralph, the Bus Driver says:
    9/18/2009 at 2:54 am

    While in this video we see the improvement automobiles have made, they are by no means alone. They use a fraction of the fuel and emit even less pollutants.

    Airplanes can travel much further on the same fuel, much safer, with many more passengers. So what if the steward isn’t as pretty.

    Microwave ovens will do much more than burn your roast on the outside while leaving it raw inside in only a fraction of the time it takes in a conventional oven. They also cost about 1/100 the price.

    Not nearly as many babies are suffocating by getting their heads caught in the crib bars.

    Fewer people die every year from food contamination than in the past.

    Almost every home appliance uses less energy and lasts longer.

    And we don’t legislate that blacks must sit at the back of the bus.

    Reply
  2. Olo Baggins of Bywater says:
    9/18/2009 at 4:05 am

    I noticed a brown cloud coming out of that wreck. Would that be rust dust? Maybe that old beast’s frame was half gone already.

    Reply
  3. pedro says:
    9/18/2009 at 4:11 am

    #17 And your point is?

    Reply
  4. badtimes says:
    9/18/2009 at 5:20 am

    #20- so right. Not to mention improved reliability. I sure don’t miss having to set the points every 10-15K miles. As for pollutants- look at pix of LA from the 60s vs. today and compare the number of cars on the road. It is amazing. But as #2 noted- only after much bitching and moaning from the mfrs.
    #10- I think WW2 had more to do with the state of the world in ’59. If the American auto industry had listened to Deming, Japanese cars would still be an also-ran.

    Reply
  5. Benjamin says:
    9/18/2009 at 5:22 am

    The video made me want to cry. That is no way to treat a 1959 Chevy Bel Air.

    Reply
  6. LibertyLover says:
    9/18/2009 at 5:24 am

    Personally, I like my airbags, anti-lock brakes, AC, power windows and seats, and quieter road noise.

    I had one of those old beasts and I don’t miss it.

    Reply
  7. noname says:
    9/18/2009 at 5:40 am

    # 22 pedro,

    #17 And your point is?

    And what was your point, oh pointless one?

    Reply
  8. sargasso says:
    9/18/2009 at 6:16 am

    Old cars, are like old women. They drink, fume, leak, are heavy and loud, impossible to insure, and kill everyone within 15 feet when they crash.

    Reply
  9. jccalhoun says:
    9/18/2009 at 6:33 am

    Pretty interesting video. Old cars may look nice but they are for looking at only. they are death traps.

    Reply
  10. Mr. Fusion says:
    9/18/2009 at 7:03 am

    #26, noname,

    His point is required to keep his hat on.

    Reply
  11. Oliver says:
    9/18/2009 at 7:05 am

    But one would have looked so much cooler dying in the Bel Air compared to someone dying in that Malibu.

    Reply
  12. Misanthropic Scott says:
    9/18/2009 at 7:53 am

    This might have gone a lot worse for the new vehicle if AAA had gotten their way when they lobbied heavily against seatbelts in the 60s and against air bags in the 80s.

    Still though, older cars were designed to stay in tact in a crash. Newer cars are designed to keep their occupants in tact in a crash. There is a big difference between those goals.

    Reply
  13. wh1212 says:
    9/18/2009 at 8:43 am

    There was no engine, in the Bel Air,also part of the front frame is missing.

    Reply
  14. Rabble Rouser says:
    9/18/2009 at 10:51 am

    Thank the gods that they DON’T make ‘em like they used to.

    I used to have to do some sort of repairs on my old ’64 Nova at least once a week. Fast forward to today, and my 2000 Grand Am, with 140k on it needs little maintenance. Just oil changes, and other routine stuff.

    Not only are today’s cars safer, but they are much more reliable than the oldies.

    Reply
  15. Misanthropic Scott says:
    9/18/2009 at 11:08 am

    #34 – RR,

    Good point. When was the last time anyone saw a car attempt to start out from a light and stall? I don’t think I’ve seen that in years, though it was once reasonably commonplace.

    Reply
  16. Mr. Fusion says:
    9/18/2009 at 12:30 pm

    #33

    The engine is in the front passenger seat and the frame is doing this “pretzel” thing.

    Reply
  17. jescott418 says:
    9/18/2009 at 1:02 pm

    Truly amazing! I never would have believed it unless I saw it. Who cares about the old 59! It just another example of how America was at the top of its game and lost it. How many years did it take them to get it right? Or at least close to right? So will GM see these cars on ebay too? How about Craig’s list next GM? I really don’t know if I should be impressed with todays car, or disappointed in what GM was making in 59′?

    Reply
  18. TheCommodore says:
    9/18/2009 at 6:30 pm

    Funny, somehow I expected the 59 to flatten the 09. It didn’t hold up at all; why is everyone saying the car was designed to survive at the cost of the passengers? The 59 can’t be saved without basically rebuilding it. I’m sure the 09 would never get rebuilt. Bu

    Reply
  19. Misanthropic Scott says:
    9/19/2009 at 11:12 am

    #38 – TheCommodore,

    You’re right. I should have specified that I meant that the older cars were designed to be rigid and to have the car survive low speed crashes.

    The 59 may have been before the 5 MPH bumper law. Later vehicles may have been even more rigid, and possibly even worse for the passenger, or as bad at even lower speeds.

    Reply
  20. joaoPT says:
    9/20/2009 at 1:43 pm

    The 2008 was based on the 2002 Opel Vectra. The 2009 shares the platform with the Opel Signum.
    There’s a lot of European influence there, and it shows. Except for that humongous engine… c’mon, 110 Bhp from a 3,6 Liter V6?
    I get 100Bhp from my 1.6 liter straight 4 in my VW Golf…

    Reply

« Older Comments

Leave a Response


Bad Behavior has blocked 24829 access attempts in the last 7 days.