A crash test between a 2009 Malibu and a 1959 Bel Air. Watch the video:

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/12/crash-test-2009-malibu-vs-1959-bel-air/

Assuming you were in the Bel Air.

The good news: the Bel Air is about 2/3 salvageable. A new front end and driver door, and a little frame straightening and it will be back on the road. The uni-body of the new car makes it a total loss.

The bad news: If you were in the Bel Air you are either dead, or so badly mangled you are looking forward to death. Notice how the dummy bounces around. Before you can start the rebuild you have to hose the bodies out. Whereas the driver in the Malibu walked away.

I like old cars. They are roomy, tough, and easy to work on. Just don't get in a crash with one.

People who are seeking to avoid vehicles with electronics, on the off chance there is a EMP event, need to keep in mind older vehicles can get you mangled or killed in a serious accident. Life is a matter of trade-offs. Thousands die every month on the road. As far as I can tell nobody has died from an EMP, yet. Choose wisely.

Awesome video, thanks for posting. Didn't they go through the same thing with F1 racing? Making the cars super tough and rigid in the 70's, which was terrible for the driver, to todays energy absorbing bodies. Thank goodness for modern technology.

When i bought mine car i was having the cars on one side of mine computer screen and the crashtest page on the other side. Guess having worked for the firedepartment makes you have diffrent priorities.

There is a significant diffrence in crash protection between cars. Even cars from the 90's are really poor compaired to the latest ones.

Lots of people say that you are more likely to die from going somewhere than doing [insert any activity]. But making car travel safer is something you can influance, unlike lots of other things.

Fascinating. I would have thought that the presumably more massive older car would have fared better than it did.

Thanks for the post.

HJ

Another thing that people don't typically realize is that safety ratings are only applicable when compared to vehicles of the same weight class. This means that, if a compact car and a full size car crash into each other, the full size car typically has a significant advantage, even if they both carry the same five star rating.

Presently there is a big push toward smaller cars due to their potentially better fuel economy. However, some people fail to realize the safety tradeoff that comes with driving a smaller vehicle.

You drive the Malibu until the EMP strike, THEN you drive the Bel Air. As with many things, it's all in the timing. ;-)

"Presently there is a big push toward smaller cars due to their potentially better fuel economy. However, some people fail to realize the safety tradeoff that comes with driving a smaller vehicle."

When no one can afford to drive the big cars, everyone will be driving little cars, and the crash equality will be better.

A young female idiot in a mini Cooper tried to pass me on the right on the freeway last night, over the fog line, up against a concrete wall. Maybe she saw my grin behind the window of my Chev Suburban, and maybe she didn't, but she suddenly grew a couple of brain cells and backed off. I'm not going to swerve away from her into the gasoline tanker, I would rather grind her into the concrete wall.

Sue

As I understand it weight, in and of itself, doesn't count for a whole lot and doesn't correlate directly to increased safety. It can help determine how much damage your vehicle will do but it has little influence on the safety of the occupants.

Semis and buses gain a benefit in passenger safety not so much because of their weight as the fact that the passenger compartment is well above the level where most other vehicles can strike it. If the passenger compartment is lower it tends to have to absorb more punishment.

Punishment a well engineered vehicle can better absorb without the passenger compartment being compromised. Volvo is a good example of a company that has put a lot of effort into protecting passengers. Innovations like designing the engine mounts and body so the engine will ride under the passenger compartment in a head-on collision.

While that is true to a point, unless everyone is driving around in exactly the same vehicle, it's almost impossible to really make things truly equal. The difference between a sub-compact car and even a typical midsize car (like a Toyota Camry) is huge, never mind between a sub-compact and a 6,000+lb truck or SUV.

Here's a neat video that demonstrates a crash between a compact car and a midsize car:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcTf78b8WfY

With that said....Presently, the #1 and #2 top selling vehicles in the world are the Ford F150 and the Chevrolet Silverado, both full size pickups. For the most part, it has been this way for a long time. Therefore, IMO, that is worth taking into consideration when deciding on a new vehicle to purchase.

I'd rather spend a few extra dollars on fuel a year than have to worry about the bumper of the most popular vehicles sold being aimed right at my head (with just a thin piece of glass to separate the two).

Yes. New and big versus new and small:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pVF1Wr7GLQ&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02eghIfyHP0

But Old and big versus new and small:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBDyeWofcLY

As for height diffrences:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbKtuRMJrsg&NR=1

Note that people tend to drive more dangerously in safer cars, because they feel safer.

On a Freeway/Highway/Blvd/etc. The Heavier/Larger Vehicle IS going to have,The Advantage,As far as Vehicle to Vehicle crash is concerned,Regardless of passenger position/disposition.Short of a T-bone into the drivers side door,that is!Inertia play's a Big role,Regardless of said highly engineered,Crash tested Volvos/Saabs/Mercedes/etc.

Weight, in and of itself, doesn't impact safety. This is true, in that, if you crash a light vehicle into a wall and you crash a heavy vehicle into a wall, as long as they are designed properly to pass that particular test, both should be able to sustain the impact with minimal passenger compartment intrusion. This is how most crash tests are done...they run the car into a static object and measure the G-forces that are imparted on the passengers and the level of passenger compartment intrusion.

Where weight does have an impact is when you crash a heavier object into a lighter object. (Say a truck into a car). The heavier object will typically continue on its original path, whereas the lighter vehicle will be forced to change direction quickly. Depending on the weight disparity, this direction change can be sudden and violent. Often more violent than crashing into a static wall. Especially since speed is cumulative (take two cars heading 30mph, crash them into each other, you now have essentially the same crash as one car running into something at 60 mph).

While crash testing has gotten better, both the NHTSA and the IIHS say their front and rear crash tests are only comparable against vehicles of the same weight class. Their side crash tests is done with a moving chassis that represents the height and weight of a midsize SUV (like a Ford Explorer), but even that isn't perfect...as a midsize SUV is a smaller and lighter vehicle than a full size pickup or SUV.

You also brought up the other issue, height. The higher ground clearance of suvs and trucks also leads to a disparity in crashes between smaller cars and larger trucks/suvs. This height difference combined with the weight difference can turn even a low speed crash into a real problem for the smaller lower car.

Height is a bit of a double edged sword though, as the higher a vehicle is, the greater potential there is for roll-over incidents. Thankfully, traction/stability control, airbags, better tires, and tougher roof-crush standards have made rollover incidents significantly more avoidable and survivable. It's still something that drivers need to be aware of though.

In fact, that is why my Suburban is no longer one of my daily drivers. While it's a heavy and high SUV, being from 1995 it lacks such features as side airbags, stability control, traction control, high strength steel, a more crush resistant roof, ect. I've been planning to buy a newer model full size SUV to replace it, however I prefer diesel engines and have been waiting patiently for one U.S. manufacturer to release a diesel full-size SUV. Unfortunately, no one has yet (even though GM has been teasing me with concept versions for years).

Yes, I meant when it comes to vehicles that are tested under the same standard. Newer vehicles need to pass more rigorous standards than older vehicles.

With that said, an old truck or SUV can still do a lot of damage to a newer small car. The truck itself might not fair as well as a newer truck, but the passengers in the car might not fair very well either due to the significant height and weight difference.



This is known as the Peltzman effect. While many demonstrations of this effect do exist, it doesn't really have any bearing on the idea that...sh*t happens (Forest Gump Effect? ). You can be the safest driver in the world and still get into an accident. Even if it's still no fault of your own.

With that in mind, if you have a choice between driving a safer vehicle vs driving a less safe vehicle, it makes sense to go with the safer vehicle. Statistics bare this out pretty well too, as overall vehicle fatality levels have decreased significantly over the years (as vehicles have become safer on the whole), despite having more vehicles on the road than ever.

That is actually not true. The impact would be roughly the same as hitting a wall at 30 mph if the two verhicles are identical. Or more for the smaller car and less on the big car. It's basic fysics.

Hmmm, You're right.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GuqiAHGGT4