Crash Test 59 Chevy vs New Malibu

[m22mike]

Phil "Woj" sent me this, kind of makes you ill watching it http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

http://www.examiner.com/x-696-Auto-Exami...d-the-winner-is (http://www.examiner.com/x-696-Auto-Examiner~y2009m9d18-Crash-safety-test-1959-Chevy-Bel-Air-vs-2009-Chevy-Malibuand-the-winner-is)

[SS427]

I recently saw that on one of the news channels. It appeared to be a completely restored car they used and was likely bought off ebay for the sole purpose of destroying it. The video was an eye opener but what a waste of what appeared to be a fairly nice car. http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif

[CC Rider]

I hate Surf Control at work! http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/thumbsdown.gif

[Dog427435]

[b]Yikes!

[markinnaples]

At least it's a 4 door....man, that got tore up, which surprised me a lot.

[jtower1969]

Wow...we've come a long way. I guess crumple zones are for real.

[Mr. Chevy]

I'm not buying any of it!! Looks like 100% staged to me. There is no way that a "Sherman Tank" like that 59 is going to crumble like that by being hit by that new Chevy.. I see lots of accidents in my job and this is just not going to happen!! Somebody "made up" this video....

Rich

[olredalert]

------I can see two sides to this wreck. 1st. How rusty and degraded was the frame and entire structure of the 59??? Then, on the other side of the coin, The 59 is an X-frame and I would think that the driver to driver hit would be the worst hit a 59 could take. Theres no outer perimeter to keep the Malibu out of the drivers compartment.......Bill S

[Kim_Howie]

Did you see the rust & dust flying from the 59. The whole thing was staged. http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/bs.gif http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/bs.gif

[Verne_Frantz]

Here's another clip which shows some inside shots. http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d309QCuve7c&feature=response_watch

[jannes_z-28]

At the new video, look at the 59's left front wheel. It's pushed right up in the drivers leg and ends up under the drivers door. There is nothing at all that stops the other car.

In 50 years some safety improvements have been made.

Jan

[The Dude]

There is absolutely nothing to these old cars front ends. Notice the Malibu finally stops when it hits the Impalas cowl area. Most of those old GM cars had front clips held on by 8-10 bolts. There is nothing there to absorb a collision.

Here are two photos of a GTO that hit a tree then a utility pole. Notice what where the pole stopped, the cowl just like the Impala.

http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/4375/42138020.jpg

http://img187.imageshack.us/img187/4628/30681184.jpg

[tom406]

This is a sobering video, and just demonstrates what most of us already know, particularly those of us who drive pre '74 stuff. As for the conspiracy theories about a horribly rusty car being used, I don't think its true. I had a '63 Galaxie with not a hint of rust that must have had 5 lbs of rust colored clay dust stuck inside the frame rails. But on this '59, it looks like all the the rust and dust that was being held at the bottom of the pontoon fender and rocker was shot out in a cloud. Sorry, I don't see a conspiracy. And while the offset driver crash is probably the worst case scenario for the '59, its the most likely kind of collision I expect when driving my old cars, ie someone in oncoming traffic drifting in front of me. I drive my old cars the same way I drive motorcycles-defensively and on full alert. I figure I'm almost as vulnerable.

And yes, I did run my '57 Bel Air through the gears the other night, lap belt fastened, looking at that metal dash and feeling vulnerable. Then I caught 3rd gear and thought about more positive things http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/burnout.gif ( I guess I don't ALWAYS drive defensively)

[Nova Jed]

There goes my theory about driving one daily! WOW!

[442w30]

So far, only the Mopar and Chevy people are skeptical. Everyone else seems to "get it."

[htweelz]

I always drive my '68 defensively. I do want to put some three point harnesses in it. I know they aren't as safe as the new cars but they are still a blast to drive.

[Kim_Howie]

Whatever http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[Norm reynolds]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not buying any of it!! Looks like 100% staged to me. There is no way that a "Sherman Tank" like that 59 is going to crumble like that by being hit by that new Chevy.. I see lots of accidents in my job and this is just not going to happen!! Somebody "made up" this video....

[/ QUOTE ]

I am with you with that THERE IS NO WAY an 09 malbu is safer than the 59 I have worked on many 59 chevys and they were tanks like to see what a 59 caddy or Imperal would to to the new malbu
THIS WAS STAGED I am NOT BUYING IN TO THIS http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/no.gif http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/no.gif http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/no.gif

[hep1966]

A 1959 is safer than a 2009?

[Tommy]

Personally, I think it is real. Safety has come a long way since then. If I am not mistaken in 59 they hadn't gone to a telescopic steering shaft yet A harder impact might impale the driver. Also getting hit in the driver door in our old cars would be very bad. If you ever look inside the doors of new cars and trucks you will see steel tubing similiar to roll bars. I am in the new/used parts business. Picking up a 68 Nova door and a new malibu door are two totally different monsters. I would hate to think what would happen if a suburban ran a light and hit me in the driver door of my Nova.... It would probably stop somewhere in the middle of my bench seat...


Tommy http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/burnout.gif

[Tommy]

one reason the safety tests speak so much of the door lock holding is probably because of the roll bar material in the door. It is just one more thing to keep the car or truck intact. If the door of the malibu had opened, the front end may have been forced back further. They total alot more cars these days but they don't total as many of us these days...


Tommy http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/burnout.gif

[njsteve]

Its not staged. That is the reality of old versus new construction methods.

The 59 was built like a tank, and since it was built like a tank there were no predesigned crumple zones that would take the impact and redistribute it away from the passenger compartment. In essence, the only crumple zone is the driver's body. Once the car hits and reaches its structural limits, it folds up into a ball of metal with no regard for the integrity of the passenger compartment.

Remember, the 59 was a body-on-frame design. All it takes to defeat that design is a hard enough hit to shear those front body-to-frame mounting bolts and then the shell takes the rest of the impact while the frame underrides the impacting vehicle. That is exactly what you are observing in the video.

[njsteve]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not buying any of it!! Looks like 100% staged to me. There is no way that a "Sherman Tank" like that 59 is going to crumble like that by being hit by that new Chevy.. I see lots of accidents in my job and this is just not going to happen!! Somebody "made up" this video....

Rich

[/ QUOTE ]

And by the way, the M4 Sherman tank wasn't such a great design for its day. It was known by those that crewed them, as "The Ronson" after the famous Ronson cigarette lighter who's advertising motto was "Lights the first time, every time." That was because the ammunition was stored in the hull section right up against the thin vertical slab-sided armor, right underneath the giant white star painted on the side of the hull, which made for a great aiming point. One hit and they blew up, killing the entire crew. Compare that to 50 years later, and the M1 Abrams which was designed for crew survivability with its extremely sloped active armor that deflects and destroys incoming rounds.

Fifty years of "crew survivability" design refinement makes a whole lot of difference in both tanks and cars.

-Cliff Calvin

[The Dude]

The 59 Impala was built with tank like materials, but not like a tank. Like I said before that front end is held on with maybe 10 bolts, thats the hood/core support/fenders. 10 bolts! Four for the bumper. You doubters think 14 bolts are going to stop that Malibu? That Malibu has welds for days on that front end, crumple zones, side impact bars in the doors, etc.

[m22mike]

This is gettin good... http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[ktownkid]

How about the frame design on the 59??? "X" marks the spot.

ktownkid

[njsteve]

[ QUOTE ]
The 59 Impala was built with tank like materials, but not like a tank. Like I said before that front end is held on with maybe 10 bolts, thats the hood/core support/fenders. 10 bolts! Four for the bumper. You doubters think 14 bolts are going to stop that Malibu? That Malibu has welds for days on that front end, crumple zones, side impact bars in the doors, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Quite correct! http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/scholar.gif

[442w30]

Sometimes the facts don't get in the way of the naysayers.

[njsteve]

Right, you are Sir!

Next, they'll be saying there were preset explosives planted in the '59 Chevy by the leftover Roswell aliens that got freed by Bigfoots in late 1958, who knew, in advance, through the use of their Bermuda Triangle Magnetic Anomoly Generator that this particular '59 Chevy would one day be used in a crash test. http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/no.gif

...or michael moor-on will do another fake documentary and just blame George Bush. http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif

[x Baldwin Motion]

[ QUOTE ]
Right, you are Sir!

Next, they'll be saying there were preset explosives planted in the '59 Chevy by the leftover Roswell aliens that got freed by Bigfoots in late 1958, who knew, in advance, through the use of their Bermuda Triangle Magnetic Anomoly Generator that this particular '59 Chevy would one day be used in a crash test. http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/no.gif

...or michael moor-on will do another fake documentary and just blame George Bush. http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif

[/ QUOTE ]


Please pass the fork, this one's done! http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/eek.gif http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/haha.gif

[Mr. Chevy]

Thanks for the history lesson on the Sherman Tanks.. http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif It was used as a figure of speech if you couldn't figure that one out.. Opinions are like you know whats.. Everyone has one and is entitled to it and thats fine.. You have not convinced me in the least bit that it's NOT staged... All steel 59 VS. plastic, fiberglass and foam in the front ends of new cars.... Irregardless of the "crumple zones" and other safety features, it's just not going to happen, Sorry!!!!!!

Here is the fork, I am done...... My .02 opinion!! http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Rich

[njsteve]

The Sherman tank expose was done in jest. http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

And yes, everyone has an opinion but my "opinion" is based on experience with automotive product liability law and engineering facts. Believe it or not, this kind of stuff comes up a lot in the real world.

So how did they stage it? Acid dip the entire front end? Remove all the internal bracing and bolts? Computer generate the whole thing?


Oh, and those early design forks can be really dangerous. That's why they invented the Spork, so those unfortunate few that lost an eye in those early fork accidents could be protected. http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Stick a Spork in it. I'm out. http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/burnout.gif

[The Dude]

Under the hood of a 59.

http://i.ebayimg.com/14/!B,-rCwwBGk~$(KGrHqUH-CUEqvgeUTkVBKt4ugJ7sg~~_3.JPG

Notice there nothing in the area behind the core support, where the impact in the test occurred. Having picked up a flimsy sheet metal fender I know how much strengh they have. So all that Impala has is a stamped core support and a pontoon fender to absorb an impact.

[king_midas]

The even sadder part of this is that GM built cars in the same fashion as the '59 all the way to 1988...

[Mr. Chevy]

[ QUOTE ]
The Sherman tank expose was done in jest. http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

And yes, everyone has an opinion but my "opinion" is based on experience with automotive product liability law and engineering facts. Believe it or not, this kind of stuff comes up a lot in the real world.

So how did they stage it? Acid dip the entire front end? Remove all the internal bracing and bolts? Computer generate the whole thing?


Oh, and those early design forks can be really dangerous. That's why they invented the Spork, so those unfortunate few that lost an eye in those early fork accidents could be protected. http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Stick a Spork in it. I'm out. http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/burnout.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

WHATEVER http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Rich

[Kim_Howie]

O.K. You just stated "flimsy sheet metal fender" Maybe you need to check the 09 vs the 59 fenders thickness. The 59 crumpled way too easy, in my opinon. There is more metal in the inter fender well of the 59 compared to both fenders in 09.

[hep1966]

I’m going to sit back and wait for a crash test between a 1909 and a 2009. I’m sure the thicker metal on the 1909 makes a safer car……

[Verne_Frantz]

I've watched the video several times and I am amazed that the Malibu was able to penetrate the cowl of the '59, pulling down the A pillar, ejecting the door and buckling up the floor as it did. I'm not saying the test was rigged, but that huge cloud of rust dust does tell me something. The structural integrity of the '59s frame, lower cowl, rockers and floor were compromised before the impact. The Biscayne also appears to be a 6cyl, in which case the impact would have missed the motor completely. I think the results would have been quite different if the '59 had been a V8 car with a solid body & frame.

Verne http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

[The Dude]

Pic from back in the day, when these cars were NOT rusted. A 59 hitting another 59. So much for the compromised integrity argument.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3451/3962784298_984ecdc3f7.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2593/3962784138_b7babd98cb.jpg

[Kim_Howie]

The speed limit was 70mph back then, I doubt if both cars were doing 40mph as in the test.JMO

[The Dude]

[ QUOTE ]
O.K. You just stated "flimsy sheet metal fender" Maybe you need to check the 09 vs the 59 fenders thickness. The 59 crumpled way too easy, in my opinon. There is more metal in the inter fender well of the 59 compared to both fenders in 09.

[/ QUOTE ]

The fender on the Malibu is for looks, it serves no other purpose. Behind that fender is where the strenght is. You remove the fender and the car performs the same in the crash test. On the other hand, the fender on the Impala is all youve got. Remove it and the Malibu smashes into the Impalas cabin.

[king_midas]

It's interesting that some are unable to grasp that the '59 is structurally unsafe by construction.

[COPO CARTEL]

WOW....Stop all the B/S and move on guys..life is getting shorter as you type away. Agree to disagree. http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Kim_Howie]

It's interesting YOU must be a expert, Grasped that!! I,m done.

[442w30]

You're not done - this is your opportunity to show right-thinking North Americans what you know.

Now I don't profess to know about the structural integrity of cars, but as someone who is in the middle of the Bell Curve when it comes to intelligence, I can be objective (without a video, no less) and figure out that old cars aren't as safe as new ones. Your subjective outrage could be better used to ask why in the hell did they destroy a classic to prove a point we already know. http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/bs.gif

[Norm reynolds]

[ QUOTE ]
old cars aren't as safe as new ones

[/ QUOTE ]
NOW I HAVE TO DISAGREE New cars just are not as safe as the older heavy cars My wife is livlng proof of that
Back in 82 my wife had a chevy cavalier I had a 1970 Monte Carlo
One Sunday morning she got up early and decided to get some donuts.
I was still asleep in bed when I got the call that she was just rear ended
I got up got dressed grabbed my keys and went out only to find the cavalier
Out front but no Monte Carlo When I got there was my Monte Carlo really missed up http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif
My wife was ok . The cops told me there were chasseing girl for 10 blocks and told me that
My wife was stopped at a red light They also told me the girl was going at least 60-65 mph when she hit
My wife . http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif They also said that my Monte Carlo saved her life because if she were in a smaller car
Things would not have been good The problems with today’s cars is there is NO bumpers to say.
Yes they call them bumpers but they are nothing more than plastic junk
Now as fair as This Video Let them redo this test with a 59 Chrysler Imperial
My bet would be the Malibu would be the loser nothing more then a ball of steal
The 59 chevy X frame was not as strong BUT a lot stronger than a plastic un-body piece of Sh2344#
So as an Old auto mechanic and body man I do not buy this video I have worked on the old and new cars.
For me If I had the Choose of the 59 chevy to the Malibu I will take the 59 anyday as far as safety
as far as her cavalier I got rid of it that day and bought the bigest heavy car I could buy

One more thing I fixed the Monte Carlo and drove it for 10 more years
So when I see some thing like that video it means nothing to me

[njsteve]

In a front end impact would you rather be in the 59 or the 09?

Compare the fixed one-piece, steel, non-collapsible, metal spear-pointed horn buttoned, steering column to the collapsible column with multi stage airbag.

There is no surviving in the old cars when you hit those old non-collapsable steering wheel/column assemblies with the center of your chest.

Watch the interior shots of the crash and you see the dummy hit the 59's column just as it is being forced up into the driver's position. The dummy is traveling at 40 mph forward onto a steel spike traveling toward him at 40 mph. It's a steel projectile moving at 80 mph combined speed. The dummy just gets impaled and then catapulted away. Doesn't take too much imagination to picture what the internal organs would look like at that point. (no pun intended)

[sprchvy]

First hand survivability example in an 59 or 60 Chevy Biscayne. 1966, my 40 year old father coming home from work. Guy blows a 4 way stop sign and barely clips the extreme left corner of my dads car going a reported 30mph. Probably $200 damage to the car. Even with newly intalled seat belts he breaks his neck against the drivers side window and window frame. Steering wheel rim is torn away from column. Give me all of those air bags any time!!!!

[ORIGLS6]

[ QUOTE ]
In a front end impact would you rather be in the 59 or the 09?


[/ QUOTE ]

Easy answer: the '09.
1. The newer cars have air bags so your chance of survival is much greater.
2. You lose a disposable vehicle vs. a Classic! http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggthumpup.gif http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Norm reynolds]

[ QUOTE ]
In a front end impact would you rather be in the 59 or the 09?




[/ QUOTE ] very easy answer the 59 for me all the way
When I worked at DHL whe had a lot of Ford E 250 Vans with a full frame NO air bags and those things were tanks
I have had more then one van that was hit and van's hitting other cars and the van allway's won
once had a vw jetta blow a red light and the driver t boned the guy The vw broke in two killed the driver of the vw The van I replaced the head light pulled the bumper out and sent him on the way
I know what they are trying to say that unbody air bags crumble zone ect is supost to be safer but I have seen way to many accidents and I am just not buying in to this and the same for the video I am not buy it
And my wife would not be here today if she was in that cavalier when she was hit That 1970 tank saved her no air bag no crumble zone just a big tank

[Tarrytown SS427s]

I don't understand what support these previous situations provide to your claim. The vehicles you are using for comparison don't really have any similarities with an X frame 59 Chevy other then their being "tanks", and even if it was the same car, those were totally different accidents then the one in the video..

[Xplantdad]

Give me a 1971 Pinto any day... http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/naughty.gif http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

By the way, Lynn's RCIA teachers husband was one of the lawyers in that lawsuit... http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/beers.gif

[Norm reynolds]

My point is just because the government tells us that the newer cars are safer They really are not any safer than some of the older cars. Pintos were NOT. ( One of Ford mistakes)

[RamAirDave]

What I learned back in driver's ed. There are 3 impacts in a car accident. The vehicle hitting the object, your body hitting the vehicle/seat belt, and your guts hitting the inside of your body.

The old cars are so rigid, your body takes sooo much of the force. And that's not to mention the next-to-worthless lap belts (if you're lucky enough to have even those) and all the objects on the (often non-padded) dashboard and the non-collapsible steering column.

There are some accidents that you won't survive no matter what the vehicle, not much argument to that. And everyone knows stories of horrific crashes decades ago that people walked away from.

But I'll take airbags, adequate restraints, and a vehicle that crumples to take the brunt force (rather than my body) every time. Vehicle safety is not an area that has regressed over the years.

[flyingn]

You cannot be serious? You would rather lose your life then to cut your knee? wow.


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In a front end impact would you rather be in the 59 or the 09?




[/ QUOTE ] very easy answer the 59 for me all the way
When I worked at DHL whe had a lot of Ford E 250 Vans with a full frame NO air bags and those things were tanks
I have had more then one van that was hit and van's hitting other cars and the van allway's won
once had a vw jetta blow a red light and the driver t boned the guy The vw broke in two killed the driver of the vw The van I replaced the head light pulled the bumper out and sent him on the way
I know what they are trying to say that unbody air bags crumble zone ect is supost to be safer but I have seen way to many accidents and I am just not buying in to this and the same for the video I am not buy it
And my wife would not be here today if she was in that cavalier when she was hit That 1970 tank saved her no air bag no crumble zone just a big tank

[/ QUOTE ]

[442w30]

[ QUOTE ]

NOW I HAVE TO DISAGREE New cars just are not as safe as the older heavy cars My wife is livlng proof of that

[/ QUOTE ]

She's not living proof of that - if she was living proof, she'd be a statistic. Instead, she's just an anecdote.

We all are allowed to make choices in our lives. I will continue to drive old cars as long as I live, but I'm not going to kid myself that physics is the Heavy Gorilla (quasi-pun not intended) in my safety behind the wheel.

[442w30]

[ QUOTE ]
My point is just because the government tells us that the newer cars are safer They really are not any safer than some of the older cars. Pintos were NOT. ( One of Ford mistakes)

[/ QUOTE ]

Government really is not the issue, so you can get off your high horse.

However, it's all about your personal safety. You make your own decisions but, please, don't insult our (or your) intelligence just to make a point.

[The Dude]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
old cars aren't as safe as new ones

[/ QUOTE ]
NOW I HAVE TO DISAGREE New cars just are not as safe as the older heavy cars My wife is livlng proof of that
Back in 82 my wife had a chevy cavalier I had a 1970 Monte Carlo
One Sunday morning she got up early and decided to get some donuts.
I was still asleep in bed when I got the call that she was just rear ended
I got up got dressed grabbed my keys and went out only to find the cavalier
Out front but no Monte Carlo When I got there was my Monte Carlo really missed up http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif
My wife was ok . The cops told me there were chasseing girl for 10 blocks and told me that
My wife was stopped at a red light They also told me the girl was going at least 60-65 mph when she hit
My wife . http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif They also said that my Monte Carlo saved her life because if she were in a smaller car
Things would not have been good The problems with today’s cars is there is NO bumpers to say.
Yes they call them bumpers but they are nothing more than plastic junk
Now as fair as This Video Let them redo this test with a 59 Chrysler Imperial
My bet would be the Malibu would be the loser nothing more then a ball of steal
The 59 chevy X frame was not as strong BUT a lot stronger than a plastic un-body piece of Sh2344#
So as an Old auto mechanic and body man I do not buy this video I have worked on the old and new cars.
For me If I had the Choose of the 59 chevy to the Malibu I will take the 59 anyday as far as safety
as far as her cavalier I got rid of it that day and bought the bigest heavy car I could buy

One more thing I fixed the Monte Carlo and drove it for 10 more years
So when I see some thing like that video it means nothing to me

[/ QUOTE ]

So to prove your point that new cars arent as safe as old ones, you cite an example that happend 27 years ago.

It boggles my mind that this many people think the crash was rigged and old cars safer than new ones.

[442w30]

He must've been gone to too many tea bag parties. ;-)

[The Dude]

[ QUOTE ]
The problems with today’s cars is there is NO bumpers to say.
Yes they call them bumpers but they are nothing more than plastic junk


[/ QUOTE ]

Behind that plastic junk is foam honeycomb, crumple zones, and engery absorbing material. Take a look at what NASCAR did with their concrete barriers. Whats safer, the new soft barrier (which absorbs the impact ala a new car front end) or the old concrete barrier which did nothing but stop the car (ala a steel bumper on a old car).

[442w30]

I can't believe he said that about the bumpers. http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/haha.gif

[Fast67VelleN2O]

I have to agree. I would like to see that 09 Malibu in a crash test with an Imperial.

[The Dude]

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2120/2172181617_effb46459e_b.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2399/2221130413_416b680ce1_b.jpg

[markinnaples]

[ QUOTE ]
He must've been gone to too many tea bag parties. ;-)

[/ QUOTE ]

Typical.

I thought we weren't supposed to talk about politics here; but, after reading some of your other posts, I am not surprised you chose to go that route.

[442w30]

I don't talk about politics here. I just infer some psychographics from what he's said.

[Zedder]

As an Engineer...I'm actually laughing out loud at some of these responses!

[m22mike]

[ QUOTE ]
As an Engineer...I'm actually laughing out loud at some of these responses!

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[69 Post Sedan]

The link above did not work for me. This one did.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xwYBBpHg1I

I can sum it up in one word: TECHNOLOGY!!! http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/scholar.gif