bogus how?

 

I believe he is challenging the assumptions of a rotted out frame and/or other 'issues' with the Bel Air in this crash test that would make it look like it performed worse than it would otherwise..

 

Some references have been made to the Bel Air not having an engine. See the above comments and the comments in the video.

 

I've watched the video 4 times now, and can't see anything that would indicated the lack of an engine... ???

And as for the 'clouds of dust'... I would say that is very minor when you consider how basically little came out, and the violence of the impact.

Even a totally restored car from 1957 would have some rust dust poof out on an impact like that. It's basically a non-issue, IMO.

 

Man, just look at the comparisons from the interiors, the '59 at about :45, about 1:09 for the '09. Wouldn't want to be in the '59.

 

I agree, a lot could be from dirt too. Most 4 year old pickup trucks have a good amount of surface rust underneath, I don't think that makes them unsafe. I just did sway bar end links on my wifes 4 year old car and all the steel brake and suspension parts have a nice coating of surface rust, and it only has 39,000mi.

 

It's a matter of 'where'. Crumpling is the best way to absorb the energy of an impact. So anything not related to keeping the occupants safe is designed to crumple in a controlled manner, e.g. front structure, fenders, engine cradle, sometimes even things like driveshafts. On the other hand, the passenger cell is designed to be as strong as possible so as to not harm the occupants.

As to the question of why the IIHS would make a bogus video, well, they're not exactly on "our" side. Their mandate is to make as much money as possible for the insurance industry. Sometimes their goals align with the consumer's; sometimes not. Having said that though, I don't suspect they did anything 'bogus' in this test.

 

The amount of rust (dust) is minor actually. People need to understand that cars of that vintage had no galvanizing or rust protection on the bare metals. A small amount of surface rust is formed from oxidation and it actually protects the metal from further rusting.

A shame really. My mom had a 59 Chevy Wagon when we were kids. I always liked the lines on them. However anyone that expected a different result is in denial.

 

Safer cars, less death and accidents, lower repair cost, are these not goal everyone has. I've never heard of someone complain that their car is too safe.

 

I agree with all of that.

 

Yes.

Sometimes it seems that way. But when you look at the money trail, their goals are incompatible with your statement.

Property damage (cost of fixing the car) have gone way up. $1200 is a nice ballpark for a simple 5mph parking lot "bump" on a rear bumper. The BIG money, however, is in bodily injury claims. Policy limits dictate the limit for property damage is the value of the car (say, $28,000 for a nice new Malibu) whereas the bodily injury limits are often much higher ($50k per accident, $100k/person, $250k/person).

Insurance companies are much more willing to sacrifice that first $25k or so so they don't have to be paying as much out on BI claims. If it means trashing an entire car so that the claimant only goes to the chiropractor for a few months versus settling for policy limits for disability due to significant mechanism (impact), or ongoing back surgery, they're going to put their money on the car. Cars are easy to fix...people are not.

 

Sir, do you mean to say that you're not man enough to brave a car head on and buy into this girly safety rubbish?

Gimme a Belair and a bottle of whiskey!

 

To sell Obama's healthcare plan?

 

That's almost as bad as those Chinese car crash videos.

 

If the engine is in the car then I would have to say that is horrible and I can see why Ralph Nader went on the campaign that he did. The car crumpled so badly that it looked as if no engine were there.