4.1/5 Stars - 13 Ratings

Thanks for rating!

Views: 4140  

StumbleUpon | Facebook | Email To Friend

impressionnant!! ca fait peur de rouler en ancienne, mais je continus!!

This was deff. a farce,..how sad that we are thought as idiots who would believe such garbage!!

Fake

Geez, doesn't anyone do a bit of research before making assumptions? wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/18/more-details-about-1959-bel-air-crash-test/

After watching the video frame by frame, I believe that neither car were equipped with engines. So in response to the "no engine" claim, regardless if the older model didn't have an engine the passenger section of the car was still crushed in the impact. Where as the new model car although heavily damaged, suffered minimal damage to the passenger section. I just hate to see a classic wasted..

neither of them had an engine. the older car would have kicked that newer cars ass in a crash. i have a old car like that and iv acually been in a head on collision. and my car won and still runs great. didnt cost much to fix either. Iron beats fiberglass and plastic. which is all the new cars are made of

to the person who said that the belair had no engine..how do you know. my dad had friend who owned a 59' bel-air and was in a head-on with it, and he almost died in that accident. i was 16 years old when it happen. all i have to say is yes auto safety has come along way. now if we could get all the stupid careless drivers off the road, things would be even better.

What a bunch of crap!!The Bel-air had no motor in it and probably weakend by rust!

I don't believe that at all is Bull Crap

..COMPARISONS USA-G >> CONT. >> [..THAT THEY..] DO NOT ACTUALLY BELIEVE THAT "WE THE PEOPLE" OF THIS GREAT NATION, THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, HAVE ALL "LOST OUR MINDS", IN THE MUCK AND MIRE OF "THE POP-CULTURE OF STUPIDITY" SO COMPLETELY, AS TO BE CAPABLE, EVEN IN THE LEAST DEGREE, OF BEING BLINDED BY SUCH A FARCE AS THIS; AN ADVERTISEMENT IN THE GUISE OF A SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENT! WAKE UP USA

P.S. >> WHERE ARE THE RESULTS.. THE DETAILED "STAT-SHEETS" (i.e. TECHNICAL DATA RESULTS FROM THE COMPUTER PROGRAMS, THAT ARE STANDARD FOR THESE TESTS)? PLEASE TELL ME THAT THOSE WHO CONDUCTED THIS "SO-CALLED" OFFICIAL-TEST, ACCORDING TO THE DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY STANDARDS, THAT ARE PRESENTLY USED FOR ALL OFFICIAL COMPARISON PURPOSES, WITH REGARD TO "AUTOMOBILE VS. AUTOMOBILE" COMPARISONS? USA-G

Thursday_01October2009 Setting aside ALL PERSONAL FEELINGS, with regard to anything and everything that could in anyway be called a "SUBJECTIVE COMPARISON" between these two specific cars ("AS SOLD", i.e. PRODUCTION MODELS WITHOUT ANY MODIFCATIONS OF ANY KIND!); and conducting the tests according to the "NATIONAL HIGHWAY STANDARDS" used by the USA-GOVERNMENT.. RUN THE TESTS CORRECTLY PLEASE!

What they didn't tell you is that the Bel-Air had no motor in it at the time so as not to absorb much of the impact

They restroyed a vintage car for this BS!

Now run two Malibu's head on for a more realistic test!

Bons-eye (yes that jap word) i would have and did bet on the bel-air, well 1 gallon of t-bird gone still wating for the big one in my trailer, good bye mexican apt building across the street (with 1 ba-zoka shell left, its comming down no matter WHAT!! )