'09 Chevy Malibu vs. '59 Chevrolet Bel Air (7 pics)

oh shit

ofcourse the modern car wins!

daaaam

unknownj,
Actually it shouldnt be like that!

OF COURSE IT SHOULD BE LIKE THAT YOU DUMB ASS, 40-50 YEARS OF TECHNOLOGY IMPROVES ALL FACES OF MAN KIND, SAFETY IS ONE OF THEM...!

older looks nicer tho

actually it shouldn't be like that, since i've seen the video of it and the 59 has no engine nor transmission, and when the two cars meet a huge cloud of dust (you can see it on pic 3) rises from the 59. i had one of those old chevies and i can tell i would destroy ANY modern car.

sorry, rust not dust

very bad cars for human

Automobile company's spend millions of dollars a year trying to make cars safer. Back in 1959 they really didn't give 2 shits. I would like to think the newer car would fare better.

you can tell there's no engine block in that old chevy, it would have crumpled the new car like it was tinfoil. the engine in that old chevy prolly weighs as much as 1/3 of the new car itself.

cars today are menat to cromple in the front and back....thats why they call them crumple zones in new cars. The Idea is that the car takes the impact not thr passenger inside so it looks like a lot of damage..and there is but it is desogned that way to absorb the energy of the impact before the energy reaches the passenger compartment...with no engine and trans the 59 looks like it absorbed the crash as welll. put the engine and trans back in and you will see a much different outcome. the engines and tranny set up are designed(in newer cars) to drop down and under so that they do not get pushed into the occupants of the car...this is all standard on new cars since the late 80's.

IMO cars are safer now in any event...

But the Malibu still looks good!

I still like the old chevy more...

seems a waste of a classic.

I'd bet on the new cars.