A good example is this ->
video of a head-on crash test between a 1959 Chevy Belair vs a 2009 Chevy Malibu. Despite the size difference, 1959 Belair driver would have died while the 2009 Malibu driver would have walked away.
I'll bet any amount of money anyone may want to lose that the '59 in the vid was powered by a STRAIGHT SIX (
if there even was an engine in it) as opposed to a 348 V8! Reason? Under the hood of a 6 cyl-powered '59, there's
absolutely nothing in either corner of the engine compartment to slow down 'penetration'.
Another thing to consider is the fact that '58 thru '64 Chev full-size cars all employed "X" frames (as opposed to the 'ladder' variety) - probably THEE WORST frame any car can have in a "quarter-on" frontal collision. (The collision shown
isn't a "head-on"...it's a "quarter-on".)
Now...shoot that same vid showing a 100% "head-on" collision using a 348/auto, a/c, p/s, p/b, p/w, p/seat-equipped '59 (you know, equipped like the '09 Malibu! [and, yes, all the options listed were available back then!]) and let's see what happens.
My point is this "test" was probably NOT set up in anything even
close to being a 'non-biased' way at all. It's pretty obvious it was set up to
ensure the desired results in the most
dramatic fashion possible.
All that said, there's no question we're safer in TODAY'S cars than we were in the cars made 50 years ago. One would have to be 'certifiable' to believe/argue otherwise. Just the THOUGHT of being impaled on a rigid steering column should be enough to convert any 'non-believer'.