There is no magazine i've had a longer subscription to then Consumer Reports. It's my go to when trying to decide which (whatever thing i want to purchase) to buy. *quality

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by eric3579.

"The past 50 years, the institute has made a real impact."
Ha...ha...

I know many people that always swear their old cars are safer in a crash because they're heavy and "solid". "The other car is my crumple zone."... I'll have to share this video to them.

Well, my old car is a 1970 Bronco, and it's really heavy and solid (full box tube frame and full roll cage), and it's lifted so it will ride over most small cars.
Now, in a head on with another lifted truck, I'm toast. I don't even have a slip joint in my steering shaft or a 3 point seat belt, so I'll probably be impaled through the chest.
I'll still swear my old car is safer in an average mid speed crash with a car, but I can admit it's more dangerous in many, many other ways.

From the comments in 2009 when this crash test was first released, they won't believe it. People said that it was "obvious" that they had removed bolts and the engine from the Bel Air and that a real crash wouldn't go that way.

Even faced with evidence that modern cars are stronger, they will still say things like:

Engineering improvements or not, the sheer weight and gauge of metals used in the 50's is far superior to the aluminum foil they make cars out of now.

Seems to be a couple of dupes of this. This one is still alive:
https://videosift.com/video/1959-Bel-Air-vs-2009-Malibu-crash-test

And this one, the oldest, is dead:
https://videosift.com/video/SMASH-Crash-test-1959-Chevy-Bel-Air

Saw this elsewhere quite a while back, but still very interesting to watch. Takeaway: old cars are both ugly AND unsafe.