No Stupid Questions

Your question is too broad. Which vehicle against which vehicle? The thing is today's average driver drives an SUV or truck which is a literal tank in comparison, whereas in the 70s most people drove cars. The bumpers wouldn't even line up (btw this is a modern issue between "cars" and "SUVs/Trucks") leading to the bigger vehicle overtopping the smaller vehicle. Modern vehicles are also on average heavier and have better safety features. The only thing I will say is an advantage of an older vehicle is in lower speed crashes it has a better chance of being repaired then a modern vehicle that crumples, but at 70mph even solid steel will get wrecked (as will the passengers).

Also bold of you to assume a lot of these vehicles from the 70s can easily reach 70mph without shaking apart.

The car would win but the occupants would suffer more. Your new car is designed to crumple around you to help save you.

If you weren't fucking murdered from the whiplash of not having any crumple zones absorbing the impact. Then you would surely die of your insurance going absolutely through the roof for driving a fucking car from the '70s and getting into an accident

Heh no.

Cars in the 1970s were made from coffee tins and cardboard.

The 70s car might beat the modern car. For the people inside the vehicles, the story is quite different.

Which do you want as a crumple zone: the car or you?

Everyone is concentrating on the crumple zones and safety at the crash. Remember that modern cars have features that make it easier to avoid the crash in the first place. Antilock brakes. Traction control. Lane assist/warning. Better headlamps, adaptive headlamps. Better suspension and handling. All things to avoid crashes.

All good reasons to avoid the 70's car.

The thing you got to understand is that the energy of the crash has to go somewhere. The same energy will apply to both cars, the modern car will absorb a lot of it by deforming, the old car won't absorb any in that way because it's a hard piece of metal. And you have to wonder, what is more important to you, the car chassis or the people inside? You might as well ask "why do we put packing peanuts if nails are a lot tougher" or "why do we ship eggs in weird cardboard boxes if a metal square would be more resilient"

But cars are the problem

The car from the 70's survives accidents better because more of it is rigid, but this makes it more dangerous as more of the force of the accident is transferred to the driver.

Modern crumple zones are placed intentionally so that while the car will crumple, the driver will not.

Here is a fictional scenario, you hit a tree at 30 miles and hour your 2026 Volvo is totaled.

Your dad hits a tree at 30 miles an hour in his 1970 chevy, you replace the windshield and hose it out and you can drive that chevy.

If you're in an old car with no crumple zones, my intuition says it's better to hit a modern car because then you also benefit from the other car's crumple zones. Colliding with another rigid car would basically be like hitting a brick wall. I think the effect on the driver ends up the same in both cases.

If it's two old cars with rigid bodies colliding, it's exactly like hitting a brick wall. Even if the car itself is unharmed, the driver isn't. It's how quickly you stop that makes the impact dangerous, and in a car like that you stop almost instantly.

On the other hand, when two modern cars collide, there's 2x the crumple zones, so the impact is the lowest there.

Yes, the 70's car would "win out". Its driver, on the other hand would fare much worse than you.

Ideally, people wouldn't treat possibly fatal transit collisions as a sports game. And also ideally, most people would see the uselessness of looking at which car is less damaged. Realistically, I know neither of those are universal, but I do hope they are common.

Your car would receive a lot more damage, but the driver in the older car would be much more hurt than you.

Also, modern vehicles are far more reliable and efficient

The car would win. The driver would lose.

If two 70s cars collided, all the energy is transferred to your body since the solid construction of the car wouldn't dissipate much of it.

Have I got a video for you!

https://youtu.be/C_r5UJrxcck

Edit: with narration https://youtu.be/fPF4fBGNK0U

The car might sustain less damage, however, the occupant will receive more damage. People buy newer, safer cars, presumably because they like being alive and would prefer to keep doing that.

Modern cars are designed to break before their drivers do, because you can't replace you, but you can buy a new car.

I direct you to this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_r5UJrxcck

Tldw: cars today are designed to keep the driver safer in a crash, and by having crumple zones and such, the driver is protected more from the forces that are at play.

Edit: aw drat people beat me to the explanation as well as the video! Well shucks at least I had fun commenting lol

I know it's a much older car for the example but same idea:

My late grandfather liked to restore Model T and Model A cars. One day he got T-Boned in an intersection by my house at 70 km/hr driving a Model A and Grandma was with him.

The 2005 era van that hit him was a wreck with the front smashed in. The driver was uninjured.

The Model A had a slightly bent fender front-right side and a minor paint scuff. My Grandparents went into the back of an Ambulance.

They survived but had raccoon eyes and were more bruises than healthy flesh for awhile.

It's not the speed that kills you. It's the rapid deceleration.

I saw a post where a Cybertruck got T-boned by like a Nissan or something. The Tesla didn't look damaged badly at all and the other car was modern art. Tesla people were bragging about it until someone pointed out that the Nissan driver walked away while the driver of the Tesla broke both legs.

I know this is anecdote, but the point is that vehicle damage doesn't prove people injuries.

Nope. Its much safer to crash in a today car. 70's would break as well and break you more. Both would be totaled anyway in such a case.

Today's cars are designed to crumple and protect you, older cars transmit more damage to your body.

It wouldn't win out. They typically didn't have any crumple zones to dissipate the forces of the impact so the full forces in the accident got transferred to the passenger cell and therefore the passengers. Also no seatbelt pre-tensioners to stop you flying forward before the seatbelt locks would engage and no airbags to protect you. Steering columns were also not collapsible so the driver's chest being impacted by the steering wheel was a common thing in a head on.

In the 70s car, the steering column would impale your chest.
A LOT of people died in car accidents, with the cause of their deaths investigated, to make cars safer.

Also, today's cars are primarily metal, too (but cleverly designed to crumple and absorb the shock from the impact instead of transferring it to the squishy human inside).

Back in the day, everyone knew someone who'd been killed in a car accident. Everyone.

In the 70s the cars won but not the people. Modern vehicles let the people survive instead of themselves.

My 2006 Honda Accord coupe weighs almost a thousand pounds more than a 1965 Ford Mustang.

In fact, a 1985 Ford LTD Crown Victoria only weighs about 400 pounds more than my Honda.

People WILDLY underestimate how heavy modern cars are, and how much better they are for safety of the occupants.

Why arent people buying more cars from the 70s?

Parts and servicing is a big problem now. A lot of shops wont touch anything they cant plug a diagnostic computer into.

Some parts are made of unobtanium and require complex workarounds or paying through the nose for parts.