>>28523595 (OP)
I hate these stupid cunty passive aggressive articles titles

>>28523618
I hate all of these auto news sites, someone here said it before but it's like they all actually hate cars. They do it because they can't get a jurno job anywhere else

>>28523642
I mean, David Tracy is also a prematurely balding Californian that drives a bmw i3. Who gives a fuck what he says.
In my family we've had two collisions that turned out exactly like the picture - a Kia rear-ended my aunts 76 Delta 88 at about 35 (Kia totaled, Delta minor bend to bumper), and a Sebring rear-ended mom's 85 Country Squire wagon at the bottom of an off-ramp (Sebring totaled, wagon had some scuffs and a minor warp to the rear bumper). Sadly both happened pre-cellphone so no pictures. But if it can happen even with modern plastic cars why would the jewrnalist think it's fake with a heavy steel old car that probably doesn't even have 5mph bumpers to give? There's a reason derby meatheads like old Chryslers.

>>28523662
Yea exactly and all these type of people make up "auto jurnolism. They'll complain the something like the old 4Runner doesn't have enough "tech" while it was the main selling point.
I had a Avalanche with a typical bumper that fucked up a Ford escape, I was looking for damage but I couldn't even find any so it was pointless to make a claim.

>>28523618
It's millennial writing
>(and that's a good thing)

>>28523618
>i hate article titles that wittily sum up the entire article so you dont have to pay the subscription to read it
are you gay or something?

>>28523595 (OP)
I can hear the nu-male who wrote that stamping his feet in impotent fury.
Imagine preferring nu-cars to classics, and gook shit at that.

>>28523595 (OP)
The front of the car is supposed to collapse much easier than the rear for obvious safety dynamics.