You know, the article I've sent mentions the differences between the Brazilian kwid and Indian.

One of the points mentioned in it is the differences between reinforcements in both vehicles, being the Indian having weaker structures and less safety gear. (No airbags and such) Thus it got a lower score.

Notice how this 1989 toyota celica does this is a good car from the day, notice how the driver's face bangs against the steering wheel? That's what airbags are for, older cars offer minimal head protection.

And the "older cars don't crumble" thing is proven to be bogus over and over again, if you look closely the older cars folded more frequently than their modern counterparts. In the case of the corolla, it didn't fare better than it's new and improved interation

Consider this quote: "It's not the fall that kills you; it's the sudden stop at the end." -Douglas Adams

Of course, automobiles are unlikely to fall, but it means that a sudden stop can cause a lot more harm than what people think, crumple zones are meant to absorb the shock.

Thus an automobile without any crumple zones whatsoever means that the car will be fine, but the sudden shock will cause lots of damage to your soft and mushy human body.

Modern automobiles have proven to be, on average, safer than their older counterparts. However as I have said: there are safe cars, not so safe cars and death traps. Which goes back to what I've said: measuring an automobile's safety solely by date of manufacturing is overly simplistic.

To be frank I kind of feel a sour grapes vibe :P but don't fret, I can't afford a new car either. Not every one can and that's where older cars shine.

Though I'd take a dacia sandero over a fiat panda anytime.