Yup!
In fact, it might not have taken the force of an impact to cause the front seat supports to collapse, back in “The Good Old Days”. I had a work colleague who drove a 1970-something Plymouth Fury, and just from “normal” wear & tear, the front seatback wound-up in a permanently reclined position.
It took him several weeks to save enough from his teacher salary for the repairs, and he rationalized that sitting there with no back support was good for his abdominal and back muscles. Maybe it actually was?
I had neighbors who owned an early '50s Hudson sedan. It was a family of 7, and they all seemed to fit in it… somehow. But, on long trips, the youngest kid did take an occasional nap on the rear package shelf.
Its been proven time and again that old cars are stronger. Old body on frame vehicles are tough indeed! If they had airbags like newer cars they would be far safer!
We also rode around in unrestrained groups of kids in the back of an ElCamino at up to highway speeds (50mph). No one thought twice about it. Heading to the (lake, amusement park, playground…) everybody pile in…
Well, I guess it makes some sense if a person values sheet metal more than human lives. I choose to value the health and safety of my passengers over the sanctity of my vehicle’s sheet metal, but I guess that some people feel differently.
This is a very important issue. Even for the safety of those seated in the front. With small hatch back vehicles providing little room in the rear to absorb a crash, the rear of the vehicle is often smashed in in a rear end collision. This isn’t just a problem for those seated in the rear, but if the front seats collapse back then the heads of those seated in the front makes contact with the smashed in area at the rear.
There are no standard crash tests done for rear end collisions. NHTSA does do a rear end crash test for fuel tank integrity, and they do put a crash dummy in the vehicle. You can see from the video if the seat holds up. For example, the 2001 VW bug has strong seats. A 2018 Chevy Spark does not.
The recent statement from IIHS about the front seats being safer than the rear seats in newer vehicles may have quite a bit to do with rear end collisions.
As far as the vehicle still being drive-able or repairable after a collision, then yes body on frame wins. Body on frame may also do better than a unibody when the vehicle is severely rusted. A unibody can provide the same level of strength as a full frame while being lighter. It also provides more crash strength for areas not directly in front of or behind the frame.
I think these kind of crash tests are fairly rare, and they are usually unfairly biased against the older vehicle because the newer vehicle that they pick for the test is usually at least 10% heavier than the older one. And also consider that a significant portion of the safety advantage of the newer vehicle is the result of it crashing in to an older vehicle. When a new model came out prior to around 2005, a portion of the safety advantage was the expectation that it would probably be in a collision with an older model. After 2005 the strength of newer cars didn’t increase so much, and the focus for newer has been more on other types of crashes other than the old full and moderate overlap head on type.