Most recently, the IIHS added a test that eliminates the need for dummies altogether. Launched in 2013, the front crash prevention rating evaluates the effectiveness of electronic collision avoidance systems. Often using the same sensors that allow for ‘adaptive’ cruise control, slowing your car automatically when the vehicle in front decelerates, they provide automatic braking response in the case of an inattentive driver who doesn’t notice traffic has slowed significantly or stopped altogether. Where cars that previously performed best in the crash tests earned a Top Safety Pick rating, vehicles whose crash prevention systems also work well are now labelled Top Safety Pick+.

Because these tests require space for the vehicle to be driven at speeds up to 40 km/h to test how well collision avoidance systems work, the IIHS is building a covered (but not enclosed) outdoor ‘arena’ to allow for year-round avoidance testing.

Back to those vehicular “dinosaurs” I mentioned up top. Not all of them are decades old, like the ’50s Impala in the foyer. Mounted in the display hall like hunter’s trophies are some of the vehicles that have performed best and worst in more recent IIHS testing.

In the side impact test, added to the IIHS program in 2003, a stationary car is struck by a truck-shaped barrier, which is mounted on a sled that’s accelerated to 30 mph, or about 50 km/h. What’s left of a 2005 Mitsubishi Lancer shows what a poor side impact test result looks like: the B-pillar (the post that separates the sedan’s front and rear door openings) was severed where it used to meet the door sill, and pushed the driver’s seat way out of position.

“(This is) the only B-pillar that has ever split,” said Arbelaez.

Not far away hangs a post-test Chevrolet Venture, a popular minivan produced between 1997 and 2004. Its front-end structure essentially collapsed in the moderate-overlap front crash test: the A-pillar buckled, and the dummy was sandwiched between the seat and dash.

When Chevrolet redesigned the Venture into the Uplander in the mid-2000s, its engineers made improvements that earned the newer van a “good” rating in the same test. It was a similar story for the 2008 Lancer, a design that replaced the version that fared so poorly in that 2005 side test.

“(The 2008 Lancer) was a great performer with great structure and side airbags for front occupants, which shows these manufacturers made changes quickly; in an affordable vehicle, you had top-level protection,” said Arbelaez. He added that after the 2008 Lancer was tested, Mitsubishi’s engineers asked when the IIHS planned to take the old car down.

“No, we’re not going to do that. It’s too good a reminder of where things have been, and how far manufacturers have come.”

Connect with Autos.ca