Which would be safer - a car with a front end that crumples in a crash, or one that doesn't crumple?

Crumples….absorbs/dissapates some of the destructive energy… safer

It depends on the crash. Some old Volvos were so rigid that they were rather safe in collisions with other cars where the other vehicle would absorb some of the impact but rather dangerous hitting an immovable object like a tree. Volvo was one of the early innovators of crumple zones in cars though. Today cars have rigid safety cells protecting occupants with generous crumple zones. Race cars take this to extremes. In Formula 1, drivers are surrounded by a nearly indestructible tub of carbon fiber while the rest of the car is frangible to absorb impact. This is a lot of why drivers are able to walk away from horrific looking crashes; the rest of the reason is the extreme fittness level of the drivers.

Personally I prefer of cars that DON’T crumple. I like a car that I can drive away from a wreck with - not one that the front end folds up in a 15mph crash. I miss my 83’ Caprice Classic. That car was a beast.

As for pure safety - the crumple is safer because it absorbs the energy from the impact. I just don’t like having to put a new front end on my car…..

Yes. Say the car is a block of wood. the block of wood is hollowed out where the passengers sit, which is where you’re sitting. If you hit a rock, the kinetic energy from the rear traveling as fast as the front will still be moving forward after the front has stopped and hit the rock. therefore the rear will crush the inside where you’re sitting. My explanation here if it isn’t clear enough try watching on YouTube videos of crash tests from cars with and without crumple zones.