Generally, the truck drivers have a good survivability when it crashes with cars, even with the cab tilted forward in this test case. You are right on if it crashes into solid wall, the driver in the cab over engine type truck as shown in this test would be in a very bad shape as there is no crash space.

You didn't solve for velocity with the variables given, which are 8 tonne and 2.5 tonne. You didn't think I would notice?

The speed of the SUV was actually 60Kph and the truck was 40Kph from other sources. The combine speed is (8*40-2.6*60)/10.6=~15.5Kph in the truck direction.

You have the variables, so do the math.

Need to use momentum conservation, MV-mv=(M+m)v'

We have the formula (kinetic energy = 1/2 * mass * velocity²) and we have the variables (8 tonne versus 2.5 tonne), so let's plug them in.

If we assume the truck was going 25 KPH (6.94444 meters per second) then the we have a kinetic energy of 192,901 Joules.
Substitute mass (2.5 tonne) and solve for velocity give us a speed of 12.42 meters per second or approximately 45 KPH.

For a combined speed of 100 KPH based on the above calculation the speed of the truck was approximately 36 KPH and the speed of the vehicle was approximately 64 KPH. We can easily conclude this crash test is completely misleading.

The objections seem contrived. How many potential buyers will be put off by this test?

Hi Needles, you are right, 100 km/h is the relative speed. I’ve updated the article. Thank you very much for your comments.

Also in defense of the truck, I doubt any country's trucks have good crash survivability since they rely solely on their own weight and high seating position to stay safe (maybe American ones incidentally have more crumple zone) because most safety tests would be futile. The cab tilting forward probably reduces the G-forces somewhat in this case against cars, but no driver could survive a crash into a high and solid wall.