Latest ANCAP crash tests

freaky · 12-06-2007, 05:35 PM

Surprising ?

Despite a $1 billion development budget - the most of any locally-made car - the new Holden Commodore has the same safety rating as a five-year-old Ford Falcon.

That's the verdict according to the independent crash-test body, the Australian New Car Assessment Program (ANCAP), which is funded by motoring authorities in each state and territory in Australia.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/...414217266.html

Unco · 12-06-2007, 06:10 PM

i saw that this morning. despite the amusement, Ford is not really making any major leaps in that area either.

uranium_death · 12-06-2007, 06:23 PM

Have any of the large Aussie cars ever received 5 stars? I am not surprised by all four cars receiving four stars, although I ready today that the Aurion was close to having 5 stars, but just fell short.

Fairlane · 12-06-2007, 07:05 PM

Watched channel 10 news sink the boot in just then. ill wager there will be a story on TT or ACA tommorrow winging how Aussie cars are death traps.

Of course its annoying they didnt get 5 stars, but i think they are pretty damn safe, theyve got 90% of the safety features that the expensive Euro's have, plus we have the advantage of actually being able to fix the car if we hit something- id hate to know the repair bill on a citroen or saab.

Guess in a world of smaller cars, the local 4 star rating will probably be off better importance, i know id rather be in a 4 Star Falcon than a 5 star 207 in a major bingle. Ive seen some real nasty crashes with people in Falcons and theyve walked away, dont think some little car, regardless of rating would do.

Dave_au · 12-06-2007, 07:07 PM

ANCAP is filthy against Aurion and Commodore because both Toyota and Holden refused to provide - at their own cost - additional vehicles for ANCAP to perform pole side impact testing on.

It's all a big game of politics at the end of the day.

fou_bleu · 12-06-2007, 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave_au

ANCAP is filthy against Aurion and Commodore because both Toyota and Holden refused to provide - at their own cost - additional vehicles for ANCAP to perform pole side impact testing on.

It's all a big game of politics at the end of the day.

Yes, that is absolutely right! If Ford did a little bit of work in the chassis department, we would get 5-stars! All airbags should be optional and the most necessary ones standard (driver, passenger and side for front and back)

freaky · 12-06-2007, 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by uranium_death

Have any of the large Aussie cars ever received 5 stars? I am not surprised by all four cars receiving four stars, although I ready today that the Aurion was close to having 5 stars, but just fell short.

aurion would have acheived 5 stars if it participated in the pole test, however it did not want to fund the test.

new2ford · 12-06-2007, 10:49 PM

The number of stars doesn't give the details that the actual scores do. In fact the Ford Territory is within a whisker of 5 stars with a score in last year's tests of 31.57 out of 37. Unfortunately the press at the time gave all the credit to the 380 (28.09 out of 37). Side air bag/curtain protection apparently automatically adds 2 points which would give the Aurion 32.03 out of 37 if this test were conducted. The Commodore and Falcon without that test were 27.45 out of 37 and 27.27 out of 34 respectively. See: http://www.howsafeisyourcar.com.au/

I don't know if the AAA was filthy against Toyota and Holden - they simply state that the cars with side bags were not submitted and if they had been would have earned an extra 2 points. Part of the problem is the nasty habit of Australian manufacturers of optioning safety features rather than making them standard, so results without side curtains reflect a certain reality unfortunately (in a country with lots of roadside gum trees to go side-on into).

The NCAP tests are good public information on secondary safety but I think too much emphasis is given to them at the expense of information on primary safety (the ability of the vehicle to avoid an accident in the first place). Here a lot of brands fall short (but not Ford) but there is no official testing of such things. The best and only source of information (apart from US government stuff) is the Wheels WASP tests which I think buyers should pay more attention to.

Jayden · 13-06-2007, 03:07 AM

All I saw on the news was some old guy saying they didnt have a seatbelt warning and knee protection or something.

And I thought Australian cars falling short of european cars in terms of safety was too obvious to warrant a mention. If I bought a new Merc or BMW it would have to be even more of an over amped pile if it didnt have safety features superior to a falcon.

BadMac · 13-06-2007, 08:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by freaky

Surprising ?

Despite a $1 billion development budget - the most of any locally-made car - the new Holden Commodore has the same safety rating as a five-year-old Ford Falcon.

That's the verdict according to the independent crash-test body, the Australian New Car Assessment Program (ANCAP), which is funded by motoring authorities in each state and territory in Australia.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/...414217266.html

What a load of crap, the "new Holden Commodore" did not get the rating, the Omega did, most VE have side impact airbags so the score cannot be extrapolated, no Falcons have side impact airbags so that score applies across the range, how missleading. Note, I also agree Holden should be castigated for making safety features optional, but the above statement is just delibrately missleading. The tests also take no account of safety features like ESP which would help avoid sliding at 90 degrees into a steel pole.

The only thing you can conclude from these tests is that when hitting a stationary concrete barrier head on in a XT BA falcon you will be safer than in a VE Omega. Great next time I plan to do that i'll drive my BF.

Why do people have an orgasm when Ford beats the VE in a test and forget to look at what is being said.

The tests are a method to compare different brands with each other. Great, problem is they do that under one set of conditions (well 2 if you count the side impact). Then you, the reader, are left to extrapolate that into the real world. Every post above has assumed you can just scale it up.

Holden have consitently said their car is a slighty over 4 rating in the tests, then they have refused to supply a car (which acording to the ANCAP they shouldn't have to do anyway!) because they do not agree with the methodology. Further they do their own testing with the data from Melborne university of real world crashes (I assume Ford would also participate in this). They have stated that a car engineered to score high on these tests would not necessarlily be safe in a real world test. The ANCAP people argue that the tests are standardised to allow cross manufactuerer comparisions, problem is that now manufacturers build cars to pass the tests with 5 stars, not necessarily to be the safest possible (some other Euro manufacurers also support this position and hence do their own testing with 2 cars head on at 100km/h). I know which approach I would trust my life to, however I will ensure when I hit an offset deformable concrete barrier at 64KPH I will ensure I am not in an Omega.

As you may note from the above, Safety is the single most important feature I look for in any car, therefore it really annoys me when I see half truths published in order to further political agendas, then repeated by people/sheep as "facts".

http://www.safecarguide.com/exp/ancap/ancap.htm

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From www.drive.com.au

Holden and Toyota are refusing to supply Commodores and Aurions for independent scrutiny.

In a major snub to the Australian New Car Assessment Program, the independent crash test scheme, Toyota and Holden have both refused an opportunity for their large Aurion and Commodore sedans to become the first Australian made vehicles to carry the maximum five-star safety rating.

ANCAP has completed initial testing, for front and side impact protection, on Aurion and Commodore, using four cars bought with its own funds.

It is now asking Toyota and Holden each to supply a third car and pay for the final stage of the tests, which involve another side impact, this time against a pole rather than another (simulated) vehicle.

Read the rest here
http://www.drive.com.au/Editorial/Ar...ID=38523&vf=12

BadMac · 13-06-2007, 01:58 PM

Sorry that Drive link is broken, here is a working one.

http://www.drive.com.au/Editorial/Ar...rticleId=38523

**Grunter** · 13-06-2007, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BadMac

...The only thing you can conclude from these tests is that when hitting a stationary concrete barrier head on in a XT BA falcon you will be safer than in a VE Omega. Great next time I plan to do that i'll drive my BF.

What would Joe Public use for "real world" comparisons between vehicles in an accident that are done by a group other than the manufacturer?

BadMac · 13-06-2007, 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grunter

What would Joe Public use for "real world" comparisons between vehicles in an accident that are done by a group other than the manufacturer?

Exactly, so why should the standard test not be representitive of the kind of crash likely to cause death. Ie when I bought my new car I wanted to know I was safe and had a good chancew of me, my wife and my kids surviving. I researched it quite well and while before I would have just gone for NCAP, after I understood why that was flawed and will cost lives. Great for a safety program.

The good news that for round town use and low speed bingles, its fine, so for most shopping trollys its a good indicator. I personal do most of my KM's at highways speeds.