Comments on: ANCAP Crash Test Results June 2007

By: John C

John C — Sat, 27 Dec 2008 04:30:07 +0000

In reference to front on or front quarter collisions between small cars and other vehicles, I do not think any small cars built after 2000 would fare much better than a pound of butter if they collided with my 82 Land Cruiser bull bar which itself weighs around 1/3 of the mass of a small car and is bolted to the sub frame. But perhaps I am being selfish by using modern cars with their crumple zones for my own protection. However, modern cars do come into their own with improved protection in any collisions with stationary, non-automotive objects, something my old troop carrier does not.

By: Christie

Christie — Sat, 28 Jul 2007 22:16:51 +0000

The test results are a little misleading. The side impact tests are standard for all cars. The front on is applicable only if the test car collides with another car of same size or crash into a stationary object. Therefore, for front on collision, 5 star rating of a small car may not be any better than 3 star rating of a relatively larger car. Therefore, for comparison purposes, the front on impact force should be the same for all vehicles like the side imopact force, so that consumers can compare the safety all cars relative to one another. No doubt the test results compare cars of same sizes to one another. The chances are in a front on collision, the cars wouldn’t of the same size. Therefore, to me at the end of the day, what is important is how does the safety of say a smaller car rates against a larger car.

By: Andrew. M

Andrew. M — Sun, 17 Jun 2007 09:27:52 +0000

whoooooo settle down paul!!
we all can pull a statistic from somewhere to make ourselves or something look good.
i was just correcting the comment from lazybones as what he stated was clearly incorrect. stop being sooo biased towards your precious toyotas, where does reliability survey come in to it????? and why do you start twisting facts into eliminating “80%” as that is fleet sales.
who cares (for the record i dont like holden either) but i suppose i could say something just as silly as “well corollas are sold to mostly under 25’s which means that is the age bracket where most people seek finance so therefore they dont really own them so you could discount say 80% of corolla sales” that is up there with your comment.
facts are facts and sales are sales

By: Paul

Paul — Sun, 17 Jun 2007 05:51:02 +0000

Just a clarification, the 80% fleet sales is in reference to the Commodore not Corolla.

By: Paul

Paul — Sun, 17 Jun 2007 05:48:48 +0000

The Ford Focus was also listed in a recent reliability survey as I think the worst or the top 3 worst vehicles in its segment!!!

As for number one selling cars? Ummm yes they do, Corolla is #1 for private seller sales in Australia, 2nd overall just behind the Commodore in Australia and 1st in the WORLD (which has 80% fleet sales).

As for differences in Sedan, it is interesting… but I would assume the Sedan weighs more which means a greater mass has to slow down, more damage.

By: Andrew. M

Andrew. M — Sun, 17 Jun 2007 05:10:09 +0000

settle down lazybones!!
the ford focus beat the corolla dont forget. as for top sellers dont also forget that toyota have quite a big range of vehicles. they dont have the number 1 selling car do they! no. they have a lot of consistent sellers along many categories. quite often more than 1 in each category too

anyhow i dont know how religiously i would treat these results as for e.g the corolla sedan scored worse than the hatch version. we all know they are both pretty much the same one has a slightly bigger boot but not by much so go figure

By: joe

joe — Sun, 17 Jun 2007 04:18:09 +0000

just expanding on Andrews point… the volvo rated well but so did many others… but i would still imagine that the volvo and other premium brands are better prepared for accedents as they are indeed unexpected and can often involve unusual impacts and situations, and just because its head on and side on results are similar… use your imagination… drop something on it, drop it on something, put it under water… i don’t know, but the more extensively tested and developed cars are the better… ofcourse they charge a premium on this.

The barina should be shot… and nature will take care of the mitsu.

I was suprised about the audis results…expected a 5 star.

Also i think small cars and large cars should all be weighed in the same catagory… theres people out there who think their 5 star yaris will take on a 5 star S-class… we will need more the 1-5 stars to demonstrate saftey better.

wow…i can rant on…………

By: Lazybones

Lazybones — Wed, 13 Jun 2007 02:35:30 +0000

Well, once again Toyota leading the charge. Top sellers as well as top in safety. You certainly get the feeling that Toyota are almost unstoppable. A slightly embarrassing result for the VE.

By: CJ

CJ — Tue, 12 Jun 2007 23:17:49 +0000

Interestingly enough neither the HiAce nor the Pregio were tested, surely ANCAP don’t think for a minute that Mitsubishi are the only manufacturer of commercial vans.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Tue, 12 Jun 2007 11:02:30 +0000

The results give you an indication but they are accident performance in certain crash circumstances. It cannot replicate every type of crash incident. It just tries to standardise testing of some the more common impacts.

Among other things, it’s probably aimed at publicising cars with really poor crashworthiness to the point of it affecting sales so that those manufacturers have to lift their game.

There are plenty of books on how some elements of the automotive industry factor in liability lawsuits due to lower crashworthiness aspects of their cars and just mix those in to the profit/loss equation.

Some good reaidng includes:

Ralph Nader’s “Unsafe at Any Speed”

Joel Bakan’s “The Corporation”

and watch the movie: “Tucker – The Man and His Dream” starring Jeff Bridges.

By the way, the Nissan Dualis due here later this year just got the highest ever score in the EuroNCAP testing.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 12 Jun 2007 10:31:15 +0000

Half believe some of the results are true

By: Michelle

Michelle — Tue, 12 Jun 2007 10:16:36 +0000

Nice Work by u guys

By: hfaqli

hfaqli — Tue, 12 Jun 2007 10:13:37 +0000

pieces of shit

By: Sam™

Sam™ — Tue, 12 Jun 2007 10:00:09 +0000

mmmm, i half believe some of these results alot of the time. seems alot of the big names who put a lot of R&D into safety get fairly average scores, despite most of them being 4 or 5 stars anyway.

whats the go with the mitsubishi express van, did it spontaneously combust into dust particles upon impact or something?

By: alborz

alborz — Tue, 12 Jun 2007 07:20:02 +0000

I think the barina is classified as a light car,
either way, at least the Mitsubishi Express VAN is worse than the barina :D

By: Paul

Paul — Tue, 12 Jun 2007 06:48:45 +0000

Most small cars there have a 5 star safety rating… really doesnt make the Barina look any better does it with 2 stars!