ANCAP Crash Test Result Analysis
June 12, 2007 by Alborz Fallah
Results for the latest ANCAP (Australian New Car Assessment Program) Crash Test study are now official (you can read the results here). As we expected, there are some big surprises.
Firstly, Holden’s billion dollar VE Commodore scored less than all other Large cars tested:
From that table you can see the Aurion – a direct competitor to the Holden VE Commodore (and the Ford Falcon) scores above the VE Commodore (by 3 points) – the VE Commodore, which cost Holden $1.23 Billion (AUD) to manufacture, scored the same as the current BA/BF series Falcon.
Apart from singling out the Commodore, why are all Australian made vehicles still rating only as four stars? From the small cars table (above) you can see that nearly all small cars have a five-star rating, with the Suzuki SX4 missing out narrowly (still ahead of the VE Commodore).
Cars that were shamed in the latest crash test results include:
- Mitsubishi Express Van, with a dismal one-star safety rating (the car has no airbags).
- Chrysler Voyager People Mover, with a two-star safety rating.
Cars which scored a maximum five-star rating include:
- Ford Focus
- Toyota Corolla Hatch/Sedan
- Peugeot 207
- Renault Clio
- Mini Cooper
- Volkswagen Passat
- Volvo C30
- Honda Legend
- Citroen Picasso
- Peugeot 207 CC
- Land Rover Free Lander 2
- Mitsubishi Outlander
Just how much more money and effort needs to be put in to make Australia’s first Five-Star car?
Print it: 
0 
0 
The 380 got a better score than the billion dollar VE! Shameful!
now where’s that tool 280zx ?
Microwaves aye? I’d rather be in a microwave than to be in an all GRUNT car , but please for the sake of mankinds progress without tools like yourself , do crash in one of those grunty vehicles will you?
So much so for the body strength, world class safety and 1 billion dollars yadda yadda every day.
Seriously who wrote this article? The author really has no clue regarding the testing proceedures of ANCAP, and therefore is drawing inaccurate conclusions!
Firstly, all the small cars tested weren’t Australian models! These cars are not available as the same build specifications in the base models in Australia. Just take a look at the Toyota Corolla, Australia’s base model does not come standard with side and curtain airbags. So it’s rediculous to compare the base model Commodore with an up-speced Corolla.
Secondly, regarding the testing proceedures of ANCAP, a quick summary:
“The crash test procedures conducted by ANCAP involve a frontal test at 64km/h where part of the vehicle hits a barrier, and a side impact test at 50km/h. The vehicles also undergo a test to assess likely injuries caused to pedestrians by a vehicle travelling at 40km/h.
A pole test is optional, where the vehicle travelling sideways at 29km/h strikes a round pole lined up with the driver’s head. This measures the effectiveness of head protecting side airbags and can result in extra points being scored.”
The last paragraph is the key here. The pole test is optional (and required to obtain 5 stars), and must be paid for by the manufacturer. Both Toyota and Holden have publicated stated they do not agree with the optional nature (and cost) of the pole test and refuse to take part. Hence the Aurion and Commodore fail to receive 5 stars.
You are correct, the base model corolla (ascent) does not have the airbags package, but the test vehicles were equipped with the airbags ($750 option that toyota says 90%+ of customers go for)
You are also correct about the pole test, the optional costs do not apply so much in Europe as they do here in Australia.
thanks for the feedback
Its all good mate, just thought the results needed to be put in some perspective. :-)
Many people don’t pickup on the fact that the testing methodology is impacting on the results of ANCAP and this is exactly the point Holden and Toyota are trying to get across.
Yes I wasn’t actually aware of the pole testing as being optional here in AUS.
It definitely needs to be made clearer by ANCAP, I actually think its a big shame that it is optional!
I’d prefer to have a head on crash with your Echo or Corolla, while I’m in my VE.
Sometimes it’s better to be in a “poor” car and alive rather than be in an “ANCAP 5″ car and be dead.
QUOTE= now where’s that tool 280zx ?
Microwaves aye? I’d rather be in a microwave than to be in an all GRUNT car , but please for the sake of mankinds progress without tools like yourself , do crash in one of those grunty vehicles will you?
Dont crash the car then ya dickhead? At least with a bit of grunt you would more likley avoid an accident!
QUOTE = I’d prefer to have a head on crash with your Echo or Corolla, while I’m in my VE.
Sometimes it’s better to be in a “poor” car and alive rather than be in an “ANCAP 5″ car and be dead.
Lol then your an idiot… larger doesnt mean safer (unless its a truck).
Something which I find scary when you watch these head on impacts is that they are only travelling at 60km/h into a stationary wall and you can see the extensive damage, in a real life situation if you were to have a head on in a 60 zone the combined impact speed is actually 120km/h (maybe less if someone brakes at the last sec)! In light of this, I dont think Id ‘prefer’ to have a head on crash in any car…
QUOTE = At least with a bit of grunt you would more likley avoid an accident!
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight……..
Thanks Paul, for calling me an idiot, and proving you are one.
First you say big is not better, then you say it is.
Methinks it’s you who have partaken of the idiot pills, not me.
280ZX – good advice fella. Be sure to buy a Aurion then because not only has it got all the safety juice (active and passive)as standard but also a higher NCAP rating. To top it of, the Aurion is also more powerful and faster across all measurable increments.
No “Gerhard”, I stated that bigger is not safer…. a truck is the only exception for reasons inheritant with it being a truck, not a car.
An example for the intellectually challenged, a 30 year old muscle car has a head on collision with a Toyota Yaris. The occupants of the muscle car die due to the lack of even basic safety like a crumple zone, the occupants of the Toyota Yaris survive with an effective crumple zone and various airbags including a knee airbag protecting them.
Give the “it” a brake now Paul. Since when does a Bogan like “it” heard of a work like “passive” or even “safety” to say the least. Seriously, like this dumbass would know what a crumple zone is, and how they disperse energy for minimal impact. With me, it has gotten to a point where I don’t bother explainging myself to bogans because that is the reason they are bogans. Hence, why would you want them to be a normal member of society. Without “bogans” such as G.H., what sort of people would I be able to payout, for their shoes, the intelligence, cars, or the latter. Pay him out, just don’t teach him anything. Not that he would actually take anything in; you still need to take precautions, buddy. LOL.
^
Lol true… its good they exist for a laugh, but yeah I dont think he would take anything in, you tell for example Holden bogans that the Commodore is not the most powerful car in its segment and they still deny it!
“Both Toyota and Holden have publicated stated they do not agree with the optional nature (and cost) of the pole test and refuse to take part. Hence the Aurion and Commodore fail to receive 5 stars.”
That’s quite interesting. I’m sure that if Holden or Toyota knew that their car was capable of scoring a 5 star result then they would have coughed up a little extra cash to conduct the test.
I find it hard to believe that a car company that spent over a billion dollars on development refused to pay for one crash test that could have handed them a significant market advantage just out of principle.
I’d suggest that it’s more likely that both Holden and Toyota knew from there own testing that even if they had scored full marks for the optional pole test then they still would not have achieved a 5 star result.
Check the scores:
Toyota Aurion 30.03 out of 37
Holden VE Commodore 27.45 out of 37
Even if both cars had scored the maximum 2 points for the optional pole test it’s unlikely either of them would have cracked 5 stars. The SAAB 9-5 (LHD) (2004) was the lowest scoring 5 star car I found on a quick search of the howsafeisyourcar site and it scored 32.56 of 37. Unless anyone knows otherwise it looks like you’d need 32.5 of 37 as the minimum to crack 5 stars.
Geez, that was a novel, sorry, but I’d hate for anyone to “draw inaccurate conclusions”.
And for anyone that wants to know about the scoring system and testing procedures, the information is all publicly available on the ANCAP site (google is your friend).
You can read the assessment notes here:
http://ancap.com.au/uploaded-m....._Mar07.pdf
The minimum point score for a 5 star result is 32.5, so even if both Holden and Toyota has scored the maximum 2 points for the pole test, neither would have passed the 32.5 point mark.
Don’t buy into the spin, I really doubt Holden and Toyota were “trying to make a point”. It is far more likely that they knew what their result were well before the ANCAP tests and therefore knew that the result of the pole test would have made no impact upon their final star rating.
I’m with Jason on this one!
These results are a complete crock – I’ll tell you why…. I’m interested in getting a new car for my family to ride around in and I’m concerned about safety. So when I go looking for a new car I wouldn’t even consider a car that didn’t come with ABS, ESP and curtain airbags. So what cars do I look for – large Aussie cars (Commodore, Falcon, Aurion) that are spec’d with these things, yet when I try to find results on cars that are spec’d with the safety pack, they are nowhere to be found. Instead you can only find apples and oranges comparisons.
>>Something which I find scary when you watch these head
>>on impacts is that they are only travelling at 60km/h
>>into a stationary wall and you can see the extensive
>>damage, in a real life situation if you were to have a
>>head on in a 60 zone the combined impact speed is
>>actually 120km/h (
This is not correct, since the car coming towards you is not as stron as a wall. If case of an heavy truck you might be right.
So, for the more robust car, the impact spead will be comparable to a lesser speed against a wall, and for the “softer” car the impact speed compared to a wall will be higher.
Ever noticed how little the big trucks get damaged in accidents with cars?
So if you want to crash into something, choose a small car to run into.