Crash Test Ratings

[MAGPIE]

Did crash test ratings influence your most recent vehicle purchase...

Just out of interest considering the current situation, expand on your vote as you see fit.

[Davehoos]

My last purchase was 1978 ser3 88.
Ive opted to retain the 10 inch non boosted drums.

[commodorenutt]

This became something very important to me, after having a massive offset head-on (thanks to a P-plater turning in front of me). It was an 80km/h road, and I was doing 75km/h or so, with little time to wash off speed, and he was hooting along - trying to make it around before I got to the intersection - so the impact force was high.

The BAII XR6 I was driving did everything text-book to minimise our injuries, and in mine, and the attending Police's opinion, saved our lives compared to a small car, or one without all the passive and active safety the BA had.

So for each car I've bought or chosen since (new and used), there's an element of checking the safety features. Generally I only buy large cars - which are inherently safer structurally than a small car of the same era - there's more space & metal around the occupants, and larger crumple zones - so injuries from crushing/pinching are reduced by way of having a larger passenger cell.

The BA's performance - the pretensioners were the main factor - keeping us in our seats - I never hit the driver's airbag - it only grazed my arms - but other things like the breakaway brake pedal - preventing a knee/hip dislocation, collapsible steering column (I still broke my thumb, but it collapsing is why I never hit the airbag) the fuel cutout, and even the crossmembers & engine mounts that allowed the motor & box to push backwards and down under the car - rather than into the firewall.

Many people only think about how many airbags there are, but there's a lot more that goes into safety - which is why the ANCAP results are so interesting.

The Mitsubishi lancer scored low on the scale initially due to driver's knee injuries. Their solution? Add another airbag there. Ford's solution with the Falcon? Build a car with enough space that knee injuries aren't severe. I put my knee through the fuse box cover, and my passenger k/o'd the glovebox, but knee injuries were limited to flesh wounds.

A year or so earlier I had a mate in a Pulsar who had a similar speed and direction impact (oncoming drunk driver) and he was pinned in the car. He died a few days later in hospital from a blood clot that formed in his leg (which was pinned) and travelled to his vital organs. A larger car may well have saved him.

All of the above affected my choice of cars - we've had a VE for 7 years, and the FG for 5 - both are very safe cars - leading the pack when they were new, and little more has improved since they were both built.

[Stefan]

Never considered safety rating or crash tests or the like of any car I have ever purchased.

The only time I can recall considering safety as a main motivator was for a purchase of a trolley jack.

[nstg8a]

I own a xf and a nl lane...

Xf wouldn't go fast enough to write itself off and nl is gonna kill me in some way yet to be decided.

[Sabantien]

I was pleased to see my FG had 5 stars, but never considered it when car hunting.

Nor did my partner who doesn't care about cars. Was just fuel efficiency for her.

[DJM83]

According to most i own a white good on wheels with wrong way drive so if im in a crash im most certainly going to die but yeah never looked at safety but im aware now its 5 star. Well was when it was tested. Probably 2 star based on the new one.

[last fairlane]

I bought my BA Ghia about ten years ago
I didnt worry to much about crumple zones and such
I wasnt planning on crashing it anyway
but I went for the fact it was a Ford and had all the bells and whistles
its still the best second hand car Ive ever owned
I could be wrong but thats just me
John

[BENT_8]

When we bought the Wife's Camry Sportivo safety was a factor for sure, along with reliability, economy and budget.
When I researched the safety rating it only showed 4 stars despite having 7 airbags and all the other bits and bobs that combine to make the package.
I was surprised when I discovered that the equivalent Aurion got 5 stars so I did a little more research and discovered that the difference was that the Aurion had extra testing, side impact to be precise and so I figured the Camry was still a 5 star car despite its lower rating as its essentially the same car.

When I bought my BF3 I was content with 4 stars and the optional side airbags it has as I'm the only occupant on most occasions.

[Mercury 8]

My 62 XL sedan has four wheel drums and no seatbelts.......

[Sox]

I give it some minor consideration, but mainly in the sense that I generally buy big cars (Falcon).

Wifey had a head on around 15 year ago in an ED XR6.
The other guy was in a similar vintage Commonwhore.
It was on an 80km posted stretch of road, and the other guy may have been going over that as he was drunk.

Both wifey and the drunk dude walked out with a bit of bruising, nothing broken and no hospitalisation for either.
No airbags, no ABS, old tech by todays standard.

Both cars did good, I'm happy with that.


I had a major accident back in the 80's in a ZG Fairlane too.
I walked out of that without a scratch.


Nothing is ever a certainty in life, and car accidents vary a lot.
So long as it's a reasonable size, has a few seat belts, then it's good enough.

More importantly, it must be a manual.

[FairmontGS]

XB coupe? Crash rating?

And it played no part in the FG GT purchase as I assumed that such a high-end car would have satisfactory crash rating without me needing to check it.

[Vesper Martini]

I have never looked at Crash Test ratings when purchasing a vehicle.
I've just looked at the ANCAP website & I'm not surprised to see at the Top of the list the Mustang with its highly publicised 2 points.
scroll down a bit what troubles me The small Fiat 500 scores 5 does this mean its just as safe as My Territory (5) tested in 2014?

Pretty much every new car has 5 stars so does it mean a lot? maybe the new testing should be more strict.

[Nikked]

I think ANCAP scores are meaning less if they don't test them...whats the point of using the scores from a test designed for European conditions? Bigger question is how electronic aids carry so much weight...

The star system should be for crash worthiness, with separate scoring for passive protection.

[Crazy Dazz]

The problem is that these standards have simply become a ****fest.
It was becoming a running joke with the old standards, practically anything could get 5 star. So they've introduced tougher measures.
But, like everything the government or quasi-government bureaucrats touch, they can't resist turning it into some pinko hippy lovefest.

1. For starters, the ratings include a bunch of total crap, like "pedestrian safety" and various features they claim should be on a car. Which is total and utter nonsense.
   If you are sitting at an intersection, or even driving happily along, and some mongrel crosses to the wrong side of the road and runs into you, what does it matter whether your car has DSC, or anything else.
   Even assigning points based on passive safety features is irrelevant and misleading. You smash car A, and you smash car B, and you compare the results. Doesn't matter if Car B has more features if they don't work and the dummy gets squashed like a bug.
2. Because the ratings are based on minimum criteria across several categories, a car could meet the 5-star criteria everywhere else, and still get only a 2 because its missing a particular feature.
3. As a buyer, I am more than capable of assessing what features I want and require in a car. Otherwise WTF does it end?
   When we went looking for a new Juice Box, my daughter specifically wanted a couple of features. So we looked at models and trim levels that had those features. Does that mean that those without should get a lower rating? What about Silver Cars, should they get a star less than red ones?
4. For All their pseudo-science, these tests BLATANTLY and deliberately ignore the basic laws of Physics. ALL other things being equal, you are safer in a bigger, heavier, stronger car.
   Take the safest rated car in the world, and drive it head on into a Mack Truck, and see who comes out on top.
5. The tests are biased towards the soft end of the scale.
   Nobody wants to have a crash. We don't buy a flamin car because we want to go out and run into stuff. So if I have a moderate crash, yes I'll be peeved, but the size of my bruise is not the determining factor in buying a car. I want to know, if I have a SEVERE crash, what are my chances of escaping death or permanent disability.
6. The side-impact tests are particularly bogus. Who cares about being hit by something that ways less than a tonne? What does that represent, a driverless Daewoo Matiz? I want to know what happens when I get t-boned by land-cruiser.
7. The tests are also not varied or broad enough, and hence they are extremely subject to marginal errors.
   I recall back in the day, when the EB Falcon was panned, because in their specific test the dummy's head just managed to hit the wheel. Which yes, if you're a midget and sit 12 inches from the wheel is a possibility. So Ford fitted an airbag to the EF and it became miraculous safer.
   I had a massive head-on in our XF, and my head never went near the wheel.
   The tests should include a variety of different scenarios, and average the results.
   Otherwise all I conclude is that yes, if you are Japanese, 4ft tall, and weigh 40kg, you should buy a Yaris.
8. How the heck is there no test for rollover or at least crushing???
   Check out the spinal ward sometime.
9. The one test that should be absolutely mandatory for all cars in Australia is a simulated Roo strike.
   and before you start, I have hit a roo twice in my life, both times in suburbia.
   The crazy thing is that a car which scores highly in the pedestrian friendly category, could be lethal if you hit a roo and it comes through the windscreen.

[Ben73]

I just wanted a Ranger because I liked it. Lucky it was 5 star I guess.

[DFB FGXR6]

Another thing that compromises the credibility of these ratings is the lack of testing put to those electronic driver aids that are now vital to scoring the full five stars. If a manufacturer includes these features, NCAP just tick the box, no testing required.

Remember the Toyota Kluger that rolled when the DSC failed to deal with an industry standard swerve test at Wheels Car of the Year? Or the current Toyota Hilux that performed poorly in the same swerve test in a comparison with its competitors, despite the addition of DSC and anti-roll technology. Or the resent testing by Wheels that showed certain vehicles fitted with auto emergency braking fail to just that!

Its important to have all these features. But it is not good enough to just "tick the box" and to not test that these technologies actually perform in an expected way.

So NCAP want to single out certain manufacturers and shame them for not including these features, well it then should be up to NCAP to follow through and make sure that they work for when the consumer may need these items.

[Davehoos]

I can remember when Victoria wanted all new cars to have a/c as it was a safety feature.

[Crazy Dazz]

Originally Posted by DFB FGXR6

Another thing that compromises the credibility of these ratings is the lack of testing put to those electronic driver aids that are now vital to scoring the full five stars. If a manufacturer includes these features, NCAP just tick the box, no testing required.

Its important to have all these features. But it is not good enough to just "tick the box" and to not test that these technologies actually perform in an expected way.

Absolutely correct.
Mercedes spends a $100M developing some new safety feature, and in response the Chinese stick a new button on their car. Which one you gonna trust to save your life?