Toyota Motor Corp's Camry, the best-selling mid-size car in the U.S., and the Prius V hybrid earned the lowest ratings in a new crash test simulating a severe front-end collision, an insurance group found.

The two Toyotas received the only “poor” scores on an Insurance Institute for Highway Safety test intended to evaluate a crash in which the front corner of a vehicle collides with another car, a tree or a pole. It is more stringent than the U.S. government’s test, which simulates a collision in which two vehicles or objects meet head on.

Toyota engineers have a lot of work to do to match the performance of their competitors,” Adrian Lund, the insurance group’s president, said in a statement.

The insurance-industry funded group, based in Arlington, Virginia, said it introduced its so-called small-overlap test this year because that type of accident accounts for almost a fourth of frontal crashes that seriously injure or kill people in front seats.

“With this new test, the institute has raised the bar again and we will respond to the challenge,” Brian Lyons, a Toyota spokesman, said in an e-mail. “We are evaluating the new test protocols and can say that there will not be one single solution to achieve greater crash performance in this area.”

Test results showed mid-size cars such as Honda Motor Co.’s Accord and Suzuki Motor Corp.’s Kizashi that had “good” ratings performed better than most comparable luxury models.
The insurance group released scores for mid-size luxury cars in August, finding most of the 11 models scored “marginal” or “poor” in the new test.

For full article, click here http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-20/t...crash-test.html

If US also like that, Those Camry / Prius in Malaysia i really no eye see

This post has been edited by Myoswee: Dec 20 2012, 03:17 PM

yup....still sell like hot cake here
even crash test have zero star

where is mazda?? or grouped as ford already

IIHS small-overlap crash test, Volvo S60 rated "GOOD".
Toyota, you are big liar!

This post has been edited by Bubble Ring: Dec 20 2012, 04:41 PM

Malaysian Camry will never get into a crash so no need for VSC. So those crash results don't apply to Camry.

alot of people been missing the fact that its written there that the TWO toyotas were rated VERY GOOD in the earlier IIHS tests. not at all supporting the brand, but with all people screaming fair, then it shudnt be hide the fact the TWO toyotas were at TOP of the tests by the same institute

The test differs every year i think. And it gets tougher. But it is true that there is no engineering that could cover all aspects without making the car affordable. If it was so durable that u are cocooned even from a bomb blast, then they will never need to make a new car again.

Honda Accord


Suzuki Kizashi


Toyota Camry


My personal favourite, Toyota Prius V


Cili sos

This post has been edited by dares: Dec 20 2012, 09:19 PM

wow. The Suzuki looks best. The area where the driver sits is in a remarkably good shape. Honestly I'm surprised.

Oh, and keep in mind that this is the US spec Camry. Not the ASEAN spec. The ASEAN spec would have performed worse than this.

This post has been edited by kadajawi: Dec 20 2012, 10:32 PM

Nice sharing!
GOA body structure, lame and marketing gimmick from Toyota.

no offense, but looks like the "tyre displacement" after the crash determine the quality of crash test...

both toyota's tyre were protruded into the cabin.

it's more of cabin intrusion.. can be tire or other metal bits going in to cabin to maim the human..

Wow, look like the Prius is worst, the driver probably will die if really involve in such accident!

Prius V. They didn't test any of the Priuses on our roads.

Btw., EuroNCAP retested the Toyota Aygo, and it did... well, not very good.

"The current model of Aygo and its twins lack basic items such as side impact airbags and electronic stability control as standard equipment. In response to Euro NCAP�s tests, Toyota has made a commitment to make the following items standard by July 2013 in all European countries:

� side thorax airbag
� side head curtain airbag
� electronic stability control
� passenger seatbelt reminder
� ISOFIX and top-tether in rear outboard seats"
http://www.euroncap.com/Content-Web-Articl...point-in-s.aspx

It achieved a 3 star rating, but that includes these additions. Without it would probably have been much worse. But there you see it: The rating is so important in these countries that not by legislation but by a bad test result they immediately try to make the car safer, add features etc. That is the strength of the consumer, they know with a 1 or 2 star rating no one would buy an Aygo anymore. Even 3 stars is a tough sell.

Btw. what strikes me is that the Volvo in the video scratches along the obstruction and then just drives on... more or less. It sheds of a bit of metal, but the car seems to be slightly redirected, so that it can move on. In the Audi for example a harder part of the car seems to be hit, the car hooks onto that and stops much more abruptly. Then the direction of the car is totally changed and the car is turned by 90°. Not sure if that was just lucky for Volvo or if they intentionally designed the car so that non-frontal colisions are averted this way (which seems to be the smart thing to do).

Same with the Camry, as you can see here:

The car just hooks onto the block, and then even worse (probably due to the rotation) the driver headbutts right past the airbags into the dashboard.


The Suzuki did similar to the Volvo as you can see, it manages to push itself past the obstruction. It still slows down, but by far not as much as for example the Camry does.

This post has been edited by kadajawi: Dec 21 2012, 05:52 PM

oh no....camry owners hiding...all those that say camry > K5....well...think again

The Kizashi kept the tyre, but still managed to do well.

Suzuki had no experience in making d-segment car, Kizashi is their first product.

But the crash testing really amaze me.

but for suzuki, the tyre actually being pushed to the side (base on the video), rather than pushed straight towards the cabin like toyota did.
besides, suzuki and the volvo being pushed to the side just after the impact.

honda seems doing well.

this test may not convince me. though maybe, just for me

I think they are intentionally pushed to the side and move on. As in under what we can see there are thingstthatxan redirect the car. Like if a boat crashes into something, due to the shape it will get scratches but move to the side and continue. Those cars that perform poorly just hook on. And in the case of the Camry and Prius V it is especially bad because the steel just doesn't seem as tough.

The only thing these tests taught me is, when a head-on collision is imminent, steer your car for a full frontal impact instead of aiming for the side (small overlap)

Well, but if you can make it it is better to avoid the crash completely. That's what makes this test so important I guess. Because it happens quite frequently... Trying to avoid a crash, but not completely managing to. And if the cars are designed for this caseiI believe it is to be preferred over a head on collision. After all the car/body doesn't have to absorb the complete crash energy since it keeps on moving in the original direction in the end.

Well to be fair, lots of manufacturers design their cars to pass the standards set forth by IIHS and most probably exceed the safety standards prior to this new test. So it's not just Toyota that performed poorly, even luxury marque didn't fair too well either.

That said, if the US spec Camry with all its safety features loaded performed so poorly, I can't imagine how much worse our Asian spec stripped down Camry will fare in the same test. Now I really feel sorry for those people who paid good money for the new Camry, it's almost as bad as driving a tin can on 4 wheels and a death trap waiting to happen.

It also shows that Japanese cars CAN be safe. Only the models sold in Malaysia aren't. And the consumer is the one to blame.

I also blame the government in not pushing for stricter car safety standards and enforcing them.

Agree, it's more of cabin intrusion due to weak firewall and A-pillar.



Here's the infinity loop GIF.
See how the steering column collapsed and deformed.
Don't forget to count how many times the steering wheel rotated.



This post has been edited by Bubble Ring: Dec 22 2012, 01:06 PM

All,
Please show this to your mum and dad at least to make them understand the truth of Toyota. Dont blindly support Toyota anymore.

I really appreciate TS shared this information.

But why are cars safe in Europe, even without these rules and regulations? Keep in mind the Lada Niva is road legal and on sale in Germany. A russian car, released 1976, and hardly modified since. It comes with seatbelts and ABS. Nothing else. Nada.

The consumer has the power to change this. By demanding safer cars. By not buying cars that aren't. Alternatives are available... the Preve is safer and cheaper than the competition at it's price range, and beats all the C segment cars from Japan, even though they may cost 2x as much. The Fiesta in some specs is probably the safest car below 100k, perhaps even more. It might very well be safer than the Toyota Camry. And obviously, Camry and friends are easily beaten by similarly priced and better equipped Contis. Still, people prefer to buy the cars that are not so safe. I mean... Prius and Prius C are well equipped, and relatively safe cars. And they come from Toyota. But sales aren't strong, even though they are priced much better than other Toyotas. What does this tell car manufacturers? Maybe when Ford rips out all the airbags out of the Mondeo and charge more for it it will be the best selling car in Malaysia?

@Bubble Ring: The Camry, and all the other cars that did poorly, came pretty much to a complete stop and rotated by at least 90°. On the other hand those cars that did well were simply redirected, pushed aside and then moved on. Some did rotate a bit, but over a longer time period.
1. Coming to a full stop in such a short time span puts much more stress on the car, thus causing more damage.
2. Coming to a full stop in such a short time span puts much more stress on the passengers.
3. The rotation makes the driver miss the airbag. Especially in the Camry (whose airbag looks a bit pathetic) the head just pushes past the airbag to colide with the dashboard. In other cars with this rotation the airbag seems to be better pumped up, so that the head is at least slowed down more before crashing into the dashboard.

Yes, the Camry seems to have collapsed much more than other cars that have stopped completely and rotated, and that is very bad. Almost looks like the car was only designed to withstand exactly what the typical crash test scenario would test for, at those speeds. If the forces are a bit higher, the car will crack. Other cars seem to have been designed for faster crashes that exceed the typical EuroNCAP crash test... i.e. they weren't only designed for many stars (a softer car that is just strong enough for EuroNCAP might be cheaper to produce, and it can probably distribute the violent forces more evenly, to keep stress on the passengers lower. At least in exactly this situation. Which means better ratings).
I think this crash should be tougher because only one side of the car is squeezed together, rather than both in more common crash tests.

OMG. Safe and sound choice turns out not safe and sound at all...what a revelation!

Not to defend any car makes here, but as IRC this test has caught many car makes unawares. Many cars have failed this test.

But few as bad as the Camry and Prius V.

I wonder about cars that are not sold in US fare in such test, for example Protons, Peroduas, Pugs.

Peugeot should be as safe as the other contis.

Perodua and Proton... depends. Viva is awful. Rusa too. Myvi and Alza should do as bad/good as the Vios. Which is not very good, but... well, what do you expect. Proton... old ones are awful (Saga, Wira). New Saga and Waja are soso. Gen-2 is comparable with Avanza, but that's not exactly good... might not even be as good as Saga or Waja. Exora should be acceptable, Preve decent. However it always depends on the specs and tests. Frontal crash with 40% offset should be acceptable, 20% offset for P1 and P2 I guess catastrophic. Same for side impact, except for Preve Australian spec, though the CFE is somewhere in between.

Wira:


Saga:


Modern Peugeot (208):

kadajawi,

any idea about the pug 308t and 408t?

Sure.



You can find the detailed results at the EuroNCAP website. There they also list the specs that were tested, so you can see if the Malaysian spec should behave similarly or not. The 408 is a 308 sedan, right? Then it should be more or less comparable.

Hey lunchtime, see that u still want to get to the bottom of Crash test result /safety rating for Peugeot 408...

Well if 308 EUROPE NCAP can be a near rating for 408 and accepted as comparable to IIHS, then as suggested by kadajawi, read below

http://www.euroncap.com/results/peugeot/30...tlaunchmobile=1

And about a lot of cars makes were caught off guard... I believe that is precisely the purpose ? because accident always happen off-guard and IIHS as its name applies must be looking at what sort of insurance premium would be right , so risk management is indeed about that off guard chance of crash case case scenario? I dunno for sure ...just IMHO

This post has been edited by EnergyAnalyst: Dec 26 2012, 08:59 AM

yes i would like to know about the 408 and 308 as i m considering it at the moment.

Unfortunately, the 408 has not been tested to Euro NCAP or IIHS or ANCAP standards. It should be similar to the 308 and particularly the 308cc but remember this is a car that isn't going to be sold in Europe or America and therefore there's a likelihood that the car isn't designed or constructed to meet the strict Euro NCAP or IIHS crash standards. The only available data is the CNCAP and I don't think they are particularly strict at the moment, however, the good news is they are improving with the help of their foreign partners.

I think you should consider the 308 or the Ford Focus instead if you want to buy a car with a proven crash test record.

This post has been edited by zweimmk: Dec 26 2012, 10:33 AM

I prefer the 308t but was told the horrible reliability of the 308t by the SA.

His advice, go for the 408t instead since the ECU has been updated.

Hey lunchtime, check back the thread at Peugeot 408, a link by another fellow P408 owner apart from myself has just posted the link of C-NCAP full report on 408. Check also 308 ANCAP score , again no 408 there at down under.

I think the PUG's in Malaysia will always have horrible reliability ~ could be due to lack of adaptation of the cars for our humid conditions, which eats into electrical gizmos quickly.

The reliability issues are the main reason people are not buying too many of those cars.

any IIHS for civic, city, golf, jetta?

Bear in mind the test done by CNCAP for the 408 was back in 2010, they have since updated their crash standards although I think it's still not as strict as IIHS or Euro NCAP yet.

malaysia still using handiCAP, huh?

Peugeot has a not so good reputation in Europe too.

But all manufacturers except for the Japanese are improving, so I wouldn't be that worried. Manufacturers are closer to each other than in the past.

Malaysia has the ASEAN NCAP testing facility. However they only test frontal impacts. First batch (B segment cars) has probably been tested already, but results will be published early 2013. They are testing according to EuroNCAP and ANCAP standards, with the help of experts from them. Sadly no side impact tests, but it is a start. Once they also do side impacts you should start seeing 4 to 6 airbags on all cars. At least if customers pay attention to the test results and let it influence them in their buying decision.

Reliability is a big world nowadays even for Toyota, dare I say?

Well, a lot of car manufacturers design their cars to meet or exceed current safety standards set forth by regulation groups. So it's not surprising when something new comes along, a lot of cars either don't do very well or fail horribly. Also, from a business point of view, if it isn't an officially adopted test standard then there is no reason for them to implement the new criteria into their design and construction since its an additional cost.

But cars which are sold in US must or will eventually undergo this new test standard but does that mean that this new test is also adopted in Euro NCAP? If not, then that means car manufacturers such as Peugeot, Renault etc are also susceptible to the same poor or marginal test results since these cars don't have to undergo the small overlap test.

Oh my mistake ASSume is a bigger word!

This new test is optional from what I know. But yes, small overlap tests will sooner or later be added to the various NCAPs.

Renault should be fine, usually they belong to the safest cars. Renault is known for safety.

Renault is partnership with Nissan,
I guess Nissan should be ok.

Or Infiniti crash test.

Nah. Renault owns Dacia, and Dacias aren't very safe. Renault relies on safety to sell cars, they advertise that they are class leading. But it is not only about the knowledge on how to make safe cars, it also costs money. Development costs as well as per car because higher quality materials have to be used etc.

You can bet that a third world Nissan won't be terribly safe. Infiniti yes. Cars like the Juke or Qashqai, I.e. intended for Europe also. But cars like the Almera or Grand Livina?

Yes is depend how much you can afford it.

How bout vios else?

Vios in the US is not considered very safe in the US. The body is a bit soft. Then the Vios here is even downgraded. If you care about safety, look at the Fiesta. Very tough body. And good safety features. Better than the Polo Sedan, and probably as good or better than Polo TSI and GTI.

This post has been edited by kadajawi: Dec 26 2012, 05:50 PM

That's the best you can come up with?

As Kadajawi has rightly pointed out, it cost money to develop safer cars and Peugeot isn't exactly in a position that can be called good and dandy thanks to their Euro woes and it's only logical to conclude that most manufacturers will develop cars to meet or exceed those safety standards that are already in place, anything extra is pretty much a bonus, and since this new test standard is currently only done as an option, there isn't any real incentive to do it because it's not a requirement.

So until Peugeot, Renault, Skoda, Dacia, Alfa Romeo or any other Euro manufacturers have their car tested to this new standard, the logical assumption is that they will probably score poor or marginal, particularly if the car was launched, manufactured or sold prior to 2013 unless stated otherwise from authoritative sources.

The 408 is crashed tested according to CNCAP standards and done in 2010. Is the CNCAP standards the same as Euro NCAP or ANCAP or IIHS or NHTSA standards? Unless they state it to be so, you can't claim the 408 to be as safe as any other 5 star crash test cars that's currently on sale in Europe, Australia or the US. It is not unreasonable to conclude that it should be a relatively safe car because it shares a modified version of the 308 DNA but you can't say it is for sure because there's no other crash data from more recognized institutions to back it up.

Can other Peugeot/AR/Renault etc cars score well prior to this new small overlap test? Yes, the Euro NCAP is considered a stricter standard compared to the NHTSA standard but how well they would fare in the new small overlap test is anyone's guess.

This post has been edited by zweimmk: Dec 26 2012, 08:25 PM

Look Man U dunno I dunno for sure like IIHS showed when a car is not tested, they simply said it is not tested. So when you assume so much I just dunno how to make u see the light man

---

Added on December 26, 2012, 10:58 pmLook Man U dunno I dunno for sure like IIHS showed when a car is not tested, they simply said it is not tested. So when you assume so much I just dunno how to make u see the light man

This post has been edited by EnergyAnalyst: Dec 26 2012, 10:58 PM

We can only guess how cars will perform, if they haven't been tested. Personally I think Renault belongs to the better manufacturers, but of course there are also financial reasons.

Apparently it is well known that the small overlap test is rather realistic, and there is a way to do well in the test (and in real life): Have elements that redirect the car. The Volvo is using this. Other manufacturers, like Audi and Mercedes, know about this. But yet they refuse to do it. Until now. This test may change it.

Btw., look at a few older crash tests:
BMW 3 series E36:


Mercedes C class, W202:


Old Polo (1997):


Volvo S40 (1997, best car of the year):


And the worst offender:

After this test sales of the car basically stopped. No one wanted one anymore.

Btw., the Lexus GS and the Toyota GT86/Subaru BR-Z come with an aircon fluid that can burn. While burning an acid is created that is deadly when touched, toxic gasses are also released. Well done, Toyota

This post has been edited by kadajawi: Dec 26 2012, 11:14 PM

dont talk about the gov they suck, they are famous of creating damage first than rectify. wha more UMW tOYOTA A GOV LINKED COMPANY

I think Malaysia consumer also had to blame for this kind of situation.

As Kadajawi say, the germany didn't had strict enforcement for the car safety features, yet people at europe will stay away from car that had bad crash test.

But in Malaysia, i think most of the people only care about the exterior/interior looks, ICE and price only. The safety features, which cannot be added aftermarket, not much people care about it.

The thing that japs manufacturer come out the gimmick bodykit/suspension tuning in Malaysia market really tell us what most Malaysia what factor to be considered when buying new car.

Pass the word around everywhere

The problem with the brake continues ,I have changed my Brake disc and pad 4 times over the last 2 years, and the problem recurring again and again.
Toyota Malaysia choose not to comment on this officially but quietly admit there is a problem with the brakes.
Malaysia Camry owners and drivers life at stake do not compromise, we pay huge amount for the quality but we are taken for a ride, .

Toyota should recall all Camry sold last 2 years and find a permanent solution, before somebody die due to the brake manufacturing defects.

http://toyotasucksbigtime.blogspot.com/

http://www.iihs.org/ratings/summary.aspx?class=30

VW jetta and Hyundai sonata only get marginal rating I.e lower than acceptable rating for the small overlap crash test!

http://www.iihs.org/ratings/summary.aspx?class=15

Look how Lexus 2 models also get poor rating for this test but I am also surprised to see Audi A4, Mercedes C class also get poor rating . BMW 3 series and VW CC also only get marginal rating... What's wrong with these 3 Germans (BMW, Mercedes, VW+Audi of same VW group). The only good European champion is Volvo S60... And Volvo is 100% owned by Chinese auto maker Geely. The world has changed indeed.

The ratings for moderately priced cars in the US. We need to keep in mind that the Camry tested here was the US version with the full 10 airbags and VSC. Malaysian version 2.5V only has 4 airbags and no VSC.

http://www.iihs.org/ratings/summary.aspx?class=30

Volvo is indeed the company that's most committed to safety. That doesn't have to change just because the company that owns them is Chinese. Geely is probably interested in this safety tech themselves, to boost their own cars to ratings at which they can be sold in US and EU.

I believe it was Merc that criticised that the test involves a solid block of concrete. Typically you don't crash into houses, you crash into other cars. Some of the Germans also say redirecting the car can be dangerous too, as who knows where the car is redirected to. Might be some pedestrian. I see it as a lame excuse though. The next generation of these cars will clearly do much better.

If you look at the videos I have posted earlier you see how the Germans (and Japanese) were caught with their pants down when the first EuroNCAP tests were done. Only Volvo was prepared and did great. It's the same thing now. In a few years it'll be fine. Well, the new cars launched THEN. Safety tech is quickly improving.

Also keep in mind that these German car makers focus on avoiding crashes in the first place. The car will steer back to the lane when the driver is not attentive (and the car will try to wake the driver/make him rest a while), the car will slam the brakes when necessary, will warn the driver if he has overlooked another car while changing the lane, etc.

At least the VW Jetta and Hyundai Sonata are both EuroNCAP, ANCAP and IIHS certified to meet existing crash standards. Can you able to say the same about the Peugeot 408? I'll be happy to correct my statement if the P408 has been crash tested to either IIHS, euroNCAP or ANCAP requirements.

Nothing surprising about the result at all, it just shows that many car manufacturers design their cars around these crash standards and passing them with flying colors. If its not a requirement, there's little incentive to do extra, why add unnecessary cost when you don't need to?

This post has been edited by zweimmk: Dec 27 2012, 02:14 AM

If i follow your reasoning and your way of logic the absent of result is therefore poor result, are you suggesting those IIHS rating of not tested means poor?
The same way I cannot show you P408 performance is the same way you have alos no ground to claim p408 is poor.


if again folllowing your logic,
" that many car manufacturers design their cars around these crash standards and passing them with flying colors. If its not a requirement, there's little incentive to do extra, why add unnecessary cost when you don't need to?"

now tell me then, Since P408 is designed initially to be sold in China, hence peugeot get C-NCAP rating, and they are not made to be sold in Europe/USA and they are barely venturing into AUSTRALIA, what incentive Peugeot has to send P408 or testing in Europe or USA, we may see an ANCAP rating or Latin Cap rating only if Peugeot like your beloved VW or other Germans see an incentive to do so.

You basically answered your own question about the P408, there's no incentive to test the car at all. But we already know that the CNCAP ratings BEFORE July 2012 is nowhere as strict as the EuroNCAP or IIHS or ANCAP ratings and it was tested way back in 2010, so need to say more? Why talk about the small overlap test when it isn't even on EuroNCAP standard yet.

http://www.chinacartimes.com/2011/02/15/c-...gher-standards/
http://www.caradvice.com.au/141978/chinese...coming-in-2012/

And as for the IIHS rating, the absence of test results means they either haven't gotten around to it or aren't testing for whatever legitimate reasons (older cars, cars not sold in America etc). So is it unreasonable to assume the result to be poor or marginal until proven otherwise? The same way that a defendant is innocent until proven otherwise. It's good to have a token of faith in whatever manufacturer you believe in, but look at what the facts are telling you and draw reasonable conclusion from it instead of just arguing for the sake of doing so.

This post has been edited by zweimmk: Dec 27 2012, 08:22 AM

5 stars across the range if i am not mistaken, they're trying to balance it up coz they love to create crazy performance cars I guess

Cannot say like that each company as a different goal and target market.
Nissan is for every joe ordinary, Infitity is for richfag, etc.

Yup, true.
A friend of mine just came back from Germany.
Over there Golf and Polo is like Myvi and Vios here, everywhere.
When he saw one Daihatsu car which resembles the Myvi he pointed it out to his German friend and said its the most popular car in Malaysia.
The German said, "what? that car has no safety features, mostly bought by poor foreigners or bought for foreign maids to use to drive to the market to buy groceries."

A friend of mine once told me

Either you are fxxxx rich or fxxxx stupid to buy a foreign brand in Malaysia

Just found out in US a V6 Camry 10 air bags selling for USD 30k.

If I recall correctly at least EuroNCAP buys the cars themselves. So they only test cars that are on sale somewhere in Europe and relevant/interesting enough to be tested (i.e. Chinese cars are sold in so small numbers that they are irrelevant, but it is very interesting to see how they do). These tests aren't cheap.

The only thing that manufacturers can do is do their own tests according to EuroNCAP standards. They may do so to prove that the car does indeed adhere to high safety standards. I believe Proton claimed the Exora was tested and would have received a 4 star EuroNCAP rating. But of course there is doubt that the car may have been tampered with. For example Brilliance reworked the BS6, send the car for a test (but not directly by EuroNCAP) and received a result that was significantly better... like 3 stars or so. But would all cars sold be made this good? Who knows. (In this case probably not, because what would they do with the leftover stock?).

CNCAP is still useful though, as you can see how other cars performed. The Avanza is for example a 3 star car, the Proton Gen-2 too. When the Peugeot easily gets 5, you can at least see that it is a significant improvement. And if they also have tested the 308, and it gets similar results, it at least hints that the 408 would do similar too, in EuroNCAP (always under the condition that they have the same or better safety features).

Renault is mostly a maker of budget family cars. Think Proton or Perodua. Affordable and sensible. Their crazy sports cars are just because they are French... there's always a bit of French crazyness. See Citroen, who had finished developing a small car, that was absolutely competitive, and then decided to not build it because it was too conventional. It wouldn't destroy the competition. Or Renault, who built a family van... that was really just a Formula 1 car in a van shell.
Anyway, Renault tries to be the maker of sensible, affordable cars that are also adhering to high safety standards. Others have since followed suit, of course, since it sells cars. But Renault was first, at a time when it was believed that only expensive cars can be safe.

Actually the Myvi AFAIK does have 4 airbags. Low for German standards, but not that bad. It is also not that cheap, since the Yen is quite strong and the car is built in Japan (unlike the Yaris/Vios which is made in some cheap labour European country). But it's true, the only person I know who ever bought one in Germany was an American who only used it for town use. She did like it though, but before she drove the Citroen Tiara (AX?).

Foreign maids are very, very rare though. I know that had we gotten a maid for my father we would have spent around RM 10k per month. And that wouldn't be full time. Normal employees don't earn that much. And if you are cash strapped you'll probably just buy an old second hand car, though they aren't very safe. (Many have been scrapped in the last scrapping scheme though, where you were paid to scrap your old car if you buy a new one).

I really fail to undersand what is it that you are saying, first you claim Peugeot 408 may show poor result if given the same test either by IIHS or Europe Ncap or ANCAP, but where is the proof of your claim? Unless you can point it to me the source of reference, then you are then assuming

No incentive ?

So it is alright for VW to ignore the forewarning by IIHS, when they do sell these models in USA where IIHS small overlap crash test apply and forewarned by IIHS and saying they have no incentive/no requirement IN THE MARKET THEY SELL THESE BABIES, they will stick to having just the Top Safety Pick choice award without wanting the Top Safety Pick + award?


And it is not alright for Peugeot to not go for EuroNcap rating or IIHS at the market they don't sell 408 model, and ony get CNCAP from China when they do sell that baby?




Don't plea innocent as..." I didn't know...", read this
http://www.iihs.org/news/rss/pr122012.html

Caption:
IHS gives manufacturers advance notice of planned changes. Automakers in the past have been quick to factor new IIHS evaluations into their designs, and many are on track to do the same with the introduction of the small overlap test and Top Safety Pick+.

"We've seen automakers make structural and restraint changes in response to our small overlap test," Lund says. "Five manufacturers redesigned their midsize cars to enhance small overlap crash protection."

Honda engineered both versions of the Accord to do well in the test. Ford and Nissan made running structural changes to 2013 models already in production. Subaru and Volkswagen changed airbag control modules on the production line so side curtain airbags would deploy for improved head protection.

VW changed their air bag control modules....and thought it would suffice? no siree?


As a consumer your self, do you feel fine with not requirement /not necessary from VW or any other maker for that matter? It is your life, your choice

The small overlap test is imposed due to most accidental injury or dealth had been caused by less than or at 25% frontal collision (meaning hitting a lampost or a small tree or while steering and avoiding the obstacles in front of your car you managed to steered most but still leaves a smaller portion of object with collission impact ) as opposed to 40% frontal collision which is the normal test standard for frontal collision

I wish I know how my Peugeot 408 will perform under such test, honestly I do but with no such test was performed, so I dunno what I still dunno, and IF really you have a source of reference to point to me how they perform fro small overlpa test? I want to know the truth with basis and not base on some smartass assumption. Poor?/Marginal?/Acceptable?/Good?Still I get no answer.

Why C-NCAP 2010 never get updated to 2011, 2012? The only answer one can give is Honestly we dunno...any jumping into conclusion is another typical smartass assumption.

Set aside model for a moment, in market that VW and Peugeot do compete with their models, can we refer to E-NCAP say for scoring of Polo/Golf/Jetta/Passat vs 206/207/208, 306/307/308, 405/406/407, etc. etc.?

508 vs Passat (both Earned 5 star E-Ncap)

http://www.euroncap.com/results/peugeot/508/2011/433.aspx
http://www.euroncap.com/results/vw/passat/2010/415.aspx
But the details are more revealing
Adult Occupant: Passat 91% vs 508 90%
Child Occupant: Passat 77% vs 508 87%
Pedestrian : Passat 54% vs 508 41%
Safety Assist : Passat 71% vs 508 97%

So you win some I win some, but note even in E-NCAP the result is 2010 for Passat and 2011 for 508, shall we also shoot E-NCAP like how you shot down C-NCAP for not revising with latest?

check 206, 207 and 208 vs genenerations of polo

http://www.euroncap.com/supermini.aspx?dontlaunchmobile=1

samething u win some I win some.

but notice how Polo used to be 3 star and 4 star earner in 1997, 2000 and 2002 before they moved up to 5 star in 2009 and P206 areted 4 in 2000 but 207 rated 5 in 2006.

Again the latest rating for Polo is 2009 while 208 is 2012, should we shoot E-NCAP again?

---

Added on December 27, 2012, 2:41 pm At least you are objective and keep your mind open, unlike someone

using the same some one link

caption:
"Until now only the American crash testing authority tested for rear end safety, but with China adding the test in and also the effects on female passengers in a crash, it appears that C-NCAP is going to be among the strictest testing bodies in the world in the next few months.

---

Added on December 27, 2012, 2:51 pmso we will be super fxxxx smart to buy what then you reckon? Proton and Perodua?

This post has been edited by EnergyAnalyst: Dec 27 2012, 02:51 PM

LOL RM30k can't even buy much

Yup you're right.
Though those poorfags can't afford to TUV the old cars will probably just get cheapass unsafe cars.

IKR that kinda assumption is dangerous.

I think he says no one can say how the car will perform, except perhaps for the manufacturer.

Lets take the example of Toyota. The Camry has been developed with many safety features. It may not be a terribly safe car, but hey, at least something. But when it comes to Malaysia, they remove most of the features, even though development costs have already been paid, and it is clear that this tech saves lives. But there is no incentive to put this stuff into the Malaysian Camry, since there are no incentives to do so. It doesn't drive sales, and there are no rules and regulations that force them to put this tech in. Other manufacturers sometimes act similarly. Now there is an incentive to make the cars also safe in small overlap tests, as a result cars will get safer in those tests.

I doubt the manufacturers were given a lot of advance notice... maybe a few months. Depending on how far along a car is in the development cycle that may be enough to make the necessary changes, or it may not be. VW did as much as they could given the short time frame. The next version will certainly do better.


I think it is relatively reasonable to assume that it won't do so well, since manufacturers tend to do only as much as necessary (with the exception of Volvo).


E-NCAP was relatively strict all the time, they always tested at the same speed. What changed was the requirements such as good pedestrian protection, or certain safety features that are needed for 4 or 5 stars. From pre-2012 C-NCAP to post-2012 C-NCAP results there is a big jump, since they moved from 56 to 64 km/h.

@Zenix: TÜV is required for _all_ cars. Every 2 years the cars have to be checked if they are road worthy. Older cars obviously have more problems (even though features like airbags or good EuroNCAP ratings aren't required). Newer, safer cars are usually also in better condition, because, well, they are newer. It might be more sensible to buy a new cheap car (like a Fiesta, Yaris etc.) with warranty and on installment rather than an old second hand car that has to be constantly fixed, where taxes are higher etc. The new car will probably be much safer too.

i think so too.
the engineers pakat with the dept that does warranty.
all those maintenance free batteries claim 1 year warranty.
cun cun 13 years will die

thanks for the confirmation, never been to germany....yet

Why would I need to provide you any proof? The car is not tested with the latest EuroNCAP standards therefore I can claim that it is a safe car in accordance to CNCAP 2010 standards. That's all and end of story. I can't proof that it won't pass EuroNCAP crash standards sure, but the fact remains, it hasn't been tested so what else is there to say except that it's not a EuroNCAP 5 star crash test car.

Yes, Peugeot could have designed the P408 to EuroNCAP standards right at the beginning but until it has been tested and proven to be so, all you have is just conjecture. There's also the possibility that they've reinforced the car structure over the years to meet newer and tougher safety standards sure, but again until proven to be so... you get the picture.

As for the rest your type out, you're basically grasping at straws here. All you have only proven is that car are safer with each passing year and that manufacturers will adjust and modify their car structure accordingly. And yes, I'm completely fine with the fact that my Passat might not receive a good score in the new small overlap test because it was assembled before October of 2012 but at least I'm satisfied that it meets EuroNCAP 5 stars crash testing. If I had bought my current ride in 2013, then I would not be happy if the car did not receive a good score in this test segment, but that's a different story altogether.

And do you know what the difference is with EuroNCAP 2010 and 2011? I sure as hell don't but at least I can reasonably conclude that the majority testing criteria should largely be evolutionary rather than revolutionary based on this this article, but surely not major enough to warrant a big fuss over. But it's not the same with CNCAP before July 2012, the frontal test speed is different, there is no pedestrian safety testing and no rear end test etc, it's a completely different animal compared to the EuroNCAP standards.

I'm done trying to explain every single sentence to you, you don't even understand where I'm coming from in the first place so why bother arguing when you don't even understand the context of the argument? I'm more amazed that you label me as not being objective and close minded, LOL!

This post has been edited by zweimmk: Dec 27 2012, 04:21 PM

I beg to differ with some statement here

Ample or not ample notice, is it a few days, few weeks, few months? how do we know this thing for sure? We only know IIHS indeed give notice, so how individual manufacturer react to it and what did they do in short or long notice, again I will not assume, has indeed make the difference

Honda engineered both versions of the Accord to do well in the test. Ford and Nissan made running structural changes to 2013 models already in production. Subaru and Volkswagen changed airbag control modules on the production line so side curtain airbags would deploy for improved head protection.
If sales is the motivation, Suzuki stated in Nov 2012 that they are pulling out from USA market, what incentive do they have to become the surprised top scorer in this small overlap test?


You have stated 'I think it is relatively reasonable to assume that it(referring to Peugeot 408) won't do so well, since manufacturers tend to do only as much as necessary'
Thoughout the thread, I have not made any single claim that Peugeot 408 will do better , I have repeated said what it has is C-NCAP scoring (ok 2010-lah) of 47.1/51 max oint and gotten a 5 star but on how it will perform fro small overlap tesyt, i have repeated say I dunno.

I question those who said because of xxx, therefore it is reasonable safe to assume that P408 won't do well

Why? who are we, a bunch of amateurs can say something that like that with so much zest and conviction. Where is our humility?

For a change , why not we do what IIHS do , see link below

http://www.iihs.org/ratings/summary.aspx?class=40

see far right, under column 'Front small overlap'

IIHS humbly mentioned Not tested when the model was not tested for Small Overlap test, can we all live with that because the recognized professional authority body never state assume this or assume that.

So can we all stop making assumption? because ASSUME as they say, is making an ASS out of U and ME.

I rest my case

Kinda an AM FM situation.
They're both radio signals but having a 92.9FM doesn't mean it works as 92.9AM

hard to judge.

Dear Mr Zweimmk.

You made claim statements a lot but fail to provide proof, is it a habit or are you born that way? As I've said, I never claim p408 is a better scorer in small overlap test, it is you who claim it is reasonably poor perfomer, when I ask proof, so you now say why should I.

I can only conclude so far you have been a Peugeot basher. I am delighted that you are happy with your VW, I am not VW basher myself. Because a world is big enough place for both of us. unlike you who decidedly not want a Pug for life, I may get my self a VW one day when I retire, perhaps a Polo.

In the end, as each and everytime we debated, you will state i am done with you. Is that how you end all your debate, leaving the party when you have created a controversy and simply walk away?

My advice to you, I reckon you will not take it, is teach your self humility, or acquired it, it will make world a better place.

Not really, the facts have been presented clear enough that most people should understand where I'm coming from. Obviously, it's not clear enough but we can't please them all can we?

---

Added on December 27, 2012, 4:55 pmI think I've already made my case clear enough. There's no controversy at all, you're being overly sensitive here and I can't help it if you don't get it at all. So why waste time trying to convey my point any further when it's not getting its message across anyway? Might as well just move on rather going back and forth over the same issue over and over again.

This post has been edited by zweimmk: Dec 27 2012, 05:06 PM

OK then I am sensitive you said and still i don't get your meaning you said. Great start from being humble! Whatever it is and for what it is worth. Merry belated Xmas if u celebrate it, if not happy holiday and Happy New Year! Drive safe always as all these crash test videos, etc. show despite having the best cars in the world, one still can succumb to injury or worst when it crash

Thanks, I hope you follow your own advice and drive safely always in your P408 as well.

This post has been edited by zweimmk: Dec 27 2012, 05:59 PM

I am Glad that it amuses you. Take a seat and enjoy the show! Oh oh oh no it already ended? Common people !

As for battery, IIRC the last battery in the Xsara lasted for 5 years or 6 years... something like that. Maintenance free one. After 4 months of letting the car stand in the garage it started pretty much right away, with a several year old battery. Might be the cold weather that helps, or the quality is better That being said the battery in the Kangoo also lasted like 3 years or so (and it only failed when the engine bay is hot, otherwise still no problems starting), and that car is in Malaysia. Also no problems starting after a few months...

Btw., what was recently changed for example was that for a 5 star rating you need 60% pedestrian protection, not just 40%. So many 5 star cars would be downgraded to 3 stars if tested today. However that doesn't make a difference to those in the car... whereas in C-NCAP the change was much more significant.

As for Suzuki: Other markets may adopt the test, and in any case they can now advertise with how good it did in this test, even for cars that are on sale in Malaysia for example.

Ps: I hate Pug because they bought Citroen and ruined it, took out all the creativity and madness and uniqueness there was.


This post has been edited by kadajawi: Dec 27 2012, 06:10 PM

From what I understand, CNCAP was intentionally held back so that Chinese automakers can get their stuff up to spec before raising the bar higher. Kind of like a milestone, but there's no indication on how strict the CNCAP test standards are post July 2012 except for the frontal testing. Are they following the same EuroNCAP test protocols or a relaxed version until Chinese manufacturers can get their act together?

I'm curious how ASEAN NCAP select their cars for testing. Is it picked from a random manufacturing batch or volunteered in by their respective marques? Hopefully this will encourage safer cars on the road in the near future.

I hope the cars are randomly bought by ASEAN NCAP, but who knows. All we know so far is the list of cars to be tested.

I just test drove the Kia Sportage and Optima, are these better or worst than Pugs 308t and 408t, Madza 3 2.0 and CX-5?

I must admit I was very comfortable with the Kia Sportage although on my mind, will I be throwing money away on such cars?

Next trip will be the Volvo showroom. I was told Volvos are a pain to own, can anyone prove my rumour mill wrong?

Actually i'm curious where is the source of fund for the NCAP lab to buy car and conduct crash test.

Their respective governments, IINM.

Volvo made safety their utmost priority in the design of their cars, it is part of their design mantra. Not sure about their reliability but they are one of the safest car manufacturers in the world today. The KIA Optima also scored very well in the latest IIHS optional small overlap test. These cars are currently the safest cars available on the market today and they should be safer than the cars you have listed except maybe for the CX5. But don't take my word for it, fire up EuroNCAP site to find out yourself.

To quote Dr van Ratingen: '...our tests demonstrate how important it is for manufacturers to keep their cars up to date when it comes to safety. As our protocols develop, cars last tested many years ago should not be assumed to compare well with more modern vehicles. Consumers should buy cars on the basis that the more recent the star rating, the safer the car.'

http://www.euroncap.com/Content-Web-Faq/50...or-testing.aspx

Looking at things from another lens.


http://www.iihs.org/research/hldi/composite
http://www.iihs.org/externaldata/srdata/docs/sr4707.pdf

This post has been edited by EnergyAnalyst: Dec 28 2012, 01:20 AM

Good info, they buy their own cars or obtain it in a manner where you can't prepare a specialized variant to cheat the test.