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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

But few as bad as the Camry and Prius V.

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):

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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

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.

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 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.

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

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.