Quote:
|
Originally Posted by freaky
Surprising ?
Despite a $1 billion development budget - the most of any locally-made car - the new Holden Commodore has the same safety rating as a five-year-old Ford Falcon.
That's the verdict according to the independent crash-test body, the Australian New Car Assessment Program (ANCAP), which is funded by motoring authorities in each state and territory in Australia.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/...414217266.html |
What a load of crap, the "new Holden Commodore" did not get the rating, the Omega did, most VE have side impact airbags so the score cannot be extrapolated, no Falcons have side impact airbags so that score applies across the range, how missleading. Note, I also agree Holden should be castigated for making safety features optional, but the above statement is just delibrately missleading. The tests also take no account of safety features like ESP which would help avoid sliding at 90 degrees into a steel pole.
The only thing you can conclude from these tests is that when hitting a stationary concrete barrier head on in a XT BA falcon you will be safer than in a VE Omega. Great next time I plan to do that i'll drive my BF.
Why do people have an orgasm when Ford beats the VE in a test and forget to look at what is being said.
The tests are a method to compare different brands with each other. Great, problem is they do that under one set of conditions (well 2 if you count the side impact). Then you, the reader, are left to extrapolate that into the real world. Every post above has assumed you can just scale it up.
Holden have consitently said their car is a slighty over 4 rating in the tests, then they have refused to supply a car (which acording to the ANCAP they shouldn't have to do anyway!) because they do not agree with the methodology. Further they do their own testing with the data from Melborne university of real world crashes (I assume Ford would also participate in this). They have stated that a car engineered to score high on these tests would not necessarlily be safe in a real world test. The ANCAP people argue that the tests are standardised to allow cross manufactuerer comparisions, problem is that now manufacturers build cars to pass the tests with 5 stars, not necessarily to be the safest possible (some other Euro manufacurers also support this position and hence do their own testing with 2 cars head on at 100km/h). I know which approach I would trust my life to, however I will ensure when I hit an offset deformable concrete barrier at 64KPH I will ensure I am not in an Omega.
As you may note from the above, Safety is the single most important feature I look for in any car, therefore it really annoys me when I see half truths published in order to further political agendas, then repeated by people/sheep as "facts".
http://www.safecarguide.com/exp/ancap/ancap.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From
www.drive.com.au
Holden and Toyota are refusing to supply Commodores and Aurions for independent scrutiny.
In a major snub to the Australian New Car Assessment Program, the independent crash test scheme, Toyota and Holden have both refused an opportunity for their large Aurion and Commodore sedans to become the first Australian made vehicles to carry the maximum five-star safety rating.
ANCAP has completed initial testing, for front and side impact protection, on Aurion and Commodore, using four cars bought with its own funds.
It is now asking Toyota and Holden each to supply a third car and pay for the final stage of the tests, which involve another side impact, this time against a pole rather than another (simulated) vehicle.
Read the rest here
http://www.drive.com.au/Editorial/Ar...ID=38523&vf=12