Crash-testing: continuation of slightly off-topic but interesting thread

We had been discussing, inter alia, the comparability of crash tests, their
relevance to real life and the safety of different cars.

In the Driving section of the Sunday Times, UK's leading quality Sunday
paper there was an article on 27 Jul 03.

Some points (some 'obvious'), based on EuroNCAP tests, old and new:-

1) Toyota Avensis - 5 stars out of 5, model 2003.

2) Rover 100/Metro (pre-BMW) - 1 star, the worst of the lot, being the
only one with this rating. Fine British engineering :-(.

3) Old Merc C-Class and old BMW 3-series - mediocre performance under NEW
test, but new E-Class excellent performance, also by vehicles from Fiat,
Peugeot and Renault, among others..

4) "There is no question that car manufacturers are now designing theri
cars with our tests in mind," says ...EuroNCAP..."But what is crucial is
that they improve safety in all areas, not just those affected by our
tests."

5) In general, small cars are never going to be as safe as larger ones,
but the EuroNCAP tests judge cars relative to their size class.

6) ...newer does not always mean better; the Kia Sedona achieved two
stars (out of five) earlier this year...Although the EuroNCAP tests are
painstakingly executed to the highest professional standards, they do not
offer a definitive verdict on a car's safety. ...after the Sedona's
embarrassingly poor performance at the hands of EuroNCAP, ...the US NCAP
organisation put the car through some different tests (and) it received a
full five-star rating.


More food for thought.

DAS

 

That is one of the deciding factors when I purchased my Expedition over the
GM SUVs.

Ken