Jump to content
  • Custom Search


jpd80

Mustang Scores Disasterous 2-Star Crash rating Under NCAP

Recommended Posts

http://www.caradvice.com.au/516889/ford-mustang-gets-two-star-ancap-crash-rating/

 

The massively popular Ford Mustang GT V8 Fastback coupe has received a disastrous two-star safety rating

from the Australasian New Car Assessment Program (ANCAP), based on testing conducted by sister

organisation Euro NCAP, and more than a year after its local launch.

 

In response, a disappointed Ford defended the Mustang’s very sub-par safety performance across an array of

procedures, while promising to add autonomous emergency braking and a lane-keeping aid to new cars from

2018.

 

Given the fact the Mustang managed around 6208 sales in 2016, triple its nearest rival, the impact to

buyers could be significant. Two stars is one of the lowest ratings in ANCAP’s history, though this

week’s result stems from new, more stringent testing criteria than many other vehicles tested in

earlier years.

 

ANCAP’s report, released today, awarded the American-made Mustang (only the GT coupe) a woeful

32 per cent for child occupant protection and just 16 per cent for safety assist technologies, the latter

of which is much more heavily scrutinised now than it was a few years ago.

 

The Pony also managed an ordinary 72 per cent for adult occupant protection (equivalent to a four-star

outcome) and 64 per cent for pedestrian protection, which prompted ANCAP CEO James Goodwin to

call the result “simply shocking for such a newly designed and popular model”.

 

“The safety of adult occupants, child occupants and the ability to avoid a crash all form the basis of

our ratings and the Mustang falls short in each of these areas,” he added.

 

Goodwin slammed the lack of speed assistance systems, lane support systems, autonomous emergency

braking, forward collision warning and rear seat belt reminders, but also the physical crash performance.

 

“Of concern, the full width frontal test showed a risk of serious head, chest and leg injury for the rear

passenger. There was also insufficient inflation of both the driver and front passenger airbags in the

frontal offset test which allowed the driver’s head to contact the steering wheel and the passenger’s

head to contact the dashboard,” he said.

 

Goodwin added that the driver’s door opened in the pole test, and whiplash protection for rear-end collisions

was marginal.

 

“This rating is not intended to shock or surprise – it simply presents the safety of this car against that

of its contemporary competitors,” he said.

 

“This rating should not come as a surprise to Ford as we maintain strong relationships with vehicle

brands and they are informed on the development of our protocols.

 

“I would encourage Ford to swiftly introduce design and production changes to improve its safety

performance.”

 

In response, Ford Australia external communications head Martin Günsberg said the company was

disappointed, citing its five-star NHTSA score and ‘good’ rating from the IIHS, both of which are

US-based testing protocols.

 

“The overall Euro NCAP rating is based on four pillars (Adult Occupant Protection, Child Occupant

Protection, Pedestrian Protection and Safety Assist), with a very strong focus on family car and SUV

safety characteristics and specific safety assist features, which are usually not part of the standard

equipment of cars in the Mustang category,” he stated.

 

“Mustang delivered a four-star result for Adult Occupant Protection, a three-star result for Child Occupant

Protection and a five-star result for Pedestrian Protection. However, a two-star result in the Safety Assist

pillar determined the overall result of a two-star rating.

 

“The Mustang features a suite of advanced safety features as standard including an ‘active’ pop-up bonnet,

as well as driver and front passenger airbags, front and passenger knee airbags. It also offers standard side

airbags, side chest airbags and driver/passenger side impact airbags. A driver and front passenger seatbelt

reminder system is standard.”

 

Günsberg also said that Ford was “committed to continued improvement in vehicle safety”, and that the

new-look 2018 Mustang in Australia (pictured above) would be equipped with driver assistance features

such as AEB and Lane Keeping Aid.

 

Ford Australia still holds a long order list on the Mustang, given the short supply. It remains to be seen what

affect the ANCAP score has.

 

 

PHOTO-w-LOGO-Ford-Mustang-Dec15-onwards-

 

 

 

So now we wait for Ford's response.....

Edited by jpd80

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And here we go....where is the tipping point on electro crap????...again, there has to be a fun to drive factor as i do believe this influences buying choices..it certainly is with me...by the way i dont trust any gubment agency or the media to report the truth...i have no F'S left for any of em..not surprised the bastards used americas icon in this crash report...bastards just want fun to drive sports cars gone as sonehow this is bad for whatever bullshit enviro reason they have..F THEM...rant off

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IIHS seems to think differently

 

http://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings/vehicle/v/ford/mustang-2-door-coupe

 

As for NCAP: "Ford has informed Euro NCAP that orders placed after May will receive an updated vehicle, which will be launched later in 2017, and will be equipped with Pre Collision Assist (with Pedestrian Detection, Forward Collision Warning and Autonomous Emergency Braking) and Lane Keeping Aid."

Edited by JasonM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no issue with these agencies rating the vehicles including the electronic safety equipment. Just don't change the rating system to make what was a 4 or 5 star vehicle into a 2 star vehicle and call it "disastrous" or "poor".

 

Keep the 5 star rating system as is and add a 6 or 7th star for these new things and leave out the derogatory adjectives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could be something as simple as the timing of the airbags, since that's what the main issue seems to be, Dummy hitting the steering wheel. If you look at the structure, it held up better than the last IIHS that it scored well in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From http://www.euroncap.com/en/results/ford/mustang/26063

 

The passenger compartment of the Mustang remained stable in the frontal offset test. Dummy readings indicated good protection of the knees and femurs of the driver and passenger dummies. Analysis of the dummy data showed that the driver's head had 'bottomed out' the airbag i.e. there was insufficient pressure in the airbag to prevent the head from contacting the steering wheel through the deflated airbag material. The head of the passenger dummy also bottomed out the airbag against the dashboard, owing to insufficient inflation of the airbag and inadequate restraint for larger statures by the front passenger seatbelt load-limiter. The scores of both the driver and passenger were penalised for the airbag performance. In the full-width rigid barrier test, protection of the driver was good apart from the chest, protection of which was adequate. However, the rear seat passenger slipped under the lap portion of the seatbelt (a phenomenon known as 'submarining') and the score for the knee, femur and pelvis body region was penalised and protection was rated as poor. Protection of the chest was also rated as poor as the rear seatbelt (which has neither pre-tensioners nor load-limiters) showed an excessively high tensile force in the test. Dummy readings of head deceleration indicated weak protection of the head for the rear passenger. In the side barrier test, the Mustang scored full points with good protection of all critical body areas. Even in the more severe side pole test, protection of the chest was adequate and that of other body regions was good. Tests on the front seats and head restraints demonstrated a marginal level of protection against whiplash injury in the event of a rear-end collision. A geometric assessment of rear seats indicated poor whiplash protection in these seating positions. The current Mustang is not equipped with an autonomous emergency braking (AEB) system, which would have provided greater whiplash protection. However, Ford have indicated that the next version of the Mustang will have AEB.

 

Rear seat - For the impact tests, the 10 year dummy was sat on a booster cushion. Owing to limited rear space the results of the dynamic tests on the 10 year dummy were done in a separate test. In the frontal offset test, protection of the 10 year dummy was rated as at least adequate. However, the shoulder belt slipped between the clavicle and the upper arm and the score for the dummy in this test was penalised. Protection of the 6 year dummy, sat in a high-back booster, was rated as good and adequate for the head and neck respectively but dummy readings of chest deceleration indicated marginal chest protection. In the side barrier test, dummy readings indicated good protection, apart from the head of the 10 year dummy. The head bottomed out the side curtain airbag, making contact, through the deflated airbag material, with the trim on the C pillar. Consequently, all points were lost for the 10 year dummy in this test. The front passenger airbag can be disabled to allow a rearward-facing restraint to be used in that seating position. However, information provided to the driver regarding the status of the airbag did not meet Euro NCAP's requirements and the system did not score any points

 

s and the system did not score any points.

Edited by MKII

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do they use different dummies?

 

The Euro NCAP is, superficially, identical to the IIHS front overlap (40mph, 40% overlap), and the side impact test is performed at a lower speed in Euro NCAP (40mph in US, 30mph in Euro NCAP).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do they use different dummies?

 

The Euro NCAP is, superficially, identical to the IIHS front overlap (40mph, 40% overlap), and the side impact test is performed at a lower speed in Euro NCAP (40mph in US, 30mph in Euro NCAP).

Correct, it's the way they score that crash data in relation to accessories and expectations in certain areas,a l

ot of that is based on passenger sedans/hatches and Utilities. I think Mustang is suffering by being a more

unique coupe design that seats rear passengers between the wheel tubs making rear air bags difficult but

perhaps curtain airbags would help.

 

Update sensors to the driver on the status of front passenger airbag which can be disabled will also help,

little stuff like that which can be bundled and applied to the next patch of cars beyond say May orders

as mentioned above...and then we get into changes in the '18 cars that can hopefully get on top of this.

 

And for anyone playing along at home, this is probably why GM did not proceed with ATS, CTS and Camaro

roll out in Europe/NCAP - I have a feeling that GM would have suffered a similar experience with its cars.

It also speaks to the amount of unseen work done by Ford on truly globalizing its volume products.

Edited by jpd80

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All my cars have optimal crash avoidance.

It's called staying off the phone, paying attention,

adjusting speed for the environment, assuming other

drivers are hopeless, and keeping the car in virtually

brand new condition mechanically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I looked at the videos the MKII linked. Obviously, I'm not a safety engineer, however, those looked completely survivable. The one shot shows the steering wheel air bag and in no way does it look to bottom out. I think this is somewhat bogus. Does there need to be improvement, ofcourse. Is it a catastrophe, hell no. The only one that looks bad on almost any vehicle is the slide in to pole test. Ouch!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ford didn't anticipate E-NCAP to test the 2016 Mustang so it wasn't built to pass the test.

 

I'm sure the 2017 will now ace the test. Everyone build to the test so it is what it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The mere fact that you have to "design to a specific test" to get an acceptable score and the huge discrepancy in results from similar tests underscores the variability of crash conditions and the inability of a few very specific scenarios to adequately predict real world performance.

 

It's no longer about actual occupant safety - it's about acing a test.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If you’re on the waiting list to buy this, do you want it any more? The car is obviously not performing as most people would expect a car in 2017 to do.

 

Of course you do. Nobody is cancelling their order. And how do they know what "people" expect from a car? All they know is what they have mandated. Show the "people" the NHTSA and IIHS results and see what they think.

 

 

 

You can say all you like you’re a safe driver, but we know the road toll is rising for the first time in decades.

 

Really?

 

Annual_2015_Chart.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rear seat belt warning? Why, back in my day, all cars came with rear seat belt warnings! We called them Mom and Dad!

 

The mere fact that you have to "design to a specific test" to get an acceptable score and the huge discrepancy in results from similar tests underscores the variability of crash conditions and the inability of a few very specific scenarios to adequately predict real world performance.

 

It's no longer about actual occupant safety - it's about acing a test.

 

No Car Left Behind?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×