[Arindam_Nayek]

Modern day cars are really complex to understand. Same car is manufactured with different standards for different countries according to the needs.

Think for India we have 3 major factors priority wise and the (n)th item on priority is safety.
1. Fuel Efficiency. (Leave apart the Car enthusiasts & Big Billionaires)
2. Ground Clearance (Conditions of the Indian Roads)
3. Taxes (Eg: Sub 4 Meter, 1.2 Petrol,1.5 Diesel)
n. Safety (Only ABS & Airbags) Structural safety is again a grey area. People have the money to buy safe cars but don't have the knowledge to adhere to the safety standards. (Eg: Driving Etiquette, Wearing a seat belt Etc.)

On the safe cars my take will be :
Fiats (Punto & Linea), Ford (Ecosport,Fiesta & Endeavor), Skoda.

Removing - Volkswagen(All - Emission norms issue)

I had great expectation from the Honda cars. City was a childhood dream but was really surprised with the quality of the vehicle. I don't feel safe sitting inside it though technically Jazz & City may receive a good safety rating.

[SMindia]

Originally Posted by Arindam_Nayek

On the safe cars my take will be :
Fiats (Punto & Linea), Ford (Ecosport,Fiesta & Endeavor), Skoda.
Removing - Volkswagen(All - Emission norms issue)

If you remove VW (because of its emission norms issue), you must remove even Skoda (for the same reason ). They are one and the same. After all isnt Skoda Rapid a re-badged VW Vento!

[nakul0888]

Without a proper crash test, I don't think anybody can say which car is safe and which car is not.

You can pick up n number of pictures of car accidents from the net and say all sorts of things about each car's safety. But we have no idea, how all these crashes occur. Some happen at 200, some happen at 120, some head on, some rolling over, some rolls over and hits a divider in mid crash, god knows how.

I can show you a pic of a bmw split in half after a crash with barely any sign of an intact passenger cell. I can also show you a figo after a crash with its passenger cell intact. But it doesn't mean anything.
That's why need tests. Unless crash tests are done what everybody is doing is speculating. My mechanic said this and my uncle said that kind of reasoning is hardly convincing.

I have been in a 2013 CRV, a ckd car I believe and it does not have the " heavy doors " build quality of a linea or a Vento even. But it would be just foolish to think that a crv is a less safer car than those two.

[SMindia]

Originally Posted by nakul0888

I have been in a 2013 CRV, a ckd car I believe and it does not have the " heavy doors " build quality of a linea or a Vento even. But it would be just foolish to think that a crv is a less safer car than those two.

Yes, I believe with time, new lighter materials and newer design strategies have evolved. With good structural design and with the right amount of reinforcement at the right places, a lighter car can be as safe as a heavier car.

[Arindam_Nayek]

Originally Posted by SMindia

If you remove VW (because of its emission norms issue), you must remove even Skoda (for the same reason ). They are one and the same. After all isnt Skoda Rapid a re-badged VW Vento!

Yes, I Agree but I see their name nowhere explicitly. So didn't include them. Who knows Skoda might file a defaming case against me.(Pun Intended).
Just checked and got it now. LINK. Skoda too is unsafe.

Originally Posted by nakul0888

Without a proper crash test, I don't think anybody can say which car is safe and which car is not.

+ 1 to your views. We indeed need a good crash test facility and strict norms.

A 5Star rated vehicle can transform to a junk on head-on collision with a Truck. I know this, but I would like my vehicle not to deform with a slightest tap from a Biker. On my views on Honda City, I can say I was very sad seeing the condition of the vehicle.

[carwatcher]

I can bet that even Big Billionaires would be cribbing about mileage.

Its not the car which is complex, its our mentality which is more complex.

Originally Posted by Arindam_Nayek

Think for India we have 3 major factors priority wise and the (n)th item on priority is safety.
1. Fuel Efficiency. (Leave apart the Car enthusiasts & Big Billionaires)

[raghav135]

We often only relate passive safety aspect. We have active safety like ABS, EBD, TCS, ESP, EBA along with passive safety like 6 airbag, child seats. As far as I know only 1 car in sub 10 lakh ex showroom has these and it is Ecosport automatic!!

[The AG 6167]

What I have come to realize after reviewing several accidents is that all the following points considered together should significantly increase the chances of survival -

1.weight, its simple physics, a heavier car would have more momentum at the same speed than the lighter car which means that the impact of the crash on the heavier car would be lower due to a smaller counter force. For example - if maruti baleno (890kg) hits an elite i20 (1066kg) both travelling at the crash test speed of 64 km/hr then the baleno would crumple much more than the i20 because the i20 would carry a momentum (19,188 N) 20% higher than the baleno (16,020 N) taking the counter force on the baleno higher than what it has been crash tested for while the counter force on the i20 would be lower than what it has been crash tested for.

2.Strength of the metal sheet, while this cannot really be tested effectively by buyers but you must pay regard to the feel of the metal when you visit a showroom for a test drive and then research some of its accident stories which you might find on the web or crash tests to understand how well would it hold in a crash.

3.Crumple zones, severely important in a car because without crumple zones there would be a probability that the impact would crumple the passenger cell because if a car without crumple zones crashes, maximum of the crash momentum would act on the center of the car which would be significantly reduced in a car with crumple zones because the duration of impact would increase. example, check out the crash test of a scorpio and an ertiga.

4.Safety equipment, airbags, ABS, EBD, parking sensors, seat belts with pretensioners,ESP(on cars having a ground clearance greater than 180 mm) must not be avoided at the time of purchase and use.

5.handling and tyres, while this may seem weird to many, a good handling car would respond better to emergency inputs from the driver than a poor handling car so it may help you to avoid an accident altogether or maneuver it to a point of less impact. Tyres are the only contact point to the road for a car and so its extremely important to use tyres with a high grip capability and that are sufficiently wide to increase the contact surface which would significantly help reduce braking distance and improve overall grip, as much as low resistance tyres are tempting due to longer life and better fuel efficiency it may not always be the best for an accident scenario.

6.ground clearance, again simple physics, a vehicle with a higher ground clearance would have higher center of gravity leading to a greater chance of toppling in an emergency maneuver by the driver and in some cases even after contact. A car with a lower center of gravity holds its ground better. I came across a video on the internet (unable to find the link currently, would be helpful if someone could post it, thanks) where a creta got tossed around and landed on its left side, on a side impact with a swift dzire.

7.Smaller not so significant things which contribute to safety -
i.well contoured seats, they hold you better in place than flatter ones preventing cuts and bruises in the event of a crash to some extent.
ii.Head and tail lamp, the better they light up the road the safer it is for obvious reasons
iii.cars with good visibility front and back.

8.Maintain your car well, by servicing it regularly at an authorized service station and ensuring all parts are running properly and worn out parts are replaced at the right intervals, the chance of a crash due to car failure could become negligible if not zero.

9.The most important safety feature on any car, the person driving it, you!, if you are attentive and safe in your driving approach it would reduce the chance of an accident significantly. So, research about safety measures to be adopted while driving in different road conditions and implement them.

Considering the above factors, following is a list of cars that I find to be safe (the best of each manufacturer under Rs.15 lakhs on-road) -

1. Maruti - S cross
2. Hyundai - elite i20 (yes, I understand it might be surprising but I back it up that it would survive better in a crash than the existing verna and creta in most scenarios)
3. Honda - City
4. Toyota - None (Etios and its variants use poor metal, weigh miniscule)
5. Ford - Ecosport
6. Mahindra - None (poor crumple zones on all cars)
7. Tata - Tiago, Tigor, Bolt, Zest
8. Volkswagen - Polo, Ameo, Vento
9. Datsun - none
10.Chevrolet - Sail
11.Renault - Scala (yes, not the duster)
12.Nissan - Sunny
13.Skoda - Rapid
14.Fiat - Punto, Linea, Avventura
15.Force - None (poor crumple zones on both cars)

Hope my research helps your buying decision, I would be happy to know.
And if it saves a life, I dont have words to express the happiness

[reignofchaos]

Originally Posted by The AG 6167

4. Toyota - None (Etios and its variants use poor metal, weigh miniscule)


Hope my research helps your buying decision, I would be happy to know.
And if it saves a life, I dont have words to express the happiness

The Etios Liva is a 4 star GNCAP rated car unlike a few others you have put in your list.

The weight of the sheet metal has pretty much zero impact on the crash worthiness of a modern monocoque.

[Vinodh_Gowda]

Originally Posted by The AG 6167

1. Maruti - S cross
2. Hyundai - elite i20 (yes, I understand it might be surprising but I back it up that it would survive better in a crash than the existing verna and creta in most scenarios)
3. Honda - City
...

I am of the view that you have not included the Honda Jazz in the list as the reason might be the same as that for the Etios but then the Etios twins and the Jazz are very safe cars. Weight alone might not determine the safety aspect of the car. If it does then the current City too does not deserve to be in the list owing to the cost cutting methods employed by Honda. Also, Skoda after sales might be bad but then al their cars score better in safety aspect. The Octavia, Yeti and even the old Fabia are safer cars.

Originally Posted by reignofchaos

The Etios Liva is a 4 star GNCAP rated car unlike a few others you have put in your list

Agree with you. Such hollow comparison is mis-leading.

[The AG 6167]

Originally Posted by reignofchaos

The weight of the sheet metal has pretty much zero impact on the crash worthiness of a modern monocoque. You should stop spreading misinformation.

Originally Posted by Vinodh_Gowda

Agree with you. Such hollow comparison is mis-leading.

Thank you for your comments, I would like to bring the fact to your notice that even if your car has scored 5 stars in a crash test it would mean worthless if it were to be hit by a heavier car so weight of metal does matter. The laws of physics cannot be changed, in a crash test the 930kg etios hit a solid stationery barrier which exerted equal force on it as the car exerted on the barrier (16,740 N) at 64km/hr whereas if it were to crash into say the s cross (1190Kg) at a speed of 64km/hr the s cross would exert a force (21,420 N) much higher on the etios for which it has not been crash tested and so the results of such a crash could be quite dreadful for the etios.

I have considered all points together in compiling the list and I have not considered a car with an on-road price higher than Rs.15 lakhs (as mentioned in the post) which is why the other models of skoda have not been listed.

It is relative safety to the traffic that I am discussing about here and not the safety of a single car in stand alone. In stand alone a Baleno scores 3 stars but on the road with its 890kg kerb weight it could be just a heap of damaged metal after an impact with even a 1080kg Tiago. A crash test only helps you understand the crumple zones, safety features and quality of construction of a car, It is only indicative of a real life scenario in an accident against a stationery barrier. When 2 moving vehicles colide a 3 star rated car weighing 2 tons would crush a 5 star rated car weighing less than a ton at even crash test speeds of 64km/hr. Of course, a crash test is important to understand that in the same scenario if the 5 star rated car is perfectly constructed with well defined crumple zones and safety features then it can still save your life.

So my research talks about relative safety which most people in our country are unaware of and are mislead into believing that they are driving a very safe car even though it weighs 800-900kgs but has scored 4-5 stars in a crash test which is against the laws of physics.

But thank you for your comments, this only proves my point further.

[SlowRider]

Originally Posted by The AG 6167

I would like to bring the fact to your notice that even if your car has scored 5 stars in a crash test it would mean worthless if it were to be hit by a heavier car so weight of metal does matter.

I vigorously disagree with this simplification. Yes, the heavier vehicle will carry more momentum and will experience less violent deceleration compared to the lighter car. But the force experienced by the passenger is not the force experienced by the vehicle. The force of the impact will be mitigated by the structure of the car. How well a vehicle does this job is not a function of mere weight. It depends on the strength of the materials used (again, heavy isn't necessarily stronger), shape of the cage, weld points and countless other things I can't even begin to understand. To claim that a 1100kg car will do this better than 900kg car is not an assumption we can safely make without actually testing those cars against each other.

On a related note, there are always going to be bigger vehicles on the road. What if a 2000 kilo SUV hits a truck? What if that truck hits a locomotive? And if you already know that a 3-star 1100 kilo car offers worse survival rates compared to a 4-star 900 kilo car against the same target (a wall), isn't it more likely that the survival rates of the 5-star car would be better if we test them both against a new target (the 1100 kilo vehicle)?

[asit.kulkarni93]

It's high people stop analyzing a car's safety based on the damage the car has suffered. It's an age old logic which makes no sense it today's times. Metallurgy has made more than enough progress to keep passengers safe in a light car. Etios is one example. Crumple zones are supposed to crumple in a crash to keep passengers safe. If the car has crumpled but the passengers are safe then I think it has done its job well.

Recently saw a crashed Tata 407. It was a fully loaded truck which had rammed into a bolero. Both the cars were equally damaged and the passengers in both the vehicles had serious injuries. Now we are talking about a truck and a ladder on frame SUV. Now what difference did that sheet metal and weight make in keeping the passengers safe?
Considering that logic we all should go back to Padmini's and Amby's. I guess all such misleading posts on this thread need to be removed. We get Lakhs of visitors everyday and this incorrect spread of information should be stopped.

[The AG 6167]

Originally Posted by SlowRider

I vigorously disagree with this simplification.
On a related note, there are always going to be bigger vehicles on the road. What if a 2000 kilo SUV hits a truck? What if that truck hits a locomotive? And if you already know that a 3-star 1100 kilo car offers worse survival rates compared to a 4-star 900 kilo car against the same target (a wall), isn't it more likely that the survival rates of the 5-star car would be better if we test them both against a new target (the 1100 kilo vehicle)?

Thank you for your insight slowrider, the first thing I would like to point out is not once in my research have I said that just the weight matters, its a collective consideration of all 9 points listed by me that in my opinion make a car safe. Accordingly, I am not saying that a 3 star 1100 kilo car is safer than a 5 star 900 kilo car because such a scenario has not been tested but what I am saying is that a 5 star 1100 kilo car will definitely be better than a 5 star 900 kilo car.

Secondly, on your question, yes the 5 star car & 4 star 900 kilo car would have a better survival rate as compared to a 3 star 1100 kilo car on hitting a stationery 1100 kilo vehicle, but if all 4 cars are moving at the same speed only the real life occurrence of the crash can suggest what would actually happen because the 5 star and 4 star car which weigh lighter have not been tested for the kind of counter force that they would experience from the 1100 kilo car whereas the 3 star 1100 kilo vehicle can be expected to behave quite similar to the crash test, so the chance of survival would be better in the 3 star 1100 kilo vehicle in such a scenario "theoretically".

Originally Posted by asit.kulkarni93

It's high people stop analyzing a car's safety based on the damage the car has suffered. It's an age old logic which makes no sense it today's times. Metallurgy has made more than enough progress to keep passengers safe in a light car. Etios is one example. Crumple zones are supposed to crumple in a crash to keep passengers safe. If the car has crumpled but the passengers are safe then I think it has done its job well.

Recently saw a crashed Tata 407. It was a fully loaded truck which had rammed into a bolero. Both the cars were equally damaged and the passengers in both the vehicles had serious injuries. Now we are talking about a truck and a ladder on frame SUV. Now what difference did that sheet metal and weight make in keeping the passengers safe?
Considering that logic we all should go back to Padmini's and Amby's. I guess all such misleading posts on this thread need to be removed. We get Lakhs of visitors everyday and this incorrect spread of information should be stopped.

Thank you for your comments Asit, As it appears you have possibly not read my first post on this thread, I would like you to refer to my response to slow rider that I am not considering only weight as the aspect for safety, it is all 9 points considered together which includes crumple zones and weight both.

Yes the tata 407 and bolero do not have well defined crumple zones which is why they are not on my list either.

To answer about how weight has an impact on safety, here is a link of a crash of an etios against a swift (1st gen) where the swift has suffered much lower damage than the etios and a passenger in the etios expired. Now the swift has not scored well in a crash test is an established fact but still it has done better in a real life scenario, how would you explain that? for reference, the swift (1st gen) weighed 1015kgs and the etios 930kgs.

http://epaperbeta.timesofindia.com/A...07122015001042

[SlowRider]

Originally Posted by The AG 6167

To answer about how weight has an impact on safety, here is a link of a crash of an etios against a swift (1st gen) where the swift has suffered much lower damage than the etios and a passenger in the etios expired. Now the swift has not scored well in a crash test is an established fact but still it has done better in a real life scenario, how would you explain that? for reference, the swift (1st gen) weighed 1015kgs and the etios 930kgs.

http://epaperbeta.timesofindia.com/A...07122015001042

This article may be interpreted to support your view. But consider these variables: we don't know whether all passengers were wearing seatbelts. If you're not buckled up, all bets are off. Also, the Toyota made contact with another car and the median before it collided with Swift. In my view, this isn't a like-for-like comparison.