[hothatchaway]

Agree that for some individuals their vehicle purchase might be the pride of their possessions and for some other, it won't be for after all a car is still a car, irrespective of its cost. But with light on this car's safety quotient and having understood it's limitation, the best way forward will be to accept the situation no matter how sour it will be to you, use the vehicle understanding its severe limitations and keeping these aspects in mind when you plan another such commodity that represents the fruit(s) of your labour.

Dont deny the limitations of the Alto, its something apparent the moment one is considering its purchase, however (and that I guess is the debate this thread has kicked up) in the absence of NCAP type ratings, one does not have an objective parameter to guide his decision. In case you have missed the moot point that I have tried making, here it is again

Is Alto the most unsafe vehicle on Indian roads or would other models in comparable (if not identical categories) like Eon, Spark, Wagon R, Santro et al sport a similar lack of structural rigidity or are just slightly better. I dont think a ready answer is available since as mentioned by other contributors, some models which have been tested before in Europe may have been reinforced ones and hence safer than the stocks made available in India. If this be the case for most A/B segment models, then where does the average consumer shopping for cars in these segments go?

If a counter question to that is that if the others are as bad or only slightly better, then does that make the Alto any better, obviously not! However since the Alto has been tested and exposed and some contributors (though not all) have taken this opportunity to denounce the model, its important to put things in perspective and understand if a choice in terms of safety at a particular price point really exists?

As I'd said before, the govt is not going to be interested in cutting off avenues of revenue stream for them (and banning any cars will lead to that). Do you really think (our) governments are doing all they can for the betterment and/or safety of its public? If not, then why expect any different from them for our vehicles? (definitely not an argument)

And why would the govt bother when these calls sell by thousands by themselves? Of course don't blame the car companies (for they will only act in their interest and profits). For me, I don't see anyone else to blame than myself, if I'm standing in line to buy a vehicle that I know is not safe for my family and me.

For decades governments around the globe have chosen to turn a blind eye so that corporations can turn a profit, often at the expense of consumers who just didnt know better. It is only activism that has brought them to their knees. No administration can escape this charge, even and especially those in the so called enlightened western societies, so lets not assume that the Indian administration's attitude towards safety issues cannot be changed. When my dad drove an Amby, seat belts, airbags et al were unheard of concepts and yet here we are, one generation down the line where at least a certain % of passenger car owners make these the primary determinants of choosing a car. I can only speculate the vast numbers who are still largely ignorant of such aspects but that will only change for the better as the consumer will constantly evolve. Lets face it, before this thread came to light, the last thing thing that a K10 was treated like was a pariah, see what a difference some information can make!

Hence to your point of the consumer blaming himself, sir, pls do consider the possibility that the average joe may just not have enough information to make that informed decision! In addition, at the risk of repetition, is my original point about whether enough 'safe' options are available at a particular price. It is quite another matter for someone to assume that one is driving a battle tank while seated in an Alto, the numbers of which, I guess arent many.

[thoma]

Originally Posted by veyron_head

We just believe that such a reputed manufacturer wouldn't sell an unsafe car. I for one, never thought about how a K10 would fare in a crash test, when I chose to buy it. Even if I did think about it, I couldn't have gotten that information easily. I can only look for visible safety features like ABS and airbags in a car. Things like structural safety and crash test worthiness remain solely the responsibility of the manufacturer. 99% of customers, like me, wouldn't have a clue.

So I would say that our market is still immature to pick out rotten from the good.

Originally Posted by k_ajay

And why would the govt bother when these calls sell by thousands by themselves? Of course don't blame the car companies (for they will only act in their interest and profits). For me, I don't see anyone else to blame than myself, if I'm standing in line to buy a vehicle that I know is not safe for my family and me.

Originally Posted by vb-san

In this case the manufacturer is just cashing on the lack of rules (from govt.) and also the lack of awareness (from the public). If the authorities tackle the first part with stringent rules and safety tests, the second bit can be easily contained.

Like the ban on sun films by the govt.? And then we (including the manufacturers) all wield the gun against the govt. for bringing in stricter norms? Though I do not know how effective this sun film ban has helped for the ultimate goal, I have to accept that visibility from outside has increased by leaps and bounds and the secrecy feeling has been deprived.

[Mpower]

Originally Posted by hothatchaway

Is Alto the most unsafe vehicle on Indian roads or would other models in comparable (if not identical categories) like Eon, Spark, Wagon R, Santro et al sport a similar lack of structural rigidity or are just slightly better. I dont think a ready answer is available since as mentioned by other contributors,

I dont think any company will 'remove' reinforcements when they sell in India. Only thing they do is 'not offer' airbags and ABS. Just because Tata added reinforcements to Nano for Europe doesn't mean others are removing them. Check the kerb weights to verify. After all how much do they save by removing 2kg of steel?

Pretty much everything else has been tested including same gen (90s) cars like Santro and Spark. Estillo should be just as bad as K10 because its the same platform (as was the old WR)

Current WR is based on A-star and is a very new design as is the Eon.

Original Santro from 2000

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dz4tAm9OkbQ

2005 Spark/Matiz

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUDHofBSxmQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SW1Q8u09gVk

[FrozeninTime]

Originally Posted by RSR

Then why did the k10, which is almost the same car, fail this test so badly? It must be because of the modifications carried out by Maruti Suzuki in India, who tinkered with the front crumple zone by extending the engine bay to accommodate the K10B engine. They must have done a terrible job of modifying the chassis, with absolutely no regards for the crash worthiness

After seeing old video of crash test of Alto in youtube ,it is indeed surprising to know how that original Alto fared well in crash tests conducted by both NHTSA of Canada and JNCAP way back in 2000.Though these cars were equipped the airbags , the structure held quiet well.One question I want to ask the experts Could the old dies used for building K10 responsible for poor results?

[Guna]

Originally Posted by Mpower

I dont think any company will 'remove' reinforcements when they sell in India. Only thing they do is 'not offer' airbags and ABS.

I think they can omit things like the crossbar which prevents the engine intrusion in to the cabin or the collapsible steering shaft to save cost.

[AdityaLN]

I always thought Alto was unsafe because it looks like a reworked 800 platform from late 70-early 80. Structurally it was built for that time when safety regulations were totally different or not there and it might have meet the requirements then (if there were any). Any amount of safety gear will not improve the structural deficiency of a car, since it takes a lot of money to improve a car that way, what we get are cosmetic changes or refreshes. Any big structural change will be incorporated in the generational upgrade of the model. That’s’ the case with Alto as well. By the look of it, the current generation A-star/Alto seems better. I am sure, cars sold from that era (Ambassador or Premier Padmini) were equally bad.

In India, the government doesn't seem to bother or have a very lax attitude to safety. No wonder we have supposedly 3 generations of the same car selling under different names (800/Alto/A-star) because it’s legally fine. Suzuki is not breaking any law doing it, It’s up to us to decide and buy the safest one. If we are price conscious and don’t worry much about safety. Then, that I suppose is the bargain we have made and shouldn't be blaming Suzuki for that.

I know we have a cheaper car (Nano) which is safer than Alto but it was built from scratch in 2000’s to meet today’s requirements. It’s the same with Santro and Matiz which were built in late 1990s and incorporated the relevant standards from then. 800 and Alto are still using designs from the past, all costs of designing the car are already paid for, they will be built till the government makes our safety standards more stringent. Probably that’s the reason they still have A-star in the market even after the bad numbers, that ways, if the government changes safety requirements, they have a relevant product for the buyers.

I have been telling anyone planning to buy a Alto to go for A-star because it’s safer (comparatively).

[pacman2881]

Originally Posted by Mpower

I dont think any company will 'remove' reinforcements when they sell in India.

I am not so sure on this. A friend of mine working in a auto manufacturer once said that they are removing a some sort of 'knee pad' that is supposed to limit injuries to the knees in case of a collision as a part of their cost cutting exercise.

The example above isn't about reinforcement but when a simple part not obvious to the eye is removed for cost cutting why wouldn't they do the same here too- assuming there is huge cost savings with minimal change.

[Mpower]

Originally Posted by FrozeninTime

After seeing old video of crash test of Alto in Youtube ,it is indeed surprising to know how that original Alto fared well in crash tests conducted by both NHTSA of Canada and JNCAP way back in 2000.

IIRC, Euro NCAP crashes at 40 mph whereas NHTSA is 30. Both 40% offset

Even though the dies are worn, the steel is still new.

Originally Posted by Guna

I think they can omit things like the crossbar which prevents the engine intrusion in to the cabin or the collapsible steering shaft to save cost.

Crossbar meaning crossmember or bumper beam?
Possible but not that simple. Removing crossmember would affect the resonant frequency of the BIW and lead to other unwanted squeaks and rattles that will kill them in warranty.

2ndly its the longitudinal members that absorb crush energy in frontal impact rather than the cross ones.

I am not so sure on this. A friend of mine working in a auto manufacturer once said that they are removing a some sort of 'knee pad' that is supposed to limit injuries to the knees in case of a collision as a part of their cost cutting exercise.

Sure, I can agree with that. My point was about removing parts that make the structure weaker.

Knee pad ensures that the knee strikes a soft pad rather than a hard steel part in the event of a crash. It would be similar to removing Airbag, ABS for India.

[drsnt]

I am not exactly surprised at result. Maruti accident body workshop is in my neighborhood and except A Star all maruti vehicles below swuft and Ritz do not have any crash bar in front. All that lies is a bumper and then condenser. There is no safety bar in front of engine, while Santro and even Matiz has that. I first came to know of this when my Estilo crashed into a scorpio when it cut me at high speed and applied brakes. The impact was very low but it bent my radiator and condenser. I was surprised to see absence of any structure behind bumper except two metal bars above and below radiator. While a A Star nearby had a good metal bar in front of radiator behind bumper.
Even Ertiga does not seem to have a very rigid structure seeing by the amount of damage they take in accident. While old swift had a poor cockpit safety compared to the newer model. Ritz had good shell and does not bent easily. Boot of older dezire has very poor strength and caves in very badly.
All these are my observations seeing the accident vehicles at body shop and may not be very scientific.
But I do make sure to visit body shop of every service center i am in just to see how vehicle behaved in accident.
The best ones I have seen are indeed from FIAT and somewhat even TATA, they maintain their shell quite well in impact. but not SUV from TATA only cars

[aaggoswami]

Originally Posted by Mpower

I dont think any company will 'remove' reinforcements when they sell in India. Only thing they do is 'not offer' airbags and ABS. Just because Tata added reinforcements to Nano for Europe doesn't mean others are removing them. Check the kerb weights to verify. After all how much do they save by removing 2kg of steel?

Pretty much everything else has been tested including same gen (90s) cars like Santro and Spark. Estillo should be just as bad as K10 because its the same platform (as was the old WR)

Current WR is based on A-star and is a very new design as is the Eon.

1) Santro and Atoz were different. This was covered in a very old Auto India issue at a time when Daewoo was as strong as Hyundai at a similar point in time. Daewoo was market leader in some Middle east country and both, Matiz and Santro were new to Indian streets.
And the Indian Santro was different from Atoz ( and probably inferior ) was the reason why Santro was not exported to Europe. Once Hyundai had the Xing with them, the exports to much developed market started.
It was purely marketing gimmick that Santro was offering international safety standards significantly better than Zen (G10 Zen, then the market leader).

However, Matiz was same as international Matiz sold in developed markets, but of course the omission of ABS, etc. was there.

2) The discontinued Alto was a tough little car also sold and exported to Europe. However, the installation of K10 might be the reason for the poor score as some structural change might be required. This is purely my assumption, but some how, the K10 is not a large unit and Alto used to have F8 and F10 with similar profile. K10 is also lighter than G10, as K10 just weighs in at 47 KG dry. G10 of Zen was round 70 kg IIRC.
What I am trying to highlight is that some structural changes might have taken place when Maruti was creating K10 Alto.

3) A-star is not based on any Wagon R sold in India to the best of my knowledge. A-star is based on modified Swift platform as is Ritz. A-star scored 4/5 in Latin NCAP and 3/5 in Euro NCAP.
The current K10 Wagon R is based on a contemporary platform which was sold in Japan till Sept 2012. In Sept 2012, the Wagon R platform was modified, stiffened and the current Wagon R sold in Japan was created.

The Estilo, discontinued Alto and F10 Wagon R were all from same platform. Swift platform was designed keeping in mind around 5-6 models, i.e. Swift, splash (Ritz), A-star and SX4. A-star was created keeping in mind smaller motor than 1.2 (1242cc K12B sold internationally in Ritz/Swift), with emissions lower than 100 g/km.

Please correct me if I am wrong anywhere.

[shreyan_k10]

AFAIK A star was built on an all new platform. and the current wagon R is not a swift derivative i agree.

[Mpower]

Originally Posted by aaggoswami

Please correct me if I am wrong anywhere.

Sure. Pretty much everywhere unfortunately

Atoz is Santo! Look at the headlight in the video. Different seats or dash-plastics does not change the structure & affect crash

A-star is Swift platform???? That means 7 seater Ertiga is same platform as minicar A-star? Doesn't make sense at all

If the old WR was based on Alto does it not make sense that current WR is based on current EDM Alto? ( ie A-star) Just look at the size of the vehicles/engines and use your judgement

Alto800 hood was lengthened to create K10 which in theory should improve crash. Weight did not increase much because engine went from Iron to Aluminum

OnO

[audioholic]

Originally Posted by Mpower

Alto800 hood was lengthened to create K10 which in theory should improve crash.

Guess their objective was to increase length, but maintain overall weight(or material intake) and hence is the problem. I initially felt that the K10 was a better built alto. However, I was proven wrong by the crash video. In most of the head-on crashes, I have noticed that no matter how much crumpled the engine bay is, the dashboard usually gets minimally dislocated and even if there is noticeable shift, it would be such that the occupants wouldnt be harmed. Here, the entire panel whips the front occupants. Even if there were to be an airbag, I think it would be of no use. It will worsen the situation as it will be triggered too close to the occupant.

We had planned for the Alto K10 two years back which was cancelled due to lack of space for me and my father. Hence, we bought the WagonR, which I feel is a better built car compared to the Alto, and given its platform shares some DNA with the JDM wagonR. Though sheet metal is thin, I feel it is the structure that counts more.

[aaggoswami]

Originally Posted by Mpower

1) Sure. Pretty much everywhere unfortunately

2) Atoz is Santo! Look at the headlight in the video. Different seats or dash-plastics does not change the structure & affect crash

3) A-star is Swift platform???? That means 7 seater Ertiga is same platform as minicar A-star? Doesn't make sense at all

4) If the old WR was based on Alto does it not make sense that current WR is based on current EDM Alto? ( ie A-star) Just look at the size of the vehicles/engines and use your judgement

1)Certainly not unfortunate, its good to learn!

2) Headlights are same, agreed, but the overall profile of C-pillar is entirely different and so are tail lights, rear door and rear hatch. N
I will search for the issue wherein it was mentioned this. The headlights might look similar, but to the best of my knowledge, it was different platform, specific to India and even other countries similar to India.

3) Current A-star and Ritz are based on previous Gen Swift which was launched in 2005 and in which the Fiat SDE debuted in Maruti lineup.
The new A-star based on the current Swift platform is currently under going testing and IMO, another thread has the spyshots.
So, the Ertiga is based on current Swift Platform, not the earlier one. The A-star and Ritz are based on earlier Swift platform.

4) The current Wagon R sold in India has no relation with A-star. The Alto in Europe and Alto in Japan are now not sharing common platform. This was the case earlier. With A-star, the Alto platforms for Japan and European market were separated.
Similar was case with Wagon R also. The F10D wagon R was in India was also available in EU markets with different motor. But, with arrival of Ritz ( known as Splash in EU and badge engineered as Opel Agila ) the EU Wagon R was gone.

So, for EU markets, most cars were based on Swift platform. After A-star (Alto for EU) and Ritz (Wagon R replacement in EU), the Japanese Wagon R/Alto platforms were discontinued in EU.

[Mpower]

2) Headlights are same, agreed, but the overall profile of C-pillar is entirely different and so are tail lights, rear door and rear hatch.

Why would they create 2 platforms of the same size and use the same headlight & grille on both? The whole premise of 'platform sharing' is to use 1 platform and create as many variants as possible to reduce development cost & piece prize from large volume amortization

The new A-star based on the current Swift platform is currently under going testing and IMO, another thread has the spyshots.

So according to you the upcoming A-star and current Ertiga will be on the same platform.

ie., A-seg minicar and 7-seat MPV on the same platform. This will be a new technical breakthrough !