[volkman10]

Made in India, Chevrolet Enjoy fails Global NCAP Crash Test, Ford Figo Aspire sails through.

The very basic MPV offering from General Motors in India - the Chevrolet Enjoy, has failed in a crash test conducted by Global NCAP and has received a zero star rating.

The Ford Figo Aspire subcompact sedan has also been tested gets a 3 Star rating.

Global NCAP tested the Ford Aspire which is the sedan version of the Next Gen Figo which is a hatchback. The results can therefore be extended to both the Next Gen Figo and Aspire.








Chevrolet Enjoy

The MPV is sold without airbags in its base trim and results show that due to the lack of airbags and poor structure, driver (in particular) and front passenger injuries would have been unacceptably high - even fatal. It did get 2 stars for rear seat child occupant protection though. It wasn't just the lack of airbags though. The structural integrity of the car is also in question

GM should be embarrassed that they are selling cars with such inadequate levels of occupant protection to Indian consumers.

Ford Figo Aspire

The car is sold with dual front airbags as standard, (and in fact the top trim has 6 airbags). It scored three stars for adult occupant protection and 2 stars for child protection - showing good build quality and much fewer potential injuries sustained by occupants

https://youtu.be/8yGzu-2W12I?t=13

https://youtu.be/vGWhVSjiUFU?t=13

[arunphilip]

Global NCAP Crash Test of the Aspire Rates it 3-Stars

ADULT OCCUPANT: The protection offered to the driver and passenger’s head and neck was good thanks to the airbag. Driver’s chest had weak protection and passenger’s marginal protection. The car does not have seatbelt pretensioners. The front passengers’ knees could impact with dangerous structures in the dashboard like the trans-fascia tube. The bodyshell was rated as unstable and it was not capable of withstanding any further loadings.

CHILD OCCUPANT: The child seat for the 3 year old child was unable to prevent excessive forward movement during the impact. The recommended CRSs did not show incompatibility. The installation instructions on both child seats were insufficient and not permanently attached to the seat. The vehicle was equipped with a passenger airbag but it could not be diasbled in order to prevent high risks of injuries when installing a rearward facing CRS.

Ford Aspire (Next Gen Figo) achieves 3 stars

[theredliner]

Originally Posted by arunphilip

Global NCAP Crash Test of the Aspire Rates it 3-Stars

This is really disappointing. After the surprisingly good performance of the previous gen Figo's structure in the crash test, the least I expected from Ford this time around was a stable structure. They have disappointed big time here.

Never thought someone like Ford would go backward in terms of safety

It's a shame that Ford has done safety related cost cutting even when compared to other developing markets like Latin America.

P.S: Hope the less than inspiring sales numbers of Figo and Aspire prompt Ford to go back to its roots of creating driver focussed, strongly built cars.

[CrAzY dRiVeR]

http://www.globalncap.org/ford-goes-...-safety-india/

Ford Figo Aspire-

While Global NCAP declares that Ford has shown an improvement from zero stars to three stars, I personally feel this is only an eyewash to project their effect on the Indian scene. The improvement in stars is due to the availability of airbags as standard in the Aspire.

What is disappointing is the fact that the body shell integrity has been rated as unstable and not capable of withstanding further load, which is definitely a step backwards as compared to the earlier generation Figo.

Still credit to Ford for offering airbags as standard and scoring a 3 star, which is decent in the Indian scenario.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGWh...ature=youtu.be

Chevrolet Enjoy:

No standard airbags. Unstable body shell. Nothing to enjoy here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yGz...ature=youtu.be

[SmartCat]

Any guesses as to what this actually means -

- Bodyshell Unstable
- Will not be able to withstand further load

3 stars is standard these days for cars equipped with dual airbags & ABS. How did Figo achieve 3 stars if bodyshell was unstable? Perhaps it means Figo/Aspire has been specifically designed to pass the NCAP test at 64 kmph, but not at higher speeds?

Like how we used to study just about enough during our college days to scrape through the exams?

[arunphilip]

Originally Posted by smartcat

Any guesses as to what this actually means -
- Bodyshell Unstable
- Will not be able to withstand further load

I've not found any specific reference to how the NCAP teams specifically declare a bodyshell as unstable or stable; so any guesses on our part will be driven only by the words used.

However, when looking at the earlier results for the Polo, I noticed that the Global NCAP team used slightly different wording in the result, which sheds some light on the question you're asking.

To recap, the Polo with no airbags scored zero in the Global NCAP, and once VW made airbags standard across the range, the Polo's score jumped to a very impressive 4 stars, because the absence of airbags guarantees zero stars.

In both tests for the Polo (zero and 4-stars), the bodyshell integrity was defined as below (emphasis added):

The bodyshell was rated as stable and it can withstanding further loading which is a critical baseline to add airbags.

I definitely think Global NCAP have to be more transparent in terms of how these results are to be interpreted. For instance, the example of the Polo quoted above indicates how the presence of airbags changes results from zero to a non-zero score. Likewise, they need to be clearer about how important a stable body shell is to the overall safety picture.

• Does the statement "can withstand further loading" mean it can take a secondary impact, or does it have something to do with the primary impact itself?
• Given that cars with an unstable body shell still receive non-zero star ratings, does it mean that an airbag equipped car without a stable bodyshell is safer than a car without airbags but with a stable bodyshell? (For clarity's sake, "safer than" in this question should be interpreted as an objective "transfers lesser energy into the crash test dummies" instead of a subjective "I'd rather be in car X with no airbags than car Y with airbags").

[racer_ash]

From what I understand from the term 'Further Loading', it means that the Body shell has the capability to take in impact from speeds > 64KMPH while still remaining stable.

This means that:
- The Polo tested above can withstand impacts greater than 64KMPH and has the capability to remain stable. The extent of 'Further Loading' though is not mentioned anywhere.
- The Aspire just scrapes through the test at 64KMPH and any speed above would cause the body shell to lose its stability. Akin to what @smartcat mentioned above.

I agree though, more clarity on the results is needed for laymen like me to understand it completely.

[bullrun87]

Originally Posted by arunphilip

Global NCAP Crash Test of the Aspire Rates it 3-Stars

The ratings come as a bit of a mixed bag. we should be happy that At least we are driving around a three star rated car when an overwhelming majority of cars in India are rated 0 stars for safety. What's concerning is that the structure seemed unstable to the testing agency and was found to be incapable of sustaining further loads. The Polo, the liva and the old Figo are the only Indian cars till now found to have stable structures by global ncap.
It's quite annoying that Ford have sold me a vehicle which has a weaker structure than the car it has replaced. How is it that that while the whole world is moving towards safer cars ford India has managed to conjure up a car that's structurally weaker and less safe than its predecessor?

[IshaanIan]

Simple footwell, upper and lower dashboard and steering wheel intrusion levels should be measured and displayed. I find the american IIHS method of displaying crash safety data to be far more comprehensive. It was an enlightening browsing session reading how differently several '5 star NCAP' rated cars performed in relation to each-other. These NCAP star ratings seem to be only to educate the uninterested folks much like those energy stars put on electronic appliances sold here.

[deerhunter]

Originally Posted by smartcat

Any guesses as to what this actually means -

- Bodyshell Unstable
- Will not be able to withstand further load

3 stars is standard these days for cars equipped with dual airbags & ABS. How did Figo achieve 3 stars if bodyshell was unstable? Perhaps it means Figo/Aspire has been specifically designed to pass the NCAP test at 64 kmph, but not at higher speeds?

Like how we used to study just about enough during our college days to scrape through the exams?

I think you are right here. Figo bodyshell must have been designed to just about scrape through the test.

I expected more from Ford, considering how the perceived build quality of Figo is superior to cars from higher segments. For eg: Etios and Mobilio, both of which received considerable flak for their tinny build quality, were judged to have "stable bodyshells that can withstand further loadings".

This is all the more serious considering that the Ford Ka bodyshell was judged stable only a few days back, while the Figo we get here has unstable shell.

[jetti]

As a potential buyer who was considering at Figo twins, I am seriously disappointed with the results of Ford Aspire. I was expecting it to get 4 stars. The 2 airbags as standard and 6 on top end - seeing all this, I thought they had designed it to do well in a crash test right from the beginning. Too bad the structure is unstable and cannot withstand further load. This test proves that the structure is far inferior to the previous generation Figo.

And this car did get 4 stars in the LATIN NCAP with a stable body structure when tested at 64km/h.
I know the models sold in Europe will always be better but I did not expect worse than the Brazil version.

Good body structure was one of the main reasons I was looking at Ford. (The other being the 1.5 Diesel stonker of an engine )

So, there is no change in the safety leaderboard for Indian hatchbacks - Etios Liva and Polo get to keep their lead in this field.

This remains the equation: Safe, Reliable and Good-looking? Choose 2.

[abhishek46]

Originally Posted by arunphilip

[*]Does the statement "can withstand further loading" mean it can take a secondary impact, or does it have something to do with the primary impact itself?
]

As per my understanding, "Can withstand further loading" means that the structure can handle higher collision speeds & still retain the integrity.

It definitely does not relate to secondary collisions.

[ayankm]

Originally Posted by arunphilip

For instance, the example of the Polo quoted above indicates how the presence of airbags changes results from zero to a non-zero score. Likewise, they need to be clearer about how important a stable body shell is to the overall safety picture.

What I do not understand here is, how the presence of 2 airbags can push the rating from 0 to 4? The cars used for the tests are structurally same in every aspect except for the presence of dual airbags. And that pushes the rating to 4.

Looks like just having air bags is enough for a car to be called safe or am I missing something here?

[arunphilip]

Originally Posted by smartcat

Any guesses as to what this actually means -
- Bodyshell Unstable
- Will not be able to withstand further load

After some more digging around the other NCAP sites, here's the info I got.

The Euro NCAP test protocol and Latin NCAP test protocol both state that:

When the passenger compartment becomes unstable, any additional load can result in unpredictable excessive further collapse of the passenger compartment. When the passenger compartment becomes unstable the repeatability of the car’s response in the test becomes poor and confidence in the car’s performance is reduced.

While the referenced documents are not for the Global NCAP, I'd expect a similar - if not the same - definition for an unstable bodyshell to be used by Global NCAP, and my interpretation of this is twofold:

• The part about "any additional load can result in unpredictable excessive further collapse" seems to indicate the structural integrity of the vehicle is gone. So, for example, using belt slings to lift the car might result in the car splitting, etc.
• The part about "the repeatability of the car’s response in the test becomes poor" seems to imply that while the car in question passed the test, there's no guarantee that a repeat of this test with another similar car will result in exactly the same performance. In essence, this is the "study just enough to scrape through the exams" type of behaviour that smartcat alluded to in his question.

Neither point gives a high level of confidence, a feeling that is worsened when one sees the same model clearing both the Euro NCAP and Latin NCAP with a stable bodyshell.

Both the documents I linked about the test protocols (at the start of this post) make for very interesting reading, particularly the last section titled 'Concepts behind the assessments'.

Originally Posted by jetti

I know the models sold in Europe will always be better but I did not expect worse than the Brazil version.

Good point. Despite us being in the same broad economic strata as a BRIC nation, there is a difference, and I would attribute this to the presence of Latin NCAP in Brazil, and absence of its equivalent in India at present.

Originally Posted by ayankm

What I do not understand here is, how the presence of 2 airbags can push the rating from 0 to 4

If the base variant of a car does not come with airbags as standard, the star rating is immediately set to zero, irrespective of how it actually performs in a crash test. So an Arjun tank would also score a zero, even though it is likely to demolish the test facility in the process.

This is the same reason why the old Figo scored zero stars when tested, despite its bodyshell being rated as stable.

Global NCAP's reasoning is that airbags should not be an option limited to higher variants (very sound reasoning, IMHO).

[Sac]

Originally Posted by ayankm

What I do not understand here is, how the presence of 2 airbags can push the rating from 0 to 4? The cars used for the tests are structurally same in every aspect except for the presence of dual airbags. And that pushes the rating to 4.

Looks like just having air bags is enough for a car to be called safe or am I missing something here?

If a car does not offer air bags the default rating is Zero stars, whatever the structural integrity.