[ron178]

Originally Posted by 5252rpm

How has the testing procedures evolved at GNCAP?

They haven’t.

Originally Posted by 5252rpm

Just recently, they released the rating for Urban Cruiser and it is different from Maruti Suzuki Vitara Brezza's specifics which was tested in 2018

For child occupant protection the difference is not in the cars themselves but rather in the child seats Maruti selected vs the ones Toyota selected. Toyota followed global guidelines and placed the Q1.5 dummy rearward facing which has always been the global guideline for this age group because their neck bones aren’t developed well enough. Recent guidelines recommend rearward-facing travel until even four years old if possible, for example Honda placed both children rearward facing in the Jazz, including the older Q3. So did Tata in the Tigor EV.

On this other hand,

Originally Posted by ron178

Suzuki does something no manufacturer would dare to: put the Q1.5 forward facing (in all cars with ISOFIX - Ertiga, Swift).

Originally Posted by 5252rpm

If it is due to change in engines (1.3MJD vs 1.5K15B) , should GNCAP be ideally released for each powertrain on offer?

No the Euro NCAP extension protocol says something about extending ratings across ICE variants if some engine displacement criteria are met, they have the same number of cylinders, and their weights are within a certain tolerance.

I posted a more detailed post explaining the differences between the Vitara Brezza and Urban Cruiser.

[steadfast]

Interesting watch:
How even cars performing great in crash tests can perform subpar in real crashes.

Toyota versus Volkswagen crash test

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_vhCHLX-mc

[ron178]

Originally Posted by steadfast

Toyota versus Volkswagen crash test

I don't intend to propagate either brand but if you want to play it Toyota vs Volkswagen I've got a little something:

https://youtu.be/Ph5T-GtXz18

Volkswagen stripped the Chinese Passat of reinforcements for small overlap crash members present in the US one. They lost significant market share when it was discovered.

Here's the Corolla in the same test:

https://youtu.be/Tue91jQ0K1U

I'm not denying that video, I've watched it and it's very interesting. And yes, usually Volkswagen has not been known to reduce the quality of steel and welds for emerging markets (this small overlap crash is somewhat an exception because it used to be exclusive to the US) but for multiple reasons Toyota vs Volkswagen is a very vague generalisation to make.

[ron178]

Originally Posted by ron178

The 2014 Latin NCAP test on a Suzuki Swift ZXi with double airbags - it was really a Global NCAP test on an Indian market car.

Alejandro Furas on why the Indian-market 2014 Swift with 2 optional airbags was published for Latin America (via Autoblog Uruguay)

[ron178]

Scoop: Global NCAP will be testing more Indian cars. I don't know any more than that (which protocols, how many cars, how soon etc).

[bobbyblr]

Hi BHPians,

I have one question regarding the testing done by Global NCAP & Latin NCAP.

In all these car crash test videos, I have not seen any fluid coming out of the cars after the crash.
Are these test cars have the all fluids such as Engine Coolant, Engine Oil & Fuel drained out and then tested? I saw the below item in Vehicle Preparation:

-In case fluids must be drained they must be replaced by suitable noncombustible ballasts of similar density

In the recent Cyrus Mistry car crash, one can see the engine oil or engine coolant spilled on the road just below the car. For any front collision of the car the radiator will take the first hit and one can see the engine coolant getting spilled on the road.

I think these car crash tests are not valid if GNCAP & Latin NCAP are draining these fluids before the testing. In real car crash situation, these fluids are part of the system & there could be fire in case of fuel spilling out from the tank. Antifreeze used in engine coolant is also flammable (both ethylene glycol and propylene glycol).

A 5-star safety need not be only a sturdy chassis, body, primary and secondary restraint systems; other aspects such as fire & flammability are also necessary as a testing parameter.

[ron178]

Originally Posted by bobbyblr

Are these test cars have the all fluids such as Engine Coolant, Engine Oil & Fuel drained out and then tested?

I think that is what they mean by 'controlled environment'

AFAIK, there is ballast in the fuel tank during the tests, and recently Latin NCAP has started penalising leakage (eg: 2021 Renault Duster). More recently they also added a somewhat vague clause for fire risk but I think that has more to do with pyrotechnic fires (as was recently the case in one test).

About other fluids: there's clearly pink stuff dripping from the Carens and European Octavia, green stuff from the Honda Amaze, etc. Not sure what it is but surely it's either coolant/brake fluid or the corresponding ballast.

[Venkatesh]

More crash test results for made in India cars will be out today.



Link

[TorqueIndia]

Looks like Maruti Swift , Vitara brezza ? , Celerio and Ignis ! Interesting results, will reveal the safety standards between the price points.

[Caffeinated_Owl]

GNCAP conducted a crash test on the top variant of the Scorpio-N and awarded it a 5-star safety rating. However, if they had tested the base variant, it is possible that it may have received a lower rating, possibly only 4 stars. This raises the question of fairness, as GNCAP also used the base variant of the Kia Selots for their testing and gave it a 3-star rating. It seems strange that GNCAP did not choose to test the top variant, which is likely the most popular and has more safety features and is the in-demand option for consumers. I am curious to hear the thoughts of other members of the forum on this matter.

Edit:

I am referring to the video below from GNCAP's YouTube channel. In it, you can clearly see the curtain airbags opening during the side impact test. The base variant of the Scorpio-N only comes with two airbags.

https://youtu.be/IKdpfkOQA84?t=102

[audioholic]

Originally Posted by Caffeinated_Owl

GNCAP conducted a crash test on the top variant of the Scorpio-N and awarded it a 5-star safety rating I am curious to hear the thoughts of other members of the forum on this matter.

While I am not qualified to scrutinize the ratings that GNCAP provides and I feel it's credible, there is of course lot of bias in the way the vehicles are picked. It is usually manufacturer sponsored both for sending in vehicles as well as picking other manufacturers cars 'randomly'. The sponsorers are also shielded from this random picking(like Tata Safari/Harrier, Mahindra ladder frame cars except new Scorpio and Marazzo) while the rebels are targeted repeatedly, like how Swift and Espresso are tested twice though there were no changes to the model. Likewise, VW and Skoda are expected to 'voluntarily' send in cars in order to get results because it is somewhat expected that they perform well. Otherwise they won't get results. Compared to that, Maruti and Hyundai get a free copy of the results every now and then which they will anyway trash.

So while their testing itself is pretty credible, the vehicle selection is definitely very biased and favoring to those who would sponsor their so called charity.

[HowardRoark]

I always wonder if two cars of same model are tested will they give same results. I would expect them to differ hence my contention is that multiple cars of same model should be tested and the lowest score should be taken. I am hoping India will have its own testing agency and all cars will be subjected to minimum standards corresponding to atleast 3 star global ncap rating.

[ron178]

Originally Posted by Caffeinated_Owl

GNCAP conducted a crash test on the top variant of the Scorpio-N and awarded it a 5-star safety rating. However, if they had tested the base variant, it is possible that it may have received a lower rating, possibly only 4 stars. This raises the question of fairness, as GNCAP also used the base variant of the Kia Selots for their testing and gave it a 3-star rating. It seems strange that GNCAP did not choose to test the top variant, which is likely the most popular and has more safety features and is the in-demand option for consumers. I am curious to hear the thoughts of other members of the forum on this matter.

For a car assessed against the old protocols (Jan 2014-July 2022), the rating was for a specific variant of a car. You could have one result with standard safety equipment and an additional one with optional equipment (usually frontal airbags and/or seatbelt reminders). Eg. the VW Polo, Honda Mobilio, Renault Duster and Tata Zest had dual ratings.
However side and curtain airbags, ESC etc were not part of the old assessment protocols, so adding them would not make a difference to the rating. It is reasonable to expect that a top-end Seltos would also achieve a three-star 2020 rating for adult protection.

Under the new protocols (July-Dec 2022), there is a single rating for a model that already takes into account the distribution of optional equipment on units produced. There is another longer a rating for a specific (variant). For example, to achieve five stars curtain airbags must be fitted to at least 30% units in production (and pass the side pole test). Similarly ESC must be an independent option on every variant & meet minimum sales requirements. So a rating for a variant per se does not exist. All said and done, optional equipment does affect the rating and you need to purchase all of it to get the full benefit.

The best answer I can give is:
the Scorpio strictly had 2 airbags+no ESC across the ENTIRE range, like the base version, it would score two stars (no ESC or pole test).
If it strictly had 2 airbags and ESC across the entire range, like the version with safety pack, it would score three stars (no pole test).

If you ask me, the fitment rate thing is quite ridiculous, especially when such low production volumes (30%) are allowed. It makes sense only when the equipment in question is popular enough to be practically standard. For new technologies Euro NCAP uses a much less confusing dual rating system with a 'base' rating for versions with standard safety equipment and a separate rating for versions with an optional safety pack that must be available on all variants.