[ron178]

The New Car Assessment Programme for Latin America and the Caribbean (Latin NCAP) has released the last publication of results for three models for the Latin American market under its twelfth phase (2021) of results.

The results are not valid for any other market than Latin America and the Caribbean.

The following models have been tested:

1. Kia Sportage - 2 airbags, no ESC, made in Korea
2. Hyundai Accent - driver airbag, no ESC, made in India and Mexico (result not valid for Indian market!)
3. Great Wall Wingle 5 - 2 airbags, no ESC, no seatbelt reminders, made in China

Presentation of results:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pz--VNz6av0

1. Kia Sportage
This model scored an overall zero star rating.

Percentage scores in each box are as follows:
Adult Occupant Protection: 48%
Child Occupant Protection: 15%
Vulnerable Road Users: 58%
Safety Assist: 7%

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2EL75_C07c

Testers' comments:
Adult protection:

Originally Posted by Latin NCAP

Frontal impact: The protection offered to the driver and passenger head and neck was good. Driver’s chest showed adequate protection and passenger’s chest showed good protection. Driver’s knees showed marginal protection as they can impact with dangerous structures behind the fascia while passenger’s knees showed good protection. Driver’s and passenger’s tibias showed good and adequate protection. Footwell area was rated as unstable. The bodyshell was rated as stable and it is capable of withstanding further loadings. Side impact: Head, abdomen and pelvis protection was good while chest protection was adequate. Side Pole Impact: was not performed as the car does not offer side head protection as standard. Whiplash: the protection to the neck was good. UN R32: The car meets the rear impact structure requirements. AEB City: the car does not offer optional AEB city following Latin NCAP fitment rate. Rescue sheet: is not available according to Latin NCAP requirements.

Child protection:

Originally Posted by Latin NCAP

The child seat for the 3-year-old child was installed rearward facing using ISOFIX anchorages and support leg. It was capable of preventing head exposure and offered good protection. Side Impact: the CRS offered full protection. The Q1.5 was installed rearward facing using ISOFIX anchorages and support leg, the CRS prevented the head exposure offering full protection. Side Impact: the CRS offered full protection. The manufacturer refused to recommend CRS which leads to zero points in dynamic test. Some of the CRSs tested for installation failed and some pass. The car has standard ISOFIX anchorages in rear outboard positions marked according to Latin NCAP criteria". Airbag warning when a rearward CRS is installed in the passenger seat was meeting Latin NCAP requirements. Passenger airbag could not be disconnected in the case that a rearward facing CRS is installed in the front passenger seat.

VRUs:

Originally Posted by Latin NCAP

The car does not prove to meet pedestrian protection UN regulations. The car showed marginal to good pedestrians head protection, marginal to good upper leg protection and marginal to good lower leg protection. AEB VRU: not available according to fitment requirements.

Safety assist:

Originally Posted by Latin NCAP

The car does not offer ESC as standard. SBR: the car offers front driver SBR only. SA: the car does not offer a speed limitation device. BSD: The car does not offer BSD as standard. LSS and RED: the car does not offer these technologies. AEB Interurban: The car does not have AEB inter urban.

2. Hyundai Accent
This model scored an overall zero star rating.

Percentage scores in each box are as follows:
Adult Occupant Protection: 9%
Child Occupant Protection: 13%
Vulnerable Road Users: 53%
Safety Assist: 7%

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1y3ZN9MRF0

Testers' comments:
Adult protection:

Originally Posted by Latin NCAP

Frontal impact: The protection offered to the driver and passenger head and neck was good. Driver’s chest showed adequate protection and passenger’s chest showed poor protection leading to zero points in frontal crash. Driver’s knees and one passenger knee showed marginal protection as they can impact with dangerous structures behind the fascia while one passenger’s knee showed good protection. Driver’s tibias showed adequate protection and passenger’s tibias showed good protection. Footwell area was rated as stable. The bodyshell was rated as stable and it is capable of withstanding further loadings. Side impact: Head and chest showed marginal protection while abdomen showed adequate protection and pelvis good protection. Side Pole Impact: was not performed as the car does not offer side head protection as standard. Whiplash: the protection to the neck was marginal. UN R32: the car meets the rear impact structure requirements. AEB City: the car does not offer optional AEB city following Latin NCAP fitment rate. Rescue sheet: does not meet Latin NCAP requirements.

Child protection:

Originally Posted by Latin NCAP

The child seat for the 3-year-old child was installed rearward facing using ISOFIX anchorages and support leg. It was capable of preventing head exposure and offered good protection. Side Impact: the CRS offered full protection. The Q1.5 was installed rearward facing using ISOFIX anchorages and support leg, the CRS prevented the head exposure offering full protection. Rear backrest unlatching can offer risks. Side Impact: the CRS offered full protection. The manufacturer refused to recommend CRS which leads to zero points in dynamic test. Some of the CRSs tested for installation failed. Despite having standard ISOFIX anchorages in rear outboard positions marking was not according to Latin NCAP criteria. Airbag warning when a rearward CRS is installed in the passenger seat meets Latin NCAP requirements. Passenger airbag could not be disconnected in the case that a rearward facing CRS is installed in the front passenger seat.

VRUs:

Originally Posted by Latin NCAP

The car does not prove to meet pedestrian protection UN regulations. The car showed average protection to pedestrians in the head, good protection to the upper leg and adequate to weak protection to the lower leg. AEB VRU: not available according to fitment requirements.

Safety assist:

Originally Posted by Latin NCAP

The car does not offer ESC as standard. SBR: the car offers front driver SBR only. SA: the car does not offer a speed limitation device. BSD: The car does not offer BSD as standard. LSS and RED: the car does not offer these technologies. AEB Interurban: The car does not have AEB interurban.

3. Great Wall Wingle 5
This model scored an overall zero star rating.

Percentage scores in each box are as follows:
Adult Occupant Protection: 9%
Child Occupant Protection: 0%
Vulnerable Road Users: 19%
Safety Assist: 0%

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDaXCPyYWqI

Testers' comments:
Adult protection:

Originally Posted by Latin NCAP

Frontal impact: The protection offered to the driver head and neck was poor leading to the zero points in the frontal test. Passenger head and neck protection was good. Driver’s and passenger’s chest showed poor protection which leads to zero points in the frontal test. Driver’s knees showed marginal protection as they can impact with dangerous structures behind the fascia while passenger’s knees showed marginal and poor protection. Driver’s tibias showed marginal and poor protection while passenger’s tibias showed adequate protection. The bodyshell was rated as unstable and it is not capable of withstanding further loadings. Footwell area is also rated as unstable. Side impact: Head, abdomen and pelvis protection was good while chest protection was adequate with high intrusion in the passenger compartment. Side Pole Impact: was not performed as the car does not offer side head protection as standard. Whiplash: the protection to the neck was poor. The car does not prove to meet the rear impact structure requirements. AEB City: the car does not offer optional AEB city following Latin NCAP fitment rate. Rescue sheet: content is not available.

Child protection:

Originally Posted by Latin NCAP

The child seat for the 3-year-old child was installed forward facing using the adult seatbelt. It was not capable of preventing excessive forward movement of the head. Side Impact: the CRS offered full protection. The Q1.5 was installed rearward facing using the seatbelt and support leg, the CRS prevented the head exposure offering good protection. Side Impact: the CRs offered full protection. The manufacturer refused to recommend CRS which leads to zero points in dynamic test. All the CRSs tested for installation failed. The car offers rear central lap belt as standard which leads to zero points in vehicle based assessment. Airbag warning when a rearward CRS is installed in the passenger seat was meeting Latin NCAP requirements. Passenger airbag could not be disconnected in the case that a rearward facing CRS is installed in the front passenger seat.

VRUs:

Originally Posted by Latin NCAP

The car does not prove to meet Pedestrian protection UN regulations. The car showed poor protection to pedestrians. AEB VRU: not available.

Safety assist:

Originally Posted by Latin NCAP

The car does not offer ESC as standard. SBR: the car offers front driver SBR only. SA: the car does not offer a speed limitation device. BSD: The car does not offer BSD as standard. LSS and RED: the car does not offer these technologies. AEB Interurban: The car does not have AEB inter urban.

Alejandro Furas, Secretary General of Latin NCAP said:

It is very disappointing that such an important car manufacturer group as Hyundai-Kia offers low safety performance and basic safety equipment to Latin American consumers. Consumers in mature markets are given state of the art safety in the same models and in many instances at lower prices than in Latin America. From recent tests of Hyundai-Kia models like the Picanto, HB20, Accent, Tucson, and Sportage, it seems that it does not matter the price range, the group adopts the same attitude towards the safety of Latin American consumers. The life of a Latin American is as valuable and important as the life of any other Hyundai-Kia customer, and we deserve the same basic safety levels without having to pay extra for them. We feel discriminated against by this car maker and we demand urgent action to level up basic standard safety in Latin America to match global best practices. The Wingle 5 is a very popular pick up vehicle used mostly for work purposes and is very popular among fleets. GWM has good safety performing products available in Australia and UK they should provide the baseline standard for Latin America. Latin NCAP believes that consumer information known as labelling can dramatically and quickly improve the safety level of cars as a result of a voluntary action.

Stephan Brodziak, Latin NCAP Chairman said:

We are outraged that Kia is selling cars in our region with such poor safety performance in their basic versions. After the evaluation of the Rio Sedan and the Picanto, the disastrous result of the Kia Sportage reveals that the basic safety applied to the models marketed in Latin America is insufficient to adequately protect the population of Latin America. This feature in the safety equipment seems to be a corporate decision shared by Hyundai with the very unfortunate result of the New Accent. Thanks to the Latin NCAP programme, it is possible to trace the general safety performance of a brand’s vehicles. It will be necessary to verify if the poor result of the Wingle 5 of 0 stars is a corporate decision applicable to all their models or if they have decided to discriminate Latin American consumers only with this model. It costs little to brands to improve safety, but it can cost consumers lives or the loss of beloved ones. We demand safer cars for our region, we demand that Hyundai, Kia and GWM to provide the same basic safety that they offer in mature economies countries, without having to pay extra for it.

A total of eleven cars was tested in 2021:

• Suzuki Swift - 0 stars
• Renault New Duster - 0 stars
• Suzuki Baleno - 0 stars
• Toyota Yaris - 1 star
• Fiat Argo/Cronos - 0 stars
• Volkswagen Taos - 5 stars
• Hyundai old Tucson - 0 stars
• Peugeot 208 - 2 stars
• Kia Sportage - 0 stars
• Hyundai Accent - 0 stars
• Great Wall Wingle 5 - 0 stars

This completes Phase 12 of Latin NCAP's results.
The next Latin NCAP results are expected in 2022 (Phase 13).

Find the press release here.

[theAutomaniac]

Originally Posted by ron178

The following models have been tested:

1. Kia Sportage - 2 airbags, no ESC, made in Korea
2. Hyundai Accent - driver airbag, no ESC, made in India and Mexico (result not valid for Indian market!)

While these results are invalid for Indian market, the low safety equipment on premium cars like the Sportage and Tucson in developing countries makes me wonder if Hyundai is even a bit concerned about safety of their products except in Australia, Europe and US! Scary how even we might get just expensive tincans loaded with touchscreens and sensors in the name of all these so called "futuristic" vehicles they promise to us in upcoming years (KY, new Tucson, 6 new EVs etc.)

2. Hyundai Accent
This model scored an overall zero star rating.

Percentage scores in each box are as follows:
Adult Occupant Protection: 9%
Child Occupant Protection: 13%
Vulnerable Road Users: 53%
Safety Assist: 7%

Unsurprisingly, even in the Latin American market just like India, Hyundai has poorer safety than Suzuki vehicles! The Hyundai Verna tested here has lesser safety equipment than the recently tested Latin American Suzuki Swift and Baleno!
Even if we consider the points scored in the test, both the Suzuki hatchbacks have better score than the Verna! Here's a comparison of the three cars-










Think about this, a Hyundai sedan has lower safety equipment and poorer safety score than 2 smaller and lighter Suzukis from a lower segment! How low are you going to stoop Hyundai?

[BigBrad]

Originally Posted by theAutomaniac

Think about this, a Hyundai sedan has lower safety equipment and poorer safety score than 2 smaller and lighter Suzukis from a lower segment! How low are you going to stoop Hyundai?

Hyundai/Kia had proved it already in 2020 with their 22lacs Seltos being worse than an Ertiga:

[delusional_fool]

These ratings are very worrisome (especially as a Hyundai owner) and it seems clear that Hyundai/Kia doesn't really care about safety in these regions.

Also is there a huge difference between Latin NCAP and Global NCAP? Only one car out of the tested 12 cars has > 1 star ratings in Latin NCAP (Volkswagen Taos) so wondering if Latin NCAP is very stringent.

[rahulskumar]

This should make Hyundai/Kia very happy as sales in India will skyrocket
I think now they can definitely compete with Maruti to snatch the "Tin can" title

[aniketi]

Hyundai / Kia makes good interiors but they are Tin cans, this result just shows that. I have see Hyundai cars getting damaged heavily in small accidents as well. Some of the Maruti cars are also better than them, I really mean it. I have personally experienced it as well.

[mathewspaul]

All these results and still the general perception in India is Hyundai cars are more safer than Maruti . Is its because of Maruti's 'Kitana deti hey' campaign and their general thinner sheet metal and thus light weight cars ?

[PetrolheadRup]

While going through the results of the Sportage, I saw that the score in frontal offset test is "12.1/8 p". How to interpret this, surely not 12.1 out of 8!?

On another note, I really dislike Latin NCAP's new scoring system of combining scores from vastly different parameters.
I hope GNCAP doesn't get inspired by Latin NCAP when they modify the rules in 2022, or else most people will start considering cars like Altroz in the same category as Swift in terms of safety.

[ron178]

Originally Posted by PetrolheadRup

I hope GNCAP doesn't get inspired by Latin NCAP when they modify the rules in 2022.

You can expect a similar four-box system and an overall combined star rating (instead of two separate ones) in Global NCAP's Africa and possibly India (if there's no permanent Bharat NCAP by then) crash test campaigns by 2026 at the earliest.

The 2022 protocol, though improved, still uses separate star ratings for adult and child occupant protection though in each there will be a lot more criteria.

Also, Global NCAP's Indian project getting inspired by Latin NCAP is not even a question, it's nearly obvious that that will be the case. Global NCAP founded Latin NCAP in the first place so it's only natural that they will use old Latin NCAP protocols for their other projects.

Originally Posted by delusional_fool

Also is there a huge difference between Latin NCAP and Global NCAP?

Yes, they are very different. It's immediately evident from the fact that Global NCAP's campaigns have separate star ratings for adult and child protection but Latin NCAP assesses adult protection, child protection, vulnerable road user protection and safety assistance separately and combines them all into a single overall star rating limited by the worst performing category out of the four. Even in adult and child protection Latin NCAP has more tests and different scoring criteria.


When we say a model has a 'n star Global NCAP rating' that usually refers to only adult protection (which is also not as stringent) while an 'n star Latin NCAP rating' is an overall rating. Very often Global NCAP's child occupant protection ratings are just ignored, which is sad.

Star ratings should definitely not be compared.

Though Latin NCAP was founded by Global NCAP, it is now recognised as a legal entity. It also has more sponsors and works across a whole continent, so it tests a lot more cars and updates its protocols more frequently.

Global NCAP's Safer Cars for India and Safer Cars for Africa projects are still campaigns. They expect that the Government of India will set up a permanent NCAP. Both projects currently use 2013 Latin NCAP protocol for adult occupant protection.

Originally Posted by delusional_fool

Only one car out of the tested 12 cars has > 1 star ratings in Latin NCAP (Volkswagen Taos) so wondering if Latin NCAP is very stringent.

And the Peugeot 208 with 2 overall stars.

[ranjith_cbz]

Nothing is going to change for Indian customer as long as

1. Govt only interested in taxing the hell out of auto industry with inconsistent industry policy, non ease of doing business and not bothering about revising the laws to match the maturity of the economy.

2. Auto companies not interested to self regulate or impose the best practices which they follow in other matured economies just to come up with their standard PR speak of "complying with all the regulations/law of the land and provide the best possible product to their customer" all the while making the most bang for their buck (Eg KIA's highest margins etc) at the cost of safety of their loyal customer.

3. Indian car buyers not giving any importance to safety aspects of a car and all the time caring only about what bling, sensors and features his/her next car is going to have. We are just proving time and again that what Maruti, Hyundai and KIA does is the best strategy and others should follow suit with their India centric product platforms(VW's MQB-IN).

Honestly, i have no hope left that there is going to be some positive changes towards the safety or other aspects of Indian car industry while

Certain auto companies(Ford, Fiat, GM) leaving India
Certain companies making hay(Maruti, Hyundai & KIA)
Certain companies finding their niche/dominance and squeeze their customer beyond the worth of their products simply because they can (Toyota, Jeep, German biggies)

[manpreetsj]

First of all its good to see aam janta slowly and gradually speaking up and asking about safety! In 2021, the trend has started and hopefully it will gain pace at compounding rate going forward. Thanks to Tata and M&M (Team A) for helping in creating awareness!!

Hyundai (I currently own one!), Kia and Maruti (Team B) are PV leaders in India. All three have been exploiting us due to their BRAND VALUE. This has to change sooner or later. Otherwise, we will get bling at the cost of our lives!

However, sad part is that the Cos that are globally serious about safety are also falling in the trap of cheapening their localised platform to have better margins at the cost of lower safety/ fit and finish (read VAG Strategy 2.0 - Inclining towards Team B).

Good to see MG Motors on Team A side, by offering good quality cars. Hector not tested (but good general customer feedback on accidents happened over last 2 years) & ZS (Hopefully Astor) being a 5 star rated car! Same goes for Jeep, though they are charging bomb premium for same.

Only option is to either go for Team A cars or Chinese origin (ok! British) cars (OR) CKD / CBU cars from Germans/European companies, which are already tested abroad. Otherwise, live with tin-cans for few more years, till this awareness propels and kills these margin hungry brands!

[kunal031]

It's not easy to run business with losses. Either you increase price of vehicle (which Indians hate) or reduce material and overall build quality (which works well in mass market). Minus taxes then check value of car (ex showroom). Registration and insurance and all also account a hefty amount these days due to govt norms.

These all combines and we think we are paying 20+L for Creta/Seltos n we are getting tin cans. Auto industry is one of biggest job provider to labour level, also accounts major chunk in taxes (add fuel tax also as its sales depends on auto sales). One can say Tata and Mahindra making safer cars in same price, but again check their balance sheet. Quarter on Quarter they are making huge losses and in dire need of funds.

Being in auto industry since last 9+ yrs, I can feel it. Businesses are run for profits, not losses.

[pratyushpks]

Originally Posted by delusional_fool

Also is there a huge difference between Latin NCAP and Global NCAP? Only one car out of the tested 12 cars has > 1 star ratings in Latin NCAP (Volkswagen Taos) so wondering if Latin NCAP is very stringent.

Latin NCAP, has revised their rating system for new world technologies. In comparison they are similarly stringent as Euro NCAP. Global NCAP is behind as of now.

The high end sedans get about 4 or 5 in these revised ratings. Few years back the safety available in Xuv 700 was enough for 5 star, thats why it got 5 in GNCAP, it won't get same rating in Euro NCAP or Latin NCAP.

[fhdowntheline]

Why don't GNCAP buy some cars in India out from the market, test them and settle the issue for once? We forumers have spent too much time speculating on this, predicting dire outcomes for some and being fondly hopeful for others.

[ron178]

Originally Posted by fhdowntheline

Why don't GNCAP buy some cars in India out from the market, test them and settle the issue for once?

I wish! Unfortunately, unlike many other NCAPs where most of the testing is paid for by manufacturers, very few manufacturers agree to sponsor tests for Safer Cars for India despite the limited assessments. The rest of the testing (the non-voluntary tests) is paid for by philantropies like FIA Foundation and Bloomberg Philantropies, so understandably they can't test a lot of cars. Thankfully more manufacturers are expected sponsor some tests soon. Renault and Škoda, to be specific. I was expecting a round of non-voluntary test results in 2021 but it looks like that might not be the case after all. They did recently release results for Africa, though.

Plus, Latin NCAP has been requiring increasingly demanding funding from Global NCAP since the new protocol came in particularly due to the whiplash tests, standard side-impact tests even if the frontal score is capped, and the ESC + moose tests, which, obviously, the test lab charges for.

Just look at how much of Latin NCAP's testing was sponsored by the industry from 2016-19 (all the ones with an asterisk):




In contrast, only one out of 14 models from 2021-22 was sponsored by a manufacturer: the Volkswagen Taos

Global NCAP's Safer Cars for India project simply does not yet have the same level of compliance yet. Only Tata, Mahindra and recently Renault are sponsoring tests, and besides this only Honda, Volkswagen and Toyota have sponsored one test each (and Renault four), and every time it was an additional test on a variant with either optional or recently-made-standard airbags because the basic trim levels either scored poorly or were likely to.

Another point to note is that it's impossible to score the highest rating (five adult stars) unless some of the testing is paid for by the manufacturer. Particularly, the R95 side impact test and knee-mapping tests if at all required. So even if a car has been engineered to score a full rating and Global NCAP selects it for testing, Global NCAP's sponsors will only pay for the frontal test. The manufacturer is expected to sponsor the side impact test, and the knee-mapping test data must be presented directly to Global NCAP during the one-to-one meeting. If the manufacturer refuses, the rating will be limited to four stars.

Every NCAP gets extra funding just to test those models that manufacturers don't sponsor. For example, Euro NCAP: most manufacturers sponsor tests and score well but some manufacturers, like Dacia, just don't. Euro NCAP has to use independent funding to test these models.

In India, the proportion of models manufacturers won't sponsor is relatively high so unless a Government-funded Bharat NCAP is set up, or the Government funds some Global NCAP Safer Cars for India testing (it's allowed), we can't really expect them to do any more testing than they are already.