[ron178]

Originally Posted by DicKy

The Spresso got 0 stars only because it didn't have passenger airbags as standard and pretensioners?

The test is performance-based and not equipment-based, so not exactly. The reason for the zero star result was dummy readings indicating unacceptably high risk of serious injury to the front passenger's neck, and even the driver's chest had poor protection which would limit the result to 1 star. Yes, the passenger airbag and pretensioners could mitigate these but the result was not directly zero stars because of any missing equipment.

[BigBrad]

Originally Posted by ron178

Well, how about that.

Originally Posted by Carma2017

During my discussions with Suzuki guys, I came to know that the S-Presso is minimum 2 star level car if not 3-Star as per Suzuki internal tests. The car was made with an eye on NCAP. They were very well aware of all the flaws in previous and current Kwid. Let us see how they both perform in NCAP tests.

If this is true, why didn't Maruti sponsor a test earlier? Not doubting your statement, but if Maruti had tested it earlier, it would have given them an instant image boost and the tin can crown would have been passed to Hyundai/Kia overnight.

[Carma2017]

Originally Posted by BigBrad

If this is true, why didn't Maruti sponsor a test earlier? Not doubting your statement, but if Maruti had tested it earlier, it would have given them an instant image boost and the tin can crown would have been passed to Hyundai/Kia overnight.

Suzuki does not acknowledge presence of GNCAP nor does it recognise any of their tests in India. There is definitely bad blood between Suzuki and GNCAP, at least in India. It is rumoured that even the current Brezza could qualify for 5 stars based on current GNCAP protocol. Some additional data or tests were required and Suzuki refused to oblige.

And on same lines, GNCAP does not miss any opportunity to test a Suzuki launched vehicle (sometimes twice - Brezza and Urban Cruiser) and publicise it's not so good results. Whilst they don't touch vehicles like Harrier or Safari which are rumoured to have oil filter intrusion issues owing to its European platform origin alike Compass.

Here in Japan, Suzuki and JNCAP seem to have a better relationship.

[ron178]

Originally Posted by Carma2017

It is rumoured that even the current Brezza could qualify for 5 stars based on current GNCAP protocol. Some additional data or tests were required and Suzuki refused to oblige.

Could you please try to re-confirm this? To the best of my knowledge the old Brezza didn't have a lower anchorage (lap) pretensioner so presenting kneemapping data would be out of the question. And if not Suzuki I don't see what bad blood Toyota would have with the GNCAP to not present data for the Urban Cruiser. They often used their results in Etios ads.

The most interesting thing I've heard from Suzuki (in a 2016 interview as well as a few days ago) is that the GNCAP is funded by airbag suppliers. I don't know where they got it from but it appears to be because their Stop the Crash partnership is in fact funded by Denso, Bosch and Continental.

[Meph1st0]

Originally Posted by Keeleri_Achu

So the addition of seatbelt pretensioners and passenger airbag caused the rather high jump in rating.

The improvement in the driver protection just by adding a seatbelt pre-tensioner is quite impressive. This should be made mandatory as well and should not be an expensive change for OEM to crib about.

[volkman10]

Maruti S-Presso crash tests comparison - Global NCAP crash test

[tbppjpr]

Strangely nobody is talking about the "unstable bodyshell and footwell area" remark in the crash test report.

Car's structure is the primary and most important factor to ensure safety of it's passengers. Rest are called "secondary safety features" for some reasons.

Tip - if you care so much about the car safety then always read the test report before reaching onto any conclusion. Merely looking at the stars or crash videos don't tell the full story.

Indian Variant Crash Test Report

South African Variant Crash Test Report

[darkfantasy]

Originally Posted by tbppjpr

Strangely nobody is talking about the "unstable bodyshell and footwell area" remark in the crash test report.

Car's structure is the primary and most important factor to ensure safety of it's passengers. Rest are called "secondary safety features" for some reasons.

I am very well aware of the "unstable bodyshell and footwell area" remark. Even the Tiago that scored 4 stars has the same remark. Of course, it would be great if even entry-level cars can get 5 stars with a stable body shell. But given the current scenario, the price point it is retailing, and the usual use case for this city car- I think it is acceptable. Commendable - No?, Acceptable - yes.

[ron178]

Originally Posted by tbppjpr

Merely looking at the stars or crash videos don't tell the full story.

It's better to just look at the stars than to try to read between the lines and do it wrong. You're not alone, there are some for whom the 'unstable bodyshell' is a deal-breaker entirely.

Originally Posted by tbppjpr

Strangely nobody is talking about the "unstable bodyshell and footwell area" remark in the crash test report.

When the passenger compartment remains stable it means that the testers are confident in the repeatability of the measured structural performance of the car. It doesn't tell you how good the structural performance is, it's important to separate structural performance from structural integrity. Structural performance is determined by measuring A-pillar movement and steering wheel displacement and correspondingly the chest and head respectively may be penalised. Same with the footwell: the primary basis for foot scoring is rearward pedal displacement, a ruptured footwell only indicates that pedal response may have become unstable, not that it is bad. An unstable passenger compartment is a -1 penalty for the chest, and footwell rupture -1 for the feet.

I think you might be able to find some old Euro NCAP tests where structure or footwell performance was really bad despite remaining stable. I think the 2003 Renault Twingo's footwell was one of them.

Of course it is ideal that intrusion is low and the passenger compartment remains stable but an unstable passenger compartment is not as big a problem as it sounds, if it was it would be penalised much more.

Originally Posted by tbppjpr

Tip - if you care so much about the car safety then always read the test report before reaching onto any conclusion.

That is correct. The technical report contains a lot of valuable information like which child seats the manufacturer selected (results could otherwise vary significantly) and how protection rates for different body regions. eg. some three star cars have serious issues with critical body regions like the head, neck and chest.

Here are the driver dummies of a number of cars that all have three stars. Notice the difference in protection to critical body regions (head, neck, chest):

Towards the left there is a greater risk of life-threatening injury, toward the right it moves towards disabling injury. (left to right: New i20, Duster+airbag, S-Presso+pretensioners, Aspire, New Creta, Carens, Mobilio+airbags, 2014 Swift+airbags (via Latin NCAP)).

[Carma2017]

Originally Posted by ron178

It's better to just look at the stars than to try to read between the lines and do it wrong. You're not alone, there are some for whom the 'unstable bodyshell' is a deal-breaker entirely.


When the passenger compartment remains stable it means that the testers are confident in the repeatability of the measured structural performance of the car. It doesn't tell you how good the structural performance is, it's important to separate structural performance from structural integrity. Structural performance is determined by measuring A-pillar movement and steering wheel displacement and correspondingly the chest and head respectively may be penalised. Same with the footwell: the primary basis for foot scoring is rearward pedal displacement, a ruptured footwell only indicates that pedal response may have become unstable, not that it is bad. An unstable passenger compartment is a -1 penalty for the chest, and footwell rupture -1 for the feet....

Of course it is ideal that intrusion is low and the passenger compartment remains stable but an unstable passenger compartment is not as big a problem as it sounds, if it was it would be penalised much more......

Here are the driver dummies of a number of cars that all have three stars. Notice the difference in protection to critical body regions (head, neck, chest):
Attachment 2327508
Towards the left there is a greater risk of life-threatening injury, toward the right it moves towards disabling injury. (left to right: New i20, Duster+airbag, S-Presso+pretensioners, Aspire, New Creta, Carens, Mobilio+airbags, 2014 Swift+airbags (via Latin NCAP)).

This is the first really superb explanation about Structural Stability i have read or heard in this forum. I don't think there should remain any doubts about unstable structure comment in a report. The devil truly lies in the details.

[ron178]

Originally Posted by ron178

I wonder why they say 'Maruti Suzuki' S-Presso because the distributor in South Africa sells under the name Suzuki and not Maruti Suzuki.

Mysteriously fixed.


And the older press release URL no longer works.

Originally Posted by Carma2017

I don't think there should remain any doubts about unstable structure comment in a report.

That will happen when the GNCAP stops printing it in uppercase right below the star rating which makes consumers think it's a 'disclaimer'.

[Vishal.R]

Most surprising part for me is S-presso scores more over Ignis, as We have both cars in family so have extensively driven both. Ignis appears batter in build quality compared to S-presso.

[ron178]

Originally Posted by Vishal.R

Most surprising part for me is S-presso scores more over Ignis, as We have both cars in family so have extensively driven both. Ignis appears batter in build quality compared to S-presso.

The Ignis did perform better for adult protection, its tibia protection was better and the footwell hadn't ruptured. In any case the mass difference between the Ignis and S-Presso is 110kg which is probably too large to compare results, because test results can be compared only within a given size segment (the test simulates two similar cars crashing head-on at 55km/h).

Even child dynamics were actually better and had Suzuki South Africa selected those child seats for the test the Ignis could have outdone the S-Presso. It is also one of the few mass-market cars whose ISOFIX anchorages are i-Size approved.

I would also not recommend believing myths about 'build quality' being related to crashworthiness.

[maheshm619]

Couldn't resist posting .

Meanwhile the Korean twins :

[vennarbank]

One query. Is there a weight difference between Indian and SA bound s-presso? I tried finding the weight for SA bound car, but no luck. Anyone able to get the weight for this car.