[LakeWalker]

Suzuki Fronx (Japanese Spec) scores 4 stars in JNCAP crash tests.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xr1xDSSrDkg

[Samurai]

Wow, this report comes out on the very day I booked Taisor. Four stars are good enough for me, but the Indian Fronx/Taisor doesn't have ADAS.

More details here: https://www.ndtv.com/auto/maruti-suz...-catch-8410895

Based on the results, the Suzuki Fronx has an 84 percent score in the assessment. Specifically, it has managed to get an overall 163.75 points out of a total of 193.8 points. Apart from that, the car scored 79.42 points out of 85.8 points in the preventive safety performance test, while the collision safety performance test ended with a score of 76.33 points out of 100 points.

In the offset frontal collision test, the Suzuki Fronx scored 21.08 points out of 24 points. The car also got a level 5/5 in full-wrap frontal collision test, side collision test, and pedestrian leg protection performance test.

[LakeWalker]

Result Details

[LakeWalker]

Originally Posted by Samurai

... but the Indian Fronx/Taisor doesn't have ADAS.

True. Hence, I sought the help of Gemini AI to translate and analyse the Japanese report PDF to know more about the collision tests.

This is what it said:



Waiting for a better analysis from @Volkman10.

[ron178]

The Japan New Car Assessment Programme (JNCAP) has announced a four-star safety rating for the Japanese-market Suzuki Fronx, exported from India with additional safety features like AEB and lane support.


Image: JNCAP

The Fronx was disqualified from 5 stars overall because it scored only a 3/5 in multiple physical and active safety tests including rear-seat frontal crash protection (it does not have pretensioners for the rear seatbelts), pedestrian head protection, and AEB (where JNCAP has recently been testing performance of Junction AEB).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xr1xDSSrDkg

The full result is on JNCAP's website.

[LakeWalker]

Originally Posted by LakeWalker

Waiting for a better analysis from @Volkman10.

My bad. I meant, @ron178

[carhead]

Originally Posted by LakeWalker

My bad. I meant, @ron178

Second that! Ron- awaiting your detailed observations in addition to post #5. Thanks.

[volkman10]

Decoding the JNCAP results of 'Made in India' Suzuki Fronx:

Evaluation done basis 3 criteria:
1.Preventive safety performance evaluation System
2. Collision Safety Performance evaluation System
3. Automatic accident emergency notification System




Evaluation of results based on the above:




> in terms of Collision safety it was ranked "B" and less than 6% away from the 5 star rating!


Link:

[Matrix_Maya]

How different is Japan Spec Fronx from India Specs Fronx ? The basic body structure is same or not ?

[ron178]

Originally Posted by volkman10

> in terms of Collision safety it was ranked "B" and less than 6% away from the 5 star rating!

Very misleading because in addition to meeting the point threshold, you also need at least a Level 4/5 in every test for A grade and hence 5 stars.

The Fronx has 3/5 in not one but multiple tests, some of which would require not-so-simple fixes like rear pretensioners.

Quoting JNCAP:

In order to obtain the highest A rank, you must be level 4 or higher in each evaluation item.

Source

For example the latest Vellfire is also a 4 star car with B grade for collision safety performance despite being above the total threshold for A grade, just because of one 3/5 (in pedestrian head protection).

[MrMcqueen]

I believe there is a difference between "Made-In-India" and "Made-For-India"

can some esteemed members shed some light on it, will the difference be only in some safety features or there will be difference in monocoque chassis as well (metal used, welding methods, etc..) which can affect the structural integrity of the body of the vehicle.

although 4 stars is definitely commendable.

[ron178]

Originally Posted by MrMcqueen

will the difference be only in some safety features or there will be difference in monocoque chassis as well (metal used, welding methods, etc..) which can affect the structural integrity of the body of the vehicle.

Suzuki engineers said in a Japanese interview that whatever changes they had to make for Japan were with the condition that they could not change the structure (which was designed in advance). Make of that what you will.

--Where do you need to change when exporting to developed countries including Japan?

Nakamura: Although it is of course necessary to respond to the laws and regulations specific to each country, the skeleton is designed in advance with the laws and regulations of the world in mind. If it is difficult to obtain five stars as it is in the car assessment of each country, measures may be taken within the scope of not changing the skeleton.

Also,

--Fronx is said to be made in India, but by producing in India, are there restrictions on the materials and construction methods that can be used for car models produced in Japan?

Nakamura: The largest grade is a high-tensile steel plate. In recent years, India has been able to procure up to 980MPa in recent years, but in Japan, it is possible to use a higher tensile strength than that. The front pillar inner and the dash side inner (lower part of the front pillar) use the 980MPa class.

The high-tensile steel plate that exceeds the 980MPa class can be exported and used from Japan, but one of the development themes of this car was to produce it using completely locally procured in India, so such restrictions I designed it inside.

Personally I am fairly optimistic that the Fronx’s structure will be close to the new Dzire’s. But let’s wait for a local test.

[darkgamer]

Can more informed BHPians also compare JNCAP with BNCAP/GNCAP? As far as I am aware the JNCAP ratings should be *EASIER* to achieve because the collisions are done at a much lower speed of 50kmph vs 64kmph in BNCAP/GNCAP and other NCAPs.

[ron178]

Originally Posted by darkgamer

As far as I am aware the JNCAP ratings should be *EASIER* to achieve because the collisions are done at a much lower speed of 50kmph vs 64kmph in BNCAP/GNCAP and other NCAPs.

Not at all, the new MPDB test has the car and a 1300kg barrier moving towards each other both at 50 km/h.

From many Euro NCAP MPDB tests of small cars since 2020 it would appear that for small cars it is more difficult than 64 km/h offset deformable barrier.

Not to be confused with the full-width rigid barrier test, which is a test for the restraint systems more than the structure.

[green tea man]

Originally Posted by ron178

Very misleading because in addition to meeting the point threshold, you also need at least a Level 4/5 in every test for A grade and hence 5 stars.

The Fronx has 3/5 in not one but multiple tests, some of which would require not-so-simple fixes like rear pretensioners.

Quoting JNCAP:

Source

For example the latest Vellfire is also a 4 star car with B grade for collision safety performance despite being above the total threshold for A grade, just because of one 3/5 (in pedestrian head protection).

Hi,

I did a Gemini "research" comparison with Honda WRV rated on similar protocol ( the latest one I assume).

Japans protocol does stress on Pedestrian Protection and Preventative Safety mechanisms.

If we ignore these and consider just the collision test performance , comparing , lot of critical areas like frontal Offset, Full Frontal , Side collision performance seems to be good.

For Fronx the areas where its scored 3/5 are pedestrian protection and rear passenger protection.






When I asked Gemini to "Research" a bit more indepth, it does say that the low rear seat safety could be mix of things mainly presence or effectiveness of pre-tensioners and load limiters for rear seats), variations in structural deformation patterns affecting the rear passenger compartment, or differences in side curtain airbag coverage extending to the rear.

Looking at the most basic things that Maruti keeps failing at, the frontal and side collision tests, this crash test performance looks pretty good to me, especially since I will be using the car alone most of the times without rear passengers.