Slide of
Car safety organisation Euro NCAP has awarded a zero star safety rating for the new Fiat Panda.
It becomes one of only two zero-rated cars in Euro NCAP’s history, the other being the Fiat Punto in 2017. The Panda failed to achieve more than 50% in any of the safety organisation’s four key testing categories. The safety of children seated in the rear was of specific concern, with the car's Child Occupant Protection score of 16% falling significantly well short of the 79% average.
There are instances when cars come away with worryingly poor results, yet they can also offer valuable information and insight for manufacturers, crash test bodies such as Euro NCAP and drivers, and let's hope this is one of them.
Let's take a look at the scariest safety test results and what the industry learned from them:
- Slide of
Geely CK1
China's Geely had grand ambitions to sell its CK1 saloon in the USA and intended to use South American countries such as Puerto Rico as a stepping stone to the lucrative US market. However, Latin NCAP tests in 2005, which are similar to the Euro NCAP ones, gave the CK1 a score of zero stars because its occupant protection was so poor. It was also prevented from sale in the USA when it failed the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety tests in the USA.
What Happened?
The upshot of all this is Geely became much more focused on safety and this was instrumental in its decision to buy Volvo in 2010. Always a safety leader, Volvo’s subsequently rejuvenated range of cars are among the safest on the road. The company has the ambition that by 2020 noone should be killed or seriously injured in a new Volvo car.
- Slide of
Datsun Go
Emerging automotive economies such as India represent a huge opportunity to car makers where low-cost cars are in massive demand. However, Nissan found to its expense in 2014 that cheap cars with poor crash-worthiness can become an expensive mistake. The Japanese firm’s Datsun Go was awarded a zero-star score in Global NCAP tests when much of the front of the car deformed in a frontal collision.
What Happened?
A welcome result of this is India now has the Bharat New Vehicle Safety Assessment Program to conduct crash testing on all new cars to be sold there.
- Slide of
Chery QQ3
The Chery QQ3 is a popular car in South Africa. However, the QQ3 has performed terribly in Global NCAP tests conducted in conjunction with the Automobile Association of South Africa in 2003. The QQ3 was given no stars and its vehicle structure was condemned as ‘unstable’. Small cars often struggle to score highly in safety tests, but the ageing design of the QQ3 hinders its ability to meet the demands of protecting its occupants. This was demonstrated by the crash test dummy driver’s head breaking the steering wheel.
What Happened?
The car was eventually replaced by a newer and safer model.
- Slide of
Dodge Challenger
Muscle cars are among the most desirable machines from the USA and they are also more likely to be involved in a collision than many other types of car. When the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety tested the current Dodge Challenger, it found a number of key areas were insufficient. They included concerns about roof crush, offset frontal impacts, and seat and headrest strength.
What Happened?
As a result of similar previous tests, Dodge redesigned the passenger safety cell in 2016 to greatly improve occupant protection.
- Slide of
Tata Nano
The Tata Nano was severely criticised in 2014 after it was subjected to a 64kmh (40mph) frontal impact test by Global NCAP. It concluded the Nano increased the risk of life-threatening injuries and its structure was unstable and made it unsuitable for the fitment of airbags.
What Happened?
As well as encouraging India’s own new Bharat New Vehicle Safety Assessment Program, the Nano’s showing prompted the President of India’s Institute of Road Traffic Education to say: ‘Consumers need clear information on minimum safety standards about the protection offered by new cars.’
- Slide of
Mahindra Scorpio
Big SUVs offer their occupants lots of protection, right? Sadly, that’s not always the case and the Mahindra Scorpio is a prime example. Very popular in its native India, the Scorpio could only manage two stars for child protection, while scoring zero for adult safety because the front cabin section was deformed in a head-on collision.
What Happened?
Anti-lock ABS brakes and front airbags were made available as options to the car in 2009, and the model tested lacked the latter, as the company noted. However, the model still lags behind many other large 4x4s for occupant safety.
- Slide of
Renault Kwid
The Renault Kwid is built and sold in India as an affordable small SUV. In a 40mph front impact test in 2016, the Kwid scored zero stars for adult safety but did manage two stars for child protection. Worryingly, when Renault then added a driver’s airbag to the Kwid and it was retested, the results came back the same. Renault and other car makers objected to the methodology of the Global NCAP tests, but they are very similar to the ones carried out by Euro NCAP.
What Happened?
Others say it shows drivers in emerging markets are not being provided with the same vehicle safety as more established regions such as Europe and the USA. There is a growing movement in developed countries to close the safety gap. As for the Kwid, Renault has stated that it intends to ensure its vehicles comply with revised safety guidelines in India due to come into force in 2019.
- Slide of
Rover 100
To mark 20 years of safety testing, Euro NCAP compared a Rover 100 from 1997 with a 2017 Honda Jazz. Similar in size and weight, the contrast between these two superminis’ crash worthiness could not be more stark. Where the Honda scored five stars in its test, the Rover that was a top-selling model in 1997 managed only one star when still a current model.
In the tests, it meant the whole front of the 100 collapses into the main passenger cell and the windscreen pillar was pushed back by 488mm. By comparison, the Honda that flies the flag for modern superminis would allow its occupants to walk away with minor injuries in the same impact.
- Slide of
Rover 100
What Happened?
The Rover 100 crash test in 1997 made headline news and even appeared on evening TV news bulletins in Britain. Rover’s then owner BMW correctly realised that the test had destroyed the car’s reputation: sales collapsed. Production ceased shortly after, marking an ignominious end for the car that, originally launched in 1980 as the Austin Mini Metro, was supposed to be the great hope for the British-owned-and-produced car industry. Rover had no direct replacement model in the segment.
The episode boosted consumer awareness of car safety generally - and the internet has subsequently also given consumers easy access to crash test videos of cars they might like to buy. And it also showed how the image of a car model could be wrecked as surely and quickly as the car itself in a poor crash test.
- Slide of
Rover P8
A decade before the Metro, the P8 should have been the car to let Rover take on Mercedes-Benz in the luxury saloon sector. Many assume internal politics within the sprawling British Leyland empire favoured Jaguar and ended the P8, but the truth is poor safety performance under tests in 1971 also contributed. During a 30mph frontal impact collision test at the MIRA test facility, engineers were shocked when the passenger cell folded up rather than the engine compartment as intended.
What Happened?
Even with modifications to the bodyshell, the improvements were small and not long afterwards the management pulled the plug and buyers had to wait for the SD1 model in 1976, which performed well (for the time) in crash tests.
- Slide of
Mercedes-Benz A-Class
Not all safety tests are carried out within the confines of laboratory conditions, as Mercedes found out to its cost when Swedish magazine Teknikens Varld tried its now famous elk test with the new A-Class. Elks are large deer, a common sight in rural Sweden. The A-Class was designed to be as safe as possible thanks to an engine that would slide under the floor in a collision, yet a sudden lane change manoeuvre to avoid the would-be ‘elk’ saw the small Merc pitch on to its side and roll over.
What Happened?
Mercedes initially denied the problem but then recalled every car and fitted Electronic Stability Programme (ESP) as standard to every A-Class, as well as firming up the rear suspension. Thus when retested, the problem had gone. This equipment electronically brakes individual wheels if it senses a loss of control. It is thought that the widespread fitting of this and similar equipment has saved thousands of lives. ESP or equivalent was made mandatory on all new passenger cars sold in the USA from the 2012 model year onwards, and in the European Union from November 1 2014.
- Slide of
Suzuki Celerio
Here at Autocar we’re used to reporting the news, but it’s rare we’re also at the centre of a story. However, that’s exactly what happened when we carried out routine brake tests on the Suzuki Celerio in 2015. During a simulated emergency stop, the brakes failed completely on two separate test cars.
What Happened?
Suzuki’s immediate response was to recall all 37 cars that had reached customers and implement a solution to the problem, which was caused by a link in the brake pedal mechanism bending under sudden forces. All of this took 10 days from us testing the car to Suzuki curing the problem, which is an impressive reaction time. Chief engineer Shigeki Suzuki – yes indeed – turned up at Autocar’s test track to show us the rectified car (pictured).
- Slide of
Daewoo Matiz
Autocar’s road testers are among the most experienced in the world, yet it was still a surprise when the first-generation Daewoo Matiz rolled with alarming ease when reversing, in 1998. This happened at low speed when the driver applied steering lock and was not a one-off due to driver error. A combination of a high centre of gravity, small tyres that dug in to the tarmac and specific conditions created a potentially dangerous situation.
What Happened?
Daewoo said this test was too extreme and didn’t alter the car, which shows not all safety tests end up in vehicle improvements.
- Slide of
Chevrolet Corvair
If ever a car was the unwitting victim of a safety campaign, it’s the Chevrolet Corvair. Here was a bold compact car for US buyers launched in 1959 with a rear-mounted engine to create ample cabin space. The problem was cost-cutting meant there was no front anti-roll bar that would have dealt with the handling gremlins of the rear swing axle design. Safety and consumer campaigner Ralph Nader highlighted this in his book ‘Unsafe At Any Speed’ about US car makers’ resistance to improving vehicle safety.
What Happened?
The inevitable outcome was Corvair sales plummeted when the book was published in 1965 even though the second-generation model launched that year addressed the handling issues with a new suspension set-up. This episode also resulted in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act in 1966 that introduced government-set standards for all car makers in the USA.
- Slide of
Chrysler Grand Voyager 2001
As the clock ticked over into the 21st Century, MPVs were the must-have cars thanks to their versatility and seven-seat capacity. The Chrysler Grand Voyager was one of the biggest, yet its performance in a 1999 Euro NCAP crash test showed its passenger compartment became unstable in a frontal impact. The driver bore the worst of this and the car was awarded no stars for this test.
What Happened?
When re-tested in 2007, it was noted that right-hand drive versions sold in countries like the UK were not fitted with a driver’s knee airbag that had become standard on left hookers. Even so, Chrysler’s big MPV still performed badly and managed only a two-star rating.
- Slide of
Vauxhall Sintra
Vauxhall’s first attempt at a seven-seat MPV was to import an American model from parent company General Motors. The result was a spacious car but one that Euro NCAP said was ‘overwhelmed’ in a frontal impact and it noted the steering wheel and airbag broke off the column to threaten fatal neck injuries to the driver.
What Happened?
The Sintra was dropped from sale and the smaller but much safer Zafira was left to the fly the company’s flag in the seven-seater MPV sector.
- Slide of
Chrysler/Dodge/Plymouth Neon
Branded the most dangerous car on sale in the USA in its first and second generation forms, the Neon performed very badly in Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) tests in the USA. The IIHS concluded serious skull fractures or brain injuries could result from a side impact in the Neon.
What Happened?
When the Neon ended production in 2005, FCA decided not to use the nameplate again and only changed that decision in 2017 when it launched a re-badged Fiat Tipo in Mexico and the Middle East.
- Slide of
Mercedes-Benz SLS AMG
One of the most striking features of 2010’s Mercedes SLS AMG is its ‘gullwing’ doors that hinge upwards from the roof. However, if the car were to roll over, how would they escape the vehicle in a hurry?
What Happened?
Mercedes responded to such concerns by fitting explosive charges to the hinge bolts. These fired in the event of a roll or could be triggered by pulling on the door handle after a collision. It was an ingenious solution and allowed the SLS to be sold worldwide complete with its trademark doors.
- Slide of
Ford Pinto
The Ford Pinto was an unremarkable compact car in almost every respect other than the positioning of its fuel tank. To save costs, Ford placed the tank between the rear axle and back bumper. This made it very susceptible to fracturing and leaking in rear end collisions, which was proven in various tests at the time.
What Happened?
Pressure mounted and eventually Ford recalled the Pinto in 1978 to make changes to the fuel tank system, eight years after it first went on sale.
- Slide of
2009 Chevrolet Malibu versus 1959 Bel Air
50 years of crash test development is perfectly summed up in this test between a 1959 Chevrolet Bel Air and its 2009 Malibu equivalent; each car was driving at 40mph. Carried out by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, it graphically shows that even with the thick steel and separate chassis of the old car, it’s no match for the deformable structures and safety equipment of the modern car in absorbing the impact and protecting its occupants: sacrificing the car, not the people inside it. We salute all the engineers over the years who have made such progress possible.
Close
