Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 17

Thread: Break out safety rating conversation -Mustang review

  1. #1
    7753 - 5030 HSE2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,847

    Break out safety rating conversation -Mustang review

    Break out safety rating conversation.

    I feel conflicted about reopening and regurgitating the 2 star safety rating.

    This originally was not going to be a written piece but instead recorded. Those recordings didn’t work so we have this, a break out piece ,separate to the review.

    There is a bit to say here as was annoyed when it happened and now after driving the car more so on the angry side of centre.


    As a motoring enthusiasts and someone who likes to follow the industry as much as possible no matter what brand is involved, I found the entire 2 star rating issue to be a bit surreal.

    How does any manufacturer go from producing 5 star cars to 2 star cars overnight? Those who looked at the situation like this were driven to see the deeper implications of what had occurred. Many however appeared to rely on the statements of ANCAP CEO James Goodwin.

    “Goodwin slammed the lack of speed assistance systems, lane support systems, autonomous emergency braking, forward collision warning and rear seat belt reminders, but also the physical crash performance.
    “Of concern, the full width frontal test showed a risk of serious head, chest and leg injury for the rear passenger. There was also insufficient inflation of both the driver and front passenger airbags in the frontal offset test which allowed the driver’s head to contact the steering wheel and the passenger’s head to contact the dashboard,” he said”
    Doesn’t sound good, does it?


    And


    “Goodwin added that the driver’s door opened in the pole test, and whiplash protection for rear-end collisions was marginal”


    *all bold quotes are from http://www.caradvice.com.au/516889/f...-crash-rating/

    My understanding of this service is essentially consumer advice- guide and very few people led with explaining that such a rating was obtained solely by changing the way the car was tested which includes altering the speed in some cases as we understand it.

    I think people fall into two groups on these issues. People either want to have an open mind and understand the situation or they don’t and I would like to think, here in this community, we are the former no matter what brand is being discussed.

    First and foremost, it is my belief that when the standards change or the method of achieving results change and the outward presentation remains the same, relevance is skewed and this is what you lead with. Away from any specific product test you come to market and you explain why cars that were previously 5 stars will not be 5 stars from this point on especially during a phase in period where it’s possible a line in the sand has not yet been drawn that commits every forward test being to the same standard. The value in any service needs to be understood if it’s to be appreciated.

    We have now created a rating system that no longer provides relativity with what we have become familiar with. You haven’t just changed the goal posts here but completely re written the scaling that people see and relate to.

    They did disclose this but it become a side show to the sensationalistic headlines that followed and not how I would expect a professional organisation to conduct themselves if the sole focus is on consumer understanding.

    Judging by a lot of online comments the specifics here were not understood and some even went as far as to suggest “they just don’t matter”.

    I am working around to involving dynamics into this equation because I think it matters when the car tested is offered in a high specification state pertaining to response. This suspension, these brakes, they aren’t options.

    Ford was slammed but yet received little credit in some circles for the packaging sold in this country. All those dynamic aspects you have read are standard features on our car.

    Chassis, suspension, steering and brakes all inspire confidence but also give the car credible dynamic ability and crash avoidance capability.

    Yes, the test caters to the lowest demographic of user and that’s not an excuse. They aren’t the only ones working to that assumption as many aspects of car design also take this into account. Personally, I consider this the front line of safety consideration, not the “plan b” approach that saves the Facebook update from the being your last.

    Tyre type and condition, as the only contact to the surface, are paramount in this equation. Educating the public on this being maintained instead of sacrificed to save a dollar should be in the mix if this body is serious about crash avoidance performance outside of driver education.

    Ford offer the Mustang with real time tyre monitoring. Ford also offer a wet weather throttle map that’s selectable and lowers throttle response relative to foot input. These are indeed technical innovations that look at increased safety capability and car consistency.

    I take marks off for not having a digital speedo. I found I had to study a rather clutter speedo more than I should have. We may as well be talking about "heads up" in this section too.

    I am all about not taking your eyes off the road or your hands off the wheel as a first line action or focus.

    I think Ford got this wrong from the perspective I would have expected them to know this was coming and to realise the potential for the car to be marked down relative to the old standards to see the potential issues as a big red flag.

    Equality I would have expected a different response under these circumstances aimed more at ANCAP and the sensibility of maintaining 5 stars as the highest rating when relativity is no longer as it used to be. This is a form of deception and is somewhat incomplete.

    It remains to be seen if manufacturers will now turn around and offer what is required to obtain 5 stars as standard equipment. It’s important to understand that its possible cars will be tested in a preferential state that gets them a positive headline but then either only offer these features at a model level or an additional cost.

    We have seen in the past that consumers tend to not option these features if it incurs additional price penalties in the product demographic being spoken about here. Mustang is still price sensitive. In all honesty if Falcon had these options and they were not standard on the model I wanted, I doubt I would justify the cost myself. My attitude is one of me being responsible for avoidance. Not only do I have to drive for myself, I also need to drive for those around me. Sometimes that’s not possible and the worst can happen. In that eventuation, we revert to the injury results as a guide for how safe one might be. It’s a guide only and a pretty specific one at that.
    With that acknowledged if you weren’t suspicious of what happens when space is confined before, it’s been confirmed now. Restrictive space and packaging increases the risk of an injury. How manufacturers of coupes handle this now will be interesting because for me it’s the biggest issue to come from the test. That’s a genuine injury concern where the what if’s have been largely removed.

    We got to this place because the statements by James only told part of the story. What we needed to know was how unusual it was in pure statement terms for dummies to make contact with interior trim. It doesn’t sound great but by itself it’s an “unquantified statement” when the focus is on the result of that contact. It didn’t take people long to discover another situation where not only did said dummy hit the steering wheel, old mate also collected the “A” pillar on his way through the steering wheel bag. That car scored 5 stars because although contact occurred it wasn’t sufficient to cause significant injury. In other words, it is now possible that a five star car occupant can get a worse injury than a car rated as 2 stars and that’s completely missing the boat as consumer advice in my opinion.

    Even the comment about the door opening. I understand that might not be common for most doors but what about doors that effectively take up a third of the cars length. How much did the door move? can a limb escape the opening? what’s the significance of the statement here?

    If that answer comes back as nothing, the door never moved sufficiently for it to have been an injury concern nor did it impact on structural integrity, why say it outside the scope of full technical debriefing that gives full disclosure. You can view the video and see for yourselves how much that door moved.

    In the end, it’s not the car company that’s hurt the most with these issues but owners.

    Personally, I felt bad for those around the country that largely had this sensationalistic approach labelled at the property they owned.

    It not unsafe to the degree a 2 star rating implies. The way it drove and performed gave me all the tools I need as a driver to be at my best. Its a car that will work with me not against me or surprise me in my estimation. I wish I could say the same for all 5 stars cars I have driven.
    History is a statement, the future is a question.

  2. #2
    Senior Member andrewforbes's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    822
    I agree totally. But on the clusters it's not just Ford that make them hard to read, my sis Audi is the same. Unfortunately car makers make one dial cluster for all, km n miles. It was no different in the old days.
    However I agree that yes Ford could of made the cluster more user friendly for Ozzie made stangs n a head up display would be nice.
    On another topic, how does one turn around the damage done by the 2 star rating. I feel most people saw the headline and that's it's, only those of us who have an interest or have n want to own one read any further. I'm tired of constantly explaining it to people who didn't take the time to read n understand what ancap did. My mum even brought it up n she doesn't care either way, I've heard from people I haven't seen or talked to in years about it, probably because they know I'm a Ford man and just wanna sink the boot in. So in the new mod does Ford given in to ancap to achieve the 5star or will ancap just move the goal post again. If u ask me the tests should never of been changed or even taken place. I think Ford have to aim for the 5 star or suffer the consequences. Any idea how this has affected current sales?
    I recall a commodore having issues with a b pillar n a door opening n I believe it still got a 5star (might have to check the facts) this was under the old system.

  3. #3
    Rob prydey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Woodcroft S.A.
    Posts
    3,829
    like Ian, i've said my piece on this in the other thread at the time.

    now that the dust has settled, i have a couple of thoughts.

    1. Ancap stuffed the safety rating system by not going to a 6 or higher star rating. Also, the way they are going about transitioning to the E-NCAP system means there is a whole lot of grey for any cars tested between 2016 and 2018, as this is a 'transitional period', so they have made it extremely complex. The issue is, the average consumer has no idea of all that, and just think the star rating is the same as it always has been.

    2. Rear seat safety is a real issue in mustang, and cars like mustang (audi TT for example). The body needs space to decellerate in an accident, and the simple logistics of these cars prevent that from happening. from the tests it was clear that children in car seats are pretty safe, as most child restraints actually increase the support around the body, esp the head and neck area in a side impact, but larger children or adults are at reasonably severe risk of injury which will continue to be an issue with the ENCAP testing criteria. If you are buying the car as a 4 seater, there are risks there. so while the comments regarding heads hitting dashboards and doors opening were nothing more than click bait, there are also some legitimate concerns in there.

    child testing/rear seat testing is an area that is changing, and an area that ANCAP never used data from because they deemed it too unreliable. this was mainly due to the large variation in types of child restraints, etc. the newer testing has moved to test the rear seat with dummies simulating 3yr old and 10 yr old i believe, rather then 6 month old and 3 yr old. i'm going from memory so some of this may not be quite right, but i think its a good move.

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to prydey For This Useful Post:

    HSE2 (11th April 2017)

  5. #4
    7753 - 5030 HSE2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,847
    Quote Originally Posted by prydey View Post
    like Ian, i've said my piece on this in the other thread at the time.

    now that the dust has settled, i have a couple of thoughts.

    1. Ancap stuffed the safety rating system by not going to a 6 or higher star rating. Also, the way they are going about transitioning to the E-NCAP system means there is a whole lot of grey for any cars tested between 2016 and 2018, as this is a 'transitional period', so they have made it extremely complex. The issue is, the average consumer has no idea of all that, and just think the star rating is the same as it always has been.

    2. Rear seat safety is a real issue in mustang, and cars like mustang (audi TT for example). The body needs space to decellerate in an accident, and the simple logistics of these cars prevent that from happening. from the tests it was clear that children in car seats are pretty safe, as most child restraints actually increase the support around the body, esp the head and neck area in a side impact, but larger children or adults are at reasonably severe risk of injury which will continue to be an issue with the ENCAP testing criteria. If you are buying the car as a 4 seater, there are risks there. so while the comments regarding heads hitting dashboards and doors opening were nothing more than click bait, there are also some legitimate concerns in there.

    child testing/rear seat testing is an area that is changing, and an area that ANCAP never used data from because they deemed it too unreliable. this was mainly due to the large variation in types of child restraints, etc. the newer testing has moved to test the rear seat with dummies simulating 3yr old and 10 yr old i believe, rather then 6 month old and 3 yr old. i'm going from memory so some of this may not be quite right, but i think its a good move.

    Excellent work there Rob.

    It's already caught a few people out seeing new 5 star ratings for cars without the same electronic aids that cost mustang its rating. They are confused.

    It's extremely poor from Ancap and matches the way they went about releasing mustangs rating.

    That said there are two realities. I think it's up to the car companies to have seen this development coming and to get ahead of it for at risk product.

    We mentioned it here because everyone who tests it are also mentioning it. It's the gift that keeps giving.

    It's difficult in as much that mandatory testing of all cars isn't required. Not sure how they select what needs ratings but this makes it very hard when people say they will no longer test cars that don't have a 5 star rating when it appears now options can go along way towards dropping you back into a 2 or 3 star performance.

    The other reality is that you wouldn't recommend a coupe as a family alternative now it's been proven.

    Setting aside the ergonomic challenge, the injury rating back there is an area all manufacturers will now have to address.
    History is a statement, the future is a question.

  6. #5
    Miami Sprint. 4Vman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    18,944
    Without trying to be smart here under the current testing methods the only effective way to improve the rear passenger safety of these coupes is raise the rear roof line and add 2 rear doors...
    My Falcon family heritage: XY V8 Falcon 500, XYGT, XBGT, XC 351 GS, XD 4.1 Spack, EF wagon, AU Wagon, AU2 Wagon, AU2 XR8, BA XR8, BF XR8, FG XR6, Lucky last: Sprint 8. Oh wait, AU3 XLS Marlin Ute!

  7. #6
    Aka Captain Slow TS50's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Launceston Tasmania
    Posts
    7,202
    a Test was done last week, between the Mustang and the Nissan 370Z
    Now how long has the 370Z been on sale? lots of years
    There has never been a safety test done on the car anywhere in the world
    then they do the Mustang to the new standards, and not let people know, its not a level playing field here
    2002 T3 Manual Naroma Blue TS-50 (049)Sunroof, Premium Sound, Black/Blue Leather, Brembos

  8. #7
    Miami Sprint. 4Vman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    18,944
    Quote Originally Posted by TS50 View Post
    a Test was done last week, between the Mustang and the Nissan 370Z
    Now how long has the 370Z been on sale? lots of years
    There has never been a safety test done on the car anywhere in the world
    then they do the Mustang to the new standards, and not let people know, its not a level playing field here
    I bought this to the attention of Caradvice on Twitter last week who are doing the comparison between them asking them if the 370 would fare any better than the condemned Mustang from ANCAP. (i know it would only get 2 stars too).

    Concerned for the welfare of their staff in 2 "death traps".

    Their response was it couldnt be any worse than a Taxi (Falcon).
    My Falcon family heritage: XY V8 Falcon 500, XYGT, XBGT, XC 351 GS, XD 4.1 Spack, EF wagon, AU Wagon, AU2 Wagon, AU2 XR8, BA XR8, BF XR8, FG XR6, Lucky last: Sprint 8. Oh wait, AU3 XLS Marlin Ute!

  9. #8
    7753 - 5030 HSE2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,847
    It's a credibility issue for Paul Maric if he is involved.

    He is the only one who said he wouldn't drive mustang because it was two stars.

    You now can't use ignorance as an excuse. It was an extraordinary stance.

    We now know it's very likely the rear seat occupants will suffer equally as they did in mustang, and it's also not equipped with the aids. It's also going to go 2 stars.

    Not sure what the taxi reference is for as a car out of class for this issue, unless it's to demonstrate further the damage done to caradvice over Paul's stance.

    They backed him and good on them for doing so but it's going to cause issues from here on in.

    The moment Paul tests a car that doesn't come standard with these features, he is exposed.

    I just don't understand why a professional would do this to himself.
    History is a statement, the future is a question.

  10. #9
    Miami Sprint. 4Vman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    18,944
    Quote Originally Posted by HSE2 View Post
    It's a credibility issue for Paul Maric if he is involved.

    He is the only one who said he wouldn't drive mustang because it was two stars.

    You now can't use ignorance as an excuse. It was an extraordinary stance.

    We now know it's very likely the rear seat occupants will suffer equally as they did in mustang, and it's also not equipped with the aids. It's also going to go 2 stars.

    Not sure what the taxi reference is for as a car out of class for this issue, unless it's to demonstrate further the damage done to caradvice over Paul's stance.

    They backed him and good on them for doing so but it's going to cause issues from here on in.

    The moment Paul tests a car that doesn't come standard with these features, he is exposed.

    I just don't understand why a professional would do this to himself.
    Yes, and his love for Porsche's is coming back to bite him too.

    The Taxi reference was in retort to my tweet....
    My Falcon family heritage: XY V8 Falcon 500, XYGT, XBGT, XC 351 GS, XD 4.1 Spack, EF wagon, AU Wagon, AU2 Wagon, AU2 XR8, BA XR8, BF XR8, FG XR6, Lucky last: Sprint 8. Oh wait, AU3 XLS Marlin Ute!

  11. #10
    Aka Captain Slow TS50's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Launceston Tasmania
    Posts
    7,202
    long term test car for car advise
    a very interesting comment in here regarding the 2 stars

    http://www.caradvice.com.au/535944/2...-introduction/


    2017 Ford Mustang GT Fastback review: Long-term report one – introduction

    by David Zalstein Journalist9 days ago

    It’s hard to miss isn’t it? Say hello to our new CarAdvice long-termer: the 2017 Ford Mustang GT Fastback.

    Finished in Triple Yellow, our new Ford Mustang is priced from $57,490 (before on-road costs).

    Teaming the standard six-speed manual transmission with Ford’s naturally-aspirated 5.0-litre Coyote V8 engine, the bright yellow ‘Stang – internally dubbed ‘Old Yeller’ – sends 306kW of power and 530Nm of torque (at 6500rpm and 4250rpm, respectively) to the rear wheels.

    Claiming to drink 13.1 litres of 98-octane premium unleaded fuel every 100km, the 1701kg (tare), 4784mm-long Mustang also needs 12.2 metres (kerb-to-kerb) to turn around and should be able to hustle from a standstill to 100km/h in a touch under five seconds.

    Key attributes we’re excited about are the car’s limited-slip rear differential, independent rear suspension, and six-piston Brembo front calipers. However, the flagship model’s dual chrome-tipped exhaust, 19-inch ‘Ebony Black’ alloy wheels, 5.0-litre front fender badges, and rear ‘GT’ badge are nice touches.

    Standard equipment includes keyless entry and a push-button start, automatic daytime running lights, HID headlights and LED tail-lights, front fog lights, cruise control, dual-zone climate control, rain-sensing wipers, a rear-view camera, rear parking sensors, heated power mirrors with Pony-logo puddle lights, and an auto-dimming rear-view mirror.

    Heated and cooled six-way power-adjustable leather-accented seats – with manual back rest adjustment for driver and front passenger and electric lumbar adjustment for drivers – are also included, along with aluminium sports pedals, illuminated ‘Mustang’ scuff plates, and tyre pressure monitoring.

    We’re keen to have a play with the 2017 Mustang’s recently updated 8.0-inch central touchscreen infotainment system with satellite navigation, Sync 3, and support for Apple CarPlay and Android Auto, while also ‘testing out’ the car’s nine-speaker stereo with Bluetooth phone connectivity and audio streaming.

    Equipped with dual front, side, and curtain airbags, the Ford Mustang further gets knee airbags for both driver and front passenger, and its two 50:50 split-fold rear seats are both ISOFIX-compatible.

    That said, the car’s two-star ANCAP safety rating is an issue – for some more than others – but crashing a Mustang is definitely one thing we’re keen to avoid.

    With us for the next three months, the plan is to break down our simulated ownership experience into five more reports, covering office-wide first impressions, the car’s daily driving abilities, its on-track prowess, how it handles a road trip, and lastly, a farewell – where we will share our final thoughts on the car and give our final ratings.

    If you have any questions about the new Mustang, or want us to look into anything specific, let us know in the comments section below, and we’ll do our best to chase things up.
    2002 T3 Manual Naroma Blue TS-50 (049)Sunroof, Premium Sound, Black/Blue Leather, Brembos

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •