Itās almost funny how ANCAP ā the Australasian New Car Assessment Program ā has evolved from being the enemy of car makers to an integral part of their marketing campaigns, at least with some models.
The controversial crash test authority ā still the only real independent guide to vehicle safety - has been criticised since its inception (in 1997) for not being representative of real world crashes.
ANCAP testing encompasses many aspects of vehicle safety and involves up to three independent tests; a frontal offset crash test, a side crash test and a pole test.
Opponents ā mostly car makers ā are critical of the ANCAP tests for various reasons.
They say the ANCAP tests occur at relatively high speeds (contrary to what many people believe, two identical cars having a head-on at 80km/h is not the same as one car hitting a solid object at 160km/h.; itās actually similar to one car hitting a solid object at 80km/h), which can encourage designs that may compromise safety at lower speeds, at which most crashes occur.
Car makers also say the ANCAP tests donāt take into account size incompatibilities of smaller cars hitting larger cars, or trucks, and can result in the development of stiffer body structures, which can create other issues.
Makers also donāt like the fact each car only gets a single test (a single crash of each scenario) because even identical cars can react slightly differently in the same test.
In short, they think the ANCAP tests oversimplify the complex issue of occupant protection in vehicles.
As we settle into the 21st century, though, itās clear many brands have embraced it.
There was once a gentlemenās agreement between local manufacturers and importers to not publish or promote ANCAP results. Renault was the first to break the āagreementā when its Laguna of the day became the first car to score the maximum five-star rating.
Others have since followed suit in promoting favourable ANCAP results.
Subaru is one that wants Australians to know its entire model range has been awarded five stars.
Ford is the most recent, announcing the Falcon sedan as the safest locally-made vehicle, a full star ahead of the rival Holden Commodore and Toyota Aurion.
Holden, too, uses TV ads to point out its Astra small car achieves the maximum five-star rating.
Itās a big change from years ago when car makers did all they could to discredit ANCAP.
It seems the publicās appetite for independent advice on vehicle safety has overruled the alleged flaws in the testing procedure. Those shopping for cars also appreciate that the complex ANCAP testing procedure is presented in an easy-to-digest star rating.
Still, in almost every case (with the exception of brands like Subaru) where a car maker is marketing the NCAP safety credentials of their vehicles, thereās another in the showroom that didnāt go so well.
Holden, for example, has the Barina, which scores a dismal two stars. The Commodore, too, gets only four stars next to the Falconās five (the Falcon wagon and LPG-equipped models get four stars).
Ford also has vehicles in its range that score less than the perfect five stars.
Yet by advertising the positive results these same car makers are effectively endorsing the ANCAP message they once tried to suffocate. That effectively gives credence to the ANCAP ratings, which can reflect negatively on other models in their range.
In principal I agree with the NCAP tests in that they try to give some comparative data on what cars are safer. Like any independent test, though, thereās room for improvement.
But car buyers these days are more interested than ever in vehicle safety and they want information. Thatās why ANCAP is now taken very seriously by car buyers and car makers.
What about you, do you take note of ANCAP safety ratings on vehicles? Does it influence your purchase decision? And considering the fact that road trauma costs Australia an estimated $17 billion a year, do you think it’s time the Government forced car makers to display safety ratings for all their vehicles, good and bad?
Toby Hagon
Ā Loading …
