Wheels 'Ford Mustang V8 scores ‘poor’ 2-star safety rating'

[uniacidz]

Ford Mustang V8 scores ‘poor’ 2-star safety rating
ANCAP has slammed the V8-powered version of Ford’s affordable sports car for sub-standard safety

https://www.wheelsmag.com.au/news/17...-safety-rating

THE Ford Mustang GT has been labelled unsafe following a dismal two-star independent crash test result that determined occupants could suffer serious injuries in a collision.

In a test conducted in conjunction with Euro NCAP, Australia’s leading independent crash test authority, the Australasian New Car Assessment Program (ANCAP) found the V8-powered, US-made sports car had poor occupant protection for both adults and children due to incorrectly inflating airbags, a sub-standard crash structure that included a door that came open in a side pole test, and a deficiency of crash avoidance technologies that are becoming increasingly common in new cars.
ANCAP chief executive James Goodwin slammed the safety of the V8-powered two-door coupe – the result doesn’t apply to four-cylinder Mustang because it wasn't tested and may perform differently – that has been an unexpected sales hit for Ford.

“This result is simply shocking for such a newly designed and popular model,” Goodwin told Wheels, adding that the Mustang performed “below the expectations of what consumers would expect and, frankly, it’s not as safe as it should be”.



More to read
https://www.wheelsmag.com.au/news/17...-safety-rating


In a carefully worded statement Ford defended its muscle car and repeatedly described the ANCAP result as “disappointing”, suggesting that what it describes as a “rigorous new [testing] protocol” was introduced by ANCAP last year, well after development of the current Mustang had taken place.

The statement also asserted that the ANCAP tests were now “more tailored to family cars and people movers” than sports cars such as the Mustang.


Ford said the Mustang meets all applicable safety standards – many of which are embarrassingly low – and said it was competitive among sports cars, also performing well in overseas crash results, including those conducted by the US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS).

“The overall Euro NCAP rating is based on four pillars, with a very strong focus on family car safety characteristics and specific safety assist features, which are usually not part of the standard equipment of cars in the Mustang category,” the Ford statement read.
But Goodwin said the poor result was unacceptable for any car, especially one costing upwards of $45,990.
“I don’t think safety should be compromised, whatever car you’re buying. This is an expensive vehicle, it’s a newly designed vehicle and safety should never be compromised.



ANCAP also stressed the combined Euro NCAP and ANCAP result was not because the vehicle was missing minor “safety assist” systems, which could be as simple as daytime running lights, a fatigue reminder or “hill launch assist”.

“This isn’t a score because it’s missing rear seatbelt reminders,” said Goodwin. “Fundamentally it also hasn’t performed well structurally. There is serious risk of head, leg and chest injuries for rear passengers. There was also insufficient inflation of both driver and passenger airbags in frontal offset test, which allowed the driver’s head to contact the steering wheel and the passenger’s head to contact the dashboard. The driver’s door opened in the pole test and the whiplash protection for rear-end collisions was only rated as marginal.”

The Mustang performed worst in the “Safety Assist” part of the NCAP test, one of four assessed areas, with just 16 percent, or 2 out of 12. Child occupant protection was marginally better but still poor at 32 percent, while adult occupant protection was 72 percent, let down by a score of 4.67 out of 8 in the frontal offset test.

Pedestrian protection was rated at 64 percent, although the official ANCAP report noted the front edge of the bonnet “posed a high injury risk for pedestrians”. The Mustang’s active bonnet is designed to pop up to help protect pedestrians from injuring themselves on hard parts such as the engine or suspension towers.

The Mustang’s two-star rating – which ANCAP described as “concerning” and “poor” - is the worst crash test result for a new model since the Chinese-made LDV V80 van of 2013 achieved a similar two-star rating. The only other passenger cars – as opposed to commercial vehicles – to have scored a two-star ANCAP rating were much older vehicles: the 2006 Chrysler Voyager, 2005 Holden Barina and 1998 Hyundai Sonata.



It’s unlikely the apparent crash structure issues with the Mustang can be addressed as part of a recall or service campaign and Ford appears to have no plans to do so – other than adding some active safety features as part of an update in 2018.
“The Mustang is a safe vehicle, equipped with advanced safety features and a structure designed to manage crash energy under a variety of crash modes,” Ford said.

“The Mustang has already proven its safety performance in NHTSA NCAP and IIHS test programs. We are committed to continued improvement in vehicle safety, and the 2018 Mustang in Australia will be equipped with driver assistance features such as AEB and Lane Keeping Aid.”

But Goodwin called on Ford to make changes on the production line to address the safety concerns raised.
“I’m encouraging Ford to introduce design and production changes to improve the vehicle’s safety performance as quickly as possible,” he said.

Goodwin also warned police forces around the country from considering the Mustang as a pursuit vehicle, suggesting the car was unsafe.

“The car has fallen down in lots of areas of its assessment and we would really expect that emergency services personnel would be in the safest car that they can be in.”

The Mustang, built for the first time in right-hand drive, has been a runaway hit for Ford Australia. The carmaker originally estimated it would sell 1000 of the coupes and convertibles in 2016, and instead it sold more than 6000.

[HO 3]

"sub-standard crash structure"...............that's not good.

Cheers Mick

[MAGPIE]

I read an article about ANCAP being fully booked with testing by manufacturers seeking to avoid this new testing protocol, dont think Mustang will be on its own here.

Still not a good look though

[Brazen]

It seemed to fall over in multiple areas: door popping open in side impact, sub standard crash structure and airbags deploying too late

Although it doesn't look too bad in the video

https://youtu.be/F0StTHnTKK8

[HO 3]

Makes me wonder if we will ever see the RH MY18 version here?

Cheers Mick

[FPV+fteT3]

Its only designed to mow down crowds of people in the US not hit heavy objects

[Junkyard-Dog]

Originally Posted by FPV+fteT3

Its only designed to mow down crowds of people in the US not hit heavy objects

People in the US are pretty heavy though.

[Cobra]

Originally Posted by FPV+fteT3

Its only designed to mow down crowds of people in the US not hit heavy objects

Is this some kind of an 'in joke'?

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by Cobra

Is this some kind of an 'in joke'?

I assume you havent seen the videos then?

[Danny]

Originally Posted by Cobra

Is this some kind of an 'in joke'?

http://www.carbuzz.com/news/2016/4/1...vents-7732969/

[Whitey-AMG]

It is a concern for such a modern car to be lacking so badly ...but I don't really think it will deter current owners or prospective buyers.
The potential issue with this ( aside from the foremost risk to occupants )may be in insurance costs . If large insurers consider it to be an excessively risky proposition, then there may be increased premiums as penalty.

[DJR-351]

Originally Posted by Bluey-GT

...but I don't really think it will deter current owners or prospective buyers.

Agree, would mean diddly squat to them (and i)

To the majority of potential buyers for this type of vehicle, ANCAP or other types of safety ratings don't figure much in the decision process....

[danzvtil]

I fully LOLd when I read this, how the HELL can a global car maker design a new car in 2016 and have it perform so woefully especially when it's designed for first world markets.I have no words.......

[Fordman1]

So it's Ok in NHTSA NCAP ?

Why the difference?

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by Barraxr8

So it's Ok in NHTSA NCAP ?

Why the difference?

Things they test in europe and here as opposed to NA. So it struggled with front and side impact pole tests.

[Fordman1]

Originally Posted by vztrt

Things they test in europe and here as opposed to NA. So it struggled with front and side impact pole tests.

And the score of 2 stands due to safety assist ( which scored 2 ), which is one of 4 of the measured requirements.

So if it had automatic braking and lane assist it would have got a higher score.

A FGX Falcon may have got 2 also due to its safety assist score.

[uniacidz]

Originally Posted by Barraxr8

And the score of 2 stands due to safety assist ( which scored 2 ), which is one of 4 of the measured requirements.

So if it had automatic braking and lane assist it would have got a higher score.

A FGX Falcon may have got 2 also due to its safety assist score.

Exactly

The new ratings seem stringent.

However, ignoring that the article about side intrusion and general safety has to be looked at overall and doesn't seem to stack up well in those regards

EU has high standards and looks like we are heading for that also and maybe America doesn't have to even look into that yet and so when the tests done, a rude awakening to current standards which are implemented compared to the US standard in place






Sent via my ASUS ZE551ML

[paulb351]

Originally Posted by Barraxr8

So it's Ok in NHTSA NCAP ?

Why the difference?

The difference comes down to the speed of the crash, NHTSA NCAP is done at 54km/h and the other at 64km/h. Lot more energy in a higher speed crash...

[DFB FGXR6]

Originally Posted by paulb351

The difference comes down to the speed of the crash, NHTSA NCAP is done at 54km/h and the other at 64km/h. Lot more energy in a higher speed crash...

I think this illustrates the problem with organisations like NCAP/ANCAP/NHTSA. In many ways they have pushed, named and shamed to the benefit of the consumer. But the problem is it has forced manufacturers to design and engineer their products to pass the tests that will be presented in the official tests. This is shown by the fact that a Mustang will get a 5 star result in the NHTSA test but fail and score a 2 star in the NCAP.

At the end of the day, this doesn't excuse the fact Ford failed to cater to all safety tests, but the system is flawed and I get the feeling that Ford has been chosen to make an example of to promote NCAP's agenda. Ford, a large well known brand, and a highly desirable and successful model make better headlines than "Chinese made car scores poor 2 star safety score"...........


Anyway, I look forward to my red, V8 manual death trap Mustang with anticipation

[.:4:.]

Thats a bit of a concern since my now old 08 fairmont copped a 4 star rating and I'd much prefer to drive a mustang.

[Fordman1]

Originally Posted by .:4:.

Thats a bit of a concern since my now old 08 fairmont copped a 4 star rating and I'd much prefer to drive a mustang.

Requirements change and the same car will get different scores over time too.

[simon varley]

lots of difference. Any 5 star car tested to the previous regime would be lucky to gain 3 in the new. Instead of increasing to 6, 7, or 8 star they restructured the whole rating system. 2 is definitely disappointing, but not to be confused with old ANCAP 2 stars that the Chinese **** boxes get.

there's going to be a lot of this stuff coming through in the next few years as previous 5 star stuff looks like it has been downgraded.....

[MITCHAY]

It wouldn't stop me from buying one

[Fordman1]

Therefore 90+% of cars on Australian roads are 2 or 3 star cars ....

[ozrunner]

Originally Posted by Barraxr8

Therefore 90+% of cars on Australian roads are 2 or 3 star cars ....

Barraxr8's comment has to be taken into account as the Stang was tested under new criteria.

Thus the dudes comment regarding Police use of the Stang is very erroneous as their current cars would probably be the same under this new testing regime.

[chrisandsharon]

...incorrectly inflating airbags (dummy's head hit the wheel/dashboard prior to inflating), sub-standard crash structure that included a door opening in the pole test......bugger me. Plenty of older cars have passed airbag tests and crash structures have passed without doors opening. Obviously crash avoidance technology is missing from older cars, but at least when they do crash the airbags and crash structure works.

New test criteria or not, FORD wouldn't be happy with that.

Time will certainly tell if FORD will work on ANCAPs test results.
Good on the ANCAP.

[chrisandsharon]

...incorrectly inflating airbags (dummy's head hit the wheel/dashboard prior to inflating), sub-standard crash structure that included a door opening in the pole test......bugger me. Plenty of older cars have passed airbag tests and crash structures have passed without doors opening. Obviously crash avoidance technology is missing from older cars, but at least when they do crash the airbags and crash structure works.

New test criteria or not, FORD wouldn't be happy with that.

Time will certainly tell if FORD will work on ANCAPs test results.
Good on the ANCAP.

[GXL078]

Longer doors popping open during a crash test was the reason they canned the P76 two door.

[.:4:.]

I drove an 09 express van for 6 and half years that had a 0.5 star rating in the old regime. Hit a possum and you would die. Youtube the crash test. It gets nasty quite fast. Makes for a safer driver

[GO FURTHER]

So if the Mustang hardtop scores 2 stars.... Wonder if the convertible would get 1 star

Looks like the waiting lists will get shorter very soon