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

[Fordman1]

So why does ANCAP publish test results for LHD vehicles then ?

There are no RHD tests that have been done.

[XR6_power]

A two star ANCAP rating looks bad for the Mustang, expecially when the FG, FGII and FG-X Falcon had a five star ANCAP rating.

So what is it, the good ol' Aussie designers were good at what they did, or have the ANCAP standards changed in recent times?

An interesting piece of news anyway..

[Fordman1]

Originally Posted by XR6_power

A two star ANCAP rating looks bad for the Mustang, expecially when the FG, FGII and FG-X Falcon had a five star ANCAP rating.

So what is it, the good ol' Aussie designers were good at what they did, or have the ANCAP standards changed in recent times?

An interesting piece of news anyway..

FG and FGII were tested to old standards and would be 2 stars now.

FGX was not retested to the new standard.

How can the consumer understand this ?

[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....

[MAGPIE]

Is this really going to worry died in the wool Mustang fans, I mean how many Mustangs are out there that have no rating at all.

It will certainly worry Ford and maybe the person that is weighing a Mustang up against other cars and are going to use them as daily drivers.

I never checked the safety rating when I got my Mustang, couldn't care less to be honest.

I have seen plenty of stories on other forums of 2015+ Mustang owners surviving major accidents just fine.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/motoring/news...r-requirements

[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...

[383hq]

Door opening in the pole test?
there might be times when you're well pleased for this to occur.

Could save the SES a lot of time with the jaws of life.

In small aircraft it's standard practice to pop the door latches just prior to forced landing-
Greater chance/ease of getting out afterwards.

I often wonder about the compromises/progress (?) made sometimes, more regulation/complication = greater costs/insurances.

Regardless, you can bet safer cars does not equal faster speed limits on the interstate freeways.

[Brazen]

Originally Posted by Barraxr8

FG and FGII were tested to old standards and would be 2 stars now.

FGX was not retested to the new standard.

How can the consumer understand this ?

Is there a reference to this? I have not heard of any previous scores being adjusted to the new regime.

If they can do this, they should go back and change all the scores so they are comparable.

[Fordman1]

Originally Posted by Brazen

Is there a reference to this? I have not heard of any previous scores being adjusted to the new regime.

If they can do this, they should go back and change all the scores so they are comparable.

None of those Falcons have any of the Safety Assist technology.

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by Barraxr8

None of those Falcons have any of the Safety Assist technology.

But they'll handle a poll better then the stang.

Id say the airbags wont be there for show either.

My18 should have most of this fixed.

[.:4:.]

I would say just don't crash one, but with the way others drive, you can be the safest driver in history and still get unstuck when someone else does something stupid. I still find it odd that a car that's an American icon isn't up to scratch safety wise.

[Fordman1]

Originally Posted by .:4:.

I would say just don't crash one, but with the way others drive, you can be the safest driver in history and still get unstuck when someone else does something stupid. I still find it odd that a car that's an American icon isn't up to scratch safety wise.

It's relative, standards are changing.

Hence why the number of star should be increased and the same mark shouldn't be used for different iterations of NCAP, then historical data can be compared.

The Mustang is safer than 5 star cars from a decade ago.

The test is a guide, in a frontal collision if you hit a 5 star Barina guess which car will be better off ? If you hit a Landcruiser, guess what ?

[.:4:.]

Originally Posted by Barraxr8

It's relative, standards are changing.

Hence why the number of star should be increased and the same mark shouldn't be used for different iterations of NCAP, then historical data can be compared.

The Mustang is safer than 5 star cars from a decade ago.

The test is a guide, in a frontal collision if you hit a 5 star Barina guess which car will be better off ? If you hit a Landcruiser, guess what ?

I get that the standards are going up, but if you throw some physics into it. Driving into a fixed object in a small light car there is less energy to disapate. Small car wins. 2 cars head on. The greater energy of the large car wins. As opposed to changing the requirements to earn a star, they should just have added extra stars as things got better. So a 5 star car from years ago still is rated at 5 stars, but a new car has an 11 star rating.

[Windsor220]

I wonder what the Mitsubishi Express van would get under the new system? It had 1 star under the old.

[.:4:.]

Originally Posted by Windsor220

I wonder what the Mitsubishi Express van would get under the new system? It had 1 star under the old.

I believe it was 0.5 star. I also read somewhere it at the time they were being made were the least safe vehicle sold in Australia. Driving one makes the sense of self preservation go to 11. The only safety feature was door locks, and if you locked your keys in you could bang on the door in the right spot and it would unlock. The fonz style.I much preffered to work out of it then the ute I'm in now. But now I have airbags and abs and the ute doesn't active try to kill me. I should have renamed old deathy Christine.... it was still better then leaky one of the other guys drives but I won't get into that.

[Sabantien]

It sounds like fridges to me.
All fridges started getting 5 star energy ratings, so they changed the system. Previous 5 star became 2 or 3.

Are there results for any other cars under this system, or is mustang the first?

This seems to be more a clickbait article.

[.:4:.]

Originally Posted by Sabantien

It sounds like fridges to me.
All fridges started getting 5 star energy ratings, so they changed the system. Previous 5 star became 2 or 3.

Are there results for any other cars under this system, or is mustang the first?

This seems to be more a clickbait article.

When I bought my fridge it had 2 stickers on it. One said 6 star the other said 4 star. It's still makes food go cold. The only way it can kill me is if I don't put food in it and starve to death.

[Chopped]

Who buys a car to crash it though

[chrisandsharon]

Originally Posted by Barraxr8

FG and FGII were tested to old standards and would be 2 stars now.

FGX was not retested to the new standard.

How can the consumer understand this ?

Did the doors of the FGII open due to its 'Sud-standard crash structure', did the dummy's heads hit the steering wheel and dash at full force before the airbags deployed?.....no.

You could look at it another way, put the Mustang through the old FGII ANCAP test and see what happens. It's sub-standard crash structure and airbags would still have failed and put it on the safety radar. Technology has brought about crash avoidance etc etc which is great, but a big concern from ANCAP is the crash structure that needs to be addressed on an engineering level. FORD can fix the airbag issue and address safety technology, but the crash structure needs fixing.
The FGII was rated 5 stars, this included crashing the car with dummies inside - the airbags and crash structure worked properly.

I saw a bloke next to me in a new suburu get hit side on at about 60km/h. The side airbags save him in my opinion.......airbags need to work properly, if they're deployed after the crash then I call that seriously **** poor.........and the suburus doors didn't open either.

[asagaai]

Originally Posted by .:4:.

I get that the standards are going up, but if you throw some physics into it. Driving into a fixed object in a small light car there is less energy to disapate. Small car wins. 2 cars head on. The greater energy of the large car wins. .

Yes- the small car has less kinetic energy to dissipate, but what comes into this is the structural design and strength of a vehicle. I would rather crash going at 60 kph into a pole head on in my Falcon than my wifes Honda Civic 1.6 diesel.

Similarly going sideways into a pole- I have seen the rails in a Civic, and the rails in my Falcon, is like the difference in steel between a Hummer and an Abrahams tank....

Generally, what is most concerning is the lack of structural strength of the body/chassis. Forget all the standards about electronic warning gumph, when things go foul and they will for people, you want good airbags and as the final defence to life a limb, as strong a structure as you can get.

And the comment about what if you hit a w4d does not matter.

Sure- hit a Mack truck/Bus/B Double- whatever.

But risk minimization in automotive industry is like climbing, the worst can happen that cannot be avoided like a column of cliff you are climbing on collapsing. Like hitting a B Double head on.

But you implement all possible risk minimization strategies to minimize your exposure to risk- its playing mathematical odds.

And in cars that means active safety (good tyres, brakes, steering, handling to maximize accident avoidance) and passive safety if a crash occurs (seatbelt tensioners, airbags that work and positioned correctly, and STRONG STRUCTURE with progressive crush zones).

Not good enough in such a major world car with high performance engine and companies doing HP supercharging to have weak structure.

[asagaai]

Originally Posted by Chopped

Who buys a car to crash it though

Nobody if sound of mind, but if the proverbial happens, and you would be knaive to think it will not for some driving the Mustangs, and when it does you want to hope that the structure defending you is strong, especially if you have just laid down $70,000 odd....

[lari1eye]

Another Bullcrap wheels story, continuing their fine anti Ford history.
In the Ford statement.."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.
Have a look at the Euro NCAP and see how many large two door cars there have been tested. How many Porsches have been tested. One. The FOUR door Macan. Mercs, a 2011 coupe. None with the new testing regime. As Ford said, the ford was designed before the new testing rules were implemented.
As I said, wheels does it again.

[.:4:.]

Originally Posted by Chopped

Who buys a car to crash it though

I believe only the few who enter demolition darbys. The rest just have no spacial awareness and crash into other road users who try to do the right thing

[asagaai]

Originally Posted by .:4:.

I believe only the few who enter demolition darbys. The rest just have no spacial awareness and crash into other road users who try to do the right thing

Little comfort if you are driving a Mustang and get T boned by a ****ed driver running a red light and get hit on the door with weak structure and had mistiming air bags to boot.

Do not get me wrong, I really liked to look of the new Mustang, and in my head was thinking when my FXG XR8 is fully amortised in about 4 years, keeping the FGX as a weekend modded toy and getting a mustang, and maybe getting it supercharged (was going to see how the getrag went on reliability though).

But I will look elsewhere cause when I was an 18 year old kid making do as a student I put up driving substrength vehicles, but now and blowing $70,000- no way- will look german unless Ford ups the ante.

And the crap about the standard being for family cars- what crap- sounds like Trumps alternative truth facts....

[uniacidz]

Originally Posted by lari1eye

Another Bullcrap wheels story, continuing their fine anti Ford history.
In the Ford statement.."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.
Have a look at the Euro NCAP and see how many large two door cars there have been tested. How many Porsches have been tested. One. The FOUR door Macan. Mercs, a 2011 coupe. None with the new testing regime. As Ford said, the ford was designed before the new testing rules were implemented.
As I said, wheels does it again.

ANCAP did it and released media statement


https://www.ancap.com.au/media-and-g...-rating-3aaab9


Technical data also available including videos

Simply rated poorly as no ADAS and all that jazz but some structural concerns they say also



Sent via my ASUS ZE551ML

[Bill M]

Originally Posted by Barraxr8

It's relative, standards are changing.

Hence why the number of star should be increased and the same mark shouldn't be used for different iterations of NCAP, then historical data can be compared.

The Mustang is safer than 5 star cars from a decade ago.

The test is a guide, in a frontal collision if you hit a 5 star Barina guess which car will be better off ? If you hit a Landcruiser, guess what ?

Succinctly put, thank you.

[HO 3]

This whole carry on with the 2 star safety rating for Mustang makes me regret the demise of our locally built Ford products all the more...............crash avoidance tech aside, the fact that the cabin structure of a Ford product does not stand up to scrutiny in testing is inexcusable IMO.

Cheers Mick

[Olbucko]

Originally Posted by .:4:.

but if you throw some physics into it. Driving into a fixed object in a small light car there is less energy to disapate. Small car wins.

But if the small car has a bonnet half the length of the large car it has to dissipate that energy from the impact in half the distance if the cabin was to stay intact, so the G forces on the occupants would be twice as high, small car loses.

[asagaai]

Originally Posted by HO 3

This whole carry on with the 2 star safety rating for Mustang makes me regret the demise of our locally built Ford products all the more...............crash avoidance tech aside, the fact that the cabin structure of a Ford product does not stand up to scrutiny in testing is inexcusable IMO.

Cheers Mick

I have had a look at video of the side impact tests on the Mustang- pole and full, and the Mustang did not perform that badly I thought. There was more general body flex than the FG test- but geez- looking at the vids not a hell of a lot in it.

Anyone know if ANCAP tested the FGX?

[Bill M]

From 2011, the safety requirements across all star rating levels have increased annually, and ANCAP continues to broaden its suite of physical crash tests and introduce performance testing of safety assist technologies (SAT).

From here - http://www.ancap.com.au/future-requirements

To compare the 2016 Mustang tested under 2016 ANCAP conditions to the 2006 Chrysler Voyager, 2005 Holden Barina and 1998 Hyundai Sonata, the only other passenger cars vehicles to have scored a two-star ANCAP rating is misleading. A poorly written article.
Bill.