And most Australians buy their cars from these two manufacturers?

[new2ford]

http://www.drive.com.au/Editorial/Ar...ID=38523&vf=12

NCAP testing is now universally accepted throughout the western world. A manufacturer would only try to stay away from independent testing if they had something to hide, or think its worth risking the bad publicity. Then again the uninformed end of the buyer demographic (people who buy Toyotas and Holdens) doesn't place much importance in safety (e.g. strong Barina sales, low Toyota performance in Wheels WASP testing).

[Fairlane]

Read and found it disgraceful. They should be forking out not the Australian taxpayer, its not like Toyota and Holden are doing it tough at the moment. Its rediculous $75,000 grand for possible 5 star ANCAP rating and them knocking it back- it means only one thing theyve got something to hide and their cars wont pass.

Fed gov should threaten to cancel fleet contracts, that would bring them into line real quick.

[Steffo]

I wonder how long its going to take people to realise that Toyota's are flimsy, poorly put together, deathtraps and in general heaps...

[Trevorrex]

/\ Um, care to share some examples/proof?

[bodes-sh]

well i guess that's another way ford can cash in with orion, make the base model 5 stars, then there's going to be no large car competition

[Sapper]

Originally Posted by Steffo

I wonder how long its going to take people to realise that Toyota's are flimsy, poorly put together, deathtraps and in general heaps...

Hmmm....Any one of the 5 Fords we've owned has had more problems than all of the 4 Toyotas we've owned combined.

[AUXRVIII]

I can understand Holden not supplying a car as they don't expect a 5 star rating, the Omega doesn't come with side airbags, even as an option. Toyota in my opinion has nothing to gain from it, they will sell the cars regardless and general public " it wont happen to me" attitude won't convince them to purchase the vehicle whether it has 2 stars or 5.

[Fairlane]

Originally Posted by Steffo

I wonder how long its going to take people to realise that Toyota's are flimsy, poorly put together, deathtraps and in general heaps...

woah that was out of left field.

Ill say this Ok its disgraceful that Toyota and Holden have fobbed off ANCAP, but ill wager that the VE and Aurion will be safer in a crash than the BF. Orion will no doubt rectify that, but there isnt one Toyota in the market today that you could call a deathtrap- uninspired maybe but not a deathtrap.

Holden well the Barina and Viva probably are, but certainly not the VE.

[outback_ute]

Maybe Steffo is talking about a 1983 Corolla or similar? Well that was normal then, compare a 1983 Laser etc

Doesn't the NHTSA in the US have all the crash test cars donated to it? Of course you would want there to be a random element in selecting the actual cars used to eliminate the possibility of being given a rigged/strengthened car to test.

I think it says more about the car market than the manufacturers, similar to what AUVXRIII said. They don't see a benefit in doing it.

[new2ford]

Originally Posted by outback_ute

I think it says more about the car market than the manufacturers, similar to what AUVXRIII said. They don't see a benefit in doing it.

...yes because they have captured the large uncritical sector of the buyer market. I don't agree with the comments about Toyota quality - they are made well and sometimes achieve 5 stars in overseas NCAPs. Its more about an attitude of arrogance based on market share and demographic. The next thing it will lead to is industry self-regulation ("trust us, we know how to make safe cars") - oh,sorry, I think that's actually the current situation.

Australians often let themselves down badly by being uncritical consumers, driven only by price. Great gains were (and still are) made in America by ruthless consumer advocacy. The Fed Dept of Transport here are lazy in not requiring and analysing information from manufacturers (or should I say importers) and the RACs and Wheels magazine are about the only ones who look after consumer interests here - but without the sharp tongue of a Ralph Nader.

And going beyond ANCAP and secondary (passive) safety, nobody apart from Wheels is looking hard at primary (active) safety - and they are hindered by the lack of information resulting from the Fed govt's soft attitude. This is an area that Toyotas (and some of Holdens Korean products) DO have problems in.

[crossflow250]

Originally Posted by Steffo

I wonder how long its going to take people to realise that Toyota's are flimsy, poorly put together, deathtraps and in general heaps...

I wonder how long it's going to take you to pull your head in. Are you one of those arrogant car enthusiasts that disregard another brand just because it's not the one you drive.

Flimsy...too general
Poorly put together...how so?
Deathtraps...have you tried wrapping one around a pole?
General heaps...oh well done, you sum up with such a convincing statement.

The last one leads me to believe of the arrogance on your part.

[Rev28K]

I did hear that one of the first times an AU was tested they didn’t go too well.
Apparently the testing guys wanted Ford to fix a few things and them they would do the “official” testing

[Whitey-AMG]

Originally Posted by outback_ute

Maybe Steffo is talking about a 1983 Corolla or similar? Well that was normal then, compare a 1983 Laser etc

Doesn't the NHTSA in the US have all the crash test cars donated to it? Of course you would want there to be a random element in selecting the actual cars used to eliminate the possibility of being given a rigged/strengthened car to test.

I think it says more about the car market than the manufacturers, similar to what AUVXRIII said. They don't see a benefit in doing it.

I think you're spot on.

There is no immediate SALES benefit in participating.
Most people are more concerned about Fuel Consumption and Resale value than an NCAP rating.

Interesting how all new cars come with that windscreen sticker displaying the fuel consumption average................Imagine a new car with a sticker showing a 1 star NCAP...........You'd run to the hills..........FAST

Its a travesty how in this modern day and age that there isn't a government MANDATORY CRASH standard that needs to be displayed on all new vehicles to allow the buyer a better more informed choice................

No one wants to be in a CRASH...........but it would be comforting to know that in the event you were, the car you have shelled out thousands for does not become your coffin because it was poorly built with safety in mind.

A "self-rated" test for the Commodore is a joke !!!!!!!!!!!

Something to hide................YOU BETCHA

[Dave_au]

Originally Posted by Steffo

I wonder how long its going to take people to realise that Toyota's are flimsy, poorly put together, deathtraps and in general heaps...

Another Toyota thread and the usual armchair critic/troll appears.

Hows the econovan going?

[[Tonko]]

Originally Posted by Dave_au

Another Toyota thread and the usual armchair critic/troll appears.

Hows the econovan going?

lol dont worry bout the econovan, just remember LPG>you
lol clown...

[XR8-260]

Originally Posted by Steffo

I wonder how long its going to take people to realise that Toyota's are flimsy, poorly put together, deathtraps and in general heaps...

Hmmm... another one-eyed post. Gotta love these kind of posts :.

[DK30RB]

Originally Posted by Steffo

I wonder how long its going to take people to realise that Toyota's are flimsy, poorly put together, deathtraps and in general heaps...

Typical neanderthal Ford bogan owner response!!

[4.9 EF Futura]

Originally Posted by ESP

Its a travesty how in this modern day and age that there isn't a government MANDATORY CRASH standard that needs to be displayed on all new vehicles to allow the buyer a better more informed choice................

I disagree. It's not the government's job to tell people what their vehicle selection should be based on. Simple fact being that australian motorists are, in general, not au-fait with the various international crash testing standards.

kw and l/100km is all you need to tell an aussie consumer to help them differentiate between the type of car they want.

If safety is your primary concern, there's plenty of cars available with this information. Not the govt's job to nanny manufacturers into redefining the market.

If the market shifts and people start demanding this information, guarantee it'll start happening. If you wish to influence this then make a big song and dance about safety ratings next time you purchase.

Let's also consider the typical aussie attitude of "i want more for less". So... the car now has an NCAP sticker on it that the consumer doesnt care about... and costs an additional $1000. These costs need to be passed on.

US company tests new sports truck and pays $x. Proceeds to sell one million of them over the course of the next few years. Cost of test = x/1000000

Australian company tests new sedan. Proceeds to sell 100,000 of them during the course of the vehicle's life. Cost of test = x/100000. Each car has a "test" component 10 times greater than the equivalent US vehicle.

[mcflux]

Originally Posted by Dave_au

Another Toyota thread and the usual armchair critic/troll appears.

Hows the econovan going?

Bwahahaha! That popped into my mind too!

o/t I've been a passenger in a little Hyundai that t-boned an 80s Tarago at <10kph (Tarago was doing 70ish in a 60 zone). The Tarago got air from this love-nudge and rolled twice. I'd like to see a sedan manage this from a 10kph impact. OK so a Tarago is a Toyota, but apart from the badge I fail to see the difference between an 80s Tarago and an 80s Econovan. Deathtraps.

[The Stylist]

Originally Posted by 4.9 EF Futura

If safety is your primary concern, there's plenty of cars available with this information. Not the govt's job to nanny manufacturers into redefining the market.

That's fine if you are buying a global product. The problem with VE is that it has yet to be tested by any other independent testing agency, such as EuroNCAP etc.

If the government can stick its head in areas like speed inforcement, then it can get off its **** when implementing crash testing and safety standards.

[plext]

Can we please try to rise above the level of "brand x is crap" blatherings?

There is potentially a worthy discussion to be had here, it'd be a shame to see it go west due to uninformed blandishments.

[fou_bleu]

I think Holden and Toyota are scared of the outcome!

[Dave_au]

Originally Posted by v8motormouth

I think Holden and Toyota are scared of the outcome!

The extra vehicle is required to reach a 5 star ANCAP result. Both the VE commodore and Aurion have already achieved a 4 star ANCAP result, but for whatever reason, could not be bothered in sacrificing an additional vehicle to reach the full 5 star quota.

Apparently there was some agreement a while back by the Australian manufacturers not to over play or underplay ANCAPs results. This may be a result of that previous agreement.

[4.9 EF Futura]

Originally Posted by The Stylist

If the government can stick its head in areas like speed inforcement, then it can get off its **** when implementing crash testing and safety standards.

Well i fail to see what one has to do with the other, but lets consider this in context.

The government DOES mandate safety standards. Only a small document by the name of Australian Design Rules... only layer upon layer of state requirements on top of that. Because they dont mandate a certain rating makes them negligent or lazy? Perhaps you'd like the government to recommend what colour would suit you as well?

Dave_au touches on an interesting point. NCAP ratings are just that. Ratings. Crash a 4 rating into a 5 rating, can you guarantee the occupants of the 5 rating vehicle will fare better? No, you cant. To come to such a conclusion would require you to crash millions of cars in an almost infintie number of circumstances and EVEN THEN... attempt to draw "statistically relevant" observations from the data. And based on the comments in this thread from people who know their stuff, were talking "handfuls" of vehicles being smashed... not hundreds.

There is a huge risk of instilling a false sense of security into the consumer. "I know im meant to follow 2 seconds behind the car in front, but my car is rated 5 so i'll take on the additional risk".

I guess to boil my dribble down into a cup of fluid... is there a valid cost-benefit (no, not a ford pinto style cost-benefit lol) in mandating a certain rating system?

Cost can be ascertained easily. But benefits? Seems a little subjective for my liking.

[MAGPIE]

I can't see the problem, if you don't like it buy something else :

Plenty of 5 star vehicles about that people can make an informed choice on sleep:

[Wally]

Originally Posted by new2ford

http://www.drive.com.au/Editorial/Ar...ID=38523&vf=12

NCAP testing is now universally accepted throughout the western world. A manufacturer would only try to stay away from independent testing if they had something to hide, or think its worth risking the bad publicity. Then again the uninformed end of the buyer demographic (people who buy Toyotas and Holdens) doesn't place much importance in safety (e.g. strong Barina sales, low Toyota performance in Wheels WASP testing).

How do you go from Toyota and Holden refusing to donate $100,000 for an organisation to replicate tests it has already carried out to hiding truths and avoiding bad publicity? Are you privy to something the rest of us aren't?

[new2ford]

Perhaps. Any manufacturer that holds back from a widely recognised independent testing regime risks consumer scrutiny, its a democracy. The fact that they are the two biggest players in this market means that this probably doesn't worry them commercially because Australia is a less analytical and demanding motoring marketplace than Europe and the US so it won't damage sales.

Holden (at least Commodore) and Toyota actually don't have too much to worry about on the secondary safety (NCAP tested) front which makes some question the motives as this journalist (who also knows something) did.

As for self regulation and let the consumer make the decision (which, hint, may be what those manufacturers want), perhaps that principle should also be applied to imported children's toys, or anything for that matter. But when something goes wrong in a car it may not only affects the user of that car but others around it at the time.

And Holden, let us remember, wouldn't upgrade the seatbelts in its VP when NCAP testing gave it one star, finding that lack of restraint would result in certain driver death as low as 56 kph. After this and the Barina Holden wouldn't be a big fan of NCAP procedures.

It is wishful thinking to imagine that large multinationals would not want to undermine any independent source of information that might sometimes cast them in a less favourable light - whether by not participating in testing or withholding advertising from a magazine for example. Nah - all large corporations are angelic and public spirited.

And again, to head off some red herrings cropping up on this thread:

Toyota make well-built cars, better built than Fords - that's not the issue.

In a head on between a 5 star Yaris and a 4 star Territory its better to be in the Territory. Secondary safety isn't all, its part of a total perspective on a product and how protected a consumer can be with it, even if they don't want to know.

[new2ford]

Perhaps. Any manufacturer that holds back from a widely recognised independent testing regime risks consumer scrutiny, its a democracy. The fact that they are the two biggest players in this market means that this probably doesn't worry them commercially because Australia is a less analytical and demanding motoring marketplace than Europe and the US so it won't damage sales.

Holden (at least Commodore) and Toyota actually don't have too much to worry about on the secondary safety (NCAP tested) front which makes some question the motives as this journalist (who also knows something) did.

As for self regulation and let the consumer make the decision (which, hint, may be what those manufacturers want), perhaps that principle should also be applied to imported children's toys, or anything for that matter. But when something goes wrong in a car it may not only affects the user of that car but others around it at the time.

And Holden, let us remember, wouldn't upgrade the seatbelts in its VP when NCAP testing gave it one star, finding that lack of restraint would result in certain driver death as low as 56 kph. After this and the Barina Holden wouldn't be a big fan of NCAP procedures.

It is wishful thinking to imagine that large multinationals would not want to undermine any independent source of information that might sometimes cast them in a less favourable light - whether by not participating in testing or withholding advertising from a magazine for example. Nah - all large corporations are angelic and public spirited.

And again, to head off some red herrings cropping up on this thread:

Toyota make well-built cars, better built than Fords - that's not the issue.

In a head on between a 5 star Yaris and a 4 star Territory its better to be in the Territory. Secondary safety isn't all, its part of a total perspective on a product and how protected a consumer can be with it, even if they don't want to know.

[Whitey-AMG]

Originally Posted by 4.9 EF Futura

Well i fail to see what one has to do with the other, but lets consider this in context.

The government DOES mandate safety standards. Only a small document by the name of Australian Design Rules... only layer upon layer of state requirements on top of that. Because they dont mandate a certain rating makes them negligent or lazy? Perhaps you'd like the government to recommend what colour would suit you as well?

Dave_au touches on an interesting point. NCAP ratings are just that. Ratings. Crash a 4 rating into a 5 rating, can you guarantee the occupants of the 5 rating vehicle will fare better? No, you cant. To come to such a conclusion would require you to crash millions of cars in an almost infintie number of circumstances and EVEN THEN... attempt to draw "statistically relevant" observations from the data. And based on the comments in this thread from people who know their stuff, were talking "handfuls" of vehicles being smashed... not hundreds.

There is a huge risk of instilling a false sense of security into the consumer. "I know im meant to follow 2 seconds behind the car in front, but my car is rated 5 so i'll take on the additional risk".

I guess to boil my dribble down into a cup of fluid... is there a valid cost-benefit (no, not a ford pinto style cost-benefit lol) in mandating a certain rating system?

Cost can be ascertained easily. But benefits? Seems a little subjective for my liking.

I don't think any of us are suggesting Governmental control over colour schemes..........

I do however suggest that there should be in this day and age a "minimum crash safety standard" that needs to be agreed upon. There are millions of "involuntary" crash tests every day........random, uncontrived and with real occupants. I'm sure FORD and HOLDEN and any other car company can supplement Independent crash testing with the Real world raw data and design their cars to be safer in our modern day and age.

I'm sure FORD and HOLDEN could absorb these additional Safety R & D costs per vehicle unit by re examing their internal efficiencies just like any other company. Maybe they should try implementing worlds best practices like six sigma etc........

Having a 5 star crash test rated car, doesn't mean you take more risks because you are psychologically geared that way..........It means you thank your lucky stars when that druken speeding idiot hits you side on and you can get out of your wreck and walk away, or minimise your risk of amputation , severe head / brain injury, or other soft tissue trauma.

SAFETY FIRST and L/100Klm second.........You bloody BETCHYA.