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

[eb2fairmont]

Well I say about f time ford marketing got off their backsides to defend and promote some product.

[Mercury Bullet]

Originally Posted by five 7

How do half of you get out of bed in the morning, your so worried about safety. Just drive what makes you smile the most. Safety never enters my mind when i drive my every day car (57 ford warm clevo drum brakes and a spear for a steering column) because I'm to busy smiling. Just be happy we have Mustangs for sale, i bet the biggest whingers will never buy one yet moan about it. Have fun in your kia/daewoo safety capsule, while out shopping for cheap gas haha.
And yup i'm in the process of buying a pos Mustang.
Cheers...

I wonder if the ratings are applicable at 250k's.

To this day I have no idea what the rating of my FGX is...nor do I care.
I don't do 60.

[Mercury Bullet]

Originally Posted by eb2fairmont

Well I say about f time ford marketing got off their backsides to defend and promote some product.

Haha, the press release in post #121 the guy spelt brakes as breaks.
What chance do they have when basic spelling errors are let through on very important documents?

[DFB FGXR6]

Originally Posted by CyberWasp

How does rear passenger or ratings for child protection even come into the equation when buying a Mustang?

The Rating System is clearly broke and needs fixing as a 5 Star System is for buying Fridges not Cars.

Exactly. And a child would be flat out lucky to even fit in the back seat anyway without chopping their legs off first. Next there will be a disgruntled owners with children filing lawsuits against Ford because the they had to dismember their kids to fit them in.

[Stefan]

Originally Posted by Barraxr8

Mate stop reading headlines and quotes and get into the detail of the test results and the regime used in this example.

If you were intelligent (after doing that) your response above may have been different.

I read it champ, the car scored 2, there is concern about the structural integrity of the thing, I'd say that is a pretty major issue.

Ford ducked and weaved and blamed testing labelled the car good and adequate in passenger safety....not two words that instill confidence.

Having read it again, please explain why the car is so hard done by when 99% of POS cars tested in the last 12 months score 5.

You're obviously a fan-boy with the "footy team" mentality towards Ford, no matter how much the screw up it's the best team and any bad press is someone else fault.

[Fordman1]

Originally Posted by Stefan

I read it champ, the car scored 2, there is concern about the structural integrity of the thing, I'd say that is a pretty major issue.

Ford ducked and weaved and blamed testing labelled the car good and adequate in passenger safety....not two words that instill confidence.

Having read it again, please explain why the car is so hard done by when 99% of POS cars tested in the last 12 months score 5.

You're obviously a fan-boy with the "footy team" mentality towards Ford, no matter how much the screw up it's the best team and any bad press is someone else fault.

My mistake champ,

I thought you might be "intelligent" and go to the actual test results to compare the HIC and other scores to other vehicle results to see the inconsistencies.
I was wrong, my apologies.

I also thought you would be smart enough to notice that some vehicles don't have all tests carried out because the manufacturer doesn't want them done. Eg MG GS pole test. BTW: Falcon ( and Commodore ) had worse results (HIC scores) in impact tests ( no rear passenger tests were done on Falcon ) yet scored 5 stars.

Keep doing what you do, and read the headlines and the summaries from the journos, you're doing really well

[Sprint XR8]

Originally Posted by Stefan

Ford ducked and weaved and blamed testing labelled the car good and adequate in passenger safety....not two words that instill confidence.

In the ANCAP rating system "good" is the highest level rating in safety.
If you really had bothered to read the results you would already know that.

[Nikked]

Structual integrity concerns? No there wasn't.

2 star score is purely because of the rear seating (2 door car...of course its going to have issues) and electronic assists.

But, lets jump on the american is carp band wagon...

[HO 3]

^^^^^The article says "Fundamentally it hasn't performed well structurally."

Cheers Mick

[Stefan]

The door opened on pole test and the footwell moved 108mm on front impact, and yes, the Ancap spokes person said it was structurally unacceptable, not me, not the media.

You can BS all you want, it scored 2 when most others score 5.

If you won't accept it, fine. it scored what it scored.

I'm not going to do a side by side comparison on every car tested over the last 12 months to find holes in scores. That's what the scores are for.

Ancap gave it a score of 2, not me, not the boogie man, not the media.

[Gothefalcon]

Perhaps, if all the States & Territories spent more on ensuring the safety rating of Drivers was higher.... then we might be less inclined to focus so much on the safety rating of cars etc !??

I agree that a less than 4 star result, in this day and age, is not really the best... but I'd say the new Mustang would out perform a lot of much older cars that still drive around on our roads !?? The point here being... people still use them, without even considering the safety rating first !??.

I see heaps of badly wrecked cars at the Wreckers.... with airbags still in tact. More than likely, it's not the airbag system that had a fault... just the force of those impacts wasn't from the direction that sets the airbag off etc !??

An XA-C Coupe, or Old Monaro, or Charger, etc wouldn't fair well in an ANCAP test today... but most wouldn't thinks twice about that, when they throw the Family in for a Sunday cruise !??

D
'

[nstg8a]

Originally Posted by Stefan

The door opened on pole test and the footwell moved 108mm on front impact, and yes, the Ancap spokes person said it was structurally unacceptable, not me, not the media.

You can BS all you want, it scored 2 when most others score 5.

If you won't accept it, fine. it scored what it scored.

I'm not going to do a side by side comparison on every car tested over the last 12 months to find holes in scores. That's what the scores are for.

Ancap gave it a score of 2, not me, not the boogie man, not the media.

And the only reason it got a 2 was because it lacks the active safety systems that are common in many cars these days.
So basically it's a two star car because ford expects the driver to do the driving, not the car.
If that is ignored its a four star car all day every day. Still not great but a damn sight better than a two.

[prydey]

Originally Posted by Stefan

The door opened on pole test and the footwell moved 108mm on front impact, and yes, the Ancap spokes person said it was structurally unacceptable, not me, not the media.

You can BS all you want, it scored 2 when most others score 5.

If you won't accept it, fine. it scored what it scored.

I'm not going to do a side by side comparison on every car tested over the last 12 months to find holes in scores. That's what the scores are for.

Ancap gave it a score of 2, not me, not the boogie man, not the media.

The issue is, you and many others are not prepared to look for the reason why it scored 2. Guess what, it wasn't due to airbags or structure. It was mainly due to missing certain electronic safety aids, like brake assist.

No one is saying it performed well, just that the headlines are misleading and from a driver or front seat point of view, it is safer than many current 5 star cars going by the data.

[prydey]

Originally Posted by Stefan

Having read it again, please explain why the car is so hard done by when 99% of POS cars tested in the last 12 months score 5.

actually, if you look in to it, and compare like for like cars, only mazda mx5, audi TT and hyundai velostar have been tested since 2015. toyota 86/subi brz were tested in 2013.

when you look at the mazda 5 results, there is no rear seat, so its front seat only. the mustang performs well enough for a 5 star rating if you disregard the rear seat results.

the audi TT is rated at 4 stars, and if you look in to it, like mustang, its dragged down by poor results from the rear seat score. however, mustang was tested with dummy's simulating a 6yr old child and 10yr old child. the 6yr did ok, the 10yr, not so much. the audi TT was tested using dummy's simulating an 18month old, and a 3yr old! so already its obvious there are some glaring differences in their testing procedures. you can't use a different test and still use the same rating system for each car. see how confusing this is already!

i think it was mentioned earlier in the thread that ancap/encap had increased the weight of the child dummy's, and there you have it.

hyundai velostar scored 5 stars but again, no rear seat occupants were tested.

also, the speed of the pole test was inreased by 5km/h for the mustang, compared with the others where data is available.

and lastly this page on the ancap website explains the safety ratings
https://www.ancap.com.au/safety-ratings-explained

again, with mustang labelled a 2 star car, if you click on the 2 star rating, you might be fooled in to thinking the mustang is down this end of the scale, but you have to read the fine print to see that its only talking about the frontal offset test. in this test, mustang scored 4 star, or 5 star for front occupants only. the problem is, they don't tell you how the cars rated for each test, in a star rating.

it really is a shambles.

[five 7]

Originally Posted by Stefan

The door opened on pole test and the footwell moved 108mm on front impact, and yes, the Ancap spokes person said it was structurally unacceptable, not me, not the media.

You can BS all you want, it scored 2 when most others score 5.

If you won't accept it, fine. it scored what it scored.

I'm not going to do a side by side comparison on every car tested over the last 12 months to find holes in scores. That's what the scores are for.

Ancap gave it a score of 2, not me, not the boogie man, not the media.

A 108mm is not going to be my biggest problem i think, and at least the door will be open to scrape me out. geez mate live a little and stop following the govt line..

[five 7]

Burned me toast on purpose this morning and had two boiled eggs, some of you lot would call that, living on the edge. Lived in Aus (Perth loved it) in late eightys when men were men. Metro sexual was well.... haha....hope its a sunny sunday there, alot of those real shiney, unsafe (no ancap) 70/80s Falcon owners can pluck up the courage and come out for there weekly drive.
Any one know about chicken little....
Cheers Mark.....

[XR6_power]

Originally Posted by Stefan

The door opened on pole test and the footwell moved 108mm on front impact, and yes, the Ancap spokes person said it was structurally unacceptable, not me, not the media.

You can BS all you want, it scored 2 when most others score 5.

If you won't accept it, fine. it scored what it scored.

I'm not going to do a side by side comparison on every car tested over the last 12 months to find holes in scores. That's what the scores are for.

Ancap gave it a score of 2, not me, not the boogie man, not the media.

+1

Totally agree - ANCAP'S decision is final folks, there was no media beat up, ANCAP made this decision and those comments, it is what it is, just like at the footy when a decision goes against your side, accept and move on..

[GTP534]

I took mine for a drive this morning, even though my conscience told me I shouldn't. I took an air compressor to top up the air bags. I also put some padding on my garage wall to soften the impact should I hit it on my return and I put a swimming pool noodle on the edge of the door should it pop open unexpectedly.

I enjoyed my drive, the kids loved it and we got home safe: thank my lucky 2 stars.

[DJR-351]

Originally Posted by GTP534

I took mine for a drive this morning, even though my conscience told me I shouldn't. I took an air compressor to top up the air bags. I also put some padding on my garage wall to soften the impact should I hit it on my return and I put a swimming pool noodle on the edge of the door should it pop open unexpectedly.

I enjoyed my drive, the kids loved it and we got home safe: thank my lucky 2 stars.

You took the kids in it??? you irresponsible madman!!!

[prydey]

Originally Posted by XR6_power

+1

Totally agree - ANCAP'S decision is final folks, there was no media beat up, ANCAP made this decision and those comments, it is what it is, just like at the footy when a decision goes against your side, accept and move on..

Well technically no, ancap didn't make the decision. They just used the e-ncap results.
Ironically ancap don't test child ratings, so it would have rated better if ancap tested it.

[Fordman1]

Originally Posted by prydey

actually, if you look in to it, and compare like for like cars, only mazda mx5, audi TT and hyundai velostar have been tested since 2015. toyota 86/subi brz were tested in 2013.

All of these were tested to lesser standards yet the scoring scale is the same.

BTW: BMW Z4 scores 3 stars and would be 2 stars - it doesn't have safety assist.

The dumb ar$es will lap all of this rubbish up. A sign of the times where idiots can't think for themselves, and are "tempted" to post on Facebook all of the time

Modern systems require consistency and a standard baseline so comparisons can be made, otherwise metrics, scores, and KPI's are worthless.

[GTP534]

Originally Posted by DJR-351

You took the kids in it??? you irresponsible madman!!!

They performed the role of the "Lane Change Warning" system and my wife was eyes front for "Frontal Collision Avoidance".

[prydey]

Originally Posted by Barraxr8

Modern systems require consistency and a standard baseline so comparisons can be made, otherwise metrics, scores, and KPI's are worthless.

yep.

it beggars belief that they didn't adopt a 6 or 7 star system. that way all previous data remains in context and new testing has meaning and comparitive value.

[prydey]

some additional info off the ANCAP site for those that care to be enlightened

Child Protection

Why doesn't ANCAP provide a child protection rating?

Current ANCAP testing requires two child dummies to be restrained in child restraints in the second row seats for the frontal offset and side impact crash tests. However, due to fundamental differences in the types of child restraints used in Australia, ANCAP does not currently publish a child occupant rating like the one published by Euro NCAP. Amongst other things, the child dummies do not give a realistic indication of injury risk for a child secured in a six-point harness that is built into a forward facing child seat with a top tether (as required under the Australian Standard). ANCAP is looking at developing a more appropriate rating system for Australia.

For optimum protection, selecting an appropriate child restraint for the child is probably more important than car safety features or performance in ANCAP tests. There is a separate program - the Child Restraint Evaluation Program (CREP) which assesses the performance of child restraints on sale in Australia.

and

Why is the ANCAP safety rating information published for some cars slightly different to others?

From 1 January 2015, ANCAP will enter into a transition period (2015-2017) through which ANCAP assessment requirements will align more closely with ANCAP's European-based sister organisation, Euro NCAP, in order to provide consumers with the best technology and safest cars available.

During this transition period, ANCAP will continue to publish ANCAP safety ratings based on local tests and protocols as well as tests and protocols used by Euro NCAP. Prior to the transition, the safety ratings published by ANCAP based on Euro NCAP test data were determined following a process of re-assessment by ANCAP engineers. From 2015 however, this re-assessment will no longer occur with ANCAP safety ratings published as provided by Euro NCAP (where the Australasian vehicle is the same).

Euro NCAP currently undertakes a number of additional physical crash tests and performance assessments of safety assist technologies (SAT) and therefore the ANCAP safety ratings information published for vehicles assessed in Europe will incorporate additional safety information obtained through the conduct of these additional tests/assessments - differing slightly to that of cars tested locally by ANCAP.

From 1 January 2018, the ANCAP safety rating information published for all vehicles - whether assessed in Europe or Australia - will align.

[Nikked]

Originally Posted by XR6_power

+1

Totally agree - ANCAP'S decision is final folks, there was no media beat up, ANCAP made this decision and those comments, it is what it is, just like at the footy when a decision goes against your side, accept and move on..

ANCAP didn't test the car...

It's a media beat up as many of these out lets are pushing the "2 stars, head hit dash" line, with one joker for Car Advice claiming he will not drive a mustang ever again because it is "unsafe".

But the big point everyone is forgetting is that...

It's got a 5-star safety rating in the US...and the Impact test's the US use are more aggressive then those in Europe.

And the real clincher is a model being dated back to 2014 being tested under new 2017 regulations...

[HO 3]

Originally Posted by five 7

Burned me toast on purpose this morning and had two boiled eggs, some of you lot would call that, living on the edge. Lived in Aus (Perth loved it) in late eightys when men were men. Metro sexual was well.... haha....hope its a sunny sunday there, alot of those real shiney, unsafe (no ancap) 70/80s Falcon owners can pluck up the courage and come out for there weekly drive.
Any one know about chicken little....
Cheers Mark.....

Not you by the sound of it.................but the reality is today's expectation for many of the car buying public is a 5 star safety rating and has been for a long time.

Cheers Mick

[Fordman1]

Originally Posted by HO 3

Not you by the sound of it.................but the reality is today's expectation for many of the car buying public is a 5 star safety rating and has been for a long time.

Cheers Mick

Yes it is, but if the public knew that manufacturers have been deciding what particular results are submitted, what would they think ?

Eg: MG GS (MG: we don't want to do the pole test) WTF ?

and HIC (head injuries) results for airbags that are better are rated lower ?

The system is flawed and needs to be consistent, that's the bottom line.

Joe Average isn't going to go through crash data to sort out what tests have been done and why they haven't been done, he is only interested in how many stars have been awarded.

It's all relative, a common baseline needs to be used otherwise the stars are useless for comparison.

[HO 3]

Originally Posted by Nikked

ANCAP didn't test the car...

It's a media beat up as many of these out lets are pushing the "2 stars, head hit dash" line, with one joker for Car Advice claiming he will not drive a mustang ever again because it is "unsafe".

But the big point everyone is forgetting is that...

It's got a 5-star safety rating in the US...and the Impact test's the US use are more aggressive then those in Europe.

And the real clincher is a model being dated back to 2014 being tested under new 2017 regulations...

And why didn't ancap test the car, tell the whole story. I think most of us accept that encap testing is tougher than ancap testing. To those bench racing and questioning the published abridged crash data and doubt the testers have not established a base line testing method and conduct it in a scientific way.........good luck getting far on that horse. The damage has been done, time will tell if Ford can get back off the floor and address the issues in a short time frame that Goodwin has called for.

Cheers Mick

Cheer Mick

[HO 3]

Originally Posted by Barraxr8

Yes it is, but if the public knew that manufacturers have been deciding what particular results are submitted, what would they think ?

Eg: MG GS (MG: we don't want to do the pole test) WTF ?

and HIC (head injuries) results for airbags that are better are rated lower ?

The system is flawed and needs to be consistent, that's the bottom line.

Joe Average isn't going to go through crash data to sort out what tests have been done and why they haven't been done, he is only interested in how many stars have been awarded.

It's all relative, a common baseline needs to be used otherwise the stars are useless for comparison.

Exactly what makes you think you have access to much of the crash data in the first place?

Cheers Mick

[Fordman1]

Originally Posted by HO 3

Exactly what makes you think you have access to much of the crash data in the first place?

Cheers Mick

Um, it's on the EURO NCAP and ANCAP NCAP websites in the detailed test breakdowns.

This is exactly what I'm saying, you had no idea did you ? Neither does the general public.

I bet you also had no idea that the "standards" change and that some cars are listed ( and are still for sale as new cars ) that were 5 star cars a couple of years back but under the new criteria would be lower.

Go figure ....lts a mess.