New Ford Falcon Beats Holden's Commodore To Become Our First 5-Star Safety Rated Car

[ford&holden]

Originally Posted by Slick_Holden

Should, Does that mean not defiantly?.
Who said it crashes worse?, Crashes worse Into people pedestrians kids?, But nothing about objects like cars and trees etc.

Well you half clearly believe in it, Even if you don't want to right now, You yourself, Did say you would rather be in a larger car then a small one in an accident.
If that isn't taking size and weight into account, I don't know what is.
Size did matter back then.

Does a truck with a nose crash better or worse then a truck without one?.
Does the extra mass length width help the frontal crash in the FG?.
It's a long way from the driver to the front.
And don't forget, The Aurion and Commodore were both deducted points for the frontal based on speculation of injury's.
The Aurion could actually be the better of the 3.

Are you really Generation IV?

Did you take any time at all to read the results or even look at the Ancap web site, Mikmak posted the link.

FG also scored higher than aurion and VE for pedestrian injury, with that tall longer inline 6cyl...

VE and FG are on equal terms when it comes down the total vehicle weight, while aurion is the lightest and smallest.

If you take a look at the Ancap web site and look through the individual results and comments and you will see that FG faired much than the VE overall. Take a look at the actual points earned and not just the 5 stars.

The VE didn't score much higher than tha BF while the aurion passed the VE.
A vehicle must score at least 12.5 in the offset frontal crash test to be even considered for a 5 star rating. VE only achieved 11.5. FG was well above this figure passing 14.

The only reason the FG 'slightly' more front overhang is to accomodate the longer inline 6cyl as opposed to a more compact V6 design, therefore no extra room in the FG's frontal area would be afforded over the VE or aurion.
You would have to be getting desparate to think that that minute difference in frontal overhang on FG compared to VE would make such a significant difference to crash test results.

Aurion weighs less than VE yet scored higher?

FG was simply was engineered well for crash protection, nothing more or less,
the bar has been raised.

Your comment that FG's forthcoming V6 in 2010 wouldn't make a difference to crash performance is hollow and you prove that by not being able to back it up.

[mikmak]

Originally Posted by mikmak

Dear Mr. ANCAP

After being swamped by media in regard to the commendable 5 star ANCAP result achieved by the Ford Falcon range, I was interested to see where the results delineate between its main rival, the Holden Commodore. I always maintain a keen interest in the advancement of Australian manufactured product (though mostly in Aviation) and this rivalry is one of the closest.

I have since investigated the ANCAP assessment notes available through the ANCAP website and found that there is no clear specification in regard to head airbag protection. Of course there is clear requirement for "a" head protection airbag, however the requirement for a "curtain" airbag is not applied. Is this a deliberate choice made by ANCAP?

My understanding is that the Commodore is standard with curtain airbags (an upgrade since its ANCAP assessment). Would this change now qualify it for a 5 star rating (pending assessment of course)? In addition, the XT Falcon does not come with curtain airbags as standard. The possible perception is that the current ANCAP assessment standard is front passenger biased, rather than regarding passenger safety as a whole as paramount. Perhaps, as a future upgrade to the standard, curtain airbags may be defined as a pre-requisite (as opposed to just head protection airbags).

I look forward to any direction or comments you wish to provide. On a side note, I would like to thank you for helping define and maintain a useful resource in the Australian Automotive industry. Although many people argue against the relevance of defined criteria testing in real world environments, I clearly identify with the need for accountable repeatable benchmark testing. I would hate to think what people would rely on without such indicators. Perhaps advertising and anecdotes?

Regards,

mikmak

Originally Posted by ANCAP

Dear mikmak

The ANCAP star rating method is based on the Euro NCAP protocol, except that
a) ANCAP requires head protection for front seat occupants to be demonstrated with a side pole test
b) From January 2008, ANCAP requires electronic stability control to be available (if optional, a model without ESC reverts to 4 stars)

As you have indicated, the Falcon XT tested by ANCAP had seat-mounted side airbags with chest and head protection. This system worked very well in both the side impact and pole tests conducted by ANCAP and this model earned 5 stars.

ANCAP acknowledges that the current protocol does not encourage the best occupant protection in rear seats and discussions are being held with other world NCAP organisations to review this situation. In the meantime, some ANCAP's partners, like TAC, actively encourage car buyers to choose vehicles with inflatable side curtains that protect rear seat occupants. Also, in its detailed datasheet (copy attached) the table on the second page indicates the availability of several safety features, including head protection for rear seat occupants.

Regarding the Commodore, the introduction of side curtains as standard is a commendable step but there are several other areas that need to be addressed before it would qualify for a 5 star rating. There are not insurmountable but evidently take time to bring into production.

Regards,

XXXXX

I sent an email to ANCAP and asked about the requirement for Curtain airbags over just front sides (as standard fare in the XT) and this is their response.

I deleted the name for privacy reasons, but it's pretty clear cut.

[ford&holden]

Originally Posted by mikmak

I sent an email to ANCAP and asked about the requirement for Curtain airbags over just front sides (as standard fare in the XT) and this is their response.

I deleted the name for privacy reasons, but it's pretty clear cut.

Thank you.

[Generation IV]

Originally Posted by ford&holden

Are you really Generation IV?

Did you take any time at all to read the results or even look at the Ancap web site, Mikmak posted the link.

FG also scored higher than aurion and VE for pedestrian injury, with that tall longer inline 6cyl...

VE and FG are on equal terms when it comes down the total vehicle weight, while aurion is the lightest and smallest.

If you take a look at the Ancap web site and look through the individual results and comments and you will see that FG faired much than the VE overall. Take a look at the actual points earned and not just the 5 stars.

The VE didn't score much higher than tha BF while the aurion passed the VE.
A vehicle must score at least 12.5 in the offset frontal crash test to be even considered for a 5 star rating. VE only achieved 11.5. FG was well above this figure passing 14.

The only reason the FG 'slightly' more front overhang is to accomodate the longer inline 6cyl as opposed to a more compact V6 design, therefore no extra room in the FG's frontal area would be afforded over the VE or aurion.
You would have to be getting desparate to think that that minute difference in frontal overhang on FG compared to VE would make such a significant difference to crash test results.

Aurion weighs less than VE yet scored higher?

FG was simply was engineered well for crash protection, nothing more or less,
the bar has been raised.

Your comment that FG's forthcoming V6 in 2010 wouldn't make a difference to crash performance is hollow and you prove that by not being able to back it up.

As much as it occurs rarely, I'll have to side with f&h on this one. It was expected and basically pre-determined (before the FG was actually tested) that the FG would fare worse in crash tests due to the inline-6 being longer than the V6's in the Commodore and Aurion. For its frontal design and the engine its carrying, the FG has achieved a remarkable score. Well done on that front....(pun not intended

When this thread turns into what politicians would call "aggressive negotiations" (in other words, a 'bitch fight'), then we can discuss the physics behind a crash test, the assumption that a longer front overhang will make a car perform worse and receive a lower score (recent results show otherwise), and etc.

When Ford drop the V6 into the Falcon's engine bay, expect relatively heavy front end modifications and an impact on the FG's crash test score. What's unclear about this rather drastic powerhouse transfer is whether it will increase or decrease the FG's ANCAP score. Most brains will tell you that if engineered right, Ford could actually take advantage and enhance the FG's already brilliant score with the oppurtunity of a better pedestrian crash test score, but some could argue that Ford could mash it up and the score will decrease due to the possibility that Ford Aus's plan for the V6's introduction is to use lighter materials for the front end because of the V6s lighter mass and they could see this as an oppurtunity to lighten the Falcon, but that seemingly good idea could also affect crash test results with lighter materials possibly performing worse. Its all up to Ford......im split on whether thats a good or bad thing lol. Hopefully their R&D division is much more bright than their marketing department...

It's a situation that could go both ways in that respect. Hopefully Bill Osbourne will use his brain for once and invest wisely.

[Slick_Holden]

Originally Posted by ford&holden

Are you really Generation IV?

Did you take any time at all to read the results or even look at the Ancap web site, Mikmak posted the link.

FG also scored higher than aurion and VE for pedestrian injury, with that tall longer inline 6cyl...

VE and FG are on equal terms when it comes down the total vehicle weight, while aurion is the lightest and smallest.

If you take a look at the Ancap web site and look through the individual results and comments and you will see that FG faired much than the VE overall. Take a look at the actual points earned and not just the 5 stars.

The VE didn't score much higher than tha BF while the aurion passed the VE.
A vehicle must score at least 12.5 in the offset frontal crash test to be even considered for a 5 star rating. VE only achieved 11.5. FG was well above this figure passing 14.

The only reason the FG 'slightly' more front overhang is to accomodate the longer inline 6cyl as opposed to a more compact V6 design, therefore no extra room in the FG's frontal area would be afforded over the VE or aurion.
You would have to be getting desparate to think that that minute difference in frontal overhang on FG compared to VE would make such a significant difference to crash test results.

Aurion weighs less than VE yet scored higher?

FG was simply was engineered well for crash protection, nothing more or less,
the bar has been raised.

Your comment that FG's forthcoming V6 in 2010 wouldn't make a difference to crash performance is hollow and you prove that by not being able to back it up.

Please spare me your attempt at an insult.

Well, If i didn't read the thing, I wouldn't have been commenting on it now, Would i?..
I wouldn't have been making many comments that have made plenty of sense, That are clearly past your head as you clearly haven't read them.

Now, Pedestrian, Adults not children, Did you read what mikmak posted?.
However, It was not me that said it didn't crash well, However i did say it crashed well, But not talking pedestrians as was said when you alluded to the fact it doesn't crash well according to some.


Now points earned is one thing, If you look at them, You will see it closer then you think, Think of the points deducted and the fact it's missing a few items, And the point scoring is much closer..

Frontal score was 1 point deducted for a door that came ajar, There is the 12.5 needed. Ad the passenger seatbelt warning, Another point.

It could be considered minute, If it infact was minute.. It's not. Measure front to A pillar, It's a great area to have some extra absorption, And something as large as the inline 6, Will take plenty of a frontal hit.

Aurion is FWD, Again it's extra mass is at the front, I believe it to be stronger for it.. You clearly believe it aswell more is better, I'm sick of repeating your own words which you ignore.
Truth be told, Ad the 2 points deducted from the aurions frontal crash, And it leaves both Falcon/Commodore in it's wake.

The bar hasn't moved, It's at the same point, There will be many 5 star cars in 12 months time, Everyone will remember the first for sure as a great achievement, But it's not going to sit alone for long, And it wont take an extra engineering miracle to achieve it, Or a new ground up design, Just tinkering, Because the base is already there.
But why is it you feel the need to make out as though I'm trying to say the FG is **** for safety ?, Are you truly that defensive?.

Since the V6 might never be fitted into this current car, I guess time will tell.
But you say i have nothing to prove it, Yes it's a hunch, But you would clearly have nothing to disprove it.
More are using V6's today for space and weight, There not moving only because a V6 crashes best are they?..

But you still didn't consider my argument, Will a V8 crash better then a V6, In the same car?. They never test it this way do they?.
But what is your feeling on it?.

[Slick_Holden]

Originally Posted by Generation IV

As much as it occurs rarely, I'll have to side with f&h on this one. It was expected and basically pre-determined (before the FG was actually tested) that the FG would fare worse in crash tests due to the inline-6 being longer than the V6's in the Commodore and Aurion. For its frontal design and the engine its carrying, the FG has achieved a remarkable score. Well done on that front....(pun not intended

When this thread turns into what politicians would call "aggressive negotiations" (in other words, a 'bitch fight'), then we can discuss the physics behind a crash test, the assumption that a longer front overhang will make a car perform worse and receive a lower score (recent results show otherwise), and etc.

When Ford drop the V6 into the Falcon's engine bay, expect relatively heavy front end modifications and an impact on the FG's crash test score. What's unclear about this rather drastic powerhouse transfer is whether it will increase or decrease the FG's ANCAP score. Most brains will tell you that if engineered right, Ford could actually take advantage and enhance the FG's already brilliant score with the oppurtunity of a better pedestrian crash test score, but some could argue that Ford could mash it up and the score will decrease due to the possibility that Ford Aus's plan for the V6's introduction is to use lighter materials for the front end because of the V6s lighter mass and they could see this as an oppurtunity to lighten the Falcon, but that seemingly good idea could also affect crash test results with lighter materials possibly performing worse. Its all up to Ford......im split on whether thats a good or bad thing lol. Hopefully their R&D division is much more bright than their marketing department...

It's a situation that could go both ways in that respect. Hopefully Bill Osbourne will use his brain for once and invest wisely.

You have disagreed, But then almost agreed in there.

You clearly also believe frontal size is important to an accident, Or you wouldn't have mentioned the V6 if done right or wrong will crash better or worse etc..

FH does also, But he wont say it, He has issues with size in an accident, But again wont say it.

But clearly something will have to be done for the V6 to go into the Falcon, It's not going to be a drop in, If it was, I'd like to see the score on the crash test.
But that wont happen, Because they will need to improve strength around it, That is no lie.. And that is why many believe that long motor is great in a frontal crash, It can absorb a lot of force front on.
A Short V6, Usually will not even come into contact in an accident, So much of the impact is needed to be absorbed by the body alone..

One other thing, Is it just me, Or do FWD large cars crash better frontal?.
Witnessed a front on accident a few years ago, A VL and Camry, Both 80's models.. The VL came off worst, The drivers door was half stuck, The camry both doors open fine.. I was thinking being FWD, All the mass is pressed up front, It might hurt the driver more, Shock to the system, But the car will survive better.

[ford&holden]

Originally Posted by Slick_Holden

Please spare me your attempt at an insult.

Well, If i didn't read the thing, I wouldn't have been commenting on it now, Would i?..
I wouldn't have been making many comments that have made plenty of sense, That are clearly past your head as you clearly haven't read them.

Now, Pedestrian, Adults not children, Did you read what mikmak posted?.
However, It was not me that said it didn't crash well, However i did say it crashed well, But not talking pedestrians as was said when you alluded to the fact it doesn't crash well according to some.


Now points earned is one thing, If you look at them, You will see it closer then you think, Think of the points deducted and the fact it's missing a few items, And the point scoring is much closer..

Frontal score was 1 point deducted for a door that came ajar, There is the 12.5 needed. Ad the passenger seatbelt warning, Another point.

It could be considered minute, If it infact was minute.. It's not. Measure front to A pillar, It's a great area to have some extra absorption, And something as large as the inline 6, Will take plenty of a frontal hit.

Aurion is FWD, Again it's extra mass is at the front, I believe it to be stronger for it.. You clearly believe it aswell more is better, I'm sick of repeating your own words which you ignore.
Truth be told, Ad the 2 points deducted from the aurions frontal crash, And it leaves both Falcon/Commodore in it's wake.

The bar hasn't moved, It's at the same point, There will be many 5 star cars in 12 months time, Everyone will remember the first for sure as a great achievement, But it's not going to sit alone for long, And it wont take an extra engineering miracle to achieve it, Or a new ground up design, Just tinkering, Because the base is already there.
But why is it you feel the need to make out as though I'm trying to say the FG is **** for safety ?, Are you truly that defensive?.

Since the V6 might never be fitted into this current car, I guess time will tell.
But you say i have nothing to prove it, Yes it's a hunch, But you would clearly have nothing to disprove it.
More are using V6's today for space and weight, There not moving only because a V6 crashes best are they?..

But you still didn't consider my argument, Will a V8 crash better then a V6, In the same car?. They never test it this way do they?.
But what is your feeling on it?.

Do you confuse yourself?

Refer back to Mikmaks post, number 77.

No more needs to be said.

[Slick_Holden]

Originally Posted by ford&holden

Do you confuse yourself?

Refer back to Mikmaks post, number 77.

No more needs to be said.

That is usually the replay from a bully, When someone stand up to them.

[Baz]

Intriguing.

Lets have a look at it like this

Ford 1
Holden 0

However it doesn't reflect in sales which is a shame.

[Slick_Holden]

No doubt it's a win to Ford, And set the game into overdrive, Now it's catch up..
But on the other side, I remember ford never giving a **** they didn't have IRS..
Even the fact they didn't offer as many airbags etc, So in many ways it shouldn't scare off people, Ford wasn't worried about the VE, I'm sure there not in the corner ****ting bricks right now.
However i would like to see them upgrade some other things before they jump at 5 stars.

[ford&holden]

Originally Posted by Slick_Holden

No doubt it's a win to Ford, And set the game into overdrive, Now it's catch up..
But on the other side, I remember ford never giving a **** they didn't have IRS..
Even the fact they didn't offer as many airbags etc, So in many ways it shouldn't scare off people, Ford wasn't worried about the VE, I'm sure there not in the corner ****ting bricks right now.
However i would like to see them upgrade some other things before they jump at 5 stars.

FG performes better in a crash than VE, simple.
That's what this thread is about, remember...

[ford&holden]

Originally Posted by Baz

Intriguing.

Lets have a look at it like this

Ford 1
Holden 0

However it doesn't reflect in sales which is a shame.

Not all is lost, Ford's total locally produced sales are almost line ball with Holdens locally produced volume.
FG will never overtake VE for yearly sales.

[Slick_Holden]

Originally Posted by ford&holden

FG performes better in a crash than VE, simple.
That's what this thread is about, remember...

Is it?, Don't give me that Holden sells more cars then Ford jargon.

[Slick_Holden]

My email to ANCAP, About engines in crashes. And do some crash better or worse.

Dear *****

I refer to your question, submitted to the ANCAP website, about engine
types.

Designing vehicles to do well in regulation and ANCAP crash tests is a
complex task. Manufacturers conduct many computer simulations and
prototype crash tests when developing new models. These include the
different engine options that might be available and for a wide range
of types of crashes.

Any differences would depend on the particular crash characteristics and
any advantages that one engine might have in a certain crash might be
reversed in another type of crash.

Regards

******** ****
Technical Manager ANCAP

I followed up with a simple question, The most important part of the puzzle is the cars body in the crash right?, Engines which crash better etc are a bonus to a good crashing body?..

"It's really about the cars body saftey first, And anything else is a
bonus." - in effect - Yes

Regards

******* ****
Technical Manager ANCAP