What new car to get??

jase1

pwllbwdr wrote: »

Last go. Because "making mincemeat" or not is not the way to assess how a vehicle performs in a collision.

If your objection boils down to inappropriate use of language then I am quite prepared to withdraw the quote on that basis. And I do acknowledge that it was an oversimplification, both in terms of the apparent damage, and indeed the actual damage to occupants, because of course it is possible for a modern car to look a lot worse than it really is if the safety systems have done their job.

However, I stand by my basic point that if you value safety, a good NCAP rating is only part of the answer -- weight and size play their part as well. I feel that the current tendency to assume safety on the basis of a limited set of tests is dangerous.

Crash tests into free-moving targets of set weights and deformation profiles would be a very good way of imparting a more accurate picture of vehicle safety IMO.

pwllbwdr

Fair enough. I think the effect of size/mass is far less than most would expect.

Kilty_2

ONCE AGAIN, I went from one of the safest 5 star cars money can buy to a 3 star supermini. Do I care? Do I f:mad:k.

Does Chimera? Only he/she can answer, I guess not though. Does anyone really buy a car based on it's crash test? Doubtful After all, driving is a dangerous activity and if it scares you that much - WALK!

Random

bigjl wrote: »

The Fiat 500 scored 5 NCAP Stars.

The Fiat Panda scored 3 NCAP Stars.

As far as I can tell, the Panda's NCAP was done in 2004 and has never been redone? The report for instance says there is no passenger airbag, mine definitely has one. I don't know what other changes have been made safety wise since.

I'm happy with my Panda, I have no idea how well it would do in a crash, but it has to be better than the 12 year old Astra I replaced, surely?