jpd80 Posted August 6, 2008 Share Posted August 6, 2008 Falcon makes history with 5-star crash protection ratingRichard Blackburn, drive.com.au, August 6, 2008 Full Story Here Ford Australia has confirmed that the new Falcon sedan has been awarded a maximum five stars in independent crash tests. The new Ford FG Falcon has become the first Australian-built car to score five stars in independent crash tests. The Falcon was subjected to three crash tests by the Australasian New Car Assessment Program (ANCAP) and gained a combined score of 34.6 points out of a possible 37, which placed the car in the top 25 per cent of five-star results. The result puts Falcon on par with some leading European manufacturers of recently released family cars. The Audi A4 scored 34.45 points, while the Volvo V70 scored 34.2 points. Watch the video of the frontal crash test. Watch the video of the pole crash test. Excellent news for Ford Australia. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IMSA-XJR9 Posted August 6, 2008 Share Posted August 6, 2008 Great news! I think the Flex just received a 5-star rating as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ford Jellymoulds Posted August 6, 2008 Share Posted August 6, 2008 Not as good as the Fiat 500 that scored 34.91 in the Aussie crash tests but thats great news JPD a great result for the Falcon. http://www.howsafeisyourcar.com.au/_script...ult.php?IID=213 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted August 6, 2008 Author Share Posted August 6, 2008 (edited) Thanks FJM, everyone at Ford Australia worked hard on this project and now the Falcon eclipses zeta Commodore for safety. The Falcon achieved the 34.6 score using thorax airbags only and is only one of a handful of cars in the world to do so. Imagine how much better the score would have been with the curtain airbags which are an option on all models. New Falcon Advertisement with ANCAP 5 Star rating :banana piano: :party2: :party2: Edited August 6, 2008 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted August 6, 2008 Share Posted August 6, 2008 Not as good as the Fiat 500 that scored 34.91 in the Aussie crash tests but thats great news JPD a great result for the Falcon.http://www.howsafeisyourcar.com.au/_script...ult.php?IID=213 What in God's name does the Fiat 500 have to do with this topic? Can you please leave that car out of it?!?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron W. Posted August 6, 2008 Share Posted August 6, 2008 What in God's name does the Fiat 500 have to do with this topic? Can you please leave that car out of it?!?! What? You want a thread to stay on topic? Here? On this site? Trying to set a first? He did at least mention the crash test ratings. :shades: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted August 6, 2008 Share Posted August 6, 2008 What? You want a thread to stay on topic? Here? On this site? Trying to set a first? He did at least mention the crash test ratings. :shades: I'm sure it will go off topic eventually....but the man has an unhealthy obsession that that fugly little Fiat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted August 6, 2008 Share Posted August 6, 2008 As a note, frontal crash test ratings are generally not comparable between classes. Why? Because the vehicle is thrown at a stationary object, meaning that the impact forces are proportional to the weight of the vehicle. The Oz system may factor that in, but IIHS, NCAP and EuroNCAP don't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cougarpower Posted August 6, 2008 Share Posted August 6, 2008 Not as good as the Fiat 500 that scored 34.91 in the Aussie crash tests but thats great news JPD a great result for the Falcon.http://www.howsafeisyourcar.com.au/_script...ult.php?IID=213 so this means Ford will have another award since the car that will match the 500 and its non other than the Ford Ka :happy feet: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ford Jellymoulds Posted August 6, 2008 Share Posted August 6, 2008 so this means Ford will have another award since the car that will match the 500 and its non other than the Ford Ka :happy feet: Yes is does look good for the new Ka that small cars can be "Built Tough", Only 4 Fords got rated under the new Aussie points system. 1st Fiat 500/Ka? 34.91 2nd Ford Falcon 34.6 3rd Ford Focus LHD 32.46 4th Ford Fiesta 24.84 5th Ford Escape 24.6 Big is not always better in a crash. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted August 6, 2008 Share Posted August 6, 2008 Big is not always better in a crash. Geez. Did you not read what I wrote earlier? Small car ratings in frontal crash tests are not comparable to large car ratings. http://www.safercar.gov/portal/site/saferc...fd17898RCRD#iq8 Since the rating reflects a crash between two similar vehicles, make sure you compare vehicles from the same weight class, plus or minus 250 lbs., when looking at frontal crash star ratings http://www.iihs.org/ratings/frontal_test_info.html Given equivalent frontal ratings for heavier and lighter vehicles, the heavier vehicle typically will offer better protection in real-world crashes. http://www.aaa.asn.au/ancap.htm This is why crash test results shouldn’t be compared among vehicles with large weight differences. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted August 6, 2008 Share Posted August 6, 2008 Side impact ratings are more comparable than frontal ratings, between vehicles of different classes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ford Jellymoulds Posted August 6, 2008 Share Posted August 6, 2008 Side impact ratings are more comparable than frontal ratings, between vehicles of different classes. Bigger they are the harder they fall Richard http://bridger.us/2002/12/16/CrashTestingM...operVsFordF150/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted August 6, 2008 Share Posted August 6, 2008 Bigger they are the harder they fall Richardhttp://bridger.us/2002/12/16/CrashTestingM...operVsFordF150/ 1: That's the previous F150. This is the current F150: http://www.iihs.org/ratings/image.ashx?rh=192&id=2 2: What part of NOT COMPARABLE do you not understand? Let me put "NOT COMPARABLE" into nice SI terms: F150 curb weight: 1830kg Mini curb weight: 1197kg F150 kinetic energy at time of impact: 12,708,333 J Mini kinetic energy at time of impact: 8,312,500 J In simple terms: THE F150 WAS SUBJECTED TO AN IMPACT FORCE FIFTY PERCENT HIGHER THAN THE MINI Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted August 6, 2008 Share Posted August 6, 2008 Maybe they should re-do the front impact test. Instead of running into a stationary object, have the car being tested hurdled toward an F-550 coming toward it at the same speed. Those results would be a LOT more telling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catalepsy Posted August 6, 2008 Share Posted August 6, 2008 How did the Mini do for rear passenger rear impact? That's gotta be a meat grinder back there. I would not want to be back there when an F150 rams it. 1: That's the previous F150. This is the current F150: http://www.iihs.org/ratings/image.ashx?rh=192&id=2 2: What part of NOT COMPARABLE do you not understand? Let me put "NOT COMPARABLE" into nice SI terms: F150 curb weight: 1830kg Mini curb weight: 1197kg F150 kinetic energy at time of impact: 12,708,333 J Mini kinetic energy at time of impact: 8,312,500 J In simple terms: THE F150 WAS SUBJECTED TO AN IMPACT FORCE FIFTY PERCENT HIGHER THAN THE MINI Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ford Jellymoulds Posted August 6, 2008 Share Posted August 6, 2008 1: That's the previous F150. This is the current F150: http://www.iihs.org/ratings/image.ashx?rh=192&id=2 2: What part of NOT COMPARABLE do you not understand? Let me put "NOT COMPARABLE" into nice SI terms: F150 curb weight: 1830kg Mini curb weight: 1197kg F150 kinetic energy at time of impact: 12,708,333 J Mini kinetic energy at time of impact: 8,312,500 J In simple terms: THE F150 WAS SUBJECTED TO AN IMPACT FORCE FIFTY PERCENT HIGHER THAN THE MINI 22 gauge tin that they are both made from does carry any magical powers into a crash Richard but the heavy weight has the ability to crush more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted August 6, 2008 Share Posted August 6, 2008 (edited) I think the reason for using a fixed barrier is that a moving striker (weighing as much as the 'average' car) and a fixed target would dramatically alter the safety rating for smaller vehicles, and neither the mfrs. nor the testing bodies want that Also, fatalities and injuries in accidents are such a (comparably) rare occurrence that it's probably impossible to remove the static (driver impairment, driver irresponsibility, driver error, road conditions, etc.) from the meaningful data in real world accidents. Edited August 6, 2008 by RichardJensen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted August 6, 2008 Share Posted August 6, 2008 I think the reason for using a fixed barrier is that a moving striker (weighing as much as the 'average' car) and a fixed target would dramatically alter the safety rating for smaller vehicles, and neither the mfrs. nor the testing bodies want that Of course the manufacturers don't want that! Then people might realize that large vehicles are safer than small ones. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timmm55 Posted August 6, 2008 Share Posted August 6, 2008 http://www.break.com/index/truck_crashes_i...mpact_cars.html nuff said! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted August 6, 2008 Share Posted August 6, 2008 That first car looks like a Citroen 2CV Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_the_limey Posted August 6, 2008 Share Posted August 6, 2008 (edited) A picture says a 1000 words: http://www.motorauthority.com/news/safety/...dac-crash-test/ The Q7 driver would have continued talking on the mobile! :blah: Edited August 6, 2008 by jon_the_limey Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted August 6, 2008 Author Share Posted August 6, 2008 The Falcon passed the side impact pole test using Thorax air bags, only a handful of cars have ever done that as most need to use curtain airbags. The Falcon also has curtain airbags optional on the base model and standard on mid and high series. The safety score would have been much higher with the curtain airbag versions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted August 6, 2008 Share Posted August 6, 2008 A picture says a 1000 words: http://www.motorauthority.com/news/safety/...dac-crash-test/ The Q7 driver would have continued talking on the mobile! :blah: That video also makes a case for crash compatibility, as the Q7 appears to ride over the 500. http://www.iihs.org/research/topics/compatibility.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ford Jellymoulds Posted August 6, 2008 Share Posted August 6, 2008 A picture says a 1000 words: http://www.motorauthority.com/news/safety/...dac-crash-test/ The Q7 driver would have continued talking on the mobile! :blah: High sided vehicles with a high centre of gravity like a Range Rover or Land Rover SUV's are easy to to roll over they should have more tests on rollovers as a lot of folk die in these sort of crashes in the real world Jon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.