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

[MAGPIE]

Originally Posted by asagaai

Yes- the small car has less kinetic energy to dissipate, but what comes into this is the structural design and strength of a vehicle. I would rather crash going at 60 kph into a pole head on in my Falcon than my wifes Honda Civic 1.6 diesel.

Similarly going sideways into a pole- I have seen the rails in a Civic, and the rails in my Falcon, is like the difference in steel between a Hummer and an Abrahams tank....

Generally, what is most concerning is the lack of structural strength of the body/chassis. Forget all the standards about electronic warning gumph, when things go foul and they will for people, you want good airbags and as the final defence to life a limb, as strong a structure as you can get.

And the comment about what if you hit a w4d does not matter.

Sure- hit a Mack truck/Bus/B Double- whatever.

But risk minimization in automotive industry is like climbing, the worst can happen that cannot be avoided like a column of cliff you are climbing on collapsing. Like hitting a B Double head on.

But you implement all possible risk minimization strategies to minimize your exposure to risk- its playing mathematical odds.

And in cars that means active safety (good tyres, brakes, steering, handling to maximize accident avoidance) and passive safety if a crash occurs (seatbelt tensioners, airbags that work and positioned correctly, and STRONG STRUCTURE with progressive crush zones).

Not good enough in such a major world car with high performance engine and companies doing HP supercharging to have weak structure.

Wrong post quoted.

[chrisandsharon]

Originally Posted by lari1eye

Another Bullcrap wheels story, continuing their fine anti Ford history.
In the Ford statement.."The statement also asserted that the ANCAP tests were now “more tailored to family cars and people movers” than sports cars such as the Mustang.
Have a look at the Euro NCAP and see how many large two door cars there have been tested. How many Porsches have been tested. One. The FOUR door Macan. Mercs, a 2011 coupe. None with the new testing regime. As Ford said, the ford was designed before the new testing rules were implemented.
As I said, wheels does it again.

Who the **** cares???

They tested it, it performed like a 3 legged greyhound on Raceday.......end of story. You can look at it as WHEELS bashing FORD (don't agree), and all the endless variables of why it is, personally I couldn't give a rats mate. Fact is FORD need to make the Mustang safer, and if they do then maybe the cars you mention will benefit - who knows/who cares....fix the Mustang.

Anyway this will end up in the usual 20 page garbage of 'yeah but' BS so I'm out.

I'm going to put a couple of Aussie flags on the Aussie built F6 and take the family to Kangaroo Valley for a pub lunch. Let's just hope a Mustang doesn't hit the mighty Aussie F6.......

[uniacidz]

Originally Posted by asagaai

I have had a look at video of the side impact tests on the Mustang- pole and full, and the Mustang did not perform that badly I thought. There was more general body flex than the FG test- but geez- looking at the vids not a hell of a lot in it.

Anyone know if ANCAP tested the FGX?

Heres two links for it
5 out of 5 Rating as of 2013-2014 tesing


http://www.ancap.com.au/safety-ratin.../falcon/0e7bdf

and heres a detailed PDF
http://s3.amazonaws.com/cdn.ancap.co...pdf?1417387331

http://www.ancap.com.au/safety-ratings-explained#5-star

[.:4:.]

Originally Posted by asagaai

Little comfort if you are driving a Mustang and get T boned by a ****ed driver running a red light and get hit on the door with weak structure and had mistiming air bags to boot.

Do not get me wrong, I really liked to look of the new Mustang, and in my head was thinking when my FXG XR8 is fully amortised in about 4 years, keeping the FGX as a weekend modded toy and getting a mustang, and maybe getting it supercharged (was going to see how the getrag went on reliability though).

But I will look elsewhere cause when I was an 18 year old kid making do as a student I put up driving substrength vehicles, but now and blowing $70,000- no way- will look german unless Ford ups the ante.

And the crap about the standard being for family cars- what crap- sounds like Trumps alternative truth facts....

I also have a look at safety as well as comfort and go when I but personal cars. Work cars I get what I'm given. Another interesting fact about the good old L300 is the crumple zone is the foot well where the legs of the driver and passenger are. I have had the advise from a few people that if you are certain you are going have a frontal impact, get off the brake and try to knee your self in the head with both knees. It reduces the chance of loosing both legs. I still wouldn't not buy a mustang if I didn't need 4 doors for a family car. Yes ford have dropped the ball, but it's still an appealing car.

[MAGPIE]

Originally Posted by chrisandsharon

Did the doors of the FGII open due to its 'Sud-standard crash structure', did the dummy's heads hit the steering wheel and dash at full force before the airbags deployed?.....no.

What an alarmist bunch of crap !

[Express]

Originally Posted by lari1eye

Another Bullcrap wheels story, continuing their fine anti Ford history.
In the Ford statement.."The statement also asserted that the ANCAP tests were now “more tailored to family cars and people movers” than sports cars such as the Mustang.
Have a look at the Euro NCAP and see how many large two door cars there have been tested. How many Porsches have been tested. One. The FOUR door Macan. Mercs, a 2011 coupe. None with the new testing regime. As Ford said, the ford was designed before the new testing rules were implemented.
As I said, wheels does it again.

What a load of nonsense.

The same story has been carried by print, web and television media all around the motoring world.

Regardless of what Wheels Magazine may think of Ford this report is not just a Wheels hate campaign.



.

[DJR-351]

Originally Posted by chrisandsharon

Who the **** cares???

They tested it, it performed like a 3 legged greyhound on Raceday.......end of story. You can look at it as WHEELS bashing FORD (don't agree), and all the endless variables of why it is, personally I couldn't give a rats mate. Fact is FORD need to make the Mustang safer, and if they do then maybe the cars you mention will benefit - who knows/who cares....fix the Mustang.

Anyway this will end up in the usual 20 page garbage of 'yeah but' BS so I'm out.

I'm going to put a couple of Aussie flags on the Aussie built F6 and take the family to Kangaroo Valley for a pub lunch. Let's just hope a Mustang doesn't hit the mighty Aussie F6.......

So of it goes out to 20 pages with some of those posters disagreeing with you, those posts will be BS?

Obviously your **** poor conversationalist when others disagree with your views, but I do agree with you on one point, 'go out'......

[CyberWasp]

A car designed 3 years ago failed a test that only started this year.... who would have thought.

[Fordman1]

Originally Posted by chrisandsharon

It's sub-standard crash structure and airbags would still have failed and put it on the safety radar. Technology has brought about crash avoidance etc etc which is great, but a big concern from ANCAP is the crash structure that needs to be addressed on an engineering level. FORD can fix the airbag issue and address safety technology, but the crash structure needs fixing.
The FGII was rated 5 stars, this included crashing the car with dummies inside - the airbags and crash structure worked properly.

Go back to 2014 in a time machine and report back on the Mustang doing the the test ANCAP was doing back then.

Like I said the FGII is a 2 star car based on Safety Avoidance technology content if it was retested today.

[Fordman1]

Originally Posted by uniacidz

Heres two links for it
5 out of 5 Rating as of 2013-2014 tesing


http://www.ancap.com.au/safety-ratin.../falcon/0e7bdf

and heres a detailed PDF
http://s3.amazonaws.com/cdn.ancap.co...pdf?1417387331

http://www.ancap.com.au/safety-ratings-explained#5-star

The hilarious thing is the FGX wasn't even tested, they carried over the FG test results done by Ford from 2008.

What were the standards and requirements for 5 star in 2008 ?

The devil is in the detail.

How can we compare ratings when the criteria changed ?

[Bill M]

Originally Posted by Express

What a load of nonsense.

The same story has been carried by print, web and television media all around the motoring world.

Regardless of what Wheels Magazine may think of Ford this report is not just a Wheels hate campaign.
.

No, it is not a "hate campaign" it is a poorly written article that makes illogical comparisons with tests done on cars from 1998 (Sonata)
Poor journalism on the part of Wheels, that's all.
Bill.

[Express]

I don’t think the fact the current Mustang doesn’t have newer electronic features like autonomous emergency braking or lane keeping assistance is in question as these will be added in a later update.

From the articles I’ve read it’s the failure of airbags to inflate properly and the car falls short in the frontal-offset and side-impact tests used in Australia that is the bigger concern.


This statement by James Goodwin, ANCAP Chief Executive as reported in the Drive article should raise some questions.

Unlike the majority of passenger cars, many sports cars are not crash-tested as they are too expensive to be bought and smashed in triplicate. Benchmark models such as the Porsche 911, Mercedes-Benz SL do not carry independently assessed safety ratings, but the Mustang's relatively affordable price and global popularity pushed EuroNCAP to put it to the test.

The shock result - which gives the Mustang the same star score as China's first-generation Great Wall ute - is a graphic example of the differences between European and American crash tests programs.

Goodwin says ANCAP tried to crash-test the car locally, but Ford was reluctant to comply with the independent body's requests.

"This car has been on our radar for some time and we've been trying to get a rating for consumers as quickly as we can," he says.

"Unfortunately the brand was not assisting us to get a rating out for the mustang. And it's now quite clear why they weren't assisting us."

For its part, Ford says it "worked proactively with Euro-NCAP who then shared the result with ANCAP to assist in providing a result".

The shock score could bury any chance of the Mustang serving with police forces which shortlisted the Mustang as a potential replacement for Ford Falcon and Holden Commodore highway patrol vehicles.

http://www.drive.com.au/motor-news/s...=homePageNews1



I’m sure if this test result was for a vehicle produced by another manufacturer other than Ford the comments here would be more scathing.

I remember when the VE Commodore was released it didn’t achieve a 5 star rating until Holden fitted a sensor and warning light to indicate the front passenger had secured their seatbelt and it was being referred to on some forums as a deathtrap and yet it passed the relevant crash tests.

I’m not a true believer in ANCAP and all its derivative's testing criteria as I see it has some limitations and to roughly quote a media release from Mercedes-Benz, the ANCAP type test are great if you’re lucky enough to be in a motor vehicle accident that suffers damage in the exact same positions as the ANCAP tests, otherwise you may find that the vehicle is very lacking in strength in other areas.

They believed the ANCAP tests were having the negative effect where manufacturers had begun to focus the integrity of the vehicle in areas just to get good ratings and cutting corners everywhere else.

Of course to be fair, their statement was also pushing their own agenda that crash avoidance systems that Mercedes were known for should be given a much higher focus and scores over those vehicles that didn’t utilise them.


.

[Cav]

Poor image in the media does damage sales.

[LoudPipes]

Originally Posted by Bill M

No, it is not a "hate campaign" it is a poorly written article that makes illogical comparisons with tests done on cars from 1998 (Sonata)
Poor journalism on the part of Wheels, that's all.
Bill.

There are worst articles being written than the one from Wheels.

Start reading some of the ones being filed by the US media.

They are making references to possible injuries to child passengers and saying that Ford never expected EuroNCAP to test the Mustang and therefore deliberately choose not to fit the safety technology in European and Australian vehicles which is available to American consumers as standard equipment and that such an attitude to safety should be troublesome to Ford’s customers whether they be buying a regular family car or a high powered muscle car.

Sounds like blaming Wheels Magazine for poor journalism is just trying to shoot the local messenger.

[Pedro]

Trust that pathetic rag, Wheels, to headline anything anti-Ford it can find.

[Joe5619]

That's terrible.. I had fully intended to buy a Mustang as my next new car.. This will defiantly make me think twice now. Weather it changes my mind, I don't know just yet, but safety has to be one of the most important parts of any car I buy.

It's just a shame they change the ratings, so you can't compare older cars with newer ones. My current FG Flacon sourced 5 stars & I have no idea how the compares. Would I be moving to a less safer car?

[DJM83]

Originally Posted by Joe5619

That's terrible.. I had fully intended to buy a Mustang as my next new car.. This will defiantly make me think twice now. Weather it changes my mind, I don't know just yet, but safety has to be one of the most important parts of any car I buy.

It's just a shame they change the ratings, so you can't compare older cars with newer ones. My current FG Flacon sourced 5 stars & I have no idea how the compares. Would I be moving to a less safer car?

If i were looking at a mustang prior to this crash test. After it id still be looking at one, it wouldnt deter me at all.

[DFB FGXR6]

Originally Posted by paulb351

The difference comes down to the speed of the crash, NHTSA NCAP is done at 54km/h and the other at 64km/h. Lot more energy in a higher speed crash...

I think this illustrates the problem with organisations like NCAP/ANCAP/NHTSA. In many ways they have pushed, named and shamed to the benefit of the consumer. But the problem is it has forced manufacturers to design and engineer their products to pass the tests that will be presented in the official tests. This is shown by the fact that a Mustang will get a 5 star result in the NHTSA test but fail and score a 2 star in the NCAP.

At the end of the day, this doesn't excuse the fact Ford failed to cater to all safety tests, but the system is flawed and I get the feeling that Ford has been chosen to make an example of to promote NCAP's agenda. Ford, a large well known brand, and a highly desirable and successful model make better headlines than "Chinese made car scores poor 2 star safety score"...........


Anyway, I look forward to my red, V8 manual death trap Mustang with anticipation

[Nikked]

I'm more worried about how lane change alert and other buzzers ect can contribute so high towards the ANCAP score...

[nitro50th]

Would have been nice if the article by both Wheels and ANCAP had an explanation of the differences of the 'new criteria' to the old system.

I understand (according to the articles) that the car may have some safety shortcomings, but moving the goal posts and calling the car a death trap may be a bit misleading.

[aussie muscle]

Originally Posted by CyberWasp

A car designed 3 years ago failed a test that only started this year.... who would have thought.

If you start taking OUT safety features to save money, you deserve what you get...

"The other big factor in the poor rating is lack of sufficient active safety technology, a fact for which NCAP scorn Ford in the press release, saying:

Ford did not expect Euro NCAP to test the Mustang and chose not to fit safety technology in Europe which is available to its American consumers, and available on several other sports cars for that matter. Such an attitude to safety should trouble Ford’s customers, whether they are buying a high-powered muscle car or a regular family car."

source: http://jalopnik.com/the-ford-mustang...pea-1791620670

[ozrunner]

Originally Posted by Joe5619

That's terrible.. I had fully intended to buy a Mustang as my next new car.. This will defiantly make me think twice now. Weather it changes my mind, I don't know just yet, but safety has to be one of the most important parts of any car I buy.

It's just a shame they change the ratings, so you can't compare older cars with newer ones. My current FG Flacon sourced 5 stars & I have no idea how the compares. Would I be moving to a less safer car?

Joe.

Mate, you’re getting paranoid if you're thinking that way.

I don’t know your age but what was the so called safety rating of all the previous cars you have owned and did that have any bearing on your decisions given they were not up to any later standards.

I have owned quite a few cars in my time but ONLY in September 2016 did I finally purchase a car that actually has freaking airbags plus something called ABS , ie FG ute. My other vehicles have sweet fanny adams other than seat belts but it doesn’t deter me from using them.

These tests were also only done at 64 k's and involve only the car itself and only cover basic possible scenarios so they really mean squat, ie another car hitting you head on at also 64 means an impact of 128. Why don’t they do this and what would the results be then ??? Probably because every car would fail miserably and everyone would go back to pushbikes and they would be out of a job.

Two cars head on at 110 means an impact of 220 and the only benefit of airbags and all the other stuff might be you may look a little prettier in your coffin but you will still be in it !!!!

The bottom line is yes it might give you some piece of mind if only you side swipe a tree at 64k/hour but that’s like winning lotto versus all the other possibilities you may encounter.

The best defence is to always drive sensibly and be alert so enjoy driving a new Stang.

[Express]

Originally Posted by ozrunner

Joe.

Mate, you’re getting paranoid if you're thinking that way.

I don’t know your age but what was the so called safety rating of all the previous cars you have owned and did that have any bearing on your decisions given they were not up to any later standards.

I have owned quite a few cars in my time but ONLY in September 2016 did I finally purchase a car that actually has freaking airbags plus something called ABS , ie FG ute. My other vehicles have sweet fanny adams other than seat belts but it doesn’t deter me from using them.

These tests were also only done at 64 k's and involve only the car itself and only cover basic possible scenarios so they really mean squat, ie another car hitting you head on at also 64 means an impact of 128. Why don’t they do this and what would the results be then ??? Probably because every car would fail miserably and everyone would go back to pushbikes and they would be out of a job.

Two cars head on at 110 means an impact of 220 and the only benefit of airbags and all the other stuff might be you may look a little prettier in your coffin but you will still be in it !!!!

The bottom line is yes it might give you some piece of mind if only you side swipe a tree at 64k/hour but that’s like winning lotto versus all the other possibilities you may encounter.

The best defence is to always drive sensibly and be alert so enjoy driving a new Stang.

You’ve only just recently bought a car with an airbag, my 1995 Clubsport had an airbag and ABS and that’s 22 years ago.

Airbags are not expected to help you survive head on crashes over 100kph they are there to help reduce the road toll and injuries for minor accidents, its avoidance technology that is being introduced to help decrease the number of high impacts.

As Mercedes-Benz says, it doesn’t matter how well constructed your vehicle is in a high impact collision because even if the car maintains it structural integrity the human body is so fragile the impact will turn the internal organs to mush anyway and you are then in the hands of God and not the car manufacturer.

With your way off thinking we should be happy to drive cars without seatbelts as well.

Good driving and alertness may be the key to saving lives but when you add the human factor that goes out the window and today cars are being designed to make up for human mistakes and carelessness and I know I'd prefer to have a car for my family that is chockers with safety technology then without.

These tests alone probably wouldn't stop me from buying a Mustang but I would now most likely wait until the model update.

.

[FPV+fteT3]

Its fine to say an FG would also only get 2 stars on the new scale because it has no tech like heads up or lane departure etc... but at least the FG structure remains intact the doors stay shut and the airbags inflate before you loose teeth the Mustang by any comparison to an FG in a crash test is a real POS.
If you were looking for something to put your wife in the front and kids in the back the scores and results of the test should be more important than the silver badge on the boot. A structure that allows doors to open and airbags to not inflate in time is unacceptable or should be in 2017. The fan bois will try to defend the indefensible but apples for apples it is not anywhere near as safe as the last falcon.

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by asagaai

Little comfort if you are driving a Mustang and get T boned by a ****ed driver running a red light and get hit on the door with weak structure and had mistiming air bags to boot.

Do not get me wrong, I really liked to look of the new Mustang, and in my head was thinking when my FXG XR8 is fully amortised in about 4 years, keeping the FGX as a weekend modded toy and getting a mustang, and maybe getting it supercharged (was going to see how the getrag went on reliability though).

But I will look elsewhere cause when I was an 18 year old kid making do as a student I put up driving substrength vehicles, but now and blowing $70,000- no way- will look german unless Ford ups the ante.

And the crap about the standard being for family cars- what crap- sounds like Trumps alternative truth facts....

Id say the my18 should have better results. While i couldnt care less about driver aids the airbag and structural problems are of concern. So I would say it will get fixed.

[Bill M]

Originally Posted by LoudPipes

There are worst articles being written than the one from Wheels.

Start reading some of the ones being filed by the US media.

They are making references to possible injuries to child passengers and saying that Ford never expected EuroNCAP to test the Mustang and therefore deliberately choose not to fit the safety technology in European and Australian vehicles which is available to American consumers as standard equipment and that such an attitude to safety should be troublesome to Ford’s customers whether they be buying a regular family car or a high powered muscle car.

Sounds like blaming Wheels Magazine for poor journalism is just trying to shoot the local messenger.

No its not,
Wheels used to be better than this, if you want to be a respected publication you don't parrot the same rubbish as the rest.

[Express]

Originally Posted by Bill M

No its not,
Wheels used to be better than this, if you want to be a respected publication you don't parrot the same rubbish as the rest.

You obviously have a problem with Wheels and I guess by your insistence it’s deserved but Wheels didn’t design, manufacture or sell this variant of the Mustang, they’re just reporting this news much the same as everyone else.

If they hate Ford as much as you say and put them down at every opportunity then this time Ford has definitely given them the ammunition to do the job.

What do you want them to do with an article like this other than parrot like the rest, this is not a subjective review, it’s a news item.

Anyway you shouldn’t worry as all of us on this forum know that’s not a Mustang being tested in those photos, it’s a Commodore that Wheels have photoshopped some Mustang badges on.

Down with GM I say.

.

[Joe5619]

Originally Posted by ozrunner

Joe.

Mate, you’re getting paranoid if you're thinking that way.

I don’t know your age but what was the so called safety rating of all the previous cars you have owned and did that have any bearing on your decisions given they were not up to any later standards.

I have owned quite a few cars in my time but ONLY in September 2016 did I finally purchase a car that actually has freaking airbags plus something called ABS , ie FG ute. My other vehicles have sweet fanny adams other than seat belts but it doesn’t deter me from using them.

These tests were also only done at 64 k's and involve only the car itself and only cover basic possible scenarios so they really mean squat, ie another car hitting you head on at also 64 means an impact of 128. Why don’t they do this and what would the results be then ??? Probably because every car would fail miserably and everyone would go back to pushbikes and they would be out of a job.

Two cars head on at 110 means an impact of 220 and the only benefit of airbags and all the other stuff might be you may look a little prettier in your coffin but you will still be in it !!!!

The bottom line is yes it might give you some piece of mind if only you side swipe a tree at 64k/hour but that’s like winning lotto versus all the other possibilities you may encounter.

The best defence is to always drive sensibly and be alert so enjoy driving a new Stang.

I agree with some of what you are saying & yes I've driven & owned cars far less safe than my current FG.. But times change & with age is meant to come with new & better ways of doing things. Bottom line, my FG was built in Dec 2009 & a Mustang I buy won't be built until 2018/19.. Some ten years later & I can tell you right now, if the safety standards of new 2019 car aren't better than one built 10 year early, they aren't worth my money..

Having said all that, I probably won't give a **** when the time comes (bang for bucks) & get the Mustang, just very disappointing..

[Olbucko]

Originally Posted by ozrunner

Joe.

These tests were also only done at 64 k's and involve only the car itself and only cover basic possible scenarios so they really mean squat, ie another car hitting you head on at also 64 means an impact of 128. Why don’t they do this and what would the results be then ??? Probably because every car would fail miserably and everyone would go back to pushbikes and they would be out of a job.

Two cars head on at 110 means an impact of 220 and the only benefit of airbags and all the other stuff might be you may look a little prettier in your coffin but you will still be in it !!!!

Having a head on with another identical car doing say 64 kph, the same speed as you is still the same as hitting a brick wall at 64 even though the closing speed is 128 because both cars are absorbing the impact equally. However if you are doing 64 and you have a head on with 50 ton B Double doing 64 your car would be absorbing about 95% of the impact. much the same as hitting the brick wall at 125.
As the above post said " the only benefit of airbags and all the other stuff might be you may look a little prettier in your coffin but you will still be in it !!!!"

[Danny]

Originally Posted by Nikked

I'm more worried about how lane change alert and other buzzers ect can contribute so high towards the ANCAP score...

U read the article mate?

Old mate ncap said it was down to structural and primary safety system issues - Not just the buzzers and lights.

If this was a Commo or Chinese car you'd all be falling off your perches and choking on your popcorn.