# Interpretating NCAP results - 4 star SUV vs. 5 star car?



## smarthinking (3 Jul 2007)

Which is safer - a 4 star SUV - e.g. Hyundai Sante Fe or a 5 star car - e.g. Opel Zafira?  In a collision between these two, which would you rather be in?


----------



## cruchan09 (4 Jul 2007)

The tests carried out are the same irrespective of whether or not it is a car or an SUV. Four star cars offer less protection than five star cars. You need to look at the test results for the specific car / SUV on http://www.euroncap.com to see in what areas the SUV was weaker than the car. It probably scored less in pedestrian protection. I personally changed my wife's SUV (4 star) for a 5 star car recently as we have a couple of kids and I felt safer with the car (that and the fact that the SUV almost turned over going around a corner in the rain one night!)


----------



## demoivre (4 Jul 2007)

smarthinking said:


> Which is safer - a 4 star SUV - e.g. Hyundai Sante Fe or a 5 star car - e.g. Opel Zafira?  In a collision between these two, which would you rather be in?



In a head on collision I'd rather be in the SUV.


----------



## ang1170 (4 Jul 2007)

cruchan09 said:


> I personally changed my wife's SUV (4 star) for a 5 star car recently as we have a couple of kids and I felt safer with the car (that and the fact that the SUV almost turned over going around a corner in the rain one night!)


 
As far as I know, the NCAP tests only look at what happens in a crash, not how they are caused. The example above is far from unique: by their nature, SUVs are more likely to have a crash in the first place. Add to that and the fact that in this comparison it has a lower NCAP rating, I'd say there's no question: the car is safer.

The whole point about NCAP is that it's an independent, objective measurement.


----------



## ang1170 (4 Jul 2007)

demoivre said:


> In a head on collision I'd rather be in the SUV.


 
That's exactly one of the NCAP tests!


----------



## galwaytt (4 Jul 2007)

SUV's are inherently less stable, than cars, and there is no science at all that backs up the 'bigger-is-better' argument.

For instance, the Chrysler Voyager has a very poor rating, but the Renault Scenic a very good one.    But most people would assume that the Voyage would score well.  It doesn't.  You'd be safer in the small car.

Higher stars = better, irrespective of size, or 'perception'.


----------



## derryman (4 Jul 2007)

Euroncap categorically states that star ratings can only be viewed within the context of their groupings ie a five star super mini can not be viewed as safer than a three star SUV. Ultimately it gets back to two objects colliding ie speed and weight = force of impact - the heavier faster vehicle will result in more damage to the slower lighter vehicle. Where individual vehicles can protect is how they deform / crush in an impact - the 2.5 tonne SUV with rigid steel ladder chassis versus a 1.25 tonne unibody car - if the chassis / mounted CAB is stable then I would rather be in the SUV.

Also it all comes down to the actual point of impact - an SUV will hit a car at the upper pillars where a car is weakest - not at the bumper crumple zones - hence the deadly result of a SUV side impact. 

I drive a 2.5 tonne SUV with roof / side / knee airbags all round, ESP to control rollover and a separate rigid steel chassis with a mounted CAB that got five stars in euroncap - want to keep the wife and my four kids safe with all the uninsured crazy a$$holes around at the moment on the roads.


----------



## aldark (4 Jul 2007)

have a look at the ncap site - shows all the tests they carry out.  The two most interesting ones are the partial head on and the side impact tests. The partial head on is where half of the car ploughs into a stationary object.  These are the major contributors to the car's score.  

However, I would imagine that if the ncap ratings are a concern for anyone, that the main concern is an impact with another car - not a collision with a wall, parked car etc.  In this case, basic physics means that if the other car is heavier your car will experience more damage.  Of course this must be tempered with the height of the other car as pointed out above, higher chassis of suv's expose vulnerabilities of saloon cars.

In my evaluation of a safe car for family the result was a heavy saloon with a very strong safety record.  Based on 1) most suv's are inherently unstable especially in a side impact.  ESP will only help deal with conditions found while driving, not in a side on impact.  2) suv's are involved in more accidents. experience in US of kids being rolled over in drive of house due to larger blindspot. 

Mind you, if you get a truck, there's not much that can touch you!  There are some very large suv's alongside the more common small suvs seen around dublin - op should distinguish between the type of suv sought.  In considering the risk of injury from a crash one factor has to be what is the most likely car to be involved.  Majority of cars on the road are in the small family/micro/mini categories.

I also considered the operating costs of the car e.g. didn't want too high tax, insurance and petrol costs for what will basically be a very low mileage motor ferrying wife and kids around neighbourhood.  Heavy cars with big engines are great on the open road but very inefficient in the start-stop of traffic.


----------



## demoivre (4 Jul 2007)

ang1170 said:


> That's exactly one of the NCAP tests!



Therein lies the problem - the NCAP  frontal impact test involves the following:  " Each car tested is subjected to an offset impact into an immovable block fitted with a deformable aluminium honeycomb face. This impact is intended to represent the most frequent type of road crash, resulting in serious or fatal injury. It simulates one car having a frontal impact with another car of *similar mass*." The Santa Fe and Zafira are not of similar masses so where vehicles are of different masses the NCAP frontal impact test is of limited use. AFAIK there are no independent tests that crash different sizes/types /masses of vehicles in to each other to see which would come out best.  I have no worries about being involved in a single vehicle accident because I drive at speeds appropriate to the conditions and I don't drink and drive. The biggest fear I have on the roads are head on collisions or crashing in to a vehicle that exits form a side road, particularly in the rural areas where I live, so when I encounter a boy racer bombing around a bend in his honda civic or nissan  micra I am always glad I'm in my Touareg !


----------



## derryman (4 Jul 2007)

aldark said:


> 1) most suv's are inherently unstable especially in a side impact. ESP will only help deal with conditions found while driving, not in a side on impact. 2) suv's are involved in more accidents. experience in US of kids being rolled over in drive of house due to larger blindspot. .


 
to be honest - modern SUVs are extremely safe in side impacts - you are sitting above the point of impact (and force) - there is a risk of rollover - but that is where a study CAB frame and roof airbags come into play - if the vehicle was moving then the ESP would kick in to control the SUV lateral (sideways) movement compared to the directional steering input.- ELK test etc

Regarding the reversing blindspots - most cars these days seem to have terrible rear visibility - style over function I guess - hence the proliferation of rear parking radar devices - you just have to be very careful

a 1.6 petrol mini cooper S is worse for the environment than my 2.5 diesel SUV in terms of CO2 / fuel spend - can't help Irish VRT / road tax that seems to screw money out of taxpayers wherever possible


----------



## ang1170 (4 Jul 2007)

demoivre said:


> Therein lies the problem - the NCAP  frontal impact test involves the following:  &quot; Each car tested is subjected to an offset impact into an immovable block fitted with a deformable aluminium honeycomb face. This impact is intended to represent the most frequent type of road crash, resulting in serious or fatal injury. It simulates one car having a frontal impact with another car of *similar mass*.&quot; The Santa Fe and Zafira are not of similar masses so where vehicles are of different masses the NCAP frontal impact test is of limited use.


This is true. However, if you look at the condition of the "driver" for example, in each of the cars (Zafira and Santa Fe) on the NCAP Website, although there's not much in it, you're definitely better off in the Zafira (which has the higher rating).The common misconception is that "I'm driving a big strong car, so I'm therefore better off". Not true: the strength of a car has very little to do with its size. It's more the way it deforms when hit (and number and type of airbags etc.) that dictate how badly you'll be injured. In fact, it could be argued that the "basic physics" argument of "big equals better" should work the other way if anything: a large SUV crashing into something has more energy to dissipate than a small hatchback.


----------



## muffinsda (4 Jul 2007)

this might shed some light on the debate:
[broken link removed]


----------



## derryman (4 Jul 2007)

ang1170 said:


> In fact, it could be argued that the "basic physics" argument of "big equals better" should work the other way if anything: a large SUV crashing into something has more energy to dissipate than a small hatchback.


 
Without labouring a point - where exactly do you think the energy dissipates - why into the smaller car - either crushing it against an obstacle or throwing it out of the way of the heavier faster vehicle E=MC2


----------



## muffinsda (4 Jul 2007)

derryman said:


> Without labouring a point - where exactly do you think the energy dissipates - why into the smaller car - either crushing it against an obstacle or throwing it out of the way of the heavier faster vehicle E=MC2



Here's an example of how/where it dissipates:

from : http://www.saabnet.com/tsn/models/2001/pr18.html

"*Designed Deformation Helps Protect Occupants* 
  The body structure of the Saab 9-3 is designed to behave in a controlled and consistent manner during a crash, regardless of the accident type.  In a frontal or rear-end crash, the collision forces are absorbed by the crumple zones of the body and are then transferred to a reinforced high-strength steel safety cage that surrounds the interior.  The front structure of the Saab 9-3 is specifically designed to reduce the energy and force that occurs in a head-on crash.  The front chassis members are connected to the wheel arches and the engine subframe in such a manner that the forces will be well distributed over a broad area instead of being concentrated to any one point. Special reinforcements at the rear of the front wheel arches help minimize the risk of front-wheel intrusion into the interior in an offset crash. 
 A predictable deformation behavior enables the Saab engineers to optimize the design of the seat belts, airbags, dashboard and interior details, further reducing the risk of occupant injuries in a crash. 
*Pendulum Effect on Side Impact* 
 In the event of a side impact, only very narrow deformation zones are available to absorb the crash energy.  The body structure is designed mainly to distribute the impact forces over as large an area as possible.  The crash energy is absorbed by the side of the car, where the door pillar is made of high-strength steel, and the reinforcements in the sill and door pillar assist in distributing the impact forces to the safety cage surrounding the interior. 
 The door pillar of the Saab 9-3 is designed to behave as a pendulum in the event of a side collision. * Because crash energy from an impact will take the path of least resistance, Saab's engineers have designed into the "B" pillar a safer path that dissipates the crash energy downward.  The center section of the pillar is very stiff to prevent the pillar from deforming and intruding in the middle into the interior. The top of the "B" pillar is designed to perform as a "hinge" and retain its position when the lower half of the pillar is displaced inwards like a pendulum.  As a result, it is the most robust parts of the human body (the pelvis area) that will be subjected to most of the crash energy.*  This reduces the risk of injury to the more fragile parts of the body - the rib cage, head and torso."



So it's not all about brut force and sheer weight, proper design plays a more important role.


Also, from the previous link:
"So is the alleged advantage of size reason enough to buy an SUV? No. Because of their higher center of gravity, rollover crashes in SUVs account for 48% of vehicle occupant deaths, compared with about 20% for passenger cars. The heavier vehicle's greater size and weight crushes roofs as it rolls, often with disastrous effect on the occupants."


----------



## demoivre (4 Jul 2007)

ang1170 said:


> This is true. However, if you look at the condition of the "driver" for example, in each of the cars (Zafira and Santa Fe) on the NCAP Website, although there's not much in it, you're definitely better off in the Zafira (which has the higher rating).



A Zafira having a better rating  when it crashes in to a car of similar mass to itself than a Santa Fe crashing in to a vehicle of similar mass to itself ( ie the basis of the NCAP test ) does *not *mean that a Zafira will come out better  when it crashes in to a Santa Fe ie a vehicle of different  mass. A Ford Fiesta  may well have  a higher frontal impact NCAP rating than a Range Rover but in a head on collision between the two I know which one I would rather be in.


----------



## derryman (4 Jul 2007)

hmmm - statistics, damned statistics and lies

SAAB 95 and its 40mph deformation - note the a pillar and door failing - 10mph more = DOA (cars are engineered to a minimum cost nowadays)

http://www.euroncap.com/tests/saab_9_5_2003/156.aspx


VW SUV and its still solid - most modern SUVs behave this way

http://www.euroncap.com/tests/vw_touareg_2004/210.aspx

which do you want to sit in at 60mph crash (remember that's relative - two vehicles connecting at 30mph after preliminary braking upon collision

BTW before people say SAABs are the safest cars on record - have a look at this SAAB 900 - ouch...........

http://www.euroncap.com/tests/saab_900_1997/2.aspx


----------



## muffinsda (4 Jul 2007)

demoivre said:


> A Zafira having a better rating  when it crashes in to a car of similar mass to itself than a Santa Fe crashing in to a vehicle of similar mass to itself ( ie the basis of the NCAP test ) does *not *mean that a Zafira will come out better  when it crashes in to a Santa Fe ie a vehicle of different  mass. A Ford Fiesta  may well have  a higher frontal impact NCAP rating than a Range Rover but in a head on collision between the two I know which one I would rather be in.



True.
However, as mentioned earlier, weight is only one issue, proper design and active safety are other important factors. If we want to go by examples (as if they prove anything!) how about this one:

In a head-on (or in fact any!) collision between a 02 Volvo S-80 and a 02 Hyundai Santa Fe I VERY MUCH prefer to be in The Volvo.

In a collision between an 04 Suzuki Vitara and an 04 S-Class Merc or a Volkswagen Phaeton I prefer to be in the Phaeton.

and so on and so forth. Examples don't prove anything!


----------



## muffinsda (4 Jul 2007)

derryman said:


> hmmm - statistics, damned statistics and lies
> 
> SAAB 95 and its 40mph deformation - note the a pillar and door failing - 10mph more = DOA (cars are engineered to a minimum cost nowadays)
> 
> ...





Yes Saab 900 was not the safest car, but for your information it's production was discontinued in 1997!!!! So what is the point you're trying to make? It's replacement (93) and it's older sibling (95) have been the safest cars of their class at the time they were out according to both euroncap and real life tests (want references?!) The point you are trying to make with 900 is like saying "oh volkswagens are crap, look at the safety record of old beetles, no airbag!!!" 

As in previous post, you can't make conclusions based on anecdotes and examples. It all boils down to individual car, sure Touareg is very solid and well designed and very safe, but I can name many SUVs that aren't! Same goes with cars.


----------



## derryman (4 Jul 2007)

muffinsda said:


> True.
> However, as mentioned earlier, weight is only one issue, proper design and active safety are other important factors. If we want to go by examples (as if they prove anything!) how about this one:
> 
> In a head-on (or in fact any!) collision between a 02 Volvo S-80 and a 02 Hyundai Santa Fe I VERY MUCH prefer to be in The Volvo.
> ...


 

you need to compare like with like or in the real world - large SUV versus large family car - the argument is weight and velocity = force - the more force you have on your side means the harder the others deformation needs to work.

try a GL class against that S class

or an xc90 against than s80 - in fact Volvo caring souls they are had to artificially weaken the front of the XC90 to stop it "destroying" other cars in a collision - a separate subframe deforms before the main chassis

however most ladder frame chassis for off roading aren't that nice - think hot knife into butter - also remember they will be hitting you high and hard through the glass area - not nice but that is the fact of the matter


----------



## ang1170 (4 Jul 2007)

derryman said:


> Without labouring a point - where exactly do you think the energy dissipates - why into the smaller car - either crushing it against an obstacle or throwing it out of the way of the heavier faster vehicle E=MC2[/quoteE=mc2 ???Surely, F = M x A is what's relevant.As I said, I think a few people need to go back to their physics textbooks....


----------



## muffinsda (4 Jul 2007)

derryman said:


> you need to compare like with like or in the real world - large SUV versus regular family car - the arguement is weight and velocity = force - the more force you have on your side means the harder the others deformation needs to work.



I see, that's why you compared a disconitnued Saab 900 (not in production since 10 years ago) with a top of the range VW Touareg! Point taken 

on a seriuos note, I agree, that's what I was saying to Demoivre when he compared a Fiesta to a Range Rover! But the point is: it depends on the individual design, not just weight.

I think we're repeting the same point.
Sure, i agree, that's simple physics: weight is an important factor! But it's not the only one. How you dissipate the force is another factor. (Design). Going by brute force only (heavier weight) is a bit brain dead, you can achieve alot by porper design as well. I gave examples of that!


----------



## muffinsda (4 Jul 2007)

...


----------



## derryman (4 Jul 2007)

I think that I will stay with the SUV - don't drive too fast and hence won't roll over - look at the pictures and real-life examples - anecdotally a friend's wife reversed her 4 star full size 06 SUV into a five star full size (empty thank god) 05 saloon car in a supermarket - what the result

SUV gets new plastic bumper to cover the ladder frame chassis
Saloon gets written off the A pillar / roof was damaged beyond repair

more force higher up = a lethal collision combination - less force lower down = better survival rates


----------



## muffinsda (4 Jul 2007)

derryman said:


> I think that I will stay with the SUV - don't drive too fast and hence won't roll over - look at the pictures and real-life examples - anecdotally a friend's wife reversed her 4 star full size 06 SUV into a five star full size (empty thank god) 05 saloon car in a supermarket - what the result
> 
> SUV gets new plastic bumper to cover the ladder frame chassis
> Saloon gets written off the A pillar / roof was damaged beyond repair
> ...



By that logic, why stop there? You may still get hit by trucks. Why not buy an articulated lorry. You can get very nice ones, and you won't roll over in them either (can't go over 80mph). 

No, I rather go with smarter options personally  I'd be happy if I had an S-Class or a new S-80!


----------



## ang1170 (4 Jul 2007)

demoivre said:


> A Zafira having a better rating  when it crashes in to a car of similar mass to itself than a Santa Fe crashing in to a vehicle of similar mass to itself ( ie the basis of the NCAP test ) does *not *mean that a Zafira will come out better  when it crashes in to a Santa Fe ie a vehicle of different  mass. A Ford Fiesta  may well have  a higher frontal impact NCAP rating than a Range Rover but in a head on collision between the two I know which one I would rather be in.


You're missing the point I think.The NCAP crash test is standardised: all cars are tested in exactly the same conditions, regardless of their size. The results of the crash test include an estimate of the damage caused to the occupants.See:http://www.euroncap.com/tests/opel_...p.com/tests/hyundai_santa_fe_2006/273.aspxYou can decide for yourself which you'd rather be: note that whilst both are similar, the Santa Fe includes areas of "marginal" in passenger protection.


----------



## ang1170 (4 Jul 2007)

That link should be:http://www.euroncap.com/tests/opel_vauxhall_zafira_2005/217.aspxThe other one is:http://www.euroncap.com/tests/hyundai_santa_fe_2006/273.aspx


----------



## ang1170 (4 Jul 2007)

I give up! How do you post links properly????


----------



## derryman (4 Jul 2007)

muffinsda said:


> By that logic, why stop there? You may still get hit by trucks. Why not buy an articulated lorry. You can get very nice ones, and you won't roll over in them either (can't go over 80mph).
> 
> No, I rather go with smarter options personally  I'd be happy if I had an S-Class or a new S-80!


 
ironically it was actually a modern SAAB that she hit - they could not believe the damage - the SUV mounted the car like it was a rock - luckily she has NCB protection and noone was injured - that mass / force thing


----------



## derryman (4 Jul 2007)

muffinsda said:


> By that logic, why stop there? You may still get hit by trucks. Why not buy an articulated lorry. You can get very nice ones, and you won't roll over in them either (can't go over 80mph).
> 
> No, I rather go with smarter options personally  I'd be happy if I had an S-Class or a new S-80!


 

hey - its war out there at the moment - between indigenous souped up honda idiots and inebriated lits/lats/poles tearing around in uninsured barges - get weight on your side - keep high up out of harms way and have as much safety kit as possible - oh yes avoid boreens after midnight


----------



## derryman (4 Jul 2007)

I want it.................... sod euroncap

[broken link removed]


----------



## Firefly (4 Jul 2007)

All in all would it be safe to summarize that after you have decided on the type of car you want, be it small run-around or big 4x4, the best thing from a safety point of view is to go with the one with the highest NCAP rating within that category? Not everybody can afford a new Range Rover....


----------



## Adrian1 (5 Jul 2007)

smarthinking said:


> Which is safer - a 4 star SUV - e.g. Hyundai Sante Fe or a 5 star car - e.g. Opel Zafira? In a collision between these two, which would you rather be in?


 

I actually crashes a Sante Fe into a Vectra( At speed!!) and I am glad I wasnt in the Vectra. The Sante Fe went over the other car and looked pretty OK, the vectra was made bits of.

No one was in the vectra and it was parked, it also belonged to my wife.!!!!

Dont ask how I did it. She hated it anyway.


----------



## derryman (5 Jul 2007)

if you look carefully at the ncap results most of the four star SUVs get 32 points for frontal protection whereas the five star cars get 33 points - a simple analysis points to knee protection better in cars - this really points to the different seating style in a SUV (upwards - knees perpendicular to body and hence contact points in a shunt when the body moves forward) as opposed to a low down car (where the body is more reclined and tends to submarine feet first in an impact) - also more likely that cars have knee bags and no key ignition which can damage a lower leg - simple solution - set your seat well back and wear your seatbelt tightly - either that or get a SUV with knee bags - most toyota / lexus do thus now and get five stars.

Would still prefer to be sitting in a modern SUV during a frontal impact


----------



## galwaytt (5 Jul 2007)

derryman said:


> I think that I will stay with the SUV - don't drive too fast and hence won't roll over -


 
that comment is contrary to most of what Newton taught me........more likely to roll over is what you really mean..........


----------



## derryman (5 Jul 2007)

galwaytt said:


> that comment is contrary to most of what Newton taught me........more likely to roll over is what you really mean..........


 

don't drive too fast and hence won't roll over (going into corners) - what exactly did newton teach you??? (or given your TT moniker - are you sitting on a bike stationary)?


----------

