NCAP Rating now available - Only 4*

[ads]

Originally Posted by basegreen

Let me get something straight here - I didn't buy the car because the 5* rating was the only criteria, but it is definitely up there. When sales/marketing say "this is one of the safest cars out on the market" and "it's expected to get the full 5* rating" then that is clearly misleading.

The fact is, that the car ISN'T 5* rated. In fact, from the look of it, the pedestrians will have a safer time than the driver!

I'm beginning to get the feeling that you're unhappy!

But seriously though, this really is a big, big problem for honda. You can't brag about a car's safety and state it's expected 5 stars They will probably lose only an insignificant amount of sales from people who want a 5 star rated car but they will alienate a large proportion of their current customer base who bought the car with the 5 star rating as a significant selling point! Thats where it'll hit them hard!

Total school boy error though! Boasting about getting five stars before actually getting them!! Just makes you look like an idiot Also, think how much it's gonna cost them having to replace all those brochures with the fancy safety jargon, well they can't really boast about it's safety as much! Perhaps they can fill that part of the brochure with a bold new statement:

'Honda plans to break the land speed record in the Civic. Although it hasn't been timed yet, we expect that the Civic will achieve this and reach our target of over 800mph.' Yeah, thats a bit more realistic!

[jayt43]

Just read a review for the new CRV on 4car. Refers this time to Honda's "expected" 5-star adult protection rating for the big SUV. Do you think they've learnt anything from the Civic debacle?

[Pottsy]

It's wording like this in reviews that has been a bit misleading:

http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/carrevi...vic_types.html
while the Civic boasts reasonable insurance ratings, decent fuel economy and a five-star Euro NCAP crash test score.

[karlak]

Originally Posted by Pottsy

It's wording like this in reviews that has been a bit misleading:

http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/carrevi...vic_types.html
while the Civic boasts reasonable insurance ratings, decent fuel economy and a five-star Euro NCAP crash test score.

Certainly is embarrassing.

The problem in my eyes is like when our company used to be BSI tested (bear with me) - We knew when the inspector was coming, so for that day everything was 'perfect', and we get a pass, and BSI get paid (everyone happy)


Crash testing is similar. Car makers know how a car will be crashed - The speed, the angle, all the conditions. What would be much more useful, would be a random situations, this way the car maker would need to build a car to protect passengers in a wide variety of circumstances, not justthe 'known' tested ones.

This is where Honda have fallen into the trap. They have built there car to pass the known test. Therefore, they can predict a pass. Obviously tho' something has not quite gone to plan, which may be a good thing really as it will keep car makers on their toes.

At the end of the day if you are involved in any sort of high speed impact, then it will be nasty. A mate of mine is a traffic cop (a nice one mind you ), and some of the incidents he tells me about almost make you think twice about venturing on the road. I know many police officers use to have Volvo's as their private vehicle..... go figure

[jayt43]

Doubtless with press packs for the Type S and 5-door on the Honda Media website still showing the "expected 5-star rating" lazy journalists will continue to cut and paste articles together using the wrong information.

So, you end up with a situation where many people read articles on the Internet, thinking everything is tickety-boo with the Civ'c rating and neglect to ask their local Honda salesman (only to find out later that it actually has a 4-star rating). Indeed, if you order a car on the Internet, then it's likely the medium will also be used as a major, or even sole reference point for buyer information.

It's not that I don't think the Civic is a safe car, but the way in which manufacturers are announcing "expected" scores (way in advance of the real NCAP result) ineviatably leads to this sort of discrepancy and misinformation.

And with Honda doing exactly the same thing again for the CRV (and that's a vehicle for which buyers really do expect a 5-star rating) people who place orders now are being falsely reassured, when in fact, it's anyone's guess what the CRV's overall score will actually be.

"Expected" is an unfair get out clause that Honda shouldn't be using in my humble opinion, especially when vehicles are purchased with the safety of families in mind.

[Bungle]

I am a little sceptical of NCAP ratings.
I am not commenting on the Civic's score in particular, but it seems to me a little odd that points (and stars) are lost with things like not enough warning stickers or beeps. That has nothing to do with how the car will protects it's occupants in a collision, assuming that seatbelts and such are worn appropiatley.

One comment about the civic I remember was that the ISOFIX rear seats were not marked clearly enough. I knew the car has the special seats, and I am not even a parent. Any parent looking at a car or a child seat would surely look into that beforehand.

I still think 4 is a good score and am not that upset by the news, and it would have made no difference to me either way if I knew before I bought the car. I am happy it has VSA and lots of airbags, and certainly do not want any more beeps or warning stickers all over my car.

EDITED TO ADD:

I think NCAP is a good thing, safety is obviously very important to all of us, and manufacturers should always strive for safer cars. My point was I don't think stickers and disclaimers and beeps and all the rest really make for safer cars. The proof should be in the pudding so to speak. One thing I do like is the seatbelt notification system the civic has got!

[Tydo]

I agree with all the other dissenters it's just another of Honda's claims for the supposed wonder car that's failed to live up to expectations. I was told that it would easily be 5* and although 4 is acceptable I feel as though I've been mislead. Surely Honda have crashed these things hundreds of times on computer simulations it can't have been that difficult to exceed the parameters of the test.

Pathetic.

[JB75]

The more I think about this the more serious it seems. I don't recall being specifically told that a 5 star NCAP rating was expected for the car but I did assume (naively perhaps) that a 2006 model, medium size car by Honda would achieve one with room to spare. A browse around the NCAP site reveals that many models new to the market over the last 2 years have 5 stars, including many of the Civic's market rivals. People do take safety ratings into account and when seeing that the Astra, Focus, Megane and Golf have 5 stars and the Civic 4, opinions might change.

Does anyone know whether the NCAP is a strict one-off, or whether Honda can modify the Civic and request "another go"?

[Maldax]

Originally Posted by Tydo

I agree with all the other dissenters it's just another of Honda's claims for the supposed wonder car that's failed to live up to expectations. I was told that it would easily be 5* and although 4 is acceptable I feel as though I've been mislead. Surely Honda have crashed these things hundreds of times on computer simulations it can't have been that difficult to exceed the parameters of the test.

Pathetic.

Some of this has to be the luck of the day! Chaos kicks in big time when you crash a car.

If I know the order the balls fall in the lotto machine, the speed they get chucked around , the size of the dome and when the balls get lifted I could run millions of simulations but I bet I would never predict the numbers

oh yes and the weight of the balls and what they are made of and the friction ball against ball etc. etc. etc.

Would the Civic had 5 stars if the accelerator pedal only dropped 99mm or the wheel adjuster didn't drop down?

[WoolyCiv]

Just been reading (and not able to fully understand all the technicalities) the Euro NCAP Front Impact Testing Protocol (http://www.euroncap.com/downloads/test_procedures/area_3/event_2/EuroNCAP%20Frontal%20Protocol%204.1.pdf) and have the following observation about the missing 5th star for the Civic:

The civic failed due to the intrusion of the accelerator by 106mm exceeding the limit by 6 mm (If I remember correctly) which is approximately 1/4 inch. The specification quite rightly states the forward/aft position of the drivers seat, the rake of the seat back etc to enable comparisons to be made. Remember the failure was due to the accelerator intruding more then 100mm, I personally tend to drive with the drivers seat quite far back and my legs more stretched out than a lot of other drivers so that 6mm would imagine have less effect in the event of an accident than if I drove with the seat closer to the dash and conversely if the seat was closer with my legs at a different angle more of an effect.

[sarahjo]

Originally Posted by WoolyCiv

Just been reading (and not able to fully understand all the technicalities) the Euro NCAP Front Impact Testing Protocol (http://www.euroncap.com/downloads/test_procedures/area_3/event_2/EuroNCAP%20Frontal%20Protocol%204.1.pdf) and have the following observation about the missing 5th star for the Civic:

The civic failed due to the intrusion of the accelerator by 106mm exceeding the limit by 6 mm (If I remember correctly) which is approximately 1/4 inch. The specification quite rightly states the forward/aft position of the drivers seat, the rake of the seat back etc to enable comparisons to be made. Remember the failure was due to the accelerator intruding more then 100mm, I personally tend to drive with the drivers seat quite far back and my legs more stretched out than a lot of other drivers so that 6mm would imagine have less effect in the event of an accident than if I drove with the seat closer to the dash and conversely if the seat was closer with my legs at a different angle more of an effect.

Oh the joys of long legs.....i have my seat well back...does it mean i will be ok in a crash

[WoolyCiv]

Originally Posted by sarahjo

Oh the joys of long legs.....i have my seat well back...does it mean i will be ok in a crash

I would hope that you wouldn't have one

[pjelsworth]

Will this affect the residual value of the car I wonder

[JPDirect]

Oh please! Why are we getting so upset about this? I didn't buy my car because it was "expected" to get an NCAP rating of 5; I bought the car because it's stylish, sleek, nice to drive, etc, etc. I don't give a hoot whether it's 4 or 5*. If on the other hand, they said that the car IS or WILL be 5*, that's a different thing altogether.

However, if the result came back and it got, say a 2*, that would be a problem! It's not quite the same I know, but, how many people here (unless you happen to work in the industry) can see or tell the difference between a 4 and 5* hotel?

Some people on this forum are taking it to be the end of the world...! I don't think the extra * will save our lives in a crash!

Let's just go out and enjoy our cars - remember what it was like when we first got them?

[IWANTACIVIC]

Yer i agree it a disapointment they we got let down again , but as was said on the last post 4 or5* its unlikely to make a big diffence to the pepole inside (ie maybe a bit more of a broze or something 1-2% worst than if it had been 5*) , if your going fast enoght to have a major crash it as much about luck, were the cars meet ,things you hit etc as it is about a car beening 1-2% more safe than another one . like we said before if it had come back 1-2* then it would be time to worrie. As was said early im more pleased the civic got a good deal of safety kit as stanard not opion . look at it this way so the focus got 5* but it would be more safe i bet to be in a top spec focus than a basic one that mite only be as good as a 4* car.
Drive safely and hopely you will never need the safety stuff , dont lose sleep over it and enjoy your 1% less safe car then you thoght you had before reading this topic.

Well done honda another target missed must try harder ,lets hope the next thing we found out isnt that hondas are breaking down like 307.

[Tydo]

Looks like they should be allowed a re-test VW did with the Golf (if you read the test it says they modified the airbags) also some of the other cars tested were LHD which should present different results I would guess. Maybe we shouldn't criticise too much until we've seen the results of a RHD Focus and Golf. Still annoying though.

[junhonda]

I´m afraid a lot of people is quite upset with this issue... In www.clubhondacivic.com , the spanish forum there is a huge thread about that. What I find most dissapointing is that the Civic only scored 69% in the front crash test and 89% in the lateral, which is quite low. (A3 scores 75% and 100% also with 4*)

About the "beeps" to remind the seat belts, they could be annoying but they scored some extra points in the NCAP test, which have helped to get 4* instead of 3.

[The Great Soprendo]

I too am disappointed...whatever the real implications of this in an accident the purpose of the NCAP test is to make manufacturers strive towards safety but also to allow consumers to compare cars.

However, it seems that the intrusion of the pedal is the main failing, and let's face it, the effect of that is unlikely to be much worse than a broken foot or leg...we are not dealing with life-threatening injuries to head, chest, pelvis etc. It also sounds like this is a very marginal failure.

Another thought I've had is that you'd expect the results would be different depending on the engine? The test vehicle was a 1.8, but how would the results have been different with a heavier diesel or (presumably) lighter 1.4 engine? Different specs also add/reduce weight and distribution of weight (eg I bet the glass roof heightens the centre of gravity a little). Anyone got any ideas? I'd imagine the diesel would have different engine mounts (to deal with all that torque ) and possible other implications? One inescapable fact is that the extra weight of the diesel will cause it to brake more slowly than the petrol versions in an emergency situation, assuming the braking system is identical, even if the effect is small. There is also more energy in a crash at a given speed as a result of the extra weight (Newton's 2nd law: Force = mass x acceleration, or similarly mass x deceleration).

[Hartside]

One inescapable fact is that the extra weight of the diesel will cause it to brake more slowly than the petrol versions in an emergency situation, assuming the braking system is identical, even if the effect is small. There is also more energy in a crash at a given speed as a result of the extra weight (Newton's 2nd law: Force = mass x acceleration, or similarly mass x deceleration).

Not convinced. Newtons second law is "net" Force, which takes into account all forces acting on a body. Extra frictional force due to the increased tyre footprint from the heavier weight would see the diesel stopping quicker, athough it would be very marginal

[pjelsworth]

Originally Posted by JPDirect

Oh please! Why are we getting so upset about this? I didn't buy my car because it was "expected" to get an NCAP rating of 5; I bought the car because it's stylish, sleek, nice to drive, etc, etc. I don't give a hoot whether it's 4 or 5*. If on the other hand, they said that the car IS or WILL be 5*, that's a different thing altogether.

However, if the result came back and it got, say a 2*, that would be a problem! It's not quite the same I know, but, how many people here (unless you happen to work in the industry) can see or tell the difference between a 4 and 5* hotel?

Some people on this forum are taking it to be the end of the world...! I don't think the extra * will save our lives in a crash!

Let's just go out and enjoy our cars - remember what it was like when we first got them?

Good point and I agree, I still enjoy my car and won't be getting rid based on this. However it is now one aspect with clear facts that puts our car behind all the competition. With a scale that only goes from 1 to 5, the perceived difference is significant, even if it only missed by a few %.
WRT the hotel analagy, I am certainly no snob but I can definitely tell the difference, so that doesn't work for me.

Anyway you are right, lets not get too beat up about it, but it is a disappointment to me.