I have always been concerned about passenger safety - particularly where my own family is involved - so bought the Panda because the brochure said:

"When it comes to safety, New Panda leads the way.
There are up to six airbags; one each for the driver
and passenger as standard plus the option of two
side and two window airbags. Front seatbelts have
pretensioners and load limiters, antisubmarining
seats prevent you from sliding under your belt in
an accident and there are ISOFIX attachments on
versions with the split rear seat.

The New Panda offers structural protection designed
to meet the toughest international tests. Side impact
bars in the doors are joined by an innovative pedal
support system which offers the driver extra protection.

A high impact absorbing structure,
reinforced body, plus fascia and doors
fitted with high-strength steel bars
ensures the New Panda protects you
with all round safety."

I am very disapointed to then read in the review of the Toyota Aygo in the Sunday Times Motoring section this morning, that the Panda only got a EuroNCAP 3 star rating - which is pretty crap really.

And indeed it did: EuroNCAP new Fiat Panda crash test

There goes the second hand price then .....

all new cars are quite on par with safety nowadays. They get marks for others aspects aswell. For example seat belt warings, warning lights etc. So it does not cover the whole story.

I believe that the Panda that was tested had only ONE airbag (drivers side) This is why the car scored quite low. NCAP said they tested the car with only one airbag, because they thought that the cars with only one would sell more then other trim levels?

You have to remember that the panda is way behind many competitors in safety sadly, it doesn't have things like integrated isofix mounting for child seats does it?

Specs, sadly that's not true, it did quite well on the front impact, it failed mainly on the side impact where spinal injuries would have occured to at least occupents from what I can gather.

Have a look and compare with the other testing on superminis to score higher, you will see the obvious difference in safety as standard, even if by the colours used for injuries. For example, cars now have dual stage airbags, double pre-tensioners with sensors to allow for passenger's masses and size etc. Standard curtain airbags, 6+ in a car,

However, as stated, the car tested was the one expected to sell mainly in Europe so only has one airbag, it doesn't state an increase in this would have led to a higher score, often they make advisories like that.

NCAP isn't the be all and end all but it's definately a key factor in safety. I can't understand why Fiat got a 4 with the punto then went back in time and got a 3 with the car that could save them....

The Negotiator said:

You have to remember that the panda is way behind many competitors in safety sadly, it doesn't have things like integrated isofix mounting for child seats does it?

Click to expand...

i thought kids seats all fit with seatbelts these days

No, Isofix is current supported by 150 modern cars, it's standard through a huge number of cars, no Fiats though. Isofix is specific for the task and tonnes better than using a seatbelt in terms of safety:

http://www.britax.co.uk/isofix/Isofix_vcg_2.htm

Have to correct you there Paul - Isofix is standard across the Stilo range (rear seats only) and I suspect this to be the case on onther recent models too...in fact it you go back to the start of this thread Cremola quotes the FIAT Panda brochure:

brb i have thing under my seat

is this one?

Not sure, never used one.

Purple, that list doesn't have the Panda on, nor does NCAP mention it, maybe it was a last minute revision either way.

I presume the poor predestrian score brought the score of the car down, but I think any new car has to come up to a certain standard. Don't get the impression that a 5 star car will keep you safe in a high speed accident any more than a 3 star.
On one of the motoring TV shows last week they showed a big 4WD car hitting the side of a small car, nobody would have survived even with a dozen airbags etc.

Granted - but life is all about managing risks:

When buying a car, if I consider the likelyhood of a crash - when do I think, that is most likely to occur?

Well, for me, at between 20 and 50mph - because you can't drive round the little country lanes where I live - much faster.

So, if I have a heightened risk of crashing at between 20 and 50mph (simply because those are the sort of speeds/road conditions I most likely encounter) - then I want to minimise that risk by buying a car that is most likely to save me at those speeds.

We now know, that the car that will minimise that risk, out of, say, all the new superminis I could have purchased, is NOT a New Panda. Despite what I was lead to believe by the brochure.

However, if most of my driving is motorway at 70mph, then yes, I guess that at those speeds, it doesn't make much difference if the car is a Renault Modus or a Fiat Panda when hit in the side by a Scania truck.

on a country road panda is good, because you are high up you can see better around corners and over bushes

Actually, that's wrong, the EuroNcap is shown to be accurate for serious injuries but not minor injuries.

CONCLUSIONS

 There was a strong and consistent overall correlation between Euro NCAP scoring and risk of serious and fatal injury
 No overall relationship between Euro NCAP scoring and minor injury could be detected
 High ranked vehicles, as a group, had a lower risk of serious and fatal injury across 90-110% of average impact severity, indicating that in crashes of such severity, there have not been any drawbacks of the high test speed in Euro NCAP.
 Overall, high ranked vehicles produce approximately 30% less fatal and serious injuries compared to low-ranked vehicles.

Click to expand...

Study: How do Euro NCAP results correlate to real life injury risks - a paired comparison study of car-to-car crashes (Swedish, 2000)

The fact is that a lot of effort is put into these tests and the manufacturers all support them, and clearly a 5 star car is more safe than a 3 star car. Most cars in this size are a 4 star and therefore the panda is not as good on this front - in fact overall for any new car to only get a 3 star is pretty poor.

I think it will only be a couple of years before every new car is getting a 5 star rating, and rightly so. For obvious reasons it is harder for a small car to get a good rating but still it's dissapointing that Fiat didn't put a little more effort into it when virtually every new car is getting at least a 4 star rating.

Having said that though, who knows how close it was to getting a 4? I mean the punto for example has a 4 star but there has to be a boundary somewhere so maybe it is only a tiny bit safer than the panda? These test don't mean everything but there's no doubting they give an indication.

I agree that 3 stars is disappointing but like others have said before it mainly failed on child seat fixing and pedestrian safety. It scored better than some other small cars that have 4 stars in frontal impact.

If you drive mainly on small country roads at a speed between 20 and 60 mph the most likely accident involves frontal impact with another car. In that case the Panda is just as safe as any other small car.

In my opinion the Panda doors feel more solid than Punto doors and the higher seating position gives you a better protection when you are hit from the side.

Anyway... whatever you think of the NCAP score the single most important safety device is the person behind the steering wheel! Even the safest car in the world is no match for the stupidity of some drivers.

My Panda has been perfect so far. No mechanical problems, no paint problems, no rattles, nothing has come loose and it drives a lot better than some other small cars that I have driven lately.

For pedestrian safety, the panda is average, not low, most cars have crap scores for that, if we compare to the Modus (not sure why, the modus is a much bigger car and in a higher position in the market, but NCAP compares it so....)

Renault Modus:
Test Scores: Front 14 (88%) Side 18 (100%) Belt Reminder 1 Overall 33 Pedestrian 6 (17%) Child Protection 38 (78%)

Fiat Panda:
Test Scores: Front 10 (63%) Side 10 (56%) Overall 20 Pedestrian 6 (17%) Child Protection 21 (43%)

You can see that the only close one is pedestrian safety. That's the difference between a "safe" and a "less safe" car.

I have no idea if NCAP is a 'game' where you can do certain things to get a high score without having a safer car (the data in the report available of the Swedish study suggests otherwise, but that's dated) but if it is a game, FIAT aren't yet playing it.

Why do manufacturers put so much emphasis on pedestrian safety? If you are in the road then surely if you get run over its your bloomin fault, I dont want my expensive bonnet and bumper to crumble cos of some dozy twot jaywalking!!! If you really worry about crashing your car and what injuries you might get then its easy..... catch the bus!!! Sorry but Im an old git who couldnt care less what risk factors are involved in everyday things, there is so much more to life, blimey, you can spend all your time avoiding crashes, injuries and being hurt by all sorts of activities... then die of cancer or something. For my two pennies worth, I thought the Panda came out pretty well, if it hit my 126 I would dissapear!

Nuova, that's the thing, they don't give a ****!

Pedestrian scores are always crap, car manufacturers want to make the people inside safe, not everybody outside.

Even the highest scorers have awful pedestrian safety. I am not sure what is the highest score but I think it's the Jazz with about 50%, still, it only makes the car a 4* NCAP, i.e. NCAP don't give a **** about pedestrian safety either!

I have been driving now for over 30 years & never been involved in a serious accident & hopefully never will. Thinking about it I can't think of anyone I know who has had a bad accident.
If your safety is a number one priority get a bigger car.