Very interesting discussions... and I suppose that it's true that a 500 or a Panda is relatively not as "class leading" in safety 2018 than it was in 2008... but that just emphasises the flaws with NCAP.
NCAP safety is only relative. It may be true that a 500 or Panda is relatively less "safe" compared to other cars now than it was in 2008. That does not (as NCAP now insinuates) make it less "safe" in absolute terms. Imagine Usain Bolt runs 100m in 9 seconds. Next year his cousin Bosain Nuts, using a legal supplement/new medical and nutritional technology runs 100m in 8.8 seconds. NCAP says that Usain is now a back-marking slow-coach. 100m in 9s clearly is not "slow". Panda managed 3 or 4 stars when it was Usain Bolt. It is not now suddenly unsafe. NCAP should add new stars to its system rather than revisit past results when the recent/past results were otherwise impressive.
Which brings me to my second problem with NCAP;
The NCAP scores are based on the possession of passive "aids" of often dubious relevance to the number of accidents they might prevent. If NCAP was properly serious then an automatic speed limit recognition system and speed limiter would be the "must have" accessory that should be worth a star all by itself... but it isn't. iDrive and any form of in-car "entertainment" should earn a de-merit just for being fitted... but they don't.
Let's say NCAP suddenly decides that hill-holders make a difference to the few cars who have another one roll back into them every year... reducing creased bumpers at a traffic lights is a noble objective but is it really the kind of accident that makes a difference to people..? Or does hill holders just reduce the statistics? Hint; "statistics" is how NCAP earns its funding. Panda without hill-holders suddenly loses a star. A newer car built with one, gains a star. That's how it works.
I'm not necessarily biased towards Fiat (although this is a Fiat Forum, not "Safety Vest World" so guess what...?
) but for me, if there is a car that earned 5 stars and then a few years later it gets zero just because it doesn't have certain gizmo's and features added (even though the consequences of not having them are in many cases of dubious value compared to the actual saftey benefit), then that implies to me that there is a defective evaluation and/or scoring system.
We should not just blindly swallow whatever comes out of NCAP. They risk confusing the consumers by their clumsy approach. NCAP... you had 4*... but this year I give you 1*.
Ralf S.