Even in the offset test, there was still no risk of serious/fatal injury, hence I feel safe.
Ncap do not make statements like “no risk of serious/fatal injury”
Let’s look at what the report actually said
“The passenger compartment of the Punto remained stable in the frontal offset test. Dummy readings indicated good protection of the knees and femurs of both the driver and passenger but structures in the dashboard were thought to present a risk of injury to occupants of different sizes and to those sat in different positions.”
So the standardised dummies did well in this test without significant injuries to lower limbs, however because of hidden structures behind the dash people of differing shapes and sizes might not fare so well.
“Protection of the passenger's chest was rated as marginal, based on dummy readings of compression.”
This is not good any trauma to the chest can result in serious injury to the heart and lungs. A lung contusion is not good and lungs bleed very easily and can quickly cause a collapse of the lung and an inability to breath.
“In the full-width rigid barrier test, protection of the chest of the rear passenger was weak, and that of the neck was marginal. Protection of the driver was good or adequate for all critical body regions. In the side barrier test, chest protection was rated as marginal, based on rib compressions.”
Lots of “marginal” comments it’s worth noting few cars get marginal comments these days and back when the grande was given 5 stars they didn’t even consider whiplash protection. On the new test however...
“Tests on the front seats and head restraints demonstrated poor whiplash protection in the event of a rear-end collision. A geometric assessment of the rear seats indicated marginal whiplash protection.”
Had they tested a Punto with side and curtain airbags, then it would've had a higher passive safety score.
Just to answer your point here.
“A side pole test was not performed as the Punto does not have a standard-fit head protecting airbag.”
So the test for this was not performed and the lack of side airbags was not counted against the car. Side airbags don’t actually do a lot, essentially protect you from the windows, with a narrow cushion. That said it’s probably just as well it didn’t have the side airbags as when the grande was oringinally tested there were problems with the curtain airbags fouling the b-pillar and not providing full protection
The point made about the about the panda is that you can directly compare the grande in 2005 and the pre 2009 panda as they were tested to the same standard around the same time.
A couple of years ago you were happy to tout your 5 star car and diminish an equivalent 3 star car as “unsafe”
Now faced with new data that your car by modern standards isn’t even a 3 star car, 2 star at best if you just look at the figures for occupant safety and don’t factor in the driver aids, you twist you views to suggest the 5 star rating you used to rant about now doesn’t mean anything.
Well of course it means something otherwise why would they do it.
In that sector there is now no other car that performs as badly for adult occupant protection regardless of what other things you try to factor in. The side airbags were not tested and therefore where not factored into the outcome.
What the new test does highlight is that there were several things that didn’t used to be looked at that are still important, now with looking at these things it shows that the 5 star ratings given to cars weren’t really up to the job, and the cars were not as safe as first stated.
Worth noting my car does not have curtain airbags, but was still a 5 star car by more modern standards, and mine was pole tested because there was no other option it has no roof therefore no curtain bags
