Another source of crash test data: euroNCAP

some of you probably already know of the european union's crash test program (european new car assessment program, or euroNCAP), but i thought i'd mention it here, and talk about why i really like NCAP.

http://www.euroncap.com/

it's useful when looking at new cars and for comparing the data with data from NHTSA and IIHS. there are some cars tested by NCAP that haven't been tested by NHTSA or IIHS. what's nice about NCAP is that they test cars in 40% offset frontal crashes (like IIHS), but at 40 mph. they also test cars for side impact, but only at 30 mph (unlike IIHS's 38 mph). but they also rate the cars for child protection using two different car seats and two different dummies: an "18-month old" dummy RF, and a "3 year old toddler" FF. they specify which models of car seats they use in each test, it's usually a britax romer duo for the FF and a britax baby safe RF, but it's not always those. lastly, they rate the cars for how well pedestrians fare when hit by the front of the cars at 25 mph (which would be very relevant for urban dwellers like myself). i also like that all of their test procedures are explained and illustrated very well on their website, and the reports for each car are summarized very clearly, with a lot more information presented to the consumer that you will find from NHTSA or IIHS. most recently tested cars get summarized in a nice pdf format which can be printed out for convenience. in fact, you can even print out pdf versions of their entire set of protocols, so you know EXACTLY how the tests were conducted. they also have a very nice FAQ section.

but i should also mention that there are a lot of caveats to using NCAP in your research on cars sold in the US:

1) lots of cars sold in the US are not sold in europe, and vice versa. so there's a pretty good chance that your car is not included in NCAP.
2) cars that are sold here and in europe may have different safety options, engine/transmission options, and equipment levels that may or may not affect their crash ratings.
3) cars that are the same here and in europe may be branded differently (eg, a US acura TSX is the same as a euro honda accord, which is nothing like the US honda accord)
4) cars that may be sold here and in europe may not be available in the same body styles (hatch, sedan, wagon)

what i found particularly interesting from looking at the results of lots of cars is that some cars that do great by NHTSA or IIHS don't do great by NCAP, and vice versa. whether these are consequences of testing method, equipment level, or other, i don't know...

given those restrictions, i still found this site really useful when i was researching new cars this past summer, because the cars i was considering (mazda5 and mazda3) either hadn't been tested in the US, or hadn't been tested with the same safety options i wanted. basically, consider it just another research tool at your disposal when checking out new cars. the fact that they are the only crash test program that i know of that does any kind of in-car testing on carseats/child dummies makes it noteworthy (and the other big caveat here is that they test car seats that are european-specfic and therefore likely not to be made to US standards, so exercize caution in interpreting their data).

looking over all the cars tested by NCAP, i put together a list of late-model (2002-2007) cars sold in the US that have been tested by NCAP (i think i got them all but i may have missed some):

Audi A3
Audi A4
Audi A6
Audi Q7
Audi TT
BMW 3-series
BMW 5-series
BMW X5
BMW Z4
Chevy Aveo
Chrysler PT Cruiser
Honda CRV
Honda Fit (Honda Jazz in Europe)
Honda S2000
Hyundai Elantra
Hyundai Santa Fe
Hyundai Sonata
Hyundai Tucson
Jaguar X-type
Jeep Grand Cherokee
Jeep Liberty (Jeep Cherokee in Europe)
Kia Rio
Kia Sedona
Kia Sorento
Land Rover Discovery
Land Rover Freelander
Lexus GS
Lexus IS
Mazda 3
Mazda 5
Mazda 6
Mazda MX-5
Mercedes Benz C-class
Mercedes Benz E-class
Mercedes Benz S-class
Merceds Benz SLK
MINI Cooper
Nissan Pathfinder
Range Rover
Saab 9-3
Saab 9-3 convertible
Subaru Legacy Outback
Toyota Prius
Toyota RAV4
Toyota Yaris
Volvo S40
Volvo S60
Volvo S70
Volvo S80
Volvo XC90
VW Beetle
VW Golf
VW Passat

You're just trying to help me buy that Mazda 5, aren't ya? Just kidding, but I've been coveting one for a long time and waiting for the IIHS to test it is killing me. Thanks for the thoughtful and informative post about the EuroNCAP testing, I think it IS a useful source of info (just as some of us look at car seat ratings at the Austrian 'AAA' site, "OEAMTC" for info on some of the models that are sold here).

heh, i'm trying to help MYSELF by that mazda5. if only we could justify owning two cars here in trafficland.

hmm... OEAMTC and aussie AAA... two things this n00b did not know about... time for me to do some more googling!!!

Well, the OEAMTC is the Austrian equivalent of AAA... but the Aussie AAA *used to* have THE coolest article about how safe their seats are, I haven't checked there in awhile (hope you didn't have any plans today, those OEAMTC Kindersitze archive video crash tests are pretty...um.. fun...to watch...)

southpawboston said:

2) cars that are sold here and in europe may have different safety options, engine/transmission options, and equipment levels that may or may not affect their crash ratings.

Click to expand...

This is the big one, in my opinion. Aside from obvious, published differences like engines, transmissions and major features, there may well be hidden changes on models you might think are identical. With global platforms the norm, it would be easy for a manufacturer to design in a piece of bracing in the chassis or increase the strength of a structural part by using a superior material. They might do this in one market to meet varying government standards or to excel in crash test results. In another market, where the standards or crash tests are not as rigorous, they might downgrade or omit the same changes to save money.

Not all is bad in the USA. Full width, frontal tests like the NHTSA NCAP are not only as common (or more) than offset crashes, but they have a different set of demands on the frame and restraint systems. It's much more difficult to do well in both a full-width and offset crash test than it is to design a vehicle to do well in just one of the two. I don't know if there is a Euro equivalent to the NHTSA testing now, but I don't think there was in the past. In a similar fashion, we have two different side impact tests that must both be considered in any design.

It is time that both the IIHS and NHTSA increase the speed of their frontal testing slightly, if only because a majority of cars now get the top ratings. This wasn't the case even 5 years ago. Even though these frontal tests have been around for quite a long time, some vehicles continue to get 3-star and 4-star NHTSA results or "Marginal"/"Acceptable" IIHS results. I'm sure the auto makers will lobby so they don't start seeing the rare 2-star and "poor" ratings again.

CPSDarren said:

This is the big one, in my opinion. Aside from obvious, published differences like engines, transmissions and major features, there may well be hidden changes on models you might think are identical. With global platforms the norm, it would be easy for a manufacturer to design in a piece of bracing in the chassis or increase the strength of a structural part by using a superior material. They might do this in one market to meet varying government standards or to excel in crash test results. In another market, where the standards or crash tests are not as rigorous, they might downgrade or omit the same changes to save money.

Not all is bad in the USA. Full width, frontal tests like the NHTSA NCAP are not only as common (or more) than offset crashes, but they have a different set of demands on the frame and restraint systems. It's much more difficult to do well in both a full-width and offset crash test than it is to design a vehicle to do well in just one of the two. I don't know if there is a Euro equivalent to the NHTSA testing now, but I don't think there was in the past. In a similar fashion, we have two different side impact tests that must both be considered in any design.

It is time that both the IIHS and NHTSA increase the speed of their frontal testing slightly, if only because a majority of cars now get the top ratings. This wasn't the case even 5 years ago. Even though these frontal tests have been around for quite a long time, some vehicles continue to get 3-star and 4-star NHTSA results or "Marginal"/"Acceptable" IIHS results. I'm sure the auto makers will lobby so they don't start seeing the rare 2-star and "poor" ratings again.

Click to expand...

i agree that as cars evolve to stepping up to the demand of the standardized tests, the tests themselves have to evolve to higher standards. a co-evolution of sorts.

but i thought the IIHS developed the offset frontal because it represented a more common real-workd scenario than a full frontal... no?

Most statistics you find show that pure full-width frontal crashes occur about as often as pure offset crashes. It depends on the study, and whether they considered all crashes, those with some threshold for injury measures, only those with fatalities, etc.
I think the IIHS says it pretty well on their website-

Full-width and offset tests complement each other. Crashing the full width of a vehicle into a rigid barrier maximizes energy absorption so that the integrity of the occupant compartment, or safety cage, can be maintained well in all but very high-speed crashes. Full-width rigid-barrier tests produce high occupant compartment decelerations, so they're especially demanding of restraint systems. In offset tests, only one side of a vehicle's front end, not the full width, hits the barrier so that a smaller area of the structure must manage the crash energy. This means the front end on the struck side crushes more than in a full-width test, and intrusion into the occupant compartment is more likely. The bottom line is that full-width tests are especially demanding of restraints but less demanding of structure, while the reverse is true in offsets.

Click to expand...

Now if serious full-width crashes were only some small percentage of all crashes, say under 10% like is the case for severe rear-enders, then I could see putting less emphasis on this type of testing.

One thing that confuses some studies is that there are also oblique offset crashes. That's where a car hits the front corner at a significant angle from the side as well. If you add those to the pure offset crash numbers, the total will usually exceed the number of pure frontal crashes. I have seen studies that indicate that an offset crash test might be preferred if only one type of test is required, as was the case in developing the European standard about 10 years ago.