EVOLUTION OF AUSTRALIAN NCAP RESULTS PRESENTATION Michael Case RACV Michael Griffiths Road Safety Solutions Jack Haley NRMA Ltd Michael Paine Vehicle Design & Research Australia Paper Number 98-Sl l-0-04

ABSTRACT The first two series of ANCAP results were presented using head and chest injury criteria, with This paper traces the evolution of the methods a human figure colour-coded included to indicate of presentation of Australian NCAP (ANCAP) injury levels. The detailed dummy measurements results to consumers. were included in the back of the information brochure and this convention has been retained to ANCAP commenced in 1992 and has now tested the present (ANCAP [I] & [2] ). over 60 vehicle models. The first two series of results in 1993 and 1994 were presented with an The frrst two ANCAP public brochures included emphasis on NCAP criteria such as HIC and chest both the results and the full technical report on each deflection measurements, with a colour-coded vehicle test. The third publication was separated human figure included to indicate injury levels. into a mini-brochure for consumersand a detailed The detailed dummy measurements were included report for technicians (ANCAP [3] &[4]). in the back of the information brochure and this convention has been retained to the present. The full injury results presentation was felt to be too technical for most consumers so for the next The concentration on NCAP injury criteria was four releases of data the primary rating system felt to be too technical for the intended general became the risk of life threatening injwy. The first audience so for the next four releases of data the three of these releases retained the colour-coded primary rating system became the risk of lif human figure (ANCAP [5-71). th?eateninginjuT (>AIS 3) calculated as per the NHTSA algorithm, although the first three of these In 1994 the US Insurance Institute for Highway releases retained the colour-coded human figure. Safety (IIHS) began conducting vehicle offset tests and publishing the results in a traditional consumer At this time the US Insurance Institute for format of Good, Acceptable, Marginal and Poor. Highway Safety (IIHS) began NCAP offset tests ANCAP focus group research revealed that the and published the results in a more traditional IIHS format was preferred by consumers and consumer format. ANCAP focus group research ANCAP adopted this format in late 1996 (ANCAP revealed that this format was preferred by general [g-13]). readers, so ANCAP adopted this consumer format as of November 1996. 2. PRESENTATION DEVELOPMENTS

The Euro NCAP group began publishing its 2.1 Need for Improved Presentation offset and side impact test data in February 1997 using a star rating similar to the NHTSA system. The first 1993 release of ANCAP results only ANCAP is working with Euro NCAP and other reported the full frontal tests. The inclusion of international NCAP groups towards a c&mnon offset tests in 1994 doubled the available rating system. information, which made useful interpretation by the average motorist more difftcult. Although colour coded, the summary table of results in the 1 INTRODUCTION ANCAP small report presented a considerable amount of information. ANCAP was introduced to provide new car buyers with useful information about the relative NHTSA consumer focus group studies found occupant protection of popular vehicles on the that consumers wanted information on crash tests in Australian market. This information influences a non-technical, easily understood form. NHTSA consumer demand and encourages manufacturers to reported that consumers could understand design safer v&icles. information expressed simply in terms of ‘risk of injury’. However, it indicated they were confused ANCAP commenced in 1992 with the fi.rII by technical data sheets and dummy output frontal test as used by the US NCAP since 1978. parameters that needed interpretation, particularly An offset test using the EEVC deformable barrier was added in 1994. 2‘ 420 where these have a logarithmic relationship to the 2.4 Application of Simplified Presentation risk of injury. Australian NCAP chose to use the 100 point risk 2.2 Simplified Presentation rating in its four wheel drive and van release. This format was published in a mini-brochure titled The on-going ‘success of ail NCAP groups relies Buyer’s Guide to Vehicle Crash Tests (ANCAP on optimising consumer understanding. This could [4]). A sample page is iliustrated in Figure 2 of the only be achieved in Australia by simplifying the Appendix. This brochure received favourable format in which ANCAP presented test results, By feedback from consumers about its “user- adopting and extending some recent US NCAP friendliness”. developments in presentation, improved levels of’ consumer comprehension were expected. 2.5 Industry Response

In 1993, NHTSA began to publish NCAP The motor vehicle industry in Australia supports results expressed as star ratings. These are the intention of ANCAP in providing consumer calculated using injury risk functions which directly information on vehicle safety but has some relate measured dummy parameters to figures of life reservations about the testing process. These threatening injury risk. include allegations that there is a lack of repeatability and that the impact speeds are too One disadvantage of the NHTSA star rating high. scheme is that thle star cut-off values chosen result in discrete bands of safety performance. Vehicles 2.5.1 Repeatability with scores at either end of a performance band, if not ranked in some other way, are lumped together ANCAP has some repeat data available which is as having the one level of safety. summarised below. Tests conducted in Australia have shown good consistency of results. Table 1 US NCAP ody went as far as combining head below provides results of NCAP repeat tests for and chest dummy parameters of full frontal tests.. HIC which show that these results are repeatable ANCAP needed to combine head and chest readings within 10 percent. fdr full anJ offset frontal testing for both driver and front passenger. Table 1 - ANCAP Report Test Data

Monash University Accident Research Centre Vehicle HIC Variation (MUARC) research indicates that frontal crashes Test 1 1 Test 2 % make up approximately 60 percent of the total Charade 960 1050 9.4 serious and fatal injury car crashes in Australia. Of Micra 820 900 9.8 all frontal crashes around one half are of the offset 640 608 5.0 type. Using these data, risk of injury scores for full Ford Laser 860 871 1.3 and offset test cases were combined to establish an Ford Probe (US 724 784 8.3 overall risk score which simulates ‘real world’ results) frontal crashes. ‘This was achieved by applying the Ford Probe (US 102.5 994 3.0 same injury risk functions used by NHTSA in results) calculating its star rating scores. 2.5.2 Test speeds 2.3 The 100 Point Injury Risk Scale Only about 17 percent of fatalities and 37 Injury risk values can be directly expressed on a percent of AIS 4+ injuries occur at crash speeds up 100 point scaie. This represents the risk of life to 48 km/h (30 mph), the speed commonly used in threatening injury for a weighted combination of regulatory tests around the world, including full and offset frontal crashes based on relative real Australia. Up to the NCAP full frontal crash speed world incidence. A plot of Injury Risk scores based of 56 km/h (35 mph) the fatalities and injuries on the NCAP 4;WD results, released in 1994 is figures become 25 percent and 53 percent, and up shown in Figure: 1 of the Appendix. Scores are to the NCAP offset tests speed of 64 km/h (40 shown ranked by driver results. mph), they are 59 percent and 73 percent respectively. NCAP test speeds therefore cover far Interpretation is consistent with the test dummy more of the serious crashes experienced on-road output parameters themselves (ie higher scores mean a higher risk outcome) and with the real world than do the regulatory speeds. MUARC Crashworthiness Ratings results (MUARC 1998). Australian research shows that at the full frontal regulatory speed there is little difference in HIC between the models. Once the speed is raised the 242 1 differences become much more significant and it is off media releases, whilst achieving a short much clearer which vehicles protect their occupants term high profile, only provide communication better. span of approximately a day Or SO. Having brochures summarising the results on 2.6 Marketing Plan prominent stands in motoring organisations, and vehicle registering and driver licensing The ultimate aim of any NCAP is to provide offices. These outlets provide long term access marketing incentives for vehicle manufactures to to the test results, but consumers need to be build in state of the art/world’s best practice aware of their availability and have ready occupant protection systems, by convincing access to such offices. consumers to give buying preference to above- Conducting seminars specifically aimed at average safety performance and particularly not to vehicle fleet managers, risk managers, buy vehicles with below average crash test results. occupational health and safety officers and the vehicle insurance industry. The response to Accordingly, there is not much point in having these in Australia has been very good and the an NCAP unless:- advantage of targeting fleet managers is that the . it is easy for consumers to understand which is control of a large number of vehicle purchases the safest car for their purposes; can be effected through one contact in a large . the relative safety information is presented in a organisation. compelling manner; Establishing an intemet web site where all of . consumers can make practical use of the the test results, including short segments of information to effect their car buying decisions, video of the crash tests, can be accessed and they are motivated to do so by the way the (www.nrma.com.au) material is presented. ANCAP has now progressed to the formulation Most NCAP programs take some formal steps to of a social marketing plan, in particular aimed at:- publish their results, but the authors of this paper have not seen documentation of social marketing . Fleet, occupational health and safety and risk, plans for other NCAP programs. managers. In addition to specialised seminars this includes the placement of articles in fleet While it is common practice for inaugural manager magazines etc. NCAP programs to publish the results in a fairly . Presentation material and brochures to be innocuous manner to reduce the likelihood of available at new car sales outiets. This litigation, it is important that once this settling in generally only occurs at those dealer outlets period is passed that the relative safety results are whose vehicles perform well in the tests. accessible and compelling in their presentation. However, if a consumer is shopping around for a particular class of vehicle, they may be Like most NCAP programs, Australian NCAP considering at least one make of vehicle which was very cautious in its initial release, publishing performs well. mainly raw numbers for injury criteria for various . Better packaged, understandable information parts of the body and avoiding overall vehicle safety specifically aimed at non-technical audiences, summaries. Obviously, this mode of presentation is particularly market growth sectors such as only of use to a very sophisticated user who can women purchasers. attempt to give different weightings to information on, say, injury criteria for head, chest and legs, The main task is to get the information to relative injury information for driver and passenger consumers in an understandable and compelling and, where there is more than one test, somehow form so that they act on it when buying a merging the results of an offset, head-on, or side-on vehicle. Market testing has found that the test. credibility of those currently promoting the ANCAP program is very high. This is because motoring It is more useful to the consumer for the NCAP organisations are highly regarded and the group itself to merge this information into a single significance of their merger with state government outcome which takes into account the relative road safety divisions to put out consumer incidence of the various crash types and the relative information is not lost on consumers. occupancy of the different seating positions. In the past ANCAP has been aware of the need to make Another important consideration is the sure that the information actually got to consumers. occupational health and safety requirements to it has done this by:- provide a safe workplace, under which a vehicle is * Media releases of the information as each batch included. This has the potential to provide of information becomes available through powerful leverage to both government and industry television, radio and newsprint. However, one- fleet buying standards. 2422 Our view is that, until an NCAP program has an had the theme of globalisation and harmonisation of audited/monitored sound marketing program, it is vehicle safety standards. unlikely to achieve its full potential. The ESV Conference demonstrated that much 2.7 Media Launches activity was occurring on a global scale with consumer crash test programs but there was a need 2.7. I Media Releases to harmonise test protocols, including presentation of crash test results The Conference identified ANCAP h,as taken the common international NCAP activity in Japan, Europe, Korea and the approach of redeasing a group of vehicle results at United States as well as Australia. one time to maximise interest and to provide consumers with adequate comparative information. ANCAP saw benefits in reducing costs and enhancing the range of results provided by a more A common media release , written by a member co-operative approach between global consumer of the ANCAP Technical Committee and reviewed crash test programs and gathered information from by one of the stakeholders media staff, is provided around the world to clarify the potential benefits of for all stakeholders. The release is subjected to data sharing. rigorous legal review to ensure there are minimal grounds for legal action. 3. CURRENT SITUATION

2.7.2 Questions & Answers 3.1 Results Format

A summary of common Questions and Answers The ANCAP presentation of results has evolved about the program is kept continually updated and by a process of continuous review, including focus included in the media kit for each launch. group evaluations. The current format is based on the US IIHS brochure method and uses ratings of 2.1.3 Video Tapes/Photos etc Good, Acceptable,Marginal and Poor (see Figs 2- 4). A Betacam compilation of all the crash tests for each launch is made up from the high speed and This format was considered to be the best real-time film and video from the crash laboratory. available internationally in 1996. Market research This is supplied to any television journalist who in Australia has also shown that consumers find this attends the launch and on demand to other stations. presentation format relatively easy to understand.

2.7.4 Video News Release (VNR) Four areas of vehicle crashworthiness are evaluated - structure, restraints, injury For several releases ANCAP contracted a media measurements and head restraint design. These are company to produce a video news release consisting combined into an overah evaluation which is based of a series of sample questions and answers on both the full frontal and offset crash test results. featuring members of the Technical and The results are available on the intemet Management Committees, with a compilation of the (www.nrma.com.au/cras.htests/). crash test video included. However it was found that the television stations preferred to conduct their 3.2 Data Sharing own interviews and did not use the question and answer part of the VNR. As the process was quite ANCAP is part of a global NCAP network. expensive, involving a professional interviewer, it NCAP organisations are standardising on testing was abandoned and the video tape is now formatted and are sharing results for similar vehicles in as above by a contractor from original laboratory different markets. ANCAP, by agreement with the film and tapes. manufacturers, has used IIHS results for the Volvo 850 and Camry and a Euro NCAP result for 2.7.5 Media Kit the Volkswagon Polo. Japan NCAP is also repubiishing results from US NCAP. This will All the above items are included in a media kit become more common as vehicle designs are folder. Each stakeholder formats the folder to their increasingly globalised. own preference. The kit is distributed to a range of magazines, nlewspapers and periodicals. Data sharing means that duplication of effort and considerable costs can be avoided and more 2.8 International Data vehicles can be evaluated. Consumers can then make a more informed choice at the time of vehicle The Enhanced Safety of Vehicles (ESV) purchase on the basis of occupant protection Conference held in Melbourne during May 1996 performance. 2423 then produced to present all these results together in 3.3 Relationships an abbreviated format as an overall buyer’s guide. Some of the models had been superseded but the ANCAP consults with the automotive industry results were useful for buyers of recent model about the program through the Australian Federal second-hand vehicles. Figure 3 in the Appendix Chamber of Automotive industries (FCAI), the reproduces the brochure. representative group for the vehicle manufacturers and importers in Australia. Representatives from 3.4.3 Four Wheel Drive Vehicles (4WDs) the vehicle manufacturing companies are invited to attend the test of their own products and can review The 4WD (SUV) category, as in the US, is the results before publication. ANCAP meets with growing in popularity in Australia. According to the FCAT before each public launch and in early the manufacturers own survey data, most of these 1997 conducted a technical briefing for FCAI vehicles are rarely used off-road even though many, members on the new IIHS-style rating system. particularly the larger models, are designed for, and perform very well in, this role. ANCAP has spent substantial time and effort briefing motoring journalists about the program to These vehicles are popular because they have a encourage the incorporation of vehicle safety higher driving position, flexible interior space and ratings in the consumer perspective of road tests an undeserved reputation as being safer due to their and reviews. size and weight. While their occupants may come off better in a crash with a smaller vehicle, analysis ANCAP has also made numerous presentations of Australian on-road crash data shows that, when to fleet management groups on the implications of all crashes are considered, 4WDs are about as safe crash test results for vehicle selection for fleet as a medium-sized (MUARC 1998). managers. Industrial legislation in Australia requires employers to provide a safe workplace and The ANCAP test results show that this class of a company vehicle is defined as a workpiace. Due vehicles lags well behind sedans in the introduction to Australian tax arrangements, about 50 percent of of better occupant safety. The highest rating new vehicles are sold to fleets. Around 60-70 vehicle, the Landrover Discovery with airbags, was percent of production of the Holden Commodore only rated Marginal compared with some sedans and Ford Falcon is sold to fleets. The buying now being rated Good. preferences of fleet managers therefore has a strong influence on vehicle manufacturers in Australia. Figure 4 in the Appendix reproduces the 4WD The use by fleet managers of ANCAP ratings as a public information brochure. purchase criterion wiI1 further encourage vehicle manufacturers to provide safer vehicles. 3.5 Euro NCAP Ratings

3.4 Recent Releases The Euro NCAP test protocol includes offset frontal, side and pedestrian impact in its evaluation 3.4.1 Large/Medium Car Class of each vehicle. Combining the results from these tests into an overall rating has been a challenge for In Australia, due to the dominance of four Euro NCAP which other NCAP groups will also locally manufactured models, this category have to face. comprises about 40 percent of new car sales and is therefore a very important influence on the total Euro NCAP has adopted a star rating system market. Three out of the four large loca! models similar to the NHTSA, whereas ANCAP and IIHS were updated in 1997 making an update very have adopted the Good, Acceptable, Marginal, important. Poor system. While efforts are being made to standardise NCAP presentation methods Figure 3 in the Appendix reproduces the public internationally, there are technical differences brochure of the ratings for the vehicles currently on which require alternative presentations to be used in the Australian market. The airbag-equipped Camry different markets. and the Volvo 850 ratings are examples of overseas results being used with the agreement of the vehicle Figure 5 in the Appendix shows an example of manufacturer. The Mitsubishi Magna is sold in the the Euro NCAP rating system. US and Japan as the Diamante. 3.6 Market Research 3.4.2 Summary brochure ANCAP commissioned focus group research By the end of 1997, over 60 vehicle models had (ANOP 1998) to evaluate how well the current been tested by ANCAP. A summary brochure was brochure designs were communicating the ANCAP 2424 results, to canvass how the design and distribution The recent availability of an on-board data could be improved and to suggest other avenues for acquisition system by ANCAP’s main test promoting the pro,gram and the information. contractor means that the rear seat in vehicles can now be retained - previously it had to be removed to The groups consisted of people who were soon accomodate the junction boxes for the umbilical to purchase, or had recently purchased, a new car. cord data acquisition system. This will allow a Both genders were represented (interviewed range of fkther test activities such as effectiveness separately) and the groups were segregated into of rear seatbeltsiseat-pans, child restraints and seat under and over 40 age groups. latch strength. The exact tests to be run were still being decided at the time of writing. The main resu Its of the research were that-: l despite considerable effort over the years to 5 CONCLUSIONS simplify the content of ANCAP brochures, even more simplified presentations were needed; ANCAP’s experience with producing consumer l the logos of the program sponsors needed to be ratings on vehicle safety is a useful guide to other given greater prominence as they contributed groups attempting the same task. Of greatest greatly to the credibility of the program; importance are the periodic review of methods of l the rating system may need minor revision to presentation of information to the car buying public add a category better than Good Excellent was and methods of advertising, marketing and suggested; distributing the information. l previous tests should be included wherever possible to provide a good comparison for Television has been found to be an excellent readers; medium for promoting vehicie safety overall and l the distribution system should be broadened to ANCAP pubfications. However, television include, for instance-: advertisements are expensive and a wider marketing -as an insert in motoring association program maintains interest in crash test results for a magazines longer period. -new car dealers -service .stations/garages -supermarkets -vehicle accessory stores and vehicle sections of supermarkets -libraries

A public relations campaign was suggested including television current affairs and infotainment programs, particu.lariy those with a consumer angle, radio programs featuring motoring personalities, and features in women’s magazines which would be likely to reach a receptive audience. Cross promotions in these magazines with vehicle manufacturers were suggested.

Women are generally more concerned about safety than men and more often look for a wide range of information before reaching a purchasing decision. Women are involved in over half of all vehicle purchasmg decisions, so they are an influential target group.

4 FUTURE DIRECTIONS

After frontal crashes, side impacts cause the most trauma on Australian roads. ANCAP therefore intends to adopt a side impact test in the near future. When this occurs the relevance and value of the full frontal test will be re-evaluated in the light of airbag penetration into the Australian new vehicle mark.et.

2425 REFERENCES

ANCAP [I], “Crash Test Report,” Vol 1 Number 1, Large/Medium , April 1993.

ANCAP [2], “Crash Test Report,” Vol 1 Number 2, Small cars, April 1994.

ANCAP [3], “Crash Test Report, Technical Summary,” Vol 1 Number 3, 4 wheel drives and passenger vans, November 1994.

ANCAP [4], “Buyers Guide to Vehicle Crash Tests, 4 wheel drives and passenger vans,” November 1994.

ANCAP [5], “Buyers Guide to Vehicle Crash Tests, Large/medium and small cars,” June 1995.

ANCAP [6], “Buyers Guide to Crash Tests, Utes,” November 1995.

ANCAP [7], “Buyers Guide to Crash Tests, Large/medium cars,” March 1996.

ANCAP [S], “Buyers Guide to Crash Tests, Small car update,” November 1996.

ANCAP [9], “Buyers Guide to Crash Tests, Large/medium car update,” February 1997.

ANCAP [lo], “Buyers Guide to Crash Tests, Small car update,” July 1997.

ANCAP [I 11, “Buyers Guide to Crash Tests, Large/medium car update,” December 1997.

ANCAP [ 121, “Buyers Guide to Crash Tests, Summary,” January 1998.

ANCAP [13], “Buyers Guide to Crash Tests,” 4WDs, April 1998.

ANOP, NCAP CRASH TEST BROCHURES, “Qualitative Research into New Car Buyers’ Attitudes to Car Safety and the NCAP Brochures”, ANOP Research Services Pty Ltd, April 1998.

MUARC, Newstead, Stuart, Cameron, Max, and Le, Chau My, “Vehicle Crashworthiness ratings and crashworthiness by year of manufacture: Victoria and New South Wales crashes during 1987-96,” March 1998.

2426 Nissan P’ulsar II Full frontal he driver’s heaId struck the steer- Lijiback: 5 door ing wheel, producing a high range Engine: 4 cylinder (I. 6 litre) T HIC value of 1,460 indicating that Front- wheel- drive brain damage was likely. : console automatic The passenger’s head hit the dash Power steering padding, producing a high range HIC Built: Frontal 12/92; Offset 8/93 value of 1,530 indicating that brain dam- Kerb weight: 1,095 kg age was likely. The driver dummy’s side seat latch released and the seat slid forward. The damage to the front doors and almost no dummy’schest struckthesteering wheel. damage to the rear panels of the vehicle. Thisproducedachestcompressionvalue All doors remained functional although of 52 mm indicating that chest injury was thefrontonesrequiredconsiderableforce possible. The passenger dummy’schest to open. The j?ont was crushed an average 454mm compression value of 43 mm indicated that serious chest injury was unlikely. SUMMARY Driver SUMMARY Passenger The driver dummy’s knees struck the Assessment of injury risks Assessment of injury risks lower part of the dash board and steering Head Head column, while the passenger dummy’s High High knees struck the glovie box. Overall, the (HIC 1460) (HIC 1530) loads measured indicated that upper leg injuries were unlikely for both occupants. Chest Chest However, the values recorded for upper Medium Low (52mm) leg injurywere higherforthe driverdummy Wmm) due to the release of its seat runners. Vehicle damaae Legs Legs The front lower part of the Pulsar’s Low Low windscreen was shattered but remained (left 4.78 kN, (left 2.02 kN, in place. The front of the carwas crushed right 2.30 kN) right 2.49 kN) an average of 454 mm. There was minor

Offset SUMMARY Driver SUMMARY Passenger iIi Assessment of injury risks Assessment of injwy risks he driver’s hea.d hit the dash pad- Head Head ding and the console, producing a High Medium (HIC 810) T high range HICvalueof 2,16Oindi- (HIC 2160) eating that brain dam.age was likely. Chest The passenger’s head struck the top Chest Low Low of the dash panel, producing a mid range (42mm) (37mm) HIC value of 810 indicating that brain damage was possiblle. The driver dum- my’s chest struck the ibottom of the steer- Legs ing wheel rim recording a low range chest High compression value of 42 mm indicating (left 9.80 kN, that chest injury was unlikely. right 18.30 kN) The passenger clummy recorded a low range chest compression value of 37mm, also indicating that chest injury was unlikely. The drrver’s left leg struck the steering wheel column, the dash board and dislodged the console. The loads measured indicated that leg injury forthe left ieg was possible. The steering column and dash panel support bar struck the top of the right knee. The loads measured indicated that leg injury for the right leg was likely. Vehicle clamaqe The windscreen was extensively cracked but remained in place. The car was crushed to a max:imum of 840 mm on the right hand side. There was extensive deformation to the driver’s roof, door and floor. The driver’s door required mechani- cal assistance to open. Brain damage was likely for the driver andpossible for the passenger Figu re 1 - Typical ANCAP Presentation 2427 R.

R.

q

R.

q

2428 Small Cars Overall OFFSETTEST 64krn!h Allvehicles have been subjected to a 56hh lull frontallest unlessolhwlse noted MitsubishiMirage 96-on (dual air bags) ToyotaStarlet 96-on (dual alr bags) Large Medium Cars dverall HondaCivic 95-on (driver’s air bag) FordLaser 96-on (driver’s alr bag) OFFSETTEST 64 kmlh MitsubishiMirage 96.on (US)Q/97-on (dual atr bags) ToyotaStarlet 96.on Volvo650 (US)95-97 (dual air bags) DaihatsuCharade 96.on (driver’s alr bag) MitsubishiMagna Q6-on (driver’s elf bag) ixl DaihatsuCharade Q&on HondaAccord 94-97 (dtiver’s air bag) q DaewooCielo 95.on HoldenCommodore Q/97-on (driver’s alr bag) l7J HyundaiLantra 95.on (driver’s alr bag) Toyota Camry Q/97-on Nissan Micra95-97 (driver’s alr bag) FordFalcon 94-98 (driver’s alr bag) ii Nissan Pulsar95on (driver’s sir bag) MiisubishlMagna 96.on q FordLaser 96.on ToyotaCamry 95-9197 HoldenBarina 95.on (dual alr bags) HyundaiLantra 95on HoldenCommodore 95-9197 NissanMicra 9.597 OFFSETTEST 60 km/h (we * note) OFFSETTEST 6Ohh (seam SubaruLiberty GX 94-96 (dualalr bags) 96-97 (driver’sirs bag) SubaruLiberty LX 94-96 Subarulmpreza 93.on ToyotaCamry 93-95 (drtvehair bag) ToyotaCorolla 91-94 HoldenCommodore 93-95 (driveis sir bag) ii HyundaiLantra 92-95 (driver’alrs bag) OFFSETTEST 64 kmlh, NO FULL FRONTAL CRASH TEST (seew note) HondaCivic 93-95 Volvo540 (Euro)97-on (dualair bsgs) ToyotaCorolla 94-95 Honda Civic VEI 93-95 (driver’s air bag) BMW5 Series(US) 97son (dual air bags) : HyundaiExcel 94.on (driver’s air bag) HoldenVectra (Euro) 97.on (driver’sair bag) HoldenBarina 94-95 LexusLS400 (US) 97.on (dualair begs) FordFestiva 94-97 FordLaser 94-96 Passenger Vans HyundaiExcel 90-94 OFFSETTEST 6OkmJ1(aas m note) DaihatsuCharade 93-96 MitsubishiStar Wagon 91-94 FordLaser 90-94 ToyotaTarago 90-95 MiisubishiLancer 92-96 ToyotaSpacia 93-96 HyundaiExcel 94-on Mazda121 90-97 MazdaMPV 93-96 HoldenBarinaQl-94 NissanPulsar 91-95 4WDs OFFSETTEST 64krn/‘h,NO FULL FRONTAL CRASH TEST (seerir nola) OFFSETTEST 64krw’h VW Polo96-96 (Euro NCAP) (driver’s alr bag) a LandRoverDiscovery (US) 93-97 (dualair bags) q Utilities OFFSETTEST 6Okmh (seeB nope) OFFSET TEST 64kmh ToyotaLandcruiser 92-96 ToyotaHilux 4x4 66-97 MltsubishiPajero 93-97 !/ii MitsubishiTmon 95-96 i LandRoverDiscovery 93-97 ToyotaHilux 2x4 6697 NissanPatrol 92-97 ii Mazda82600 94-96 SuzukiVitara JX 91-95 fa HoldenRodeo 90-97

Key to ratings: Qood q Acceptable q Marginal IIJ

Figure 3 - ANCAP Summary Brochure Protectionfrom seriousinjury $ * \ g e-b ($p 8 ,a 6 ~~*!i *Q,a * * * & $9 & @a *$& Offsetcrash test speed64km/h, full frontal 56km/h

LandroverDiscovery (US) 93-97 (dual aitbgs)

ToyotaRAV4 97 OII

ToyotaPrado 97 ON

KiaSportage 97 on tJN ToyotaLandcruiser 92-w o MitsubishiPajero 93-97

LandroverDiscovery 93-97

NissanPatrol 92-97

SuzukiVitara JX 91-95 .Q&, HeyWatings: Goodq Acceptablem MarginalH Poor m

t If the restraintsin the Discoveryhad performedslightly better the Overallrating would have been Acceptable. Landroverhas confbmed that similarresults can be expectedfrom the equivalentAustralian model ‘In the offsettest of the ToyotaPrado there was a substantialleak from the fuel tank. Formore details about the crashtests contactone of the organisationslisted on the backpage or visit the Website.

Figure 4 - ANCAP 4WD Results How the test cars compare

At-a-glance guide to how all 13 cars fared in front- and side-impact testing, plus star ratings for their effectiveness in protecting pedestrians AudA4i two- NCAY..tront A.-. and. side. . impact. rating

\- /‘.( ,:.~(* *

I , h h Pedestriantest rating *1ta* Driverfront impact Passengerfront impact Driverside impact BMW3-ser ie

EuroNCAP front and side impact rating x/‘s x/~ts**

Pedestriantest rating ***-i? Driverfront impact Passengerfront impact Driverside impact

Figure 5 - Example of E2~y NCAP Rating System