Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Please note that it is not permitted to have referral links posted in your signature. Keep these links contained in the appropriate forum. Thank you.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2055940817/signature-rules

Kia and Chevrolet score bad Euro NCAP scores

Options
  • 14-03-2006 9:23pm
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 73,455 ✭✭✭✭


    Chevrolet_Aveo_1.jpg


    "The Chevrolet Aveo, a facelifted version of the former Daewoo Kalos, was singled out for the “unacceptably” high risk of life-threatening injury to the driver’s chest, which was highlighted by the frontal test.

    As a result, the car’s final star was struck through. Although the Aveo scored enough points overall to qualify for three stars, Euro NCAP insists on a minimum level of performance in each of the frontal and side impacts. While the Aveo’s performance in side impact was good, it did not score enough points in the frontal test to be given a three-star rating."



    The Kia Cerato didn't do much better either.


Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 7,661 ✭✭✭maidhc


    colm_mcm wrote:
    "The Chevrolet Aveo, a facelifted version of the former Daewoo Kalos, was singled out for the “unacceptably” high risk of life-threatening injury to the driver’s chest, which was highlighted by the frontal test.

    It is a bit of a marketing gimmick though, isnt it. If you hit anything head on doing over 40mph in any car you are probably dead, I presume a much lower will do the trick if you hit a wall or a tree.


  • Registered Users Posts: 73,455 ✭✭✭✭colm_mcm


    maidhc wrote:
    It is a bit of a marketing gimmick though, isnt it. If you hit anything head on doing over 40mph in any car you are probably dead, I presume a much lower will do the trick if you hit a wall or a tree.

    I'd rather stay in my 5 star car thanks!


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,661 ✭✭✭maidhc


    colm_mcm wrote:
    I'd rather stay in my 5 star car thanks!

    I guess :)


    If we take them all to be objecitve assessments, it is pretty bad if a 2006 car scores worse than an escort which dates back to pre-famine times:
    http://www.euroncap.com/content/safety_ratings/ratings.php?id1=2


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,393 ✭✭✭BrianD3


    There's a lot of marketing and hype associated with EuroNCAP these days. But the basic idea behind the tests is good and they are far more representative of real life crashes than the old type approval crash tests.

    No crash test can ever fully simulate what happens in real life. But if I were in an offset head on crash (which is probably the most common fatal crash) I'd rather have it in a 5 star car than in a 3 star car of the same size. Also, modern cars are generally way ahead of their older cars in terms of passive safety and strength of the passenger cell, a lot of this is due to EuroNCAP. Here's an example of old vs new - Golf Mk4 hits Golf Mk2
    http://leszno.edu.pl/~matt5/crash/golf.html


  • Registered Users Posts: 73,455 ✭✭✭✭colm_mcm


    The ironic thing is that Chevrolet Ireland uses the slogan "born Strong"

    Born in korea and rebadged more like...........


  • Advertisement
Advertisement