How safe is your car: India's best selling vehicles which failed crash test (Updated)
The protection offered to the driver head was adequate due to bottoming out of the driver airbag. Driver chest protection as marginal. Passenger’s head and chest protection was good.
The front passengers’ knees could impact with dangerous structures in the dashboard lie the Tran fascia tube concluded Global NCAP.
seatbelts.
Both seatbelts were equipped with pretensioners. There were hazardous structures in the area of the facia that could be impacted by an occupant's knees.
The structure was able to withstand further loadings. Hence the car scored 4 star on safety front.
Driver’s chest protection was poor due to its high compression, Passenger’s chest protection was adequate. Both front passengers’ knees could impact with dangerous structures in the dashboard lie the Tran fascia tube. The bodyshell was also rated as unstable.
Global NCAP tested the standard version of the Kwid without airbags. It scored zero stars in adult occupant protection and two stars in child occupant protection.
The collapse of the structure in the passenger compartment and the lack of airbags explained the poor result.
The car was tested with and without an airbag. The new Kwid without an airbag scored zero stars in the adult occupant protection and two stars in child occupant protection.
The structure did not collapse however it was rated as unstable and that it could not withstand further loadings.
The structure was the same as the new Kwid without airbags but a high compression in the dummy chest area explains the low score.
The collapse of the structure combined with the lack of airbags explains the score for the adult occupants protection which means that there is high probability of life threatening injuries for at least one of the adult passengers.
The lack of airbags explained the poor result in adult occupant protection.
The low score in child occupant protection is explained by the high values recorded in the 3 year old child dummy as well as its forward excursion beyond the accepted limits.
It scored zero stars in the adult occupant protection and two stars in child occupant protection.
The unstable structure in the passenger compartment and the lack of airbags explained the poor result in adult occupant protection.
The collapse of the structure in the passenger compartment and the lack of airbags explained the poor result in adult occupant protection.
This model does not offer optional airbags. Considering the structural collapse airbags are not likely to help avoid life threatening injuries to the driver.
The vehicle structure proved inadequate and collapsed to varying degrees, resulting in high risks of life-threatening injuries to the occupants.
The extent of the structural weaknesses in this model was such that fitting airbags would not be effective in reducing the risk of serious injury.
In the 64km/h NCAP test, it achieved a zero-star rating for its adult occupant protection. The vehicle structure was rated as unstable, increasing the risk of life-threatening injuries and making the car unsuitable for the fitment of airbags.
The Alto 800 was also not able to meet the UN’s minimum safety requirements in the 56km/h crash test.
In January 2016, Maruti Suzuki introduced Alto with driver airbag as an option across variants of 800 and K10.
This hatchback lacked airbags and received Global NCAP’s lowest rating of zero stars (out of a possible five) for occupant protection in an offset frontal crash at 40 mph — a test that nearly all models in North America, Europe, Japan and Australia ace.
Injury measures taken from driver dummies indicated high risk of life-threatening injuries.
From November 2015, Maruti Suzuki introduced dual airbags as an option across all variants of Swift and Swift Dzire. So far it is made available only on the top trims.
In the 64km/h NCAP test, the Tata Nano achieved zero stars rating for its adult occupant protection.
The vehicle structure was rated as unstable, increasing the risk of life-threatening injuries and making the car unsuitable for the fitment of airbags.
The car achieved a zero-star rating for its child protection as it was not possible to install child seats in the car.
The Nano was also not able to meet the UN’s minimum safety requirements in the 56km/h crash test.
While launching the GenX Nano, the company informed that the car has now reinforced body structure and robust side doors for frontal and side crash safety, respectively.
The extent of the structural weaknesses in this model was such that fitting airbags would not be effective in reducing the risk of serious injury.
In the 64km/h NCAP test, the Hyundai i10 achieved a zero-star rating for its adult occupant protection.
Using the child seats recommended by Hyundai, the i10 achieved a one-star rating for child protection. The three year-old dummy indicated a high risk of serious injury.
The i10 was also not able to meet the UN’s minimum safety requirements in the 56km/h crash test.
The Next Gen i10 boasts of a rigid safety structure.
The basic version scored zero stars in Adult Occupant Protection and two stars Child Occupant Protection.
Comparing this unit to the model tested by Euro NCAP, there are clear differences in the equipment levels as the European basic version offers frontal and side airbags.
More Slideshows
Hyundai Tucson
Audi's new concept car: An oversized urban EV
Kia Carens: A recreational vehicle
Ekonk: All you need to know about India’s lightweight electric hypercar
Nissan Magnite: B-Segment SUV Concept
Audi's first coupe SUV: Audi Q3 Sportback
A Peek inside Data-Driven Autonomous Future
Financial Analysis of Key Auto Companies (FY09-FY19)
Coronavirus impact on auto industry
Making of the 2020 Hyundai SUV Creta
Quark 1: All you need to know about world's first 'class changing' vehicle
Launches and Unveilings at Auto Expo 2020
