Get a load of this guy...

[Erez]

Don't like his style, nor him so will ignore this douche bag. But, why were these features removed from our Mustangs if they are available on American versions? Its one thing to rob us of DRLs but completely different when it comes to safety features. Now I don't necessarily need or want some of these features in my stang, but even if it is for the sake of resale value, Ford just shoved one big %$# up our arses.
And yes, these test are ridiculous in a way that manufacturers only aim to do the min in order to pass their local market (except maybe Volvo) but a 4 stars for front occupants is not good enough for any car these days.

Sponsored

 

[RSPEC-015]

I think a little bit of objectivity is required here. Cabogan calls himself an engineer but he's full of rhetoric, he just reports statements made by the ANCAP & NCAP chiefs - if he looked at the test results he should be questioning them - and not pouring out his vitriol on others.

I've gleaned this information from Australian Ford Forums where others (credit due to them) have done some research and posted FACTS:

If the dummies heads bottomed out during the Front Offset test like ANCAP claim the Head Injury Count figure should be much higher.

Mustang Front Offset Test 64km/h: Driver HIC 93 and Front Passenger HIC 244

For comparison:


Falcon 2008 Front Offset Test 64km/h: Driver HIC 201 and Front Passenger HIC 282

ANCAP state a HIC of 650 = 5% chance of injury and a HIC of 1000 = 20% chance of injury.

Looking at the ANCAP results for Falcon FG - which has been rolled into FGX:

Side impact test at 50 kph: Driver HIC 117

Test data on Ford Mustang:

Side impact test at 50 kph: Driver HIC 74

The lower the HIC the better.

Following is portion of a table from ANCAP explaining HIC data:

Measurement :

Good <750

Acceptable 750-899

Marginal 900-999

Poor 1000 or more

The ANCAP chief talks about "serious" risk of injury but even by their own scoring it's "Good".

Actually, if you look in to it, and compare like for like cars, only Mazda MX5, Audi TT and Hyundai Velostar have been tested since 2015. Toyota 86/Subaru BRZ were tested in 2013.

When you look at the Mazda 5 results, there are no rear seat results, so its front seat only. The Mustang performs well enough for a 5 star rating if you disregard the rear seat results.

The Audi TT is rated at 4 stars, and if you look in to it, like Mustang, its dragged down by poor results from the rear seat score. However, Mustang was tested with dummies simulating a 6yr old child and 10yr old child. The 6yr did ok, the 10yr, not so much. The Audi TT was tested using dummies simulating an 18month old, and a 3yr old! So already its obvious there are some glaring differences in their testing procedures. You can't use a different test and still use the same rating system for each car. See how confusing this is already!

ANCAP & NCAP had increased the weight of the child dummies but you'll find no explanation of that.

Hyundai Velostar scored 5 stars but again, no rear seat occupants were tested.

Also, the speed of the pole test was increased by 5km/h for the Mustang, compared with the others where data is available.

And lastly this page on the ANCAP website explains the safety ratings

https://www.ancap.com.au/safety-ratings-explained

Again, with Mustang labelled a 2 star car, if you click on the 2 star rating, you might be fooled into thinking the Mustang is down this end of the scale, but you have to read the fine print to see that its only talking about the frontal offset test. In this test, Mustang scored 4 star, or 5 star for front occupants only. The problem is, they don't tell you how the cars rated for each test, in a star rating.

 

[phil545]

I think a little bit of objectivity is required here. Cabogan calls himself an engineer but he's full of rhetoric, he just reports statements made by the ANCAP & NCAP chiefs - if he looked at the test results he should be questioning them - and not pouring out his vitriol on others.

I've gleaned this information from Australian Ford Forums where others (credit due to them) have done some research and posted FACTS:

If the dummies heads bottomed out during the Front Offset test like ANCAP claim the Head Injury Count figure should be much higher.

Mustang Front Offset Test 64km/h: Driver HIC 93 and Front Passenger HIC 244

For comparison:


Falcon 2008 Front Offset Test 64km/h: Driver HIC 201 and Front Passenger HIC 282

ANCAP state a HIC of 650 = 5% chance of injury and a HIC of 1000 = 20% chance of injury.

Looking at the ANCAP results for Falcon FG - which has been rolled into FGX:

Side impact test at 50 kph: Driver HIC 117

Test data on Ford Mustang:

Side impact test at 50 kph: Driver HIC 74

The lower the HIC the better.

Following is portion of a table from ANCAP explaining HIC data:

Measurement :

Good <750

Acceptable 750-899

Marginal 900-999

Poor 1000 or more

The ANCAP chief talks about "serious" risk of injury but even by their own scoring it's "Good".

Actually, if you look in to it, and compare like for like cars, only Mazda MX5, Audi TT and Hyundai Velostar have been tested since 2015. Toyota 86/Subaru BRZ were tested in 2013.

When you look at the Mazda 5 results, there are no rear seat results, so its front seat only. The Mustang performs well enough for a 5 star rating if you disregard the rear seat results.

The Audi TT is rated at 4 stars, and if you look in to it, like Mustang, its dragged down by poor results from the rear seat score. However, Mustang was tested with dummies simulating a 6yr old child and 10yr old child. The 6yr did ok, the 10yr, not so much. The Audi TT was tested using dummies simulating an 18month old, and a 3yr old! So already its obvious there are some glaring differences in their testing procedures. You can't use a different test and still use the same rating system for each car. See how confusing this is already!

ANCAP & NCAP had increased the weight of the child dummies but you'll find no explanation of that.

Hyundai Velostar scored 5 stars but again, no rear seat occupants were tested.

Also, the speed of the pole test was increased by 5km/h for the Mustang, compared with the others where data is available.

And lastly this page on the ANCAP website explains the safety ratings

https://www.ancap.com.au/safety-ratings-explained

Again, with Mustang labelled a 2 star car, if you click on the 2 star rating, you might be fooled into thinking the Mustang is down this end of the scale, but you have to read the fine print to see that its only talking about the frontal offset test. In this test, Mustang scored 4 star, or 5 star for front occupants only. The problem is, they don't tell you how the cars rated for each test, in a star rating.

You sir are a bloody legend! I'm going to copy this and spread the news, screw all these haters!

 

[RSPEC-015]

^^^^ Hi Phil,

I've only gleaned what has been posted by some of the guys on Australian Ford Forums - so credit to them. The facts are very revealing - something which Cadogan and even the ANCAP chief Goodwin, conveniently ignore.

Sponsored