4x4 Action Group

I must say, I'm a little shocked by the result.


https://www.motoring.com.au/one-star-an ... er-118679/

https://www.ancap.com.au/safety-ratings ... ler/c89ac3

https://www.euroncap.com/en/results/jeep/wrangler/34192

but, when you look into it, are these tests really relevant? I've said for years they are getting dumber and dumber and it seems it's getting worse.

While the JL got full marks for side impact - actually very impressive - they pass a zero for the oblique pole test because they don't seem to have performed one?

they gave low marks for wheel intrusion into foot well - which is always a problem in a offset crash in a live axle vehicle, and probably why Merc ditched the live axle lay out - and then gave low marks because the dash is hard and 'might' be an issue because it's not a fluffy bunny thing?

but moist of the marks it lost are because low end models don't have automatic braking - can you imagine the Aussie whiny twang here : "base variants lack autonomous emergency braking altogether!" I mean who wants that ***poo** anyway?

And the bulk of the points were lost because of 'vulnerable road users' - i.e. twats on bicycles and walking in the road get hurt when hit by a car. WHY ARE THEY EVEN ON THE ROAD???!?!? Pedestrian unfriendly front bumper? who cares?!?!

Meanwhile, the new Hi Ace VAN gets 5 stars, because it's tested without a load in the back and doesn't have rear seats, but does have auto braking for idiot drivers and a cushion on the front for other idiots who get in the way.

I think that, should it come to a head on in the real world, I'll take any seat in the 1 star JL over a seat in a Hi Ace van thats got an actual load in it

What is the real point of these tests as they currently stand?

Renault should sort out their safety ratings now, being renowned for safety for a long time

Mad Manny wrote: ↑

Tue May 28, 2019 9:18 pm

Jeeps are the only vehicles that display their NCAP rating on their doors...

That’s actually really funny

Well done Manny !

KurtG wrote:Renault should sort out their safety ratings now, being renowned for safety for a long time

All sorted

Whilst I agree that NCAP are placing too much emphasis on non-structural things like electronic aids, 1 Star is just not good enough.

They obviously don’t care about all those Tail-gunners & rug munchers that buy them.

Ah, the new merger. the Dacia jeep....

Apocalypse wrote:Ah, the new merger. the Dacia jeep....

For sure. The merger should give Jeep access to some of Dacia’s safety technology

Notice how thick the weeds grow around the Duster's wheel???

Peculiar.

Yea exactly the same issue the Defender had, there is no actual problem with the safety rating but it's all the pedestrian nonsense that gave it a bad rating.

Crips wrote: ↑

Wed May 29, 2019 11:51 am

Yea exactly the same issue the Defender had, there is no actual problem with the safety rating but it's all the pedestrian nonsense that gave it a bad rating.

Weren't part of the Defenders problems that it's roof had the structural integrity of an empty pringles can?

Ricoffy wrote:Notice how thick the weeds grow around the Duster's wheel???

Peculiar.

Geh?

The Defender avoided crash testing because it was around since before crash testing.

They hadn’t changed the bulkhead from inception. If they had done so then it would have been required to be crash tested, which is how testing was avoided, via this loophole.

But they didn’t get away with it in USA where it was deemed unsafe regardless.

XJ Junkie wrote: ↑

Wed May 29, 2019 12:47 pm

The Defender avoided crash testing because it was around since before crash testing.

They hadn’t changed the bulkhead from inception. If they had done so then it would have been required to be crash tested, which is how testing was avoided, via this loophole.

But they didn’t get away with it in USA where it was deemed unsafe regardless.

the Puma bonnet had to be fitted to stop people hurting themselves when they head butted the bonnet..

What kind of muppet headbutts a Defender anyway?

Idiots.