THE PROTON JUMBUCK, Australia’s cheapest ute, has scored a dismal 1-Star rating after the latest round of ANCAP crash testing. Only marginally better were the Great Wall Motors SA220 and V240 dual cab utes, with each scoring just 2-Star ratings.
With more commercial vehicles now achieving 4-Star and 5-Star ratings, (the Mercedes-Benz Vito recently became the first to receive a full 5-Star rating), ANCAP says the results for the low-cost utes are particularly concerning.
“Crash statistics show that occupants of 1 or 2-Stars vehicles have twice the risk of receiving life-threatening injuries in a crash, compared with 4 or 5-Star vehicles - at a time when 4 and 5-Star ratings are becoming increasingly available for new car buyers,” ANCAP Chairman Lauchlan McIntosh said.
“New vehicles that achieve only a 1 or 2-Star ANCAP rating - while meeting the ADRs - are a cause for concern.”
The Proton Jumbuck and both Great Wall utes fared poorly in ANCAP’s testing, with all three experiencing significant loss of cabin integrity during the offset crash test.
The Jumbuck scored just one point out of 16 for the frontal offset crash, while the SA220 and V240 scored 2.32 and 2.36 respectively. Head and leg protection was low for both models.
“The SA220 and the Jumbuck lack airbags and other safety features that are expected as standard equipment by new car buyers,” Mr McIntosh said.
“The V240 has dual airbags but these failed to protect the driver and passenger from injury in our
crash tests.”
Despite the low ratings for the SA220 and V240, Great Wall importer Ateco Automotive is putting a positive spin on the results, saying a 2-Star rating is a good outcome for the Chinese-built utilities.
However, the company also says Great Wall engineers will study the ANCAP test results and work towards improving safety for future products.
“Great Wall takes safety very, very seriously,” Ateco spokesperson Daniel Cotterill said.
“Our technical people from Ateco and the technical people from Great Wall are really head-down working on the information that’s been made available to them, and they are coming back to us very confident that they can make significant advances insofar as safety is concerned.”
Loading ...
Comments
Click here to jump to Add Comment box
How do you get a picture next to your name?
Get a Gravatar. Click here to find out more.
“Great Wall takes safety very, very seriously”… Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. You are twice as linely to be killed driving one of these death traps. On what planet do they care about safety. So typical of chinese manufacturers. They just want to create something that will run and sell but havent thought about “other” issues that go along with manufacturing. Eg. safety, OHS. environmental issue, etc. I wouldnt drive a chinese car if they were free until they start addressing these issue that every other manufacturere seems to be able to address.
I vote that anything brand new under 4 stars should be off the market. If the govt can enforce ESP as manditory, why can’t they do the 4 star rule too? Is our safety ‘during an accident’ not as important as a preventive measure to not have an accident in the first place?
surprise surprise……Both Proton & Great Wall (that’s some name for a car company!) have poor safety ratings. Who would’ve known, huh?
interesting results on the Great Wall ! …..does this mean that the Rodeo would have the same rating as they are built on the same chassis etc ????
Unlikely, Stan. Although the GM platform may look more or less identical to the Great Wall from the a-pillar back when compared on the lot, I rather suspect that a thorough engineering comparison of the two vehicles would show the Great Wall to be made with relatively inferior grade materials and without the GM product’s crumple zones. Unfortunately, it is this inferior build-quality that lends the illusion of legitimacy to the jokes about Chinese cars all being made from pig iron and bacofoil, with leather interiors coming from the tanned hides of political prisoners.
The aesthetics of the original design are copied (frequently without a licencing agreement), not to ensure the same safety standards, but so that components such as electric window assemblies, hubs, wiring looms, etc, can be sourced from the same suppliers for the original vehicle, further reducing development costs in an attempt to undercut the price of the original. I’m not arguing that the GWM don’t have a licencing agreement with GM: I suspect they required one in order to enter the Australian market. However Great Wall are known to have done this in the past: GWM was banned from selling their small Peri car in Europe: the Court of Turing found it to be an unlicenced copy of the Fiat Panda.
Just a thought: buying a Great Wall (or any car built without a licence from the original manufacturer) is very nearly the automotive equivalent of buying a dodgy DVD camrip of a newly released movie from a guy selling them out of a car at the pub.
That should of course have read “the Court of Turin”, not “Turing”…
Imagine that, Chinese and Malaysian cars are crap.
Who knew?
I’m malaysian and i don’t even trust proton. One of the most hopelessly made cars…Dissapointing
well its nice to mention that the Mitsubishi Triton only got a 2 star and as for the others they only got a 3 star. so how about before you start making comments Rajman and matt you look at the facts!!
The only reason the didnt mention triton, mazda, holden, ford was because Greatwall is new to the market and the manufacturers are crapping them selfs because greatwall is taking a huge number of customers from them.
Uhh Terry, the Mitsubishi Triton has a 4 star safety rating. I suggest you start looking at the facts before you bag others. Fact is, this car has a poor safety standard and their new-ness on the market is no excuse. And from the sales numbers, I wouldn’t say Great Wall are taking ‘huge’ numbers away from anything, except their own reputation.
Hey Tom, how about you get the latest delivery mag and look at page 44 that shows all makes with there safety rating which ill say once again the Mitsubishi Triton 4X2 scored a 2 star!!!. and yes you are right look at the facts! ( i have).
Yes i understand that the 2star isnt the best but why not pick on the others awell seeing as they have a crap safety rating to.
Terry, try again. http://www.ancap.com.au/results/207/
The ML Triton (Released 2006) has a 4 star safety rating across the range. Though the 4×4 model was tested, 4×2 models are the same. The previous MK Triton had a 2 star safety rating.
Thats right the 2006 had a 4 star, but the lastest model of the Mitsubishi Triton 4×2 has a 2 star rating. like i said before read the LATEST delivery mag issue 25 aug/sept 2009. so you try again tom.
Look Terry, I even gave you a link to the ANCAP website which will be much more accurate than some magazine you keep quoting. Now think about it, why would a 4×4 get a higher safety rating than a 4×2 model that has the exact same specs. If anything the lack of a front transfer casing and diff would make the 4×2 safer in a crash test not less safe. The MK Triton that was tested (2002 - 2005) was a 4×2 model, however across the range the MK Triton had a 2 star rating. The new, 2006 onwards ML Triton is a 4 star car, as tested by ANCAP. That they tested the 4×4 model is irrelevent, Mitsubishi say its 4 star across the range, for them to say that without being sued, means the ANCAP rating for the 2006 ML Triton is across the entire range.
If you want to keep deluding yourself that this is just some conspiracy against Chinese cars then knock yourself out. Fact is, Hilux and Triton have been 4 star for some years now, and a 2 star safety rating isn’t good enough, no matter how new to market a model is. In fact it makes it worse. There is nothing excusing this cheap, nasty, shoddily designed ugly lump of pig iron for being the death trap it is.