Originally posted by ivorya
it's been mentioned in the 'Ba2 threads' that the BA 1 Falcons have been Over-engineered which obviously adds weight but increases safety.
My question is if the Holden Commodore is under engineered in comparrison to the falcon than we would have expected the results of the NRMA crash tests to have shown the falcon to be way infront of the commodore.
But they both got a 4-star rating, with some dude saying the falcon was a little better.
Now i've got thick blue-blood running thru my veins, but all i can see this overengineering has done is increased weight by roughly 100kg over the commodore, which has increased fuel comsumption over the commodore, for a meesly 'little better' in the safety rating!!
Now i'm sure the Holden people are probably sitting back quite comfortable and slowly having a chuckle at what is happening.
I'm not saying the BA is crap, I love everything about it, but i think they need to seriously consider reducing the weight of their cars to compete.
O.K i'll get off my soap box now.
I'll put it to you this way:
How many different types of crashes can you have? - answer hundreds.
How many different types of crashes (non pedestrian) does ANCAP simulate in these latest tests? - answer 2-3.
Now quite a few carmakers these day's also state what I have written - the crashes that EuroNCAP and ANCAP simulate are not representive of real world crashes.
How often do you see these agencies use crash tests that involve two cars crashing into each other at speeds of say around 70Km/h? - never.
How often do you see simulated crashes of cars shunted up the rear at 80Km/h? - never.
How often do you see simulated crashes of cars being rolled 5 times? - never.
If you read into detail on what structural enhancements were added and why to the BA, you will understand why it weighs around 100Kg's more.