First, I just contested the statement that electronic faults are more common than mechanical in general. I didn't say they didn't happen at all, or that the statement is false for all vehicles. Second, a mid-2000s 5-star score is totally not the same as today's 5 stars. In 2005, the Fiat Punto got 5 stars - https://www.euroncap.com/en/results/fiat/grande-punto/15665 However, this year, Euro NCAP decided to retest a brand-new one, and it got zero. None. Bugger all. - https://www.euroncap.com/en/results/fiat/punto/29849 I don't even wanna imagine what early 2000s 4-star safety is like.
Because modern EuroNCAP ratings are more about how intelligent the car is, not how sturdy it is. Even if a car keeps occupants completely invincible, but doesn't stop if needed or keep itself in lane, it won't get more than three stars ("excellent protection, but lacks shit that protects retarded carbon-based lifeforms from their own retardery active safety features").
And I'd imagine the new car is a fair amount safer than the old one. Giving it 0 stars is basically saying the car is unsafe, which isn't the case atall. Also, looking through the website abit, the safety assist score can go up with seatbelt reminders. However, it's barely consistent atall. For example, there are cars which only notify the driver, which get one point, and cars that have sensors in all the seats, which score 0. It seems that if a car has seatbelt reminders, both audible and visible, on all seats, it'll score 3. Yet there's a car which has this, has a pass for all points, and only got 2.6? I'm sorry for going on a rant about seatbelts, but when it can mean the difference from 0 stars to 2, I thought I'd bring it up
Tesla Might become the future of cars, but Tesla's pollute the earth like any other car. When you make plastic or the metal of a car, pollution happens. So Tesla's are exactly SAFE.
Keep in mind modern standards are insanely rigorous; modern vehicles pretty much have to be idiot-proof. A mid-2000s 4 star rating is still decent, from a survivability standpoint.
This is freakin' garbage. Get these computer demons out of cars. I don't want a car that can hit the brakes for me because, one, these systems can malfunction or be oversensitive, and two, I don't like the idea of giving a computer the ability to stop my car without my direct input telling it to. If the car has any form of hacking vulnerability, that feature could easily be used against the vehicle's occupants. Same with lane-keeping assist - you're giving a computer direct access to the steering controls, and that just doesn't sit well with me.
I really dislike the auto brake it can be usefull but when you drive past a turning car the auto brake slams on the brakes and the one after you nearly slams into you
You know, your Escort probably has 2 airbags. What if one explodes in your face? Better remove it. /sarcasm
The Punto tested in 2005 had side and curtain airbags. The one in 2017 didn't. Wonder why the rating is so different?
Funny until that sort-of-ish happens. See: Takata airbag deaths, caused by using an unstable propellant. The article I say didn't specifically say that the airbags went off while the car was idle, but they did say that as the car ages, the propellent can break down into a state where it will explode too violently when triggered. In any case, the ones in the Escort would actually be using an older propellant that gives off toxic fumes and can cause chemical burns, and I don't know which direction they vent in when they go off...
Well I know the Dodge Shadow from around the same time vented to 10 and 2, i.e. exactly where the driver's hands would be. Whoever was responsible for that wonderful idea is not currently known, nor is their fate after people started getting their wrists burned in accidents and Chrysler had to change it. Repaired models vent to 12 o'clock. I've never heard of a similar problem with the Escort, but I do shift my grip around occasionally so it would be nice to know where not to put my hands, is all I'm saying.
