RE: 'The toughest, most capable Land Rover ever'
Discussion
Cold said:
I suspect there is an element of bias in your assumptions, whereas the NCAP is impartial.
It has one star. One. Pathetic for a car manufactured today.
Bias, no. Just trying to employ a little common sense. As most people in the country do not drive brand new cars. And many drive cars that are much older. It has one star. One. Pathetic for a car manufactured today.
BTW have you seen the NCAP rating for a Caterham or Ariel Atom? Maybe they are pathetic too?
Bill said:
Which begs the question of how badly it must have done in the other tests.
Try reading the report. It was linked by someone else (who also didn’t seem to read it). As said previously, it seems most of its low score is down to not having things like AEB and similar tech. Plus pedestrian tests. Eg I believe it lost points for occupant safety due to only having ISO fix on some seats.
I suspect if it was tested to the older NCAP standards that aren’t looking for as much tech, then it’s rating would be quite different.
And let’s add a little reality. Are you saying you’d not go in anything with less than a top current NCAP rating? You’d never go in a 964, NA MX-5, Defender 90, Elan, R500, E30 and many many others.
300bhp/ton said:
Try reading the report. It was linked by someone else (who also didn’t seem to read it).
I posted it, I read it - you clearly didn’t:“One-star Wrangler has the lowest crash score of any vehicle currently on sale, due to stated body structure failures”
“... the safety performance of the Wrangler is limited, falling well shy of the expected standard in three of the four key areas of assessment”
“This is a very poor performance, fundamentally structural,” he said. “For a new model to have an unstable passenger cell, where the dummy has made contact with the A-pillar, with the dashboard… [it's poor],"
“One of the other things we’re seeing here is that the footwell ruptured”
“The passenger compartment of the Jeep Wrangler did not retain its structural integrity in the frontal offset test. Connection between the A-pillar and the cross fascia beam was compromised, as was the footwell structure, and penalties were applied”
“Protection of the chest was ‘weak’ for the driver and ‘adequate’ for the front passenger. Structures in the dashboard were a potential source of injury for both the driver and passenger and protection of the upper legs was rated ‘marginal'”
“Rearward displacement of the pedals was excessive and, in combination with the footwell rupture, protection of the driver’s feet was rated ‘marginal’"
... and so on. It’s laughably bad for a newly-introduced car.
I am surprised no one has mentioned Wrangler Death Wobble yet.
In a discussion related to a Class Action apparently brought against FCA on this matter, one commentator raised concerns that any manufacturer fix might lead to further pussyfication of the Wrangler and focussing it further towards beta males and soccer mums.
In a discussion related to a Class Action apparently brought against FCA on this matter, one commentator raised concerns that any manufacturer fix might lead to further pussyfication of the Wrangler and focussing it further towards beta males and soccer mums.
So it’s an overpriced, dangerous wagon for idiots?
At least we can consign this part of the thread to the history books and move forward in the modern world to discuss what looks like it will be a successful new car that lots of normal humans will be interested in buying.
We just have to remember if we buy one that it’s not going to be an appropriate car for rolling up to our next Clan meeting or our local Militia.
At least we can consign this part of the thread to the history books and move forward in the modern world to discuss what looks like it will be a successful new car that lots of normal humans will be interested in buying.
We just have to remember if we buy one that it’s not going to be an appropriate car for rolling up to our next Clan meeting or our local Militia.
300bhp/ton said:
Try reading the report. It was linked by someone else (who also didn’t seem to read it).
As said previously, it seems most of its low score is down to not having things like AEB and similar tech. Plus pedestrian tests. Eg I believe it lost points for occupant safety due to only having ISO fix on some seats.
I suspect if it was tested to the older NCAP standards that aren’t looking for as much tech, then it’s rating would be quite different.
And let’s add a little reality. Are you saying you’d not go in anything with less than a top current NCAP rating? You’d never go in a 964, NA MX-5, Defender 90, Elan, R500, E30 and many many others.
The Fiat 500 doesn't have AEB either but gets 3 stars.As said previously, it seems most of its low score is down to not having things like AEB and similar tech. Plus pedestrian tests. Eg I believe it lost points for occupant safety due to only having ISO fix on some seats.
I suspect if it was tested to the older NCAP standards that aren’t looking for as much tech, then it’s rating would be quite different.
And let’s add a little reality. Are you saying you’d not go in anything with less than a top current NCAP rating? You’d never go in a 964, NA MX-5, Defender 90, Elan, R500, E30 and many many others.
It's a function of the chassis. No crumple zones means more force is transmitted to the occupants.
Zed Ed said:
I am surprised no one has mentioned Wrangler Death Wobble yet.
In fairness, that's not Wrangler or Jeep specific, I've had it on a Discovery. It's a function of suspension geometry and where wear/slop develops in the system. Basically a feedback loop around the scrub radius and castor angle etc - lifted stuff with radius arm front suspension can be quite bad for it due to a simple lift adversely affecting the castor angle.InitialDave said:
In fairness, that's not Wrangler or Jeep specific, I've had it on a Discovery. It's a function of suspension geometry and where wear/slop develops in the system. Basically a feedback loop around the scrub radius and castor angle etc - lifted stuff with radius arm front suspension can be quite bad for it due to a simple lift adversely affecting the castor angle.
Yup. The typical death wobble is what the panhard rod exists to eliminate on vehicles with a separate chassis. I don’t know if the Wrangler issue is the same thing though?
Why are people going on about crappy Euro NCAP and ANCAP performance of the Wrangler? Neither are relevant to the Wrangler's main market of the US where they are selling 200k+/yr compared to a piddling 10k/yr for Europe and Australia combined. Better crash performance won't drastically change that latter figure.
NomduJour said:
Panhard rod is about lateral location - on my old Range Rover I think the ultimate cause was worn radius arm bushes (only really apparent when they were pulled out).
The radius arms can eventually wear and will produce the same effect until you shim them and tension correctly etc and the steering damper can also create a death wobble but it is the reason for the panhard and the most common cause of it on Rangies is the bushes getting old. B17NNS said:
It does indeed. I was just pointing out that it's supposedly a lot nicer to drive and be in than the "old" JK Wrangler and I imagine no less safe than a classic Defender. So, if you want something a bit like a "classic" Defender but brand new, you can still get it, it just has a Jeep rather a Land Rover badge on it.NomduJour said:
300bhp/ton said:
Try reading the report. It was linked by someone else (who also didn’t seem to read it).
I posted it, I read it - you clearly didn’t:“One-star Wrangler has the lowest crash score of any vehicle currently on sale, due to stated body structure failures”
“... the safety performance of the Wrangler is limited, falling well shy of the expected standard in three of the four key areas of assessment”
“This is a very poor performance, fundamentally structural,” he said. “For a new model to have an unstable passenger cell, where the dummy has made contact with the A-pillar, with the dashboard… [it's poor],"
“One of the other things we’re seeing here is that the footwell ruptured”
“The passenger compartment of the Jeep Wrangler did not retain its structural integrity in the frontal offset test. Connection between the A-pillar and the cross fascia beam was compromised, as was the footwell structure, and penalties were applied”
“Protection of the chest was ‘weak’ for the driver and ‘adequate’ for the front passenger. Structures in the dashboard were a potential source of injury for both the driver and passenger and protection of the upper legs was rated ‘marginal'”
“Rearward displacement of the pedals was excessive and, in combination with the footwell rupture, protection of the driver’s feet was rated ‘marginal’"
... and so on. It’s laughably bad for a newly-introduced car.
"Did you even read it?"
white_goodman said:
I was just pointing out that it's supposedly a lot nicer to drive and be in than the "old" JK Wrangler and I imagine no less safe than a classic Defender. So, if you want something a bit like a "classic" Defender but brand new, you can still get it, it just has a Jeep rather a Land Rover badge on it.
Absolutely. I personally think the new JL looks fab. Hopefully the new Defender can retain some of that rugged charm and have a 5* Euro NCAP score. It doesn't have to be either or. The Wrangler is pretty poor overall but is particularly let down by the lack of safety assistance systems. I appreciate that's a whole other can of worms but passive safety is important. It's ultimately better to not have an accident than have an accident in a car that crashes well.
The £15k Jimmy doesn't fare quite as badly.
I've certainly driven (and owned) far less safe cars. I think the Wrangler is a cracking (if somewhat huge) looking thing. Probably would be great for the mix of driving and activities I do.. I've owned two Jeeps and I'm a bit of a fan..
Will be interesting what JLR's take on the theme is when the Defender finally appears in 'road-test' form.
Will be interesting what JLR's take on the theme is when the Defender finally appears in 'road-test' form.
300bhp/ton said:
Cold said:
2018 model Wrangler: One star. https://www.euroncap.com/en/results/Jeep/Wrangler/...
Have you actually read the report though?Most of the low score seems to be down to lack of things like AEB (automated emergency braking) and other such modern systems. It’s all points based to give a score and percent in different categories. And lack of certain tech impacts each category.
I’m not saying it is the safest car. It clearly isn’t. But NCAP is rather misleading.
The reality is I suspect the Jeep is actually no worse to be in than most European cars from 12-15 years ago. The types of cars 1000’s of people use daily as family wagons.
Also I suspect if you where involved in an accident in a new Jeep and a new Fiat 500. Then despite the lower rating of the Jeep, you’d probably still come off better.
Tom_Spotley_When said:
So I can buy a brand new £40k car that's as safe as a £20k car from 12 years ago. Great selling point, that. Well done.
Do you think the people who buy these even give a s
t?Sold cars for a main dealer/supermarket type place and not once did I ever get asked the safety rating of any cars.
Sorry to jump back on topic for a moment, but there's some photos shared on one of the Land Rover forums that appear to show a graphic of the new car un-camo'd:
https://jalopnik.com/heres-the-2020-land-rover-def...
https://jalopnik.com/heres-the-2020-land-rover-def...
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff