Which is safer - bigger car or side airbags?
Discussion
Looking for a first car for my partner. She's after something relatively small and cheap. I'm concerned about the safety.
We're looking at a 2006 Peugeot 107 which has side airbags fitted and ISO fix for the child seat.
Alternatively, there's a 2006 Fiesta we're considering. It's a bit bigger and heavier of course, but has no side airbags and no ISO fix.
I can't find any reliable safety information on these older models, and what is there doesn't differentiate between having the side airbags installed and not (as they were optional on these models). I'm also not sure if the side airbags are head protecting or not.
Does anyone know of any data comparison of having side airbags vs. not? And any opinions how important it is compared to car size?
Thanks
We're looking at a 2006 Peugeot 107 which has side airbags fitted and ISO fix for the child seat.
Alternatively, there's a 2006 Fiesta we're considering. It's a bit bigger and heavier of course, but has no side airbags and no ISO fix.
I can't find any reliable safety information on these older models, and what is there doesn't differentiate between having the side airbags installed and not (as they were optional on these models). I'm also not sure if the side airbags are head protecting or not.
Does anyone know of any data comparison of having side airbags vs. not? And any opinions how important it is compared to car size?
Thanks
All being equal a larger car will be safer than a smaller one - think about cabin intrusion in the event of an accident.
Both have similar NCAP ratings, but testing wasn't quite as rigourous back then & there isn't much detail;
https://www.euroncap.com/en/results/citro%C3%ABn/c...
https://www.euroncap.com/en/ratings-rewards/latest...
On a 2006 vehicle you also need to consider possible previous accident damage & corrosion as both can have implications for structural strength. Lots of other things to think about - which is quicker or more likley to be driven quickly, which handles & brakes better, possibly avoiding an accident & so forth.
Given the choice I would go for the Ford & if children are involved, ensure that decent seats are correctly fitted so that the loss of ISO isn't a big deal. From my own perspective, the larger Fiesta trumps the 107's side bags.
Both have similar NCAP ratings, but testing wasn't quite as rigourous back then & there isn't much detail;
https://www.euroncap.com/en/results/citro%C3%ABn/c...
https://www.euroncap.com/en/ratings-rewards/latest...
On a 2006 vehicle you also need to consider possible previous accident damage & corrosion as both can have implications for structural strength. Lots of other things to think about - which is quicker or more likley to be driven quickly, which handles & brakes better, possibly avoiding an accident & so forth.
Given the choice I would go for the Ford & if children are involved, ensure that decent seats are correctly fitted so that the loss of ISO isn't a big deal. From my own perspective, the larger Fiesta trumps the 107's side bags.
I have a related question, are Euro Ncap ratings good measure of safety, or are they missing something? If so then it would suggest pure size is a big factor but should be reflected in the scores.
My story is that I have been looking at purchasing a Porsche Taycan and couldn’t believe how much less safe it scored than my Ford Ranger. Even our Range Rover is less safe than the Ranger.... so I was just wondering if Ncap is missing something or if the Ranger really just is such a safe vehicle? If so then it seems the size of the vehicle is probably key as it should have huge crumple zones to front and rear due to vehicle length and relatively compact cabin for its size.
Ranger (96 adult / 86 child) - test in 2012
https://www.euroncap.com/en/results/ford/ranger/10...
Range Rover (91 adult / 84 child) - test in 2012
https://www.euroncap.com/en/results/land-rover/ran...
Taycan (85 adult / 83 child) - test in 2019
https://www.euroncap.com/en/results/porsche/taycan...
My story is that I have been looking at purchasing a Porsche Taycan and couldn’t believe how much less safe it scored than my Ford Ranger. Even our Range Rover is less safe than the Ranger.... so I was just wondering if Ncap is missing something or if the Ranger really just is such a safe vehicle? If so then it seems the size of the vehicle is probably key as it should have huge crumple zones to front and rear due to vehicle length and relatively compact cabin for its size.
Ranger (96 adult / 86 child) - test in 2012
https://www.euroncap.com/en/results/ford/ranger/10...
Range Rover (91 adult / 84 child) - test in 2012
https://www.euroncap.com/en/results/land-rover/ran...
Taycan (85 adult / 83 child) - test in 2019
https://www.euroncap.com/en/results/porsche/taycan...
Size is a big factor (again, all things being equal) & no doubt has an impact in the comparison, but NCAP testing is pretty specific. The Ranger is a utility vehicle & the "packaging" isn't as important as in say a sporty car, the Ranger has a big lump of an engine in an even bigger engine bay, plenty of metal to absorb impact. Rear end a Ranger with a Challenger 2 & you might get away with it, not so much with a / any car.
But, during the winter when the rain or snow is heavy I would say that there is a better chance of a tall, high COG & unloaded (light at the rear) Ranger being found on it's roof at the side of the road, cause they just don't handle - take a spin through Glencoe when the weather isn't so good & it's predominantly pick-up's & SUV's that litter the verges while I sail past in a normal car.... NCAP doesn't consider such things.
But, during the winter when the rain or snow is heavy I would say that there is a better chance of a tall, high COG & unloaded (light at the rear) Ranger being found on it's roof at the side of the road, cause they just don't handle - take a spin through Glencoe when the weather isn't so good & it's predominantly pick-up's & SUV's that litter the verges while I sail past in a normal car.... NCAP doesn't consider such things.
sealtt said:
I have a related question, are Euro Ncap ratings good measure of safety, or are they missing something? If so then it would suggest pure size is a big factor but should be reflected in the scores.
My story is that I have been looking at purchasing a Porsche Taycan and couldn’t believe how much less safe it scored than my Ford Ranger. Even our Range Rover is less safe than the Ranger.... so I was just wondering if Ncap is missing something or if the Ranger really just is such a safe vehicle? If so then it seems the size of the vehicle is probably key as it should have huge crumple zones to front and rear due to vehicle length and relatively compact cabin for its size.
Ranger (96 adult / 86 child) - test in 2012
https://www.euroncap.com/en/results/ford/ranger/10...
Range Rover (91 adult / 84 child) - test in 2012
https://www.euroncap.com/en/results/land-rover/ran...
Taycan (85 adult / 83 child) - test in 2019
https://www.euroncap.com/en/results/porsche/taycan...
The NCAP standard isn't static - every year it gets harder and harder, or you could argue better. Plus, different category of cars are scored differently.My story is that I have been looking at purchasing a Porsche Taycan and couldn’t believe how much less safe it scored than my Ford Ranger. Even our Range Rover is less safe than the Ranger.... so I was just wondering if Ncap is missing something or if the Ranger really just is such a safe vehicle? If so then it seems the size of the vehicle is probably key as it should have huge crumple zones to front and rear due to vehicle length and relatively compact cabin for its size.
Ranger (96 adult / 86 child) - test in 2012
https://www.euroncap.com/en/results/ford/ranger/10...
Range Rover (91 adult / 84 child) - test in 2012
https://www.euroncap.com/en/results/land-rover/ran...
Taycan (85 adult / 83 child) - test in 2019
https://www.euroncap.com/en/results/porsche/taycan...
Ranger tests are different and cannot be compared to cars.
Ranger is a classed as a heavy vehicle (2500 to 3500kg gross) which has a difference in tests, https://cdn.euroncap.com/media/13428/heavy-vehicle...
eg. vehicles under 2500kg gross, the frontal impact test speed is 64kmh for example, for the Ranger its 56kmh.
"Accordingly, the protocol released in 2011 highlighted the ways in which the testing of heavy vehicles (and the protocol was based on passenger-carrying vans derived from commercial variants) should differ from the established protocols used for other vehicles. The frontal impact test speed was lowered to 56km/h to allay fears of increased aggressivity, and other protocols were adapted to make them more suitable."
Ranger is a classed as a heavy vehicle (2500 to 3500kg gross) which has a difference in tests, https://cdn.euroncap.com/media/13428/heavy-vehicle...
eg. vehicles under 2500kg gross, the frontal impact test speed is 64kmh for example, for the Ranger its 56kmh.
"Accordingly, the protocol released in 2011 highlighted the ways in which the testing of heavy vehicles (and the protocol was based on passenger-carrying vans derived from commercial variants) should differ from the established protocols used for other vehicles. The frontal impact test speed was lowered to 56km/h to allay fears of increased aggressivity, and other protocols were adapted to make them more suitable."
Edited by NGRhodes on Monday 9th March 22:29
Novexx said:
All being equal a larger car will be safer than a smaller one - think about cabin intrusion in the event of an accident.
Both have similar NCAP ratings, but testing wasn't quite as rigourous back then & there isn't much detail;
https://www.euroncap.com/en/results/citro%C3%ABn/c...
https://www.euroncap.com/en/ratings-rewards/latest...
On a 2006 vehicle you also need to consider possible previous accident damage & corrosion as both can have implications for structural strength. Lots of other things to think about - which is quicker or more likley to be driven quickly, which handles & brakes better, possibly avoiding an accident & so forth.
Given the choice I would go for the Ford & if children are involved, ensure that decent seats are correctly fitted so that the loss of ISO isn't a big deal. From my own perspective, the larger Fiesta trumps the 107's side bags.
Thanks. I couldn't find one for a 107 of that age. Didn't think to look for the Aygo/C1.Both have similar NCAP ratings, but testing wasn't quite as rigourous back then & there isn't much detail;
https://www.euroncap.com/en/results/citro%C3%ABn/c...
https://www.euroncap.com/en/ratings-rewards/latest...
On a 2006 vehicle you also need to consider possible previous accident damage & corrosion as both can have implications for structural strength. Lots of other things to think about - which is quicker or more likley to be driven quickly, which handles & brakes better, possibly avoiding an accident & so forth.
Given the choice I would go for the Ford & if children are involved, ensure that decent seats are correctly fitted so that the loss of ISO isn't a big deal. From my own perspective, the larger Fiesta trumps the 107's side bags.
Gassing Station | Car Buying | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff