[akannath]

A question to all the experts here:

Should I choose a car with ESP/Hill Hold/Hill Descent, etc. and upto say 6 airbags, but inferior safety rating or one with a higher safety rating, but none of the above safety features and only 2 airbags?

I know the 2 aren't the same in the sense that the features are meant to avoid an accident/collision, whereas the latter comes into play only after a collision has occurred. Nevertheless, where would you put your money assuming an ideal scenario where a car with both safety features and safety rating does not exist?

An add on question: What would happen to cars that do not have 6 airbags come October, when the new 6 airbag legislation comes into effect? Or is this not going to be mandatory and just a govt advisory?

Thanks.

[krishnakumar]

Originally Posted by akannath

where would you put your money in assuming an ideal scenario where a car with both safety features and safety rating do not exist?

I'm by no means an expert, but, why do you want to make a decision out of hypothetical scenarios when we can clearly compare cars for their merits based on actual facts.

Safety is ONE of the many aspects and they'd rank differently for different people. For me it ranked quite high and I ended up with an XUV300, sacrificing the boot space (because I could afford to sacrifice that). There could be many cars that would fit as an option for one's budget, so it's really about stack ranking what's important and then getting down to the real world details.

But if you want me to brute force a logic to a hypothetical scenario like this, where there are two identical cars from same segment, same price, same convenience and other features and the only difference being what you have put in the scenario, then I'd pick the one where a safety rating exists and has a crashworthy body shell. Why?

1. ESP is probably the most important of all active safety systems. But even then, the ESP only kicks in when the car loses stability for some reason (overspeed, road conditions etc.). I've driven countless cars without ESP and have managed to drive them safely because knowing the car's limits is important (with or without ESP). Agreed that there could be scenarios where you want to do an evasive maneuver to avoid a jaywalker or a dog darting across; in these cases, yes ESP will be life-saving but it is still possible to control the car just by knowing the limits and how to handle situations.
2. Features like Hill Hold, Hill Descent, really in my opinion is just convenience more than safety. The Hill Hold, holds the car for 3 seconds. It's a basic skill to learn as a driver, the first thing I learnt when I dad taught me how to drive a car. Similarly with Hill Descent as well, using engine braking, planning ahead, being aware etc. goes a long way in controlling the car in a downhill.
3. 6 airbags are great to have but these are again passive safety systems.

If you see all of these features, these are built with driver error (coupled with road conditions, exceptional scenarios etc.) in mind. But most of them can be overcome by improving defensive driving techniques. These active safety systems are there to complement a skillful driver, not replace them.

It is great to have and by no means I'm down playing them. In fact, having an ESP was an important factor for me. But it was only one of the many factors for choosing XUV300 (if you're interested you can read about it here)

But there is no replacement for crashworthiness and discipline to safety (wearing seat belts, following rules etc.). These along with a skilled driver on defensive driving will likely save the occupants even in a situation where it is someone else's error.

[akannath]

Originally Posted by krishnakumar

I'm by no means an expert, but, why do you want to make a decision out of hypothetical scenarios when we can clearly compare cars for their merits based on actual facts.

Thanks @Krishnakumar for your thoughts on this. Well laid out logic as well.
It may sound hypothetical given the way I have presented it, but I did have 2 vehicles in mind when I penned this question. I chose not to divulge the brands to discourage any biases in the feedback I receive.

I am thinking of Carens on one hand (with all the safety features) and Marazzo on the other side with a 4* rating and arguably India's safest MPV.
Both are cars belonging to the same class and fall in the same price bracket with similar drive trains (considering MT Diesels here).

Carens ticks all the boxes for me except the below par 3* rating with an unstable shell. My heart says go for it, my brain says otherwise everytime I think about the unstable shell part. And there aren't many other 7 seater options either. Hence the dilemma and why I decided to get views from others here on this forum.

I agree that Hill hold and hill descent control are driving conveniences. But ESP I feel is very important to have in modern day cars. Infact, here in UK I think it is a legal requirement for all new cars to have one. Several reports I have read shows statistics that reveal the role played by ESP in avoiding Traffic Related Incidents (TRI). And this is one big miss in the Marazzo I feel. Otherwise, I would have pretty much gone with it by now.

So, still undecided. I guess I need to drive both vehicles and factor in all the haves and dont haves and then make a final call.

[ron178]

Originally Posted by akannath

Should I choose a car with ESP/Hill Hold/Hill Descent etc. and upto say 6 airbags but inferior safety rating or one with a higher safety rating but none of the above safety features and only 2 air bags?

The two are no longer mutually exclusive because a side head protection technology and ESC are now (since July) both part of the GNCAP's rating criteria.

The GNCAP's old ratings are based on a single frontal offset crash test. The GNCAP's criteria for speed, injury risk and modifiers (criteria for robustness of the result) are tougher but now we do have minimum legislation in place for offset frontal impact and it's worth noting that three stars is comfortably above legal requirements worldwide, not to mention in the Carens parts of the body critical to life were protected quite well (not the case with all three star cars).

An unstable passenger compartment in the test does not mean that the car has performed badly structurally. The GNCAP does penalise structural performance by measuring intrusion of the steering wheel and hinge-pillar to determine how well the passenger compartment has held its shape. Instability of the passenger compartment ('unstable bodyshell') is separate and concerns repeatability rather than intrusion itself, it doesn't mean intrusion measurements were high but that they could deviate if another Carens unit was on test or test conditions were slightly different. Hence it is penalised: you don't have to account for it separately along with the star rating.

The big reason the Carens is a three star car was not the unstable passenger compartment but complete collapse of the footwell with excessive rearward movement of the pedals. It's undesirable, can cause disabling injuries and even hamper extrication, but the feet are still not as critical as your head or thorax, which side airbags can help protect in other crashes. It's fascinating to see the details of the test but it's still important to keep in mind that it's impossible for one single test to accurately compare the safety of vehicles. The GNCAP's old tests were also a very basic research project on a tight budget to introduce safety ratings to emerging markets, based on a very old Latin NCAP protocol. It's one factor you could consider, but crashes like that make up only a handful of real-world crashes, especially in India, and it would be a mistake to think one test can determine crashworthiness in other scenarios.

About the curtain airbags: we have legislation for a side impact representing a small car striking the driver's door, but absolutely no legislation for side pole impact, and it wasn't included in the GNCAP's old tests either, which explains why cars are still sold without side head airbags. They're still important and can greatly reduce the risk of serious head, chest or pelvic injury in side impacts with vehicles with tall front ends.

We also don't have legislation for ESC. This is an extremely important safety system I would not recommend buying a car without it given a choice.

I will say this about Kia: if their quality control is so bad that they a car that's internally 'at least four stars' turns to three in practice, I sincerely doubt the effectiveness of the other safety systems. I still don't see a long-term commitment to safety.

If it's possible get a car that has all three. The Innova hasn't been tested yet but I reckon it should do well in the test considering Toyota's usually highly standardised production processes, plus you can get older examples of top-spec cars with seven airbags (head curtains for all rows unlike the Carens), ESC, three-point belts for all seats and i-Size anchorages.

[krishnakumar]

Originally Posted by akannath

I am thinking of Carens on one hand (with all the safety features) and Marazzo on the other side with a 4* rating and arguably India's safest MPV.

My XUV300 comes with the Marazzo engine and I can say this, it’s delightful to drive!!

But considering you’re looking for a 7 seater with good credentials, why not a used Innova that’ll easily fit into this budget. You’ll get the Toyota reliability and those engines are built to last. It’s a very robust car.

Unless you are against a used car, that should be right up there on top of the list.

So, still undecided. I guess I need to drive both vehicles and factor in all the haves and dont haves and then make a final call.

Needless to say, you can never decide without actually driving the car. And not just around the block. Insist on a reasonable test drive.

The XUV300 for us was a wild card entry. But after the test drives (and multiple test drives), it immediately felt like the right choice for us. Without a TD, there is no point discussing.

[akannath]

Originally Posted by ron178

If it's possible get a car that has all three. The Innova hasn't been tested yet but I reckon it should do well in the test considering Toyota's usually highly standardised production processes, plus you can get older examples of top-spec cars with seven airbags (head curtains for all rows unlike the Carens), ESC, three-point belts for all seats and i-Size anchorages.

Thanks a ton @ron178 for all the valuable info about the technicalities involved in safety ratings. I have followed your posts regarding safety ratings on various threads on this forum and have gleaned a wealth of information.
I have deliberately stayed away from used car market as this vehicle will pretty much be used by my parents who are not very auto literate and my dad doesnt drive either. So without a reliable mechanic or a FNG, I dread to think how my dad would handle any auto mechanical issues when they crop up while owning a used car. But I take your point in the sense Innova is in a league of its own when it comes to reliability which should significantly reduce the risks involved. I am not a big fan of how it looks, but I may have to reconsider my earlier prejudice to the used car segment as no vehicle seems to be a perfect mix. I cant stretch my budget beyond Rs.15L ex-showroom, so perhaps I might be able to get a used Innova for say Rs17.5L.
The XUV700 A3 7 seater would cost me Rs16.5 which is beyond my budget, else that would have been on top of my list. Hence the sudden entry of Marazzo as a wild card. But the lack of ESC bothers me.

Originally Posted by krishnakumar

My XUV300 comes with the Marazzo engine and I can say this, it’s delightful to drive!!

But considering you’re looking for a 7 seater with good credentials, why not a used Innova that’ll easily fit into this budget. You’ll get the Toyota reliability and those engines are built to last. It’s a very robust car.

Unless you are against a used car, that should be right up there on top of the list.

Thanks again for your suggestions. Its good to see that you too are pointing me towards the Innova just like ron178 above. I will need to give it a serious thought. The challenge would be to find a good example of a well maintained Innova. As mentioned above, the last think I want is to spend 17L on a car for my parents and then for them to sort out repeated niggles and issues during the ownership period. But based on what you and many others have said, seems Innova should be a safe bet if considering the used car sector.
As for test drives, I have TD'd the Carens during my visit in April. Absolutely loved the Diesel AT for its ease of handling and smashing ride quality. Have travelled in Innovas a few times and have atleast 2 such examples in our extended family. There is also the case that the Innova brings no novelty, I mean its everywhere on the roads. I was hoping to find a decent car with a decent set of features and interiors (no need for fancy items), with very good safety rating and features and space for 7 and all this under 15L. Perhaps I was expecting too much.

You guys have given enough food for thought for a few days...let me ruminate

[Aditya]

Choose car with many safety features & lower safety rating or vice versa? Posts moved to a new thread.

[akannath]

Originally Posted by Aditya

Choose car with many safety features & lower safety rating or vice versa? Posts moved to a new thread.

Thanks Aditya for raising this as a poll.
If I may give a suggestion, I think the poll question should expand on non-mandatory features and explicitly mention absence or presence of ESP/ESC to make the decision making more interesting and challenging for the members. I believe among all the non-mandatory safety features, this is the single most critical feature and this is what initially prompted me to ask the question. Infact, here in the UK and elsewhere in Europe (I believe), ESP/ESC has become a mandatory feature for a few years now.

[GTO]

For highway runs & road-trips, I would absolutely want both. No compromise. If I have a limited budget, I'd go the pre-worshipped route and pick up a 5-star safety car with all safety features from the used market.

On the other hand, for city usage, I'd go for a 3-star car with more safety features over a 5-star car with just front airbags. Example, if I'm T-boned by an SUV, I want those side airbags. People don't realise that T-bone accidents are sometimes more dangerous than frontal crashes or being rear-ended.

[RunGaDa]

A car with excellent safety ratings, very strong structural rating, okay to have less features, even without a touch screen is fine.
The mindset in India is to give more features in higher costly models and yet some manufacturers cut costs on safety. The question one must ask is why could no company get a Tata Nano-esque car with equal structural strength as an Ecosport,equipped with airbags and other safety features like alloys, discs, ABS EBD.

Are we not stuck at paying high for cars and get bigger cars just because we cannot get strong small cars?

[bwajlearn]

I am in a similar dilemma as well and this poll is well timed. Looking for sedans, there is Honda city vx with all features but costly and Verna SX which is cheaper but no ESP, hill hold. Both wife and myself will be using the car and are defensive drivers. However be the road condition, we don’t generally go above 80 except for overtakes.

Looking for city usage, I am confused as to go for cheaper Verna or city other factors being same. Verna SX(o) has all features but price becomes the same as vx. I would much prefer city in that case.

[TechnoBloop]

Originally Posted by akannath

A question to all the experts here:

Should I choose a car with ESP/Hill Hold/Hill Descent, etc. and upto say 6 airbags, but inferior safety rating or one with a higher safety rating, but none of the above safety features and only 2 airbags?
.

Nowadays, I guess almost all the cars come with ESP (except the ultra-budget cars). And Hill-Hold/Descent is more of a driving convenience feature for me rather than a safety feature.
Coming to the question, no doubt, buying a structurally safe car (4-5 star rated) is always a wiser decision but 2 airbags is where the problem arises. The car will keep the front passengers safe but if you get into a scenario where you get T-Boned by another driver, rear passengers will have a high risk of losing their lives. Anyways, when the 6 airbags rule will be implemented, you should buy a structurally safe car (with 6 airbags) eyes closed.
For City drives, a 3-star rated car with a good amount of safety features is enough.
Considering the current situation of the world, I would go for a structurally safe car (minimum 4-star rated) with 6 airbags and all the mandatory safety features. What I want to say is that relying solely on electronic features to save your life is not always a wise decision, you never know when they will give up on you.

[SS-Traveller]

Safety ratings are not sacrosanct for the current year's production models, nor do they apply to all trim levels of a given vehicle. So a NCAP 3-star rating for a test conducted in 2019 may not remain a 3-star in 2022, since the assessment criteria are updated by the testing agency, and manufacturers too make changes to their cars over the years.

[BHPjunkie]

Originally Posted by GTO

For highway runs & road-trips, I would absolutely want both. No compromise. If I have a limited budget, I'd go the pre-worshipped route and pick up a 5-star safety car with all safety features from the used market.

On the other hand, for city usage, I'd go for a 3-star car with more safety features over a 5-star car with just front airbags. Example, if I'm T-boned by an SUV, I want those side airbags. People don't realise that T-bone accidents are sometimes more dangerous than frontal crashes or being rear-ended.

I voted for a choosing a safer car, however I completely agree with GTO here. I would never compromise on safety for cars I am using on highways and road trip. In-city would pick one with more features.

Eg. I recently was looking purchase a ride for highway runs as my Ameo was getting short on space with kids. I set a budget of 15-18 lacs and was considering Nexon ahead of the Seltos, despite Seltos having more features. However, I ended up with a pre-owned Hexa for much less than my budget and I do not regret the decision till date.

[bullitt1]

A car with a higher safety rating might fare better in most scenarios if not all being structurally sound, but the implementation of 6 airbags, the choice becomes obvious.