[Anupkumar]

An update on my earlier post. When checked in Parivahan, it shows the manufacturing date to be Sep 2022. The SA says the manufacturing date shown (as per VIN MEXKREPA2NG022761) is the chassis manufacturing date, and what is shown in Parivahan is the actual manufacturing date for the car. Sounds odd to me. Is he right?

[tirumalavoleti]

Originally Posted by Anupkumar

Need advice: Just did a PDI of Kushaq 1.5 DSG. The manufacturing date is May 2022. Is it OK to take this? Or should I cancel and wait for new stock?

This should be fine in terms of timelines. Please do check if any changes happened like roof liner change or and tech change after May 2022.

[MismatchD]

Originally Posted by Anupkumar

An update on my earlier post. When checked in Parivahan, it shows the manufacturing date to be Sep 2022. The SA says the manufacturing date shown (as per VIN MEXKREPA2NG022761) is the chassis manufacturing date, and what is shown in Parivahan is the actual manufacturing date for the car. Sounds odd to me. Is he right?

I've seen even more confusing VINs for the VW equivalents. The day I got our Taigun delivered (September of this year), I saw two new cars (1 Taigun & 1 Virtus) being unloaded from the transport truck. Both of them had MEXJ22 as the starting characters, which when decoded, means they were manufactured in October of 2022. Sounds really odd.

[pqr]

I am always happy to see cars scoring well in crash tests, irrespective of brand.

Recently, I met an R&D expert from a leading airbag supplier to many OEMs in India. Ha was not very impressed with the relative results of Skoda and VW.





During the discussion, he pointed out to look carefully at the scores, as Kushaq/Taigun is barely a 5 star (range 14.0–17.0) rated car in the frontal offset crash test, just as the Hyundai Creta/KIA Seltos scored barely a 3 star (range 8.00–10.99) in the old protocol. Some scores from the old and new protocol are comparable, as the method for assessment for some tests largely remains the same with some slight modifications. In fact, he was concerned about the impact on the driver's lower leg and chest area in the case of the Skoda or VW.

He was of the opinion that Mahindra and Tata have done a better job than Volkswagen and Skoda (tailored for India) on the structural front with their in-house designed and developed engines. In a real-life situation, if a vehicle collides with another moving in the opposite direction, the impact force on the lighter vehicle will be higher, and the height of the vehicle also matters as the point load of action will be different for different structures. That means the XUV700 will prove to be safer.

Happy to see what Mahindra and Tata (except Harrier and Safari) are doing with their new products on the safety front while still being cost competitive. A special thanks goes to GNCAP for making some Indians a little more safety conscious.

P.S. I am not a fan of any of the brands mentioned above.

[ron178]

Originally Posted by pqr

Kushaq/Taigun is barely a 5 star (range 14.0–17.0)

14.1 (max. 16) for the ODB test and 1 point for front seatbelt reminders would give the VW Taigun 15.1/17 against the previous protocols which, although not nearly as good as the Mahindra XUV700 and Tata Punch, is still quite comfortably in the five star band. Even with the new protocols 27-34 points is five stars and 29.64 is comfortably within that.

Although Global NCAP has now moved to the new 2015 Euro NCAP interpolation limits for sternal deflection, only the higher limit has changed, which means the Kushaq's chest would still be painted yellow/acceptable even against the old protocols (Punch and XUV700 were both green/good). However in all probability an 'acceptable' chest compression (rib deflection marginally >5mm) still indicates only slightly more than a 5% risk of serious, severe or critical (AIS3+) thorax injury which IMO is not too shabby.

The orange driver left tibia was interestingly also observed in the very similar SEAT Arona (MQB-A0) made in Brazil.

What I am quite surprised by is the yellow feet despite no footwell rupture. That means pedal movement was in excess of 10cm rearward and makes me think that either the car has no breakaway pedals or they didn't work as intended during the test.

I wonder if both issues have to do with a blocked clutch pedal, because the Kushaq test unit had a manual gearbox.

It is true that the Taigun hasn't showed usual VW Group-level results. Look at Latin NCAP (2016 protocol) results for a T-Cross or Virtus and you'll see what I mean. Lack of lap pretensioners aside, even the Mk5 Polo did better (of course, the Taigun would protect better because of its size). But I would definitely shave a couple of insignificant points off the ODB test than not have three-point belts for all seats, ESC, etc. which was the case with the majority of the four and five star cars with the previous protocols.

Originally Posted by pqr

Attachment 2375526

Please don't compare child protection ratings across two protocols. Although the maximum available score is identical it is differently constituted. For example the new protocols award no points for the safety feature check if a seat does not have a three-point belt, which would cost both the XUV700 and Punch dearly. There is also now a comprehensive installation check for popular child restraints on the market, and the Taigun's i-Size anchorages might help depending on what seats are included.

P. S. expect new results soon