Stellantis say they no longer even
produce the Renegade with two airbags in Brazil, even for export (domestic units have had six airbags as standard for quite some time). In typical provocative Latin NCAP fashion it appears that they tested the last remaining stock of old units sold in a (relatively) unimportant market just to make a big deal of Stellantis' attitude to safety. And didn't even explain to consumers in other markets that the result doesn't apply to them. And Latin NCAP's socials are getting defensive and posting long
explanations that basically say "we did nothing wrong, we didn't lie" (we just hid the truth).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stellantis Brazil "The Jeep Renegade produced in Brazil brings as standard, from the most basic versions, six air bags, lane maintenance alert, fatigue detector and autonomous emergency braking, which makes it one of the most complete vehicles in the segment in safety equipment. Only these equipments already completely distance the Renegade marketed in Brazil from that tested unit, which is not even more produced. Stellantis reinforces the commitment to the constant evolution of safety in its products and markets models with the most severe requirements of engineering, quality and approvals." |
Source
Latin NCAP are losing trust with consumers who are fast realising that they no longer have their best interests in mind and are instead a tool for parts of the industry and a nuisance for the rest. Part of their explanation is:
Quote:
The manufacturer refused voluntary evaluation to perform further crash tests on optional safety equipment to show its performance to consumers
|
which is a fancy way of saying Jeep didn't pay up.
I don't know who in their right mind would pay tens of thousands of dollars for additional testing of supposedly non-standard equipment that won't even be published as part of a separate rating but will simply be reported in the comments as additional information.
Look, I dislike Stellantis' attitude to safety as much as the next guy. Whether it's launching a C3 lookalike that barely even complies with safety legislation, or selling a 25-lakh SUV with two airbags and a lapbelt, they have made it clear that their idea of 'emerging markets' is people who want low-cost-low-safety products, which is frankly quite insulting. But what Latin NCAP are doing is quite unfair. It's fair only
on paper where being a private body they can do whatever they want as long as it suits their intentions. But a consumer-centric organisation needs actual fairness that is not driven by emotion, and that goes well beyond making your own convenient rules on paper and then pointing out that you're sticking to them.
The reason I'm ranting is that GNCAP who test cars for India are run by the same small group of people, and what happened in Brazil and Argentina a few years ago is now starting to happen in India. The Suzuki Wagon R and Swift also had ESC when their results were published, but Maruti refused to have anything do with GNCAP or pay for ESC testing, so it wasn't tested, and the ratings tanked more than they would have otherwise. Now, GNCAP can argue that their protocols say a manufacturer needs to sponsor xyz additional tests should the car qualify for them. But is this really something the end consumer should be concerned with at all? I care about whether the car's safety feature x lives up to its claims, and I want an answer based on actual independent testing, not based on something that happened because of tension with the manufacturer.
The deal here is that these cars actually
do fall behind the best in equipment and crashworthiness performance, so it is fair to criticise them a healthy amount. But GNCAP cashes in on this for attention and blows up its extent so much that consumers have become blind to any improvement in safety that doesn't affect their star rating. And on the flip side there are marketing teams and influencers overplaying the benefits of highly rated cars to mislead gullible consumers who will believe anyone who tells them they made a better choice than their neighbour or relative. And now, very concerningly, there is a group of people who actually believe deep down that their five star car can protect them in many more scenarios than it is actually designed to. Nobody really wins but the industry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocketscience P.S- Having said all that NCAP also mentions some changes FCA made to the car which doesn't make it equal to 2015's car, does this mean it has structurally weakened the car over the years? I would like to know more about this and this could constitute as actual fraud if they are doing this since then any rating is actually invalid since it is not even the same car anymore. |
Latin NCAP never explicitly said that; it appears to be an assumption by the OP. Comparing offset deformable barrier test results between 2022 and 2015 (when it was the only test conducted) the performance appears nearly identical with some negligible loss of points likely attributed to Latin NCAP toughening their interpolation criteria for chest compression vs score in 2016.