Mustang failed at new crashtest

>>17487517
How fast are they crashing these and when was the test invented? How does a Jetta do?

Just don't crash it silly

Any modern vehicle is safe enough.

european faggots

>>17487543
Crash from the front, the Airbags failed 2 times to safe the head from hiting the steeringwheel and the board on the passengerside. He got 2 from 5 stars which is one of the worst.

File: IMG_9248.png (1MB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 800x800px

>produce a car which spins out on every car meeting
>will kill you even on simple crashes
2 from 5 fucking stars in year 2017 IMAOOOO

Well if it's going to spin out of control and kill a few dozen people at every meet, it might as well kill the driver too to spare him the humiliation

People will keep buying it just for brand loyalty and in Europe the mustang dont have any competition there is the camaro but chevy stealership are probably rarer and its a bit pricier.

>why the goverment dont get rid of regulation so we can have another CRX and pretty cars

>haha ford btfo enjoy your deathtrap

>>17487543
>How does a Jetta do?
https://www.euroncap.com/en/results/vw/jetta/11000
5 stars.

File: chatenet_ch30_2016_side2[1].jpg (71KB, 359x239px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 359x239px

>>17487517
I know it's easy to laugh at the stupidity of american't but this french car akso only got two stars.

>>17487517
https://www.euroncap.com/en/results/tesla/model-s/7897

https://www.euroncap.com/en/results/ford/mustang/27540

five stars and three stars for both models respectively. At least those were the only results on the site I could find.

What is OP talking about?

I mean, how could a Tesla with its stupendously large crumple zones and no engine do "horribly"?

Gonna need a source, otherwise OP is a faggot.

>>17488834
Seems more like it's a problem with the airbag supplier for the Mustangs. The car's actual body does its job fine, OP pic is from small overlap.

>>17488842
>The car's actual body does its job fine
That will make you feel much better as your face splats across the wheel. If the bags are to Ford spec and they haven't said otherwise the fault is still with them, the fact Ford didn't give NCAP test cars as is normal practice should ring some alarm bells as well.

File: IMG_1336.jpg (106KB, 750x987px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 750x987px

>2 fucking stars
>year 2017

>>17488842
Takata strikes back
>>17488841
looks like it scored badly because partly lack of automated driver nannies, and mostly the lack of baby seat mounting options?
>>17488894
only half of NCAP's testing score is collision, the other half is a laundry list of driving nannies and pedestrian impacts (apparently the pointy nose scored 0 points on impacting the average human pelvis). also the pictured car is a 2016 model, which got a terrible score mostly due to lack of automated crash avoidance features (16% vs 61% in 2017)

>>17488894
It's actually 3.
https://www.euroncap.com/en/results/ford/mustang/27540

OP is phaggot.

>>17488917
the pictured 2016 model got 2 stars, OP is a slowpoke.
3 stars is pretty good for sports cars, if I remember correctly the 350z was the deadliest car in America for a while
http://www.cheatsheet.com/automobiles/the-10-deadliest-vehicles-on-the-road.html/?a=viewall
>143 deaths per million cars
>90 of them single car accidents
>most years got 5 star crash ratings
sounds like shitty drivers more than anything impacts crash deaths

File: 1499157488136.jpg (141KB, 634x706px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 634x706px

>>17487517

Fat Mericunts BTFO

>>17488917
There are new results from this week you fat fuck. They will make an update soon.

>>17488863
So it most likely is a design issue they're trying to chase down, and will recall to fix when they've got it sorted out.

>>17488916
Only a quater of the score is on assists, including basics like ABS.

The TT and MX-5 both got 4.

>>17488971
Thanks for that, I needed a good laugh.

>>17487517
>running crash tests in mph instead of kph

>>17488978
1/4 is assists, 1/4 is pedestrian. sorry I didn't clarify properly.
1/4 is adult crash and the last 1/4 is child crash, for reference.
I'm not surprised with the TT's test results, the thing is a tank and weighs as much as one.
the MX-5 tested was the 1.5l model, which is less relevant to the US since we only got the 2.0l engine. it's weird how they don't run tests for such huge drivetrain differences as engine size, you'd think it would impact the rating.
that said, I'm loving my ND

File: 1497390888844.png (274KB, 899x528px) Image search: [Google]

274KB, 899x528px

Mfw only buy old used cars and literally don't care what some faggot in eurotard land safety cuck department thinks

>>17488994
>kph
You mean km/h

>>17489150
>kph
>kilometers per hour

File: IMG_2198.jpg (192KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

192KB, 1600x1200px

>>17489165
kilometer=km
not just ''k''

Just don't crash. ez pz

>>17489250
>Just don't crash.

Not that simple. They have to protect you from some geezer who can't keep from soiling himself from blowing through a light and t-boning you.

You can't just take licenses away from people who have nothing better to do with their time than repeat the DMV test until they pass.

File: eddyegg.png (218KB, 475x358px) Image search: [Google]

218KB, 475x358px

>Front end collision
>fuel cap door flies open

>>17488834
lmao it's car for people who don't have a licence

File: 1380697092809.jpg (42KB, 479x720px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 479x720px

>I buy my cars based one which is safest for pedestrians

>>17489471
Old people are the safest drivers, teenagers, women, and vapelords are the plague of the road

>>17489471
>he doesn't maintain perfect situational awareness

I live in a major city, I'm 32, I've never been in an accident. Get guud faggot.

>>17489538
Oldish people are pretty safe, but once you get to 75+ their crash rate is worse than teens.

>>17489471
>he doesn't have a defensive force field
look at this icecuck and laugh

>>17488842
I dont remember any new car with that much damage to the a pillar in top of the windshield in small overlap test. It tells that it is not very solid structure and steering wheel and dashboard will move closer to the driver and maybe even hit.

>>17489538
old people are generally safer because they drive less. it's also the primary reason women pay less in insurance

>>17490546
>because they drive less
It's the opposite of logic.

>>17487517
I'm pretty sure the reason it did so badly is because it doesn't come with radar collision detection / auto braking / lane assist as standard which supposedly is part of the test now which is frankly ridiculous. And it obviously didn't do well on the pedestrian collision tests which seem to be incorporated into the overall score now.

Why the fuck are NCAP being such retards about crash testing now? All the cars they rated at 4/5 stars in the past would probably be considered 1/2 stars now thanks to moving the goalposts and wanting cars to be filled with ridiculous technology.

>>17488834
>chatenet
>made completely from plastic
>made for 15 year olds with no licence

i can find some similarities with the mustang

>>17491702
Well that is not a new technology at all and it shouldnt be a surprise that they would test and rate those too. Why not offer as option? It shouldnt cost that much to leave it off completely.

I have 9 years old car and it has adaptive cruise, collision warning and automatic braking.

File: rip.png (466KB, 656x402px) Image search: [Google]

466KB, 656x402px

Can't be as bad as the Ford "Death Machine" Sierra

https://youtu.be/RyWlLlz3R3s?t=1m12s

File: 30c91f66649cafe6efbc9fe05ba99a58.png (29KB, 300x162px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 300x162px

>>17488917
>Adult occupant 72%
>Child occupant 32%
>PEDESTRIAN 78%

File: Ford_Sierra_Hatchback 5 door_1982.jpg (311KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

311KB, 1600x1200px

>>17492121
Wow.. It's still a nice car tho. Not as bad considering that it comes from early 80's.

>>17491537
there's a baseline risk to driving, even assuming you're perfect. the more time you drive, the higher the risk.

>>17491855
Real men want 80s carollas amirite

>>17488834
>Mustang engineering on the same level as an enclosed mobility scooter for the elderly, disabled and alcoholics

>>17487517

I recently saw a shilling ad from ford about how it was the only American pickup to receive acceptable ratings on the American rating system.

What they considered acceptable included a folded up cabin so it is pretty fucking scary.

>>17489503

>Font end collision
>Toyota Tundra spare tire flies into the pedestrians

>>17493612
So theyre primary market?

>>17493643
>what is small overlap

Who 2015 /5starsafety/ masterrace here?

https://media.ford.com/content/fordmedia/fna/us/en/news/2015/02/11/mustang-five-star.html

File: 20170415_153828.jpg (2MB, 2048x1152px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2048x1152px

>>17494779
Forgot mub pic

>>17489207
Miles are mph even though it should be mi

>>17494779
How is that it has such a high rating in US and year later only two stars in Europe?

Its still much safer than 70% of the shitboxes in yuroop.
Id feel like a newborn god in a mustang compared to a fatal satanic crash in my gay peugeot 106

>>17497416
>Comparing it to a 25 year old car

New small Peugeots are getting higher scores than the mustang

>>17494949
because imperialfags are retarded

>>17494949
k means 1 thousand, so kph would just be thousand per hour (because a kilometer is 1000 meters)

File: 51519198.jpg (96KB, 677x679px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 677x679px

>>17487517
>why can't Americans do something right when it comes to cars

we did

>>17487517
It gets 5 stars on,the US tests. What's so different about the European tests?

>>17497563
They expect eurocars to automatically brake for you and to pray 5 times a day in the direction of Mecca

>>17488834
Physics being what it is, how could this thing ever be safe in a crash? It would have to foam itself on impact.

https://youtu.be/qc1cX0abcJc

>new crash test
they're literally making this shit up by now to stay relevant and keep manufacturers sucking their dicks.

what's next, small rear upside down overlap test?
>"this one study found this kind of crash is becoming 2% more common now"
>"wow this car did poorly in this basically imaginary test, drags down the car's overall crash score, what a shame"

>>17489555
riding the bus doesn't count

>>17487782
Usually this is because they increase the standards every year. So, the car is no more unsafe than 2017, but because the standards were increased, they fail it.

I mean, i drive a car from 1969 around regularly, i dont really care desu.