Suzuki South Africa has contested the recent report from the Global New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) that gave the Ertiga MPV a disappointing crash safety rating.
The automaker’s local subsidiary states that the report contains factual inconsistencies that nullify these results.
Outdated data
The Global NCAP independently tests new vehicles for crash safety with little input from Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEM) allowing for unbiased assessments in the interest of the consumer.
In partnership with the Automobile Association of South Africa (AASA), the program runs two campaigns specifically for vehicles destined for Africa and India – coined the #SaferCarsForAfrica and #SaferCarsForIndia programmes – as history has shown that automakers often sell less safe products in these markets than in more developed countries with stricter regulations.
Global NCAP’s newest report said that the Indian-built Maruti Suzuki Ertiga performed less than desirable during its trials.
While the MPV offered good protection for the heads and necks of adult passengers, its structure was rated “borderline” unstable, its footwell area entirely unstable, and pedal displacement showed injury risks to the lower legs of the driver.
Global NCAP therefore awarded the Ertiga 1/5 stars for adult occupant safety and 2/5 stars for child occupant safety.
These figures were published on 31 July 2024, however, Suzuki South Africa has now come forward to dispute these results.
“Suzuki Auto South Africa has a proud record of supporting road safety initiatives, such as the #SaferCarsForAfrica programme,” said Henno Havenga, General Manager for Sales and Marketing of Suzuki Auto South Africa.
“We believe, however, that the most recent report is not relevant to the South African market as it uses inaccurate and incomparable information for the front and side-impact tests. This nullifies the results and makes the entire report invalid.”
Havenga notes that the model that underwent frontal impact tests was a 2019 Ertiga, something Global NCAP did not make known in its report. This gave readers the impression that the tests were carried out recently and with the newest generation of the MPV.
“It is, however, clear from the images and videos that show the same unique vehicle identifier (OD2119MER1) in the videos for both the #SaferCarsForIndia 2019 and #SaferCarsForAfrica 2024 tests,” said Havenga.
“Both videos, and the assessment information quoted in the report and releases, are also identical.”
Other inconsistencies pointed out by Suzuki South Africa include:
- The Ertiga tested in 2019 is an older generation model that does not have any of the safety upgrades that have since been added by Suzuki.
- The Ertiga tested in 2019 (the vehicle shown in the frontal impact test) is built for the Indian market to Indian customer specification. It was never offered for sale in South Africa.
- The testing protocols used by the GNCAP has changed significantly in the last five years, with the most recent protocols published in 2022. In support of this statement, the Ertiga tested in 2019 was awarded three stars for driver and passenger safety, while the same information was considered only worthy of a one-star rating in the report published by the AASA, without retesting.
- It is highly possible that the quality and sensitivity of vehicle testing equipment, including the crash test dummies, have improved significantly over the past five years.
- The child restraint used in the two tests are not the same, which may further support the assumption that the dummies used in the two tests were different and the data collected from them incomparable.
- In the supporting information published by the GNCAP, the Suzuki Ertiga is identified as a Renault Triber, although the images are those of the Ertiga.
- The Suzuki Ertiga tested for side impact achieved the highest side impact rating out of the vehicles tested, yet the overall score received is the lowest of all the vehicles tested.
Havenga further raised the point that the Ertiga tested in 2024 – the one with the unique identifier MD4923SER1 – was described as offering “good and adequate protection” for all occupants in the side-impact test.
Suzuki notes that it took previous criticisms from Global NCAP in its stride and on the recommendation of the association installed vehicle stability control on all but one of its passenger vehicles.
“The AASA is widely considered to be a custodian of the motorists’ interests when it comes to vehicle safety. In the interest of upholding the credibility of the crash tests and the AA’s association in this programme, we believe that it is in their best interest to remain accurate, transparent, and clear in their tests and reports to manufacturers and the customers they serve,” concluded Havenga.
“We call on the AASA to follow due process and ensure that the information they share is relevant to the South African market and factually correct.”
Join the discussion