ANCAP’s five-star crash test safety rating can no longer be trusted.
Not at face-value, at least. It was meant to be a clear and easy way for new car buyers to assess the merits of any new model, but that is simply no longer the case based on the latest results published by the taxpayer-funded organisation.
Following new testing and equipment additions, the MG3 has been upgraded from three-stars to four-stars. This came after MG added a centre airbag, a driver monitoring system and improved crash avoidance systems. Good news, right?
Not quite. It turns out, when the car was crashed the right-side adjuster of the driver’s seat failed, causing the seat to twist during impact and resulting in “exacerbated” loads on the crash test dummy’s right leg. ANCAP itself has labeled the body protection as ‘poor’ – and yet still improved the safety score.
How is this possible? How is this providing good consumer advice? Sure, a centre airbag and driver monitoring are worthy new additions, especially if you do crash you’re likely to break your leg and hit your head on the bottom of the steering wheel.
Call me crazy, but I’d prefer to have less chance of injury in an accident than driver monitoring technology, which is typically hit and miss and can often become a distraction if not properly calibrated.
For its part, ANCAP Chief Executive Carla Hoorweg admitted disappointment in the seat failure and yet still praised the performance of the MG3.
“This uplift from three-stars to four-stars is a step in the right direction, yet the seat latch failure is not something we expect to see, and is cause for caution,” Hoorweg said.
“It is clear that MG is trying hard to bring improved products to market. What we want to see, however, is a focus on quality as well as safety. These elements go hand-in-hand.
“The failure of the seat adjuster increased the risk of injury to the driver. Key vehicle components like this should be able to withstand this typical urban-environment crash. We expect MG to make a running change to rectify the fault, and move to retrospectively fix affected vehicles already in the market.”
Putting aside the obvious need to credit MG’s improvements, given her organisation had just improved its scoring under its own policy, but many car company executives might be wondering why MG didn’t get kicked quite as hard as they do.
Kia recently copped it when its K4 small sedan scored five-stars for the majority of the range, but only four-stars for its entry-level model.
Hoorweg was not happy about it, saying: “In 2025, safety should not be treated as a ‘pay-for’ option.”
Adding: “Our message for Kia is to provide the same standard level of safety across the model range. Consumers should not have to pay extra for safety, nor should they have to compromise on safety when buying to a budget.”
Just a reminder, that the reason the K4 S didn’t get five-star was because it was missing advanced active safety features – not because the crash test dummy demonstrated potential for significant injuries.
The team at Kia has every right to question why they copped it so harshly and MG seemingly got a lighter touch.
Even more surprising is the dramatic difference between the ANCAP comments and those from Hoorweg’s counterpart at EuroNCAP, which actually undertook the testing. Dr Aled Williams, Programme Director for EuroNCAP, was blunt – consumers shouldn’t buy an MG3.
“Euro NCAP conducts independent safety testing of new cars so that consumers can be fully informed about how well a model is likely to protect them on the road,” Dr Williams said.
“It is troubling to find a car on sale in 2025 with a fundamental weakness in its seat latching mechanism, an essential part of the car’s occupant restraint system. This fault has been reported to the relevant Type-Approval authorities so consideration can be given as to whether a vehicle recall should be issued.
“For that reason, we would recommend that consumers consider alternatives to the MG3, using the search tool on our website to pick the safest cars that meet their needs.”
That is a stunning difference between the two connected organisations, and is actually in contrast to EuroNCAP’s typically more tolerant approach to four-star cars compared to ANCAP.
ANCAP has become increasingly focused on a ‘five-star-or-nothing’ approach in recent years, and while that clearly should be the prerogative for any safety organisation, it must realise that car companies operate as a business and therefore need to ensure its products both meet consumer demand and are priced competitively.
The K4 is a prime example, the criticism it copped for making the Safety Pack a “pay-for option” is a well-established business practice and customers are free to decide what they want to do. But the K4 also provided what ANCAP itself described as ‘adequate’ protection of the lower legs, compared to ‘poor’ for the MG3 – and yet the two cars have the same star rating.
ANCAP must also realise that it will continue to damage consumer trust in its own scores if it allows this sort of thing to keep happening.
As Hoorweg herself said when criticising the K4: “Our advice for consumers is to check before you buy.”
That’s very good advice for anyone looking at any ANCAP rating, because, in my opinion, the stars are no longer a clear guide.
Discussion about this post