You are on page 1of 5

c 


   

Australian organization ANCAP responsible for car¶s safety level, has conducted crash test of
Chinese pickup V240 produced by Great Wall Motor company. The vehicle offered in China
under Wingle name and in Europe under Steed name, received only two stars of five possible. It
is very important, that this model obtained Whole Vehicle Type Approval (WVTA) certificate of
the European Union in September and it sale in Europe will start next year.

The car has been offered on the Australian market with a price AUD 23,990 since June 2009.
During collision with a deformable barrier and speed 64 km/h the front seat belt retracting
mechanism failed to correctly restrain occupants under extreme loads. ³Even though the
passenger airbag deployed, the dummy¶s head hit the dash. To make matters worse, the driver-
side dummy¶s head struck the steering wheel, despite the airbag deploying´ - according to
service goauto.com.au. The V240 also lost points under the rating system because it does not
have ESP or seat-belt reminders, nor does it have top tether anchorages for child restraints.

For this reason, the safety recall campaign has already been announced for the selected party
vehicles which came to Australia and this fact immediately caused a big stir in the media about
the quality of the vehicles imported from China. Great Wall Motors spokesman Daniel Cotterill
told GoAuto that the company had received no reports of V240 seat belt failure on Australian
roads. The company could replace the mechanism on 115 cars, while a further 285 vehicles
would be checked.

Curiously enough, the SA220/Sailor (AUD 19,990) - which unlike the V240 does not even have
airbags or ABS available - also scored just two stars in the ANCAP testing, while Proton¶s
Jumbuck scored only one star.

Source: goauto.com.au
Source: ANCAP


r 
   

j  jc
The more stars the better (maximum 5 stars)

From 2008, a 5 star rating is only achievable in cars with Electronic Stability Control (ESC)
cj  c 

* †   


 
  



The SA220 scored 2.32 out of 16 in the offset crash test. The passenger compartment did not
hold its shape well. Protection from serious head and leg injury was poor for the driver. Chest
protection was weak for the driver.

The vehicle was awarded a default score of 16 out of 16 in the side impact crash test. However,
the low offset score meant that the vehicle was limited to a 2 star rating and an overall score of
16.49 (the maximum available for a 2 star rating).

ßccßß   
:
 
   
 Head/neck
Zero pts, chest 0.32 pts, upper legs 2 pts, lower legs
zero pts.

The passenger compartment did not hold its shape


well in the offset crash test. The accelerator pedal
moved rearwards 230mm and upwards 190mm. The
steering wheel hub moved 99mm rearward, 127mm
upward and 13mm sideways. The front ("A") pillar
moved 114mm rearwards. All doors remained closed
during the crash. After the crash very high manual
effort was required to open the driver¶s door.

The driver's head contacted the steering wheel.


Steering column and dash components were a
potential source of injury for the driver's knees. Dash and glove box components were a
potential source of injury for the passenger's knees.

During preparation for the offset test the driver's seat slide mechanism was found to be
difficult to engage and lock on both sides. As required by the test protocol, the seat was
unoccupied at the time.

» What is frontal offset crash?


     
_
      
 
   
 

The side impact test normally used by ANCAP simulates a small car striking the driver's
door of the vehicle under test. It is based on a regulation test but the regulation does not
apply to vehicles with a high seat height like the SA220. Experience shows that such
vehicles can be expected to perform well in this test so ANCAP has decided to award full
score for these vehicles instead of conducting a crash test.

» What is side impact crash?


 
A separate pedestrian
impact test is conducted.
This test estimates injuries
to pedestrians struck by a
vehicle travelling at 40
km/h. The more stars the
better (maximum 4 stars).

ß 
ß  
The tested model of Great Wall Motors SA220 was introduced in Australia during 2009.

The SA220 has minimal safety features. There are no top tether anchorages for child restraints
so this vehicle is unsuitable for transporting young children.


r 
   

cj  jc
The more stars the better (maximum 5 stars)

From 2008, a 5 star rating is only achievable in cars with Electronic Stability Control (ESC)
cj  c 

 

# Tests from 2003 onwards allow for the inclusion of advanced seat belt warning systems
and are scored out of 37. Tests to the end of 2002 are scored out of 34.
The overall score and evaluation is obtained by combining the frontal offset and side impact
crash tests scores and, where applicable, the optional side pole crash test score.

Bonus points are awarded for intelligent seat belt reminders

The V240 scored 2.36 out of 16 in the offset crash test. The passenger compartment did
not hold its shape well. Protection from serious head and leg injury was poor for the driver.
There was marginal protection for the head of the passenger and chest of the driver. The
passenger seat belt failed during the offset crash test. Even if the passenger results had
been better the driver's score would have still limited the V240 to a 2-star rating.

The vehicle was awarded a default score of 16 out of 16 in the side impact crash test.
However, the low offset score meant that the vehicle was limited to a 2 star rating and an
overall score of 16.49 (the maximum available for a 2 star rating).
ßccßß   
:
 
   

Head/neck zero pts, chest 1.67 pts, upper legs
0.69 pts, lower legs zero pts.

The passenger compartment did not hold its


shape well in the offset crash test. The
accelerator pedal moved rearwards by 202 mm
and upwards 120 mm. The steering wheel hub
moved 91 mm rearward, 137 mm upward and 20
mm sideways. The front ("A") pillar moved 72
mm rearwards. All doors remained closed during
the crash. After the crash high manual effort was
required to open driver¶s door.

The driver airbag deployed but failed to prevent


the driver's head from striking the steering
wheel. Steering column components were a
potential source of injury for the driver's knees. The passenger's airbag deployed but, near
the peak of the crash, the seat belt retractor failed allowing the seat belt webbing to reel out
and the airbag could not prevent the passenger's head from striking the dash. The
manufacturer is investigating the cause of the seat belt failure. Dash components were a
potential source of injury for the passenger's knees.

» What is frontal offset crash?


     
_
      
 
   
 

The side impact test normally used by ANCAP simulates a small car striking the driver's
door of the vehicle under test. It is based on a regulation test but the regulation does not
apply to vehicles with a high seat height like the V240. Experience shows that such
vehicles can be expected to perform well in this test so ANCAP has decided to award full
score for these vehicles instead of conducting a crash test.

» What is side impact crash?


 
A separate pedestrian
impact test is conducted.
This test estimates injuries
to pedestrians struck by a
vehicle travelling at 40
km/h. The more stars the
better (maximum 4 stars).

ß 
ß  
The tested model of Great Wall Motors V240 was introduced in Australia during 2009.

Dual front airbags and antilock brakes (ABS) are standard. Electronic stability control (ESC)
is not available. There are no advanced seat belt reminders.

There are no approved top tether anchorages for child restraints so this vehicle is unsuitable
for transporting young children.