ANCAP re-evaluates KIA Picanto's safety
Local crash safety testing authority reacts to poor rating in Indonesia for Kia's baby hatchThe Australasian New Car Assessment Program (ANCAP) has found that the Kia Picanto poses a greater risk of serious injury for the driver in the event of an accident than when the Picanto was first tested in 2011.
ANCAP felt obliged to re-assess the safety of the Picanto after its sister safety program, ASEAN NCAP, gave the Picanto a zero-star rating for models sold in Indonesia.
"The trigger for this audit test was the considerable variation in structural performance seen on the Indonesian-sold Picanto," said James Goodwin, ANCAP CEO.
"We wanted to confirm the validity of our existing rating for the safety of Australian and New Zealand consumers with the key driver being to provide assurance they can rely on ANCAP information when buying a new car."
Although the audit test by ANCAP found that the Picanto still retained its overall five-star rating, the threat of driver chest and leg injury had increased, which may be a reflection of different testing parameters this time around.
ANCAP tested the Picanto back in 2011 when the pre-facelift vehicle went on sale in New Zealand, and Euro NCAP tested the car again in 2013. Kia didn't bring the Picanto to Australia until this year, but the retention of the micro hatch's five-star rating is based on its performance in the context of the 2013 Euro NCAP testing, which is three years out of date for testing parameters.
"The score obtained in the audit test is still within the five-star range but it is important that consumers are made aware of these findings so they can make an informed decision in this highly competitive market segment," Goodwin said.
But how well informed can the consumer be, given the test rating is not current, and the car itself is already half-way through its effective model life cycle? Furthermore, ANCAP and Kia have not explained the discrepancy in safety rating for NZ five years ago, versus Indonesia much more recently. Is it a case of different market specifications producing different test results, or was there a problem with one or the other of the test procedures?
Please see our Editorial Guidelines & Code of Ethics (including for more information about sponsored content and paid events). The information published on this website is of a general nature only and doesn’t consider your particular circumstances or needs.
