Australian car safety is at a crossroads.

With production of local models such as the Ford Falcon, Holden Commodore and Toyota Camry set to stop in 2017, the Australian New Car Assessment Program (ANCAP) is also under threat.

The crash testing body does not have federal government funding beyond that date, or strong support from the automotive industry with which it must work.

Drive asked more than a dozen leading car makers three questions surrounding the future of ANCAP. A handful declined to take part in our anonymous survey, while others deferred to the industry bodies such as the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries (FCAI).

The results that did come through, however, revealed that several major manufacturers have little faith in Australia's crash body.

Australian crash testing is conducted in Western Sydney's Crash Lab. Photo: Michele Mossop

Nine car makers answered "no" when asked: "Does your company support ANCAP to continue in its current form?" None said yes.

The second question, "Does Australia need its own crash testing body", found that seven of nine key manufacturers did not support local crash testing, while two say the breadth of Australia's market requires local testing of foreign models that could otherwise fall through gaps in international test regimes.

A third question asked, "Is the ANCAP process and rating system readily understandable for consumers", and found that just one car maker said "yes", with eight others responding in the negative.

The IIHS narrow overlap crash test exposed flaws in standard crash testing procedures.

A spokeswoman for the FCAI says the time for local crash testing may be over.

"With the globalisation of the automotive industry and the harmonisation of Australian Design Rules? with UN regulations, the FCAI questions the continuing relevance of a separate NCAP in Australia," she says.

The issues

ANCAP is a partially government-funded independent organisation that exists to support consumers rather than serving car companies. The organisation has had rocky relationships with manufacturers since it first published crash tests in 1993. Car companies decried its scores as irrelevant in the real world until advertising began to focus on vehicle safety, and Subaru and Renault became the first to advertise five-star scores.

Distilled to their essence, the key problems car makers have with ANCAP are consistency and communication.

The crash body earned the ire of several car makers, none more so than Renault Australia, when it demanded rear airbag protection for all five-star cars that seat more than two people. Introduced from January 1, 2014, the system meant that the Renault Clio and Captur ? twin models that lack rear airbags ? would receive five and four-star scores respectively, simply due to their on-sale date.

Incensed that the Captur would receive a five-star rating under the Euro NCAP program but just four stars locally, Renault Australia boss Justin Hocevar lashed out at the crash body, claiming it was irrelevant following the imminent decline of the Australian car industry.

ANCAP stuck to its guns for one year before adopting European regulations from 2015 that allow cars without rear airbags to receive five-star ratings. Both ANCAP and Euro NCAP will soon require rear airbags to be mandatory in order for a car to be eligible for a five-star crash score.

ANCAP chairman Lauchlan McIntosh dismisses criticism of the organisation's backflip as "a small issue for a small number of cars". "It's surprising that some manufacturers are making such a meal of it," he says.

The IIHS narrow overlap crash test exposed flaws in standard crash testing procedures.

The Australian body adopts Europe's processes in some areas but not others. BMW Australia was disappointed this month to learn that a five-star Euro NCAP score for its 2 Series Active Tourer hatchback would drop to four stars locally.

While ANCAP requires a minimum frontal impact score of 12.5 along with a minimum combined score of 32.5, the BMW scored 11.34 and 32.34 respectively.

"That the 2 Series Active Tourer, which gains a five-star result in Europe but only a four star in Australia, is disappointing," BMW spokeswoman Lenore Fletcher says.

Australian crash testing is conducted in Western Sydney's Crash Lab. Photo: Michele Mossop

"It does raise questions about the relevance of the program. If it's confusing for the manufacturer I can only imagine how confusing it is for a consumer."

Communication from the crash authority can be difficult to comprehend. While the one to five-star rating system is, in itself, clear, understanding of the criteria used to determine such a result is less so. The organisation tried to simplify its scores in 2014 by adding date stamps to results. Asked at the time how consumers could compare a five-star result from 2010 alongside its 2015 equivalent, McIntosh said at the time that, "You can work it out for yourself".

"Most people don't drill into it too much, they just want to know that the car was tested at this time," he said.

The crash group made headlines in 2014 when it criticised Nissan Australia for failing to offer autonomous emergency braking on local variants of cars that feature the technology overseas.

The local head of Nissan, Richard Emery, defended his company by saying that technology was not available on Nissan Australia's right-hand-drive models and was not a physically possible inclusion for the Australian market. Emery told Drive.com.au at the time that ANCAP "obviously wanted to get their point across, which is fine", but the manufacturer was upset to have been singled out.

Yet McIntosh says ANCAP's relationships with manufacturers are "good".

"We'll have disagreements with manufacturers who don't meet the standard," he says.

"That's always been the case. It's not our job to advocate for manufacturers."

The argument for ANCAP

The outspoken safety spokesman had Ford in his sights at the Bangkok motor show following revelations that the Melbourne-developed Ranger ute would offer first-class features safety in Australia and New Zealand, but remove life-saving equipment such as airbags and stability control from vehicles sold in emerging markets.

It is cost-cutting measures like that, McIntosh says, that ram home ANCAP's role in keeping manufacturers accountable.

"The Ford Ranger, for example, is the reason we need to keep testing," he says.

"We need to make sure we don't get that rubbish here.

"We need to be assured that the quality of vehicles that are sold as new cars are at world's best practice so consumers can see what we're getting."

Associate Professor Stuart Newstead of the Monash University Accident Research Commission says the crash body performed a vital role in putting safety on buyers' shopping lists.

"In the days before ANCAP safety wasn't really on the agenda, it was about the loudness of stereos and shininess of alloy wheels," he says.

"What it has done is help put vehicle safety and safety choices at the top of the agenda."

Hocevar and others argue that the decline of Australia's automotive manufacturing industry will render ANCAP irrelevant. The majority of its scores already come about as a result of overseas testing. Its most recent results featured verdicts for seven new cars. Just one ? the Mitsubishi Triton ute ? was tested locally.

But higher powers support its continued presence.

Jamie Briggs, assistant minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development, says ANCAP "is fundamental to the promotion of technological improvements in the road safety sector".

"Following the closure of Australia's vehicle manufacturers, it is likely that some vehicles imported for sale in Australia may continue to be crash tested by ANCAP," Briggs says.

"This would occur in cases where the imported vehicles are not crash tested by Euro NCAP?, as a result of their not being available for sale in Europe or being relatively less popular in other markets."

Australia's position as a right-hand-drive market could be key to ANCAP's future. The vast majority of models crash tested overseas are built in left-hand-drive, with key mechanical differences to cars sold locally. Another argument for local testing is that the Australian new car market is among the most diverse in the world, and that models from developing markets should be held to the same high standards as established brands.

But most car companies remain unconvinced that crash testing needs to take place locally.

A leading car company told Drive that while independent vehicle safety testing should be exhaustive and consistent, "Where this is done is not an imperative ... It would seem sensible that it is carried out in proximity to the vehicle manufacturer".

The argument against ANCAP

The original argument against standardised laboratory crash tests ? that they are irrelevant ? is one still raised today. Having correlated data from more than 4.5 million collisions, looking at injuries sustained in real-world collisions and how they compare with official results, Newstead says ANCAP scores do not necessarily correlate with legitimate crashes.

One explanation may be that manufacturers design cars purely to pass standardised tests rather than taking a holistic approach to improve the outcome of real-world crashes.

"I think there may be some evidence of that, but it's a bit hard to pinpoint," Newstead says.

"It may explain the difference between crash tests and real-world results."

Car companies don't design and manufacture a car, send it off to market and hope that it comes back with a strong score.

Hyundai crashed dozens of pre-production Genesis sedans at its Namyang research and development site in Korea before signing off on a sedan that scored ANCAP's highest-ever result. It's no accident that every Hyundai ? barring commercial vans ? has a five-star safety score.

Worried that standard crash tests may not reflect real-world collisions, the US Insurance Institute for Highway Safety introduced a narrow overlap test in 2012.

Institute president Adrian Lund said at the time that "nearly every car performs well in other frontal crash tests ... but we still see more than 10,000 deaths in frontal crashes each year".

"Small overlap crashes are a major source of these fatalities," he said.

Newstead says the narrow offset test results "were astounding".

"[Manufacturers] designed cars for another test and when they become more onerous they didn't perform well," he said.

ANCAP does not conduct narrow overlap, rear-impact or rollover tests, though that may change in the future.

Under ANCAP's rules, a 1000-kilogram city car and two-tonne SUV or limousine can receive the same five-star crash score.

The Suzuki Swift holds a five-star ANCAP safety rating, but sub-par performances in real-world crashes see it saddled with a single star "very poor" mark in MUARC's Used Car Safety Ratings?.

Similarly, Nissan's 2006-2009 Maxima receives four stars from ANCAP and a five-star used rating, while five stars for Holden's superseded VE Commodore drop to four stars on the road.

Real-world physics are reflected in Used Car Safety Ratings results ? no city car receives more than a "marginal" result, while large cars and SUVs are much more likely to receive full marks based on the way they were able to protect occupants in crashes with other vehicles.

Success in the crash lab does not correlate directly with practical collisions.

But Newstead says ANCAP is right not to compare city cars with much larger models.

"We don't want to start an arms race with people buying SUVs to protect themselves from each other," he says.

"I think ANCAP is quite right in emphasising that in their ratings."

Moving forward

Clearly ANCAP must do more than crash test locally-built models from Holden, Ford and Toyota. The organisation is evolving, becoming more closely aligned with global standards led by the benchmark Euro NCAP body.

Cars must already have electronic features such as seatbelt reminders and electronic stability control in order to win a five-star score. The Australian body is set to raise its minimum requirements in coming years to include active safety features such as self-braking and pedestrian detection systems which will be tested locally and abroad.

"We have to keep lifting the bar," McIntosh says.

"We'll be involved more in Euro NCAP's decision-making process than we have in the past.

"We're trying to give consumers the best information they can get."

Newstead says ANCAP is on the right path in pursuing driver aids.

"We need to make sure we are doing a lot of real world validation of those things to make sure they perform in the real world," he says.

"It's pretty pointless if it's not improving safety. I think it is. Hopefully with some open discussion and careful thought we can keep it relevant and effective in the future."



What is ANCAP?

The Australian New Car Assessment Program is part of a network of organisations responsible for crash testing new cars.

Traditionally led by the large and influential Euro NCAP body, satellite members such as ANCAP and Latin NCAP are now part of the Global? NCAP network which aims to harmonise test procedures and results around the world.

Funded by governments, donations and motoring clubs such as the NRMA or RACV, ANCAP does not keep close ties to car companies, but may accept cars submitted for testing as opposed to buying its own test examples.

It runs cars through a strictly controlled test procedure, summarising complicated results into a rating of one to five stars.

Drive sent the following questions to the top 20 most popular car makers in Australia. The companies that officially responded represented more than 40 per cent of all new cars sold in Australia last year.

Does your company support ANCAP to continue in its current form? Yes: 0% No: 100%

Does Australia need its own crash test body? Yes: 22% No: 78%

Is the ANCAP process and rating system easily understandable for consumers? Yes: 11% No: 89%





The IIHS narrow overlap crash test exposed flaws in standard crash testing procedures. Australian crash testing is conducted in Western Sydney's Crash Lab. Photo: Michele Mossop