Recently, China's new car evaluation program, C-NCAP, released the collision test results for the second batch of models in 2017. Among them, two popular mid-to-large SUVs caught our attention: the Guangzhou Auto Chuanqi GS8 and the Changan CS95. As representatives of domestically produced mid-to-large SUVs, these two models naturally invite comparisons in areas like design, performance, price, and features. But how do they fare in terms of safety? Do they differ significantly? Let’s take a closer look.
According to the latest C-NCAP evaluation criteria, a maximum score of 54 points can be achieved in the crash tests, with a five-star rating awarded for scores above 50 points. Both the GS8 and CS95 achieved five stars, but the GS8 scored 57.7 points, slightly higher than the CS95’s 54.1 points. Let’s break down their individual scores:
From the table above, it’s clear that both models scored equally in side collisions and additional features. The differences emerged in the full-frontal and 40% offset collision tests. Additionally, the neck protection test also showed a slight disparity.
It’s worth noting that the two vehicles involved in the crash tests were 2.0T two-wheel-drive models. The GS8 was purchased directly by C-NCAP at a price of 182,800 RMB, while the CS95 was selected by the C-NCAP Management Center, purchased at a price of 169,800 RMB.
**Comparison with Similar Joint Venture Models**
There are already several mid-to-large joint venture SUVs in the same class as the GS8 and CS95. However, C-NCAP has not extensively tested many of these models. Currently, only the SAIC Volkswagen Tiguan L, Ford Edge, and Toyota Highlander have undergone crash tests under the 2015 rules, which are the same as those applied to the GS8 and CS95.
Based on the evaluation scores, all five cars received five-star ratings. From the score perspective, the GS8’s 57.7 points was the highest among the six cars, followed closely by the Ford Edge’s 56.5 points. The Changan CS95’s score was comparable to the Volkswagen Tiguan L. Under the same evaluation rules, the GS8 and CS95 did not show a significant gap compared to their joint venture counterparts. While these scores alone cannot guarantee anything, they still offer some insight into the relative performance of these vehicles, similar to how fuel efficiency figures can give us a general idea of real-world performance.
**Analysis of Full-Frontal Collision**
In the full-frontal collision test, the GS8 scored higher than the CS95, but the details tell a more nuanced story. The GS8 outperformed the CS95 in the front row, but the CS95 had a slight edge in protecting rear passengers.
Both the GS8 and CS95 earned perfect scores for head and neck protection in the front row. However, the GS8 excelled in chest and calf protection. Chest scores consider factors like compression deformation and viscous index, while calf scores factor in the tibia index and calf compression. While these technical terms might be confusing for the average consumer, the key takeaway is that the CS95’s front occupants are relatively more vulnerable in terms of chest and calf injuries compared to the GS8.
In contrast, the CS95 scored higher in the back row, particularly in chest protection, indicating that the GS8’s rear passengers wearing seatbelts are more likely to suffer chest injuries in a full-frontal collision compared to the CS95.
**40% Offset Collision**
In the 40% offset collision test, the GS8 again outscored the CS95. This type of collision demands higher safety standards due to the smaller area of impact compared to a full-frontal collision. The demands on the vehicle's body structure and materials are more stringent.
Despite the outward appearance of minimal deformation, the CS95 received a calf score of 0.82 from C-NCAP, compared to the GS8’s 3.94, showing a noticeable discrepancy. This suggests that even though the interior space seemed intact, the CS95’s front passengers are more likely to sustain calf injuries during an offset collision compared to the GS8.
**Side Collision and Neck Protection**
Both vehicles scored perfectly in the side collision test, achieving 18 points. However, given that 97.3% of the 33 cars evaluated by C-NCAP in 2016 passed this test, C-NCAP has since adjusted the 2018 rules to make the test more challenging. For now, the GS8 and CS95 are still evaluated under the older 2012 rules.
The neck protection test also favored the CS95 slightly over the GS8, ensuring better protection for occupants in the event of a rear-end collision.
**Additional Features**
Both the GS8 and CS95 scored 3 points (out of 5) in the additional feature category, offering front seatbelt reminders, side airbags, and side curtains. Notably, the GS8 also includes front and rear head air curtains, even on its base models, providing enhanced head protection in side collisions.
**Conclusion**
While the GS8 achieved a higher overall score than the CS95, it’s evident that each model has its own strengths. The GS8 offers better protection for front-row occupants, whereas the CS95 provides superior protection for rear passengers. This highlights the unique characteristics of each model. It’s encouraging to see domestic SUVs performing so well in crash tests, and I hope more domestic brands continue to excel in this area in the future.
Interactive Conference Board,Touchscreen Interactive Conference Board,Intelligent Interactive Conference Board,Business Interactive Meeting Board
Jiangsu Qilong Electronic Technology Co., Ltd. , https://www.qilongtouch.com