Jeep Compass disappoints in crash testComment on this story
It's been more than a decade since getting a poor EuroNCAP safety rating was the norm and a five star achievement like the Renault Laguna was something to shout about.
Today most cars achieve a five-star rating, with a few only managing four and the odd one here and there making just three.
But the latest results released by the European crash testing authority show that some carmakers still have some way to go with certain products - in this case Jeep with its Compass crossover vehicle.
POOR PROTECTION LEVELS
The compact Jeep managed only two stars against the latest crash test criteria. It was one of two cars that have been tested this year, the other being the latest Honda Civic hatch - which joined the five-star club.
Despite being fitted with an optional side thorax airbag, the Compass "showed poor protection levels" according to EuroNCAP, particularly in the side pole test.
Although the passenger compartment remained stable in the frontal impact, "structures in the dashboard presented a risk of injury to the knees and femurs of both the driver and passenger dummies and the car was penalised.
"In the side pole impact, dummy readings of rib deflections indicated a high risk of serious chest injury, even with the airbag fitted, and the car scored no points in that test."
The Jeep did, however, score maximum points in the side barrier test.
FIVE STARS REGAINED
Meanwhile, eight cars that were assessed last year have been reissued with a five-star rating because they also meet the more stringent requirements for 5 stars in 2012. These include the BMW 1 Series, BMW X1, Ford Focus, Ford Ranger, Mercedes M-class, Nissan LEAF, Subaru XV and Volvo V60.
"Many carmakers have moved on and so have we."
EuroNCAP's Secretary General Michiel van Ratingen concluded: "The results published today show clearly that a 5 star today means a lot more than a 5 star some years ago. Many carmakers have moved on and so have we. Cars based on older technology, brushed up and marketed as new are not providing the same levels as safety as the newest models developed against the new targets. Consumers interested in a fair comparison will not be fooled by these results."