The #SaferCarsForAfrica programme is an independent initiative administered by the AASA and is done with limited involvement from the OEM of the country in which its operations are based. This allows for an unbiased assessment of the safety of the vehicles being tested.

A similar programme – #SaferCarsForIndia – is run in India, with many similar cars being crash tested, including the Suzuki Ertiga, which was mentioned in this week’s #SaferCarsForAfrica report.

“Suzuki Auto South Africa has a proud record of supporting road safety initiatives, such as the #SaferCarsForAfrica programme. Indeed, Suzuki ranks as one of the brands tested most often by the African and Indian #SaferCars programmes,” says Henno Havenga, General Manager for Sales and Marketing of Suzuki Auto South Africa.

“We believe, however, that the most recent report is not relevant to the South African market as it uses inaccurate and incomparable information for the front and side-impact tests. This nullifies the results and makes the entire report invalid.”

In the most recent iteration of the #SaferCarsForAfrica report, the AASA and Global NCAP give Suzuki only a one-star rating for the safety of its Ertiga people carrier. It draws on its findings of both front and side impact tests.

In its published report and in the information shared with media, the authors reference a 2019 test of an older generation Indian specification Maruti Suzuki Ertiga for its front crash test information. It does not make this information known in its report.

It is, however, clear from the images and videos that show the same unique vehicle identifier (OD2119MER1) in the videos for both the #SaferCarsForIndia 2019 and #SaferCarsForAfrica 2024 tests. Both videos, and the assessment information quoted in the report and releases, are also identical.

By only referring to the year 2024, the authors of the report – perhaps inadvertently – create the impression that all tests were conducted recently and with the same model.

There are several additional reasons why the use of information from a five-year-old crash test from the #SaferCarsForIndia is not relevant in the calculation of the 2024 results published in the #SaferCarsForAfrica report. These include:

• The Ertiga tested in 2019 is an older generation model that does not have any of the safety upgrades that have since been added by Suzuki.
• The Ertiga tested in 2019 (the vehicle shown in the frontal impact test) is built for the Indian market to Indian customer specification. It was never offered for sale in South Africa.
• The testing protocols used by the GNCAP have changed significantly in the last five years, with the most recent protocols published in 2022. In support of this statement, the Ertiga tested in 2019 was awarded three stars for driver and passenger safety, while the same information was considered only worthy of a one-star rating in the report published by the AASA, without retesting.
• It is highly possible that the quality and sensitivity of vehicle testing equipment, including the crash test dummies, have improved significantly over the past five years.
• The child restraint used in the two tests are not the same, which may further support the assumption that the dummies used in the two tests were different and the data collected from them incomparable.
• In the supporting information published by the GNCAP, the Suzuki Ertiga is identified as a Renault Triber, although the images are those of the Ertiga.
• The Suzuki Ertiga tested for side impact achieved the highest side impact rating out of the vehicles tested, yet the overall score received is the lowest of all the vehicles tested.

Suzuki Auto further notes that in previous years, the AASA offered its results to manufacturers in advance of their being published. This did not allow a manufacturer to change any part of the report, but rather to prepare internal and external communication in response to the publication of the report. This year, it seems that there has been a breakdown of communication, since SASA does not have any record of communication between AASA, Global NCAP and Suzuki prior to the publication of the results.

It is worth noting that the Ertiga tested in 2024 – the one with the unique identifier MD4923SER1 – was described as offering “good and adequate protection” for all occupants in the side-impact test.

“Suzuki has never shied away from criticism. Rather, it has used feedback in previous reports to improve the safety of its vehicles.

“For instance, Suzuki became the first manufacturer to include vehicle stability control on all but one of its passenger vehicles, regardless of price or specification. It also acted on feedback from the GNCAP to add additional safety features to its S-Presso, which saw it receive a three-star rating,” says Henno.

Prior to issuing this statement, Suzuki engaged with its head office in Japan and manufacturing partners in India. It has also written to the management team of the AASA to request further clarification.

“The AASA is widely considered to be a custodian of the motorists’ interests when it comes to vehicle safety.

“In the interest of upholding the credibility of the crash tests and the AA’s association in this programme, we believe that it is in their best interest to remain accurate, transparent and clear in their tests and reports to manufacturers and the customers they serve.

“We call on the AASA to follow due process and ensure that the information they share is relevant to the South African market and factually correct,” says Henno.