Monday, April 20, 2026
Google search engine
HomeLifestyleRecipesThe Suzuki Swift's one-star safety rating debacle explained: Who's to blame?

The Suzuki Swift’s one-star safety rating debacle explained: Who’s to blame?

The boss of Suzuki Australia has at least explained why Fast arrived Down Under with a subpar safety specification, resulting in a one-star ANCAP safety rating and subsequent upgrades to three stars.

“When we were given the opportunity to have the new Swift model in Australia, we chose the specification that was available for the Australian and New Zealand markets – we took that into account without realizing that there were some structural differences to the European market vehicle,” said Suzuki Australia general manager Michael Pachota Daily Sparkz.

“(The) European car got a three-star (Euro) NCAP safety rating, our car got one star. We then passed that on to the manufacturer and they said, ‘Well, there’s a slight difference in the specifications of the vehicle itself,’ to which we then said, ‘Okay, that’s the car we need’ – so we phased out the one-star car and introduced the three-star car.”

Daily Sparkz You can save thousands on a new car. Click Here to get a great deal.

Asked whether this sets a precedent for Suzuki Australia to require the safest and best performing NCAP versions of new models from now on, Mr Pachota said “absolutely”.

“It wasn’t ideal. It wasn’t ideal. And yes, we definitely expressed that opinion clearly (to Suzuki headquarters). But having said that, Suzuki Motor Corporation immediately worked with us to correct our position and our future product,” Suzuki’s local boss added.

Following its launch in June 2024, the fourth-generation Suzuki Swift initially achieved a disappointing one-star ANCAP safety rating, with physical crash tests revealing stark discrepancies in crash performance between the model delivered in Australia and New Zealand and the three-star rated car sold in Europe.

Significant problems were identified in the frontal offset and full-side crash tests, with the local safety authority finding “higher chest loads and a higher risk of leg injury (excessive pedal movement) to the driver in the frontal offset test, and in the full-side test, significantly higher chest compression of the rear passenger, which exceeded the permissible limits.”