When Mitsubishi crafted their latest Express van, safety seemed to have taken a backseat in the design process—at least, we hope so.
After re-entering the Australasian market following a seven-year hiatus (mercifully absent from the U.S. market), the new Mitsubishi Express van underwent crash testing by ANCAP (Australasian New Car Assessment Program). The outcome is far from flattering as the van clinched an unprecedented zero-star rating, flunking nearly every evaluated test. ANCAP’s press release highlights the absence of “basic safety features” and scant active safety systems as the primary reasons.
ANCAP Safety
In terms of physical safety, dubbed “ADULT OCCUPANT PROTECTION” by ANCAP, the van scored 55 percent overall. Surprisingly, it fared relatively well in side-impact testing, earning a 5.63 out of 6, and a commendable 7.02 out of 8 in full-width frontal impact. However, its performance dipped in the frontal offset test with a mere 3.82 out of 8 and struggled in the pole-oblique test, managing only 3.22 from a possible 6. These dismal evaluations, among others, aggregated to a failing score of 21.19 out of 38.
The vehicle’s deficiency in active safety systems is the straw that breaks the camel’s back. It lacks any form of automatic emergency braking, which translates to zero assistance in responding to pedestrians, stationary objects, or other vehicles. In the “Safety Assist” realm, it secured a meager seven percent (out of 100), criticized by ANCAP not only for the absence of automatic braking but also for its peculiar omission of a seatbelt reminder for passengers. Curiously, it scored some points in the safety assist domain solely due to the presence of a manually-adjusted vehicle speed limiter.
The video above showcases ANCAP’s crash tests, including the pedestrian safety evaluations later in the video. Notably, the Express performs poorly in these tests as well, primarily attributable to the absence of automatic emergency braking (AEB). While it displayed subpar head protection for pedestrians in collisions, its performance in leg protection was relatively better. Regrettably for Mitsubishi—currently a recurrent theme—prioritizing lower limb protection does not carry significant weight in ANCAP’s assessments.
This poor rating isn’t unique to a specific trim of the van; crucial features like AEB and lane departure warning are conspicuously absent, even in the most luxurious variant offered by the Japanese manufacturer. This culmination leads to a negative appraisal of the van by ANCAP.
Therefore, if you reside outside the U.S. and are in the market for a new commercial vehicle, it’s advisable to steer clear of this model. A brief perusal of ANCAP’s site reveals other vans in the segment offer significantly superior safety, with Ford, Toyota, Mercedes, Renault, and more surpassing Mitsubishi by a substantial margin. It’s disheartening to witness the Japanese automaker repeatedly stumbling, but the responsibility rests solely on its shoulders. Let’s hope the brand endeavors to enhance the Express’s safety levels step by step.
Do you have a tip or inquiry for the author? Drop a line here: peter@thedrive.com
