Chery QQ Crash Test
I posted on China’s various imitations of western and Japanese cars a long long time ago. One of the most blatant copies have been the Chevrolet Spark/Daewoo Matiz’s copy. Meet Shanghai Automotive Industry Corp’s Chevy QQ. It’s pretty hilarious really how they managed to transform Chevrolet’s pet name Chevy into Chery. The Chevrolet Spark is on sale here in Malaysia with an 800cc engine if I am not mistaken.
But do the imitations perform the same as the originals? Do Petaling Street Rolex watches last as long as the original? It depends on your luck really, but thankfully in the automotive world we have something called crasjh tests so we can at least measure a car’s safety performance.
Here is the original Daewoo Matiz/Chevrolet Spark’s crash test, along with a chart displaying areas where the driver and passanger gets the most injuries.
And here is the Chery QQ. I’ll let the photos do the explanation.
More photos of the crash test:
February 18, 2006 @ 10:50 am
wow, driver is in trouble when driving this car. passenger is much safer. who wan to drive a car like tat.
February 18, 2006 @ 12:59 pm
aaa….i think this car …..aaa……. think first …….
February 18, 2006 @ 2:43 pm
I was expecting the worst but the would be passenger in the Chery sustained less injuries than the passenger in the Daewoo Matiz/Chevrolet Spark. Nevertheless I wouldn’t want to call shotgun when riding in that car.
Lets just hope that the speculated partnership between Proton and JinHua will not contribute to developments of cars like the Chery above.
February 18, 2006 @ 4:23 pm
Less injuries compared to Matiz??? cbljkkj, try take a look again, this time look very, very carefully… what tells u that passengers in Chery “sustained less injuries” than the passenger in the Daewoo Matiz/Chevrolet Spark?
February 18, 2006 @ 8:06 pm
HatukNgkau ,
That is the conclusion shown on the chart. The passenger in a Cherry suffered less injury compare to the one in a Spark.
Look at the chart . cbljkkj is right.
February 18, 2006 @ 10:51 pm
when u get a chance to be in this car……….choose to be the passenger rather than the driver, if not, u r putting urself at a terrible risk.
February 19, 2006 @ 1:06 am
when got serious accident, sure got injuries…somemore this one is a small car.
February 19, 2006 @ 3:06 am
I wouldn’t even get close to one!
February 19, 2006 @ 9:05 am
Hi askMs. That is easier said then done. Would you still not want to ride in one if the other alternatives are taking a bus or walking in the rain? I don’t think so and that’s why there are so many Kancils on the road.
Often in life, we don’t always get what we wanted, like Rolls Royce and Angelina Jolie.
February 19, 2006 @ 11:04 am
Tourist said,
———————————–
Nicely said brother…especially the Angelina Jolie part…….whew !!!
February 19, 2006 @ 2:12 pm
i though red zone means serious injuries? in that case, cherry qq definitely fair worst..
February 19, 2006 @ 8:17 pm
outspoken said,
—————————————-
For the driver side , cherry definitely fared much worse.
But somehow , the passenger side indicate it is safer in a cherry compare to a spark/matiz.
February 20, 2006 @ 7:04 pm
Guys, if you look at the pic carefully, the impact point is on the driver’s side. From that itself, we can’t conclude that the passenger’s side would be safe enough to sit in right? The yellow/brown mamak stall-like thingy in the 2nd last pic. Agree not? But anyway, i’d still think that this car’s a teeny weeny bit tougher than our kancil. Hehehe…
February 20, 2006 @ 7:31 pm
clark_kent said
—————————
The NCAP conclusion is that the cherry passenger may suffered lesser injury compare to a passenger in a spark. It did not specifically mentioned it is safe or no injury for the spark passenger.
As for the mamak stall-like thing , pls lah , this is the NCAP test we are talking here. Not some back alley garage owned by ah meng or ahmad lah.
February 20, 2006 @ 7:47 pm
Hello Mr Tourist,
I’d rather take other types of transportation than ride in one, thank you. Be it a beat up Kancil or leak roof Myvi or jammed door Gen.2. If the buses are too packed, I’ll take a cab. As long as it’s not a Cherry. I made up my mind. Don’t take it personal.
February 21, 2006 @ 3:20 am
stevarac:
i did not say that it IS a mamak stall. It’s just an expression to show which part of the picture im refering to, coz of the painting. Of coz i know its not a back door garage or what ever u were thinking… like DuH~!!!
What i would be interested is that what IF the test was taken with a direct head-on impact, that i believe would make difference to the entire ‘injury- analysis graph’ (dunno what’s it called).
February 21, 2006 @ 9:30 pm
Oh my……HAHAHAHAA!!!
Now, that’s very-very ambitious. Has anyone notice the tachometer of this Cherry? Read the top speed. 220km/h???? WTF??!! A car that size doing 110km/h already feels like swinging from left to right on the highway. Who are they tryin to kid?
February 21, 2006 @ 10:52 pm
hello everybody, I just have a question, the question is the crash test result for QQ is not published in the EuroNCAP official web!
http://www.euroncap.com/content/safety_ratings/ratings.php?id1=1
So, I want ask, is the result valid? if yes, why the EuroNCAP never put the result to publish on their official web?
does anyone give me the answer?
I don’t mean that QQ is good or not. i just want the truth. DO NOT cheat me anymore..
February 22, 2006 @ 8:48 pm
this kind of impact nobody can walk out without injure , i think China can make any specification that meet EuroNCAP want lah , just like China selling
those shoes in Europe country, this is another pretext use to kick away China products , they will set-up another standard or ..somethings to tell evry ones …….just to protect thier themself and thier market
February 25, 2006 @ 11:47 am
here one point must be noted:
The CHERY QQ in this test is the version WITHOUT AIR BAG,but the martiz equipped, so the compare is unfair.this test is preformed in Russia according to NCAP stardand. that is 64km/h.although QQ is NOT EQUIPPED with air bag,the passenger is safer than the one in Martiz.the QQ has the version with DUAL AIR BAGS, if QQ in the test is DUAL AIR BAG version, the result will be much better.
February 27, 2006 @ 12:18 am
this is an unfair test. As I know, Chevrolet Spark cannot even pass the China national crush test either! But Chery pass the national test. here’s the webiste:
http://www.qxtx.com/newsshow.asp?newsid=528
it’s obviously business trap from Chery’s competitors in China, and GM is most possible the bad guy.
Why these guys not to test with a Chevrolet Spark car? it’s worse than Chery QQ! hehehe….
March 3, 2006 @ 3:10 pm
well, here we go…
The chery QQ is based on the daewoo matiz, by GM. Which is called spark elsawhere… anyways.
EuroNcap Matiz crash test.
http://www.euroncap.com/content/safety_ratings/details.php?id1=1&id2=65
Which states that on frontal impact:
” the driver still contacted the steering wheel with his chest which lost marks. Hard structures under the facia were hazardous to the driver’s knees, and the brake pedal was hazardous to the feet.”
& i think this is exactly what we can see in the QQ pictures. So i guess they are both tipical . During what happened. ( for the driver ).
reply back
April 7, 2006 @ 4:13 pm
waw, the crash worse than riding a scooter!!!! is oklah cos china still hv a lot more people 4 accident die…..how can china govt approved QQ road safety control n standard?????
July 2, 2006 @ 3:42 am
[...] Chery QQ Crash Test Visionary Vehicles to bring Chery to USA [...]
July 2, 2006 @ 3:03 pm
Don’t trust anything that is not ‘yet’ in EuroNcap official website. Chery managed to copy Spark, it might as well ‘copied’ the crash results too !
July 10, 2006 @ 9:59 am
[...] QXTX, which looks like some kind of Chery QQ fan club website has posted a different set of Chery QQ crash test result photos on their site last year. In these new crash test photos, the damage does not look bad at all, but even through Babelfish Chinese to English translation I could not really determine to which crash testing standards was used as guidelines for the crash test. Perhaps a reader who can read Chinese could help? You can see that the last photo was shot intentionally to show that all four doors of the Chery QQ could be opened after the crash. For older photos showing much worse results, click here. More crash test photos after the jump. [...]
August 11, 2006 @ 4:01 am
[...] UK magazine AutoExpress carried photos of the Chery QQ crash test results yesterday. Clearly European consumers are a little worried about the influx of Chinese cars into their market soon in the future, for example the new Nanjing-assembled MG Rover cars, the JiangLing Landwind, and the Geely Beauty Leopard. Bad crash test result photos (as well as some good ones?) of the Chery QQ have been around the internet for a long time, so it is not exactly breaking news for us. There are also accusations that the Chery QQ is a rip-off of the Chevy Spark, and there was a lawsuit but it was settled out of court and since dropped. [...]
May 18, 2007 @ 1:40 pm
how to proof this is true Chery QQ car??????
June 13, 2007 @ 6:37 pm
This crash test was performed in Russia, in NICIAMT passive safety laboratory; test was ordered by Autoreview magazine.
The car was bought anonymously in one of Chery dealerships.
The red car above is Daewoo Matiz built in Uzbekistan (rather popular car in Russia), and tested earlier in the same laboratory. It was not equipped with airbags (all Uzbek Matizs are not equipped with them).
The article and some data on this crashtest:
http://www.autoreview.ru/archive/2006/01/CheryQQ/
November 28, 2007 @ 10:14 pm
Simple conclusion =
Aesthetics – Yes (Look at its cute front!), best for unique car collectors!
Safety – I DON’T think so, Airbags only for body, legs surely recieve injuries.
January 24, 2009 @ 6:05 am
“A car that size doing 110km/h already feels like swinging from left to right on the highway. Who are they tryin to kid?”
Well I purchased a QQ last month, and i’m no softy with cars, and have written of two cars (one twice). The Chery QQ has pretty good handeling, I’ve driven a Uno, and a Matiz, and neither felt as comfortable on the road as the QQ.. I’ve topped 140Km/h and there was no swinging or fish tailing.
The braking is also true, and sharp. On the day that we got the vehicle, some Blond Bimbo jumped a Stop in front of us, and to top it, the roads were wet after a heavy downpour. Needless to say, the QQ stopped on a dime.
For the Price, Fuel economy, look & Interior space, the car was a very good buy.. (Also i need something to slow me down)
April 20, 2009 @ 6:19 pm
With above discussion, we should buy old car but more safer for driver & passenger or buy qq3?
September 9, 2009 @ 10:33 am
bull shit!
September 18, 2009 @ 3:26 am
I drive a GM Corsa in Brazil. I happened to drive many other brands with a car quality offered in Brazil (which is terrible). Many car spare parts are produced in China, including tyres, machanical parts and screen wipers. I once bought a pair of windscreen wiper for the car and I got a damaged glass. The rubber detached from the metal part and scratched my windsreen. I promised that I will neve buy Chinese products again. Never!!!