Which? don't like it because in their tests they say it subjects the child to high loads in a frontal crash situation. I'm not sure how they measure these things, but the side impact protection is good.
I don't really see how there can be that much variation in high backed boosters - they are just 'seatbelt positioners' really, with the added side impact protection for the body and head. I can only think that because the Adventure is not ISOFIX (and therefore not fixed rigidly in the car) that in the event of a crash the child has the weight of the Adventure behind it, pushing the body against the seatbelt, whereas this wouldn't happen with an ISOFIX seat that would not be able to move forward. But I'm just thinking out loud there, I'm not sure if that makes any sense!
I have two Adventures, they are fantastic value for money and a hundred times better than the Graco Junior Maxi equivalent seat (my mum has one of the Graco ones for her car). The Adventure has really deep head and body support, whereas Which? say that the back and headrest of the Graco seat is next to useless and provides hardly any side impact protection. You can see why just by comparing the two side by side, the Graco seat is really shallow.
Also the Adventure has a slim base, so it fits against modern 'sculpted' vehicle seats really well. The Graco has a wide, flat, base and wobbled all over place in our old Renault Scenic because the seats of that car sloped up at the edges. It does fit ok in my mums Toyota Verso though because her seats are quite flat.
Anyway, to get to the point - I think the Adventure will be fine for occasional use in the grandparents car. I chop and change between our Adventures and the one KidFix ISOFIX high backed booster that we have (if we have the boot seats up in the car it's not practical to have an ISOFIX booster on the seat that we need to 'flip' to allow access to the back row).