Crash Test: Suzuki Swift 2010

Suzuki Swift 1.2 GL 2010 EuroNCAP Crash Test
Frontal impact

Driver

Pole

CRS

Whiplash



Suzuki Swift 2010 test results

Comments

Adult occupant
The passenger compartment remained stable during the frontal impact and the dummy readings indicated good protection of the knees and femurs of both driver and passenger. Suzuki demonstrated that occupants of different sizes and those sat in different seating positions would have a similar level of protection against upper leg injuries. In the side barrier impact, protection of the chest was adequate but in the side pole impact the chest protection was only marginal. Whiplash protection in rear impacts was good.

Child occupant
In the frontal impact, the heads of the 3 year and 18 month dummies were protected and only fractions of a point were lost for each seat in the dynamic assessment. In the side impact, both dummies were also well protected. Although the passenger airbag can be disabled to allow for installation of a rearward facing child restraint to be placed on the front passenger seat, the status of the airbag was not clearly indicated. The ISOFIX and top tether attachments were well marked.

Pedestrian
The front edge of the bonnet scored no points for the protection it offers to pedestrians' legs. The protection offered by the bumper was predominantly good, as was the protection provided by the bonnet in most areas likely to be struck by the head of a child.

Safety assist
Electronic stability control is standard equipment on all variants, as is a seatbelt reminder for the driver and passenger seats.

Photos, Comments: EuroNCAP

Crash Test: Hyundai ix35 2010

Hyundai ix35 2.0 diesel 2010 EuroNCAP Crash Test
Frontal impact

Driver

CRS

Whiplash



Hyundai ix35 2010 test results

Comments

Adult occupant
The passenger compartment remained stable in the frontal impact. Dummy readings indicated good protection for the knees and femurs of both driver and passenger. Hyundai presented additional test data which showed that similar levels of protection would be offered to occupants of different sizes and those sat in different positions. In the side barrier impact, dummy readings were good. However, in the more severe side pole test, the curtain airbag got trapped in the door pillar trim and did not deploy fully. As this airbag is intended to provide protection in all types of side impact, a penalty was applied to the head score for both the side barrier test and the side pole test. Chest protection was marginal in the side pole test. The seat and head restraint offered good protection against whiplash injuries in the event of a rear-end collision.

Child occupant
Forward movement of the 3 year dummy, sat in a forward facing seat, was not excessive. In the side impact, both dummies were properly constrained by the protective shells of their restraints. The front passenger's airbag can be disabled to allow a rearward facing child restraint to be used in that seating position and clear information is provided to the driver regarding the status of the airbag. A permanently attached label clearly warns of the dangers of using a child restraint in that seat without first disabling the airbag.

Pedestrian
The bumper provided predominantly good protection to pedestrians' legs. However, the front edge of the bonnet offered poor protection and scored no points. The protection offered by the bonnet was good in some areas where a child's head might strike but was marginal away from the centre. Protection for an adult's head was mixed but most areas tested were poor.

Safety assist
Electronic stability control is standard equipment on all variants along with a seatbelt reminder system for the driver and front passenger seats.

Photos, Comments: EuroNCAP

Crash Test: Honda CR-Z 2010

Honda CR-Z 1.5 petrol electric hybrid 2010 Euro NCAP Crash Test
Frontal impact

Driver

Pole

Side

Whiplash



Honda CR-Z 2010 test results

Comments

Adult occupant
The passenger compartment remained stable during the frontal impact and the dummy readings indicated good protection of the knees and femurs of both driver and passenger. With the use of additional tests, Honda were able to demonstrate that occupants of different sizes and those sat in different seating positions would have a similar level of protection against upper leg injuries. In the side barrier impact, the protection offered to all body regions was good. In the more severe side pole impact, chest protection was adequate. Whiplash protection in rear impacts was good.

Child occupant
Space is limited in the rear seats of the CR-Z and Honda’s recommended child restraints will not fit if the front seats are set to the Euro NCAP test position. Therefore, separate tests were done to determine adult occupant protection (using Euro NCAP's standard front seat positions) and child occupant protection (for which the front seats were moved forward to accommodate the child restraints). Users should ensure that the front seats are moved as far forward as is practicable when installing child restraints in the rear.

In the front and side impacts, the heads of both children were protected by the child restraints. A permanent label clearly warns of the dangers of using that seating position for a rearward facing child seat without first disabling the airbag. The CR-Z is equipped with a switch that disables the passenger airbag to allow a rearward facing restraint to be used in that seating position. Clear information is provided to the driver regarding the status of the airbag and the risks associated with incorrect use. The ISOFIX and top tether anchorages in the rear seats were well marked and the CR-Z is certified for the installation of universal child restraints.

Pedestrian
Most of the bumper provided good protection along with the whole of the bonnet front edge. The area of the bonnet where a child or small adult's head would impact was good, but the area for adults offered various levels of protection.

Safety assist
Honda have made electronic stability control (ESC) standard fitment on the CR-Z throughout all European countries. Additionally, all seats in the vehicle were protected by a smart seat belt reminder system.

Photos, Comments: EuroNCAP

Crash Test: BMW 5 Series 2010

BMW 530d 2010 EuroNCAP Crash Test
Frontal impact

Driver

Pole

CRS

Whiplash



BMW 5 Series 2010 test results

Comments

Adult occupant
The passenger compartment remained stable in the frontal impact. Dummy readings indicated good protection of the knees and femurs of both the driver and front seat passenger. BMW were able to demonstrate that occupants of different sizes, and those sat in different positions, would be similarly well protected. Maximum points were scored in the side barrier test. In the more severe side pole impact, the head and pelvis were well protected, the chest and abdomen adequately so. Good protection was provided against whiplash injuries in the event of a rear impact.

Child occupant
Based on dummy readings in the dynamic tests, the 5 series was awarded maximum points for protection of the 3 year dummy in the frontal and side impacts. Forward movement of the dummy's head was not excessive in the frontal impact and both the 3 year and 18 month dummies were properly contained by their respective child restraints in the side impact. The passenger airbag can be disabled to allow a rearward facing child restraint to be used in that seating position. However, information provided to the driver regarding the status of the airbag is not sufficiently clear. A permanently attached label warns clearly of the dangers of using a rearward facing restraint in the passenger seat without first disabling the airbag.

Pedestrian
The 5 series is fitted with an 'active bonnet'. When a pedestrian is struck, actuators lift all four corners of the bonnet away from hard structures underneath. This creates more space to absorb the energy of a struck pedestrian, lowering injury values. The bonnet has scored maximum points in the areas likely to be struck by the head of a child and has scored very highly in those areas likely to be struck by an adult. The front edge of the bonnet did not score any points for the protection provided to pedestrians' legs but the bumper scored maximum points.

Safety assist
Electronic Stability Control is standard equipment on the 5 series, together with a driver-set speed limitation device. A seatbelt reminder system is also standard equipment and covers all seating positions.

Photos, Comments: EuroNCAP

Crash Test: Alfa Romeo Giulietta 2010

Alfa Romeo Giulietta 1.6 LT JTD Dinstictive EuroNCAP Crash Test
Frontal impact

Driver

Pole

CRS

Whiplash



Alfa Romeo Giulietta 2010 test results

Comments

Based on data reviewed by Euro NCAP, a similar level of safety performance can be expected from the following variants: 2.0 JTD 170CV DIST CM 6M; 2.0 JTD 140CV DIST CM 6M; 1.8 TB GDI 230CV QFV CM 6M; 1.4 TB MAIR 170CV DIST CM 6M; 1.4 TB 120CV DIST CM 6M; 2.0 JTD 170CV DIST DDCT; 1.4 TB MAIR 170CV DIST DDCT; 2.0 JTD 170CV PROG CM 6M; 2.0 JTD 140CV PROG CM 6M; 1.6 JTD 105CV PROG CM 6M; 1.4 TB MAIR 170CV PROG CM 6M; 1.4 TB 120CV PROG CM 6M; 2.0 JTD 170CV PROG DDCT; 1.4 TB MAIR 170CV PROG DDCT

Adult occupant
The passenger compartment remained stable in the frontal impact. Dummy readings indicated good protection of the knee and femurs of both the driver and passenger. Alfa Romeo were able to show that similar protection would be offered to occupants of different sizes and to those sat in different positions. The Giulietta scored maximum points in the side barrier impact. In the more severe side pole test, good protection was provided to all body regions except the chest, where protection was adequate. A reactive head restraint (one which moves forward in response to the rearward movement of the occupant) provided good protection against whiplash injuries in the event of a rear impact.

Child occupant
Forward movement of the 3 year dummy, sat in a forward facing child restraint, was not excessive in the frontal impact. Both dummies were properly contained by their respective restraints in the side barrier test. The passenger airbag can be disabled to allow a rearward facing child restraint to be used in that seating position. However, information provided to the driver regarding the status of the airbag is not sufficiently clear.

Pedestrian
The Giulietta scored maximum points for the protection offered by the bumper to pedestrians' legs. Marginal protection was provided by the front edge of the bonnet. In most areas likely to be struck by the head of a struck child, the bonnet offered good protection. However, for an adult's head, the bonnet offered poor protection in most areas.

Safety assist
Electronic Stability Control (ESC) is standard equipment on all variants, along with a seatbelt reminder system for the front and rear seats.

Photos, Comments: EuroNCAP

Crash Test: Toyota Verso 2010 Euro NCAP

Toyota Verso 2.0 D-4D 2010 Euro NCAP Crash Test
Frontal impact

Driver

Pole

CRS



Toyota Verso 2010 test results

Comments

Adult occupant
The passenger compartment remained stable in the frontal impact. Dummy readings indicated good protection of the knees and femurs. Toyota were able to demonstrate that a simiar level of protection would be provided for occupants of different sizes and to those sat in different seating positions. The car scored maximum points in the side barrier impact. In the more severe side pole test, protection of the chest was rated as marginal, based on rib defelections measured by the dummy. Protection of the neck against whiplash injuries in a rear collision was also rated as marginal.

Child occupant
The head of the 3 year dummy moved forward beyond the recommened limit in the frontal impact, potentially allowing contact with parts of the car's interior. However, the dummy was not ejected from the restraint and, in the side impact, both the 3 year and the 18 month dummy were properly contained by their respective seats. The passenger airbag can be disabled to allow a rearward facing resrtraint to be used in that seating position. Clear information is provided to the driver regarding the status of the airbag. A permanent label clearly warns of the dangers of using that seating position for a rearward facing child seat without first disabling the airbag.

Pedestrian
The Verso scored well for pedestrian protection. The bumper scored maximum points for protection of pedestrians' legs. The protection provided by the bonnet was good in most areas likely to be struck by an adult or a child. However, the car scored no points for the protection offered by the front edge of the bonnet.

Safety assist
Eletronic stability control is standard equipment on all variants of the Verso. A seatbelt reminder system is also standard, covering the front and rear seats.

Photos, Comments: EuroNCAP

Crash Test: Kia Venga 2010 Euro NCAP

Kia Venga 1.4 GLS 2010 Euro NCAP Crash Test
Frontal impact

Driver

Pole

CRS

Whiplash



Kia Venga 2010 test results

Comments

Adult occupant
When the car used for the frontal impact was inspected after the test, a cut was found in the driver's seatbelt, extending about a quarter of the way across the width. The partial cut, near the point where the belt attaches to the bottom of the B pillar, was thought by inspectors to have been caused by the belt being getting caught in the seat runner during test set up in the lab. KIA have reacted to the inspectors’ finding by designing protective sleeves which fit over the lower part of the belt. This modification has been immediately instigated on production cars. Owners who have already taken delivery of their cars are being urged by Kia to return their vehicles to dealers to have the sleeves fitted. In the frontal test, dummy readings suggested that the driver's chest contacted the steering wheel. Structures in the dashboard represented a risk of injury to the knees and femurs of both the driver and passenger. The passenger dummy recorded a high differential movement between the upper and lower parts of the inboard leg, an indication of knee injury risk. The passenger compartment remained stable in the frontal test. In the side barrier impact, the Venga scored maximum points. In the more severe side pole test, dummy readings indicated marginal protection of the chest and good protection of other parts of the body. Protection of the neck against whiplash injuries in a rear-end impact was good.

Child occupant
In the frontal impact, the head of the 3 year dummy, sat in a forward facing seat, did not move forward excessively. However, on rebound, the dummy's head struck the C-pillar trim. In the side barrier impact, both dummies were properly contained by their respective restraints. The passenger airbag may be disabled to allow a rearward facing child restraint to be used in that seating position. Clear information is provided to the driver regarding the status of the airbag and the system was rewarded by Euro NCAP. A permanent label warns clearly of the risks of using a rearward facing restraint in the front passenger seat without first disabling the airbag.

Pedestrian
The bumper scored maximum points for its protection of pedestrians' legs. The front edge of the bonnet provided marginal protection. In most areas likely to be struck by the head of a child, the bonnet offered good protection but was predominantly poor in the areas where an adult's head might strike.

Safety assist
Electronic Stability Control (ESC) is an option on one variant of the Venga in four European countries; otherwise, it is standard equipment. As it is to be fitted as standard in the great majority of sales, it has been included in Euro NCAP's assessment of the car. A driver-set speed limitation device is available as an option but its did not qualify for assessment as it is not standard on any variant. A seatbelt reminder system is standard equipment for the driver and front passenger seats.

Photos, Comments: EuroNCAP