Description
Added on the 05/09/2019 20:55:08 - Copyright : Auto Moto EN
Euro NCAP performs a series of crash tests on each model tested: - a frontal impact test, the car impacts a rigid barrier - an offset frontal impact test, 40% of the width of the car is striking a deformable barrier - a pole test, the tested car is propelled sideways into a rigid pole - a side impact test, a mobile deformable barrier impacts the driver's door A series of pedestrian tests are conducted with different impactors, adult and child head form, lower and upper leg form and whiplash tests are performed on a sled. Active safety is tested based on the car’s equipment: autonomous emergency braking systems (car to car, with a pedestrian and a cyclist target), lane support and speed assist technologies and seatbelt reminders. Tested Model: Ford Focus 1.0 'Trend', LHD Body Type: - 5 door hatchback Year Of Publication: 2018-2019 Kerb Weight: 1312kg VIN From Which Rating Applies: - all Focus Class: Small Family Car ADULT OCCUPANT - Comments The passenger compartment of the Focus remained stable in the frontal offset test. Dummy readings indicated good protection of the knees and femurs of both driver and passenger dummy. Ford showed that a similar level of protection would be provided to occupants of different sizes and to those sitting in different positions. In the full-width rigid barrier test, protection of the chest of the driver and rear passenger occupants was rated as adequate, with good protection of all other critical body areas. In the side barrier test, protection of all critical body areas was good and the Focus scored maximum points. In the more severe side pole impact, protection was good for everything except the chest, which was adequately protected. Tests on the front seats and head restraints demonstrated marginal protection against whiplash injuries in the event of a rear-end collision. A geometric assessment of the rear seats indicated good whiplash protection. The autonomous emergency braking system performed well in tests of its functionality at the low speeds typical of city driving. However, the points for AEB City were not awarded as good front head restraint performance is a pre-requisite for the the additional reward for active safety. CHILD OCCUPANT - Comments Good protection was provided to both the 6 and the 10 year dummies in the frontal offset and side barrier tests, the Focus scoring maximum points for this part of the assessment. The front passenger airbag can 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. All of the restraint types for which the car is designed could be properly installed and accommodated in the car.
The passenger compartment of the Puma remained stable in the frontal offset test. Dummy readings indicated good protection of theknees and femurs of the driver and passenger. Ford showed that a similar level of protection would be provided to occupants of differentsizes and to those sitting in different positions. Protection of the driver's chest was rated as marginal. In the full-width rigid barrier test,protection of all critical body areas was good or adequate for both the driver and rear passenger. In both the side barrier and the moresevere side pole tests, protection of all critical body areas was good and the car scored full points in both of these tests. Tests on the frontseats and head restraints demonstrated good protection against whiplash injuries in the event of a rear-end collision. A geometricassessment of the rear seats also indicated good whiplash protection. The standard-fit autonomous emergency braking (AEB) systemperformed well in tests of its functionality at the low speeds at which many whiplash injuries occur, with collisions avoided or mitigated in alltest scenarios
The passenger compartment of the Mondeo remained stable in the frontal offset test. Dummy readings indicated good protection of theknees and femurs of the driver and passenger. Ford showed that a similar level of protection would be provided to occupants of differentsizes and to those sitting in different positions. In the full-width rigid barrier test, protection of all critical body areas was good or adequatefor both the driver and rear passenger. In both the side barrier and the more severe side pole tests, protection of all critical body areaswas good and the car scored full points in both of these tests. Tests on the front seats and head restraints demonstrated good protectionagainst whiplash injuries in the event of a rear-end collision. A geometric assessment of the rear seats also indicated good whiplashprotection. The standard-fit autonomous emergency braking (AEB) system performed well in tests of its functionality at the low speeds atwhich many whiplash injuries occur
The passenger compartment of the Kuga remained stable in the frontal offset test. Dummy readings indicated good protection of theknees and femurs of the driver and passenger. Ford showed that a similar level of protection would be provided to occupants of differentsizes and to those sitting in different positions. Protection of the driver's chest and lower leg was rated as marginal. In the full-width rigidbarrier test, protection the driver's chest was again marginal but that of all other critical body areas was good or adequate for both thedriver and rear passenger. In both the side barrier and the more severe side pole tests, protection of all critical body areas was good andthe car scored full points in both of these tests. Tests on the front seats and head restraints demonstrated good protection againstwhiplash injuries in the event of a rear-end collision. A geometric assessment of the rear seats also indicated good whiplash protection.The standard-fit autonomous emergency braking (AEB) system performed well in tests of its functionality at the low speeds at which manywhiplash injuries occur.
The passenger compartment of the Explorer remained stable in the frontal offset test. Dummy readings indicated good protection of theknees and femurs of the driver and passenger. However, a post-crash inspection revealed structures in the dashboard which might pose ahazard to the knees and femurs of occupants of different sizes and to those sitting in different positions. Accordingly, the score for thisbody region was penalised and protection was rated as marginal. In the full-width rigid barrier test, protection of all critical body regionswas good or adequate, apart from the chest of the rear passenger. For this body area, dummy readings of chest compression indicated amarginal level of protection. In the side barrier impact, protection was good for all critical body areas and the Explorer scored maximumpoints. In the more severe side pole test, readings of rib compression indicated marginal protection of the chest, while protection of othercritical body areas was good. Tests on the front seats and head restraints demonstrated good protection against whiplash injuries in theevent of a rear-end collision. A geometric assessment of the rear seats also indicated good whiplash protection. The standard-fitautonomous emergency braking (AEB) system performed well in tests of its functionality at the low speeds, typical of city driving, at whichmany whiplash injuries occur, with collisions avoided or mitigated in every test scenario.
|
Support : Technical 
- Content 
- Editors 
