RESULTS

1. RESULTS Spreadsheet for the WEB and printing if needed

2. Latin NCAP Sponsored cars KA CRS update

3. Ford KA Fly Viral - NO Airbags ADULT OCCUPANT 2.37 CHILD OCCUPANT 30.52 • Adult Occupant Protection Front passenger Driver • Child restraints • Safety equipment • Car details NO NO NO NO NO NO • Comments Adult occupant In the frontal impact the passengers head and chest hit the steering wheel, the rim was teared off the column. There were hazardous structures in the area of the facia that could be impacted by an occupants knees and the protection to the lower legs was poor. The body shell was not capable of withstanding further loading. Child occupant The installation instructions on both child seats were permanently attached to the seat and offered sufficient information. Child dummies were well protected. The vehicle did not give any warnings as to the hazards associated with installing a rearward facing child seat on the front passenger seat with an active airbag (in the car was no passenger airbag available, other versions offer this possibility without any warning label or airbag disabeling). Both Child dummies were protected

4. Chevrolet Celta - NO Airbags ADULT OCCUPANT 3.82 CHILD OCCUPANT 22.68 • Adult Occupant Protection Front passenger Driver • Child restraints • Safety equipment • Car details NO NO NO NO NO NO • Comments Adult occupant The rating for the Chevrolet Celta was limited to 1 star due to the unacceptably high risk of life threatening injury to the driver's head. The protection offered to the driver's chest was weak and there were hazardous structures in the area of the facia that could be impacted by an occupants knees. Pedal intrusion and footwell rupture are high risk of severe injury to the driver lower leg and foot. The bodyshell was not capable of withstanding further loading.. Child occupant The dynamic performance of the child restraints was adequate. However, the installation instructions on both child seats were insufficient and not permanently attached to the seat. The recommended child seats was found to be incompatible with the belt system on the vehicle.

5. Fiat Novo Uno Evo - NO Airbags ADULT OCCUPANT 2.00 CHILD OCCUPANT 20.73 • Adult Occupant Protection Front passenger Driver • Child restraints • Safety equipment • Car details NO NO NO NO NO NO • Comments Adult occupant The rating for the Uno was limited to 1 star due to the unacceptably high risk of life threatening injury to the driver's head presented by the steering wheel. The protection offered to the driver's chest was weak and there were hazardous structures in the area of the facia that could be impacted by an occupants knees. The loading of the drivers knee and femur due to stiff structures in the dashboard were high. The intruding pedals and the severely deformed foot well area cause extreme risk on the drivers feet. The bodyshell was not capable of withstanding further loading and ruptures to the footwell threatened the driver's feet.. Child occupant The child seat for the 1,5 and 3 year old child was adequate to marginal. The installation instructions on both child seats were insufficient and not permanently attached to the seat. The CRS of the P3 was incomatible with the seat belt geometry of the vehicle.

6. Chevrolet Corsa Classic - NO Airbags ADULT OCCUPANT 2.28 CHILD OCCUPANT 11.16 • Adult Occupant Protection Front passenger Driver • Child restraints • Safety equipment • Car details NO NO NO NO NO NO • Comments Adult occupant The rating for the Classic was limited to 1 star due to the unacceptably high risk of life threatening injury to the driver's head presented by the steering wheel. The protection offered to the driver's chest was weak and there were hazardous structures in the area of the facia that could be impacted by an occupants knees. The bodyshell was not capable of withstanding further loading and ruptures to the footwell threatened the driver's feet. Child occupant The child seat for the 3 year old child was unable to prevent excessive forward movement during the impact, there was no head contact to front seat which is important. The installation instructions on both child seats were insufficient and not permanently attached to the seat. The CRS of the P3 was incompatible with the seat belt geometry of the vehicle

7. Nissan Tiida Hatchback + Driver Airbags ADULT OCCUPANT 9.54 CHILD OCCUPANT 8.00 • Adult Occupant Protection Front passenger Driver • Child restraints • Safety equipment • Car details YES YES NO NO NO NO • Comments Adult occupant In the frontal impact the driver head was well protected by the restrain system. The adult passenger head protection was weak due to the high decelerations, and the neck and chest protection was marginal. There were hazardous structures in the area of the facia on driver and passenger side, that could be impacted by any occupants knees. The bodyshell showed that it can withstand further loadings. Child occupant The Child Restraint System (CRS) initially recommended by Nissan failed during the frontal impact resulting in excessive forward movement of the 3 year old dummy. The installation instructions on both child seats were insufficient and not permanently attached to the seat. The chest protection offered to children was poor due to high loads..

8. Manufacturers Sponsored cars

9. Chevrolet Cruze LT + 2 Airbags ADULT OCCUPANT 13.18 CHILD OCCUPANT 31.59 • Adult Occupant Protection Front passenger Driver • Child restraints • Safety equipment • Car details YES YES YES YES NO NO • Comments Adult occupant In the frontal impact the driver and passenger heads were both well protected by the restrain system. The chest protection was adequate. There were no knee and tibia contact points visible for the driver on the dashboard which is desirable. But there were hazardous structures in the area of the facia that could be impacted by an larger occupants knees.. Child occupant The child seat for the 1,5 and 3 year old child offered sufficient protection. The installation instructions on both child seats were insufficient and not permanently attached to the seat. The vehicle did give warnings as to the hazards associated with installing a rearward facing child seat on the front passenger seat with an active airbag. Both CRS have ISOFIX anchorage systems and were installed with the isofix connectors..

10. Ford Focus Hatchback + 2 Airbags ADULT OCCUPANT 13.53 CHILD OCCUPANT 33.68 • Adult Occupant Protection Front passenger Driver • Child restraints • Safety equipment • Car details YES YES YES NO NO NO • Comments Adult occupant The body structure is stable and suffered minimal deformation. The single stage and tethered airbags and belt pretensiones with load limiters worked well and kept the loading of the passengers quite low. There are hazard structures in the area of the driver and passengers knees. All doors could be opened easily after the impact. Child occupant The child restraint for the 3 year old was the Ford branded Römer Duo Plus, belted with the 3 point seat belt. The head was well protected while the chest acceleration was quite high. The 1 1/2 year old child was placed in a rearward fitted Ford branded Römer Baby Safe plus, belted, and well protected. The neck loads were lightly above the higher performance limits. Both CRS had permanent labels attached to the seats.

11. Manufacturers Sponsored NEW cars

12. NISSAN MARCH + 2 Airbags ADULT OCCUPANT 7.62 CHILD OCCUPANT 9.68 • Adult Occupant Protection Front passenger Driver • Child restraints • Safety equipment • Car details YES YES YES NO NO NO • Comments Adult occupant The dummy readings indicated good protection to the head.The protection offered to the driver’s legs was weak due to rearward pedal displacement. There were hazardous structures in the fascia that posed a risk to both the driver and passenger knees. The body shell was not capable of withstanding further loading. Child occupant The child seat for the 3 year old child was unable to prevent excessive forward movement during the impact, even with a large excursion the head of the dummy did not have contact with the rear of the backrest of the driver seat which is very important. The installation instructions on both child seats were insufficient and not permanently attached to the seat. Nissan recommends not to put children in the front passenger seat. The 18 months old dummy showed adequate to good protection.

13. Summary of Results