0% found this document useful (0 votes)
64 views3 pages

Euroncap Citroen c4 2009 5stars

The document provides a summary of a safety test of the Citroen C4. It received high scores for protecting adult occupants in frontal impacts but lower scores for side impacts. Child occupants were well protected. Pedestrian protection was mixed, offering good protection to legs but poor protection to heads. The car had standard electronic stability control and seatbelt reminders.

Uploaded by

makkboy
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
64 views3 pages

Euroncap Citroen c4 2009 5stars

The document provides a summary of a safety test of the Citroen C4. It received high scores for protecting adult occupants in frontal impacts but lower scores for side impacts. Child occupants were well protected. Pedestrian protection was mixed, offering good protection to legs but poor protection to heads. The car had standard electronic stability control and seatbelt reminders.

Uploaded by

makkboy
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

CITROËN C4

Citroen C4 1.6 Hdi, LHD

90% 85%

43% 97%

ADULT OCCUPANT Total 32 pts | 90%

FRONTAL IMPACT 15,2 pts FRONTAL IMPACT

HEAD
Driver airbag contact stable
Passenger airbag contact stable
CHEST
Passenger compartment stable
Windscreen Pillar rearward 21mm
Steering wheel rearward none
Driver Passenger
Steering wheel upward none
Chest contact with steering none
wheel
SIDE IMPACT CAR 7,8 pts UPPER LEGS, KNEES AND PELVIS
Stiff structures in dashboard none
SIDE IMPACT POLE 6,5 pts
Concentrated loads on knees none
LOWER LEGS AND FEET
Footwell Collapse none
Rearward pedal movement brake - 29mm
Upward pedal movement brake - 14mm

SIDE IMPACT

Car Pole Head protection airbag Yes


Chest protection airbag Yes

REAR IMPACT (WHIPLASH) 2,8 pts


WHIPLASH
GOOD
Seat description 4 way, manual, cloth
ADEQUATE Head restraint type static
MARGINAL Geometric assessment 1 pts
TESTS
WEAK
- High severity 2,2 pts
POOR - Medium severity 1,4 pts
- Low severity 2,1 pts
CHILD OCCUPANT Total 42 pts | 85%

18 MONTH OLD CHILD FRONTAL IMPACT

Restraint BRITAX RÖMER BABYSAFE+ Head forward movement protected


Group 0, 0+ Head acceleration good
Facing rearward Chest load good
Installation Adult seatbelt
SIDE IMPACT
PERFORMANCE 11,3 pts
Head containment protected
INSTRUCTIONS 4 pts Head acceleration good

INSTALLATION 2 pts

3 YEAR OLD CHILD FRONTAL IMPACT

Restraint BRITAX RÖMER DUO+ Head forward movement protected


Group 1 Head acceleration good
Facing forward Chest load fair
Installation ISOFIX anchorages and top tether
SIDE IMPACT
PERFORMANCE 11,4 pts
Head containment protected
INSTRUCTIONS 4 pts Head acceleration good

INSTALLATION 2 pts

VEHICLE BASED 7 pts Airbag warning Label Pictogram and text warning label
ASSESSMENT premanently attached to both sides of
the passenger sun visor

PEDESTRIAN Total 15 pts | 43% SAFETY ASSIST Total 7 pts | 97%

GOOD SPEED LIMITATION ASSISTANCE 0,8 pts

MARGINAL - active, standard

POOR
ELECTRONIC STABILITY CONTROL 3 pts
(ESC)

- optional

SEATBELT REMINDER 3 pts

HEAD 7,9 pts - driver 1 pts


PELVIS 1,5 pts - passenger 1 pts
LEG 6 pts - rear 1 pts
DETAILS OF TESTED CAR

SPECIFICATIONS SAFETY EQUIPMENT

Tested model Citroen C4 1.6 Hdi, LHD Front seatbelt pretensioners


Body type 5 door hatchback Front seatbelt load limiters
Year of publication 2010 Driver frontal airbag
Kerb weight 1205kg Front passenger frontal airbag
VIN from which rating applies applies to all C4s of the Side body airbags
specification tested
Side head airbags

COMMENTS

Adult occupant
In the frontal impact, the passenger compartment remained stable. Dummy readings indicated good protection for the
knees and femurs of both the driver and passenger and there were no structures in the dashboard likely to pose a
risk of injury to occupants of different sizes or those sat in different seating positions. In the barrier side impact the
chest protection was adequate. However, in the pole side impact the chest protection was only rated as weak and the
abdominal protection was adequate. The assessment for whiplash protection in a rear impact was rated as marginal.

Child occupant
In the frontal impact, forward movement of the head of the 3 year dummy was not excessive. The 18 month dummy
was sat in a rearward facing restraint which also provided good protection to the head. In the side impact test, both
dummies were properly contained by the protective shells of their restraints. The passenger's airbag can be disabled
by means of a switch in the glove box, allowing a rearward facing child restraint to be used in that seating position.
Clear information is presented to the driver regarding the status of the airbag and the system was rewarded.

Pedestrian
The bumper area scored maximum points for the protection offered to a pedestrian's lower leg. The front edge of the
bonnet, where a pedestrian's upper leg would impact, offered mostly poor protection. The bonnet top where a child or
small adult head would impact offered mixed levels of protection. However, the protection offered to adults was
extremely poor over the entire area.

Safety assist
Electronic Stability Control (ESC) is fitted as standard to all variants in most European countries. In some countries,
ESC is an option on the base specification but standard on others. Sales of ESC as standard equipment are
expected to be sufficiently high for the system to be rewarded by Euro NCAP. A driver-set speed limitation device is
standard across the model range as is a front and rear seat belt reminder system.

You might also like