Kia Picanto | Euro NCAP

***
Front: 7
Side: 10
****
*
Adult occupant protection
Head: Good, Neck: Good, Chest: Weak, Upper leg right: Weak, Upper leg left: Marginal, Lower leg right: Adequate, Lower leg left: Marginal, Right foot: Adequate, Left foot: Adequate
Frontal impact driver
Head: Good, Neck: Good, Chest: Marginal, Upper leg right: Marginal, Upper leg left: Weak, Lower leg right: Good, Lower leg left: Adequate
Frontal impact passenger
Head: Good, Chest: Poor, Abdomen: Marginal, Pelvis: Adequate
Side impact driver
Head: Good, Chest: Poor, Abdomen: Marginal, Pelvis: Adequate
Side impact driver with side airbag option
Child restraints
18 month old Child Britax Roemer Baby-safe Plus, rearward facing
3 year old Child Britax Roemer Duo Plus, forward facing
Pedestrian protection
No image car front available
Safety equipment
Front seatbelt pretensioners
Front seatbelt load limiters
Driver frontal airbag
Front passenger frontal airbag
Side body airbags
Side head airbags
Driver knee airbag
Car details
Hand of drive LHD
Tested model KIA Picanto 1.1 EX
Body type SUPERMINI
Year of publication 2004
Kerb weight 936
VIN from which rating applies Applies to all applies Picanto’s
Comments
The Picanto performed badly, only doing just enough to merit its three star rating. This is extremely disappointing for a new model in a market segment where other manufacturers have made major improvements in recent years. However, the car protected its child occupants well, although the protection it gave to pedestrians was poor. KIA decided to fund the testing of a car with side impact airbags, which are an option in some parts of Europe. The results for this are shown below but not included in the car’s overall scores. The results improved on the standard car’s but a door opened in the test. 

Front impact
The restraint system included single stage tethered airbags and front belt pre-tensioners and load limiters. Despite this and a stable body shell, forces recorded by the dummies were high. Aggressive structures behind the fascia compromised the protection for the driver and the passenger. The steering wheel and brake pedal were also pushed back. As a consequence, the passenger cell became a particularly unfriendly environment to be in.

Side impact
The Picanto’s performance was unimpressive. Instrumentation in the driver dummy’s chest and abdomen recorded high loads. The car was also penalised because forces transferred in an unrealistic manner up the test dummy’s spine so reducing the level of forces recorded by the instrumentation in its chest.

Child occupant
A permanent label warning of the danger of placing a rear-facing restraint on the front passenger seat opposite an active airbag was fitted, but only to the stowed side of the passenger’s sun visor. Protection offered to the children was good. The older child used a forward-facing Britax Romer Duo Plus fitted using the car’s ISOFIX mounting points and top tether. The 18 month old used a rearfacing Britax Romer BabySafe fitted using the adult belt. But, in the frontal test, the recorded neck loads on the younger child were on the high side.

Pedestrian
Only the areas where an adult head might strike offered any protection. The bumper and leading edge of the bonnet were very unfriendly.

Leave a comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: