PugGT
Well-known member
Calma o Lino está a preparar isso.
Topico dos Crash-Tests ⚠️Euroncap- 10/10/2026
- Iniciador de tópicos GTTDI
- Data de início
Calma o Lino está a preparar isso.
Euroncap Julho 2024
Mercedes Classe E
https://www.euroncap.com/en/results/.../e-class/51910
VIN From Which Rating Applies - variants identified in 'Rating Validity', from W1KLF5****A084967
The passenger compartment of the E-Class remained stable in the frontal offset test. Dummy numbers showed good protection of the knees and femurs of both the driver and passenger.
tection would be provided to occupants of different sizes and to those sitting in different positions. Analysis of the deceleration of the impact trolley during the test, and analysis of the deformable barrier after the test, revealed that the E-Class would be a moderately benign impact partner in a frontal collision.
In the full-width rigid barrier test, protection was good for all critical body areas of the driver and good or adequate for the rear passenger. In both the side barrier and pole impact tests, protection of all critical body areas was good and the car scored maximum points in this part of the assessment. Control of excursion (the extent to which a body is thrown to the other side of the vehicle when it is hit from the far side) was found to be adequate.
The E-Class has a countermeasure to mitigate against occupant-to-occupant injuries in such impacts and this performed well in Euro NCAP's test, with good protection of heads of both front occupants. Tests on the front seats and head restraints demonstrated good protection against whiplash injuries in the event of a rear-end collision
Mercedes Classe E
https://www.euroncap.com/en/results/.../e-class/51910
VIN From Which Rating Applies - variants identified in 'Rating Validity', from W1KLF5****A084967
The passenger compartment of the E-Class remained stable in the frontal offset test. Dummy numbers showed good protection of the knees and femurs of both the driver and passenger.
tection would be provided to occupants of different sizes and to those sitting in different positions. Analysis of the deceleration of the impact trolley during the test, and analysis of the deformable barrier after the test, revealed that the E-Class would be a moderately benign impact partner in a frontal collision.
In the full-width rigid barrier test, protection was good for all critical body areas of the driver and good or adequate for the rear passenger. In both the side barrier and pole impact tests, protection of all critical body areas was good and the car scored maximum points in this part of the assessment. Control of excursion (the extent to which a body is thrown to the other side of the vehicle when it is hit from the far side) was found to be adequate.
The E-Class has a countermeasure to mitigate against occupant-to-occupant injuries in such impacts and this performed well in Euro NCAP's test, with good protection of heads of both front occupants. Tests on the front seats and head restraints demonstrated good protection against whiplash injuries in the event of a rear-end collision
Anexos
Euroncap 10/7/2024
VW Passat
https://www.euroncap.com/en/results/vw/passat/51928
The passenger compartment of the Passat remained stable in the frontal offset test. Protection was good for all critical body areas of both the driver and passenger, and full points were scored for the dynamic dummy results. Volkswagen demonstrated that the same level of protection would be provided to the knees and femurs of occupants of different sizes and to those sitting in different positions.
In the full-width rigid barrier test, protection was good or adequate for all critical body areas of the driver and rear passenger. In both the side barrier and pole impact tests, protection of all critical body areas was good and the car scored maximum points in this part of the assessment. Control of excursion (the extent to which a body is thrown to the other side of the vehicle when it is hit from the far side) was found to be adequate.
The Passat has a countermeasure to mitigate against occupant-to-occupant injuries in such impacts and this performed well in Euro NCAP's test, with good protection of the heads of both front occupants. Tests on the front seats and head restraints demonstrated good protection against whiplash injuries in the event of a rear-end collision. A geometric analysis of the rear seats also indicated good whiplash protection.
VW Passat
https://www.euroncap.com/en/results/vw/passat/51928
The passenger compartment of the Passat remained stable in the frontal offset test. Protection was good for all critical body areas of both the driver and passenger, and full points were scored for the dynamic dummy results. Volkswagen demonstrated that the same level of protection would be provided to the knees and femurs of occupants of different sizes and to those sitting in different positions.
In the full-width rigid barrier test, protection was good or adequate for all critical body areas of the driver and rear passenger. In both the side barrier and pole impact tests, protection of all critical body areas was good and the car scored maximum points in this part of the assessment. Control of excursion (the extent to which a body is thrown to the other side of the vehicle when it is hit from the far side) was found to be adequate.
The Passat has a countermeasure to mitigate against occupant-to-occupant injuries in such impacts and this performed well in Euro NCAP's test, with good protection of the heads of both front occupants. Tests on the front seats and head restraints demonstrated good protection against whiplash injuries in the event of a rear-end collision. A geometric analysis of the rear seats also indicated good whiplash protection.
Euroncap 10/7
Skoda Kodiaq
https://www.euroncap.com/en/results/skoda/kodiaq/51924
The passenger compartment of the Kodiaq remained stable in the frontal offset test. Dummy numbers showed good protection of the knees and femurs of both the driver and passenger. Škoda showed that a similar level of protection would be provided to occupants of different sizes and to those sitting in different positions.
For the passenger, all critical body areas were well protected. Analysis of the deceleration of the impact trolley during the test, and analysis of the deformable barrier after the test, revealed that the Kodiaq would be an aggressive impact partner in a frontal collision.
In the full-width rigid barrier test, protection was good or adequate for all critical body areas of the driver and rear passenger. In both the side barrier and pole impact tests, protection of all critical body areas was good and the car scored maximum points in this part of the assessment.
Control of excursion (the extent to which a body is thrown to the other side of the vehicle when it is hit from the far side) was found to be adequate.
The Kodiaq has a countermeasure to mitigate against occupant-to-occupant injuries in such impacts and this performed well in Euro NCAP's test, with good protection of the heads of both front occupants. Tests on the front seats and head restraints demonstrated good protection against whiplash injuries in the event of a rear-end collision.
Skoda Kodiaq
https://www.euroncap.com/en/results/skoda/kodiaq/51924
The passenger compartment of the Kodiaq remained stable in the frontal offset test. Dummy numbers showed good protection of the knees and femurs of both the driver and passenger. Škoda showed that a similar level of protection would be provided to occupants of different sizes and to those sitting in different positions.
For the passenger, all critical body areas were well protected. Analysis of the deceleration of the impact trolley during the test, and analysis of the deformable barrier after the test, revealed that the Kodiaq would be an aggressive impact partner in a frontal collision.
In the full-width rigid barrier test, protection was good or adequate for all critical body areas of the driver and rear passenger. In both the side barrier and pole impact tests, protection of all critical body areas was good and the car scored maximum points in this part of the assessment.
Control of excursion (the extent to which a body is thrown to the other side of the vehicle when it is hit from the far side) was found to be adequate.
The Kodiaq has a countermeasure to mitigate against occupant-to-occupant injuries in such impacts and this performed well in Euro NCAP's test, with good protection of the heads of both front occupants. Tests on the front seats and head restraints demonstrated good protection against whiplash injuries in the event of a rear-end collision.
Euroncap 10/7/2024
https://www.euroncap.com/en/results/dacia/duster/51909
Dacia Duster MK3
The passenger compartment of the Duster remained stable in the frontal offset test. Dummy numbers showed good protection of the knees and femurs of both the driver and passenger. Dacia demonstrated that a similar level of protection would be provided to occupants of different sizes and to those sitting in different positions
The driver’s chest protection was rated as weak, based on dummy readings of compression during the test.
In the full-width rigid barrier test, protection was rated as marginal for the chest of the driver and rear passenger, based on dummy readings of compression. In both the side barrier test and the more severe side pole impact, protection of all critical body areas was good and the Duster scored maximum points in this part of the assessment.
Dacia did not provide evidence to demonstrate the degree to which the Duster would control excursion (the extent to which a body is thrown to the other side of the vehicle when it is hit from the far side).
In addition, the Duster has no countermeasure to mitigate head to head contact between the front seat occupants, so far-side protection was rated as poor. Tests on the front seats and head restraints demonstrated good protection against whiplash injuries in the event
https://www.euroncap.com/en/results/dacia/duster/51909
Dacia Duster MK3
The passenger compartment of the Duster remained stable in the frontal offset test. Dummy numbers showed good protection of the knees and femurs of both the driver and passenger. Dacia demonstrated that a similar level of protection would be provided to occupants of different sizes and to those sitting in different positions
The driver’s chest protection was rated as weak, based on dummy readings of compression during the test.
In the full-width rigid barrier test, protection was rated as marginal for the chest of the driver and rear passenger, based on dummy readings of compression. In both the side barrier test and the more severe side pole impact, protection of all critical body areas was good and the Duster scored maximum points in this part of the assessment.
Dacia did not provide evidence to demonstrate the degree to which the Duster would control excursion (the extent to which a body is thrown to the other side of the vehicle when it is hit from the far side).
In addition, the Duster has no countermeasure to mitigate head to head contact between the front seat occupants, so far-side protection was rated as poor. Tests on the front seats and head restraints demonstrated good protection against whiplash injuries in the event
Euroncap 10/7/2024
https://www.euroncap.com/en/results/suzuki/swift/51926
Suzuki Swift 2024
The passenger compartment of the Swift remained stable in the frontal offset test. Dummy numbers showed good protection of the knees and femurs of both the driver and passenger. Some areas of the dashboard were thought to pose a risk a risk to the knees and femurs of occupants of different sizes and to those sitting in different positions and Suzuki did not demonstrate that the same level of protection would be provided to such occupant
The driver’s chest protection was weak; that of the passenger was marginal.
In the full-width rigid barrier test, protection was rated as marginal for the chest of the driver and rear passenger, based on dummy readings of compression. In the side barrier test, protection of the chest was adequate and that of other critical body areas was good
In the more severe side pole impact, protection of all critical body areas was good and the Swift scored maximum points in that test. Suzuki did not provide evidence to demonstrate the degree to which the Swift would control excursion (the extent to which a body is thrown to the other side of the vehicle when it is hit from the far side). In addition, the Swift has no countermeasure to mitigate head to head contact between the front seat occupants, so far-side protection was rated as poor.
Tests on the front seats and head restraints demonstrated good protection against whiplash injuries in the event of a rear-end collision. A geometric analysis of the rear seats also indicated good whiplash protection.
The Swift has an advanced eCall system which alerts the emergency services in the event of a crash, but the system did not fully meet Euro NCAP’s requirements
The Swift has no system to prevent secondary impacts after the car has been in a collision.
https://www.euroncap.com/en/results/suzuki/swift/51926
Suzuki Swift 2024
The passenger compartment of the Swift remained stable in the frontal offset test. Dummy numbers showed good protection of the knees and femurs of both the driver and passenger. Some areas of the dashboard were thought to pose a risk a risk to the knees and femurs of occupants of different sizes and to those sitting in different positions and Suzuki did not demonstrate that the same level of protection would be provided to such occupant
The driver’s chest protection was weak; that of the passenger was marginal.
In the full-width rigid barrier test, protection was rated as marginal for the chest of the driver and rear passenger, based on dummy readings of compression. In the side barrier test, protection of the chest was adequate and that of other critical body areas was good
In the more severe side pole impact, protection of all critical body areas was good and the Swift scored maximum points in that test. Suzuki did not provide evidence to demonstrate the degree to which the Swift would control excursion (the extent to which a body is thrown to the other side of the vehicle when it is hit from the far side). In addition, the Swift has no countermeasure to mitigate head to head contact between the front seat occupants, so far-side protection was rated as poor.
Tests on the front seats and head restraints demonstrated good protection against whiplash injuries in the event of a rear-end collision. A geometric analysis of the rear seats also indicated good whiplash protection.
The Swift has an advanced eCall system which alerts the emergency services in the event of a crash, but the system did not fully meet Euro NCAP’s requirements
The Swift has no system to prevent secondary impacts after the car has been in a collision.
2024 Hyundai Tucson earns IIHS laurels
https://www.iihs.org/ratings/vehicle/hyundai/tucson-4-door-suv/2024
Rating applies to 2024 models built after March 2024
Tested vehicle: 2024 Hyundai Tucson SE 4-door 4wd
The Hyundai Tucson was redesigned for the 2022 model year.Beginning with 2024 models built after March 2024, rear seat belt pre-tensioners and load limiters were implemented to improve occupant protection in moderate overlap crashes. (Information about when a specific vehicle was manufactured is on the certification label typically affixed to the car on the driver door or adjacent B-pillar.) These ratings do not apply to the Kia Sportage.
https://www.iihs.org/ratings/vehicle/hyundai/tucson-4-door-suv/2024
Rating applies to 2024 models built after March 2024
Tested vehicle: 2024 Hyundai Tucson SE 4-door 4wd
The Hyundai Tucson was redesigned for the 2022 model year.Beginning with 2024 models built after March 2024, rear seat belt pre-tensioners and load limiters were implemented to improve occupant protection in moderate overlap crashes. (Information about when a specific vehicle was manufactured is on the certification label typically affixed to the car on the driver door or adjacent B-pillar.) These ratings do not apply to the Kia Sportage.
Crash Test Auto Motor Und Sport
1990
VW Golf II
O Golf II no que respeita ao HIC do condutor e passageiro, conseguia resultados semelhantes, ou em alguns casos melhores do que algumas das oito berlinas, testadas em 1989 e de dois segmentos acima. Contudo a fraca resistência da célula de sobrevivência acarreta ferimentos para o tórax e pernas.
1990
VW Golf II
O Golf II no que respeita ao HIC do condutor e passageiro, conseguia resultados semelhantes, ou em alguns casos melhores do que algumas das oito berlinas, testadas em 1989 e de dois segmentos acima. Contudo a fraca resistência da célula de sobrevivência acarreta ferimentos para o tórax e pernas.
Anexos
Three midsize luxury SUVs earn highest award with solid back seat protection
The 2025 BMW X5, 2024 Lexus NX and 2024 Volvo XC90, all midsize luxury SUVs, qualify for the Top Safety Pick+ award from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety thanks to solid performance in the updated moderate overlap front test.
2024 BMW X5 xDrive40i 4-door 4wd
In the test of the X5, measurements taken from the rear dummy showed no elevated injury risk, and the rear restraints controlled the motion of the dummy relatively well during the crash, though the dummy’s head came closer than desired to the front seatback.
2024 Volvo XC90 B6 Plus 4-door 4wd
https://www.iihs.org/ratings/vehicle/volvo/xc90-4-door-suv/2024
In the test of the XC90, rear dummy measurements showed slightly elevated risk of injuries to the chest and to the head or neck.
2024 Lexus NX 350 4-door 4wd
https://www.iihs.org/ratings/vehicl....org/ratings/vehicle/lexus/nx-4-door-suv/2024
The acceptable-rated NX performed well in terms of injury metrics. However, the rear passenger dummy’s lap belt moved from the ideal position on the pelvis onto the abdomen, which increases the risk of abdominal injuries.
The 2025 BMW X5, 2024 Lexus NX and 2024 Volvo XC90, all midsize luxury SUVs, qualify for the Top Safety Pick+ award from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety thanks to solid performance in the updated moderate overlap front test.
2024 BMW X5 xDrive40i 4-door 4wd
In the test of the X5, measurements taken from the rear dummy showed no elevated injury risk, and the rear restraints controlled the motion of the dummy relatively well during the crash, though the dummy’s head came closer than desired to the front seatback.
2024 Volvo XC90 B6 Plus 4-door 4wd
https://www.iihs.org/ratings/vehicle/volvo/xc90-4-door-suv/2024
In the test of the XC90, rear dummy measurements showed slightly elevated risk of injuries to the chest and to the head or neck.
2024 Lexus NX 350 4-door 4wd
https://www.iihs.org/ratings/vehicl....org/ratings/vehicle/lexus/nx-4-door-suv/2024
The acceptable-rated NX performed well in terms of injury metrics. However, the rear passenger dummy’s lap belt moved from the ideal position on the pelvis onto the abdomen, which increases the risk of abdominal injuries.
LinoMarques
Well-known member
Olhando para as deformações do Golf II, usando os dummies e sensores actualmente usados, a avaliação seria consideravelmente pior...
LinoMarques
Well-known member
Carros vs. camiões:
LinoMarques
Well-known member
1982-1985 Renault Fuego NHTSA Full-Overlap Frontal Crash Test
Última edição:
Referente ao crash test do Renault Fogo, perdão Fuego, eis a minha opinião:
1;O tablier mantêm-se no lugar, aparentemente, mas a coluna da direção recua, sobe e no video parece que roda para a direita.
Já no teste do Renault 25 meia duzia de anos depois, verifica-se o mesmo
2; As deformações da carroçaria parecem, serem mais severas no lado direito. Na zona dos bancos da frente parece que o carro inchou, sendo que como as deformações chegaram à traseira do carro não é de espantar que as portas tenham ficado presas
Quer em cima onde a porta encosta ao teto, quer ao meio onde está a fechadura existem deformações severas.
3; Os cintos sem pré tensores e os bancos não conseguem evitar, que o boneco embata com a cabeça no centro do volante e o passageiro no tablier. De notar que pelo menos no lado do condutor não há, falhas visíveis no funcionamento do cinto, pois há uma camara que filmou todo o funcionamento deste dispositivo
As costas do banco do passageiro não aguentam, as forças geradas pelo acidente tendo partido ficando na posição de deitado depois do embate
As deformações da carroçaria são visíveis, ao longo de todo o carro. O teto na zona da porta funda, o pilar ao pé do para brisas avança para cima, e na zona das portas da ideia que a carroçaria "incha"
Da ideia ainda, que com o embate a zona entre as portas e as cavas das rodas traseiras, é comprimida pelas portas e a restante traseira
1;O tablier mantêm-se no lugar, aparentemente, mas a coluna da direção recua, sobe e no video parece que roda para a direita.
Já no teste do Renault 25 meia duzia de anos depois, verifica-se o mesmo
2; As deformações da carroçaria parecem, serem mais severas no lado direito. Na zona dos bancos da frente parece que o carro inchou, sendo que como as deformações chegaram à traseira do carro não é de espantar que as portas tenham ficado presas
Quer em cima onde a porta encosta ao teto, quer ao meio onde está a fechadura existem deformações severas.
3; Os cintos sem pré tensores e os bancos não conseguem evitar, que o boneco embata com a cabeça no centro do volante e o passageiro no tablier. De notar que pelo menos no lado do condutor não há, falhas visíveis no funcionamento do cinto, pois há uma camara que filmou todo o funcionamento deste dispositivo
As costas do banco do passageiro não aguentam, as forças geradas pelo acidente tendo partido ficando na posição de deitado depois do embate
As deformações da carroçaria são visíveis, ao longo de todo o carro. O teto na zona da porta funda, o pilar ao pé do para brisas avança para cima, e na zona das portas da ideia que a carroçaria "incha"
Da ideia ainda, que com o embate a zona entre as portas e as cavas das rodas traseiras, é comprimida pelas portas e a restante traseira
Anexos
Última edição:
Interessante o teste que descobri.
Embate frontal descentrado entre um - Honda Accord '84 et Renault Fuego 83' .
Méthode de l'essai
- Choc frontal asymétrique avec 75 cm de chevauchement, à une vitesse totale de 58.7 mph soit 94,7 km/h
Lien vers la page d'où proviennent les photos
http://www.forocoches.com/foro/showt...php?t=2383924#
Verifica-se que o tablier do Fuego recua, mas há uma aproximação do condutor ao volante. Parece não haver deformação do volante, em consequência do impacto do peito.
A deformação da carroçaria do Renault Fuego é maior neste teste, mas a coluna da direção parece ficar no seu lugar, não havendo um movimento para cima e para o lado esquerdo.
Embate frontal descentrado entre um - Honda Accord '84 et Renault Fuego 83' .
Méthode de l'essai
- Choc frontal asymétrique avec 75 cm de chevauchement, à une vitesse totale de 58.7 mph soit 94,7 km/h
Lien vers la page d'où proviennent les photos
http://www.forocoches.com/foro/showt...php?t=2383924#
Verifica-se que o tablier do Fuego recua, mas há uma aproximação do condutor ao volante. Parece não haver deformação do volante, em consequência do impacto do peito.
A deformação da carroçaria do Renault Fuego é maior neste teste, mas a coluna da direção parece ficar no seu lugar, não havendo um movimento para cima e para o lado esquerdo.
Global Ncap 31/7/2024
Kia Pegas
https://static1.squarespace.com/sta...1722403030095/Kia+Pegas+fact+sheet+-+2024.pdf
Renault Triber
https://static1.squarespace.com/sta...02989156/Renault+Triber+fact+sheet+-+2024.pdf
Suzuki Ertiga
https://static1.squarespace.com/sta...49/Maruti+Suzuki+Ertiga+fact+sheet+-+2024.pdf
Kia Pegas
https://static1.squarespace.com/sta...1722403030095/Kia+Pegas+fact+sheet+-+2024.pdf
Renault Triber
https://static1.squarespace.com/sta...02989156/Renault+Triber+fact+sheet+-+2024.pdf
Suzuki Ertiga
https://static1.squarespace.com/sta...49/Maruti+Suzuki+Ertiga+fact+sheet+-+2024.pdf
LinoMarques
Well-known member
Esse teste Honda vs. Renault... já antecipa bem a autêntica vergonha que foi também o péssimo comportamento do Civic, vários anos depois, no teste da AMS. Mesmo com airbag (que só havia numa versão e que não estava disponível em todos os países), conseguiu ter pior desempenho que outros rivais sem airbag! [8b] :sh)
Portanto, o vergonhoso atraso da Honda em matéria de protecção dos seus clientes em caso de acidente já era uma tradição de há vários anos! :sh):sh)
Portanto, o vergonhoso atraso da Honda em matéria de protecção dos seus clientes em caso de acidente já era uma tradição de há vários anos! :sh):sh)
nto
Well-known member
E aqui por curiosidade, o forocoche a publicar um crashtest do GTTDI [
] (fazem inclusive menção a isso)
https://forocoches.com/foro/showthre...ht=crash+tests
] (fazem inclusive menção a isso)https://forocoches.com/foro/showthre...ht=crash+tests
LinoMarques
Well-known member
Bem visto!
És internacionalmente famoso, GTTDI! [
]
Não haverá ali mão do nosso amigo Globalcar? []
És internacionalmente famoso, GTTDI! [
]Não haverá ali mão do nosso amigo Globalcar? [
]Crash test Reanult 5 /Le Car
NHTSA
https://rutube.ru/video/0571a1ef66a3...b1d3e4465a53d/
This FMVSS 301 configuration is a 30° angle, Right-Side Oblique Crash Test at 30 mph (48 Km/h). Prior to establishing a finalized FMVSS 208 ruling, FMVSS 301 tests were used to gather dummy injury data to use as guidelines for maximum injury level criteria. Addition of dummies and instrumentation devices do not conflict with FMVSS 301 performance or compliance. This crash test was performed at AETL (Approved Engineering Test Laboratories) , also known as NTS- California on 06/13/1979. The test report excluded FMVSS 301 compliance data. Driver - Passenger HIC 1094!! - 532 (!!Exceeds FMVSS 208 HIC15 requirement of 1000) Head G's 109 - 54 Chest G's 44 - 59 Femur Load (L/R - N) 2549/7851 - 6162/9079
Aqui fica o crash test traseiro...apr
1980 35,21MPH (56KM/H)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6JxqeSkd20
NHTSA
https://rutube.ru/video/0571a1ef66a3...b1d3e4465a53d/
This FMVSS 301 configuration is a 30° angle, Right-Side Oblique Crash Test at 30 mph (48 Km/h). Prior to establishing a finalized FMVSS 208 ruling, FMVSS 301 tests were used to gather dummy injury data to use as guidelines for maximum injury level criteria. Addition of dummies and instrumentation devices do not conflict with FMVSS 301 performance or compliance. This crash test was performed at AETL (Approved Engineering Test Laboratories) , also known as NTS- California on 06/13/1979. The test report excluded FMVSS 301 compliance data. Driver - Passenger HIC 1094!! - 532 (!!Exceeds FMVSS 208 HIC15 requirement of 1000) Head G's 109 - 54 Chest G's 44 - 59 Femur Load (L/R - N) 2549/7851 - 6162/9079
Aqui fica o crash test traseiro...apr
1980 35,21MPH (56KM/H)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6JxqeSkd20
Anexos
Última edição:
LinoMarques
Well-known member
Fica assim apenas a 56 km/h de traseira?? 