LinoMarques
Well-known member
Testes de colisão a limousines:
Topico dos Crash-Tests ⚠️Euroncap- 10/10/2026
- Iniciador de tópicos GTTDI
- Data de início
Crash Test Adac/Autobild(?)
Citroen Saxo
Mitsubihi Colt
Fiat Punto
Ford Fiesta
Não encontrei muita informação sobre este crash test
Penso que a velocidade será de 55km/h contra um barreira deformável (40% da frente do lado do condutor)
Citroen Saxo: Apesar da elevada deformação da carroçaria, e do nível elevado de ferimentos ao nível da cabeça, talvez derivado ao recuo do tablier os resultados do Saxo até que nem são tão maus, quanto o crash test do EURONCAP veio a demonstrar
Mitsubishi Colt: Tirando o elevado risco de ferimentos no peito do passageiro traseiro, talvez consequência do impacto dos blocos de madeira que costumavam ser utilizados para simular carga na bagageira/falta de limitadores de esforço nos cintos traseiros, o Colt obtem uns resultados bastante bons para um veículo japonês dos anos 90 e para um Mitsubishi.
Fiat Punto: O Fiat Punto obtem um excelente resultado, apesar da extrema deformação da carroçaria, mas tal como o Saxo e o Colt, a carroçaria está no limite da carga que aguenta. De ressalvar que o Punto foi lançado 3 anos antes do que os seus concorrentes
Ford Fiesta: Obtém um excelente resultado, como comprovado mais tarde pelo crash test do Euroncap, contudo denota uma elevada deformção da carroçaria o que podeá ser o factor, que leva a que seja avaliado com risco médio de ferimentos para a cabeça, pernas e braços.
Em todos os carros testados verifica-se, ferimentos ao nível, da cabeça, braços e pernas, consequência provável das deformações excessivas das carroçarias e talvez, consequentemente da intrusão dos pedais, tablier, e deslocação vertical e horizontal excessiva dos volantes, bancos e tabliers
Citroen Saxo
Mitsubihi Colt
Fiat Punto
Ford Fiesta
Não encontrei muita informação sobre este crash test
Penso que a velocidade será de 55km/h contra um barreira deformável (40% da frente do lado do condutor)
Citroen Saxo: Apesar da elevada deformação da carroçaria, e do nível elevado de ferimentos ao nível da cabeça, talvez derivado ao recuo do tablier os resultados do Saxo até que nem são tão maus, quanto o crash test do EURONCAP veio a demonstrar
Mitsubishi Colt: Tirando o elevado risco de ferimentos no peito do passageiro traseiro, talvez consequência do impacto dos blocos de madeira que costumavam ser utilizados para simular carga na bagageira/falta de limitadores de esforço nos cintos traseiros, o Colt obtem uns resultados bastante bons para um veículo japonês dos anos 90 e para um Mitsubishi.
Fiat Punto: O Fiat Punto obtem um excelente resultado, apesar da extrema deformação da carroçaria, mas tal como o Saxo e o Colt, a carroçaria está no limite da carga que aguenta. De ressalvar que o Punto foi lançado 3 anos antes do que os seus concorrentes
Ford Fiesta: Obtém um excelente resultado, como comprovado mais tarde pelo crash test do Euroncap, contudo denota uma elevada deformção da carroçaria o que podeá ser o factor, que leva a que seja avaliado com risco médio de ferimentos para a cabeça, pernas e braços.
Em todos os carros testados verifica-se, ferimentos ao nível, da cabeça, braços e pernas, consequência provável das deformações excessivas das carroçarias e talvez, consequentemente da intrusão dos pedais, tablier, e deslocação vertical e horizontal excessiva dos volantes, bancos e tabliers
LinoMarques
Well-known member
Também me parecem testes típicos do ADAC pelo aspecto dos carros, mas já se estava a testar o figurino que vira a ser o do Euro NCAP. [
]
]
LinoMarques
Well-known member
Mais carros vs. camiões:
LinoMarques
Well-known member
Euro NCAP highlights safety flaws in new models as five cars secure top ratings
9th July 2025
LEUVEN, BELGIUM – Since publishing its first crash test results in 1997, Euro NCAP has played a crucial role in improving the safety of new cars, giving consumers clear, independent guidance on which models offer the best protection.
That role continues to this day, with more new cars than ever being assessed in 2025. Along the way, the range of testing has become more comprehensive, and how those tests are scored has become more challenging, to make sure the next generation of cars better protect their occupants and other road users.
This continual raising of safety standards is reflected in the latest set of test results. Euro NCAP’s exhaustive process has revealed flaws in family cars that would otherwise remain hidden until the event of an accident.
The new TIGGO 7 and TIGGO 8 models are from the Chinese carmaker CHERY. The pair are competitively priced, well-equipped mid-size SUVs that are being launched in markets across Europe, bringing increased competition for consumers.
However, during Euro NCAP tests of the TIGGO 7, the results of which are shared with the three-row TIGGO 8, a flaw was uncovered with the curtain airbag, which runs along the side of the window area and is designed to protect occupants from striking their head and abdomen with the side of the vehicle in the event of a side impact.
It was found that the curtain airbag of the TIGGO 7 did not deploy correctly, reducing its ability to protect the head of a child in the back seats. The cause of the fault was identified, and CHERY was given an opportunity to address the installation of this critical component, but after this was done and Euro NCAP’s experts performed a retest, the curtain airbag failed to perform any better, this time becoming unclipped from the cant rail. These two consecutive incorrect airbag deployments have raised robustness concerns, and Euro NCAP has asked CHERY to reevaluate the system's design.
It led to the TIGGO 7 and TIGGO 8 losing points from the overall score, missing out on a five-star rating, and dropping to four.
Meanwhile, as choice across the electric car market continues to expand, Hyundai’s new INSTER will be welcomed by all those who want a small, stylish and affordable electric car. But during tests, Euro NCAP’s experts recorded an issue with the driver’s door.
In the side-impact barrier test, the driver’s door was found to be unlatched after the test, meaning it could potentially open and compromise the safety of those in the cabin. The INSTER emerges with a creditable four-star rating, yet with some room for improvement.
One car that was returned for assessment during the latest round of tests was the Ford Tourneo Courier. Aimed at families who need a practical car, the multi-purpose vehicle (MPV) was originally tested in 2024. Back then, during the full-width rigid barrier test, protection of the rear passenger’s head was rated as poor, based on dummy readings showing deceleration, and the Tourneo Courier failed to score points for this test, leaving it with a three-star rating. Ford has since improved the restraint system for rear passengers, and the Tourneo Courier has now been upgraded to a four-star rating.
These test results show how it remains an ongoing challenge for car makers to achieve a five-star result. And they serve as a reminder that without an organisation like Euro NCAP conducting independent tests of new vehicles, consumers across Europe wouldn’t have a trusted source to turn to when comparing the safety of their next car.
Proving how that challenge can be met, however, five new models put in a strong performance, and all achieved a five-star rating.
These were the Polestar 4, an electric coupe-SUV; the Lynk & Co 02, a crossover SUV; the OMODA 9, a mid-range SUV; the ZEEKR 7X, a small SUV; and the MG P9 EV, an electric pick-up truck.
Each of these models performed well in testing, but in terms of protecting passengers in the event of an impact it was the Polestar 4 that impressed most, with an adult occupant protection score of 92 per cent that edged ahead of the MG P9 and ZEEKR 7X at 91 per cent and the Lynk & Co 02 and OMODA 9, at 90 per cent.
However, when it comes to helping drivers avoid an accident in the first place, the car with the most capable suite of electronic driver assistance systems was Lynk & Co’s 02. Its 89 per cent score was comfortably ahead of the next nearest models – the MG P9 and ZEEKR 7X, which scored 83 per cent.
Since Euro NCAP began its work in 1997, car manufacturers have dramatically improved the safety of their products. But after the Covid-19 pandemic, and then the switch to electric cars, the economic conditions faced by the automotive industry have been challenging and remain tough.
Yet, the reduction of accidents and injuries on Europe’s roads remains a pressing issue for the industry, and safety still has a significant influence on consumers when choosing their next car. We know that it is a challenge to achieve a five-star Euro NCAP rating for a new car, but it remains a challenge worth meeting as the benefits go so much further than protecting those inside the vehicle. Safer cars also help protect other road users and can reduce the burden on nations’ emergency responders and health services.
— Dr. Aled Williams, Programme Manager Euro NCAP
Euro NCAP test results overview [TABLE="border: 1"]
[TR]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]CHERY TIGGO 7 & 8 (2025)[/TD]
[TD]4 stars[/TD]
[TD]80%[/TD]
[TD]77%[/TD]
[TD]80%[/TD]
[TD]78%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Ford Puma Gen-E (2022)[/TD]
[TD]4 stars[/TD]
[TD]75%[/TD]
[TD]84%[/TD]
[TD]70%[/TD]
[TD]69%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Ford Tourneo Courier & E-Tourneo Courier (2025)[/TD]
[TD]4 stars[/TD]
[TD]85%[/TD]
[TD]78%[/TD]
[TD]78%[/TD]
[TD]66%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Hyundai INSTER (2025)[/TD]
[TD]4 stars[/TD]
[TD]70%[/TD]
[TD]81%[/TD]
[TD]70%[/TD]
[TD]67%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Lynk & Co 02 (2025)[/TD]
[TD]5 stars[/TD]
[TD]90%[/TD]
[TD]87%[/TD]
[TD]83%[/TD]
[TD]89%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]MG P9 EV (2025)[/TD]
[TD]5 stars[/TD]
[TD]91%[/TD]
[TD]85%[/TD]
[TD]84%[/TD]
[TD]83%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]OMODA 9 (2025)[/TD]
[TD]5 stars[/TD]
[TD]90%[/TD]
[TD]85%[/TD]
[TD]81%[/TD]
[TD]80%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Polestar 4 (2025)[/TD]
[TD]5 stars[/TD]
[TD]92%[/TD]
[TD]85%[/TD]
[TD]81%[/TD]
[TD]79%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]ZEEKR 7X (2025)[/TD]
[TD]5 stars[/TD]
[TD]91%[/TD]
[TD]90%[/TD]
[TD]78%[/TD]
[TD]83%[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
https://www.euroncap.com/en/press-m...n-new-models-as-five-cars-secure-top-ratings/
9th July 2025
LEUVEN, BELGIUM – Since publishing its first crash test results in 1997, Euro NCAP has played a crucial role in improving the safety of new cars, giving consumers clear, independent guidance on which models offer the best protection.
That role continues to this day, with more new cars than ever being assessed in 2025. Along the way, the range of testing has become more comprehensive, and how those tests are scored has become more challenging, to make sure the next generation of cars better protect their occupants and other road users.
This continual raising of safety standards is reflected in the latest set of test results. Euro NCAP’s exhaustive process has revealed flaws in family cars that would otherwise remain hidden until the event of an accident.
The new TIGGO 7 and TIGGO 8 models are from the Chinese carmaker CHERY. The pair are competitively priced, well-equipped mid-size SUVs that are being launched in markets across Europe, bringing increased competition for consumers.
However, during Euro NCAP tests of the TIGGO 7, the results of which are shared with the three-row TIGGO 8, a flaw was uncovered with the curtain airbag, which runs along the side of the window area and is designed to protect occupants from striking their head and abdomen with the side of the vehicle in the event of a side impact.
It was found that the curtain airbag of the TIGGO 7 did not deploy correctly, reducing its ability to protect the head of a child in the back seats. The cause of the fault was identified, and CHERY was given an opportunity to address the installation of this critical component, but after this was done and Euro NCAP’s experts performed a retest, the curtain airbag failed to perform any better, this time becoming unclipped from the cant rail. These two consecutive incorrect airbag deployments have raised robustness concerns, and Euro NCAP has asked CHERY to reevaluate the system's design.
It led to the TIGGO 7 and TIGGO 8 losing points from the overall score, missing out on a five-star rating, and dropping to four.
Meanwhile, as choice across the electric car market continues to expand, Hyundai’s new INSTER will be welcomed by all those who want a small, stylish and affordable electric car. But during tests, Euro NCAP’s experts recorded an issue with the driver’s door.
In the side-impact barrier test, the driver’s door was found to be unlatched after the test, meaning it could potentially open and compromise the safety of those in the cabin. The INSTER emerges with a creditable four-star rating, yet with some room for improvement.
One car that was returned for assessment during the latest round of tests was the Ford Tourneo Courier. Aimed at families who need a practical car, the multi-purpose vehicle (MPV) was originally tested in 2024. Back then, during the full-width rigid barrier test, protection of the rear passenger’s head was rated as poor, based on dummy readings showing deceleration, and the Tourneo Courier failed to score points for this test, leaving it with a three-star rating. Ford has since improved the restraint system for rear passengers, and the Tourneo Courier has now been upgraded to a four-star rating.
These test results show how it remains an ongoing challenge for car makers to achieve a five-star result. And they serve as a reminder that without an organisation like Euro NCAP conducting independent tests of new vehicles, consumers across Europe wouldn’t have a trusted source to turn to when comparing the safety of their next car.
Proving how that challenge can be met, however, five new models put in a strong performance, and all achieved a five-star rating.
These were the Polestar 4, an electric coupe-SUV; the Lynk & Co 02, a crossover SUV; the OMODA 9, a mid-range SUV; the ZEEKR 7X, a small SUV; and the MG P9 EV, an electric pick-up truck.
Each of these models performed well in testing, but in terms of protecting passengers in the event of an impact it was the Polestar 4 that impressed most, with an adult occupant protection score of 92 per cent that edged ahead of the MG P9 and ZEEKR 7X at 91 per cent and the Lynk & Co 02 and OMODA 9, at 90 per cent.
However, when it comes to helping drivers avoid an accident in the first place, the car with the most capable suite of electronic driver assistance systems was Lynk & Co’s 02. Its 89 per cent score was comfortably ahead of the next nearest models – the MG P9 and ZEEKR 7X, which scored 83 per cent.
Since Euro NCAP began its work in 1997, car manufacturers have dramatically improved the safety of their products. But after the Covid-19 pandemic, and then the switch to electric cars, the economic conditions faced by the automotive industry have been challenging and remain tough.
Yet, the reduction of accidents and injuries on Europe’s roads remains a pressing issue for the industry, and safety still has a significant influence on consumers when choosing their next car. We know that it is a challenge to achieve a five-star Euro NCAP rating for a new car, but it remains a challenge worth meeting as the benefits go so much further than protecting those inside the vehicle. Safer cars also help protect other road users and can reduce the burden on nations’ emergency responders and health services.
— Dr. Aled Williams, Programme Manager Euro NCAP
Euro NCAP test results overview [TABLE="border: 1"]
[TR]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]CHERY TIGGO 7 & 8 (2025)[/TD]
[TD]4 stars[/TD]
[TD]80%[/TD]
[TD]77%[/TD]
[TD]80%[/TD]
[TD]78%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Ford Puma Gen-E (2022)[/TD]
[TD]4 stars[/TD]
[TD]75%[/TD]
[TD]84%[/TD]
[TD]70%[/TD]
[TD]69%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Ford Tourneo Courier & E-Tourneo Courier (2025)[/TD]
[TD]4 stars[/TD]
[TD]85%[/TD]
[TD]78%[/TD]
[TD]78%[/TD]
[TD]66%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Hyundai INSTER (2025)[/TD]
[TD]4 stars[/TD]
[TD]70%[/TD]
[TD]81%[/TD]
[TD]70%[/TD]
[TD]67%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Lynk & Co 02 (2025)[/TD]
[TD]5 stars[/TD]
[TD]90%[/TD]
[TD]87%[/TD]
[TD]83%[/TD]
[TD]89%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]MG P9 EV (2025)[/TD]
[TD]5 stars[/TD]
[TD]91%[/TD]
[TD]85%[/TD]
[TD]84%[/TD]
[TD]83%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]OMODA 9 (2025)[/TD]
[TD]5 stars[/TD]
[TD]90%[/TD]
[TD]85%[/TD]
[TD]81%[/TD]
[TD]80%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Polestar 4 (2025)[/TD]
[TD]5 stars[/TD]
[TD]92%[/TD]
[TD]85%[/TD]
[TD]81%[/TD]
[TD]79%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]ZEEKR 7X (2025)[/TD]
[TD]5 stars[/TD]
[TD]91%[/TD]
[TD]90%[/TD]
[TD]78%[/TD]
[TD]83%[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
https://www.euroncap.com/en/press-m...n-new-models-as-five-cars-secure-top-ratings/
LinoMarques
Well-known member
Avaria sempre antes de chegar ao muro... [
][][]
][][]A marca pode sempre envia ro seus carros par serem testados, mas os custos ficam ao encargo da marca
Hyundai INSTER
https://www.euroncap.com/en/results/hyundai/inster/55584
In the full-width rigid barrier test, protection was rated as marginal for the chest of the driver and that of the rear passenger, based on dummy readings of compression. In the side barrier test, good or adequate protection was provided to all critical body areas. However, the driver door was found to be unlatched after the test, and the score was penalised.
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 weak The Hyundai INSTER has a countermeasure to mitigate against occupant-to-occupant injuries in such impacts. Dummy readings during the test were good, but the car was precluded from scoring points for its far-side protection because of the door-opening in the side barrier test
https://www.euroncap.com/en/results/hyundai/inster/55584
-
Mobile Progressive Deformable Barrier 
Lateral Impact
10.9 / 16 Pts- Far-Side Excursion
In the full-width rigid barrier test, protection was rated as marginal for the chest of the driver and that of the rear passenger, based on dummy readings of compression. In the side barrier test, good or adequate protection was provided to all critical body areas. However, the driver door was found to be unlatched after the test, and the score was penalised.
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 weak The Hyundai INSTER has a countermeasure to mitigate against occupant-to-occupant injuries in such impacts. Dummy readings during the test were good, but the car was precluded from scoring points for its far-side protection because of the door-opening in the side barrier test
Última edição:
Chery Tiggo 7
https://www.euroncap.com/en/results/chery/tiggo+7/55574
Frontal Impact
11.8 / 16 Pts
2
Lateral Impact
14.3 / 16 Pts
2
Rear Impact
3.2 / 4 Pts
BioRID UN - 50th Percentile Male
Rear Seat
Front Seat
However, the knee-protection airbag did not deploy properly in the test, and did not fully cover the knee impact zone. Penalties were applied and protection of that leg was rated as weak. The non-PHEV variant does not have a knee airbag. An additional test indicated overall protection that was similiar to the PHEV.
In the side barrier test, dummy readings indicated good protection for all body areas. However, the curtain airbag became detached from the cant rail. This failure happened toward the rear of the car and affected the results of the child dummy. However, the can was penalised for the incorrect deployment, and protection of the head in the side barrier and side pole impacts downgraded to adequate.
https://www.euroncap.com/en/results/chery/tiggo+7/55574
Frontal Impact11.8 / 16 Pts
- Full Width Rigid Barrier
Mobile Progressive Deformable Barrier- Full Width Rigid Barrier
-
Mobile Progressive Deformable Barrier
2
Lateral Impact
14.3 / 16 Pts
- Far-Side Excursion
Occupant Interaction
- Side Mobile Barrier
Side Pole
- Far-Side Excursion
Occupant Interaction - Side Mobile Barrier
Side Pole
2
Rear Impact
3.2 / 4 Pts
BioRID UN - 50th Percentile Male
However, the knee-protection airbag did not deploy properly in the test, and did not fully cover the knee impact zone. Penalties were applied and protection of that leg was rated as weak. The non-PHEV variant does not have a knee airbag. An additional test indicated overall protection that was similiar to the PHEV.
In the side barrier test, dummy readings indicated good protection for all body areas. However, the curtain airbag became detached from the cant rail. This failure happened toward the rear of the car and affected the results of the child dummy. However, the can was penalised for the incorrect deployment, and protection of the head in the side barrier and side pole impacts downgraded to adequate.
Icedevice
Well-known member
Isso significa que o EURONCAP também ainda não teve interesse em testar o carro...
OMODA 9
https://www.euroncap.com/en/results/omoda/9/55587
Frontal Impact
14.2 / 16 Pts
2
Lateral Impact
15.4 / 16 Pts
3.7 / 4 Pts
Rear Seat
Front Seat
Frontal Impact
16 Pts
Lateral Impact
8 Pts
Restraint for 6 year old child: Britax Römer Kidfix i-Size
Restraint for 10 year old child: Graco Booster Max R129
https://www.euroncap.com/en/results/omoda/9/55587
Frontal Impact
14.2 / 16 Pts
- Full Width Rigid Barrier
Mobile Progressive Deformable Barrier- Full Width Rigid Barrier
- Mobile Progressive Deformable Barrier
2
Lateral Impact
15.4 / 16 Pts
- Far-Side Excursion
Occupant Interaction
- Side Mobile Barrier
Side Pole
3.7 / 4 Pts
Frontal Impact
16 Pts
Lateral Impact
8 Pts
Restraint for 6 year old child: Britax Römer Kidfix i-Size
Restraint for 10 year old child: Graco Booster Max R129
Polestar 4
https://www.euroncap.com/en/results/polestar/4/55588
Frontal Impact
16 Pts
Lateral Impact
8 Pts
Restraint for 6 year old child: Cybex Solution T i-Fix
Restraint for 10 year old child: Graco Booster Basic R129
Q6
Safety Features
https://www.euroncap.com/en/results/polestar/4/55588
Frontal Impact
16 Pts
Lateral Impact
8 Pts
Restraint for 6 year old child: Cybex Solution T i-Fix
Restraint for 10 year old child: Graco Booster Basic R129
Q6
Safety Features
Zeekr 7X
https://www.euroncap.com/en/results/zeekr/7x/55589
Frontal Impact
13.8 / 16 Pts
2
Lateral Impact
16.0 / 16 Pts
2
Rear Impact
4.0 / 4 Pts
Rear Seat
Front Seat
Frontal Impact
16 Pts
Lateral Impact
8 Pts
Restraint for 6 year old child: i-Size Booster seat
https://www.euroncap.com/en/results/zeekr/7x/55589
Frontal Impact
13.8 / 16 Pts
- Full Width Rigid Barrier
Mobile Progressive Deformable Barrier- Full Width Rigid Barrier
-
Mobile Progressive Deformable Barrier
2
Lateral Impact
16.0 / 16 Pts
- Far-Side Excursion
Occupant Interaction
- Side Mobile Barrier
Side Pole
- Far-Side Excursion
Occupant Interaction
- Side Mobile Barrier
Side Pole
2
Rear Impact
4.0 / 4 Pts
Frontal Impact
16 Pts
Lateral Impact
8 Pts
Restraint for 6 year old child: i-Size Booster seat
Lynk & Co 02
https://www.euroncap.com/en/results/lynk+&+co/02/55585
Frontal Impact
13.7 / 16 Pts
2
Lateral Impact
15.8 / 16 Pts
2
Rear Impact
4.0 / 4 Pts
Rear Seat
Front Seat
Rescue and Extrication 2.7 / 4 Pts
Comments
https://www.euroncap.com/en/results/lynk+&+co/02/55585
Frontal Impact
13.7 / 16 Pts
- Full Width Rigid Barrier
Mobile Progressive Deformable Barrier- Full Width Rigid Barrier
-
Mobile Progressive Deformable Barrier
2
Lateral Impact
15.8 / 16 Pts
- Far-Side Excursion
Occupant Interaction
- Side Mobile Barrier
Side Pole
- Far-Side Excursion
Occupant Interaction
- Side Mobile Barrier
Side Pole
2
Rear Impact
4.0 / 4 Pts
Rescue and Extrication 2.7 / 4 Pts
Comments
Anexos
Lembrei-me agora, o Euroncap pode estar à espera que o novo Opel Forntera seja lançado, para comparar a estrutura com o e C3 e com o Ec3 Aircross de modo a ver se os carros estruturalmente são iguais, e se dá para testar apenas um deles, e estender os resultados aos outros dois
LinoMarques
Well-known member
Old vs new generation Honda Civic crash test (1979 - 2025)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vE61DPLqPoA&t=378s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vE61DPLqPoA&t=378s
Última edição:
LinoMarques
Well-known member
Repetido. Apagar.
Última edição: