Tweet
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McLN-5DcDJk[/youtube]
(4 Stars Adults)
(3 Stars For Children)
(2 Stars For Pedestrian protection)
Front And Side Crash
Frontal impact
64 km/h (40 mph) impact into deformable barrier. Simulates typical offset impact into another car.
Side impact
50 km/h (30 mph) impact by mobile deformable barrier. Simulates an impact from another car.
Adult occupant protection
Frontal impact driver
Frontal impact passenger
Side impact driver
Child occupant protection
1.5 year old Child Britax Roemer Duo Plus
1.5 year Facing forward
3 year old Child Britax Roemer Duo Plus
3 year Facing forward
Safety equipment
Front seatbelt pretensioners
Front seatbelt load limiters
Driver frontal airbag
Front passenger frontal airbag
Side body airbags
Side head airbags
ISOfix rear
Car details
Hand of drive LHD
Tested model Suzuki Swift 1.3 GLA
Body type super-mini
Year of publication 2005
Kerb weight 1010
VIN from which rating applies to all Swifts
Comments
The Swift put in a sound all-round performance. The body proved to be extremely strong, suffering minimal deformation in the frontal impact and providing good protection for adults throughout. But protection for child occupants was mixed: it proved fairly good for the older child but less so for the younger. Its ability to safeguard pedestrians and other vulnerable road users was judged to be reasonably good overall.
Front impact
The body suffered minimal deformation and the single-stage frontal airbags, belt pre-tensioners and load limiters worked well, helping to control and limit occupants’ forward movement. However, the load recorded by the driver’s chest instrumentation was just high enough to rate as ‘marginal’ protection. Loads recorded for the driver’s right lower leg were quite high and contact with hard, unforgiving structures around the steering column and behind the fascia posed a risk of knee injury for the driver and passenger. Foam padding protected their feet, while the footwell suffered little damage.
Side impact
An impressive protection system included seat mounted thorax airbags and a head curtain airbag which also protected those sat in the rear. In this test, some loads transferred in an unrealistic manner up the driver dummy’s spine, slightly reducing the forces recorded at its chest, so a maximum score was not achieved.
Child-protection
A four language, permanent text label warned against placing a child in a rear-facing restraint opposite an active airbag but was fitted only to one side of the sun visors. The recommended restraints used for both children were Britax Romer Duo Plus, fitted forward facing using the ISOFIX anchorages and top tethers. They provided mixed protection. High loads were recorded on the younger child’s head in the frontal test while the older child experienced a fairly high chest load. However, the restraints contained both children well.
Pedestrian protection
The bumper protected well as did the areas where a child’s head would strike. That for adult heads was less effective. The bonnet’s leading edge gave some protection: overall a good effort by Suzuki.
(4 Stars Adults)
(3 Stars For Children)
(2 Stars For Pedestrian protection)
Front And Side Crash
Frontal impact
64 km/h (40 mph) impact into deformable barrier. Simulates typical offset impact into another car.
Side impact
50 km/h (30 mph) impact by mobile deformable barrier. Simulates an impact from another car.
Adult occupant protection
Frontal impact driver
Frontal impact passenger
Side impact driver
Child occupant protection
1.5 year old Child Britax Roemer Duo Plus
1.5 year Facing forward
3 year old Child Britax Roemer Duo Plus
3 year Facing forward
Safety equipment
Front seatbelt pretensioners
Front seatbelt load limiters
Driver frontal airbag
Front passenger frontal airbag
Side body airbags
Side head airbags
ISOfix rear
Car details
Hand of drive LHD
Tested model Suzuki Swift 1.3 GLA
Body type super-mini
Year of publication 2005
Kerb weight 1010
VIN from which rating applies to all Swifts
Comments
The Swift put in a sound all-round performance. The body proved to be extremely strong, suffering minimal deformation in the frontal impact and providing good protection for adults throughout. But protection for child occupants was mixed: it proved fairly good for the older child but less so for the younger. Its ability to safeguard pedestrians and other vulnerable road users was judged to be reasonably good overall.
Front impact
The body suffered minimal deformation and the single-stage frontal airbags, belt pre-tensioners and load limiters worked well, helping to control and limit occupants’ forward movement. However, the load recorded by the driver’s chest instrumentation was just high enough to rate as ‘marginal’ protection. Loads recorded for the driver’s right lower leg were quite high and contact with hard, unforgiving structures around the steering column and behind the fascia posed a risk of knee injury for the driver and passenger. Foam padding protected their feet, while the footwell suffered little damage.
Side impact
An impressive protection system included seat mounted thorax airbags and a head curtain airbag which also protected those sat in the rear. In this test, some loads transferred in an unrealistic manner up the driver dummy’s spine, slightly reducing the forces recorded at its chest, so a maximum score was not achieved.
Child-protection
A four language, permanent text label warned against placing a child in a rear-facing restraint opposite an active airbag but was fitted only to one side of the sun visors. The recommended restraints used for both children were Britax Romer Duo Plus, fitted forward facing using the ISOFIX anchorages and top tethers. They provided mixed protection. High loads were recorded on the younger child’s head in the frontal test while the older child experienced a fairly high chest load. However, the restraints contained both children well.
Pedestrian protection
The bumper protected well as did the areas where a child’s head would strike. That for adult heads was less effective. The bonnet’s leading edge gave some protection: overall a good effort by Suzuki.
Comment