Headlights
Ratings are given for 2 different headlight variations available on this vehicle.
Trim level(s)
-
+ trim equipped with Primo Lit package
-
! trim equipped with Technology package
| Low-beam headlight type | HID projector |
|---|---|
| High-beam headlight type | HID projector |
| Curve-adaptive? | No |
| High-beam assist? | No |
| Overall rating | G |
| Distance at which headlights provide at least 5 lux illumination: |
car-simplercar-simplercar-simplercar-simplercar-simpler0 ft100 ft200 ft300 ft400 ft500 ft600 ftLow beamsOptimal low-beamilluminationHigh beamsOptimal high-beamillumination
Low beams On the straightaway, visibility was good on both sides of the road. On curves, visibility was good in all 4 tests.
The low beams never exceeded glare limits.
High beams On the straightaway, visibility was good on the right side of the road and fair on the left side. On curves, visibility was good on the gradual left and gradual right curves and fair on the sharp right and sharp left curves.
Technical measurements for this test
| Trim level(s) |
|
|---|---|
| Low-beam headlight type | HID projector |
| High-beam headlight type | HID projector |
| Curve-adaptive? | No |
| High-beam assist? | No |
| Overall ratingApplies to 2017-19 models | G |
| LOW BEAMS | Average minimum useful illumination distance (5 lux) | Amount glare exceeded threshold |
|---|---|---|
| Straightaway right edge | 115.9 m | None |
| Straightaway left edge | 71.0 m | None |
| 250m radius right curve, right edge | 76.2 m | None |
| 250m radius left curve, left edge | 73.2 m | None |
| 150m radius right curve, right edge | 60.9 m | None |
| 150m radius left curve, left edge | 60.1 m | None |
| HIGH BEAMS | Average minimum useful illumination distance (5 lux) |
|---|---|
| Straightaway right edge | 148.1 m |
| Straightaway left edge | 133.1 m |
| 250m radius right curve, right edge | 76.7 m |
| 250m radius left curve, left edge | 77.0 m |
| 150m radius right curve, right edge | 62.0 m |
| 150m radius left curve, left edge | 60.9 m |
Trim level(s)
- Base trim
- + trim
- ! trim
| Low-beam headlight type | Halogen reflector |
|---|---|
| High-beam headlight type | Halogen reflector |
| Curve-adaptive? | No |
| High-beam assist? | No |
| Overall rating | P |
| Distance at which headlights provide at least 5 lux illumination: |
car-simplercar-simplercar-simplercar-simplercar-simpler0 ft100 ft200 ft300 ft400 ft500 ft600 ftLow beamsOptimal low-beamilluminationHigh beamsOptimal high-beamillumination
Low beams On the straightaway, visibility was fair on both sides of the road. On curves, visibility was inadequate in all 4 tests.
The low beams never exceeded glare limits.
High beams On the straightaway, visibility was fair on the right side of the road and inadequate on the left side. On curves, visibility was inadequate in all 4 tests.
Technical measurements for this test
| Trim level(s) |
|
|---|---|
| Low-beam headlight type | Halogen reflector |
| High-beam headlight type | Halogen reflector |
| Curve-adaptive? | No |
| High-beam assist? | No |
| Overall ratingApplies to 2017-19 models | P |
| LOW BEAMS | Average minimum useful illumination distance (5 lux) | Amount glare exceeded threshold |
|---|---|---|
| Straightaway right edge | 78.0 m | None |
| Straightaway left edge | 45.4 m | None |
| 250m radius right curve, right edge | 48.5 m | None |
| 250m radius left curve, left edge | 42.7 m | None |
| 150m radius right curve, right edge | 40.3 m | None |
| 150m radius left curve, left edge | 36.9 m | None |
| HIGH BEAMS | Average minimum useful illumination distance (5 lux) |
|---|---|
| Straightaway right edge | 135.3 m |
| Straightaway left edge | 62.9 m |
| 250m radius right curve, right edge | 55.2 m |
| 250m radius left curve, left edge | 49.1 m |
| 150m radius right curve, right edge | 43.8 m |
| 150m radius left curve, left edge | 40.5 m |
Child seat anchors
Applies to 2020-23 models
| Overall evaluation |
A |
| Vehicle trim | S |
| Seat type | cloth |
This vehicle has 2 rear seating positions with complete child seat attachment (LATCH) hardware.
It has 1 additional seating position with a tether anchor only.
| Overall evaluation |
A |
| Vehicle trim | S |
| Seat type | cloth |
123
| G | Good |
| A | Acceptable |
| M | Marginal |
| P | Poor |
| Seating positions that rely on borrowed lower anchors or have only a tether anchor available are not rated. | |
| thether anchor symbol | Tether anchor |
| lower anchor symbol | Lower anchors |
| Lower anchor(s) can be borrowed from adjacent positions(s) | |
| No hardware available |
Details by seating position
| 1 | |
|---|---|
| Tether anchor | |
| easy-to-find location | |
| no other hardware could be confused for anchor | |
| Lower anchors | |
| too deep in seat | |
| not too much force needed to attach | |
| easy to maneuver around anchors | |
| 2 | |
| Tether anchor | |
| easy-to-find location | |
| no other hardware could be confused for anchor | |
| Lower anchors | |
| none available | |
| 3 | |
| Tether anchor | |
| easy-to-find location | |
| no other hardware could be confused for anchor | |
| Lower anchors | |
| too deep in seat | |
| not too much force needed to attach | |
| easy to maneuver around anchors |
Technical measurements for this test
Seat position 21
3
| Lower anchor A | |
|---|---|
| Open access rated | No |
| Depth (cm) | 2-4 |
| Force (lbs) | 24 |
| Clearance angle (degrees) | 67 |
| Lower anchor B | |
| Open access rated | No |
| Depth (cm) | 2-4 |
| Force (lbs) | 15 |
| Clearance angle (degrees) | 76 |
| Tether anchor | |
| Location | Middle seatback |
| Confusing hardware present | Yes |
| Has contrasting label within 3 inches of tether anchor | Yes |
Seat position 22
2
| Lower anchor A | |
|---|---|
| No lower latch for this seat position | |
| Lower anchor B | |
| No lower latch for this seat position | |
| Tether anchor | |
| Location | Middle seatback |
| Confusing hardware present | Yes |
| Has contrasting label within 3 inches of tether anchor | Yes |
Seat position 23
1
| Lower anchor A | |
|---|---|
| Open access rated | No |
| Depth (cm) | 2-4 |
| Force (lbs) | 25 |
| Clearance angle (degrees) | 63 |
| Lower anchor B | |
| Open access rated | No |
| Depth (cm) | 2-4 |
| Force (lbs) | 17 |
| Clearance angle (degrees) | 68 |
| Tether anchor | |
| Location | Middle seatback |
| Confusing hardware present | Yes |
| Has contrasting label within 3 inches of tether anchor | Yes |
Moderate overlap front: original test
Rating applies to 2020-23 models
Tested vehicle: 2020 Kia Soul LX wagon
The Kia Soul was redesigned for the 2020 model year. Moderate overlap frontal ratings are assigned by the Institute based on a test conducted by Hyundai/Kia as part of .
| Overall evaluation | G |
|---|---|
| Structure and safety cage | G |
| Driver injury measures | |
| Head/neck | G |
| Chest | G |
| Leg/foot, left | G |
| Leg/foot, right | G |
| Driver restraints and dummy kinematics | G |
Technical measurements for this test
Measures of occupant compartment intrusion on driver side
| Test ID | VTF1912 |
|---|---|
| Footwell intrusion | |
| Footrest (cm) | 8 |
| Left (cm) | 15 |
| Center (cm) | 13 |
| Right (cm) | 5 |
| Brake pedal (cm) | 7 |
| Instrument panel rearward movement | |
| Left (cm) | 1 |
| Right (cm) | |
| Steering column movement | |
| Upward (cm) | 1 |
| Rearward (cm) | -1 |
| A-pillar rearward movement (cm) |
Driver injury measures
| Test ID | VTF1912 |
|---|---|
| Head | |
| HIC-15 | 235 |
| Peak gs at hard contact | no contact |
| Neck | |
| Tension (kN) | 1.1 |
| Extension bending moment (Nm) | 14 |
| Maximum Nij | 0.25 |
| Chest maximum compression (mm) | 32 |
| Legs | |
| Femur force — left (kN) | 0.2 |
| Femur force — right (kN) | 1.1 |
| Knee displacement — left (mm) | 1 |
| Knee displacement — right (mm) | |
| Maximum tibia index — left | 0.38 |
| Maximum tibia index — right | 0.28 |
| Tibia axial force — left (kN) | 1.2 |
| Tibia axial force — right (kN) | 1.0 |
| Foot acceleration (g) | |
| Left | 46 |
| Right | 84 |
Интересно про машину
Начало выпуска корейка датируется 2008 годом. В Европе первые продажи стартовали весной 2009 года. С самого начала получать многочисленные награды разных номинаций. Это интересное дизайнерское решение, лучшая и безопасная машина для молодежи, лучший транспорт для буксировки прицепа. И это все только за первый год продаж.
Он получил признание среди потребителей не только на родине, в Европе, но и покорил Америку. Среди основных конкурентов модели можно выделить Citroen C3 Picaso, Ford Fusion, Mitsubishi ASX и другие. Но никто из претендентов не сможет превзойти авто по длине базы колес.
Small overlap front: passenger-side
Rating applies to 2015-19 models
Tested vehicle: 2018 Kia Soul wagon
The Kia Soul was redesigned for the 2014 model year. Beginning with 2015 models, the front-end and occupant compartment structure was strengthened to improve occupant protection in small overlap frontal crashes.
Two passenger-side small overlap frontal tests of the Soul were conducted, one by the Institute of a 2018 model and the other by Hyundai/Kia of a 2017 model as part of . Ratings are based on both tests.
| Overall evaluation | A |
|---|---|
| Structure and safety cage | G |
| Passenger injury measures | |
| Head/neck | A |
| Chest | G |
| Hip/thigh | G |
| Lower leg/foot | G |
| Passenger restraints and dummy kinematics In both tests, the dummy’s head contacted the frontal airbag but then moved off toward the right side. In the Institute’s test, the head moved so far forward and to the right that it hit the dashboard. The side curtain airbag deployed and has sufficient forward coverage in both tests to protect the head from contact with side structure and outside objects. The side torso airbag also deployed. | M |
| Driver injury measures | |
| Head/neck | G |
| Chest | G |
| Hip/thigh | G |
| Lower leg/foot | G |
| Driver restraints and dummy kinematics | G |
Action shot taken during the Institute’s passenger-side small overlap frontal crash test.
The dummy’s position in relation to the door frame and dashboard after the crash test indicates that the passenger’s survival space was maintained well (Institute test car shown).
The dummy’s head slid off the right side of the frontal airbag and moved far enough forward to hit the dashboard hard (Institute test shown).
The passenger’s space was maintained well in both tests, but forces on the right lower leg were just high enough to indicate the possibility of injuries in the test conducted by Hyundai/Kia. In the test conducted by the Institute (pictured), injury risk to both legs and feet was low.
Technical measurements for this test
Measures of occupant compartment intrusion on passenger side
| Test ID | VTP1704 | CEP1713 |
|---|---|---|
| Lower occupant compartment | ||
| Lower hinge pillar max (cm) | 9 | 9 |
| Footrest (cm) | 11 | 10 |
| Right toepan (cm) | 8 | 7 |
| Center toepan (cm) | 5 | 4 |
| Rocker panel lateral average (cm) | 7 | 4 |
| Upper occupant compartment | ||
| Center dash (cm) | 4 | 4 |
| Upper hinge pillar max (cm) | 8 | 7 |
| Upper dash (cm) | 7 | 7 |
| Right lower dash (cm) | 7 | 7 |
Passenger injury measures
| Test ID | VTP1704 | CEP1713 |
|---|---|---|
| Head | ||
| HIC-15 | 270 | 380 |
| Peak gs at hard contact | no contact | 103 |
| Neck | ||
| Tension (kN) | 1.4 | 1.4 |
| Extension bending moment (Nm) | 9 | 16 |
| Maximum Nij | 0.26 | 0.28 |
| Chest maximum compression (mm) | 24 | 21 |
| Femur (kN) | ||
| Left | 0.7 | 0.2 |
| Right | 2.7 | 1.1 |
| Knee displacement (mm) | ||
| Left | 3 | 1 |
| Right | 4 | 3 |
| Knee-thigh-hip injury risk (%) | ||
| Left | ||
| Right | ||
| Maximum tibia index | ||
| Left | 0.35 | 0.39 |
| Right | 0.33 | 0.62 |
| Tibia axial force (kN) | ||
| Left | 1.3 | 1.9 |
| Right | 1.2 | 4.2 |
| Foot acceleration (g) | ||
| Left | 57 | 60 |
| Right | 43 | 53 |
Driver injury measures
| Test ID | VTP1704 | CEP1713 |
|---|---|---|
| Head | ||
| HIC-15 | 289 | 239 |
| Peak gs at hard contact | no contact | no contact |
| Neck | ||
| Tension (kN) | 1.2 | 1.3 |
| Extension bending moment (Nm) | 23 | 13 |
| Maximum Nij | 0.23 | 0.23 |
| Chest maximum compression (mm) | 31 | 36 |
| Femur (kN) | ||
| Left | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| Right | 0.3 | 0.2 |
| Knee displacement (mm) | ||
| Left | ||
| Right | ||
| Knee-thigh-hip injury risk (%) | ||
| Left | ||
| Right | ||
| Maximum tibia index | ||
| Left | 0.24 | 0.32 |
| Right | 0.32 | 0.24 |
| Tibia axial force (kN) | ||
| Left | 0.2 | 0.5 |
| Right | 1.0 | 0.9 |
| Foot acceleration (g) | ||
| Left | 43 | 39 |
| Right | 44 | 80 |
Small overlap front: passenger-side
Rating applies to 2015-19 models
Tested vehicle: 2018 Kia Soul wagon
The Kia Soul was redesigned for the 2014 model year. Beginning with 2015 models, the front-end and occupant compartment structure was strengthened to improve occupant protection in small overlap frontal crashes.
Two passenger-side small overlap frontal tests of the Soul were conducted, one by the Institute of a 2018 model and the other by Hyundai/Kia of a 2017 model as part of . Ratings are based on both tests.
| Overall evaluation | A |
|---|---|
| Structure and safety cage | G |
| Passenger injury measures | |
| Head/neck | A |
| Chest | G |
| Hip/thigh | G |
| Lower leg/foot | G |
| Passenger restraints and dummy kinematics In both tests, the dummy’s head contacted the frontal airbag but then moved off toward the right side. In the Institute’s test, the head moved so far forward and to the right that it hit the dashboard. The side curtain airbag deployed and has sufficient forward coverage in both tests to protect the head from contact with side structure and outside objects. The side torso airbag also deployed. | M |
| Driver injury measures | |
| Head/neck | G |
| Chest | G |
| Hip/thigh | G |
| Lower leg/foot | G |
| Driver restraints and dummy kinematics | G |
Action shot taken during the Institute’s passenger-side small overlap frontal crash test.
The dummy’s position in relation to the door frame and dashboard after the crash test indicates that the passenger’s survival space was maintained well (Institute test car shown).
The dummy’s head slid off the right side of the frontal airbag and moved far enough forward to hit the dashboard hard (Institute test shown).
The passenger’s space was maintained well in both tests, but forces on the right lower leg were just high enough to indicate the possibility of injuries in the test conducted by Hyundai/Kia. In the test conducted by the Institute (pictured), injury risk to both legs and feet was low.
Technical measurements for this test
Measures of occupant compartment intrusion on passenger side
| Test ID | VTP1704 | CEP1713 |
|---|---|---|
| Lower occupant compartment | ||
| Lower hinge pillar max (cm) | 9 | 9 |
| Footrest (cm) | 11 | 10 |
| Right toepan (cm) | 8 | 7 |
| Center toepan (cm) | 5 | 4 |
| Rocker panel lateral average (cm) | 7 | 4 |
| Upper occupant compartment | ||
| Center dash (cm) | 4 | 4 |
| Upper hinge pillar max (cm) | 8 | 7 |
| Upper dash (cm) | 7 | 7 |
| Right lower dash (cm) | 7 | 7 |
Passenger injury measures
| Test ID | VTP1704 | CEP1713 |
|---|---|---|
| Head | ||
| HIC-15 | 270 | 380 |
| Peak gs at hard contact | no contact | 103 |
| Neck | ||
| Tension (kN) | 1.4 | 1.4 |
| Extension bending moment (Nm) | 9 | 16 |
| Maximum Nij | 0.26 | 0.28 |
| Chest maximum compression (mm) | 24 | 21 |
| Femur (kN) | ||
| Left | 0.7 | 0.2 |
| Right | 2.7 | 1.1 |
| Knee displacement (mm) | ||
| Left | 3 | 1 |
| Right | 4 | 3 |
| Knee-thigh-hip injury risk (%) | ||
| Left | ||
| Right | ||
| Maximum tibia index | ||
| Left | 0.35 | 0.39 |
| Right | 0.33 | 0.62 |
| Tibia axial force (kN) | ||
| Left | 1.3 | 1.9 |
| Right | 1.2 | 4.2 |
| Foot acceleration (g) | ||
| Left | 57 | 60 |
| Right | 43 | 53 |
Driver injury measures
| Test ID | VTP1704 | CEP1713 |
|---|---|---|
| Head | ||
| HIC-15 | 289 | 239 |
| Peak gs at hard contact | no contact | no contact |
| Neck | ||
| Tension (kN) | 1.2 | 1.3 |
| Extension bending moment (Nm) | 23 | 13 |
| Maximum Nij | 0.23 | 0.23 |
| Chest maximum compression (mm) | 31 | 36 |
| Femur (kN) | ||
| Left | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| Right | 0.3 | 0.2 |
| Knee displacement (mm) | ||
| Left | ||
| Right | ||
| Knee-thigh-hip injury risk (%) | ||
| Left | ||
| Right | ||
| Maximum tibia index | ||
| Left | 0.24 | 0.32 |
| Right | 0.32 | 0.24 |
| Tibia axial force (kN) | ||
| Left | 0.2 | 0.5 |
| Right | 1.0 | 0.9 |
| Foot acceleration (g) | ||
| Left | 43 | 39 |
| Right | 44 | 80 |
Moderate overlap front
Rating applies to 2020-22 models
Tested vehicle: 2020 Kia Soul LX wagon
The Kia Soul was redesigned for the 2020 model year. Moderate overlap frontal ratings are assigned by the Institute based on a test conducted by Hyundai/Kia as part of .
| Overall evaluation | G |
|---|---|
| Structure and safety cage | G |
| Driver injury measures | |
| Head/neck | G |
| Chest | G |
| Leg/foot, left | G |
| Leg/foot, right | G |
| Driver restraints and dummy kinematics | G |
Technical measurements for this test
Measures of occupant compartment intrusion on driver side
| Test ID | VTF1912 |
|---|---|
| Footwell intrusion | |
| Footrest (cm) | 8 |
| Left (cm) | 15 |
| Center (cm) | 13 |
| Right (cm) | 5 |
| Brake pedal (cm) | 7 |
| Instrument panel rearward movement | |
| Left (cm) | 1 |
| Right (cm) | |
| Steering column movement | |
| Upward (cm) | 1 |
| Rearward (cm) | -1 |
| A-pillar rearward movement (cm) |
Driver injury measures
| Test ID | VTF1912 |
|---|---|
| Head | |
| HIC-15 | 235 |
| Peak gs at hard contact | no contact |
| Neck | |
| Tension (kN) | 1.1 |
| Extension bending moment (Nm) | 14 |
| Maximum Nij | 0.25 |
| Chest maximum compression (mm) | 32 |
| Legs | |
| Femur force — left (kN) | 0.2 |
| Femur force — right (kN) | 1.1 |
| Knee displacement — left (mm) | 1 |
| Knee displacement — right (mm) | |
| Maximum tibia index — left | 0.38 |
| Maximum tibia index — right | 0.28 |
| Tibia axial force — left (kN) | 1.2 |
| Tibia axial force — right (kN) | 1.0 |
| Foot acceleration (g) | |
| Left | 46 |
| Right | 84 |
Side: original test
Rating applies to 2020-23 models
Tested vehicle: 2020 Kia Soul LX wagon
The Kia Soul was redesigned for the 2020 model year. Side ratings are assigned by the Institute based on a test conducted by Hyundai/Kia as part of .
| Overall evaluation | G |
|---|---|
| Structure and safety cage | G |
| Driver injury measures | |
| Head/neck | G |
| Torso | G |
| Pelvis/leg | A |
| Driver head protection | G |
| Rear passenger injury measures | |
| Head/neck | G |
| Torso | G |
| Pelvis/leg | G |
| Rear passenger head protection | G |
Technical measurements for this test
Measures of occupant compartment intrusion on driver side
| Test ID | VTS1914 |
|---|---|
| B-pillar to longitudinal centerline of driver’s seat (cm) | -21.5 |
| Negative numbers indicate the amount by which the crush stopped short of the seat centerline. |
Driver injury measures
| Test ID | VTS1914 |
|---|---|
| Head HIC-15 | 161 |
| Neck | |
| Tension (kN) | 1.2 |
| Compression (kN) | 0.5 |
| Shoulder | |
| Lateral deflection (mm) | 28 |
| Lateral force (kN) | 1.2 |
| Torso | |
| Maximum deflection (mm) | 33 |
| Average deflection (mm) | 31 |
| Maximum deflection rate (m/s) | 4.15 |
| Maximum viscous criterion (m/s) | 0.68 |
| Pelvis | |
| Iliac force (kN) | 2.8 |
| Acetabulum force (kN) | 2.5 |
| Combined force (kN) | 5.2 |
| Left femur | |
| L-M force (kN) | 0.7 |
| L-M moment (Nm) | 148 |
| A-P moment (Nm) | 23 |
Passenger injury measures
| Test ID | VTS1914 |
|---|---|
| Head HIC-15 | 195 |
| Neck | |
| Tension (kN) | 0.2 |
| Compression (kN) | 1.0 |
| Shoulder | |
| Lateral deflection (mm) | 50 |
| Lateral force (kN) | 1.4 |
| Torso | |
| Maximum deflection (mm) | 34 |
| Average deflection (mm) | 27 |
| Maximum deflection rate (m/s) | 4.69 |
| Maximum viscous criterion (m/s) | 0.63 |
| Pelvis | |
| Iliac force (kN) | 0.2 |
| Acetabulum force (kN) | 1.9 |
| Combined force (kN) | 1.9 |
| Left femur | |
| L-M force (kN) | 0.8 |
| L-M moment (Nm) | 113 |
| A-P moment (Nm) | 80 |
Официальные результаты оценки уровня безопасности Kia Soul 2014
Насколько безопасна ваша машина?
Выберите один или несколько автомобилей из следующих возможностей.
Сделать
- Марка
- Aiways
- Аиксам
- Альфа Ромео
- Audi
- Bajaj
- BMW
- Шатене
- Шевроле
- Крайслер
- Citroën
- Клуб автомобилей
- Dacia
- Daewoo
- Daihatsu
- Додж
- DS
- ФИАТ
- Ford
- Geely Emgrand
- Honda
- Hyundai
- Инфинити
- Isuzu
- Iveco
- Ягуар
- Джип
- Киа
- Lancia
- Ленд Ровер
- Landwind
- Лексус
- Лижье
- Maserati
- Mazda
- Мерседес-Бенц
- MG
- Микроавтомобиль
- МИНИ
- Митсубиси
- Nissan
- Опель / Воксхолл
- Пежо
- Порше
- Протон
- Qoros
- Renault
- Ровер
- Saab
- СИДЕНЬЕ
- Шкода
- умный
- SsangYong
- Subaru
- Suzuki
- Tazzari
- тесла
- Тойота
- Volvo
- VW
Модель
Модель
Год
Год
ИЛИ
Class
- Класс
- Бизнес и семейный фургон
- Представительский
- Гибридный и электрический
- Большой семейный автомобиль
- Большой универсальный автомобиль
- Большой внедорожник
- Пикап
- Родстер Спорт
- Маленький семейный автомобиль
- Малый микроавтобус
- Малый внедорожник
- Малый внедорожник / MPV
- Супермини
ИЛИ
Small overlap front: driver-side
Rating applies to 2010-13 models
Tested vehicle: 2013 Kia Soul wagon
The Kia Soul was introduced in the 2010 model year. Information from Hyundai/Kia indicated the front structural modifications added beginning with 2012 models would have no effect on small overlap frontal test performance; therefore the ratings below apply to all 2010-13 Soul models.
| Overall evaluation | P |
|---|---|
| Structure and safety cage | P |
| Driver injury measures | |
| Head/neck | G |
| Chest | G |
| Hip/thigh | G |
| Lower leg/foot | M |
| Driver restraints and dummy kinematics The dummy’s head barely contacted the frontal airbag before sliding off the left side as the steering column moved 14 cm to the right. The side curtain airbag did not deploy, leaving the dummy’s head vulnerable to contacts with side structure and outside objects, and the driver’s seat tipped forward and toward the B-pillar. | P |
Action shot taken during the small overlap frontal crash test.
The dummy’s position in relation to the door frame, steering wheel, and instrument panel after the crash test indicates that the driver’s survival space was not maintained well.
During the crash, the dummy’s head and torso barely contacted the airbag before sliding off to the left as the steering column moved to the right, and the driver’s seat pitched forward and tipped outward.
Door hinge pillar, driver footwell, and instrument panel intrusion was extensive and contributed to a significant risk of injury to the lower left leg.
Technical measurements for this test
Measures of occupant compartment intrusion on driver side
| Test ID | CEN1317 |
|---|---|
| Lower occupant compartment | |
| Lower hinge pillar max (cm) | 29 |
| Footrest (cm) | 17 |
| Left toepan (cm) | 11 |
| Brake pedal (cm) | 3 |
| Parking brake (cm) | |
| Rocker panel lateral average (cm) | 17 |
| Upper occupant compartment | |
| Steering column | 15 |
| Upper hinge pillar max (cm) | 23 |
| Upper dash (cm) | 23 |
| Lower instrument panel (cm) | 22 |
Driver injury measures
| Test ID | CEN1317 |
|---|---|
| Head | |
| HIC-15 | 83 |
| Peak gs at hard contact | no contact |
| Neck | |
| Tension (kN) | 1.3 |
| Extension bending moment (Nm) | 13 |
| Maximum Nij | 0.26 |
| Chest maximum compression (mm) | 24 |
| Femur (kN) | |
| Left | 4.5 |
| Right | 0.4 |
| Knee displacement (mm) | |
| Left | 11 |
| Right | 1 |
| Knee-thigh-hip injury risk (%) | |
| Left | 2 |
| Right | |
| Maximum tibia index | |
| Left | 1.03 |
| Right | 0.80 |
| Tibia axial force (kN) | |
| Left | 3.3 |
| Right | 0.4 |
| Foot acceleration (g) | |
| Left | 81 |
| Right | 55 |
Kia Sorento в тестах Euro NCAP: серьёзные проблемы на «встречке» и хорошая электроника
Euro NCAP проверил безопасность семи автомобильных новинок по усложнённой в этом году методике. В группу подопытных попал в том числе очень востребованный в России кроссовер Kia Sorento четвёртого поколения, которому мы решили посвятить отдельную заметку.
Новый Kia Sorento поступил в продажу в октябре, но рыночный дебют в России омрачили выявленные проблемы у дизельных модификаций. Что до дебюта в Euro NCAP, то он в целом «корейцу» удался, эксперты присудили ему максимальные 5 звёзд итогового рейтинга. Однако самый сложный тест, имитирующий выезд на встречную полосу и столкновение с другим автомобилем (подробно с обновлённой методикой испытаний Euro NCAP можно ознакомиться здесь) дался Sorento тяжело.
На груди и правом бедре манекена-водителя датчики зафиксировали высокий (коричневый цвет) уровень нагрузок, грозящий тяжёлыми травмами, которые могут оказаться несовместимыми с жизнью. Госпитализация при таких нагрузках практически неизбежна. В этом же тесте эксперты отметили высокий риск получения травм ног передних седоков из-за контактов с твёрдой приборной панелью. Большая масса Sorento (1847 кг) — это дополнительный риск для пассажиров встречного авто (имитирующая его тележка со сминаемым барьером имеет массу 1400 кг), за что «корейцу» тоже снизили оценку. Наконец, на шее манекена, имитирующего 10-летнего ребёнка на заднем сиденье, зафиксирован пограничный оранжевый уровень нагрузок — риск получения травм в этой чувствительной зоне довольно серьёзный.
Но с остальными испытаниями Sorento справился вполне достойно. Оба боковых теста не выявили опасных нагрузок, а центральная подушка безопасности, которую к сожалению не включили в российские комплектации Sorento, надёжно защищает передних седоков от столкновения друг с другом и травмирующих изгибов тела при отскоке.
Зато комплекс электронных ассистентов водителя Drive Wise у нас такой же, как и в Европе, пусть и только в максимальной комплектации Premium+. У этого комплекса, по сути, только один недостаток: система автоматического аварийного торможения (у Kia она обозначается аббревиатурой FCA) не распознаёт пешеходов при движении задним ходом — такой функционал просто не предусмотрен, а потому и не проводился соответствующий проверочный тест. Все остальные тесты на активную безопасность Sorento прошёл хорошо, что и стало главным вкладом в его 5-звёздный рейтинг — эксперты Euro NCAP настаивают на том, что аварию лучше предотвратить, чем бороться с её последствиями, а потому неудача на встречном краш-тесте не повлияла на итоговую оценку. Если бы Euro NCAP взял на тест Sorento в базовой российской комплектации, итоговая оценка была бы совсем другой…
Small overlap front: passenger-side
Rating applies to 2020-23 models
Tested vehicle: 2020 Kia Soul S wagon
The Kia Soul was redesigned for the 2020 model year. Passenger-side small overlap frontal ratings are assigned by the Institute based on a test conducted by Hyundai/Kia as part of .
| Overall evaluation | G |
|---|---|
| Structure and safety cage | G |
| Passenger injury measures | |
| Head/neck | G |
| Chest | G |
| Hip/thigh | G |
| Lower leg/foot | G |
| Passenger restraints and dummy kinematics | G |
| Driver injury measures | |
| Head/neck | G |
| Chest | G |
| Hip/thigh | G |
| Lower leg/foot | G |
| Driver restraints and dummy kinematics | G |
Technical measurements for this test
Measures of occupant compartment intrusion on passenger side
| Test ID | VTP1916 |
|---|---|
| Lower occupant compartment | |
| Lower hinge pillar max (cm) | 6 |
| Footrest (cm) | 7 |
| Right toepan (cm) | 4 |
| Center toepan (cm) | 2 |
| Rocker panel lateral average (cm) | 3 |
| Upper occupant compartment | |
| Center dash (cm) | 1 |
| Upper hinge pillar max (cm) | 4 |
| Upper dash (cm) | 3 |
| Right lower dash (cm) | 4 |
Passenger injury measures
| Test ID | VTP1916 |
|---|---|
| Head | |
| HIC-15 | 115 |
| Peak gs at hard contact | no contact |
| Neck | |
| Tension (kN) | 0.9 |
| Extension bending moment (Nm) | 22 |
| Maximum Nij | 0.27 |
| Chest maximum compression (mm) | 25 |
| Femur (kN) | |
| Left | 0.2 |
| Right | 1.3 |
| Knee displacement (mm) | |
| Left | 1 |
| Right | 7 |
| Knee-thigh-hip injury risk (%) | |
| Left | |
| Right | |
| Maximum tibia index | |
| Left | 0.43 |
| Right | 0.47 |
| Tibia axial force (kN) | |
| Left | 1.5 |
| Right | 1.2 |
| Foot acceleration (g) | |
| Left | 52 |
| Right | 46 |
Driver injury measures
| Test ID | VTP1916 |
|---|---|
| Head | |
| HIC-15 | 134 |
| Peak gs at hard contact | no contact |
| Neck | |
| Tension (kN) | 0.9 |
| Extension bending moment (Nm) | 17 |
| Maximum Nij | 0.21 |
| Chest maximum compression (mm) | 34 |
| Femur (kN) | |
| Left | 0.3 |
| Right | 0.3 |
| Knee displacement (mm) | |
| Left | 1 |
| Right | 1 |
| Knee-thigh-hip injury risk (%) | |
| Left | |
| Right | |
| Maximum tibia index | |
| Left | 0.21 |
| Right | 0.21 |
| Tibia axial force (kN) | |
| Left | 0.2 |
| Right | 0.8 |
| Foot acceleration (g) | |
| Left | 49 |
| Right | 52 |
Front crash prevention: vehicle-to-vehicle
Ratings are given for 2 different trim variations available on this vehicle.
Optional Forward Collision Avoidance-Assist with Pedestrian Detection
Optional — standard on Turbo trim
Overall evaluation
Applies to 2020-22 models
Superior
Superior
with optional equipment
- This system meets the requirements for forward collision warning.
- In the 12 mph IIHS test, this vehicle avoided a collision.
- In the 25 mph IIHS test, this vehicle avoided a collision.
Overall evaluation
Applies to 2020-22 models
Superior
Superior
with optional equipment
- This system meets the requirements for forward collision warning.
- In the 12 mph IIHS test, this vehicle avoided a collision.
- In the 25 mph IIHS test, this vehicle avoided a collision.
Small overlap front: passenger-side
Rating applies to 2015-19 models
Tested vehicle: 2018 Kia Soul wagon
The Kia Soul was redesigned for the 2014 model year. Beginning with 2015 models, the front-end and occupant compartment structure was strengthened to improve occupant protection in small overlap frontal crashes.
Two passenger-side small overlap frontal tests of the Soul were conducted, one by the Institute of a 2018 model and the other by Hyundai/Kia of a 2017 model as part of . Ratings are based on both tests.
| Overall evaluation | A |
|---|---|
| Structure and safety cage | G |
| Passenger injury measures | |
| Head/neck | A |
| Chest | G |
| Hip/thigh | G |
| Lower leg/foot | G |
| Passenger restraints and dummy kinematics In both tests, the dummy’s head contacted the frontal airbag but then moved off toward the right side. In the Institute’s test, the head moved so far forward and to the right that it hit the dashboard. The side curtain airbag deployed and has sufficient forward coverage in both tests to protect the head from contact with side structure and outside objects. The side torso airbag also deployed. | M |
| Driver injury measures | |
| Head/neck | G |
| Chest | G |
| Hip/thigh | G |
| Lower leg/foot | G |
| Driver restraints and dummy kinematics | G |
Action shot taken during the Institute’s passenger-side small overlap frontal crash test.
The dummy’s position in relation to the door frame and dashboard after the crash test indicates that the passenger’s survival space was maintained well (Institute test car shown).
The dummy’s head slid off the right side of the frontal airbag and moved far enough forward to hit the dashboard hard (Institute test shown).
The passenger’s space was maintained well in both tests, but forces on the right lower leg were just high enough to indicate the possibility of injuries in the test conducted by Hyundai/Kia. In the test conducted by the Institute (pictured), injury risk to both legs and feet was low.
Technical measurements for this test
Measures of occupant compartment intrusion on passenger side
| Test ID | VTP1704 | CEP1713 |
|---|---|---|
| Lower occupant compartment | ||
| Lower hinge pillar max (cm) | 9 | 9 |
| Footrest (cm) | 11 | 10 |
| Right toepan (cm) | 8 | 7 |
| Center toepan (cm) | 5 | 4 |
| Rocker panel lateral average (cm) | 7 | 4 |
| Upper occupant compartment | ||
| Center dash (cm) | 4 | 4 |
| Upper hinge pillar max (cm) | 8 | 7 |
| Upper dash (cm) | 7 | 7 |
| Right lower dash (cm) | 7 | 7 |
Passenger injury measures
| Test ID | VTP1704 | CEP1713 |
|---|---|---|
| Head | ||
| HIC-15 | 270 | 380 |
| Peak gs at hard contact | no contact | 103 |
| Neck | ||
| Tension (kN) | 1.4 | 1.4 |
| Extension bending moment (Nm) | 9 | 16 |
| Maximum Nij | 0.26 | 0.28 |
| Chest maximum compression (mm) | 24 | 21 |
| Femur (kN) | ||
| Left | 0.7 | 0.2 |
| Right | 2.7 | 1.1 |
| Knee displacement (mm) | ||
| Left | 3 | 1 |
| Right | 4 | 3 |
| Knee-thigh-hip injury risk (%) | ||
| Left | ||
| Right | ||
| Maximum tibia index | ||
| Left | 0.35 | 0.39 |
| Right | 0.33 | 0.62 |
| Tibia axial force (kN) | ||
| Left | 1.3 | 1.9 |
| Right | 1.2 | 4.2 |
| Foot acceleration (g) | ||
| Left | 57 | 60 |
| Right | 43 | 53 |
Driver injury measures
| Test ID | VTP1704 | CEP1713 |
|---|---|---|
| Head | ||
| HIC-15 | 289 | 239 |
| Peak gs at hard contact | no contact | no contact |
| Neck | ||
| Tension (kN) | 1.2 | 1.3 |
| Extension bending moment (Nm) | 23 | 13 |
| Maximum Nij | 0.23 | 0.23 |
| Chest maximum compression (mm) | 31 | 36 |
| Femur (kN) | ||
| Left | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| Right | 0.3 | 0.2 |
| Knee displacement (mm) | ||
| Left | ||
| Right | ||
| Knee-thigh-hip injury risk (%) | ||
| Left | ||
| Right | ||
| Maximum tibia index | ||
| Left | 0.24 | 0.32 |
| Right | 0.32 | 0.24 |
| Tibia axial force (kN) | ||
| Left | 0.2 | 0.5 |
| Right | 1.0 | 0.9 |
| Foot acceleration (g) | ||
| Left | 43 | 39 |
| Right | 44 | 80 |
Child seat anchors
Applies to 2020-23 models
| Overall evaluation |
A |
| Vehicle trim | S |
| Seat type | cloth |
This vehicle has 2 rear seating positions with complete child seat attachment (LATCH) hardware.
It has 1 additional seating position with a tether anchor only.
| Overall evaluation |
A |
| Vehicle trim | S |
| Seat type | cloth |
123
| G | Good |
| A | Acceptable |
| M | Marginal |
| P | Poor |
| Seating positions that rely on borrowed lower anchors or have only a tether anchor available are not rated. | |
| thether anchor symbol | Tether anchor |
| lower anchor symbol | Lower anchors |
| Lower anchor(s) can be borrowed from adjacent positions(s) | |
| No hardware available |
Details by seating position
| 1 | |
|---|---|
| Tether anchor | |
| easy-to-find location | |
| no other hardware could be confused for anchor | |
| Lower anchors | |
| too deep in seat | |
| not too much force needed to attach | |
| easy to maneuver around anchors | |
| 2 | |
| Tether anchor | |
| easy-to-find location | |
| no other hardware could be confused for anchor | |
| Lower anchors | |
| none available | |
| 3 | |
| Tether anchor | |
| easy-to-find location | |
| no other hardware could be confused for anchor | |
| Lower anchors | |
| too deep in seat | |
| not too much force needed to attach | |
| easy to maneuver around anchors |
Technical measurements for this test
Seat position 21
3
| Lower anchor A | |
|---|---|
| Open access rated | No |
| Depth (cm) | 2-4 |
| Force (lbs) | 24 |
| Clearance angle (degrees) | 67 |
| Lower anchor B | |
| Open access rated | No |
| Depth (cm) | 2-4 |
| Force (lbs) | 15 |
| Clearance angle (degrees) | 76 |
| Tether anchor | |
| Location | Middle seatback |
| Confusing hardware present | Yes |
| Has contrasting label within 3 inches of tether anchor | Yes |
Seat position 22
2
| Lower anchor A | |
|---|---|
| No lower latch for this seat position | |
| Lower anchor B | |
| No lower latch for this seat position | |
| Tether anchor | |
| Location | Middle seatback |
| Confusing hardware present | Yes |
| Has contrasting label within 3 inches of tether anchor | Yes |
Seat position 23
1
| Lower anchor A | |
|---|---|
| Open access rated | No |
| Depth (cm) | 2-4 |
| Force (lbs) | 25 |
| Clearance angle (degrees) | 63 |
| Lower anchor B | |
| Open access rated | No |
| Depth (cm) | 2-4 |
| Force (lbs) | 17 |
| Clearance angle (degrees) | 68 |
| Tether anchor | |
| Location | Middle seatback |
| Confusing hardware present | Yes |
| Has contrasting label within 3 inches of tether anchor | Yes |