Find more information in the General Comments section of the assessment
Find more information in the Rating Validity tab of the assessment
-
See More
![]()
88% -
See More
![]()
82% -
See More
![]()
48% -
See More
![]()
71%
- Good
- Adequate
- Marginal
- Weak
- Poor
Passenger
Driver
Front Seat
Car
Pole
- Good
- Adequate
- Marginal
- Weak
- Poor
Passenger
outboard
center
![]()
Fitted to the vehicle as standard![]()
Not fitted to the test vehicle but available as option![]()
Not Available
Not fitted to the test vehicle but available as optionForward movement of the 3 year dummy, sat in a forward facing restraint, was not excessive. In the side barrier test, both child dummies were properly contained by the protective shells of their restraints, minimising the likelihood of dangerous head contacts. The passenger airbag can be disabled by means of a switch, allowing a rearward facing child restraint to be used in that seating position. However, information provided to the driver regarding the status of the airbag is not clear and the system was not rewarded. Clear warnings are given of the dangers of using a rearward facing restraint in that seat without first disabling the airbag.
- Good
- Adequate
- Marginal
- Weak
- Poor
Head Impact 14.0 Pts
Pelvis Impact 0.0 Pts
Leg Impact 3.3 Pts
The front edge of the bonnet provided uniformly poor protection to pedestrians. In most areas likely to be struck by a child's head, the bonnet provided good protection. However, predominantly poor protection was provided in those areas likely to be struck by and adult's head.
- Good
- Adequate
- Marginal
- Weak
- Poor
| Performance | ||
| Vehicle Yaw Rate @ COS + 1.00 s | 7.1% | meets ECE requirements |
| Vehicle Yaw Rate @ COS + 1.75 s | 6.8% | meets ECE requirements |
| Lateral Displacement @ BOS + 1.07 s | 2.66 m | meets ECE requirements |
| Applies To | Front seats | ||
| Warning | Driver Seat | Front Passenger(s) | Rear Passenger(s) |
| Visual | |
|
 |
| Audible | |
|
|
|
|||
Electronic stability control is standard equipment, as is a seatbelt reminder for the driver and front passenger seats. A speed limitiation device is not available.
- Specifications
- Safety Equipment
- Videos
- Rating Validity
Specifications
Tested Model Chevrolet Captiva 2.2 diesel LS, RHD
Body Type - 5 door wagon
Year Of Publication 2011
Kerb Weight 1778kg
VIN From Which Rating Applies - applies to all Captivas of the specification tested
Class Small SUV
Safety Equipment
Note: Other equipment may be available on the vehicle but was not considered in the test year.
![]()
Fitted to the vehicle as standard![]()
Fitted to the vehicle as option![]()
Not fitted to the test vehicle but available as option![]()
Not Available![]()
Not Applicable
Fitted to the vehicle as optionVideos
Rating Validity
Find more information in the General Comments section of the assessment
Share
The passenger compartment remained stable in the frontal impact. Dummy readings indicated good protection of the knees and femurs. Chevrolet showed that a similar level of protection would be provided to occupants of different sizes and those sat in different positions. All body areas were well protected in the side barrier test and the car scored maximum points in this test. In the more severe side pole impact, dummy readings of rib compression indiciated marginal protection of the chest area. The front seats and head restraints provided marginal protection against whiplash injuries in the event of a rear end collision.