Find more information in the General Comments section of the assessment
Find more information in the Rating Validity tab of the assessment
-
See More
![]()
94% -
See More
![]()
83% -
See More
![]()
57% -
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 this dummy, sat in a forward facing restraint, was not excessive. In the side impact, both the 3 year and the 18 month dummy were properly restrained by their restraints, minimising the likelihood of dangerous head contact. The passenger airbag can be disabled, allowing a rearward facing child restraint to be used in that seating position. However, the system did not meet Euro NCAP's requirements regarding the clarity of information provided to the driver, and the system was not rewarded. Clear information is provided in the car regarding the danger of using a rearward facing restraint in the passenger seat without first disabling the airbag.
- Good
- Adequate
- Marginal
- Weak
- Poor
Head Impact 14.7 Pts
Pelvis Impact 1.8 Pts
Leg Impact 4.0 Pts
The bumper provided good protection in most areas tested but was poor in some. The front edge of the bonnet was predominantly poor. In most areas likely to be struck by a child's head, the bonnet provided good protection but it offered predominantly poor protection in those areas likely to be struck by the head of an adult.
- Good
- Adequate
- Marginal
- Weak
- Poor
| Performance | ||
| Vehicle Yaw Rate @ COS + 1.00 s | 1.523% | meets ECE requirements |
| Vehicle Yaw Rate @ COS + 1.75 s | 4.954% | meets ECE requirements |
| Lateral Displacement @ BOS + 1.07 s | 3.09 m | meets ECE requirements |
| Applies To | Front seats | ||
| Warning | Driver Seat | Front Passenger(s) | Rear Passenger(s) |
| Visual | |
|
 |
| Audible | |
|
|
|
|||
Fail--safetyAssistCommentEN--
- Specifications
- Safety Equipment
- Videos
- Rating Validity
Specifications
Tested Model Chevrolet Malibu 2.4 LTZ, LHD
Body Type - 4 door saloon
Year Of Publication 2011
Kerb Weight 1605kg
VIN From Which Rating Applies - applies to all Malibus of the specification tested
Class Large Family Car
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
In the frontal test, the passenger compartment remained stable. Maximum points were scored for protection of the driver, all body areas being well protected. Dummy readings indicated good protection of the knees and femurs of the driver and passenger. Chevrolet showed that a similar level of protection would be provided for occupants of different sizes and to those sat in different positions. In the side barrier impact, the Malibu scored maximum points, with good protection of all body areas. In the more severe side pole test, protection of the abdomen was marginal. The seat and reactive head restraint provided good protection against whiplash injuries in the event of a rear-end collision.