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
![]()
85% -
See More
![]()
64% -
See More
![]()
81%
- 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 option-
Infants up to 13 kg
-
Infants and toddlers up to 18 kg
-
Toddlers from 9 to 18 kg
-
Toddlers over 18 kg
![]()
Easy![]()
Difficult![]()
Safety critical![]()
Not allowed
Difficult
Safety critical| Seat Position | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Front | 2nd row | |||
| Passenger | Left | center | Right | |
| Maxi Cosi Cabriofix (Belt) | |
|
|
|
| Britax Römer King Plus (Belt) | |
|
|
|
| Britax Römer Duo Plus (ISOFIX) | |
|
|
|
| Britax Römer KidFix (Belt) | |
|
|
|
| Maxi Cosi Cabriofix & EasyFix (Belt) | |
|
|
|
| Maxi Cosi Cabriofix & EasyFix (ISOFIX) | |
|
|
|
| BeSafe iZi Kid X3 ISOfix (ISOFIX) | |
|
|
|
| Maxi Cosi Pearl & Familyfix (ISOFIX) | |
|
|
|
| Britax Römer KidFix (ISOFIX) | |
|
|
|
![]()
Easy![]()
Difficult![]()
Safety critical![]()
Not allowed
In the frontal impact, forward movement of the head of the 3 year dummy, sat in a forward facing restraint, was not excessive. In the side impact, both dummies were properly contained by the protective shells of their restraints, minimising the risk of head contact with parts of the car's interior. All of the child restraints for which the car is designed could be correctly installed in the Trax. The passenger airbag can be disabled to allow a rearward-facing restraint to be used in the front passenger seat. Clear information is provided to the driver regarding the status of the airbag and the system was rewarded. The dangers of using a rearward-facing restraint in that seating positions without first disabling the airbag is clearly and permanently indicated.
- Good
- Adequate
- Marginal
- Weak
- Poor
Head Impact 17.1 Pts
Pelvis Impact 0.0 Pts
Leg Impact 6.0 Pts
The bonnet surface provided good protection in most areas likely to be struck by the head of a struck child. Protection for taller pedestrians was predominantly adequate or marginal. The bumper provided good protection in all areas tested and scored maximum points. However, the front edge of the bonnet scored no points for its protection of the pelvis area, offering poor protection across the car's width.
- Good
- Adequate
- Marginal
- Weak
- Poor
| Speed Limitation Function | Manually Set |
| System Name | ESC | |
| Performance | ||
| Vehicle Yaw Rate @ COS + 1.00 s | 4.78% | meets ECE requirements |
| Vehicle Yaw Rate @ COS + 1.75 s | 3.53% | meets ECE requirements |
| Lateral Displacement @ BOS + 1.07 s | 2.8 m | meets ECE requirements |
| Applies To | All seats | ||
| Warning | Driver Seat | Front Passenger(s) | Rear Passenger(s) |
| Visual | |
|
|
| Audible | |
|
|
|
|||
Electronic stability control is standard equipment on the Trax and met Euro NCAP's test requirements. There is a standard-fit seatbelt reminder on the driver, front passenger and rear seats. The Trax also has a driver-set active speed limitation device as standard equipment.
- Specifications
- Safety Equipment
- Videos
- Rating Validity
Specifications
Tested Model Chevrolet Trax 1.7 diesel 'LT', LHD
Body Type - 5 door hatchback
Year Of Publication 2013
Kerb Weight 1433kg
VIN From Which Rating Applies - applies to all Trax of the specification tested
Class Small 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
The passenger compartment remained stable in the frontal impact. 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. The Trax scored maximum points in the side barrier test, with good protection of all body regions. In the more severe side pole impact, protection of the chest was adequate and that of the head, abdomen and pelvis was good. The seat and head restraint provided good protection against whiplash injury in the event of a rear-end impact.