Find more information in the General Comments section of the assessment
Find more information in the Rating Validity tab of the assessment
-
Adult Occupant
See More
89% -
Child Occupant
See More
82% -
Pedestrian
See More
66% -
Safety Assist
See More
66%
- 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
-
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
| 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
For 2013, Euro NCAP is using improved child dummies and applying a broader assessment of CRS to vehicle compatibility. In the frontal impact, forward movement of the 3 year dummy, sat in a forward-facing restraint, was not excessive. In the side impact, both dummies were properly contained by their restraints, minimising the likelihood of dangerous head contact with parts of the car interior. All child restraints for which the car is designed could be installed. However, care was needed when installing the semi-universal group 0+/1 restraint to ensure that the ISOFIX probes were properly fixed into the anchorages in the rear outboard seats. The passenger airbag can be disabled to allow a rearward-facing child restraint to be used in that seating position. Clear information is provided to the driver regarding the status of the airbag and the system was rewarded.
- Good
- Adequate
- Marginal
- Weak
- Poor
Head Impact 18.0 Pts
Pelvis Impact 0.0 Pts
Leg Impact 6.0 Pts
The bumper provided good protection to pedestrians' legs in all areas tested and scored maximum points. However, the front edge of the bonnet scored no points, offering poor protection to the pelvis area. The bonnet offered predominantly fair protection for the head of a struck pedestrian, with some good protection in the areas where a child's head and an adult's head might strike.
- Good
- Adequate
- Marginal
- Weak
- Poor
| System Name | VSC | |
| Performance | ||
| Vehicle Yaw Rate @ COS + 1.00 s | 2.3% | meets ECE requirements |
| Vehicle Yaw Rate @ COS + 1.75 s | 1.6% | meets ECE requirements |
| Lateral Displacement @ BOS + 1.07 s | 3.07 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 all RAV4s, and passed Euro NCAP's test requirements. A seatbelt reminder is also standard for the driver, passenger and rear seats. A speed limitation device is available as an option but is not expected to be sold in sufficient numbers to qualify for inclusion in Euro NCAP's assessment.
- Specifications
- Safety Equipment
- Videos
- Rating Validity
Specifications
Tested Model Toyota RAV4, 2.2 diesel, mid grade, LHD
Body Type - 5 door SUV
Year Of Publication 2013
Kerb Weight 1680kg
VIN From Which Rating Applies - applies to all RAV4's 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
Videos
Rating Validity
Find more information in the General Comments section of the assessment
Share
The passenger compartment remained stable in the frontal impact. However, the driver's airbag was not sufficiently well inflated to prevent the dummy's head from flattening the airbag and making contact, through the airbag material, with the steering wheel. In this test, dummy readings showed that the resulting contact was not hazardous. However, the car was penliased and protection of the head area was rated as adequate. Dummy readings showed good protection of the knees, femurs and pelvis of both driver and passenger. Toyota showed that a similar level of protection would be provided to occupants of different sizes and to those sat in different positions. In the side barrier test, the RAV4 scored maximum points with good protection of all body regions. In the more severe side pole test, protection of the chest was adequate and that of other body regions was good. The front seats and head restraints provided good protection against whiplash injury in the event of a rear-end collision.