- With standard equipment
- With safety pack
Find more information in the General Comments section of the assessment
Find more information in the Rating Validity tab of the assessment
-
See More
![]()
89% -
See More
![]()
87% -
See More
![]()
82% -
See More
![]()
76%
- Good
- Adequate
- Marginal
- Weak
- Poor
-
![]()
Mobile Progressive Deformable Barrier![]()
-
![]()
Full Width Rigid Barrier
-
![]()
Side Mobile Barrier
![]()
Side Pole
-
![]()
Far-Side Excursion
Occupant Interaction![]()
Occupant Interaction
Rear Seat
Front Seat
| Rescue Sheet |
Available, ISO compliant
|
|||
| Advanced eCall | Available | |||
| Multi Collision Brake | Available | |||
| Submergence Check | Compliant | |||
- 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
i-Size
![]()
Easy![]()
Difficult![]()
Safety critical![]()
Not allowed-
![]()
Airbag ON
Rearward facing restraint installation not allowed
Difficult
Safety critical
Airbag ON
Isofix
![]()
Easy![]()
Difficult![]()
Safety critical![]()
Not allowed-
![]()
Airbag ON
Rearward facing restraint installation not allowed
![]()
Easy![]()
Difficult![]()
Safety critical![]()
Not allowed-
![]()
Airbag ON
Rearward facing restraint installation not allowed
In both the frontal offset and the side barrier tests, protection of all critical parts of the body was good for the 6 and 10 year dummy and the TERRAMAR scored maximum points in this part of the assessment. The front 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. The TERRAMAR is equipped with an indirect 'child presence detection' system, which issues a warning when it recognises that a child or infant may have been left in the car. Such systems are no longer rewarded in Euro NCAP’s assessments. All of the child restraint types for which the Cupra TERRAMAR is designed could be properly installed and accommodated in the car.
- Good
- Adequate
- Marginal
- Weak
- Poor
Pedestrian & Cyclist Head 12.6 Pts
Pelvis 3.6 Pts
Femur 4.5 Pts
Knee & Tibia 9.0 Pts
| System Name | Front Assist | ||
| Type | Auto-Brake with Forward Collision Warning | ||
| Operational From | 5 km/h | ||
| PERFORMANCE | | |||
Protection of the head of a struck pedestrian or cyclist was largely good or adequate, with poor results recorded on the stiff windscreen pillars and at the base of the screen. Protection of the pelvis was predominantly good while that of the femur and the knee and tibia was good at all test locations. The autonomous emergency braking (AEB) system of the Cupra can respond to vulnerable road users as well as to other vehicles. The system’s response to pedestrians was adequate, but protection of those to the rear of the car is not available. The system’s performance in tests of its reaction to cyclists was good but protection against ‘dooring’, where a door is suddenly opened in the path of a cyclist approaching from behind, is an option so scored no points. Performance of the AEB system was good in tests of its response to motorcyclists.
- Good
- Adequate
- Marginal
- Weak
- Poor
| System Name | Predictive Speedlimiter |
| Speed Limit Information Function | Camera & Map, subsigns supported |
| Speed Control Function | Intelligent Speed Limiter not default ON (accurate to 5km/h) |
| Applies To | Front and rear seats | ||
| Warning | Driver Seat | Front Passenger(s) | Rear Passenger(s) |
| Visual | |
|
|
| Audible | |
|
|
| Occupant Detection |  |
|
|
|
|||
| System Name | ADA |
| Type | Indirect monitoring |
| Operational From | 65 km/h |
| Fatigue | Drowsiness |
| System Name | Advanced Lane Departure Warning |
| Type | LKA and ELK |
| Operational From | 65 km/h |
| Performance | |
| Emergency Lane Keeping | |
| Lane Keep Assist | |
| Human Machine Interface | |
| System Name | Front Assist | |||
| Type | Autonomous emergency braking and forward collision warning | |||
| Operational From | 5 km/h | |||
| Sensor Used | camera and radar | |||
Overall, the performance of the autonomous emergency braking (AEB) system was good in tests of its reaction to other vehicles, with impacts being avoided in most tests. A seatbelt reminder system is fitted as standard to the front and rear seats. The car has an indirect driver status monitoring system as standard, detecting driver fatigue but not distraction. The lane support system gently corrects the vehicle’s path if it is drifting out of lane and also intervenes in some more critical situations. The speed assistance system identifies the local speed limit. The driver can choose to allow the limiter to be set automatically by the system.
- Specifications
- Safety Equipment
- Videos
- Rating Validity
Specifications
Tested Model Cupra TERRAMAR 1.5 TSI 200 kW eHybrid
Body Type - 5 door SUV
Year Of Publication 2025
Kerb Weight 1839kg
VIN From Which Rating Applies - all Cupra TERRAMARs
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 part of the safety pack![]()
Not fitted to the test vehicle but available as option or as part of the safety pack![]()
Not available![]()
Not applicable
Fitted to the vehicle as part of the safety packVideos
Rating Validity
Variants of Model Range
| Body Type | Engine | Model Name/Code | Drivetrain | Rating Applies | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LHD | RHD | ||||
| 5 door SUV | 1.5 eTSI 110 kW | eTSI | 4 x 2 |  |
|
| 5 door SUV | 2.0 TSI 150 kW | TSI | 4 x 4 | |
|
| 5 door SUV | 2.0 TSI 195 kW | VZ | 4 x 4 | |
|
| 5 door SUV | 1.5 TSI 150 kW eHybrid | eHybrid | 4 x 2 | |
|
| 5 door SUV | 1.5 TSI 200 kW eHybrid | VZ eHybrid | 4 x 2 | |
|
* Tested variant
Find more information in the General Comments section of the assessment
Share
The passenger compartment of the Cupra TERRAMAR remained stable in the frontal offset test. Dummy readings indicated good protection of the knees and femurs of both front seat occupants. Cupra showed that a similar level of protection would be provided to occupants of different sizes and to those sitting in different positions. Protection was good for all critical body regions of the front passenger. Analysis of the deceleration of the impact trolley during the test, and analysis of the deformable barrier after the test, revealed that the Cupra TERRAMAR would be a somewhat aggressive impact partner in a frontal collision. In the full-width rigid barrier test, protection was good for all critical body regions of the driver but chest protection of the rear passenger was rated as marginal, based on dummy readings of compression. In the side barrier test, good protection was provided to all critical parts of the body and full points were scored. Even in the more severe side pole impact, protection was at least adequate. Control of excursion (the extent to which a body is thrown to the other side of the vehicle when it is hit from the far side) was found to be adequate. The Cupra TERRAMAR has a countermeasure to mitigate against occupant-to-occupant injuries in such impacts. The airbag performed well in Euro NCAP’s tests with dummy readings indicating good protection for both the driver and passenger. Tests on the front seats and head restraints demonstrated good protection against whiplash injuries in the event of a rear-end collision. A geometric analysis of the rear seats also indicated good whiplash protection. The car has an advanced eCall system which alerts the emergency services in the event of a crash, and a system to prevent secondary impacts after the car has been in a collision. Cupra demonstrated that the doors and windows would be openable to allow occupants to escape in the event of vehicle submergence.