- 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
![]()
86% -
See More
![]()
80% -
See More
![]()
72%
- 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
Not fitted to the test vehicle but available as option
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 side barrier tests, the protection of all critical body areas of both child dummies was good, and the Explorer scored full points. 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 Explorer 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. All of the child restraint types for which the Explorer is designed could be properly installed and accommodated in the car.
- Good
- Adequate
- Marginal
- Weak
- Poor
Pedestrian & Cyclist Head 11.1 Pts
Pelvis 4.5 Pts
Femur 4.5 Pts
Knee & Tibia 9.0 Pts
| System Name | Pre-collision Assist | ||
| Type | Auto-Brake with Forward Collision Warning | ||
| Operational From | 3 km/h | ||
| PERFORMANCE | | |||
Protection of the head of a struck pedestrian or cyclist was predominantly good or adequate, with poor results recorded on the stiff windscreen pillars and at the base of the screen. Protection of the pelvis was good at all test locations, as was that of the femur. Protection of the knee and tibia was also good in all tests, and the Explorer scored maximum points in these three areas of assessment. The autonomous emergency braking (AEB) system of the Ford can respond to vulnerable road users as well as to other vehicles. The system’s response to pedestrians was adequate and to cyclists was good, including its protection against ‘dooring’, where a door is suddenly opened in the path of a cyclist approaching from behind. The collision avoidance system performed well in tests of its response to motorcyclists, both in AEB and lane support.
- Good
- Adequate
- Marginal
- Weak
- Poor
| System Name | Predictive Speed Assist + Traffic Sign Recognition |
| Speed Limit Information Function | Camera & Map, subsigns supported |
| Speed Control Function | Intelligent ACC (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 | Driver Alert System |
| Type | Indirect monitoring |
| Operational From | 30 km/h |
| Fatigue | Drowsiness |
| System Name | Lane Keeping System |
| Type | LKA and ELK |
| Operational From | 65 km/h |
| Performance | |
| Emergency Lane Keeping | |
| Lane Keep Assist | |
| Human Machine Interface | |
| System Name | Pre-Collision 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 adequate in tests of its reaction to other vehicles, with collisions avoided in most test scenarios. 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. 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 Adaptive Cruise Control or limiter to be set automatically by the system
- Specifications
- Safety Equipment
- Videos
- Rating Validity
Specifications
Tested Model Ford Explorer, LHD
Body Type - 5 door SUV
Year Of Publication 2024
Kerb Weight 2015kg
VIN From Which Rating Applies - all Ford Explorers
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 | Drivetrain | Rating Applies | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LHD | RHD | ||||
| 5 door SUV | electric | Explorer | 4 x 2 * |  |
|
| 5 door SUV | electric | Explorer | 4 x 4 | |
|
* Tested variant
Find more information in the General Comments section of the assessment
Share
The passenger compartment of the Explorer remained stable in the frontal offset test. Other than the lower leg of the driver, protection of which was adequate, all critical body areas of both the driver and passenger were well protected. Ford demonstrated that a similar level of protection would be provided to the knees and femurs of occupants of different sizes and those sitting in different positions. Analysis of the deceleration of the impact trolley during the test, and analysis of the deformable barrier after the test, revealed that the Explorer would be a moderately benign impact partner in a frontal collision. In the full-width rigid barrier test, protection of the driver’s chest was rated as marginal, based on dummy readings of compression. Otherwise, critical parts of the body were well or adequately protected. In both the side barrier test and the more severe side pole impact, protection of all critical body regions was good, and the Explorer scored maximum points in this part of the assessment. 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 marginal. The Explorer has a countermeasure to mitigate against occupant-to-occupant injuries in such impacts. In Euro NCAP’s test, this performed well, with good protection of the head of 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 Explorer has an advanced eCall system which alerts the emergency services in the event of a crash, and there is a system to prevent secondary impacts after the car has been in a collision. Ford demonstrated that the doors and windows would be openable to allow occupants to escape in the event of vehicle submergence.