- 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
![]()
93% -
See More
![]()
81% -
See More
![]()
78% -
See More
![]()
82%
- Good
- Adequate
- Marginal
- Weak
- Poor
Passenger
Driver
Rear Passenger
Driver
Car
Pole
Rear Seat
Front Seat
- 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 CRS
-
ISOFIX CRS
-
Universal Belted CRS
![]()
Easy![]()
Difficult![]()
Safety critical![]()
Not allowed
Difficult
Safety critical| Seat Position | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Front | 2nd row | |||
| Passenger | Left | center | Right | |
| Maxi Cosi 2way Pearl & 2wayFix (rearward) (iSize) |  |
|
|
|
| Maxi Cosi 2way Pearl & 2wayFix (forward) (iSize) | |
|
|
|
| BeSafe iZi Kid X2 i-Size (iSize) | |
|
|
|
| Maxi Cosi Cabriofix & FamilyFix (ISOFIX) | |
|
|
|
| BeSafe iZi Kid X4 ISOfix (ISOFIX) | |
|
|
|
| Britax Römer Duo Plus (ISOFIX) | |
|
|
|
| Britax Römer KidFix XP (ISOFIX) | |
|
|
|
| Maxi Cosi Cabriofix (Belt) | |
|
|
|
| Maxi Cosi Cabriofix & EasyBase2 (Belt) | |
|
|
|
| Britax Römer King II LS (Belt) | |
|
|
|
| Britax Römer KidFix XP (Belt) | |
|
|
|
![]()
Easy![]()
Difficult![]()
Safety critical![]()
Not allowed
In the frontal offset test, protection of the chest and neck of the 10 year dummy was rated as marginal, the chest on the basis of rib decelerations and the neck on the basis of tensile forces. Protection of the 6 year dummy was good or adequate. In the side barrier test, protection of all critical body areas was good, for both dummies. 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. All of the restraint types for which the Stinger is designed could be properly installed and accommodated.
- Good
- Adequate
- Marginal
- Weak
- Poor
Head Impact 17.4 Pts
Pelvis Impact 5.5 Pts
Leg Impact 5.6 Pts
| System Name | Forward Collision-Avoidance Assist (FCA) | ||
| Type | Auto-Brake with Forward Collision Warning | ||
| Operational From | 10 km/h | ||
| Additional Information | Defaults on for every journey; operates above 40km/h and in low ambient light | ||
| PERFORMANCE | | |||
| Autobrake Function | |||
| Avoidance | Mitigation | ||
|
Running Adult crossing from Farside
|
Collision avoided up to 35 km/h | Impact mitigated up to 45 km/h | |
|
Walking Adult crossing from Nearside -25%
|
Collision avoided up to 45 km/h | Impact mitigated up to 60 km/h | |
|
Walking Adult crossing from Nearside -75%
|
Collision avoided up to 50 km/h | Impact mitigated up to 60 km/h | |
|
Running Child from behind parked vehicles
|
Collision avoided up to 30 km/h | Impact mitigated up to 45 km/h | |
The Stinger has a deployable, 'active' bonnet. Sensors detect when a pedestrian has been struck and actuators lift the bonnet, providing greater clearance to hard structure in the engine compartment. Kia showed that the system worked for different statures of pedestrian and over a wide range of speeds. Accordingly, the car was tested with the bonnet in the raised position. Test results were almost entirely good or adequate, with some poor results recorded on the stiff windscreen pillars and at the base of the windscreen. The protection provided to pedestrians' legs was good or adequate and that provided to the pelvis area was predominantly good. The autonomous emergency braking system performed well in tests of its pedestrian detection, with collisions avoided or mitigated in almost all test scenarios.
- Good
- Adequate
- Marginal
- Weak
- Poor
| System Name | Manual Speed Limit Assist |
| Speed Limit Information Function | Camera & Map, subsigns supported |
| Warning Function | Manually set |
| Speed Limitation Function | Manually set (accurate to 5km/h) |
| Applies To | Front seats | ||
| Warning | Driver Seat | Front Passenger(s) | Rear Passenger(s) |
| Visual | |
|
|
| Audible | |
|
|
|
|||
| System Name | Lane Keeping Assist (LKA) |
| Type | Lane Keep Assist and Lane Departure Warning |
| Operational From | 60 km/h |
| Warning | Audible |
| Performance | |
|
LKA Confirmation Test
|
Pass (5/5) |
|
LDW Confirmation Test
|
Pass |
| System Name | Forward Collision-Avoidance Assist (FCA) | |||
| Type | Forward Collision Warning with Auto-Brake | |||
| Operational From | 8 km/h | |||
| Additional Information | Default On | |||
| Performance | | ||||
| Autobrake Function Only | Driver reacts to warning | |||
| Operational Speed | 8-180 km/h | 8-180 km/h | ||
| Approaching a stationary car | See AEB City | Crash avoided up to 65km/h.Crash speed reduced up to 80km/h. | ||
| Approaching a slower moving car | Crash avoided up to 70km/h. | Crash avoided up to 80km/h. | ||
| Following a car at short distance | ||||
| Car in front brakes gently | Avoidance | Avoidance | ||
| Car in front brakes harshly | Mitigation | Mitigation | ||
| Following a car at long distance | ||||
| Car in front brakes gently | Avoidance | Avoidance | ||
| Car in front brakes harshly | Avoidance | Avoidance | ||
The autonomous emergency braking system performed well in tests of its functionality at highway speeds, with collisions avoided or mitigated in all test scenarios. A speed assistance system recognises the local speed limit and provides this information to the driver who can then set the speed limiter appropriately. The lane assistance system warns the driver when the car is drifting out of lane and gently corrects the driving path away from the lane edge. A seatbelt reminder is standard for the front seats but no system is offered for the rear.
- Specifications
- Safety Equipment
- Videos
- Rating Validity
Specifications
Tested Model Kia Stinger 2.2 CRDi, GT-Line, LHD
Body Type - 5 door fastback
Year Of Publication 2017
Kerb Weight 1806kg
VIN From Which Rating Applies - all Stingers
Class Executive 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 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 | Drivetrain | Rating Applies | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| LHD | RHD | |||
| 5 door fastback | 2.2 CRDi | 4 x 2* |  |
|
| 5 door fastback | 2.2 CRDi | 4 x 4 | |
|
| 5 door fastback | 2.0 T-GDi | 4 x 2 | |
|
| 5 door fastback | 3.3 T-GDi | 4 x 2 | |
|
| 5 door fastback | 3.3 T-GDi | 4 x 4 | |
|
* Tested variant
Find more information in the General Comments section of the assessment
Share
The passenger compartment of the Stinger remained stable in the frontal offset test. Dummy readings indicated good protection of the knees and femurs of the driver and passenger. Kia showed that a similar level of protection would be provided to occupants of different sizes and to those sat in different positions. In the full-width rigid barrier test, the pelvis of the rear passenger dummy slipped beneath the lap portion of the seatbelt. Although dummy injury values were not excessive, the car was penalised and protection for this body area rated as poor. Protection of all critical body areas was good for the driver dummy in this test. In the side barrier impact, the Stinger scored maximum points with good protection of all critical parts of the body. Even in the more severe side pole test, protection of the chest was adequate and that of other body areas was good. Tests on the front seats and head restraints demonstrated good protection against whiplash protection in the event of a rear-end collision. A geometric assessment of the rear seats indicated marginal whiplash protection. The Stinger has a standard-fit autonomous emergency braking system. In tests of its functionality at the low speeds at which many whiplash injuries are caused, the system scored maximum points, with collisions avoided at all test speeds.