- 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
![]()
85% -
See More
![]()
77% -
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
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 test and the side barrier impact, protection of all critical parts of the body was good for the 6 and 10 year dummy, and the Leapmotor C10 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 C10 is equipped with a direct 'child presence detection' system, which issues a warning when it detects that a child or infant has been left in the car. However, the system did not meet Euro NCAP’s requirements and was not rewarded. All of the child restraint types for which the Leapmotor C10 is designed could be properly installed and accommodated in the car.
- Good
- Adequate
- Marginal
- Weak
- Poor
Pedestrian & Cyclist Head 10.8 Pts
Pelvis 1.7 Pts
Femur 4.5 Pts
Knee & Tibia 7.4 Pts
| System Name | FSC | ||
| Type | Auto-Brake with Forward Collision Warning | ||
| Operational From | 8 km/h | ||
| PERFORMANCE | | |||
Protection of the head of a struck pedestrian or cyclist was predominantly good or adequate, with poor results recorded only on the stiff windscreen pillars. Protection of the pelvis was mixed. Protection of the femur was good at all test locations and that of the knee and tibia was mostly good. The autonomous emergency braking (AEB) system of the Leapmotor can respond to vulnerable road users as well as to other vehicles. The system’s response both to pedestrians was good, with adequate protection of pedestrians to the rear of the car. The system’s performance in tests of its reaction to cyclists was also good, including marginal protection against ‘dooring’, where a door is suddenly opened in the path of a cyclist approaching from behind. Performance of the AEB system was good in tests of its response to motorcyclists, scoring full points in this part of the assessment.
- Good
- Adequate
- Marginal
- Weak
- Poor
| System Name | Map and Camera |
| 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 Monitoring System |
| Type | Direct eye monitoring |
| Operational From | 10 km/h |
| Fatigue | Sleep |
| Distraction | Long & Short Distraction and Phone Use |
| System Name | FSC+BSD |
| Type | LKA and ELK |
| Operational From | 60 km/h |
| Performance | |
| Emergency Lane Keeping | |
| Lane Keep Assist | |
| Human Machine Interface | |
| System Name | FSC | |||
| Type | Autonomous emergency braking and forward collision warning | |||
| Operational From | 8 km/h | |||
| Sensor Used | camera | |||
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 a direct driver status monitoring system as standard, detecting driver fatigue and several types of 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 Leapmotor C10 Style, LHD
Body Type - 5 door SUV
Year Of Publication 2024
Kerb Weight 1980kg
VIN From Which Rating Applies - all C10s
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 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 | Electric | C10 Style * | 4 x 2 |  |
|
| 5 door SUV | Electric | C10 Design | 4 x 2 | |
|
* Tested variant
Find more information in the General Comments section of the assessment
Share
The passenger compartment of the Leapmotor C10 remained stable in the frontal offset test. Dummy readings indicated good protection of the knees and femurs for the driver and front passenger. Leapmotor demonstrated that a similar level of protection would be provided to occupants of different sizes and to 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 Leapmotor C10 would be a benign impact partner in a frontal collision. In the full-width rigid barrier test, protection of the driver’s chest was marginal but that of all other critical body regions was good or adequate, both for the driver and the rear passenger. In both the side barrier test and the more severe side pole impact, full points were scored, with good protection of all critical body regions. 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 Leapmotor C10 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. Leapmotor demonstrated that the doors and windows would be openable to allow occupants to escape in the event of vehicle submergence.