- 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
![]()
76% -
See More
![]()
80% -
See More
![]()
76% -
See More
![]()
69%
- 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
With the exception of the neck of the 10 year dummy, protection of which was marginal, all critical body areas of both child dummies were well protected. 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 car is not equipped with a 'child presence detection' system. Most of the child restraint types for which the Symbioz is designed could be properly installed and accommodated in the car, but the rear centre seat could not accommodate the belt-installed restraints.
- Good
- Adequate
- Marginal
- Weak
- Poor
Pedestrian & Cyclist Head 12.8 Pts
Pelvis 2.3 Pts
Femur 4.4 Pts
Knee & Tibia 7.4 Pts
| System Name | Active Emergency Braking System | ||
| 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 on the stiff windscreen pillars and at the base of the screen. Protection of the pelvis was poor at several test locations, but that of the femur was predominantly good. Protection of the knee and tibia ranged from good to weak, depending on test location. The autonomous emergency braking (AEB) system 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, although the car does not have protection against ‘dooring’, where a door is suddenly opened in the path of a cyclist approaching from behind. A system to prevent collisions with pedestrians to the rear of the car is available as an option, but was not on the test vehicle. The collision avoidance system performed well in tests of its response to motorcyclists, scoring full points for AEB and scoring adequately for its lane support.
- Good
- Adequate
- Marginal
- Weak
- Poor
| System Name | Speed Assist System |
| 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 | Driver Vigilance Warning |
| Type | Indirect monitoring |
| Operational From | 65 km/h |
| Fatigue | Drowsiness |
| System Name | Lane Keep Assist |
| Type | LKA and ELK |
| Operational From | 65 km/h |
| Performance | |
| Emergency Lane Keeping | |
| Lane Keep Assist | |
| Human Machine Interface | |
| System Name | Active emergency braeking system | |||
| Type | Autonomous emergency braking and forward collision warning | |||
| Operational From | 7 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 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 limiter to be set automatically by the system.
- Specifications
- Safety Equipment
- Videos
- Rating Validity
Specifications
Tested Model Renault Symbioz, E-Tech, LHD
Body Type - 5 door SUV
Year Of Publication 2024
Kerb Weight 1425kg
VIN From Which Rating Applies - all Mitsubishi ASXs
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 | 1.6 petrol hybrid | 1.6 HEV | 4 x 2 |  |
|
| 5 door SUV | 1.0 petrol | 1.0 petrol | 4 x 2 | |
|
| 5 door SUV | 1.0 GPL | 1.0 GPL | 4 x 2 | |
|
| 5 door SUV | 1.3 mild hybrid | 1.3 mild hibride | 4 x 2 | |
|
Tested variant: Renault Captur 1.6 HEV
Find more information in the General Comments section of the assessment
The Mitsubishi ASX is a twin to the Renault Captur, itself a partner model to the Renault Symbioz. Accordingly, the rating for the ASX is based on tests performed on the Renaults.
Share
The passenger compartment remained stable in the frontal offset test. Protection of the driver’s chest was rated as weak, based on dummy readings of compression, but that of other body regions was good or adequate. Analysis of the deceleration of the impact trolley during the test, and analysis of the deformable barrier after the test, revealed that the car would be a benign impact partner in a frontal collision. In the full-width rigid barrier test, protection was good or adequate for all critical body areas except the driver’s chest, protection of which was rated as marginal. In the side barrier test, protection of all critical body regions was good. In the more severe pole impact test, protection the chest was again rated as marginal. 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. There is no countermeasure to mitigate against occupant-to-occupant injuries in such impacts. 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 ASX 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. It was demonstrated that the doors and windows would be openable to allow occupants to escape in the event of vehicle submergence.