- 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
![]()
80% -
See More
![]()
80% -
See More
![]()
76% -
See More
![]()
68%
- 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 test and the side barrier impact, protection of all critical parts of the body was good for the 6 and 10 year dummy, apart from the necks of both in the frontal impact, where protection was adequate. 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 Renault 5 is not equipped with a 'child presence detection' system, to warn when a child may have been left in the car. The rear centre seat could not properly accommodate the child restraints used by Euro NCAP for its assessment but other seating positions met the requirements.
- Good
- Adequate
- Marginal
- Weak
- Poor
Pedestrian & Cyclist Head 10.2 Pts
Pelvis 3.3 Pts
Femur 4.5 Pts
Knee & Tibia 9.0 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 adequate, with a few poor results recorded only on the stiff windscreen pillars. Protection of the pelvis was good at all test locations. Protection of the pelvis was mostly good, while that of the femur and that of the knee and tibia was good at all test locations. The autonomous emergency braking (AEB) system of the Renault can respond to vulnerable road users as well as to other vehicles. The system’s response both to pedestrians was adequate. A system to protect pedestrians to the rear of the car is an option and was not included in this assessment. 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 and not assessed. Performance of the AEB system was good in tests of its response to motorcyclists.
- Good
- Adequate
- Marginal
- Weak
- Poor
| System Name | Traffic Sign Recognition |
| 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 Braking 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 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 Renault 5 E-TECH electric techno comfort, LHD
Body Type - 5 door hatchback
Year Of Publication 2024
Kerb Weight 1449kg
VIN From Which Rating Applies - all Renault 5 E-Tech electric
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 | Drivetrain | Rating Applies | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LHD | RHD | ||||
| 5 door hatchback | E-Tech EV52 150 HP | Comfort Range 150 HP * | 4 x 2 |  |
|
| 5 door hatchback | E-Tech EV40 120 HP | Urban Range 120 HP | 4 x 2 | |
|
| 5 door hatchback | E-Tech EV40 90 HP | Urban Range 90 HP | 4 x 2 | |
|
* Tested variant
Find more information in the General Comments section of the assessment
Share
The passenger compartment of the Renault 5 remained stable in the frontal offset test. Dummy readings indicated good protection of the knees and femurs of the driver and front passenger. Renault were not able to demonstrate that all areas of the dashboard would provide the same level of protection to occupants of different sizes or those sitting in different positions, and the score was penalised. The driver’s chest protection was rated as marginal, based on readings of compression. Analysis of the deceleration of the impact trolley during the test, and analysis of the deformable barrier after the test, revealed that the Renault 5 would be a benign impact partner in a frontal collision. In the full-width rigid barrier test, protection of the rear passenger’s chest was rated as marginal, based on dummy readings of compression. Otherwise, all critical parts of the body were well or adequately protected for both occupants. In both the side barrier test and the more severe side pole impact, protection of all critical body regions was good, and the Renault 5 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 Renault 5 does not have a 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 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. Renault demonstrated that the doors and windows would be openable to allow occupants to escape in the event of vehicle submergence.