- 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
![]()
96% -
See More
![]()
83% -
See More
![]()
75% -
See More
![]()
74%
- Good
- Adequate
- Marginal
- Weak
- Poor
Passenger
Driver
Rear Passenger
Driver
Car
Pole
Rear Seat
Front Seat
-
Approaching a stationary car: Left Offset
-
Approaching a stationary car: No Offset
-
Approaching a stationary car: Right Offset
- 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| 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) | |
|
|
|
| BeSafe iZi Flex FIT 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 was good or adequate for all critical parts of the body, for the 6 and 10-year 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. The vehicle handbook says that the rear centre seat is not suitable for a universal child restraint, so the installation assessment was deemed a fail. Otherwise, all restraint types for which the car is designed could be properly installed and accommodated.
- Good
- Adequate
- Marginal
- Weak
- Poor
Head Impact 16.7 Pts
Pelvis Impact 2.1 Pts
Leg Impact 6.0 Pts
| System Name | Active Emergency Braking System | ||
| Type | Auto-Brake with Forward Collision Warning | ||
| Operational From | 10 km/h | ||
| PERFORMANCE | | |||
- Day time
- Night time
Day time
-
Adult crossing the road
-
Child running from behind parked vehicles
-
Adult along the roadside
Night time
-
Adult crossing the road
-
Adult along the roadside
-
Approaching a crossing cyclist
-
Cyclist along the roadside
The protection provided by the bonnet to the head of a struck pedestrian was good or adequate at almost all test locations on the bonnet. The bumper provided good protection to pedestrians' legs but protection of the pelvis was generally weak or poor. The AEB system can detect vulnerable road users like pedestrians and cyclists, as well as other vehicles. In tests of its response to such road users, the system performed well, collisions against both being avoided or mitigated in all test scenarios.
- Good
- Adequate
- Marginal
- Weak
- Poor
| System Name | Speed Limiter |
| Speed Limit Information Function | Camera based |
| Speed Control Function | System advised (accurate to 5km/h) |
| Applies To | All Seats | ||
| Warning | Driver Seat | Front Passenger(s) | Rear Passenger(s) |
| Visual | |
|
|
| Audible | |
|
|
| Occupant Detection | |
|
|
|
|||
| System Name | Lane Keep Assist |
| Type | LKA (including LDW) |
| Operational From | 70 km/h |
| Performance | |
| 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 | |||
- Autobrake function only
- Driver reacts to warning
Autobrake function only
-
Approaching a slower moving car
-
Approaching a slower moving car
-
Approaching a slower moving car
-
Approaching a braking car
Driver reacts to warning
-
Approaching a stationary car
-
Approaching a stationary car
-
Approaching a stationary car
-
Approaching a slower moving car
-
Approaching a slower moving car
-
Approaching a slower moving car
-
Approaching a braking car
A seatbelt reminder system is standard equipment for the front and rear seats. The AEB system performed adequately in tests of its response to other vehicles at highway speeds. A lane support system helps prevent inadvertent drifting out of lane. A speed assistance system uses a camera mapping to identify the local limit and the driver can choose to allow the car to adjust the speed limiter accordingly.
- Specifications
- Safety Equipment
- Videos
- Rating Validity
Specifications
Tested Model Renault Captur 1.0 TCe, LHD
Body Type - 5 door hatchback
Year Of Publication 2019
Kerb Weight 1243kg
VIN From Which Rating Applies - all Arkanas
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 hatchback | 1.3 TCe, petrol, 4 cylinder, EDC | Renault Arkana TCe 140 EDC | 4 x 2 |  |
|
| 5 door hatchback | 1.3 TCe, petrol, 4 cylinder, EDC | Renault Arkana TCe 160 EDC | 4 x 2 | |
|
| 5 door hatchback | E-TECH plug-in hybrid, 1.6 petrol 4 cylinder | Renault Arkana E-Tech hybrid 145 | 4 x 2 | |
|
Tested vehicle: Renault Captur
Find more information in the General Comments section of the assessment
The Arkana is structurally identical to the Renault Captur tested by Euro NCAP in 2019 and has the same safety equipment. Based on data analysed by Euro NCAP, the same safety rating applies to both cars.
Share
The passenger compartment remained stable in the frontal offset test. Dummy readings indicated good protection of the knees and femurs of the driver and passenger. Renault showed that a similar level of protection would be provided to occupants of different sizes and to those sitting in different positions. Protection was rated as good for all critical body areas for the passenger. In the full-width rigid barrier test, protection was good or adequate for all critical body areas, both for the driver and the rear passenger. In the side barrier impact, protection of all critical body areas was good and the car scored full points in this test. Even in the more severe side pole test, protection of the chest was adequate and that of other body regions was good. Tests on the front seats and head restraints demonstrated good protection against whiplash injuries in the event of a rear-end collision. A geometric assessment of the rear seats also indicated good whiplash protection. The standard-fit autonomous emergency braking (AEB) system performed well in tests of its functionality at the low speeds at which many whiplash injuries occur, with collisions avoided in most test scenarios.