- 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
![]()
83% -
See More
![]()
90% -
See More
![]()
85% -
See More
![]()
72%
- 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 more severe side pole impact, protection of all critical parts of the body was good for the 6 and 10 year dummy, and the Crosstrek scored maximum points in this part of the assessment. The Crosstrek has a system which automatically disabled the front passenger airbag when a rearward-facing child restraint is used in that seating position. The system worked robustly, and was rewarded. The Crosstrek is equipped with an indirect 'child presence detection' system, which issues a warning when it recognises that a child or infant may have been left in the car. All of the child restraint types for which the Crosstrek is designed could be properly installed and accommodated in the car.
- Good
- Adequate
- Marginal
- Weak
- Poor
Pedestrian & Cyclist Head 14.3 Pts
Pelvis 4.5 Pts
Femur 4.5 Pts
Knee & Tibia 8.1 Pts
| System Name | EyeSight | ||
| Type | Auto-Brake with Forward Collision Warning | ||
| Operational From | 1 km/h | ||
| PERFORMANCE | | |||
Protection of the head of a struck pedestrian or cyclist was predominantly good, with a few poor results recorded only on the stiff windscreen pillars. Protection of the pelvis was good at all test locations, as was that of the femur. Protection of the knee and tibia was good or marginal. The autonomous emergency braking (AEB) system of the Subaru can respond to vulnerable road users as well as to other vehicles. The system’s response both to pedestrians was adequate, with no detection of pedestrians to the rear of the car. The system’s performance in tests of its detection of, and reaction to, cyclists was good, but the car offers no 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, while lane support was poor.
- Good
- Adequate
- Marginal
- Weak
- Poor
| System Name | Traffic Information |
| 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 | 30 km/h |
| Fatigue | Drowsiness, Microsleep and Sleep |
| Distraction | Long and Short Distraction |
| System Name | Lane Departure |
| Type | LKA and ELK |
| Operational From | 50 km/h |
| Performance | |
| Emergency Lane Keeping | |
| Lane Keep Assist | |
| Human Machine Interface | |
| System Name | EyeSight | |||
| Type | Autonomous emergency braking and forward collision warning | |||
| Operational From | 1 km/h | |||
| Sensor Used | camera and radar | |||
Overall, the performance of the autonomous emergency braking (AEB) system was marginal in tests of its reaction to other vehicles, with poor performance in some 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 Subaru Crosstrek 2.0 hybrid, LHD
Body Type - 5 door hatchback
Year Of Publication 2024
Kerb Weight 1612kg
VIN From Which Rating Applies - all Crosstreks
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 | 2.0l petrol hybrid | 2.0i-S ESR * | 4 x 4 |  |
|
| 5 door hatchback | text | 2.0i-S ESL | 4 x 4 | |
|
* Tested variant
Find more information in the General Comments section of the assessment
Share
The passenger compartment of the Crosstrek remained stable in the frontal offset test. Dummy readings indicated good or adequate protection for the knees and femurs of both the driver and passenger. Subaru demonstrated that a similar level of protection would be provided to the knees and femurs of occupants of different sizes and those sitting in different positions. Protection was good for all critical body areas of the passenger. Analysis of the deceleration of the impact trolley during the test, and analysis of the deformable barrier after the test, revealed that the Crosstrek would be a moderately 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 Crosstrek 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 Crosstrek 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. However, Subaru did not demonstrate that a similar level of protection would be provided if the car were impacted from the opposite side, and the score was reduced. 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 Crosstrek 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. Subaru demonstrated that the doors and windows would be openable to allow occupants to escape in the event of vehicle submergence.