- 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
![]()
67% -
See More
![]()
65% -
See More
![]()
76% -
See More
![]()
62%
- 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 | Not available | |||
| Submergence Check | Partially 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 the frontal offset test, protection of the neck of the 10 year dummy was rated as poor, based on dummy readings of tensile forces. Chest protection was marginal and head protection was adequate. For the 6 year dummy, tensile forces indicated weak neck protection, while head decelerations resulted in a marginal rating for that body area. In the side barrier test, chest accelerations showed poor chest protection for the 10 year dummy, and neck protection was rated as weak. 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 Swift has no child presence detection system. All of the child restraint types for which the Swift is designed could be properly installed and accommodated in the car.
- Good
- Adequate
- Marginal
- Weak
- Poor
Pedestrian & Cyclist Head 12.6 Pts
Pelvis 4.5 Pts
Femur 3.1 Pts
Knee & Tibia 9.0 Pts
| System Name | Dual Sensor Brake Support | ||
| Type | Auto-Brake with Forward Collision Warning | ||
| Operational From | 5 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. Protection of the pelvis was good at all test locations, while that of the femur and of the knee and tibia was mixed but largely good. The autonomous emergency braking (AEB) system of the Suzuki can respond to vulnerable road users as well as to other vehicles. Overall, the system’s response to pedestrians was adequate while its response to cyclists was good. However, the Swift offers no protection against ‘dooring’, where a car door is suddenly opened in the path of a cyclist approaching from behind. Overall, the AEB system performed adequately in tests of its response to motorcyclists.
- Good
- Adequate
- Marginal
- Weak
- Poor
| System Name | iACC |
| Speed Limit Information Function | Camera based, 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 |
| System Name | Lane departure prevention |
| Type | LKA and ELK |
| Operational From | 50 km/h |
| Performance | |
| Emergency Lane Keeping | |
| Lane Keep Assist | |
| Human Machine Interface | |
| System Name | Dual Sensor Brake Support 2 | |||
| Type | Autonomous emergency braking and forward collision warning | |||
| Operational From | 5 km/h | |||
| Sensor Used | camera and radar | |||
Overall, the performance of the autonomous emergency braking (AEB) system was adequate in tests of its reaction to other vehicles.. A seatbelt reminder system is fitted as standard to the front and rear seats. However, the Swift has no occupant detection system in the rear seats, a prerequisite for scoring, so no points were awarded for the seatbelt reminder. The car has a direct driver status monitoring system as standard, detecting driver fatigue only. 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 uses a camera to identify the local speed limit. The information is presented to the driver, and the speed limiter can be manually set.
- Specifications
- Safety Equipment
- Videos
- Rating Validity
Specifications
Tested Model Suzuki Swift 1.2L GL+, LHD
Body Type - 5 door hatchback
Year Of Publication 2024
Kerb Weight 934kg
VIN From Which Rating Applies - all Swifts
Class City and Supermini
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 | 1.2 petrol | GL, GL+ *, GLX | 4 x 2 |  |
|
| 5 door hatchback | 1.2 petrol | GL, GL+, GLX | 4 x 4 | |
|
* Tested variant
Find more information in the General Comments section of the assessment
Share
The passenger compartment of the Swift remained stable in the frontal offset test. Dummy numbers showed good protection of the knees and femurs of both the driver and passenger. Some areas of the dashboard were thought to pose a risk a risk to the knees and femurs of occupants of different sizes and to those sitting in different positions and Suzuki did not demonstrate that the same level of protection would be provided to such occupants. The driver’s chest protection was weak; that of the passenger was marginal. Analysis of the deceleration of the impact trolley during the test, and analysis of the deformable barrier after the test, revealed that the Swift would be a moderately benign impact partner in a frontal collision. In the full-width rigid barrier test, protection was rated as marginal for the chest of the driver and rear passenger, based on dummy readings of compression. In the side barrier test, protection of the chest was adequate and that of other critical body areas was good. In the more severe side pole impact, protection of all critical body areas was good and the Swift scored maximum points in that test. Suzuki did not provide evidence to demonstrate the degree to which the Swift would control excursion (the extent to which a body is thrown to the other side of the vehicle when it is hit from the far side). In addition, the Swift has no countermeasure to mitigate head to head contact between the front seat occupants, so far-side protection was rated as poor. 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 Swift has an advanced eCall system which alerts the emergency services in the event of a crash, but the system did not fully meet Euro NCAP’s requirements. Suzuki demonstrated that the doors could be opened in the event of power being lost due to vehicle submergence. The Swift has no system to prevent secondary impacts after the car has been in a collision.