Find more information in the General Comments section of the assessment
Find more information in the Rating Validity tab of the assessment
-
See More
![]()
58% -
See More
![]()
71% -
See More
![]()
53% -
See More
![]()
86%
- Good
- Adequate
- Marginal
- Weak
- Poor
Passenger
Driver
Front Seat
Car
Pole
- 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
Forward movement of the head of the 3 year dummy was not excessive in the frontal impact (the 18 month dummy was sat in a rearward facing restraint). Both dummies were properly contained by the sell of their restraints in the side barrier impact. The passenger airbag can be deactivated to allow a rearward facing child restraint to be used in that seating position. Cars with serial numbers from JTKKH16440J012088 have a clearly marked switch and the system gives unambiguous information to the driver regarding the status of the airbag. The airbag cut-off switch of earlier cars is not so clearly marked and would not have received the 2 points awarded, although the car's overall star rating would be the same. Toyota have also recently updated the owner's handbook to make clear that, in those cases where the rear seat is adjustable, it should be set to its rearmost position when being used to transport children.
- Good
- Adequate
- Marginal
- Weak
- Poor
Head Impact 13.1 Pts
Pelvis Impact 0.0 Pts
Leg Impact 5.9 Pts
The front edge of the bonnet scored no points for the protection it offered to pedestrians' legs. However, the bumper offered good protection in most areas. The bonnet provided good protection in some areas likely to be struck by an adult's head or a child's, but was predominantly marginal or poor.
- Good
- Adequate
- Marginal
- Weak
- Poor
| System Name | ESP | |
| Performance | ||
| Applies To | All seats | ||
| Warning | Driver Seat | Front Passenger(s) | Rear Passenger(s) |
| Visual | |
|
|
| Audible | |
|
|
|
|||
Fail--safetyAssistCommentEN--
- Specifications
- Safety Equipment
- Videos
- Rating Validity
Specifications
Tested Model Toyota Urban Cruiser 1.33 petrol, RHD
Body Type - 5 door MPV
Year Of Publication 2009
Kerb Weight 1150kg
VIN From Which Rating Applies - from JTKKH16440J012088
Class Small MPV
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 option![]()
Not fitted to the test vehicle but available as option![]()
Not Available![]()
Not Applicable
Fitted to the vehicle as optionVideos
Rating Validity
Find more information in the General Comments section of the assessment
Share
The passenger compartment remained stable in the frontal impact. However, despite the presence of a knee airbag, the driver dummy's left knee made contact with the dashboard and recorded high values. Structures in the dashboard presented a risk of injury to the knees and femurs of both the driver and passenger. In the side pole test, the head curtain airbag failed to prevent a hard contact of the head. Although only the protection of the head was compromised, under such circumstances Euro NCAP does not award any points for this test as robust airbag performance is considered essential for predictable protection in real world accidents. Owing to the unintended airbag performance in the pole test, the same airbag was penalised in the side barrier test, reflected by a lowered score for the driver's head. Protection against whiplash injuries in a rear impact was rated as marginal.