Find more information in the General Comments section of the assessment
Find more information in the Rating Validity tab of the assessment
-
See More
![]()
90% -
See More
![]()
86% -
See More
![]()
41% -
See More
![]()
71%
- 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
Not fitted to the test vehicle but available as optionBased on dummy readings in the frontal and side impact tests, the car scored maximum points for protection of both children. The passenger airbag can be disabled to allow a rearward facing child restraint to be used in that seating position. However, information provided to the driver regarding the status of the airbag is not sufficiently clear. A permanently attached label warns of the dangers associated with the use of a rearward facing child restraint in the passenger seat.
- Good
- Adequate
- Marginal
- Weak
- Poor
Head Impact 8.5 Pts
Pelvis Impact 2.4 Pts
Leg Impact 4.0 Pts
The bumper provided predominantly good protection for pedestrians' legs, although stiff structures at the outer edges were rated as poor. The front edge of the bonnet did not score so highly and was rated as marginal in most areas. The centre of the bonnet offered good protection to a child's head but poorer protection towards the edges. In most areas likely to be struck by an adult's head, poor protection was provided.
- Good
- Adequate
- Marginal
- Weak
- Poor
| System Name | ESP | |
| Performance | ||
| Applies To | Front seats | ||
| Warning | Driver Seat | Front Passenger(s) | Rear Passenger(s) |
| Visual | |
|
 |
| Audible | |
|
|
|
|||
FailA seatbelt reminder system for the driver and passenger seats is standard equipment. Electronic stability control is an option on some variants in some countries but sales as standard equipment meet Euro NCAP's requirements for the system to be rewarded.
- Specifications
- Safety Equipment
- Videos
- Advanced Rewards
- Rating Validity
Specifications
Tested Model VW Polo 1.2 Trendline, LHD
Body Type - 5 door hatchback
Year Of Publication 2009
Kerb Weight 1035kg
VIN From Which Rating Applies - all Polos of the specification tested
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 option![]()
Not fitted to the test vehicle but available as option![]()
Not Available![]()
Not Applicable
Fitted to the vehicle as optionVideos
Advanced Rewards
Rating Validity
Find more information in the General Comments section of the assessment
Share
The passenger cell remained stable in the frontal impact. The car scored maximum points for the protection offered to the passenger. For the driver, the steering column was the only stiff structure which might pose a risk to the femurs. In the car side impact, the car lost a fraction of a point for chest protection. Chest protection was rated as marginal in the more severe side pole test. Whiplash protection was rated as marginal.