- 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
![]()
94% -
See More
![]()
89% -
See More
![]()
71% -
See More
![]()
82%
- 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 | |||
- 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
-
i-Size CRS
-
ISOFIX CRS
-
Universal Belted CRS
![]()
Easy![]()
Difficult![]()
Safety critical![]()
Not allowed
Difficult
Safety critical| Seat Position | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Front | 2nd row | |||
| Passenger | Left | center | Right | |
| Maxi Cosi 2way Pearl & 2wayFix (i-Size) | |
|
 |
|
| Maxi Cosi 2way Pearl & 2wayFix (i-Size) | |
|
|
|
| BeSafe iZi Kid X2 i-Size (i-Size) | |
|
|
|
| Britax Römer TriFix2 i-Size (i-Size) | |
|
|
|
| BeSafe iZi Flex FIX i-Size (i-Size) | |
|
|
|
| BeSafe iZi Combi X4 ISOfix (ISOFIX) | |
|
|
|
| Cybex Solution Z (ISOFIX) | |
|
|
|
| Maxi Cosi Cabriofix (Belt) | |
|
|
|
| Maxi Cosi Cabriofix & EasyFix (Belt) | |
|
|
|
| Britax Römer King II LS (Belt) | |
|
|
|
| Cybex Solution Z (Belt) | |
|
|
|
![]()
Easy![]()
Difficult![]()
Safety critical![]()
Not allowed
In both the frontal offset test and the side barrier test, the ENYAQ iV provided good protection to all critical body areas of both the 6 year and 10 year dummy, and scored maximum points in this part of the assessment. The front passenger airbag can be disabled to allow a rearward-facing child restraint to be fitted in that seating position. Clear information is provided to the driver regarding the status of the airbag and the system was rewarded. All of the child restraint types for which the ENYAQ iV is designed could be properly fitted and accommodated in the car.
- Good
- Adequate
- Marginal
- Weak
- Poor
Head Impact 16.8 Pts
Pelvis Impact 4.1 Pts
Leg Impact 6.0 Pts
| System Name | Front Assist | ||
| Type | Auto-Brake with Forward Collision Warning | ||
| Operational From | 5 km/h | ||
| PERFORMANCE | | |||
- Day time
- Night time
Day time
-
Vehicle reversing into standing pedestrian
-
Pedestrian crossing a road into which a car is turning
-
Adult crossing the road
-
Child running from behind parked vehicles
-
Adult along the roadside
Night time
-
Adult crossing the road
-
Adult along the roadside
-
Cyclist from nearside, obstructed view
-
Approaching a crossing cyclist
-
Cyclist along the roadside
The protection provided to the head of a struck pedestrian was good or adequate over most of the bonnet surface, with some poor results recorded only on the stiff windscreen pillars. The bumper provided good protection to pedestrians' legs at all test locations. Protection of the pelvis was more mixed with areas which performed well and some which performed poorly. The autonomous emergency braking (AEB) system of the ENYAQ iV can detect pedestrians and cyclists. In tests of its response to such vulnerable road users, the system performed adequately, avoiding or mitigating collision in most test scenarios. The ENYAQ iV cannot detect pedestrians to the rear of the car and AEB-reverse tests were not performed.
- Good
- Adequate
- Marginal
- Weak
- Poor
| System Name | Speed Assist |
| Speed Limit Information Function | Camera & Map, subsigns supported |
| Speed Control Function | System advised (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 | Lane Assist |
| Type | LKA and ELK |
| Operational From | 60 km/h |
| Performance | |
| Emergency Lane Keeping | |
| Lane Keep Assist | |
| Human Machine Interface | |
| System Name | Front Assist | |||
| Type | Autonomous emergency braking and forward collision warning | |||
| Operational From | 5 km/h | |||
| Sensor Used | camera and radar | |||
- Autobrake function only
- Driver reacts to warning
Autobrake function only
-
Car turning across the path of an oncoming car
-
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
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
The ENYAQ iV has a speed assistance system as standard. This uses a camera and digital mapping to determine the local speed limit and the driver can choose to allow the system to adjust the speed automatically. A seatbelt reminder is standard for all seating positions. A fatigue-detection system monitors driver alertness but this is available as an option only and was not included in the assessment. Lane assistance warns the driver if the car is drifting out of lane and gently corrects the vehicle path. The system also intervenes more aggressively in some more critical situations. The AEB system performed well in tests of its response to other vehicles, with collisions avoided or mitigated in almost all scenarios.
- Specifications
- Safety Equipment
- Videos
- Rating Validity
Specifications
Tested Model Škoda ENYAQ iV 60 , LHD
Body Type - 5 door SUV
Year Of Publication 2021
Kerb Weight 1940kg
VIN From Which Rating Applies - all ENYAQ iV
Class Large 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 & Transmission | Model Name/Code | Drivetrain | Rating Applies | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LHD | RHD | ||||
| 5 door SUV | Electric (109kW / 220Nm) | 50 | 4 x 2 |  |
|
| 5 door SUV | Electric (132kW / 310Nm) | 60* | 4 x 2 | |
|
| 5 door SUV | Electric (150kW / 310Nm) | 80 | 4 x 2 | |
|
| 5 door SUV | Electric (195kW / 425Nm) | 80x | 4 x 4 | |
|
| 5 door SUV | Electric (225kW / 460Nm) | RS | 4 x 4 | |
|
| 5 door hatchback | Electric (132kW / 310Nm) | 60 | 4 x 2 | |
|
| 5 door hatchback | Electric (150kW / 310Nm) | 80 | 4 x 2 | |
|
| 5 door hatchback | Electric (195kW / 425Nm) | 80x | 4 x 4 | |
|
| 5 door hatchback | Electric (225kW / 460Nm) | RS | 4 x 4 | |
|
* Tested variant
Find more information in the General Comments section of the assessment
Share
The passenger compartment of the ENYAQ iV remained stable in the frontal offset test. Dummy readings showed good protection for all critical body regions of the driver and for all critical body regions of the passenger except the left lower leg, protection of which was adequate. Skoda showed that good protection would be provided also to the knees and femurs of occupants of different sizes and to those sitting in different positions. Analysis of the deformable barrier used in the frontal offset test revealed no areas of excessive deformation. Combined with the deceleration profile of the trolley on which the barrier was mounted, this demonstrated that the ENYAQ iV would not be an aggressive crash opponent. In both the side barrier and side pole tests, the car provided good protection to all critical body regions and scored maximum points. Occupant excursion in a far-side impact was rated as marginal. The ENYAQ iV has, as standard, a centre-mounted airbag to provide protection in the event of a far-side impact. Euro NCAP's test showed that the airbag worked well, with good protection of the head. 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.