- 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
![]()
82% -
See More
![]()
68%
- Good
- Adequate
- Marginal
- Weak
- Poor
Passenger
Driver
Rear Passenger
Driver
Car
Pole
Rear Seat
Front Seat
- 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 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 (rearward) (iSize) |  |
|
|
|
| Maxi Cosi 2way Pearl & 2wayFix (forward) (iSize) | |
|
|
|
| BeSafe iZi Kid X2 i-Size (iSize) | |
|
|
|
| Maxi Cosi Cabriofix & FamilyFix (ISOFIX) | |
|
|
|
| BeSafe iZi Kid X4 ISOfix (ISOFIX) | |
|
|
|
| Britax Römer Duo Plus (ISOFIX) | |
|
|
|
| Britax Römer KidFix XP (ISOFIX) | |
|
|
|
| Maxi Cosi Cabriofix (Belt) | |
|
|
|
| Maxi Cosi Cabriofix & EasyBase2 (Belt) | |
|
|
|
| Britax Römer King II LS (Belt) | |
|
|
|
| Britax Römer KidFix XP (Belt) | |
|
|
|
![]()
Easy![]()
Difficult![]()
Safety critical![]()
Not allowed
In the frontal offset test, protection of both the 6 and 10 year dummies was good or adequate. In the side barrier test, protection was good for all critical body areas. The Impreza has a system which automatically disables the front passenger airbag when a rearward-facing child restraint is in that seating position. Tests showed that the system worked robustly and it was rewarded. All of the child restraints for which the XV is designed could be properly installed and accommodated in the car.
- Good
- Adequate
- Marginal
- Weak
- Poor
Head Impact 19.6 Pts
Pelvis Impact 3.8 Pts
Leg Impact 6.0 Pts
| System Name | Eyesight | ||
| Type | Auto-Brake with Forward Collision Warning | ||
| Operational From | 10 km/h | ||
| Additional Information | Defaults on for every journey; operates above 40km/h and in low ambient light | ||
| PERFORMANCE | | |||
| Autobrake Function | |||
| Avoidance | Mitigation | ||
|
Running Adult crossing from Farside
|
Collision avoided up to 50 km/h | Impact mitigated up to 55 km/h | |
|
Walking Adult crossing from Nearside -25%
|
Collision avoided up to 60 km/h | ||
|
Walking Adult crossing from Nearside -75%
|
Collision avoided up to 60 km/h | ||
|
Running Child from behind parked vehicles
|
Collision avoided up to 35 km/h | Impact mitigated up to 45 km/h | |
The protection provided by the bonnet to the head of a struck pedestrian was good or adequate over almost all of its surface. Protection of pedestrians' lower legs by the bumper was good at all test locations. Protection of the pelvis was mixed, with areas of good and weak performance. In tests of its functionality with a pedestrian target, the autonomous emergency braking system performed well, with collisions avoided or mitigated in all scenarios.
- Good
- Adequate
- Marginal
- Weak
- Poor
| Applies To | All seats | ||
| Warning | Driver Seat | Front Passenger(s) | Rear Passenger(s) |
| Visual | |
|
|
| Audible | |
|
|
|
|||
| System Name | EyeSight |
| Type | Lane Keep Assist and Lane Departure Warning |
| Operational From | 50 km/h |
| Warning | Audible and Visual |
| Performance | |
|
LKA Confirmation Test
|
Pass (5/5) |
|
LDW Confirmation Test
|
Pass |
| System Name | EyeSight | |||
| Type | Forward Collision Warning with Auto-Brake | |||
| Operational From | 1 km/h | |||
| Additional Information | Default On | |||
| Performance | | ||||
| Autobrake Function Only | Driver reacts to warning | |||
| Operational Speed | 1-200 km/h | 10-200 km/h | ||
| Approaching a stationary car | See AEB City | Crash avoided up to 75km/h.Crash speed reduced up to 80km/h. | ||
| Approaching a slower moving car | Crash avoided up to 70km/h. | Crash avoided up to 80km/h. | ||
| Following a car at short distance | ||||
| Car in front brakes gently | Avoidance | Avoidance | ||
| Car in front brakes harshly | Mitigation | Mitigation | ||
| Following a car at long distance | ||||
| Car in front brakes gently | Avoidance | Avoidance | ||
| Car in front brakes harshly | Avoidance | Avoidance | ||
The Impreza has a seatbelt reminder system for the front and rear seats. A lane assistance system warns the driver when the car is drifting out of lane and gently helps to correct the driving path. The autonomous emergency braking system performed well in tests of its functionality at highway speeds, with collisions avoided or mitigated in all scenarios and at all test speeds.
- Specifications
- Safety Equipment
- Videos
- Rating Validity
Specifications
Tested Model Subaru Impreza 2.0i-S EyeSight, LHD
Body Type - 5 door hatchback
Year Of Publication 2017
Kerb Weight 1462kg
VIN From Which Rating Applies - all Imprezas, including e-Boxer
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/Code | Drivetrain | Rating Applies | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LHD | RHD | ||||
| 5 door hatchback | 1.6 petrol | 1.6i EyeSight | 4 x 4 |  |
|
| 5 door hatchback | 1.6 petrol | 1.6i-S EyeSight | 4 x 4 | |
|
| 5 door hatchback | 2.0 petrol | 2.0i EyeSight | 4 x 4 | |
|
| 5 door hatchback | 2.0 petrol hybrid | e-BOXER | 4 x 4 | |
|
Find more information in the General Comments section of the assessment
Share
The passenger compartment remained stable in the frontal impact. Dummy readings indicated good protection of the knees and femurs of the driver and passenger. Subaru demonstrated that a similar level of protection would be provided to occupants of different sizes and to those sat in different positions. In the full-width rigid barrier test, protection of the driver was good for all critical body areas. However, the pelvis of the rear passenger dummy slipped below the lap section of the seatbelt. Protection of the pelvis was rated as poor and the score was penalised. Protection was otherwise good or adequate. In the side barrier test, protection of all critical body areas was good and the car scored maximum points. Even in the more severe side pole test, protection of the chest was adequate and that of other parts of the body was good. Tests on the front seats and head restraints demonstrated good protection against whiplash injury in the event of a rear-end collision. A geometric assessment of the rear seats also indicated good whiplash protection. The standard-fit 'Eyesight' autonomous emergency braking system performed well in tests of its functionality at the low speeds at which many whiplash injuries are caused, with collisions avoided at all test speeds.