- 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
![]()
80% -
See More
![]()
83% -
See More
![]()
64% -
See More
![]()
60%
- 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 | |||
| Submergence Check | Non-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
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, good protection was provided to all critical body areas for both child dummies, apart from the neck of the 10 year dummy, where readings of tensile forces indicated weak protection. In the side barrier test, all critical body areas were well protected and the car scored full points. 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 vehicle is equipped with an indirect child presence detection system, which warns when a child or infant may have been left in the car. All of the child restraint types for which the KONA is designed could be properly installed and accommodated in the car.
- Good
- Adequate
- Marginal
- Weak
- Poor
Pedestrian & Cyclist Head 12.2 Pts
Pelvis 0.0 Pts
Femur 1.8 Pts
Knee & Tibia 9.0 Pts
| System Name | Forward Collision-Avoidance Assist (FCA) | ||
| 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 at the base of the windscreen and on the stiff windscreen pillars. Protection of the pelvis was almost completely poor, with only a small fraction of a point being scored. Protection of the femur was also largely poor or marginal but that of the knee and tibia was at good at all test locations. The autonomous emergency braking (AEB) system of the Hyundai can respond to vulnerable road users as well as to other vehicles. The system performed adequately in tests of its response to pedestrians. A system to protect those behind the car when it is reversing is available as an option and was not tested as part of this assessment. The AEB system scored well in most of Euro NCAP's tests of its reaction to cyclists, but not for dooring, in which the car prevents or warns against door opening if a cyclist is approaching from behind, or for turning across the path of an approaching cyclist. The AEB system performed well in all tests of its response to motorcyclists and scored full points.
- Good
- Adequate
- Marginal
- Weak
- Poor
| System Name | ISLA |
| Speed Limit Information Function | Camera & Map, subsigns supported |
| Speed Control Function | Intelligent Speed Limiter not default ON (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 Awareness Warning |
| Type | Direct eye monitoring |
| Operational From | 30 km/h |
| Fatigue | Drowsiness, Microsleep and Sleep |
| Distraction | Long and Short Distraction |
| System Name | Lane Keeping Assist |
| Type | LKA and ELK |
| Operational From | 55 km/h |
| Performance | |
| Emergency Lane Keeping | |
| Lane Keep Assist | |
| Human Machine Interface | |
| System Name | Forward Collision-Avoidance Assist (FCA) | |||
| Type | Autonomous emergency braking and forward collision warning | |||
| Operational From | 5 km/h | |||
| Sensor Used | camera and radar | |||
Overall, the autonomous emergency braking (AEB) system of the Hyundai KONA performed adequately in tests of its reaction to other vehicles, picking up some points in the head-on scenarios. A seatbelt reminder system is fitted as standard to the front and rear seats and the driver monitoring system detects some types of driver distraction, along with driver fatigue. 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 identifies the local speed limit, and the driver can choose to allow the limiter to be set automatically by the system.
- Specifications
- Safety Equipment
- Videos
- Rating Validity
Specifications
Tested Model Hyundai KONA GLS electric, LHD
Body Type - 5 door SUV
Year Of Publication 2023
Kerb Weight 1750kg
VIN From Which Rating Applies - all KONAs
Class Small 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 | Model Name/Code | Drivetrain | Rating Applies | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LHD | RHD | ||||
| 5 door SUV | Electric | KONA Electric, standard range * | 4 x 2 |  |
|
| 5 door SUV | Electric | KONA Electric, long range | 4 x 2 | |
|
| 5 door SUV | 1.0 T-GDI | KONA | 4 x 2 | |
|
| 5 door SUV | 1.0 T-GDI 48v | KONA Mild-Hybrid | 4 x 2 | |
|
| 5 door SUV | 1.6 T-GDI | KONA | 4 x 2 | |
|
| 5 door SUV | 1.6 T-GDI | KONA AWD | 4 x 4 | |
|
| 5 door SUV | 1.6 petrol hybrid | KONA Hybrid | 4 x 2 | |
|
* Tested variant
Find more information in the General Comments section of the assessment
Share
The passenger compartment of the KONA remained stable in the frontal offset test. Dummy numbers showed good protection of the knees and femurs of both the driver and passenger. However, structures in the dashboard were posed a risk of injury to occupants of different sizes and to those sitting in different positions and penalties were applied. Protection of the driver’s chest was rated as marginal, based on dummy readings of compression. Analysis of the deceleration of the impact trolley during the test, and analysis of the deformable barrier after the test, revealed that the KONA would be a benign impact partner in a frontal collision. In the full-width rigid barrier test, protection of the driver’s chest was rated as weak, based on dummy readings of chest compression. In addition, the dummy was seen to have ‘submarined’ i.e. slipped under the lap portion of the belt. This incurred a penalty, resulting in protection of the knees and femur being rated as poor. In both the side barrier and the more severe side pole impact, protection was good for all critical parts of the body and the KONA scored maximum points in this part of the assessment. Control of excursion (the extent to which a body is thrown to the other side of the vehicle when it is hit from the far side) was marginal. The KONA has a counter-measure to mitigate against occupant to occupant injuries in such impacts and this performed well in Euro NCAP's test. 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 indicated marginal whiplash protection. The KONA has an advanced eCall system which alerts the emergency services in the event of a crash. The car also has a system which applies the brakes after an impact, to avoid secondary collisions. Hyundai demonstrated that if the car entered water the doors, if locked, could be opened within two minutes of power being lost but not that the electric windows would remain functional long enough to allow occupants to escape.