Choose below to begin your search
Class:
Make:
Search:
|
|
|
Adult occupant protection  Frontal impact driver |  Frontal impact passenger |  Side impact driver |  |
|
|
|
Child restraints | 18 month old Child | Roemer Baby-safe ISOFIX, rearward facing |
|---|
| 3 year old Child | Roemer Duo, forward facing |
|---|
|
|
Pedestrian protection  Pedestrian protection |  |
|
|
|
Safety equipment | Front seatbelt pretensioners |  |
|---|
| Front seatbelt load limiters |  |
|---|
| Driver frontal airbag |  |
|---|
| Front passenger frontal airbag |  |
|---|
| Side body airbags |  |
|---|
| Side head airbags |  |
|---|
| Driver knee airbag |  |
|---|
|
|
Car details | Tested model | Ford Kuga 2.0 diesel 'Trend', LHD |
|---|
| Body type | 5 door SUV |
|---|
| Year of publication | 2008 |
|---|
| Kerb weight | 1613kg |
|---|
| VIN from which rating applies | applies to all Kugas |
|---|
|
|
|
Comments Front impact The passenger compartment remained stable in the impact. However, there was insufficient pressure in the driver's airbag to prevent the head from bottoming it out and contacting the steering wheel. The knees and femurs of the front seat passengers were well protected. Ford showed that a similar level of protection would be provided for occupants of different sizes or those sat in different positions.
Side impact The Kuga scored maximum points for its performance in the side impact and pole tests.
Child-protection Based on dummy responses in the dynamic tests, the Kuga scored maximum points for its protection of the 1½ year dummy. A switch can be fitted by Ford dealers which allows the passenger airbag to be disabled. However, information provided to the driver regarding the status of the airbag is not sufficiently clear. There was no clear warning of the dangers associated with using a rearward facing child restraint in the front passenger seat without first disabling the airbag. The presence of ISOFIX anchorages in the rear outboard seats was not clearly marked.
Pedestrian protection The bumper scored maximum points for its protection of pedestrians' legs. However, the front edge of the bonnet was rated as predominantly poor, as was the protection offered to the head of a struck adult by the bonnet surface.
|
|