The Voyager did so badly in the frontal impact that it earned no points, making it the worst of the group by some margin. The body structure became unstable and the steering column was driven back into the driver's chest and head. The Voyager acquitted itself better in the side-impact test, but there was still a fair risk of the driver injuring his abdomen. Chrysler chose the child restraints used in the tests, but the company makes no set recommendations to buyers. Euro NCAP believes it is the manufacturer's responsibility to provide proper restraint for every occupant and is surprised that Chrysler do not recommend a child seat for the Voyager.
The steering wheel and air bag were forced upwards and into the driver's face, hitting his head hard and putting strain on his neck. The driver's chest also hit the steering wheel, increasing risk of injury. His knees were poorly protected too, and the chances of him injuring his left thigh were very high. The footwell spilt open and his lower legs and feet were poorly protected. The passenger also ran a considerable risk of chest injury.
The Voyager was generally effective in reducing serious injury risks for the driver in this test. As with other vehicles in this class, the driver sits above the point of likely impact with a conventional car and is safeguarded from injury as a result.
A passenger frontal airbag is fitted as standard, and the warning against placing a rear-facing restraint in this position met Euro NCAP's requirements, except that it was given only in English. It should also be in at least one of the languages of the country where it is sold. The car tested was left-hand drive and bought in mainland Europe. Chrysler do not recommend a child restraint to European buyers, although those used in these tests were recommended to Euro NCAP by Chrysler. That said, an integral child seat is available as an option – but only for Voyagers sold in the United States. The restraints tested gave only poor overall protection.
The Voyager made no obvious concessions to pedestrian protection. Most impact sites tested did not provide much cushioning at all. Generally, where pedestrians made contact with the windscreen they ran a smaller risk of serious injury than if they were were struck by other parts of the car.