SEARCH:
GO

 THE OFFICIAL SITE OF THE EUROPEAN NEW CAR ASSESSMENT PROGRAMME

Citroen C1

Rating
Score
ADULT OCCUPANT
****
26
Front: 11
Side: 14
Seatbelt reminder: 1
CHILD OCCUPANT
****
37
PEDESTRIAN
**
14


 
Adult occupant protection
Head: Good, Neck: Good, Chest: Adequate, Upper leg right: Marginal, Upper leg left: Marginal, Lower leg right: Good, Lower leg left: Adequate, Right foot: Marginal, Left foot: Marginal
Frontal impact driver
Head: Good, Neck: Good, Chest: Good, Upper leg right: Adequate, Upper leg left: Adequate, Lower leg right: Adequate, Lower leg left: Adequate
Frontal impact passenger
Head: Good, Chest: Adequate, Abdomen: Adequate, Pelvis: Good
Side impact driver

Child restraints
18 month old ChildBritax Roemer Baby-safe, rearward facing
3 year old ChildBritax Roemer Duo Plus, forward facing
Pedestrian protection
No image car front available

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
ISOfix front
ISOfix rear
Car details
Hand of driveLHD
Tested modelCitroën C1 1.0
Body typeSUPERMINI
Year of publication2005
Kerb weight810

Comments
The Citroën C1 shares its platform and architecture with the Toyota Aygo and Peugeot 107. Euro NCAP expects the three cars to provide the the same protection ratings. The C1’s body proved to be extremely strong, suffering little deformation in the frontal impact. The car’s ability to protect its child occupants was mixed; good for the older child but less so for the younger. Protection offered to pedestrians and other vulnerable road users was judged to be fair overall with 14 points out of 36 being scored.

Front impact
The single-stage airbags, belt pre-tensioners and load limiters with the stable structure kept forces recorded by the driver and front passenger dummies’ chest instrumentation low. However, the driver’s chest struck the steering wheel during the impact. The driver and, to a lesser extent, the passenger also risked knee injuries from hitting hard structures behind the fascia. There was little deformation at the footwell but testers noted that the brake pedal was displaced rearward and was blocked, increasing the risk of injury to the driver’s lower legs and feet.

Side impact
An impressive side impact protection system included seat mounted thorax airbags. But impact forces transferred in an unrealistic manner up the test dummy’s spine, so reducing the forces recorded by instrumentation in its chest.

Child occupant
There is an on/off switch for the passenger frontal airbag. Permanent text labels on both sides, of the sun visor warned in seven languages against placing a child in a rear-facing restraint opposite an active airbag. The 3 year old child was seated in a Toyota branded Britax Romer Duo Plus restraint fitted to the car forward-facing and using the ISOFIX anchorages and top tether. The 18 month old child was seated rearward-facing in a Toyota branded Britax Romer Baby Safe restraint fitted to the car using the adult belts. The older child was well protected in both impacts as was the 18 month old in the side impact. But loads on the younger child’s chest in the frontal impact were on the high side.

Pedestrian
Cushioning was reasonable where an adult’s head might strike and fair for a child’s head. The bumper also gave protection, but none was evident at the bonnet’s front edge.

 DISCLAIMER  CONTACT