SEARCH:
GO

 THE OFFICIAL SITE OF THE EUROPEAN NEW CAR ASSESSMENT PROGRAMME

Daewoo Lanos

Rating
Score
ADULT OCCUPANT
**/
17
Front: 6
Side: 11
PEDESTRIAN
**
15
Pre 2002 rating


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

Child restraints
18 month old ChildNo information available
3 year old ChildNo information available
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
Car details
Hand of driveall
Tested modelDaewoo Lanos 1.4 SE
Body type5 door hatchback
Year of publication1998
Kerb weight1070

Comments
The Lanos earned three stars for frontal and side impact protection but the last star is flagged to indicate that the driver faced an unacceptably high risk of chest injury in the side impact. The car would not meet new side-impact crash protection standards being introduced for new models across Europe from October. Pedestrian protection from the bonnet leading edge was poor but protection from the bumper was above average.

Front impact
The passenger compartment remained stable in the impact and all intrusion levels were well controlled. The driver's head contact on the airbag was central and stable. Protection for the passenger's neck was weak, indicating a relatively high risk of neck sprain injury. Both impact areas for the driver's knees had stiff structures around the steering column which could injure the knee, upper leg and pelvis. The column shroud incorporated a deflector plate which should help to reduce injuries, although it would not eliminate all risk of harm.

Side impact
The driver's head made a glancing contact with the door pillar but this was insufficient to cause internal injuries. The dummy's top and middle ribs were struck by the pillar and door trim and the lower rib came in contact with the door. All of the ribs were heavily loaded, resulting in poor chest protection. The abdomen and pelvis were both impacted by the door but the risk of injury was low.

Child occupant
Both of the recommended forward-facing child restraints were compatible with the car's rear belts. Alternative belt routeing had to be used to fix the smaller child's restraint, though. In the frontal impact, the restraints provided good control over forward movement of the children's heads. In the side impact, the smaller child's head was contained within the wings of the restraint but the three-year-old's moved outside the restraint.

Pedestrian
Head protection for adult impact sites needs to be improved but the child head protection was better. The bonnet's leading edge also gave poor protection, although the bumper area was slightly kinder.

 DISCLAIMER  CONTACT