No image car front available

The Accent earned two stars but the last star is flagged to indicate the unacceptably high risk of chest injury in the side impact. For this reason, the car would not meet the requirements of legislation commencing next October for new model types. The Accent's bumper performed exceptionally well in the pedestrian tests, however. All three test sites on its surface met the proposed legislative requirements.

Front impact
The passenger compartment became unstable in the impact. The driver's door lower hinge became detached, while the upper hinge was nearly detached. The door itself had lost much of its strength – its front pillar was displaced inwards and seams in the footwell split open. The driver's head contact was stable on the airbag but his chest was hit by the airbag as it inflated. Overall, protection for the driver's lower limbs was weak or worse.

Side impact
The driver's head struck the seat belt upper mount adjuster rack on the central door pillar and as a consequence protection was only adequate. All three of the dummy's ribs were overloaded because they were struck by the pillar and the rear of the door. The pillar and the door armrest also impacted his abdomen, resulting in a 'weak' protection rating for that body region. Protection for his pelvis was good, however.

Child-protection
Hyundai does not make any recommendation about which child restraints to use, so two were purchased locally and were found to be incompatible with the car's rear belts. The slot in the belt tongue lay above the contact point on the restraint. In the frontal impact, the three-year-old child's head was allowed to move forward by an excessive amount, although that of the 18-month-old was satisfactorily controlled. In the side impact, the three-year-old's restraint twisted and the child's head was not contained within the wings of the restraint.

Pedestrian protection
The bumper performed exceptionally well, meeting proposed legislative requirements. However, all three test sites on the bonnet leading edge gave poor performance, as did all the adult head test sites. The child head fared better. Two thirds of the test sites met the proposed legislative requirements but the remainder performed poorly.