Hyundai Getz

Front: 10
Side: 14
Seatbelt reminder: 1

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

Child restraints
18 month old ChildBritax Roemer Baby-safe Plus, 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
Car details
Hand of driveLHD
Tested modelHyundai Getz 1.3
Year of publication2004
Kerb weight1072
VIN from which rating appliesKMHBT51HP5U319180

The Getz turned in a reasonably balanced performance to gain its four star rating. Its restraint systems include single-stage tethered airbags for the driver and passenger, seat-mounted thorax and head airbags, front seat belts with pre-tensioners and load limiters. An intelligent seat belt reminder is provided for the driver. In-car protection for children was generally good, but the Getz did little to safeguard pedestrians.

Front impact
The body structure was judged to be stable. However it was noted that severe distortion of the rear footwell had occurred. The loads recorded by the driver and passenger dummies’ chest instrumentation were quite high. Loads recorded at the driver’s left leg were also quite high, while contact with hard, unforgiving structures around the steering column and behind the fascia posed a significant risk to the driver’s and passenger’s knees.

Side impact
An impressive side impact protection system includes dual chamber side airbags, mounted in both front seats. Loads recorded at the driver dummy’s chest were a little high. But the Getz was also penalised because forces were transferred unrealistically from the driver dummy’s back to the seat, so reducing the loads measured at its chest.

Child occupant
A permanent label warning of the dangers of placing a child in a rear-facing restraint opposite an active airbag was given, but appeared only on the stowed side of the passenger’s sun visor. Protection for child occupants was good. The older child was carried in a forward-facing Britax Romer Duo Plus fitted using the car’s ISOFIX mounting points and top tether. The 18 month old was carried using a rearward-facing Britax Romer BabySafe fitted using the adult belt. However, in the frontal test, the recorded neck loads for this child were a little high.

Only the areas of the bonnet where an adult head might impact offered any protection. The bonnet top where a child’s head might strike, the bonnet’s leading edge and the bumper were very unfriendly towards pedestrians. A poor result.