No image car front available

Of the two stars awarded, the last is 'flagged' to indicate that the car provided only poor protection for the driver's chest in the side-impact test. It failed to meet legislation that will apply to new models from October. Also, the car's structure became unstable in the frontal impact and the floor pan ruptured. Its protection for pedestrians rated a little above average, however.

Front impact
The driver's door lost structural strength. Its inner and outer panels and horizontal beam separated from its front. Floor and footwell joints ruptured, too. The airbag deployed slightly to the driver's left and his head appears to have just 'bottomed out' on the bag. Stiff structures were present which could increase loading on the driver's upper legs and damage his knees. His right leg also risked injury from loading below the knee being transmitted through the joint. There was also a moderate risk of both front occupants suffering chest injuries from the seat belt loading.

Side impact
Although door intrusion remained fairly vertical all the driver's ribs were highly loaded. His head struck the door pillar belt swivel but acceleration remained low. Loading of the abdomen and pelvis were relatively low, possibly because of high chest loads. His seat base twisted downwards on the door side and upward on the inboard side.

Child-protection
The rear outboard seat belts are designed to lock when restraints are used and this is explained on the belt. Mitsubishi-recommended forward-facing restraints were used but they proved incompatible with the car's belts. The buckle height prevented the belt from fully tightening on to the child restraint. This may explain why the dummies' heads moved too far forwards in the frontal impact. The older child's chest acceleration rated as 'high'. In the side impact, the bigger child's head was not contained by the wings of the restraint. The head of the 18-month-old was contained but head acceleration was high enough to pose a serious injury risk.

Pedestrian protection
All but two child's head-impact test sites met proposed legislative requirements but the bonnet-to-wing joint was unforgiving. The adult head impact area was almost uniformly poor. The bonnet front edge and bumper were better than average but no site gave fair protection.