Choose below to begin your search
Class:
Make:
Search:
|
|
|
Adult occupant protection 
Frontal impact driver | 
Frontal impact passenger | 
Side impact driver |  |
|
|
|
Child restraints | 18 month old Child | Roemer Peggy, forward facing |
|---|
| 3 year old Child | Roemer King, 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 drive | LHD |
|---|
| Tested model | Nissan Almera 1.5 Luxury |
|---|
| Body type | 5-door hatchback |
|---|
| Year of publication | 2001 |
|---|
| Kerb weight | 1238 |
|---|
| VIN from which rating applies | SJN***N16U0141700 |
|---|
|
|
|
Comments The Almera's close relative, the Tino MPV, has out-performed it in these tests. The Almera’s poorer protection for its driver, especially his chest and legs was mostly to blame.
That said, this remains a competent performance and marks a big improvement over the previous-generation Almera.
Front impact
The body structure was found to be unstable post-impact. This means it was difficult to predict how it might behave in more severe accidents.
Airbags were fitted as standard for the driver and passenger. Although Nissan padded the steering column to protect the driver, it was insufficient to prevent injuries in a severe impact.
The front belts had reel-mounted pre-tensioners to reduce injury risks. The centre rear seat was equipped with a three-point inertia reel belt that gives superior protection to that of a two-point static lap belt.
Side impact
The side chest and head airbag gave adequate protection in the side impact and also in the pole test although it did not deploy fully to protect the driver. The driver was struck in the abdomen by the armrest, increasing his risk of injury slightly.
Child-protection
The rear outboard belts were adapted to tighten around a child restraint. A three-language label on the belt webbing explained this.
The passenger airbag warning label on the stowed passenger’s sun visor was well designed but could be peeled off easily.
The restraints chosen by Nissan were a forward facing universal Römer King for the 3 year-old and a Römer Peggy for the 18-month-old. These were only just compatible with the car’s belts. For the Römer King this meant that it could not be tightened satisfactorily and allowed the child’s head to come within striking distance of objects within the car.
The 18-month-old was protected, although testers noted a high neck load which is likely with any child of this age if placed in a forward -facing restraint.
Pedestrian protection
The bonnet leading edge and bumper gave protection but did not score well. The bonnet was friendly where a child’s head might strike.
|
|