Rover 25

Front: 3
Side: 13
Pre 2002 rating

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

Child restraints
18 month old ChildBritax Club Class Extra, rearward facing
3 year old ChildBritax Supercruiser, 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 driveRHD
Tested modelRover 25 1.4i L
Body type3 door hatchback
Year of publication2001
Kerb weight999
VIN from which rating applies5 October 2000, SARRFMNBMID555555

The frontal impact test was staged back in spring 2000. The side impact took place then, too, but problems demanded a re-test. But then, testing was suspended after events threw Rover’s future into doubt. Once the car-maker was back on track, it resumed: and, here, repeated side impact results feature along with the original outcome for the frontal impact. The Rover 25 is a reworking of the mid-1990s 200 model and the protection it offers is below that of some modern designs. The protection it gave in the frontal impact was weak although it proved creditable in the side impact considering its lack of airbags. Protection for children was poor.

Front impact
The driver’s door bent in the middle and the screen pillar was driven back, leaving the body unstable. The driver’s head hit the steering wheel, loads on his chest were high and he risked leg injuries from hard points under the fascia. His left knee hit the column lock lever hard enough to cause severe injuries. Chest loads for the front passenger were also relatively high. However, the footwell remained intact and the centre rear seat was fitted with a three-point belt that protects more than a lap belt can.

Side impact
The results were marred by results obtained from a test dummy that would not occur with a human. Other than that, it performed reasonably well. The driver’s chest hit the door trim but his abdomen was protected by the seat wing. As the door pushed in, his pelvis was moved away from it by a foam pad.

Child occupant
Protection for both children in the frontal impact proved poor. A forward-facing booster seat did not use the adult seat belt effectively. The seat for the 18-month-old was rear-facing but its performance was hampered by the belt lock-off failing. Neither protected in the side impact but Rover is working with the child seat manufacturer to improve matters. The time gap between tests ruled out the use of more modern type of seat: for consistency, the same restraints were used throughout.

The leading edge of the bonnet proved to be stiff but the bumper turned out to be better than most.