No image car front available

The Camry's strong performance in the side-impact test lifts this car into the four-star category. Its performance in the frontal impact was marred, however, by the injury risk for the driver's legs and feet, worst where his knees would come into contact with the car. Although the child seats used were picked by Toyota for the test, the company does not recommend seats for the Camry to buyers. Other seats may alter the protection given. The Camry's performance was good enough to meet side-impact legislation taking effect from October.

Front impact
The bodyshell remained stable and the driver's airbag worked well, providing a stable contact for the dummy's head. The front seatbelts had reel mounted pre-tensioners but no web locks. There was no chest contact with the steering wheel. The amount of the impact force transmitted to the front occupants via their seat belts put them at risk of injury, however, especially the passenger. The car's lower facia could cause problems for the driver's knees, upper legs and pelvis. Finally, the brake pedal was pushed rearwards sufficiently to pose an injury risk to the driver's feet and ankles.

Side impact
The Camry has side-impact airbags mounted in the front seats as standard equipment. The driver's worked well and the loading on his upper body was low and evenly spread. His abdomen was struck by the arm rest located on the door and there was slight contact with the airbag.

Child-protection
A trio of three-point inertial reel belts were fitted in the rear. Each had an auto-locking mechanism to help secure a child seat and instructions for their use was given on a suitable label on the belt webbing. An European manufacturers' association-approved (ACEA) pictogram was visible with the passenger door open, backed by a warning in three languages fixed to the sun visor. Britax Romer Peggy Universal seats suitable for infants between 9 and 18kg were used for the test and the adults belts proved compatible with these restraints.

Pedestrian protection
All the leg impact zones except one, on the bonnet leading edge, offered poor levels of protection. The child head impact area was compliant over most sites tested, and was better than the adult head impact area.