The Corolla performed well in most aspects of the tests. The car’s body was not breached by the frontal impact and inspection afterwards showed that it suffered only minor deformation. It gave reasonable protection in the side impact, particularly since the car tested had no thorax airbag. But protection for children sat in restraints in the back was poor. However, it did better at safeguarding pedestrians than most other cars tested here.
The bodyshell and occupant restraint systems worked well although, as with any small car, it has been difficult for Toyota’s designers to provide enough room to protect the driver’s knees fully. In the Corolla it is mainly the steering column, the steering lock and the power assistance motor that provide the hazards. The centre rear belt was three-point, which protects much better than a lap-only belt. But there was a concern that it could be used if the seat back was left partly unlatched and that could be dangerous.
The Corolla protected well in this part of the test, even without a side airbag. However, the back of the driver’s head struck the car’s B-pillar, which was padded with plastic to prevent injury. His ribs struck the seat side wing, the door pillar and the door, and impact forces fed through to his abdomen from the side wing of the seat and the armrest, which protruded and was broken during the impact. The door trim below the armrest transmitted impact forces to the driver’s pelvis.
The 3-year-old child was placed forward-facing in an ISOFIX restraint and was reasonably protected in the frontal impact but not in the side impact. The younger child was rear-facing and was not properly protected in either test. The rear-facing restraint was too large to fit easily in the Corolla. And, though it is intended for children aged up to 18 months, Euro NCAP believes it is suitable only for babies up to 9 months old.
The bonnet was compliant where an adult and child pedestrian’s head might strike but its wings and front were ‘unfriendly’ towards pedestrian's.