The passenger compartment of the Avenger remained stable in the frontal offset test. Dummy readings indicated good or adequate protection for all critical body areas of the driver and front passenger. Jeep demonstrated that good protection would be provided to the knees and femurs of occupants of different sizes and those sitting in different positions. Analysis of the deceleration of the impact trolley during the test, and analysis of the deformable barrier after the test, revealed that the Avenger would be a benign impact partner in a frontal collision. In the full-width rigid barrier test, protection of the rear passenger’s chest was rated as marginal, based on dummy readings of compression. Otherwise, all critical parts of the body were well or adequately protected for both occupants. In both the side barrier test and the more severe side pole impact, protection of all critical body regions was good, and the Avenger scored maximum points in this part of the assessment. Control of excursion (the extent to which a body is thrown to the other side of the vehicle when it is hit from the far side) was found to be marginal. The Avenger does not have a countermeasure to mitigate against occupant-to-occupant injuries in such impacts. Tests on the front seats and head restraints demonstrated good protection against whiplash injuries in the event of a rear-end collision. A geometric analysis of the rear seats also indicated good whiplash protection. The Avenger has an advanced eCall system which alerts the emergency services in the event of a crash, but there is no system to prevent secondary impacts after the car has been in a collision. Jeep demonstrated that the doors would be openable to allow occupants to escape in the event of vehicle submergence.
In the frontal offset test, protection of all critical parts of the body was good or adequate, for the 6 and 10 year dummy. In the side barrier test, chest protection for the 10 year dummy was rated as poor, based on dummy readings of acceleration. The head of the 6 year dummy made contact with the arm of the 10 year dummy and a penalty was applied, although injury parameters were not elevated. The front passenger airbag can be disabled to allow a rearward-facing child restraint to be used in that seating position. Clear information is provided to the driver regarding the status of the airbag and the system was rewarded. The Avenger is not equipped with a 'child presence detection' system. The owner’s manual states that universal child restraints are not suitable for use in the rear centre seat. Otherwise, all of the child restraint types for which the Avenger is designed could be properly installed and accommodated in the car.
Protection of the head of a struck pedestrian or cyclist was predominantly good or adequate, with poor results recorded on the stiff windscreen pillars and at the base of the screen. Protection of the pelvis was good at all nearly all test locations, and that of the femur scored full points. Protection of the knee and tibia was predominantly good or adequate. The autonomous emergency braking (AEB) system of the Jeep can respond to vulnerable road users as well as to other vehicles. However, the system’s response both to pedestrians and cyclists was marginal with poor performance in several of Euro NCAP’s test scenarios. The car offers no protection against ‘dooring’, where a door is suddenly opened in the path of a cyclist approaching from behind. Performance of the AEB system was weak in tests of its response to motorcyclists, while lane support was adequate.
Overall, the performance of the autonomous emergency braking (AEB) system was marginal in tests of its reaction to other vehicles, with poor performance in some scenarios. Cars from VIN ZACNJAC57RJK86260 have an upgraded forward collision warning, which met Euro NCAP’s requirements and offered some level of performance in these tests. Cars before this VIN have a warning signal that is insufficiently loud and clear, and such cars would not have achieved the same star rating as later vehicles. Jeep is offering a free upgrade of the forward collision warning system to customers of earlier cars. A seatbelt reminder system is fitted as standard to the front and rear seats. The car has an indirect driver status monitoring system as standard, detecting driver fatigue. The lane support system gently corrects the vehicle’s path if it is drifting out of lane and also intervenes in some more critical situations. The speed assistance system identifies the local speed limit. The driver can choose to allow the limiter to be set automatically by the system.
The passenger compartment of the Avenger remained stable in the frontal offset test. Dummy readings indicated good or adequate protection for all critical body areas of the driver and front passenger. Jeep demonstrated that good protection would be provided to the knees and femurs of occupants of different sizes and those sitting in different positions. Analysis of the deceleration of the impact trolley during the test, and analysis of the deformable barrier after the test, revealed that the Avenger would be a benign impact partner in a frontal collision. In the full-width rigid barrier test, protection of the rear passenger’s chest was rated as marginal, based on dummy readings of compression. Otherwise, all critical parts of the body were well or adequately protected for both occupants. In both the side barrier test and the more severe side pole impact, protection of all critical body regions was good, and the Avenger scored maximum points in this part of the assessment. Control of excursion (the extent to which a body is thrown to the other side of the vehicle when it is hit from the far side) was found to be marginal. The Avenger does not have a countermeasure to mitigate against occupant-to-occupant injuries in such impacts. Tests on the front seats and head restraints demonstrated good protection against whiplash injuries in the event of a rear-end collision. A geometric analysis of the rear seats also indicated good whiplash protection. The Avenger has an advanced eCall system which alerts the emergency services in the event of a crash, but there is no system to prevent secondary impacts after the car has been in a collision. Jeep demonstrated that the doors would be openable to allow occupants to escape in the event of vehicle submergence.
In the frontal offset test, protection of all critical parts of the body was good or adequate, for the 6 and 10 year dummy. In the side barrier test, chest protection for the 10 year dummy was rated as poor, based on dummy readings of acceleration. The head of the 6 year dummy made contact with the arm of the 10 year dummy and a penalty was applied, although injury parameters were not elevated. The front passenger airbag can be disabled to allow a rearward-facing child restraint to be used in that seating position. Clear information is provided to the driver regarding the status of the airbag and the system was rewarded. The Avenger is not equipped with a 'child presence detection' system. The owner’s manual states that universal child restraints are not suitable for use in the rear centre seat. Otherwise, all of the child restraint types for which the Avenger is designed could be properly installed and accommodated in the car.
Protection of the head of a struck pedestrian or cyclist was predominantly good or adequate, with poor results recorded on the stiff windscreen pillars and at the base of the screen. Protection of the pelvis was good at all nearly all test locations, and that of the femur scored full points. Protection of the knee and tibia was predominantly good or adequate. The autonomous emergency braking (AEB) system of the Jeep can respond to vulnerable road users as well as to other vehicles. However, the system’s response both to pedestrians and cyclists was marginal with poor performance in several of Euro NCAP’s test scenarios. The car offers no protection against ‘dooring’, where a door is suddenly opened in the path of a cyclist approaching from behind. Performance of the AEB system was weak in tests of its response to motorcyclists, while lane support was adequate.
Overall, the performance of the autonomous emergency braking (AEB) system was marginal in tests of its reaction to other vehicles, with poor performance in some scenarios. Cars from VIN ZACNJAC57RJK86260 have an upgraded forward collision warning, which met Euro NCAP’s requirements and offered some level of performance in these tests. Cars before this VIN have a warning signal that is insufficiently loud and clear, and such cars would not have achieved the same star rating as later vehicles. Jeep is offering a free upgrade of the forward collision warning system to customers of earlier cars. A seatbelt reminder system is fitted as standard to the front and rear seats. The car has an indirect driver status monitoring system as standard, detecting driver fatigue. The lane support system gently corrects the vehicle’s path if it is drifting out of lane and also intervenes in some more critical situations. The speed assistance system identifies the local speed limit. The driver can choose to allow the limiter to be set automatically by the system.
The passenger compartment of the Avenger remained stable in the frontal offset test. Dummy readings indicated good or adequate protection for all critical body areas of the driver and front passenger. Jeep demonstrated that good protection would be provided to the knees and femurs of occupants of different sizes and those sitting in different positions. Analysis of the deceleration of the impact trolley during the test, and analysis of the deformable barrier after the test, revealed that the Avenger would be a benign impact partner in a frontal collision. In the full-width rigid barrier test, protection of the rear passenger’s chest was rated as marginal, based on dummy readings of compression. Otherwise, all critical parts of the body were well or adequately protected for both occupants. In both the side barrier test and the more severe side pole impact, protection of all critical body regions was good, and the Avenger scored maximum points in this part of the assessment. Control of excursion (the extent to which a body is thrown to the other side of the vehicle when it is hit from the far side) was found to be marginal. The Avenger does not have a countermeasure to mitigate against occupant-to-occupant injuries in such impacts. Tests on the front seats and head restraints demonstrated good protection against whiplash injuries in the event of a rear-end collision. A geometric analysis of the rear seats also indicated good whiplash protection. The Avenger has an advanced eCall system which alerts the emergency services in the event of a crash, but there is no system to prevent secondary impacts after the car has been in a collision. Jeep demonstrated that the doors would be openable to allow occupants to escape in the event of vehicle submergence.
In the frontal offset test, protection of all critical parts of the body was good or adequate, for the 6 and 10 year dummy. In the side barrier test, chest protection for the 10 year dummy was rated as poor, based on dummy readings of acceleration. The head of the 6 year dummy made contact with the arm of the 10 year dummy and a penalty was applied, although injury parameters were not elevated. The front passenger airbag can be disabled to allow a rearward-facing child restraint to be used in that seating position. Clear information is provided to the driver regarding the status of the airbag and the system was rewarded. The Avenger is not equipped with a 'child presence detection' system. The owner’s manual states that universal child restraints are not suitable for use in the rear centre seat. Otherwise, all of the child restraint types for which the Avenger is designed could be properly installed and accommodated in the car.
Protection of the head of a struck pedestrian or cyclist was predominantly good or adequate, with poor results recorded on the stiff windscreen pillars and at the base of the screen. Protection of the pelvis was good at all nearly all test locations, and that of the femur scored full points. Protection of the knee and tibia was predominantly good or adequate. The autonomous emergency braking (AEB) system of the Jeep can respond to vulnerable road users as well as to other vehicles. However, the system’s response both to pedestrians and cyclists was marginal with poor performance in several of Euro NCAP’s test scenarios. The car offers no protection against ‘dooring’, where a door is suddenly opened in the path of a cyclist approaching from behind. Performance of the AEB system was weak in tests of its response to motorcyclists, while lane support was adequate.
Overall, the performance of the autonomous emergency braking (AEB) system was marginal in tests of its reaction to other vehicles, with poor performance in some scenarios. Cars from VIN ZACNJAC57RJK86260 have an upgraded forward collision warning, which met Euro NCAP’s requirements and offered some level of performance in these tests. Cars before this VIN have a warning signal that is insufficiently loud and clear, and such cars would not have achieved the same star rating as later vehicles. Jeep is offering a free upgrade of the forward collision warning system to customers of earlier cars. A seatbelt reminder system is fitted as standard to the front and rear seats. The car has an indirect driver status monitoring system as standard, detecting driver fatigue. The lane support system gently corrects the vehicle’s path if it is drifting out of lane and also intervenes in some more critical situations. The speed assistance system identifies the local speed limit. The driver can choose to allow the limiter to be set automatically by the system.
| Mobile Progressive Deformable Barrier | Full Width Rigid Barrier | |
|---|---|---|
  |  | |
| Side Mobile Barrier | Side Pole |
|---|---|
 |  |
| Far-Side Excursion | Occupant Interaction |
 |  |
| Rear Seat | Front Seat |
|---|---|
 |  |
Frontal Impact - 14.3 Pts | Lateral Impact - 2.8 Pts |
|---|---|
 Restraint for 6 year old child: $.assessmentData.carSafety.safetyPerformance.childOccupant.COPDynamic.childRestraints["6YearOld"].name Restraint for 10 year old child: $.assessmentData.carSafety.safetyPerformance.childOccupant.COPDynamic.childRestraints["10YearOld"].name |  Restraint for 6 year old child: $.assessmentData.carSafety.safetyPerformance.childOccupant.COPDynamic.childRestraints["6YearOld"].name Restraint for 10 year old child: $.assessmentData.carSafety.safetyPerformance.childOccupant.COPDynamic.childRestraints["10YearOld"].name |
Equipment | Front Passenger | Row 2 Outboard | Row 2 Center | 3rd row outboard |
Isofix |  |  |  |  |
i-Size | | | | |
Top tether | | | | |
Integrated CRS | | | | |
Child Presence Detection | | | | |
| i-Size | Isofix |
|---|---|
 |  |
| Seatbelt Attached | Legend |
 |      |
|
System Name | Automatic Braking system | |
Type | Auto-Brake with Forward Collision Warning | |
Operational From | 5 km/h | |
Scenario | Day time | Night time |
Car reversing into adult or child | | |
Adult crossing a road into which a car is turning | | |
Adult crossing the road | | |
Child running from behind parked vehicles | | |
Adult along the roadside | | |
Scenario | Day time |
Approaching cyclist crossing from behind parked vehicles | |
Turning across path of an oncoming cyclist | |
Approaching a crossing cyclist | |
Approaching a cyclist along the roadside | |
Scenario | Day time |
Dooring a passing cyclist | , driver door only |
Scenario | Autobrake function only | Driver reacts to warning |
Approaching a stationary motorcyclist | | |
Approaching a braking motorcyclist | | |
Turn across the path of an oncoming motorcyclist | | |
Scenario | Day time |
Changing lane across the path of an oncoming motorcyclist | |
Changing lane across the path of an overtaking motorcyclist | |
System Name | Speed limiter-speed limit recognition |
Speed Limit Info Function | Camera based, subsigns supported |
Speed Control Function | Intelligent Speed Limiter not default ON (accurate to 5km/h) |
Warning | Driver Seat | Front Passenger(s) | Rear Passenger(s) |
Visual | | | |
Audible | | | |
Occupant Detection | | | |
System Name | Driver_Check |
Type | Indirect monitoring |
Operational From | 30km/h |
Fatigue | Drowsiness |
Distraction |  |
System Name | Lane keeping assist - Lane deparure warning |
System Type | LKA and ELK |
Min Speed (Operational From) | 65km/h |
Performance | |
Emergency Lane Keeping | |
Lane Keep Assist | |
Human Machine Interface | |
System Name | AUTOMATIC BRAKING SYSTEM |
Type | Autonomous emergency braking and forward collision warning |
Operational From | 8 km/h |
Sensor Used | Camera and radar |
Scenario | Autobrake function only | Driver reacts to warning |
Approaching a car crossing a junction | | |
Approaching a car head-on | | |
Turning across the path of an oncoming car | | |
Approaching a stationary car | | |
Approaching a slower moving car | | |
Approaching a braking car | | |
Driver | Passenger | Rear | |
Front Airbag | | |  |
Belt Pretensioner | | | |
Belt Loadlimiter | | | |
Knee Airbag | | | |
Driver | Passenger | Rear | |
Front Airbag | | | |
Belt Pretensioner | | | |
Belt Loadlimiter | | | |
Knee Airbag | | | |
Driver | Passenger | Rear | |
Side Head Airbag | | | |
Side Chest Airbag | | | |
Side Pelvis Airbag | | | |
Centre Airbag | | | |
Passenger | Rear | |
Isofix | | |
i-Size | | |
Integrated Child Seat | | |
Airbag Cut-Off Switch | | |
Child Presence Detection | | |
Driver | Passenger | Rear | |
Seatbelt Reminder | | | |
Active bonnet | |
AEB vulnerable road users | |
AEB pedestrian - reverse | |
Cyclist dooring prevention | |
AEB motorcyclist | |
AEB car-to-car | |
Speed assistance | |
Lane assist system | |
Fatigue detection | |
Distraction detection | |
Note: other equipment may be available on the vehicle but was not considered in the test year
Body Type | Variant Description | Drivetrain | Rating Applies LHD | Rating Applies RHD |
|---|
Body Type | Variant Description | Drivetrain | Rating Applies LHD | Rating Applies RHD |
|---|
Date | Event | Outcome | |
|---|---|---|---|
2024-09-11 | Rating Published | |
