The Hyundai i20 is very closely related to the Hyundai BAYON tested by Euro NCAP in 2021 and shares the same safety equipment. Based on data reviewed by Euro NCAP, the two cars can be considered identical as far as safety is concerned and the rating of the BAYON can be applied also to the i20.
The passenger compartment remained stable in the frontal offset test. Dummy numbers showed good protection of the knees and femurs of both the driver and passenger. Hyundai showed that, on the passenger's side, a similar level of protection would be provided to occupants of different sizes and to those sitting in different positions. However, on the driver's side, structures in the dashboard were considered a risk to occupants' legs and a penalty was applied to the score. Protection of the driver’s chest was rated as marginal, based on dummy readings of chest compression. Analysis of the deceleration of the impact trolley during the test, and analysis of the deformable barrier after the test, revealed that the car would be a benign impact partner in a frontal collision. In the full-width rigid barrier test, protection of the chest of the rear dummy was rated as weak, based on compression of the chest, but protection was otherwise good or adequate. In the side barrier test, protection of all critical body areas was good and the car scored maximum points in this part of the assessment. In the more severe side pole impact, protection of all critical body areas was good or adequate. The car is not equipped with a counter-measure to mitigate occupant to occupant injuries in the event of a side impact. Mitigation of the extent to which a body would be thrown to the opposite side of a car in a lateral collision was rated as poor. 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 car is equipped with an advanced eCall system which alerts the emergency services in the event of a crash, and with MCB, a system which applies the brakes after a collision to reduce the likelihood of secondary impacts.
In the frontal offset test, protection of both child dummies was good for all body regions except the neck of the 10 year dummy, protection of which was rated as weak, on the basis of measurements of tensile forces. In the side barrier impact, protection of the head of the 10 year dummy was adequate but that of the chest was rated as poor on the basis of accelerations measured during the test. 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. All of the child restraint types for which the car is designed could be properly installed and accommodated.
The protection provided by the bonnet to the head of a struck pedestrian was mixed but was mostly rated as between marginal and good. Poor results were recorded at the base of the windscreen and on the stiff windscreen pillars. The bumper provided good protection to pedestrians’ legs at all test locations and protection of the pelvis was also good, the car scoring maximum points in these areas of assessment. The autonomous emergency braking system detects vulnerable road users, as well as other vehicles. The system’s response to pedestrians was adequate and its response to cyclists was good, with collisions avoided or mitigated in most test scenarios.
A seatbelt reminder is standard for the front and rear seats and a driver monitoring system monitors steering inputs for signs of fatigued driving. The autonomous emergency braking system showed only marginal performance in tests of its reaction to other vehicles. Speed assistance is provided by a system which informs the driver of the local limit, allowing the limiter to be set appropriately. A lane support system gently corrects the course of a car which is drifting out of lane and also intervenes in more critical situations.
The Hyundai i20 is very closely related to the Hyundai BAYON tested by Euro NCAP in 2021 and shares the same safety equipment. Based on data reviewed by Euro NCAP, the two cars can be considered identical as far as safety is concerned and the rating of the BAYON can be applied also to the i20.
The passenger compartment remained stable in the frontal offset test. Dummy numbers showed good protection of the knees and femurs of both the driver and passenger. Hyundai showed that, on the passenger's side, a similar level of protection would be provided to occupants of different sizes and to those sitting in different positions. However, on the driver's side, structures in the dashboard were considered a risk to occupants' legs and a penalty was applied to the score. Protection of the driver’s chest was rated as marginal, based on dummy readings of chest compression. Analysis of the deceleration of the impact trolley during the test, and analysis of the deformable barrier after the test, revealed that the car would be a benign impact partner in a frontal collision. In the full-width rigid barrier test, protection of the chest of the rear dummy was rated as weak, based on compression of the chest, but protection was otherwise good or adequate. In the side barrier test, protection of all critical body areas was good and the car scored maximum points in this part of the assessment. In the more severe side pole impact, protection of all critical body areas was good or adequate. The car is not equipped with a counter-measure to mitigate occupant to occupant injuries in the event of a side impact. Mitigation of the extent to which a body would be thrown to the opposite side of a car in a lateral collision was rated as poor. 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 car is equipped with an advanced eCall system which alerts the emergency services in the event of a crash, and with MCB, a system which applies the brakes after a collision to reduce the likelihood of secondary impacts.
In the frontal offset test, protection of both child dummies was good for all body regions except the neck of the 10 year dummy, protection of which was rated as weak, on the basis of measurements of tensile forces. In the side barrier impact, protection of the head of the 10 year dummy was adequate but that of the chest was rated as poor on the basis of accelerations measured during the test. 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. All of the child restraint types for which the car is designed could be properly installed and accommodated.
The protection provided by the bonnet to the head of a struck pedestrian was mixed but was mostly rated as between marginal and good. Poor results were recorded at the base of the windscreen and on the stiff windscreen pillars. The bumper provided good protection to pedestrians’ legs at all test locations and protection of the pelvis was also good, the car scoring maximum points in these areas of assessment. The autonomous emergency braking system detects vulnerable road users, as well as other vehicles. The system’s response to pedestrians was adequate and its response to cyclists was good, with collisions avoided or mitigated in most test scenarios.
A seatbelt reminder is standard for the front and rear seats and a driver monitoring system monitors steering inputs for signs of fatigued driving. The autonomous emergency braking system showed only marginal performance in tests of its reaction to other vehicles. Speed assistance is provided by a system which informs the driver of the local limit, allowing the limiter to be set appropriately. A lane support system gently corrects the course of a car which is drifting out of lane and also intervenes in more critical situations.
The Hyundai i20 is very closely related to the Hyundai BAYON tested by Euro NCAP in 2021 and shares the same safety equipment. Based on data reviewed by Euro NCAP, the two cars can be considered identical as far as safety is concerned and the rating of the BAYON can be applied also to the i20.
The passenger compartment remained stable in the frontal offset test. Dummy numbers showed good protection of the knees and femurs of both the driver and passenger. Hyundai showed that, on the passenger's side, a similar level of protection would be provided to occupants of different sizes and to those sitting in different positions. However, on the driver's side, structures in the dashboard were considered a risk to occupants' legs and a penalty was applied to the score. Protection of the driver’s chest was rated as marginal, based on dummy readings of chest compression. Analysis of the deceleration of the impact trolley during the test, and analysis of the deformable barrier after the test, revealed that the car would be a benign impact partner in a frontal collision. In the full-width rigid barrier test, protection of the chest of the rear dummy was rated as weak, based on compression of the chest, but protection was otherwise good or adequate. In the side barrier test, protection of all critical body areas was good and the car scored maximum points in this part of the assessment. In the more severe side pole impact, protection of all critical body areas was good or adequate. The car is not equipped with a counter-measure to mitigate occupant to occupant injuries in the event of a side impact. Mitigation of the extent to which a body would be thrown to the opposite side of a car in a lateral collision was rated as poor. 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 car is equipped with an advanced eCall system which alerts the emergency services in the event of a crash, and with MCB, a system which applies the brakes after a collision to reduce the likelihood of secondary impacts.
In the frontal offset test, protection of both child dummies was good for all body regions except the neck of the 10 year dummy, protection of which was rated as weak, on the basis of measurements of tensile forces. In the side barrier impact, protection of the head of the 10 year dummy was adequate but that of the chest was rated as poor on the basis of accelerations measured during the test. 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. All of the child restraint types for which the car is designed could be properly installed and accommodated.
The protection provided by the bonnet to the head of a struck pedestrian was mixed but was mostly rated as between marginal and good. Poor results were recorded at the base of the windscreen and on the stiff windscreen pillars. The bumper provided good protection to pedestrians’ legs at all test locations and protection of the pelvis was also good, the car scoring maximum points in these areas of assessment. The autonomous emergency braking system detects vulnerable road users, as well as other vehicles. The system’s response to pedestrians was adequate and its response to cyclists was good, with collisions avoided or mitigated in most test scenarios.
A seatbelt reminder is standard for the front and rear seats and a driver monitoring system monitors steering inputs for signs of fatigued driving. The autonomous emergency braking system showed only marginal performance in tests of its reaction to other vehicles. Speed assistance is provided by a system which informs the driver of the local limit, allowing the limiter to be set appropriately. A lane support system gently corrects the course of a car which is drifting out of lane and also intervenes in more critical situations.
| Mobile Progressive Deformable Barrier | Full Width Rigid Barrier | |
|---|---|---|
| Side Mobile Barrier | Side Pole |
|---|---|
| Far-Side Excursion | Occupant Interaction |
| Rear Seat | Front Seat |
|---|---|
Frontal Impact - 14.6 Pts | Lateral Impact - 6.8 Pts |
|---|---|
Restraint for 6 year old child: Britax Römer Kidfix IIIs Restraint for 10 year old child: Graco Junior | Restraint for 6 year old child: Britax Römer Kidfix IIIs Restraint for 10 year old child: Graco Junior |
Equipment | Front passenger | Row 2 outboard | Row 2 center | Row 3 outboard |
Isofix |  |  | |  |
i-Size | | | | |
Integrated CRS | | | | |
| i-Size | Isofix |
|---|---|
| Seatbelt Attached | Legend |
     |
|
System Name | Forward Collision-Avoidance Assist | |
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 | |
Approaching a crossing cyclist | |
Approaching a cyclist along the roadside | |
System Name | Manual Speed Limit Assist (MSLA) / Intelligent Speed Limit Assist (ISLA) |
Speed Limit Info Function | Camera based, subsigns supported |
Speed Control Function | Manually set (accurate to 5km/h) |
Warning | Driver Seat | Front Passenger(s) | Rear Passenger(s) |
Visual | | | |
Audible | | | |
Occupant Detection | | | |
System Name | Driver Attention Warning (DAW) |
Type | Steering input |
Operational From | 10km/h |
System Name | LKA |
System Type | LKA and ELK |
Min Speed (Operational From) | 60km/h |
Performance | |
Emergency Lane Keeping | |
Lane Keep Assist | |
Human Machine Interface | |
System Name | Forward Collision-Avoidance Assist |
Type | Autonomous emergency braking and forward collision warning |
Operational From | 5 km/h |
Sensor Used | Camera |
Scenario | Autobrake function only | Driver reacts to warning |
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 | |
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
Date | Event | Rating | Validity |
|---|---|---|---|
2021-10-27 | Rating Published | |
Body type | Variant description | Drivetrain | Rating applies LHD | Rating applies RHD |
|---|---|---|---|---|
5 door SUV | 1.0 T-GDI 48V MHEV - Hyundai i20 | 4x2 | | |
5 door SUV | 1.2 MPI - Hyundai i20 | 4x2 | | |
5 door SUV | 1.0 T-GDI - Hyundai i20* | 4x2 | | |
