Find more information in the General Comments section of the assessment
Find more information in the Rating Validity tab of the assessment
-
See More
![]()
68% -
See More
![]()
81% -
See More
![]()
67% -
See More
![]()
55%
- Good
- Adequate
- Marginal
- Weak
- Poor
Passenger
Driver
Front Seat
Car
Pole
- Good
- Adequate
- Marginal
- Weak
- Poor
Passenger
outboard
center
outboard
![]()
Fitted to the vehicle as standard![]()
Not fitted to the test vehicle but available as option![]()
Not Available
Not fitted to the test vehicle but available as option-
Infants up to 13 kg
-
Infants and toddlers up to 18 kg
-
Toddlers from 9 to 18 kg
-
Toddlers over 18 kg
![]()
Easy![]()
Difficult![]()
Safety critical![]()
Not allowed
Difficult| Seat Position | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Front | 2nd row | 3rd row | ||||
| Passenger | Left | center | Right | Left | Right | |
| Maxi Cosi Cabriofix (Belt) | |
|
|
|
|
|
| Britax Römer King Plus (Belt) | |
|
|
|
|
|
| Britax Römer Duo Plus (ISOFIX) | |
|
|
|
|
|
| Britax Römer KidFix (Belt) | |
|
 |
|
|
|
| Maxi Cosi Cabriofix & EasyFix (Belt) | |
|
|
|
|
|
| Maxi Cosi Cabriofix & EasyFix (ISOFIX) | |
|
|
|
|
|
| BeSafe iZi Kid X3 ISOfix (ISOFIX) | |
|
|
|
|
|
| Maxi Cosi Pearl & Familyfix (ISOFIX) | |
|
|
|
|
|
| Britax Römer KidFix (ISOFIX) | |
|
|
|
|
|
![]()
Easy![]()
Difficult![]()
Safety critical![]()
Not allowed
Based on dummy readings in the dynamic tests, the Evalia scored maximum points for its protection of both the 3 year and 18 month infants. Forward movement of the 3 year dummy, sat in a forward-facing restraint, was not excessive. In the side impact, both dummies were properly contained by their restraints, minimising the risk of dangerous head contact with parts of the car interior. The passenger airbag can be disabled to allow a rearward-facing restraint to be used in that seating position. However, labelling was not clear and the system was not rewarded. The group 2/3 universal restraint failed the installation check in the rear centre seat but, otherwise, all restraint types could be correctly installed in those seating positions designed to take them.
- Good
- Adequate
- Marginal
- Weak
- Poor
Head Impact 14.4 Pts
Pelvis Impact 5.0 Pts
Leg Impact 4.8 Pts
The bumper offered good protection to pedestrians' legs in most areas tested. The front edge of the bonnet also provided mostly good protection to the pelvis area. The protection provided by the bonnet in those areas likely to be struck by a pedestrian's head was predominantly adequate or marginal.
- Good
- Adequate
- Marginal
- Weak
- Poor
| System Name | ESC | |
| Performance | ||
| Vehicle Yaw Rate @ COS + 1.00 s | 1.8% | meets ECE requirements |
| Vehicle Yaw Rate @ COS + 1.75 s | 0.5% | meets ECE requirements |
| Lateral Displacement @ BOS + 1.07 s | 2.68 m | meets ECE requirements |
| Applies To | Front seats | ||
| Warning | Driver Seat | Front Passenger(s) | Rear Passenger(s) |
| Visual | |
|
 |
| Audible | |
|
|
|
|||
The Evalia has electronic stability control as standard equipment and also has a seatbelt reminder for the front seats. A driver-set speed limitation device is available but failed Euro NCAP's requirements as it gives only a visual warning to the driver when the set speed is exceeded.
- Specifications
- Safety Equipment
- Videos
- Rating Validity
Specifications
Tested Model Nissan Evalia 1.5dCi Full Trim, LHD
Body Type - 5 door MPV
Year Of Publication 2013
Kerb Weight 1426kg
VIN From Which Rating Applies - TBC
Class Small MPV
Safety Equipment
Note: Other equipment may be available on the vehicle but was not considered in the test year.
![]()
Fitted to the vehicle as standard![]()
Fitted to the vehicle as option![]()
Not fitted to the test vehicle but available as option![]()
Not Available![]()
Not Applicable
Fitted to the vehicle as optionVideos
Rating Validity
Find more information in the General Comments section of the assessment
Share
When the car was inspected after the frontal impact test, it was found that the floor panel had torn away from the base of the A pillar and numerous spot welds had released between the floor and sill. The main body of the sill was found to be bent inwards. The passenger compartment was judged to be unstable and the car was penalised. Similarly, the driver's footwell was found to have ruptured and was unstable and a further penalty was applied. Protection of the driver was predominantly marginal. In the side barrier test, protection of the chest was adequate and that of other body regions was good. However, in the more severe side pole impact, dummy readings of rib compression indicated weak protection of the chest. The seat and head restraint offered marginal protection against whiplash injury in the event of a rear-end collision.