- With standard equipment
- With safety pack
Find more information in the General Comments section of the assessment
Find more information in the Rating Validity tab of the assessment
-
See More
![]()
76% -
See More
![]()
84% -
See More
![]()
78% -
See More
![]()
65%
- Good
- Adequate
- Marginal
- Weak
- Poor
-
![]()
Mobile Progressive Deformable Barrier![]()
-
![]()
Full Width Rigid Barrier
-
![]()
Side Mobile Barrier
![]()
Side Pole
-
![]()
Far-Side Excursion
Occupant Interaction![]()
Occupant Interaction
Rear Seat
Front Seat
| Rescue Sheet |
Available, ISO compliant
|
|||
| Advanced eCall | Not available | |||
| Multi Collision Brake | Available | |||
- Good
- Adequate
- Marginal
- Weak
- Poor
Passenger
outboard
center
![]()
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-
i-Size CRS
-
ISOFIX CRS
-
Universal Belted CRS
![]()
Easy![]()
Difficult![]()
Safety critical![]()
Not allowed
Safety critical| Seat Position | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Front | 2nd row | |||
| Passenger | Left | center | Right | |
| Maxi Cosi 2way Pearl & 2wayFix (i-Size) |  |
|
|
|
| Maxi Cosi 2way Pearl & 2wayFix (i-Size) | |
|
|
|
| BeSafe iZi Kid X2 i-Size (i-Size) | |
|
|
|
| Britax Römer TriFix2 i-Size (i-Size) | |
|
|
|
| BeSafe iZi Flex FIX i-Size (i-Size) | |
|
|
|
| BeSafe iZi Combi X4 ISOfix (ISOFIX) | |
|
|
|
| Cybex Solution Z i-Fix (ISOFIX) | |
|
|
|
| Maxi Cosi Cabriofix (Belt) | |
|
|
|
| Maxi Cosi Cabriofix & EasyFix (Belt) | |
|
|
|
| Britax Römer King II LS (Belt) | |
|
|
|
| Cybex Solution Z i-Fix (Belt) | |
|
 |
|
![]()
Easy![]()
Difficult![]()
Safety critical![]()
Not allowed
In the frontal offset test, protection of the neck of the 10-year dummy was rated as marginal, based on dummy readings of tensile forces. Otherwise, for this test, protection of critical body areas was good or adequate. In the side barrier test, protection of all critical body areas was good. 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. With the exception of the large universal CRS, which was unstable in the rear centre seat, all of the child restraint types for which the car is designed could be properly installed and accommodated.
- Good
- Adequate
- Marginal
- Weak
- Poor
Head Impact 16.0 Pts
Pelvis Impact 6.0 Pts
Leg Impact 6.0 Pts
| System Name | Emergency Safety Brake | ||
| Type | Auto-Brake with Forward Collision Warning | ||
| Operational From | 10 km/h | ||
| PERFORMANCE | | |||
- Day time
- Night time
Day time
-
Vehicle reversing into standing pedestrian
-
Pedestrian crossing a road into which a car is turning
-
Adult crossing the road
-
Child running from behind parked vehicles
-
Adult along the roadside
Night time
-
Adult crossing the road
-
Adult along the roadside
-
Cyclist from nearside, obstructed view
-
Approaching a crossing cyclist
-
Cyclist along the roadside
The 408 has an 'active' bonnet. Sensors in the bumper detect when a pedestrian has been struck and actuators lift the bonnet to increase clearance to hard structures in the engine compartment. Peugeot showed that the system worked robustly for different pedestrian statures and over a range of speeds. Accordingly, the car was tested with the bonnet in the raised, 'deployed' position. The protection offered to the head of a struck pedestrian was mostly good over the bonnet surface, with some poor results recorded elsewhere. The bumper provided good protection to pedestrians’ legs at all test points and the protection provided to the pelvis by the front edge of the bonnet was also good across the width of the car. The autonomous emergency braking (AEB) system can respond to vulnerable road users as well as to other vehicles. The system performed adequately in tests of its response to pedestrians. The system’s response to cyclists was good, with collisions avoided in many test scenarios.
- Good
- Adequate
- Marginal
- Weak
- Poor
| System Name | Speed limit recognition |
| Speed Limit Information Function | Camera based, subsigns supported |
| Speed Control Function | System advised (accurate to 5km/h) |
| Applies To | Front and rear seats | ||
| Warning | Driver Seat | Front Passenger(s) | Rear Passenger(s) |
| Visual | |
|
|
| Audible | |
|
|
| Occupant Detection | |
|
|
|
|||
| System Name | Driver Attention Warning |
| Type | Lane position, steering input |
| Operational From | 60 km/h |
| System Name | Lane Keeping Assist |
| Type | LKA and ELK |
| Operational From | 65 km/h |
| Performance | |
| Emergency Lane Keeping | |
| Lane Keep Assist | |
| Human Machine Interface | |
| System Name | Emergency Safety Brake | |||
| Type | Autonomous emergency braking and forward collision warning | |||
| Operational From | 5 km/h | |||
| Sensor Used | camera and radar | |||
- Autobrake function only
- Driver reacts to warning
Autobrake function only
-
Car turning across the path of an oncoming car
-
Approaching a stationary car
-
Approaching a stationary car
-
Approaching a stationary car
-
Approaching a slower moving car
-
Approaching a slower moving car
-
Approaching a slower moving car
-
Approaching a braking car
Driver reacts to warning
-
Approaching a stationary car
-
Approaching a stationary car
-
Approaching a stationary car
-
Approaching a slower moving car
-
Approaching a slower moving car
-
Approaching a slower moving car
-
Approaching a braking car
A seatbelt reminder system is standard on the front and rear seating positions. The AEB system performed only marginally in tests of its response to other vehicles. A camera-based speed assistance system identifies the local speed limit and provides the information to the driver, allowing the limiter to be set appropriately. A lane support system gently corrects the vehicle’s path if it is drifting out of lane and intervenes more aggressively in some more critical situations.
- Specifications
- Safety Equipment
- Videos
- Rating Validity
Specifications
Tested Model Peugeot 308 Allure PureTech 130, LHD
Body Type - 5 door wagon
Year Of Publication 2022
Kerb Weight 1397kg
VIN From Which Rating Applies - all 408s
Class Small Family Car
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 part of the safety pack![]()
Not fitted to the test vehicle but available as option or as part of the safety pack![]()
Not available![]()
Not applicable
Fitted to the vehicle as part of the safety packVideos
Rating Validity
Variants of Model Range
| Body Type | Engine | Model Name/Code | Drivetrain | Rating Applies | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LHD | RHD | ||||
| 5 door hatchback | 1.6 petrol hybrid | GT Hybrid 180 e-EAT8 | 4 x 2 |  |
|
| 5 door hatchback | 1.2 petrol | GT PureTech 130 S&S EAT8 * | 4 x 2 | |
|
Tested variant = Peugeot 308 Allure PureTech 130, LHD (with some additional tests on 408)
Find more information in the General Comments section of the assessment
The Peugeot 408 is very closely related to the 308 tested earlier in 2022. Some additional tests have been performed on the 408 but the rating is largely based on the results of the 308.
Share
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. Peugeot showed that a similar level of protection would be provided to occupants of different sizes and to those sitting in different positions. For the driver, dummy readings of chest compression indicated a weak level of protection for that part of the body, and protection of the lower leg was marginal. 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 moderately benign impact partner in a frontal collision. In the full-width rigid barrier test, protection of the driver’s chest was rated as marginal, based on dummy readings of chest compression, with that of all other critical body areas rated as 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. Even in the more severe side pole impact, protection of the chest was adequate and that of other body areas good. 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. There is no counter-measure, such as a centre airbag, 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 408 lacks an advanced eCall system which alerts the emergency services in the event of a crash. The car also has a system which applies the brakes after an impact, to avoid secondary collisions.