Pour plus d’informations, veuillez consulter la section Commentaires généraux de l’évaluation
Vous trouverez plus d’informations dans l’onglet Validité de la notation
-
Plus d'info
![]()
94% -
Plus d'info
![]()
78% -
Plus d'info
![]()
65% -
Plus d'info
![]()
71%
- Bon
- Satisfaisant
- Moyen
- Faible
- Médiocre
Passager
Conducteur
Siège avant
Voiture
Poteau
- Bon
- Satisfaisant
- Moyen
- Faible
- Médiocre
Passager
latéral
Centre
![]()
Monté sur le véhicule de série![]()
Véhicule testé non équipé mais disponible en option![]()
Non disponible
Both the 3 year and 1½ year dummies were sat in rearward-facing restraints and, in the frontal impact, the heads of both dummies were well contained by the protective shells. The rearward-facing restraint of the 1½ year infant moved forward and damaged the seat back of the front passenger seat. However, this had no influence on dummy results and was not penalised. In the side impact, both dummies were properly contained within the protective shells of their restraints, minimising the likelihood of dangerous head contact with parts of the car interior. The passenger airbag can be disabled to allow a rearward-facing child restraint to be used in that seating position. However, information provided to the driver regarding the status of the airbag is not sufficiently clear. The dangers of using a rearward-facing restraint without disabling the airbag were clearly explained on labels in the car.
- Bon
- Satisfaisant
- Moyen
- Faible
- Médiocre
Choc à la tête 15,0 Pts
Choc au bassin 2,5 Pts
Choc aux jambes 6,0 Pts
The bumper scored maximum points in Euro NCAP's tests, providing good protection to pedestrians' legs in all areas. In most areas likely to be struck by the head of a child, the bonnet provided good protection but provided predominantly poor protection in those areas likely to be struck by the head of an adult.
- Bon
- Satisfaisant
- Moyen
- Faible
- Médiocre
| Nom du système | ESC | |
| Performances | ||
| Taux d'embardée du véhicule à COS + 1.00 s | 0% | Répond aux exigences de la CEE |
| Taux d'embardée du véhicule à COS + 1.75 s | 0% | Répond aux exigences de la CEE |
| Déplacement latéral à BOS + 1.07 s | 2.97 m | Répond aux exigences de la CEE |
| S'applique à | Front seats | ||
| Alerte | Siège conducteur | passager(s) avant | passager(s) arrière |
| Visuelle | |
|
 |
| Sonore | |
|
|
|
|||
ÉchoueThe 500L has electronic stability control as standard equipment and passed Euro NCAP's test requirements. A driver-set speed limitation device is standard equipment on some variants but not all, and the system was not assessed. Seatbelt reminders for the two front seats are fitted to all variants.
- Caractéristiques
- Équipement de sécurité
- Vidéos
- Advanced Rewards
- Validité de la notation
Caractéristiques
Modèle testé Fiat 500L 1.4 petrol 'Easy' 4×2, LHD
Type de carrosserie - 5 door hatchback
Année de production 2012
Poids en ordre de marche 1245kg
NIV à partir duquel la notation s'applique - applies to all 500L's of the specification tested
Catégorie Petit monospace
Équipement de sécurité
Remarque : d'autres équipements peuvent être disponibles sur le véhicule mais n'ont pas été pris en compte dans l'année de test.
![]()
Monté sur le véhicule de série![]()
Monté sur le véhicule en option![]()
Véhicule testé non équipé mais disponible en option![]()
Non disponible![]()
Non applicable
Monté sur le véhicule en optionVidéos
Advanced Rewards
Validité de la notation
Pour plus d’informations, veuillez consulter la section Commentaires généraux de l’évaluation
Partager
The passenger compartment remained stable in the frontal impact. Protection of the passenger dummy was good for all body regions. Dummy readings indicated good protection of the knees and femurs of both the driver and passenger. FIAT showed that a similar level of protection would be provided to occupants of different sizes and to those sat in different positions. In the side barrier test, the 500L scored maximum points, with good protection of all body areas. Even in the more severe side pole test, protection of the chest was adequate while that of other body regions was good. The seat and head restraint provided marginal protection against whiplash injuries in the event of a rear-end impact.