The passenger compartment of the Ford Puma remained stable in the frontal offset test. Dummy readings indicated good protection of the knees and femurs of both the driver and passenger.  Ford demonstrated that a similar level of protection would be provided to occupants of different sizes and to those sitting in different position.  Protection of the driver’s chest was rated as marginal, based on dummy readings of compression, but protection was good for all critical body areas of the passenger dummy.  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 partner in a frontal collision. In the full-width rigid barrier test, protection of the chest of the rear passenger was marginal.  In both the side barrier and side pole tests, all critical body areas were well protected and the Puma 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 poor. The Puma does not have a counter-measure to mitigate against occupant to occupant injuries in such impacts.  Tests on the front seats and head restraints demonstrated marginal protection against whiplash injuries in the event of a rear-end collision. A geometric analysis of the rear seats indicated good whiplash protection.  The Puma does not offer an advanced eCall system which alerts the emergency services in the event of an accident but it does offer a system to prevent secondary collisions.

In both the frontal offset and side barrier tests, good or adequate protection was provided to all critical body areas for both child dummies.  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 Ford Puma is designed could be properly installed and accommodated in the car.

Protection of the head was predominantly good or adequate, with poor results recorded at the base of the windscreen and on the stiff windscreen pillars.  The bumper provided good protection to pedestrians’ legs and protection of the pelvis was also good at all test locations.  The autonomous emergency braking (AEB) system of the Ford can respond to vulnerable road users as well as to other vehicles.  The system performed adequately in tests of its response to pedestrians and in tests of its response to cyclists, with collisions avoided in many cases.

The autonomous emergency braking (AEB) system of the Ford Puma performed well in tests of its reaction to other vehicles.  However, the marginal performance of the front seats and head restraints meant that points were not awarded for the low-speed AEB performance, and overall AEB performance was rated as marginal.  A seatbelt reminder system is fitted as standard to the front and rear seats and the car is equipped with a system to detect 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, allowing the limiter to be set appropriately.