Find more information in the General Comments section of the assessment
Find more information in the Rating Validity tab of the assessment
-
See More
![]()
88% -
See More
![]()
78% -
See More
![]()
61% -
See More
![]()
83%
- Good
- Adequate
- Marginal
- Weak
- Poor
Passenger
Driver
Front Seat
Car
Pole
- 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 optionIn the frontal impact, forward movement of the head of the 3 year dummy, sat in a forward facing restraint, was not excessive. In the side impact, both dummies were properly contained by the protective shells of their restraints, minimising the likelihood of contact with parts of the car's interior. The passenger airbag can be disabled by means of a switch, allowing a rearward facing child restraint to be used in the passenger seat. However, labelling of the switch positions was not sufficiently clear and the system was not rewarded. There were clear warnings of the dangers of using a reaward facing restraint in that seating position without having deactivated the airbag.
- Good
- Adequate
- Marginal
- Weak
- Poor
Head Impact 12.5 Pts
Pelvis Impact 3.5 Pts
Leg Impact 6.0 Pts
The bumper provided good protection to pedestrians and the car scored maximum points in this area. The front edge of the bonnet was at best marginal in the protection offered to pedestrians. In most areas where a child's head might strike, the bonnet provided good protection but was predominantly poor in those areas likely to be struck by an adult's head.
- Good
- Adequate
- Marginal
- Weak
- Poor
| System Name | ESP | |
| Performance | ||
| Vehicle Yaw Rate @ COS + 1.00 s | 7.23% | meets ECE requirements |
| Vehicle Yaw Rate @ COS + 1.75 s | 2.14% | meets ECE requirements |
| Lateral Displacement @ BOS + 1.07 s | 3.07 m | meets ECE requirements |
| Applies To | Front seats | ||
| Warning | Driver Seat | Front Passenger(s) | Rear Passenger(s) |
| Visual | |
|
 |
| Audible | |
|
|
|
|||
FailElectronic stability control is standard equipment on the 208 and met Euro NCAP's requirements. A seatbelt reminder is standard for the driver and front passenger seats. A driver-set speed limitation device is also standard equipment.
- Specifications
- Safety Equipment
- Videos
- Rating Validity
Specifications
Tested Model Peugeot 208, 1.4 diesel 'Active', LHD
Body Type - 5 door hatchback
Year Of Publication 2012
Kerb Weight 1088kg
VIN From Which Rating Applies - all 208 of the specification tested
Class City and Supermini
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
The passenger compartment of the 208 remained stable in the frontal impact. Dummy readings indicated good protection of the knees and femurs of the driver and passenger. Peugeot showed that a similar level of protection would be provided for occupants of different sizes and to those sat in different positions. In the side barrier test, protection of the chest was adequate and that of other body regions was good. In the more severe side pole test, protection of the chest was marginal. The seat and head restraint provided marginal protection against whiplash injuries in the event of a rear-end collision.