Report

Rescue sheet	Not Available
Automatic Door Locking
Retracting door handles
Door opening forces
Seatbelt buckle unlatching

• Pass
• Fail
• Not Applicable

1. After CMC ZINGER model were conducted 4 TNCAP impact tests, the results are as follows:
   (1) For "Offset Deformable Barrier Frontal Impact Tests", the driver's chest was rated as "Weak" due to contact with the steering wheel and the left lower leg protection was rated as "Weak" due to the deformation of passenger compartment. The footwell protection was rated as "Poor" due to excessive pedal displacement and entrapment, as well as rupture of the footwell area. All body parts of the passenger have "Good" or "Adequate" protection.
   (2) For "Full Width Frontal Impact Tests", the driver's neck was rated as "Poor" protection due to severe injury and other body parts have "Good" or "Adequate" protection. During the collision, the rear passenger exhibited excessive forward head displacement, and the chest was subjected to high seatbelt loads; therefore, the protection performance was rated as “Poor”. In addition, the dummy was not effectively restrained, resulting in the pelvis sliding beneath the seatbelt (i.e., submarining). Consequently, points were deducted for this body part, and its protection performance was also rated as “Poor”. Besides, during the impact, the second-row right seat experienced abnormal disengagement of the seat mount latch and the seatbelt, resulting in the seat not being effectively secured to the vehicle and the occupant not being properly restrained, leading to impact with the front seat. Therefore, points were deducted.
   (3) For "Side Impact Mobile Deformable Barrier Tests", all important body parts have "Good" protection and get full points.
   (4) This vehicle model is not equipped with side head protection device, therefore the "Oblique Pole Side Impact Tests" was not conducted and no point was awarded for this item.
   (5) The vehicle manufacturer did not submit the rescue sheet for this model. However, after the impact test, the doors could be opened manually, and the seatbelts could be released normally.
2. In the front seat and rear seat whiplash tests, the front and rear seats have "Marginal" protection for the occupant's neck.
3. The vehicle variant under test is not equipped with AEB City. Therefore, no points were awarded for this item.

Restraint for 6 year old child：TOYOTA JUNIOR SEAT 2
Restraint for 10 year old child：GRACO COMPACT JUNIOR

	2nd row outboard	2nd row center	3th row outboard	3th row center
ISOFIX
i-Size
Integrated Child Protect
Bag Release

• Fitted to the vehicle as standard
• Not fitted to the test vehicle but available as option
• Not Available

• Install without problem
• Install with care
• Safety critical problem
• Installation not allowed

1. After CMC ZINGER were conducted impact tests for the 6-year-old and 10-year-old child dummies, the results are as follows:
   (1)  For "Offset Deformable Barrier Frontal Impact Tests", the 6-year-old child dummy experienced excessive neck loads, resulting in a “Weak” rating for protection performance of that body region. In addition, during the impact, left seat of the second-row exhibited abnormal disengagement of the seat mount latch, causing the seat not being effectively secured to the vehicle. The head also sustained severe injury exceeding the specified limits, leading to a “Poor” rating for protection performance. Therefore, no points were awarded for this child dummy. The neck of the 10-year-old child dummy bears too much force, which was rated as "Poor" protection and the dummy was not effectively restrained as it moved forward and the seatbelt strap slipped from its shoulder to upper arm. Therefore, the points were deducted.
   (2)  For "Side Impact Mobile Deformable Barrier Tests", important body parts have "Good" protection and get full points.
2. The car owner's manual clearly records the information on child restraint system applicable to the rear seat. The rear seat can be correctly installed with certain types of child restraint system (universal and ISOFIX) after being tested, it could also accommodate larger rear-facing child restraint system. In addition, this vehicle model has no capability to install i-Size child restraint systems, and the manufacturer did not recommend any suitable child restraint systems for this model. Therefore, no points were awarded.

1. After CMC ZINGER model were conducted headform impact tests of pedestrian protection, as the headform impacted at vehicle's lower edge of the windshield and adjacent areas of the hood, the head protection performance was rated as "Weak" or "Poor", and the rest of the hood was rated as "Adequate" or "Marginal" protection. For the pelvis impact test, the front structure of vehicle was rated as "Good" protection on the pedestrian's femur and pelvis and gets full points. For the leg impact test, certain areas of the front bumper caused relatively high bending loads to the pedestrian’s legs, resulting in a “Marginal” rating for protection performance.
2. The vehicle variant under test is not equipped with an AEB VRU. Therefore, no points were awarded for this item.

1. All vehicle variants of CMC ZINGER are not equipped with speed assist system, and the vehicle variant under test is not equipped with lane support system, AEB Inter-Urban, and blind spot system. Therefore, no points were awarded for these 4 items.
2. Both the front and rear seats are equipped with seatbelt reminder systems as standard; however, the audible warning function does not comply with the requirements, and the vehicle is not equipped with a driver state monitoring. Therefore, the performance was rated as “Poor” and no points were awarded for this item.