Suzuki Fronx crash test in ANCAP reveals a disappointing 1-star safety rating — Here's Why?
- 1Adult occupant protection scored 48%
- 2Child occupant protection scored 40% with poor head and neck protection
- 3Pedestrian head protection is mostly good, but pelvis and femur protection are poor
ANCAP has recently evaluated the Suzuki Fronx and gave it a disappointing star rating. The SUV was only introduced to the New Zealand market in June 2025 and to Australia in August 2025. This safety rating applies to all Fronx variants and will remain valid until December 2031.
The crash tests were conducted under ANCAP’s 2023-2025 rating criteria. Looking closely at the results, it’s clear where the Fronx struggled. Its performance in adult occupant protection, child occupant protection, and safety assist features all left room for improvement.
Scroll down to the Suzuki Fronx ANCAP safety rating section to see a detailed breakdown of how it performed across each test.
Suzuki Fronx safety rating — Adult occupant protection
| Test Type | Speed | Score |
|---|---|---|
| Frontal Offset (MPDB) | 50km/h | 2.53 / 8 |
| Full Width Frontal | 50km/h | 0.00 / 8 |
| Side Impact | 60km/h | 5.82 / 6 |
| Oblique Pole | - | 5.35 / 6 |
| Whiplash Protection | - | 3.11 / 4 |
| Far Side Impact | 60km/h & 32km/h | 0.00 / 4 |
| Rescue & Extrication | - | 2.50 / 4 |
| Total | - | 19.31 / 40 (48%) |
In ANCAP’s adult occupant protection tests, the Suzuki Fronx scored 19.3 out of 40, or 48%. In frontal tests, the driver’s chest was weakly protected, rear passenger chest was poor, and rear seatbelt failure allowed excessive forward movement. The front structure posed moderate risk to oncoming vehicles.
Side impact protection was generally good, though the driver’s chest was only adequate and chest protection was marginal in the oblique pole test. The car lacks a centre airbag, so far-side impact protection wasn’t assessed. A rescue sheet is available but multi-collision braking is not fitted. Doors stay functional if the car enters water, though window operation wasn’t demonstrated.
Suzuki Fronx crash test results for child occupant protection
| Test Category | Speed | Score |
|---|---|---|
| Dynamic Test (Front) | 50km/h | 0.00 / 16 |
| Dynamic Test (Side) | 50km/h | 3.25 / 8 |
| Restraint Installation | - | 11.81 / 12 |
| On-board Safety Features | - | 5.00 / 13 |
| Total | - | 20.06 / 49 (40%) |
At a 40% success rate, the Suzuki Fronx scored 20.06 out of 49 for child occupant protection. According to the official report, the Fronx is fitted with ISOFix anchorages on rear outboard seats and top tether anchorages for all rear positions, with most child restraints able to be installed, though one booster seat could not be fitted in the centre rear seat.
Further in the report, ANCAP highlights major shortcomings. The absence of rear seatbelt pre-tensioners resulted in poor restraint in frontal offset and side impact tests. Head and neck protection for both the 10-year and 6-year dummies was poor in the frontal test, capping scores at zero, while chest protection was weak for the 10-year dummy and marginal for the 6-year dummy.
In the side impact test, the report also states that head protection for the 10-year dummy was marginal, while contact between child restraints led to poor head protection and a zero score for the 6-year dummy. A child presence detection system is not available.
Suzuki Fronx vulnerable road user protection
| Test Category | Score |
|---|---|
| Head Protection (Adult, Child, Cyclist) | 11.72 / 18 |
| Pelvis Protection | 0.04 / 4.5 |
| Femur Protection | 1.25 / 4.5 |
| Knee & Tibia Protection | 9.00 / 9 |
| AEB Pedestrian (Forward) | 5.69 / 7 |
| AEB Pedestrian (Backover) | 0.00 / 2 |
| AEB Cyclist | 7.01 / 9 |
| AEB Motorcycle | 4.68 / 6 |
| LSS Motorcycle | 2.00 / 3 |
| Total | 41.39 / 63 (65%) |
The ANCAP safety rating report notes that in pedestrian impact tests, the Suzuki Fronx bonnet and windscreen provided good or adequate head protection. Further in the report, ANCAP highlights that the windscreen pillars, base, and front bonnet edge were marginal or poor. Pelvis and femur protection was mostly poor, while lower legs were well protected.
The report also states that the autonomous emergency braking (AEB) system can detect pedestrians, cyclists, and motorcyclists. Further in the report, performance was good for pedestrians and cyclists, and adequate for motorcyclists and emergency lane keeping. The system does not operate in reverse (AEB Backover) and gives no warning for approaching cyclists from behind (cyclist anti-dooring).
Also Read: Maruti Ciaz safety rating reveals poor Global NCAP performance — Here’s why!
Suzuki Fronx Safety Assist
| Test Category | Score |
|---|---|
| Seat Belt Reminders | 0.67 / 1 |
| Driver Monitoring | 0.00 / 2 |
| Speed Assistance Systems | 2.36 / 3 |
| AEB / AES (Car-to-Car) | 3.50 / 4 |
| AEB / AES (Junction & Crossing) | 1.00 / 4 |
| AEB / AES (Head-On) | 0.00 / 1 |
| Lane Support Systems | 2.50 / 3 |
| Total | 10.03 / 18 (55%) |
The Suzuki Fronx is fitted with an autonomous emergency braking (AEB) system, lane support system with lane keep assist (LKA) and emergency lane keeping (ELK), blind spot monitoring, speed assistance with speed limit info, adaptive cruise control, seatbelt reminders for all seats, and a driver drowsiness monitor. Tests showed good AEB performance in forward and junction scenarios, and good lane support performance in several critical ELK tests.
However, the Fronx lacks AEB Head-On functionality. Occupant detection is not available for the centre rear seat, and the driver drowsiness system was not assessed due to missing documentation.
Stay updated with all the latest happenings & developments in the automotive world by joining our official AUTOVERSE WhatsApp community. Also, don’t forget to check out our Instagram handle, autoverse_by_cars24, for key details & visuals.
