On October 28, 2026, Latin NCAP, the Latin American vehicle safety assessment body, announced that the Chinese-built SUV range Chery Tiggo 2 / Tiggo 2 Pro / Tiggo 2 Pro Max had received an overall rating of zero stars. The tested models were internal combustion versions equipped as standard with four airbags and electronic stability control (ESC). This is the first result published under the 2026 protocol, which newly evaluates protection for rear-seat adults and 10-year-old children. Both adult and child protection received a final score of 0%, yet the car scored full marks in the adult side barrier impact test, so protection was not lacking under every crash condition. Looking at other Chinese models, the differences come down to more than airbag count or brand: body structure, rear-seat safety equipment and how well systems work in a crash all matter.
0% adult protection, but full marks in the side impact test
Latin NCAP's official assessment of the Tiggo 2 series gave 0% for adult protection, 0% for child protection, 48.89% for vulnerable road user protection such as pedestrians, and 45.45% for safety assist. Latin NCAP's overall star rating is not a simple average of the four categories; it is capped by the lowest-scoring category. As a result, even if a car earns reasonable scores for pedestrian protection or driver assistance, these cannot make up for shortfalls in occupant protection. These percentages are assessment scores based on test results and do not indicate survival or fatality rates in real-world accidents.
According to page 3 of the detailed report, the frontal impact test found both the body shell and the footwell area to be unstable. Head and neck protection for the driver and front passenger were both rated "good," but chest protection varied sharply by seat: the driver's was rated "poor," the lowest grade, while the passenger's was rated "good." The 0% final adult protection score reflects not only the inadequate driver chest protection but also a score cap linked to fire risk. It is not a simple sum of individual body-region scores; rather, serious safety problems were reflected in the final rating.
In the adult side barrier impact test, by contrast, the car scored 8 out of 8, with head, chest, abdomen and pelvis all rated "good." However, because head protection for side impacts is not fitted as standard, the pole test, which simulates a side collision with an object such as a utility pole, was not conducted and scored zero points. Even among side impacts, results differ depending on the object struck and the test conditions, so full marks in the side barrier test cannot be taken as evidence of strong side-impact safety in general.
Regarding fire risk, it is necessary to distinguish between Latin NCAP identifying a hazard and applying a score cap on that basis, and any finding about how often or why fires actually occur in real accidents. The absence of features such as autonomous emergency braking (AEB) and lane support has also been pointed out, but it would be inappropriate to explain the zero-star rating by the lack of driver assistance alone. Significant problems were also confirmed in the body structure and chest protection in a frontal crash.
The new protocol exposes shortfalls in rear-seat and 10-year-old protection
The Tiggo 2's rear seat belts lacked both pretensioners, which remove slack from the belt in a crash, and load limiters, which regulate the restraint force applied to the chest. Latin NCAP said it could not confirm adequate protection for smaller adults in the rear seats. In rear-impact whiplash protection, the front seats were rated "marginal" and the rear seats "poor," the lowest grade. This shows that even when certain safety equipment is present in the front, rear occupants are not necessarily given the same level of protection.
The 2026–2029 assessment protocol introduced by Latin NCAP adds rear-seat adult protection and whiplash protection to the assessment. In dynamic child tests, a 10-year-old dummy replaces the previous 18-month-old, and the side barrier impact test conditions have been changed to 60 km/h and a 1,400 kg barrier. This allows safety performance to be checked for a wider range of occupants and crash conditions than before. However, because the test conditions have changed, star ratings obtained under earlier protocols cannot be simply converted to the new one, and these results do not reveal how many stars the Tiggo 2 would have earned under the old protocol.
The final child protection score of 0% also hides differences between tests. In the test simulating a 3-year-old, with a rear-facing child seat secured by ISOFIX and a support leg, the car scored 8 out of 8 in the frontal impact. In the side impact, however, the head was not adequately protected, and the score was zero. In the 10-year-old test, which used a backless booster seat with an adult seat belt, the car scored zero in both frontal and side impacts. Insufficient neck and chest protection was found in the frontal impact, and high head deceleration in the side impact, among other problems.
The backless booster seat was used in the 10-year-old test because the assessment protocol specifies this condition, to verify how well the vehicle itself protects a child's head from the side. It is not a recommendation that real-world users use a backless booster seat. Although the Tiggo 2 has ISOFIX anchorages on both rear outboard seats, problems were pointed out with i-Size compatibility and labeling, and with the fit of child seats. The inability to deactivate the front passenger airbag also affected the assessment.
In the child protection category, the final scores for the dynamic tests, child seat installation and vehicle compatibility were all zero. However, whether ISOFIX anchorages exist is a separate question from whether adequate protection can be ensured with a child seat installed. The Tiggo 2's result shows the need to check not just the presence of fixtures but also crash protection performance and installation compatibility.
Other Chinese models range from zero to five stars
Chinese-made vehicles have previously been assessed by Latin NCAP and by Europe's Euro NCAP, with overall ratings ranging from zero to five stars. However, because standards and tested specifications differ by testing body, year and sales region, the results cannot simply be lined up to rank safety performance.
The published results and characteristics of major Chinese models are summarized below.
| Model / tested specification | Market / assessor | Year / overall rating | Main findings |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chery Tiggo 2 series, 4 airbags | Latin America / Latin NCAP | 2026 / 0 stars | Unstable body shell and footwell area. Problems with chest, rear-seat occupant and child protection |
| BYD Dolphin Plus, 7 airbags | Brazil / Latin NCAP | 2024 / 5 stars | Stable body shell and footwell area. Rear seats also fitted with pretensioners and load limiters |
| JAC E10x / e-JS1 / E-S1 / S1, 2 airbags | Latin America / Latin NCAP | 2022 / 0 stars | Unstable body structure. ESC not fitted as standard; emergency power cut-off did not activate in frontal impact |
| Dongfeng BOX | Europe / Euro NCAP | 2025 / 3 stars | Several spot welds broke, compromising body stability |
| Chery Tiggo 7 / 8 | Europe / Euro NCAP | Reassessed October 2025 / 5 stars | Redesigned after curtain airbag problem; earned 5 stars on reassessment |
The BYD Dolphin Plus scored 93% in both adult and child protection. However, in the 2024 dynamic child tests, both the 18-month-old and the 3-year-old were placed in rear-facing child seats. These conditions differ from the 10-year-old test applied to the Tiggo 2, so the figures of "93% versus 0%" cannot be interpreted as a difference in protection for occupants of the same age.
Latin NCAP and Euro NCAP are also different assessment programs, and even within Latin NCAP the test standards differ among 2022, 2024 and 2026. Vehicle size, price range and powertrain also differ, so it would be inappropriate to use the table to assess the safety of Chinese cars as a whole. These are assessments of specifications for particular markets and do not directly indicate the safety of specifications sold in Japan. What matters is to understand, along with the test conditions, what strengths and problems were found in each model.
Body structure and safety equipment differences that airbag counts don't reveal
In the BYD Dolphin Plus, the body shell and footwell area were confirmed to be stable in a crash, and the rear seats were also fitted with pretensioners and load limiters. This contrasts with the areas where problems were identified in the Tiggo 2. Whether a car has seven airbags or four is not enough to capture such differences. The body structure that preserves survival space for occupants in a crash and the safety devices that properly restrain the body within that space play different roles. However, the difference in rear seat belt equipment alone cannot explain the difference in star ratings between the two cars; a comprehensive assessment that includes the body and occupant protection devices is needed.
Different safety problems have also been identified in the electric JAC E10x and Dongfeng BOX. The JAC E10x's 2022 assessment gave 0% for adult protection and 6.34% for child protection, noting an unstable body structure and insufficient driver chest protection, as well as failure of the emergency power cut-off to work properly in a frontal impact. In the Dongfeng BOX, spot welds near the A-pillar and elsewhere broke, compromising the body structure's stability. Its adult protection score in the 2025 Euro NCAP assessment was 69%. These results show that, even for electric vehicles, thorough verification is needed on maintaining body structure in a crash and ensuring safety devices work reliably.
Chery itself has an example of improving a safety problem and raising its rating through retesting. According to Euro NCAP's October 15, 2025 announcement, the Tiggo 7 / 8 received a four-star rating that July after a problem was confirmed with the curtain airbags. The initial fix was not judged sufficient, but after a subsequent redesign the car earned five stars in the October reassessment. The Tiggo 7 reassessment result gave 82% for adult protection and 85% for child protection, and the passenger compartment was also confirmed to be stable in the frontal offset test.
This case shows the importance of verifying that safety equipment works as designed in a real crash, rather than simply being listed on a spec sheet. Even when a problem is found, appropriate design changes and retesting can improve safety ratings. However, the Tiggo 7 / 8 and the Tiggo 2 assessed this time are different models, and the former's improvement cannot be treated as evidence that the latter's safety performance has improved.
What is needed to judge whether the Tiggo 2's safety will improve
The Tiggo 2 assessment also showed differences in post-crash rescue items. It passed for seat belt release and vehicle access during rescue, but no rescue sheet summarizing the vehicle information needed for rescue operations was available. Post-crash safety likewise involves separate criteria: whether occupants can be easily extricated and whether hazards remaining in the vehicle can be properly managed. Judging specific remedies for the fire risk requires the cause of the risk and the content of countermeasures to be made clear, and passing the rescue-related items cannot be taken to mean safety has been ensured.
Latin NCAP's announcement sets out the problems found in the Tiggo 2, but it does not make clear any specific improvement timeline or the range of vehicles to which countermeasures will apply. The focus going forward will be on how the body structure judged unstable will be improved, and how chest protection in frontal crashes, head protection in side impacts and rear-seat occupant safety will be strengthened. Unless it is also confirmed which market specifications will get these measures, and from which production batches, it will not be possible to judge whether a vehicle being considered for purchase has been improved.
In the Tiggo 7 / 8, the first fix did not resolve the problems, and the rating improved only after further redesign and retesting. For the Tiggo 2 as well, it will be important for the specific countermeasures and their scope to be made clear and for improved protection to be confirmed through retesting under the same assessment protocol. How far the problems revealed by this zero-star rating can be resolved should be judged not by other models' assessments or added equipment, but by the Tiggo 2's own test results.