The Cupra Raval gets four stars, while its recently tested Chinese competition earns five.
- The Leapmotor B05, Aion UT, and Geely E2 all earned five stars in the latest Euro NCAP testing round.
- Volkswagen's Cupra Raval only earned four stars, but the score rises to five if an optional safety pack is purchased.
- Euro NCAP gave the Leapmotor and Aion lower safe driving scores because their touchscreen infotainment systems lack buttons.
Westerners have historically been skeptical of the quality and safety of Chinese cars. And the concern isn't entirely unwarranted, either. Just look at videos from the 2000s of cars like the Chery Amulet or Geely CK; these compact sedans failed miserably at crash tests. This perception has been a big black eye for Chinese brands that want to sell in Europe. But recent crash tests show that things are very different now.
Euro NCAP, the region's main vehicle-testing organization, on Wednesday released the test results for four new small electric cars, including three Chinese ones. The Geely EX2, Leapmotor B05, and Aion UT all earned five-star ratings. The Cupra Raval, the VW Group brand's take on the new Volkswagen ID. Polo, got four.
The star rating can be adjusted up or down, depending on other features that don’t necessarily have to do with the vehicle’s crash structure or deformation performance. The results also include accident avoidance. The Raval doesn’t have some of the standard crash avoidance features that come on the other cars, like forward traffic alert or adaptive cruise control. Euro NCAP did say that if an optional package of safety features is installed, it performs admirably and raises the overall score to five stars.
The EX2, B05, and UT all have those functions as standard, and they perform admirably. The Aion UT and Leapmotor B05’s crash avoidance scores of 74% and 77%, respectively, beat the Raval’s 72%. The Geely E2 matches the Cupra's with the option package.
It’s hard not to be impressed by the quality, design, or value of Chinese cars, especially for the prices they’re selling for. For example, the Geely E2 starts just under €20,000 (about $23,000), making it one of the cheapest new EVs on sale in Europe. These lower prices have caused some to wonder if these brands are cutting corners on safety or build quality. But the data shows otherwise.
This doesn’t mean that Chinese cars are perfect. Euro NCAP criticized both the B05 and UT for being too touchscreen-heavy when it came to vehicle functions. This is reflected in the safe driving score, a part of the overall test that measures driver and occupant monitoring software, as well as the ease of use for vehicle functions on the move. The Aion and Leapmotor scored only 66% in this category. The team liked that the Geely has a few more buttons for key functions in its infotainment interface than the others, boosting its safe driving score to 79%.
At home, the Chinese government has made safety and quality a bigger priority after years of lightning-fast car releases from dozens of brands. Top government agencies are now scrutinizing potentially problematic car designs—like the electronic door handles that were the subject of a massive recall—more intensely. Plus, they are mandating factory audits to ensure these quickly developed cars aren't cutting corners on safety.
RECOMMENDED FOR YOU
Geely Is Testing A Solid-State Battery With Over 621 Miles Of Range. It Could End Up In A Volvo
Ford Wants To Sell 100,000 Fathom Electric Pickups In Year One. That’s A Huge Goal
VIDEO: I Drove China's Best Selling Car. It's Really Good
Scout Reveals Two New Traveler SUV Concepts As Production Nears
After Driving Over 25 Chinese Cars, These Are The 6 I Would Buy
The U.S. Is A Curbside Charging Laggard. San Francisco Wants To Change That.
This Tiny New EV Motor Cuts Weight And Size For Impressive Efficiency
Facts Only
* Leapmotor B05, Aion UT, and Geely E2 earned five-star ratings in the latest Euro NCAP testing round.
* The Cupra Raval earned four stars; it can reach five stars with an optional safety pack.
* Euro NCAP gave the Leapmotor and Aion lower safe driving scores because their touchscreen infotainment systems lack buttons.
* The Aion UT scored 74% in accident avoidance, and the Leapmotor B05 scored 77%.
* The Cupra Raval scored 72% in accident avoidance.
* The Geely E2 matched the Cupra's score with the option package.
* The Aion UT and Leapmotor B05 had lower safe driving scores of 66%.
* The Geely achieved a safe driving score of 79% due to having more physical buttons in its infotainment interface.
* The Chinese government has increased scrutiny over car safety and quality following rapid releases.
Executive Summary
Full Take
The narrative juxtaposes objective crash performance with subjective usability metrics, revealing how external perceptions intersect with technical data. The initial skepticism regarding Chinese automotive quality often rests on historical precedent from older models, but recent standardized testing introduces quantifiable, contemporary comparisons. The key pattern here is the decoupling of structural safety (crash rating) from functional safety (driver monitoring and usability). While some Chinese vehicles achieve top structural scores, they face scrutiny regarding the user interface design—a factor Euro NCAP explicitly factored into safe driving scores, penalizing touchscreen-heavy systems. This suggests a tension between rapid development aimed at achieving baseline safety benchmarks and the integration of feature-rich, digital interfaces. The government response indicates a shift from reactive oversight to proactive mandate enforcement, seeking structural assurance through factory audits, which reflects an underlying systemic concern about quality control during accelerated production cycles. The cost factor, with very low entry prices for some models, implies that achieving high safety standards alongside competitive value remains a complex balancing act between engineering priorities and market economics.
Bridge Questions: How should regulatory bodies weigh objective crash performance against usability design in modern vehicle assessment? What systemic changes are required within the automotive development pipeline to ensure interface quality is standardized alongside structural integrity? Does the current pattern of skepticism stem more from historical mistrust or the complexity of evaluating rapidly evolving technological integration?