Home » Ratings
G
ood
A
cceptable
M
arginal
P
oor
Lexus
CT 200h 4-door hatchback

For best printing results turn on "Print background colors and images" in your browser settings.

2017 Lexus CT 200h

Small car
2015 Lexus CT 200h shown
2015 Lexus CT 200h shown

Print full report for this vehicle

Crashworthiness
  • Small overlap front
  • Driver-side
    G
  • Passenger-side
  • Moderate overlap front
    G
  • Side
    G
  • Roof strength
    G
  • Head restraints & seats
    G

Crash avoidance & Mitigation
Front crash prevention
Crash avoidance rating
Advanced
with optional
equipment

Headlights
P

Child Seat Anchors (LATCH)
ease of use
M

Ratings shown are the latest available for this model year.
See below for ratings based on manufacture date.
Check for NHTSA recalls

The photos and videos shown here may be of a different model, model year or body type from the one selected. The ratings of one vehicle often apply to other models if they are built on the same platform. In addition, a test of a vehicle from one model year may apply to earlier or later model years if the vehicle hasn't been significantly redesigned.

Model year Small overlap front Moderate overlap front Side Roof strength Head restraints & seats Front crash prevention Headlights LATCH ease of use
Driver Passenger
2017
G
G
G
G
G
Crash avoidance rating
Advanced
P
M
2016
G
G
G
G
G
Crash avoidance rating
Advanced
P
M
2015
G
G
G
G
G
Crash avoidance rating
Advanced
M
2014
G
G
G
G
Crash avoidance rating
Basic
autobrake
not tested
2013
G
G
G
G
Crash avoidance rating
Basic
autobrake
not tested
2012
G
G
G
G
Crash avoidance rating
2011
G
G
G
G
Crash avoidance rating

Applies to 2015-17 models built after September 2014

Overall evaluation
G
Structure and safety cage
G
Injury measures
Head/neck
G
Chest
G
Hip/thigh
G
Lower leg/foot
G
Restraints and dummy kinematics
G
Important: Frontal crash test ratings should be compared only among vehicles of similar weight.

The Lexus CT 200h was introduced in the 2011 model year and is derived from the Toyota Prius. Beginning with 2015 models built after September 2014, the front-end and door frame structure was modified to improve occupant protection in small overlap frontal crashes. (Information about when a specific vehicle was manufactured is on the certification label typically affixed to the car on the driver door or adjacent B-pillar.)

Structure

The driver space was maintained well, with maximum intrusion of the lower interior of 9 cm at the parking brake pedal. Upper interior intrusion measured 3 cm at the upper hinge pillar and 4-5 cm at the instrument panel.

Injury measures

Measures taken from the dummy indicate a low risk of any significant injuries in a crash of this severity.

Restraints and dummy kinematics

The dummy’s movement was well controlled. The dummy’s head loaded the frontal airbag, which stayed in front of the dummy until rebound. The side curtain airbag deployed and had sufficient forward coverage to protect the head from contact with side structure and outside objects. The side torso airbag also deployed.

Tested vehicle specifications

Tested vehicle 2015 Lexus CT 200h 4-door
Weight 3,265 lbs.
Side airbags front and rear head curtain airbags and front seat-mounted torso airbags
Wheelbase 102 in.
Length 171 in.
Width 69 in.
Engine 1.8 L 4-cylinder (gasoline) and electric motor
EPA ratings 43 mpg city / 40 mpg highway

How this test is conducted

Measures of occupant compartment intrusion on driver side

Test ID CEN1450
Lower occupant compartment
Lower hinge pillar max (cm) 5
Footrest (cm) 4
Left toepan (cm) 1
Brake pedal (cm) 3
Parking brake (cm) 9
Rocker panel lateral average (cm) 1
Upper occupant compartment
Steering column 1
Upper hinge pillar max (cm) 3
Upper dash (cm) 4
Lower instrument panel (cm) 5

Driver injury measures

Test ID CEN1450
Head
HIC-15 142
Peak gs at hard contact no contact
Neck
Tension (kN) 1.2
Extension bending moment (Nm) 12
Maximum Nij 0.27
Chest maximum compression (mm) 21
Femur (kN)
Left 1.4
Right 1.1
Knee displacement (mm)
Left 1
Right 1
Knee-thigh-hip injury risk (%)
Left 0
Right 0
Maximum tibia index
Left 0.63
Right 0.58
Tibia axial force (kN)
Left 2.8
Right 2.1
Foot acceleration (g)
Left 47
Right 51

Applies to 2011-17 models

Overall evaluation
G
Structure and safety cage
G
Injury measures
Head/neck
G
Chest
G
Leg/foot, left
G
Leg/foot, right
G
Restraints and dummy kinematics
G
Important: Frontal crash test ratings should be compared only among vehicles of similar weight.

The Lexus CT 200h was introduced in the 2011 model year and is derived from the Toyota Prius. Moderate overlap frontal ratings are assigned by the Institute based on a test conducted by Toyota as part of frontal crash test verification.

Injury measures

Measures taken from the dummy indicate a low risk of any significant injuries in a crash of this severity.

Restraints and dummy kinematics

Dummy movement was well controlled. The driver and passenger side curtain airbags deployed during the crash.

Tested vehicle specifications

Tested vehicle 2011 Lexus CT 200h 4-door
Weight 3,230 lbs.
Side airbags front and rear head curtain airbags and front seat-mounted torso airbags
Wheelbase 102 in.
Length 170 in.
Width 70 in.
Engine 1.8 L 4-cylinder (gasoline) and electric motor
EPA ratings 43 mpg city / 40 mpg highway

How this test is conducted

Measures of occcupant compartment intrusion on driver side

Test ID VTF1101
Footwell intrusion
Footrest (cm) 6
Left (cm) 12
Center (cm) 18
Right (cm) 7
Brake pedal (cm) 8
Instrument panel rearward movement
Left (cm) 3
Right (cm) 2
Steering column movement
Upward (cm) 0
Rearward (cm) -2
A-pillar rearward movement (cm) 2

Driver injury measures

Test ID VTF1101
Head
HIC-15 219
Peak gs at hard contact no contact
Neck
Tension (kN) 1.5
Extension bending moment (Nm) 14
Maximum Nij 0.29
Chest maximum compression (mm) 18
Legs
Femur force - left (kN) 2.4
Femur force - right (kN) 2.6
Knee displacement - left (mm) 2
Knee displacement - right (mm) 2
Maximum tibia index - left 0.37
Maximum tibia index - right 0.51
Tibia axial force - left (kN) 2.1
Tibia axial force - right (kN) 2.7
Foot acceleration (g)
Left 55
Right 64

Applies to 2013-17 models

Overall evaluation
G
Structure and safety cage
G
Driver injury measures
Head/neck
G
Torso
G
Pelvis/leg
G
Head protection
G
Rear passenger injury measures
Head/neck
G
Torso
G
Pelvis/leg
G
Head protection
G
Side crash test ratings can be compared across vehicle categories.

The Lexus CT 200h was introduced in the 2011 model year and is derived from the Toyota Prius. Beginning with 2013 models, design changes were made to the rear door trim panels to improve occupant protection in side impact crashes.

Two tests of the CT 200h were conducted, one of a 2011 model by the Institute and the other representing a 2013 model by Toyota as part of side crash test verification. These vehicles are rated separately, except that the structure ratings for both vehicles are based on both tests, as are driver dummy injury and head protection ratings, because no changes were made affecting front seat occupants. (The car tested by Toyota was designated as a 2011 model but included the rear door trim changes of the 2013 models.)

Injury measures

Driver — Measures taken from the dummy indicate a low risk of any significant injuries in a crash of this severity.

Passenger — Measures taken from the dummy indicate a low risk of any significant injuries in a crash of this severity.

Head protection

Driver — The dummy’s head was protected from being hit by any hard structures, including the intruding barrier, by a side curtain airbag that deployed from the roof.

Passenger — The dummy’s head was protected from being hit by any hard structures, including the intruding barrier, by a side curtain airbag that deployed from the roof.

Tested vehicle specifications

Tested vehicle 2013 Lexus CT 200h 4-door
Weight 3,194 lbs.
Side airbags standard front and rear head curtain airbags and standard front seat-mounted torso airbags
Wheelbase 102 in.
Length 170 in.
Width 70 in.
Engine 1.8-liter 4-cylinder (gasoline) and electric motor
EPA ratings 43 mpg city / 40 mpg highway

How this test is conducted

Measures of occupant compartment intrusion on driver side

Test ID CES1109 VTS1220
B-pillar to longitudinal centerline of driver's seat (cm)
Negative numbers indicate the amount by which the crush stopped short of the seat centerline.		 -14.0 -13.5

Driver injury measures

Test ID CES1109 VTS1220
Head HIC-15 287 240
Neck
Tension (kN) 0.6 0.7
Compression (kN) 0.2 0.3
Shoulder
Lateral deflection (mm) 32 44
Lateral force (kN) 1.9 1.4
Torso
Maximum deflection (mm) 22 28
Average deflection (mm) 16 19
Maximum deflection rate (m/s) 4.14 3.08
Maximum viscous criterion (m/s) 0.25 0.28
Pelvis
Iliac force (kN) 0.9 0.7
Acetabulum force (kN) 1.1 2.5
Combined force (kN) 1.9 3.2
Left femur
L-M force (kN) 0.6 0.8
L-M moment (Nm) 166 121
A-P moment (Nm) 52 195

Passenger injury measures

Test ID VTS1220
Head HIC-15 97
Neck
Tension (kN) 0.3
Compression (kN) 0.9
Shoulder
Lateral deflection (mm) 48
Lateral force (kN) 1.7
Torso
Maximum deflection (mm) 33
Average deflection (mm) 19
Maximum deflection rate (m/s) 3.14
Maximum viscous criterion (m/s) 0.56
Pelvis
Iliac force (kN) 0.4
Acetabulum force (kN) 2.0
Combined force (kN) 2.1
Left femur
L-M force (kN) 1.4
L-M moment (Nm) 41
A-P moment (Nm) 127

Applies to 2011-17 models

Overall evaluation
G
Curb weight 3,229 lbs
Peak force 16,238 lbs
Strength-to-weight ratio 5.03
Tested vehicle
 2011 Lexus CT 200h Premium 4-door
Roof strength test ratings can be compared across vehicle categories.

In the test, the strength of the roof is determined by pushing a metal plate against one side of it at a slow but constant speed. The force applied relative to the vehicle's weight is known as the strength-to-weight ratio. This graph shows how the ratio varied as the test of this vehicle progressed. The peak strength-to-weight ratio recorded at any time before the roof is crushed 5 inches is the key measurement of roof strength.

A good rating requires a strength-to-weight ratio of at least 4. In other words, the roof must withstand a force of at least 4 times the vehicle's weight before the plate crushes the roof by 5 inches. For an acceptable rating, the minimum required strength-to-weight ratio is 3.25. For a marginal rating, it is 2.5. Anything lower than that is poor.

How this test is conducted

Applies to 2011-17 models

Overall evaluation
G
Dynamic rating
G
Seat/head restraint geometry
G
Important: Ratings for head restraints & seats should be compared only among vehicles of similar weight.

Seat type

Power leather seat

How this test is conducted

Seat type Power leather seat
Geometry
Backset (mm) 20
Distance below top of head (mm) 10
Seat design parameters
Pass/fail Pass
Max T1 acceleration (g) 11.4
Head contact time (ms) 68
Force rating 1
Neck forces
Max neck shear force (N) 16
Max neck tension (N) 570

Applies to 2015-17 models

System details

  • Optional Pre-Collision System

Package name

  • Optional Pre-Collision System with Dynamic Radar Cruise Control

Overall evaluation
Crash avoidance rating
Advanced
with optional
equipment
3 points total

Forward collision warning

This system meets the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's criteria for forward collision warning.
 1 point

Low-speed autobrake

In the 12 mph IIHS test, impact speed was reduced by 7 mph. 		1 point

High-speed autobrake

In the 25 mph IIHS test, impact speed was reduced by 6 mph. 		1 point

How this rating is determined

Trim level(s)
  • All trims
Low-beam headlight type Halogen projector
High-beam headlight type Halogen reflector
Curve-adaptive? No
Automatically switches between low beams and high beams (high-beam assist)? No
Overall rating
P
Distance at which headlights provide at least 5 lux illumination:
car-simpler car-simpler car-simpler car-simpler car-simpler 0 ft 100 ft 200 ft 300 ft 400 ft 500 ft 600 ft Low beams Optimal low-beam illumination High beams Optimal high-beam illumination

Low beams

On the straightaway, visibility was inadequate on both sides of the road. On curves, visibility was inadequate in all 4 tests.

The low beams never exceeded glare limits.

High beams

On the straightaway, visibility was good on both sides of the road. On curves, visibility was fair on the gradual right and gradual left curves and inadequate on the sharp right and sharp left curves.

How this test is conducted

Trim level(s)
  • All trims
Low-beam headlight type Halogen projector
High-beam headlight type Halogen reflector
Curve-adaptive? No
High-beam assist? No
Overall rating
Applies to 2016-17 models
P
LOW BEAMS Average minimum useful
illumination distance (5 lux)		 Amount glare
exceeded threshold
Straightaway right edge 56.5 m None
Straightaway left edge 28.3 m None
250m radius right curve, right edge 44.1 m None
250m radius left curve, left edge 30.8 m None
150m radius right curve, right edge 39.4 m None
150m radius left curve, left edge 29.9 m None
HIGH BEAMS Average minimum useful
illumination distance (5 lux)
Straightaway right edge 162.3 m
Straightaway left edge 156.4 m
250m radius right curve, right edge 73.6 m
250m radius left curve, left edge 71.4 m
150m radius right curve, right edge 51.8 m
150m radius left curve, left edge 49.9 m

Applies to 2015-17 models

How this rating is determined

Overall evaluation
M
Vehicle trim base
Seat type leather

This vehicle has 2 rear seating positions with complete child seat attachment (LATCH) hardware.

It has 1 additional seating position with a tether anchor only.

1 2 3


Good
Acceptable
Marginal
Poor
Seating positions that rely on borrowed lower anchors or have only a tether anchor available are not rated.
Tether anchor
Lower anchors
Lower anchor(s) can be borrowed from adjacent positions(s)
No hardware available

Details by seating position

1
Tether anchor
easy-to-find location
other hardware could be confused for anchor
Lower anchors
too deep in seat
not too much force needed to attach
difficult to maneuver around anchors
2
Tether anchor
easy-to-find location
no other hardware could be confused for anchor
Lower anchors
none available
3
Tether anchor
easy-to-find location
other hardware could be confused for anchor
Lower anchors
too deep in seat
not too much force needed to attach
difficult to maneuver around anchors

Seat position 21

3
Lower anchor A
Open access rated No
Depth (cm) 2-4
Force (lbs) 0
Clearance angle (degrees) 56
Lower anchor B
Open access rated No
Depth (cm) 4-6
Force (lbs) 0
Clearance angle (degrees) 49
Tether anchor
Location Middle seatback
Confusing hardware present Yes
Has contrasting label
within 3 inches of tether anchor		 No

Seat position 22

2
Lower anchor A
No lower latch for this seat position
Lower anchor B
No lower latch for this seat position
Tether anchor
Location Middle seatback
Confusing hardware present No
Has contrasting label
within 3 inches of tether anchor		 No

Seat position 23

1
Lower anchor A
Open access rated No
Depth (cm) 4-6
Force (lbs) 0
Clearance angle (degrees) 43
Lower anchor B
Open access rated No
Depth (cm) 4-6
Force (lbs) 0
Clearance angle (degrees) 52
Tether anchor
Location Middle seatback
Confusing hardware present Yes
Has contrasting label
within 3 inches of tether anchor		 No
1
Side airbags: front and rear head curtain airbags and front seat-mounted torso airbags
2
Driver and front passenger knee airbags: separate airbags in the lower instrument panel designed to minimize knee injuries in frontal crashes
3
Electronic stability control
4
Antilock brakes
5
Daytime running lights

©1996-2018, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, Highway Loss Data Institute | www.iihs.org