The JL Jeep Wrangler was introduced in Australia and New Zealand in April 2019. The four door variant with a diesel engine was tested. The safety performance of two door and petrol engine variants is not expected to be significantly different to that of the tested four door variant, and this ANCAP safety rating therefore applies to all Wrangler variants.
Test Results Summary
| Crash Test | Score |
|
|---|
| Adult Occupant Protection |
19.28 |
out of 38 |
| Frontal Offset Test |
3.89 |
out of 8 |
| Full Width Frontal Test |
5.72 |
out of 8 |
| Side Impact Test |
8 |
out of 8 |
| Oblique Pole Test |
0 |
out of 8 |
| Whiplash Protection Test |
1.67 |
out of 2 |
| AEB (City) |
0 |
out of 4 |
| Child Occupant Protection |
39.39 |
out of 49 |
| Safety Assist |
4.25 |
out of 13 |
| Speed Assistance Systems |
1.25 |
out of 3 |
| Seat Belt Reminders |
3 |
out of 3 |
| Lane Support Systems |
0 |
out of 4 |
| AEB (Interurban) |
0 |
out of 3 |
| Vulnerable Road User Protection |
23.89 |
out of 48 |
| AEB (Pedestrian) |
0 |
out of 6 |
| AEB (Cyclist) |
0 |
out of 6 |
Safety Feature Summary
The safety feature information below is subject to change without notice. For up to date safety feature specifications for all variants, please see the safety feature table to the right or contact the manufacturer.
Dual frontal and combination side airbags which protect both the chest and head of front seat occupants are standard. Headprotecting side airbags are not offered for rear seating positions. Autonomous emergency braking (AEB) is not standard, and therefore was not tested, but is available on some variants. A lane support system is not available.
ANCAP & UCSR Rating ExplainedThis shows the differences between the rating processes.
Find out more
Frontal Offset Crash Test Results
|
Region
|
Score
|
Score Type
|
Maximum Score
|
|
Frontal Offset*
|
3.89
|
pts
|
(out of
8)
|
|
Head/Neck
|
4
|
pts
|
|
|
Chest
|
0.44
|
pts
|
|
|
Upper Legs
|
2
|
pts
|
|
|
Lower Legs
|
1.33
|
pts
|
|
The passenger compartment of the Jeep Wrangler did not retain its structural integrity in the frontal offset test. Connection between the A-pillar and the cross facia beam was compromised, as was the footwell structure, and penalties were applied. Protection of the chest was WEAK for the driver and ADEQUATE for the front passenger. Structures in the dashboard were a potential source of injury for both the driver and passenger and protection of the upper legs was rated MARGINAL. Rearward displacement of the pedals was excessive and, in combination with the footwell rupture, protection of the driver’s feet was rated MARGINAL.
Side Impact Test Results
|
Region
|
Score
|
Score Type
|
Maximum Score
|
|
Side Impact*
|
8
|
pts
|
(out of
8)
|
|
Head
|
4
|
pts
|
|
|
Chest
|
4
|
pts
|
|
|
Abdomen
|
4
|
pts
|
|
|
Pelvis
|
4
|
pts
|
|
In the side impact test, protection offered to all critical body regions was GOOD.
Full Width Frontal Test
|
Region
|
Score
|
Score Type
|
Maximum Score
|
|
Driver*
|
|
pts
|
(out of
)
|
|
Head
|
4
|
pts
|
|
|
Neck
|
4
|
pts
|
|
|
Chest
|
2.32
|
pts
|
|
|
Upper Legs
|
4
|
pts
|
|
|
Region
|
Score
|
Score Type
|
Maximum Score
|
|
Rear Passenger*
|
|
pts
|
(out of
)
|
|
Head
|
4
|
pts
|
|
|
Neck
|
0.56
|
pts
|
|
|
Chest
|
0
|
pts
|
|
|
Upper Legs
|
4
|
pts
|
|
In the full width frontal test, chest protection of the driver was MARGINAL. Protection of the rear passenger neck was WEAK, and chest protection was POOR based on dummy readings and high seat belt loads. Protection was GOOD for other critical body regions.
Pole Test
|
Region
|
Score
|
Score Type
|
Maximum Score
|
|
Pole*
|
|
pts
|
(out of
)
|
|
Head
|
0
|
pts
|
|
|
Chest
|
0
|
pts
|
|
|
Abdomen
|
0
|
pts
|
|
|
Pelvis
|
0
|
pts
|
|
The oblique pole test was not conducted on the Wrangler.
Whiplash Protection Test
Rear: 0.50 points
Front: 1.17 points
Child Protection Test
In the frontal offset test, protection of the 6 year dummy was GOOD for all critical body regions. Protection of the neck of the 10 year dummy was WEAK and protection of the chest was ADEQUATE. In the side impact test, protection of the head of the 10 year dummy was MARGINAL while that of other body areas of both the 6 year and 10 year dummies was GOOD. The Jeep Wranger is fitted with lower ISOFix anchorages on the rear outboard seats and top tether anchorages for all rear seating positions. ANCAP conducted its child restraint installation assessment on a two door Wrangler variant. Installation of typical child restraints available in Australia and New Zealand showed that most child restraints could be accommodated in.
![]()
Pedestrian Summary
The bonnet of the Jeep Wrangler provided POOR or ADEQUATE protection to the head of a struck pedestrian over most of its surface. Protection of the pelvis was GOOD at all test locations. Protection offerred to the legs was mixed, with areas of GOOD and POOR performance. Autonomous emergency braking (AEB) is available on some variants of the Jeep Wrangler, however the system is not standard and is not designed to react to vulnerable road users such as pedestrians and cyclists. The system was not tested.
Pedestrian Rating Explained
The Australasian New Car Assessment Program (ANCAP) provides consumers with independent and transparent information on the level of occupant and pedestrian protection provided by different new car models, in the most common types of crashes, through its star rating program.
Find out more
Green Vehicle Guide
|
Combined Fuel Consumption
|
CO2
|
Greenhouse Rating
|
Air Pollution Rating
|
Overall Rating
|
|
9.6 L/100km
|
223 g/km
|
|
|
|
Base Model Safety Features
Legend
Standard
Not Available
Optional
No Information
The latest UCSR are based on statistics collected from car crashes in Australia and New Zealand between 1990 and 2017, where someone was killed or seriously injured. Over eight million police reported crashes were analysed in the latest UCSR.
