The Kia Tasman, the Korean manufacturer’s first-ever dual-cab ute, has secured a five-star safety rating from ANCAP, marking a significant debut in one of the most hotly contested segments in the Australian automotive market.
This result places the Tasman in the same safety league as long-established rivals such as the Ford Ranger, Toyota HiLux, and Isuzu D-Max, though none of these competitors are yet to be tested under the stricter 2023–2025 ANCAP protocols that the Tasman was tested under.
While utes continue to be popular, accounting for a quarter of all new vehicle sales last month, only 4 other light commercial vehicles have been tested against ANCAP’s latest protocols; the BYD Shark 6, GWM Cannon Alpha, JAC T9, and the Mitsubishi Triton. While all of these vehicles achieved 5 stars, only the Triton and Tasman offer a full range of trims, catering from trade fleets to luxury family vehicles.
Performance across key safety categories
The Tasman was evaluated in four areas—Adult Occupant Protection, Child Occupant Protection, Vulnerable Road User Protection, and Safety Assist—earning strong scores across the board:
- Adult Occupant Protection: 85% (34.14 out of 40)
- Child Occupant Protection: 85% (41.86 out of 49)
- Vulnerable Road User Protection: 74% (46.82 out of 63)
- Safety Assist: 80% (14.42 out of 18)
Adult protection: solid structure, some minor issues
In frontal impact testing, the Tasman scored 5.77 out of 8 in the offset test and 6.38 out of 8 in the full-width frontal test. The structure offered good protection in most regions, though upper leg protection was rated poorly due to the test dummy’s pelvis slipping under the lap belt in one scenario.
The side impact and oblique pole tests returned high marks—6.00 and 4.61 out of 6, respectively. Far-side impact was rated at 4.00 out of 4, aided by a centre airbag. Whiplash protection was mixed, with 3.00 out of 4 in the front seats, but only 0.38 out of 4 in the rear. The Tasman achieved full marks (4.00 out of 4) in rescue and extrication criteria, reflecting good accessibility for emergency services.
Strong child safety credentials
Child protection scores matched adult occupant protection at 85 per cent. The Tasman earned full points in both dynamic crash scenarios: 16.00 out of 16 in the frontal test and 8.00 out of 8 in the side impact test.
Child restraint installation was rated 10.86 out of 12, showing that most seats can be securely fitted in the outer rear seats. However, it was marked down in the on-board safety features category (7.00 out of 13) due to the absence of a top tether anchor in the centre rear position, making that seat unsuitable for child restraints.
Vulnerable road user protection: typical ute trade-offs
The Tasman scored 74 per cent in tests relating to pedestrian and cyclist safety—better than many in its class, though still showing the limitations of traditional ute design.
Head protection for pedestrians, including children and cyclists, scored 9.14 out of 12. Femur and pelvis protection were rated 4.50 and 4.34 out of 6, respectively. The Tasman earned 7.58 out of 9 for knee and tibia safety.
In active safety systems, the autonomous emergency braking (AEB) system performed moderately: 5.21 out of 9 for forward pedestrian detection, 7.05 out of 9 for cyclist detection, and 6.00 out of 6 for motorcyclist detection. However, the base variant lacks reverse AEB entirely, scoring 0.00 out of 2. Lane Support System performance in motorcycle-related scenarios added 3.00 out of 4.
Safety Assist: well-rounded technology suite
The Safety Assist category yielded an 80 per cent score. Seatbelt reminders, while functional in the front, scored only 0.67 out of 2 due to limited rear coverage. The speed assistance system (2.73 out of 3) and driver monitoring technology (1.50 out of 2) contributed positively.
AEB car-to-car collision tests delivered 3.71 out of 4, with junction and crossing assist features adding a further 2.19 out of 2. The system also earned 0.88 out of 1 for head-on collision avoidance. Lane keeping technologies received 2.75 out of 3.
Comparison to rivals
Tung Ngyuen of Drive released a click-bait article claiming that the Tasman “falls short of Chinese BYD Shark 6 and JAC T9 scores”. While technically true, context matters. The Tasman offers a broad lineup, from a no-frills $42,000 4×2 single cab to an $80,000 off-road-ready flagship. Naturally, safety tech differs across that range (View the 2025 ranger: S, SX, SX+, X-Line, X-Pro).
The areas where the Tasman lost points were mostly in active safety technology. For example, the base S model lacks features like rear autonomous emergency braking — a system that is standard on higher trims like the X-Line and X-Pro. Points were lost for the lack of both a manual speed limiter AND an auto speed limiter.
The Shark, by contrast, comes in a single, well-equipped $60K dual-cab spec, so it doesn’t face the same challenges of balancing affordability with features across a wide lineup. While not dismissing the importance of safety scores, it’s important to remember the nuances — and that not all Tasmans are created equal.
Market implications
ANCAP Chief Executive Carla Hoorweg noted that demand for safety in the ute segment is increasing as more models serve dual roles as both work vehicles and family transport.
“Fleet buyers and potential Tasman customers across the country have been eagerly awaiting the Tasman’s safety rating,” Hoorweg said. “It’s pleasing to see manufacturers continuing to prioritise safety in this segment.”
ANCAP encourages consumers to consult its database regularly, particularly as new variants and models continue to enter the market. Notably, the five-star rating currently applies only to the 4×4 dual-cab pickup; other versions—such as the 4×2, X-Line, X-Pro, and cab-chassis—have yet to be assessed.
| Make | Model | Adult Occupant Protection | Child Occupant Protection | VRU Protection | Safety Assist | ANCAP Safety Rating |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kia | Tasman (S, SX, SX+) | 85 | 85 | 74 | 80 | 5 star (2025) |
| BYD | Shark 6 | 85 | 87 | 74 | 86 | 5 star (2025) |
| GWM | Cannon Alpha | 84 | 93 | 82 | 81 | 5 star (2024) |
| JAC | T9 | 85 | 87 | 87 | 89 | 5 star (2024) |
| Mitsubishi | Triton | 86 | 89 | 73 | 70 | 5 star (2024) |
| Ford | Ranger | 84 | 93 | 74 | 83 | 5 star (2022) |
| Isuzu | D-Max | 86 | 89 | 69 | 84 | 5 star (2022) |
| Mazda | BT-50 | 86 | 89 | 67 | 84 | 5 star (2022) |
| Volkswagen | Amarok | 86 | 93 | 74 | 83 | 5 star (2022) |
| GWM | Cannon | 86 | 87 | 67 | 73 | 5 star (2021) |
| Toyota | Hilux | 96 | 87 | 88 | 78 | 5 star (2019) |
| Jeep | Gladiator | 60 | 80 | 49 | 51 | 3 star (2019) |
| KGM (SsangYong) | Musso | – | – | – | – | Unrated |
| LDV | T60 | – | – | – | – | Unrated |
| LDV | Terron 9 | – | – | – | – | Unrated |
| Nissan | Navara | – | – | – | – | Unrated |