If you own a tiny car like I do, and your rear bench only seats two, you may someday find yourself forced to trade up for a larger vehicle. In Europe, though, there is an alternative option: Simply turn your four-seater car into a six-seater with the help of a fascinating (but illegal in the U.S.) contraption called the “Multimac.”
I’m writing this short blog because, while at a press drive talking with a longtime Car and Driver editor, I realized that most people have no idea what a Multimac is. I, as a new father and owner of a small BMW i3, have become well acquainted with the device thanks to my daily BMW i3 YouTube video search.
Specifically, I have found myself watching Ben Wallace’s YouTube channel “Dadcars,” which mentioned the Multimac in its BMW i3 review, before noting that Wallace had actually installed a Multimac into his own Maserati, turning it into a six-seater. Here’s an entire video on that conversion:
And if you’re not interested in watching a video, here’s a screengrab of the installation:

As big a failure as the BMW i3 was in the U.S., it was and remains a hit in Europe, especially in the U.K., where even the machoest of people don’t drive huge pickup trucks like they do here, but rather tiny hatchbacks. For them, having to buy a new, harder-to-maneuver-in-the-city car just because they had a child (for example) doesn’t make a ton of sense, so a popular solution is to — instead of buying a car equipped with more seats — simply shrink the existing seats from adult-size to kid-size. That’s essentially what a Multimac does.

Multimacs are basically big aluminum frames covered in padding and fabric, with five-point belts offered for each seat. Here you can see the aluminum structure:


You can see the legs in that top photo; those, along with two straps that go from the existing seatbelt bolts into ratcheting mechanisms in the Multimac, are an important part of actually mounting this into a vehicle. The company recommends that one of its professionals install the device, going on to note on its website that ISOFIX points cannot be used and that installing the Multimac may require drilling through the car’s floors if the seatbelt mounts aren’t suitable:
The Multimac is held in place with two tether straps which are bolted to the floor of your car – usually using the existing seat belt buckle mounting points under the back seat.
(If those points do not exist or are not suitable, we have to drill the floor to create our own mounting points – we call this a Special Fitting)
ISOFIX points are not strong enough and must NOT be used.
You can also have tether straps fitted to multiple cars so you can move your Multimac between cars – you will require an additional fitting kit to do this as they are unique to each car.

You can see the tether straps attached to existing seatbelt mounts in the top photo above. In the center, you can see the old cushion placed back into place. And in the lowermost photo, you can see the Multimac being slid over top of the existing bench; those two straps will be fed into ratcheting mechanisms in the Multimac, and the legs of the Multimac will be lowered so they brace against the floorboard.

There are plenty of folks who have concerns about the safety of Multimacs, which come in 3-across and 4-across flavors. To that, Multimac replies on its website:
The Multimac undergoes rigorous crash testing at VTI in Sweden, a renowned institution recognised for pioneering child safety innovations such as the rear-facing seat, ISOFIX, and the Swedish Plus test. Since 2001, VTI has endorsed Multimac as an innovative and secure solution for accommodating 3 or 4 children in your car, affirming its safety and quality.
Additionally, the VCA (Vehicle Certification Agency), TRL (Transport Research Laboratory), the British Government, and the European Government have all played crucial roles in the development and global approval of Multimac for use in various countries, including the UK.
To ensure comprehensive safety, Multimac undergoes crash tests across 11 different child age and weight combinations, employing 28 dummies. This meticulous testing guarantees that Multimac provides maximum safety regardless of the specific age and weight configurations used.
Here you can see some photos of Multimacs undergoing testing:

While searching for opinions on Multimacs, I found a comment from a Facebooker who is active in child seat groups and who claims that German’s equivalent to AAA, ADAC, had this to say about Multimac (Typically I don’t include comments from random sources, but this comment seemed fairly logical; also, I reached out to ADAC and will update this story when I hear back):
As a group we don’t really recommend the Multimac for a few reasons
1. It’s rear facing limit is 13kg, same as an infant carrier. After this children can only forward face2. There’s no side impact protection for children forward facing with the harness (and this could be a 13kg toddler!)3. The children on the outside have been placed closer to the door, which could be the point of impact in a collision.4. In some cases it might actually be cheaper to replace the car.

I had one of these, completely amazing bit of kit! It was expensive to buy but after we’d had it 7 years we sold it for pretty much what we paid for it. Given we didn’t have to buy a car with 2 rows of seat or a people carrier, it actually saved us loads verse la a bigger car AND a load of individual car seats that aren’t worth very much once you’ve finished with them.
I can see how these would be useful.

Even though there are clearly some compromises here, I would love one of these for my BMW i3 in case baby-Delmar has some friends come over. It won’t really solve the space problem when my in-laws come over, since they can’t fit into those tiny five-point harnesses, but none of that matters anyway because I can’t even buy a Multimac in North America. It’s not legal.
Multimac has a whole page titled “Why can’t I have a Multimac in Australia, USA or Canada?” It notes that, while the bench passes Europe’s ECE R129 “Uniform provisions concerning the approval of enhanced Child Restraint Systems used on board of motor vehicles (ECRS)” standard, it doesn’t pass U.S. standards:
So why isn’t this suitable for USA testing? One of the biggest issues with the American testing and test rigs is that they do not have a floor. This makes it impossible to test the Multimac, as the legs of the Multimac are a hugely important component of the design and the safety. All Multimacs have two legs at the front, which are height adjustable and sit tightly pressing to the floor of the car. They are crucial in the event of the crash. The support legs will deform and absorb energy; keeping the car seat fixed in place and preventing it from rotating, and are essential in ensuring the Multimac works whether there are 1,2,3 or 4 children sitting in it.
After reading the previous paragraph, you’re probably wondering how American child seats can be safe without the energy absorbing legs. As the American test rig doesn’t have a floor, their children’s car seats have to find their stability and security in different ways; favouring a top tether strap. The car seat laws in the USA require that the seats must pass the safety testing using only the lap belt, so the top tether strap is there to reduce the forward incursion, and hold the top part of the seat back. The top tether is a strap that attaches to a tether point in your car, which is usually located at the back of the back seats if you have a hatchback style car, or where the parcel shelf would be in saloon/sedan style cars. In Australia, they also favour a top tether anchorage system to hold the seat in place, however this specific version is unique to Australia, so will be slightly different to the laws, testing and tethering in the USA. Both solutions are safe and effective when used correctly.
So, will we be able to get the Multimac approved for use in America, Canada and Australia? How would we do that?
As a matter of fact, we faced a number of the same issues when we were initially gaining approval for use in the UK. The British test house is called BSI (British Standards Institution), AND their test rig also didn’t have a floor originally. When it became obvious that the energy absorbing legs were an essential part of the Multimac, we built a floor which was bolted onto the test rig before we did any of our tests. We finally passed our tests, with every combination of dummy loadings, but were then informed by BSI that we couldn’t be awarded approval, as the test rig had been modified. After asking why we had not been informed of this £50,000 and two years previously, our next steps were to work sequentially through their chain of authority, starting with the Vehicle Certification Agency, to the Department of Transport, then finally to the European Government who advised that we should instead work with VTI in Sweden. VTI, as stated earlier, is often known as the home of child safety, and their testing rig had a floor already built in, for testing the Extended Rear Facing Seats developed in Sweden, so was perfect for testing the Multimac.
When our testing at VTI proved that the Multimac was not only safe enough to be sold, but was in fact much safer than traditional child seats and enabled up to four children to be carried simultaneously in a normal car, VTI worked with us and helped us navigate the 190 page document that is ECE44-04, the current children’s car seat legislation, which is written for normal, single child seats, and gain full European approval.
Because Multimac is so unique, and the only one of its kind in the world, we needed someone like VTI, an advanced authority, who could see through the boundaries of the traditional legislation and help us gain authorisation for this revolutionary, ultra-safe child car seat. We now need someone within the legislators of America, Canada and Australia to help us gain approval. A way to get the ball rolling would be for the legislators in those countries to be made aware of the Multimac, the need for it and the existence of this ready-made solution.
The relevant U.S. child safety standard is Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 213 (FMVSS 213), titled “Child Restraint Systems.” Here’s a one-pager on FMVSS 213, courtesy of carseat.org:

I don’t know the full extent of how the Multimac fails to meet FMVSS, but the bit above about having to pass a 30 mph crash test with “vehicle lap belt or lower LATCH attachments only” seems like an obvious fail, as Multimac requires tying into seatbelt anchor locations instead of using existing belts.
So Multimac — a popular European method of turning a two-adult-seater into a four-child-seater instead of having to buy a bigger car — just isn’t going to be an option for me and my beloved i3. As I understand, Multimacs cannot even be imported. Alas, it’s not really as useful in the U.S., anyway, since gas is cheap, space is plentiful, and huge cars abound. At least Europe, where people drive small cars for many practical reasons, has the option.
All Images: Multimac Unless Otherwise Stated
Top graphic images: Multimac






The sight of that thing in my rearview mirror would have me seeking the nearest bridge abutment at a high rate of speed.
Diono makes car seats that will fit 3 across for most cars, which is nice, because most car seats in the USA are so oversized that you can’t put them right next to each other.
Side impact rating of no.
The US uses space as much as anything, and this provides none. Imagine your car is driven though by a f150 and your kid is nailed in place by this aluminum thing compared to a normal child seat that is farther from the engine and has more protecting the kid.
So ban the F150, it after all is why there would be an issue.
Simples. Europeans measure their kids in kilograms. We use kilotons.
Kidograms
Or if you’re into less hassle and saving money, consider contraception.
I got a vasectomy after #2 was born just to avoid needing anything like this. There are ways to go three wide with car seats in most vehicles, but many prefer to just get a vehicle with a third row.
The three biggest milestones in my journey of parenthood have been:
Could not agree more. I have two more milestones to reach:
If Multimatic made a Multimac, would it be made of the finest carbon fibre?
I looked up NC’s child passenger safety law and found out there’s a pretty interesting exception:
https://www.buckleupnc.org/laws/child-passenger-safety-law-summary/
So you can just keep your hatchback and have the extra kids ride on the floor. Actually, now that I think about it, this seems to imply I could get a Corvette or Miata and just have the kids ride in the front passenger’s lap. Or the trunk. Or maybe on the roof??
And if Jason’s kid is driving, would that count as a school bus?
Just remove all but the driver’s seat, and pile a couple dozen kids in the remaining open space like luggage – instant, cheap, easy to drive school bus indeed.
You sure those aren’t the same seats used at Disney’s Tower of Terror?
They look like it.
As far as personal hellscapes go, near the top of my list is being inside a car with 4 people small enough to fit into those seats.
It’s different in Europe. Decades ago, I had a friend take me and his wife on what he called a long trip to see a castle in Germany. With 3 adults (all over 5’8″) in a small car (even by European standards), the drive seemed to take forever.
Looking it up, what felt like an hour or two long drive is about 30 minutes per Googlemaps.
So, although it would have been a lot more comfortable in a larger car, the small car did the trip without killing us or having any murders committed.
Who exactly does this appeal to? Americans use the birth of their second kid as an excuse to buy a 3 row SUV.
Second?! Hell folks here in Yee haw land usually go out and finance a Tahoe or Expedition as soon as they’re pregnant with their first kid…
I am not here to advocate for those buying a bigger car on the first kid, but my wife packs so much things when we travel that a bigger car was really useful when we got kids.
I did not got a bigger car when my first kid was born, but when I did it for other reasons, I finally understood why so many people go on that route.
You can get bigger cars that aren’t 6,000 pound body on frame behemoths. Minivans would serve 95% of the people that buy those just fine, but that wouldn’t be FREEDOM would it?
Totally agree. Bigger car is different of body on frame full size SUV.
In most cases (imo), a wagon does solve the problem. For all others, minivans.
I’m in that camp, however we aren’t pulling the trigger on a three row SUV or minivan yet. When friends or family visit, taking two cars is a pain. Additionally, preparing for road trips is less stressful when you can just throw everything in the back without worrying about careful packing to get the hatch or trunk to close.
It would not surprise me one bit if the same lobbying group behind the Kei truck bans was also working to keep these out of North America.
Who has that many kids anyway?
Weird religious whackos who don’t believe in contraception
I assume it’ll remain illegal in the US because how would American manufacturers be able to force everyone into 6,000 pound body on frame behemoths on 8 years loans at 17% APR if they could carry four kiddos around in a normal sized car?!
It’s also interesting that the front passenger airbag can be switched off with the ignition key pretty much everywhere in the world, so you can use that spot for a rear facing car seat too. Pretty useful if you have a smaller car.
In the US, I’ve only seen the airbag switch on 2 seater cars, short cab pickups and vans.
If there are rear seats, I think front seat use for car seats is not allowed.
Also I was just writing on Discord the other day how huge US car seats are, they’re absolutely humongous. I get they need to be as safe as possible, but 2 rear facing car seats shouldn’t require a midsize SUV.
I’m really hoping the IIHS will expand their testing to evaluate what damage a given vehicle does when hitting a small car, perhaps reversing the vehicle roles in a side impact test. Don’t just test the impacts on the test vehicle, test the impacts on other vehicles as well. Any vehicle that does excessive damage to other vehicles would get bad scores, disqualified from top safety pick status, much higher insurance rates, etc. That would be great.
^ that. We have it and operate completely backwards in regards to this issue. It should be the vehicles capable of causing the most injury and property damage that get disqualified from top safety pick status and receive much higher insurance rates. The very same vehicles need to take a governmental hit for using excessive resources, being inefficient and higher polluters as well. There’s also the excess wear and tear on infrastructure, which is absolutely quantifiable over the expected retorts of “it’s only the commercial vehicles creating that damage”