- With standard equipment
- With safety pack
Find more information in the General Comments section of the assessment
Find more information in the Rating Validity tab of the assessment
-
See More
![]()
83% -
See More
![]()
80% -
See More
![]()
75% -
See More
![]()
78%
- Good
- Adequate
- Marginal
- Weak
- Poor
-
![]()
Mobile Progressive Deformable Barrier![]()
-
![]()
Full Width Rigid Barrier
-
![]()
Side Mobile Barrier
![]()
Side Pole
-
![]()
Far-Side Excursion
Occupant Interaction![]()
Occupant Interaction
Rear Seat
Front Seat
| Rescue Sheet |
Available, ISO compliant
|
|||
| Advanced eCall | Available | |||
| Multi Collision Brake | Available | |||
- Good
- Adequate
- Marginal
- Weak
- Poor
Passenger
outboard
center
![]()
Fitted to the vehicle as standard![]()
Not fitted to the test vehicle but available as option![]()
Not Available
Not fitted to the test vehicle but available as option-
i-Size CRS
-
ISOFIX CRS
-
Universal Belted CRS
![]()
Easy![]()
Difficult![]()
Safety critical![]()
Not allowed
Difficult
Safety critical| Seat Position | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Front | 2nd row | |||
| Passenger | Left | center | Right | |
| Maxi Cosi 2way Pearl & 2wayFix (i-Size) |  |
|
|
|
| Maxi Cosi 2way Pearl & 2wayFix (i-Size) | |
|
|
|
| BeSafe iZi Kid X2 i-Size (i-Size) | |
|
|
|
| Britax Römer TriFix2 i-Size (i-Size) | |
|
|
|
| BeSafe iZi Flex FIX i-Size (i-Size) | |
|
|
|
| BeSafe iZi Combi X4 ISOfix (ISOFIX) | |
|
|
|
| Cybex Solution Z i-Fix (ISOFIX) | |
|
|
|
| Maxi Cosi Cabriofix (Belt) | |
|
|
|
| Maxi Cosi Cabriofix & EasyFix (Belt) | |
|
|
|
| Britax Römer King II LS (Belt) | |
|
|
|
| Cybex Solution Z i-Fix (Belt) | |
|
|
|
![]()
Easy![]()
Difficult![]()
Safety critical![]()
Not allowed
In both the frontal offset test, protection of the neck of the 10 year dummy was rated as weak, based on in-test measurements of tensile forces. Otherwise, protection of all critical body areas was good in the frontal offset and side barrier tests. The front passenger airbag can be disabled to allow a rearward-facing child restraint to be used in that seating position. Clear information is provided to the driver regarding the status of the airbag and the system was rewarded. All of the child restraint types for which the MG 4 Electric is designed could be properly installed and accommodated in the car.
- Good
- Adequate
- Marginal
- Weak
- Poor
Head Impact 15.6 Pts
Pelvis Impact 5.5 Pts
Leg Impact 6.0 Pts
| System Name | Front Collision Assist System | ||
| Type | Auto-Brake with Forward Collision Warning | ||
| Operational From | 4 km/h | ||
| PERFORMANCE | | |||
- Day time
- Night time
Day time
-
Vehicle reversing into standing pedestrian
-
Pedestrian crossing a road into which a car is turning
-
Adult crossing the road
-
Child running from behind parked vehicles
-
Adult along the roadside
Night time
-
Adult crossing the road
-
Adult along the roadside
-
Cyclist from nearside, obstructed view
-
Approaching a crossing cyclist
-
Cyclist along the roadside
Protection of the head of a struck pedestrian was mixed, being mostly good or adequate over the bonnet surface but with marginal or poor at the base of the windscreen and on the stiff windscreen pillars. The bumper offered good or adequate protection to pedestrians’ legs and protection of the pelvis was also mostly good. The autonomous emergency braking (AEB) system of the MG can respond to vulnerable road users as well as to other vehicles. The system performed adequately in tests of its response to pedestrians and well in tests of its response to cyclists, with collisions avoided in most cases.
- Good
- Adequate
- Marginal
- Weak
- Poor
| System Name | Speed Assist System |
| Speed Limit Information Function | Camera based |
| Speed Control Function | System advised (accurate to 5km/h) |
| Applies To | Front and rear seats | ||
| Warning | Driver Seat | Front Passenger(s) | Rear Passenger(s) |
| Visual | |
|
|
| Audible | |
|
|
| Occupant Detection | |
|
|
|
|||
| System Name | UDW & DMS |
| Type | steering input and direct eye monitoring |
| Operational From | 60 km/h |
| System Name | Lane Departure Assist System |
| Type | LKA and ELK |
| Operational From | 60 km/h |
| Performance | |
| Emergency Lane Keeping | |
| Lane Keep Assist | |
| Human Machine Interface | |
| System Name | Front Collision Assist System | |||
| Type | Autonomous emergency braking and forward collision warning | |||
| Operational From | 4 km/h | |||
| Sensor Used | camera and radar | |||
- Autobrake function only
- Driver reacts to warning
Autobrake function only
-
Car turning across the path of an oncoming car
-
Approaching a stationary car
-
Approaching a stationary car
-
Approaching a stationary car
-
Approaching a slower moving car
-
Approaching a slower moving car
-
Approaching a slower moving car
-
Approaching a braking car
Driver reacts to warning
-
Approaching a stationary car
-
Approaching a stationary car
-
Approaching a stationary car
-
Approaching a slower moving car
-
Approaching a slower moving car
-
Approaching a slower moving car
-
Approaching a braking car
The autonomous emergency braking (AEB) system of the MG 4 Electric performed well in tests of its reaction to other vehicles. A seatbelt reminder system is fitted as standard to the front and rear seats and the car is equipped with a system to detect driver fatigue. The lane support system gently corrects the vehicle’s path if it is drifting out of lane, and also intervenes in some more critical situations. A driver-set speed limiter is fitted as standard equipment and met Euro NCAP’s requirements for accuracy.
- Specifications
- Safety Equipment
- Videos
- Rating Validity
Specifications
Tested Model MG4 Electric
Body Type - 5 door Hatchback
Year Of Publication 2022
Kerb Weight 1685kg
VIN From Which Rating Applies - all MG 4 Electrics
Class Small Family Car
Safety Equipment
Note: Other equipment may be available on the vehicle but was not considered in the test year.
![]()
Fitted to the vehicle as standard![]()
Fitted to the vehicle as part of the safety pack![]()
Not fitted to the test vehicle but available as option or as part of the safety pack![]()
Not available![]()
Not applicable
Fitted to the vehicle as part of the safety packVideos
Rating Validity
Variants of Model Range
| Body Type | Engine | Model Name | Drivetrain | Rating Applies | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LHD | RHD | ||||
| 5 door hatchback | electric | MG 4 EV | 4 x 2* |  |
|
* Tested variant
Find more information in the General Comments section of the assessment
Share
The passenger compartment of the MG 4 Electric remained stable in the frontal offset test. Dummy readings indicated good protection of the knees and femurs of both the driver and passenger but some structures in the dashboard were thought to present a hazard for occupants of different sizes or to those sitting in different positions. Dummy readings of the driver’s chest compression indicated marginal protection of that body region. Analysis of the deceleration of the impact trolley during the test, and analysis of the deformable barrier after the test, revealed that the car would be a benign impact partner in a frontal collision. In the full-width rigid barrier test, dummy readings indicated good or adequate protection of all critical body areas. However, analysis post-test analysis of the film showed that the head of the rear passenger dummy had moved forward more than is recommended, and protection of that body area was rated as marginal. In both the side barrier test and the more severe side pole impact, all critical parts of the body were well protected and the MG 4 Electric scored maximum points in this part of the assessment. Control of excursion (the extent to which a body is thrown to the other side of the vehicle when it is hit from the far side) was poor. The MG 4 Electric does not have a counter-measure to mitigate against occupant to occupant injuries in such impacts. Tests on the front seats and head restraints demonstrated good protection against whiplash injuries in the event of a rear-end collision. However the rear seats scored no points for whiplash protection as the centre position in that row lacks adequate head restraint. The MG 4 Electric has an advanced eCall system which alerts the emergency services in the event of a crash and a system which applies the brakes to prevent secondary collisions.