- 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
![]()
88% -
See More
![]()
85% -
See More
![]()
81% -
See More
![]()
75%
- 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 | |||
| Submergence Check | Compliant | |||
- 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
![]()
Easy![]()
Difficult![]()
Safety critical![]()
Not allowed-
![]()
Airbag ON
Rearward facing restraint installation not allowed
Difficult
Safety critical
Airbag ON
Isofix
![]()
Easy![]()
Difficult![]()
Safety critical![]()
Not allowed-
![]()
Airbag ON
Rearward facing restraint installation not allowed
![]()
Easy![]()
Difficult![]()
Safety critical![]()
Not allowed-
![]()
Airbag ON
Rearward facing restraint installation not allowed
In both the frontal offset and side barrier tests, protection was good for all critical body areas of both child dummies and the G6 scored maximum points. 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. The G6 is not equipped with a direct 'child presence detection' system. All of the child restraint types for which the G6 is designed could be properly installed and accommodated in the car.
- Good
- Adequate
- Marginal
- Weak
- Poor
Pedestrian & Cyclist Head 12.4 Pts
Pelvis 1.9 Pts
Femur 2.1 Pts
Knee & Tibia 9.0 Pts
| System Name | Forward Collision Warning | ||
| Type | Auto-Brake with Forward Collision Warning | ||
| Operational From | 4 km/h | ||
| PERFORMANCE | | |||
Protection of the head of a struck pedestrian or cyclist was predominantly good or adequate, with poor results recorded on the stiff windscreen pillars and at the base of the screen. Protection of the pelvis was poor at several test locations, as was that of the femur. However, protection of the knee and tibia was good at all test locations. The autonomous emergency braking (AEB) system of the XPENG can respond to vulnerable road users as well as to other vehicles. The system’s response to pedestrians and cyclists was good, scoring full points for the latter including ‘dooring’ protection, where a door is suddenly opened in the path of a cyclist approaching from behind. The collision avoidance system performed well in tests of its response to motorcyclists, scoring full points for AEB and scoring well for its lane support.
- Good
- Adequate
- Marginal
- Weak
- Poor
| System Name | MSLA, ISLA |
| Speed Limit Information Function | Camera & Map, subsigns supported |
| Speed Control Function | Intelligent ACC (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 | Driver Status Monitoring |
| Type | Direct eye monitoring |
| Operational From | 30 km/h |
| Fatigue | Drowsiness |
| System Name | Lane Departure Assistance |
| Type | LKA and ELK |
| Operational From | 60 km/h |
| Performance | |
| Emergency Lane Keeping | |
| Lane Keep Assist | |
| Human Machine Interface | |
| System Name | Forward Collision Warning | |||
| Type | Autonomous emergency braking and forward collision warning | |||
| Operational From | 4 km/h | |||
| Sensor Used | camera and radar | |||
Overall, the performance of the autonomous emergency braking (AEB) system was good in tests of its reaction to other vehicles, with collisions avoided in most test scenarios. A seatbelt reminder system is fitted as standard to the front and rear seats. The car has a direct driver status monitoring system as standard, detecting 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. The speed assistance system identifies the local speed limit. However, the system occasionally indicated the incorrect limit in some complex situations during Euro NCAP's tests, and was not rewarded. The driver can choose to allow the limiter to be set automatically by the system.
- Specifications
- Safety Equipment
- Videos
- Rating Validity
Specifications
Tested Model XPENG G6 Long Range, LHD
Body Type - 5 door SUV
Year Of Publication 2024
Kerb Weight 2025kg
VIN From Which Rating Applies - all XPENG G6s
Class Small SUV
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/Code | Drivetrain | Rating Applies | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LHD | RHD | ||||
| 5 door SUV | Electric | RWD Standard Range | 4 x 2 |  |
|
| 5 door SUV | Electric | RWD Long Range * | 4 x 2 | |
|
| 5 door SUV | Electric | AWD Long Range | 4 x 4 | |
- |
* Tested variant
Find more information in the General Comments section of the assessment
Share
The passenger compartment of the G6 remained stable in the frontal offset test. Protection was good or adequate for all critical body areas of the driver and all good for the passenger. XPENG demonstrated that the same level of protection would be provided to the knees and femurs of occupants of different sizes and to those sitting in different positions. Analysis of the deceleration of the impact trolley during the test, and analysis of the deformable barrier after the test, revealed that the G6 would be a benign impact partner in a frontal collision. In the full-width rigid barrier test, protection was good or adequate for all critical body areas of the driver but protection of the rear passenger’s chest was rated as weak, based on dummy readings of compression. In both the side barrier and pole impact tests, protection of all critical body areas was good and the car 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 found to be adequate. The G6 has a countermeasure to mitigate against occupant-to-occupant injuries in such impacts. In Euro NCAP’s test the passenger dummy’s head contacted the shoulder of the driver dummy. Injury parameters were not excessive but the car was penalised for the contact. Tests on the front seats and head restraints demonstrated good protection against whiplash injuries in the event of a rear-end collision. A geometric analysis of the rear seats also indicated good whiplash protection. The G6 has an advanced eCall system which alerts the emergency services in the event of a crash, and there is a system to prevent secondary impacts after the car has been in a collision. XPENG demonstrated that the doors and windows would be openable to allow occupants to escape in the event of vehicle submergence.