- 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
![]()
85% -
See More
![]()
85% -
See More
![]()
78% -
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 | |||
| Submergence Check | Non-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, good protection was provided to all critical body areas for both child dummies, and the XPENG G9 scored maximum points in this part of the assessment. 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 G9 is not equipped with 'child presence detection', a system which issues a warning when it recognises that a child or infant has been left in the car. All of the child restraint types for which the G9 is designed could be properly installed and accommodated in the car.
- Good
- Adequate
- Marginal
- Weak
- Poor
Pedestrian & Cyclist Head 9.3 Pts
Pelvis 0.8 Pts
Femur 4.5 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 towards the centre of the bonnet but largely marginal or poor elsewhere. Protection of the pelvis was also mainly poor, but that of the femur and of the knee and tibia was at 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 performed well in tests of its response to pedestrians. The system scored highly in tests of its reaction to cyclists, including dooring, in which the car prevents or warns against door opening if a cyclist is approaching from behind. Similarly, the AEB system performed well in all tests of its response to motorcyclists and scored full points.
- Good
- Adequate
- Marginal
- Weak
- Poor
| System Name | Speed Assistance System |
| 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 and Sleep |
| 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 autonomous emergency braking (AEB) system of the XPENG G9 performed well in tests of its reaction to other vehicles, including in the head-on test scenarios. A seatbelt reminder system is fitted as standard to the front and rear seats but the driver status monitoring system did not score points, detecting only driver drowsiness. 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, and 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 G9, LHD
Body Type - 5 door SUV
Year Of Publication 2023
Kerb Weight 2210kg
VIN From Which Rating Applies - all G9s
Class Large 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 G9 remained stable in the frontal offset test. Dummy numbers showed good protection of the knees and femurs of both the driver and passenger. XPENG showed that a similar level of protection would be provided to occupants of different sizes and to those sitting in different positions. Protection of the front passenger was good for all critical body areas. Analysis of the deceleration of the impact trolley during the test, and analysis of the deformable barrier after the test, revealed that the G9 would be a moderately benign impact partner in a frontal collision. In the full-width rigid barrier test, protection of the rear passenger’s chest was rated as marginal, based on dummy readings of compression. The pelvis of the front driver dummy had slipped under the lap portion of the seatbelt, a phenomenon known as 'submarining', and protection of this body region was rated as poor. In the side barrier test, protection of all critical body areas was good and the G9 scored maximum points in this part of the assessment. In the more severe side pole impact, protection was good or adequate for all critical parts of the body. 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 adequate. The G9 has a counter-measure to mitigate against occupant to occupant injuries in such impacts and this performed well in Euro NCAP's test. 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 G9 has an advanced eCall system which alerts the emergency services in the event of a crash. The car also has a system which applies the brakes after an impact, to avoid secondary collisions. XPENG demonstrated that if the car entered water, the doors, if locked, could be opened within two minutes of power being lost but did not demonstrate the duration for which windows would remain functional.