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.

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.

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.

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.