Brand logo

XPENG G9

G9 frontal view
b78fe53b-21c9-4ceb-a434-142946aca2aa
be1364e1-9847-492b-91c4-e41a07b6773f
1e484e86-852b-476e-87c0-1cdc08bf3456
34bd74a4-f96c-496c-9419-94e633f4c349
d9b43554-0b14-49f7-9d4e-0e3133a66b84
ba93bcdc-35c3-4927-a2f2-347ee64cfd3a
54a429b1-fd28-4c2c-9d4c-6085d843fb8c
cf9dd957-191f-4f67-8dff-a2292a7b7a54
882d65fc-e512-48db-aade-d3dc36b9ed11
8ca8336f-b528-471f-b856-bbfa306d6788
529ce0fb-018e-44c8-9aa9-3dfb3ed9d730
Play
2023
Standard
Standard

Verdict

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.

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.

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.

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.

Tested ModelXPENG G9, LHD
Body TypeSUV
Kerb Weight2210 kg
Adult Occupant

Adult Occupant

85%
Child Occupant

Child Occupant

85%
Vulnerable Road Users

Vulnerable Road Users

78%
Safety Assist

Safety Assist

78%

Safety Equipment

Driver
Passenger
Rear
Front Airbag
FITTED_STANDARD
FITTED_STANDARD
NOT_AVAILABLE
Belt Pretensioner
FITTED_STANDARD
FITTED_STANDARD
FITTED_STANDARD
Belt Loadlimiter
FITTED_STANDARD
FITTED_STANDARD
FITTED_STANDARD
Knee Airbag
NOT_AVAILABLE
NOT_AVAILABLE
NOT_AVAILABLE

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 standard
  • Fitted to the vehicle as part of the safety pack
    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 fitted to the test vehicle but available as option or as part of the safety pack
  • Not available
    Not available
  • Not applicable
    Not applicable

Rating Validity

Body Type
Variant Description
Drivetrain
Rating Applies LHD
Rating Applies RHD
5 door SUV
Electric - RWD Long Range
4x2
true
true
5 door SUV
Electric - RWD Standard Range*
4x2
true
true
5 door SUV
Electric - AWD Long Range
4x4
true
true
  • * Tested Variant

Additional Information