- With standard equipment
- With safety pack
在评估表的一般评语部分可以了解到更多信息
在评估表的评级有效性选项卡中可以了解到更多信息
- 了解详情
- 了解详情
- 了解详情
- 了解详情
- 优秀
- 充分
- 边缘
- 弱
- 差


- 优秀
- 充分
- 边缘
- 弱
- 差


乘客
外侧
中间
车辆标配
试验车辆未安装但可选配
未配备
-
i-Size 儿童约束装置
-
ISOFIX 儿童约束装置
-
带通用安全带的儿童约束装置 (CRS)
顺利安装
小心安装
严重安全问题
不允许安装
座椅位置 | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
前排 | 第 2 排 | |||
乘客 | 左 | 中间 | 右 | |
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) |
顺利安装
小心安装
严重安全问题
不允许安装
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.
- 优秀
- 充分
- 边缘
- 弱
- 差

头部碰撞 15.6 分
骨盆碰撞 5.5 分
腿部碰撞 6.0 分
系统名称 | Front Collision Assist System | |||
类型 | Auto-Brake with Forward Collision Warning | |||
运行自 | 4 公里/小时 | |||
性能 | | ||||
自动刹车功能 |
-
前座乘客侧骑行者,视线受阻
-
骑车者横穿
-
骑车者沿道路前行
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.
- 优秀
- 充分
- 边缘
- 弱
- 差
系统名称 | Speed Assist System |
限速信息功能 | Camera based |
调速功能 | System advised (accurate to 5km/h) |
适用于 | Front and rear seats | ||
警告 | 驾驶员座椅 | 前排乘客 | 后排乘客 |
视觉 | |||
听觉 | |||
乘员检测 | |||
|
系统名称 | UDW & DMS |
类型 | steering input and direct eye monitoring |
运行自 | 60 公里/小时 |
系统名称 | Lane Departure Assist System |
类型 | LKA and ELK |
运行自 | 60 公里/小时 |
性能 | |
紧急车道保持 | |
车道保持辅助系统 | |
人機接口 |
系统名称 | Front Collision Assist System | |||
类型 | Autonomous emergency braking and forward collision warning | |||
运行自 | 4 公里/小时 | |||
所用传感器 | camera and radar |
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.
- 规格
- 安全设备
- 视频
- 评级有效性
规格
试验车型 MG4 Electric
车身式样 - 5 door Hatchback
公布年份 2022
整备质量 1685kg
评级适用的 VIN - all MG 4 Electrics
级别 小型家用车
安全设备
注:车辆上可能会配备其他设备,但在试验年份未予考虑。
车辆标配
作为安全套装的一部分配备于车辆
试验车辆未安装但可选配,或者作为安全套装的一部分配备
不可用
不适用
视频
评级有效性
所有车型车款
Body Type | Engine | Model Name | Drivetrain | Rating Applies | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
LHD | RHD | ||||
5 door hatchback | electric | MG 4 EV | 4 x 2* | ![]() |
![]() |
* Tested variant


在评估表的一般评语部分可以了解到更多信息
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.