Five Star Crash Safety Rating for MG 4 Electric: What You Need to Know
Delhi : For the protection of adult and kid occupants, Morris Garages's all-electric hatchback received high marks, and the on-board safety features also functioned as intended.
In their most recent series of crash tests, Euro NCAP gave the MG 4 Electric a 5-star rating. In terms of occupant protection, the all-electric MG for European markets performed admirably, and the onboard active safety systems also did their jobs satisfactorily.
Regarding protecting adult occupants, the Morris Garages Electric vehicle received an 83% rating. In frontal crash tests, the car's occupant protection levels ranged from good to adequate, however the driver's chest protection was only minor. The agency also observed a greater than recommended forward movement of the back passenger's head during the full-width barrier frontal impact. As a result, the agency gave the area's protection a moderate rating.
However, control of excursion (the body being propelled to the opposite side of the cabin by impact forces from a far-side collision) was poorly controlled during side impact testing with the barrier and pole.
Although the back seats fared poorly in terms of rear impact, the front seats provided good levels of whiplash and impact protection. The board explained that the bad rating was due to the back centre passenger's inadequate head restraint.
Morris Garage 4 received an award for 80 percent rate score for kid occupant protection. The car's rear outer seats were compatible with ISOFIX and i-Size child restraint systems (CRS), however the front passenger seat and rear centre seat were not. Additionally, the car lacked an integrated CRS system. The CRS could be correctly installed and accommodated in the car, according to Euro NCAP, which also commended the manufacturer for giving the driver a clear airbag deactivation notice when a rear-facing child seat was installed in the co-driver seat.
Both the 6-year-old and 10-year-old occupants scored high ratings for the vehicle's impact protection, although even the latter's neck protection was substandard.
Regarding pedestrian safety, the MG provided good to adequate levels of protection over the bonnet surface, while marginal or poor protection was provided by stronger areas such the A-pillars and the base of the windscreen. The bumper provided good or adequate protection for the legs and, for the most part, good protection for the pelvis of pedestrians.
In comparing to other vehicles and vulnerable road users the autonomous emergency braking system also worked satisfactorily and, in the majority of cases, preventing collisions. This earned it a 75% rating for protecting vulnerable road users.
In contrast, the safety assist systems received a 78% rating, with the majority of their autonomous functions working between adequate and well.
