ANCAP says latest MG 3 is better than its predecessor, but still lacking in important areas.

NATIONAL new vehicle safety auditor ANCAP has delivered a measured ‘could do better’ assessment of a cost-effective MG small hatchback recently released in New Zealand.

Based in Melbourne and primarily created to serve as Australia’s safety overseer, but also accredited the same position here, the organisation - full name Australasian New Car Assessment Programme - says the latest MG 3 is deserving of three stars out of a possible five. So, the same score that the previous car held and achieved when testing was more lenient, and with far fewer safety assists than the latest features.

ANCAP holds that MG could make the new model better. It cites that the brand has opportunities to deliver safety improvements "and we encourage them to consider these findings in future vehicle upgrades.”

The rating applies to petrol and hybrid models and will surely come as a blow to MG, which though a British by birthright brand has re-developed as a Chinese make based in Shanghai out to show itself to be a leading international make and technology leader.

The new MG 3 was launched with more safety and technology than its predecessor, which also held a poor rating, but that was put down it being an elderly car. The new adopted a much more modern design approach.

The type sells as a full petrol for $25,990 to $27,900 and same-trimmed hybrids at $29,990 and $31,990 respectively.

The latter are price-advantaged over Japanese types closest in technology - the Toyota Yaris hybrid and Honda Jazz, respectively site at $32,490 GX/ $38,890 ZR and $36,700 in RS e:HEV.  The Toyota is a five star car. 

The current Honda does not have a rating and neither does the new Suzuki Swift hybrid, which is not as technically advanced as the MG 3 Hybrid, but is more directly priced, in spanning from $25,990 ANCAP has warned the three-star score does not yet apply locally due to "specification differences [which] may alter the safety performance of locally-supplied vehicles."in manual to $29,990 in CVT-pure RSC.

There’s some speculation the Suzuki might be caught up with the same score; the European NCAP - a sister organisation to ANCAP and often a close collaborator - has decided the Swift as it sells in Europe merits just three stars. But ANCAP has yet to determined its New Zealand and Australia rating. It says the Euro NCAP the does might not apply locally due to “specification differences (which) may alter the safety performance of locally-supplied vehicles."

Three stars translates in ANCAP-speak to mean that a car is going to deliver an average level of safety performance, offering a medium standard in safety.

In its decision announced today, ANCAP said the type limited to three stars as its crash-avoidance technology fell just two percentage points short of the minimum score needed for the vehicle to be eligible for four stars overall.

However – even if it earned full marks in this category – the new car’s structure did not protect adults and children inside well enough to have elevated two any more than four stars.

ANCAP suggests never buying a car that does not have a five-star rating, as there will be points of vulnerability. That viewpoint is often promoted by road safety agencies. Some fleets will not buy anything but five-star cars.

It said its MG 3 testing has revealed a varying level of protection for adult and child occupants.  

A promising overall Adult Occupant Protection score of 72 percent was achieved with maximum points scored for protection of the driver in the side impact test.

however concerns were noted – and a penalty applied – for high impact forces to the driver’s right shoulder in the oblique pole test.  

A penalty was also applied for the rear adult passenger in the full width test, as the seatbelt allowed excessive forwards head movement. 

Both the head and chest of the rear passenger were assessed as ‘marginal’ in this test, with ‘good’ and ‘adequate’ results seen for the driver and rear passenger’s legs.

The frontal offset test yielded a mix of ‘good', ‘adequate’ and ‘marginal’ results, with hard areas of the underside of the dashboard likely to present a higher injury risk to the legs of both the driver and front passenger.  A penalty was applied.

MG 3 lacks a head-protecting centre airbag between the two front seats. ANCAP says this device is commonly found on new vehicle models entering the market since 2020.

“As a smaller vehicle, the MG 3’s safety performance is likely to have benefitted from a centre airbag or other countermeasure to prevent contact between the heads of front seat occupants in side impact collisions,” it says. 

“As MG did not provide evidence to demonstrate performance in these specific side impact scenarios, zero points were recorded in this section of assessment.”

The level of injury protection provided to child occupants was also mixed, with ‘poor’ and ‘marginal’ scores recorded for the chest of the 10 year child dummy in the side impact and frontal offset tests respectively.

ANCAP says a notable improvement to previous generation MG 3 models is the standard-fit range of driver assistance safety technologies including autonomous emergency braking (AEB) and an active lane support system (LSS). 

“The MG 3 performed well in forwards-travel AEB test scenarios involving the pedestrian, motorcycle and vehicle targets.  Performance was also seen in turning scenarios.”

However, ANCAP continued, “the MG 3 does not respond in reversing, crossing or head-on emergency braking scenarios.

“This reduced level of functionality restricted its scores within the Vulnerable Road User Protection and Safety Assist areas of assessment.”

ANCAP noted “the MG 3 narrowly missed out on a four-star result, limited to three-stars in the Safety Assist pillar.  The MG 3 achieved an overall score of 58 percent in this assessment area, with a minimum of 60 percent required to reach the four-star threshold.” 

“This rating for the MG 3 is important as its predecessor offered limited safety,” said ANCAP chief executive officer Carla Hoorweg.

“The MG 3’s safety scores were healthy in some areas, particularly vulnerable road user protection, however there are still a number of opportunities for MG to deliver safety improvements and we encourage them to consider these findings in future vehicle upgrades.”   

She continued: “The physical size of the MG 3 puts it at a disadvantage in a mixed fleet which is why we would have liked to have seen this new model offer better physical protection and restraints, but we’ve definitely seen some green shoots with this vehicle in comparison to the model it superseded and our other most-recently rated MG – the zero-star MG 5.”