New mg4 off to great start

[Fogey]

sure but it isn't 'less' range as the other guy insisted.

It probably is on the more realistic (for many users) WLTP spec. The CLTC spec favours smaller, lighter cars where aero drag at higher speeds has less effect.

Just compare with the (real world and WLTP) range figures for some of the smaller cars coming from Renault and Stellantis etc. which use similar-sized batteries.

 

[siteguru]

Comparing this to our current MG4 doesn't make sense - it is a different vehicle aimed at a different market.

Which may very well be true ... but given that 4 is an unlucky number for the Chinese I'm surprised that they'd call it that in their home market. (The MG4 here was the Mulan over there).

 

[tsedge]

Which may very well be true ... but given that 4 is an unlucky number for the Chinese I'm surprised that they'd call it that in their home market. (The MG4 here was the Mulan over there).

I think that is considered an old superstition these days. A bit like skipping the number 13 is here, which I think only happens now with ship's decks.

With such a low number as 4, it comes up awfully often, so I can see why they'd want to get past that.

 

[Everest]

I'm not sure where I might have read it, so the possibility of the ER having achieved the extra range by using a higher nickel formula may well be wrong - it's just that it seemed to be a not too unreasonable conclusion.

Maybe with a bit of maths it can be worked out? e.g. by looking at greater weight of ER over LR - which ev-database says is 100kg.

Assuming energy densities of 180Wh/kg for NMC523, 200 for NMC622 and 240 for NMC811, then if just the chemistry was changed, the capacity would increase to 71kWh for NMC622 or 85kWh with NMC811. So, it's safe to say the ER doesn't use NMC811.

Doing the calculations the other way around. 64000 Wh / 180 Wh/kg = 355Kg weight of cells for the LR. So, if the ER's extra weight is wholly down to the cells then 355kg + 100kg = 455kg x 180Wh/kg = 82kWh, which is a bit too much, but close the the ER's 77kWh.

But if, let's say, the cells are only 80kg heavier and the more powerful motor is 20kg heavier (I'm not aware of any other significant differences), then the calculation becomes 355kg + 80kg = 435kg x 180Wh/kg = 78.3kWh.

Hence my best guess would be that the chemistry is the same in both variants and about 75kg of the extra 100kg for the ER is down to more NMC523 cells.

 

[Fogey]

Seems reasonable!

 

[ReintjeWA]

Folks, this isn't the MG4 replacement in the UK / other markets.

It is confirmed as at least a partial replacement for the Australian market;

Post in thread 'MG4 in Australia'

Aug 12, 2025

NEW BUDGET EV: Popular MG 4 to get an update and reshuffle

MG will field two unrelated vehicles – a new MG 4 with front-wheel drive, alongside today's model – in the electric small car category.

www.drive.com.au

Guess that clarifies a few things. So it looks like we will be losing the SE, and the ER. The current MG4 design will be available with only the 64 kWh battery, and either RWD or AWD (Xpower). The other design will be the MG4 Urban and come with two different batteries.

I suppose we could still have the Excite (SE LR) with the 64 kWh battery pack, but maybe they'll dump that too in favour of the Urban. I don't know if they want to purely separate them by battery capacity or by...

• ReintjeWA