[Bullterrier]

So it seems the brochure and accessories for the 5 were both wrong (and have been altered).

MG now say the 5 cannot have roof bars or any roof load - the rails are ‘decorative’.

 

[Br_Ranger]

That's so annoying. It's a selling point I've been pushing to friends with kids.

Sent from my NX629J using Tapatalk

 

[Petriix]

That's ridiculous. Are they made of plastic? Or is there something else at play? Are they worried about reduced range when carrying anything?

 

[Bullterrier]

That's so annoying. It's a selling point I've been pushing to friends with kids.

Sent from my NX629J using Tapatalk

Might be a few cancelled orders and a deal to be done if you don’t (ever) want to use the roof.

An estate with such an uneven load space and now no roof capability is a bit of a head scratcher to me.

Hopefully the dealers will proactively contact those with orders to make them aware of the new limitation.

 

[Bullterrier]

That's ridiculous. Are they made of plastic? Or is there something else at play? Are they worried about reduced range when carrying anything?

No idea.

Two dealers have confirmed the no load/decorative new limitation and the previous data on max loading etc has vanished from the website.

 

[Petriix]

It's a bit of a deal breaker for me as it's the only way I can transport my canoe. It only weighs 17kg so I may just risk it, albeit with some additional support and security.

 

[BarryH]

It makes me think ... Are the roof bars on ZS EV decorative or functional?

 

[Bullterrier]

It makes me think ... Are the roof bars on ZS EV decorative or functional?

They are still rated as they were and MG still sell roof accessories.

 

[Bullterrier]

It's a bit of a deal breaker for me as it's the only way I can transport my canoe. It only weighs 17kg so I may just risk it, albeit with some additional support and security.

Won’t be insured of course if something happens (and an assessor spots it).

 

[Petriix]

Won’t be insured of course if something happens (and an assessor spots it).

The driver is always responsible for ensuring a load is properly secured. There are other ways of attaching a load to the roof without relying 100% on the roof rails themselves.

 

[Bullterrier]

The driver is always responsible for ensuring a load is properly secured. There are other ways of attaching a load to the roof without relying 100% on the roof rails themselves.

Basically MG now rate the roof at no load at all.

 

[Br_Ranger]

Do we know what happened to change all this? Did UK homogeneous just say no? Are we asking for trouble if the car is not up to Europe's standards?

Sent from my NX629J using Tapatalk

 

[Bullterrier]

Do we know what happened to change all this? Did UK homogeneous just say no? Are we asking for trouble if the car is not up to Europe's standards?

Sent from my NX629J using Tapatalk

I don’t know. MG updated the website to remove the previous 50kg limit and all ref to roof bars and I know of 2 dealers who told customers there’s now no roof load permitted and the rails are ‘decorative’.

 

[TJEV]

“It’ll probably be ok but we can’t certify it”?

I’d imagine EU standards require x multiple of the rated load, and MG couldn’t meet this. They then probably decided losing the certification would cost them less than getting it re-tested at a lower rating.

I bet the regulators would cry if they saw how much these things usually carry in their home market! 😆

 

[greentangerine]

I have a three bike rack on the Mondeo I'm replacing with the MG5.

The most frequent load is one cycle but two numerous times during the year and very, very occasionally I've used all three.

I'll probably switch it to a max of two and keep my fingers crossed.

 

[Bullterrier]

“It’ll probably be ok but we can’t certify it”?

I’d imagine EU standards require x multiple of the rated load, and MG couldn’t meet this. They then probably decided losing the certification would cost them less than getting it re-tested at a lower rating.

I bet the regulators would cry if they saw how much these things usually carry in their home market! 😆

That isn’t what they are saying -

“It’ll probably be ok but we can’t certify it”?

I’d imagine EU standards require x multiple of the rated load, and MG couldn’t meet this. They then probably decided losing the certification would cost them less than getting it re-tested at a lower rating.

I bet the regulators would cry if they saw how much these things usually carry in their home market! 😆

They aren’t saying that though....just no roof load - at all.

 

[Br_Ranger]

I have a three bike rack on the Mondeo I'm replacing with the MG5.

The most frequent load is one cycle but two numerous times during the year and very, very occasionally I've used all three.

I'll probably switch it to a max of two and keep my fingers crossed.

The suggested we just use a rack on the back. I guess there is one in the garage after all.

Sent from my NX629J using Tapatalk

 

[TJEV]

@Bullterrier Exactly. Cheaper to not get a rating and lose a few orders than re-test at a lower rating or strengthen the bars.

It’ll probably be fine tho, in practise.

 

[Bullterrier]

@Bullterrier Exactly. Cheaper to not get a rating and lose a few orders than re-test at a lower rating or strengthen the bars.

It’ll probably be fine tho, in practise.

It’s an insurance risk to carry with no rating of course.

My view is they just want to flog this interim model at lowest cost to them and then the ‘proper one’ with Pilot etc will be launched again with NCAP, roof test etc etc. Might be wrong.

 

[Bullterrier]

It’s an insurance risk to carry with no rating of course.

My view is they just want to flog this interim model at lowest cost to them and then the ‘proper one’ with Pilot etc will be launched again with NCAP, roof test etc etc. Might be wrong.

Or maybe one of the staff/demo cars had ‘an incident’? Who knows.