It is a field battle that from now on we will see more frequently: Europe vs. China. But while the Renault Mégane E-Tech reproduces the European car standard in terms of qualities, general tuning... and, above all, price, MG sets new standards among oriental brands by offering a product that will surely make you open your eyes.
I don't know if you will share this opinion with me, but one of the advantages that MG may have is that, unlike other brands recently born or landed from the East, it does not resonate with a Chinese manufacturer, with the pejorative connotations that in most cases — true that, less and less— supposes in the perception of the product.
The others are being won by the brand in general with each new launch, and more particularly with its MG 4 model with a double and very interesting commercial offer articulated in two power levels with batteries not only of different capacities but also different technology: lithium-iron-phosphate for the 51 kWh version with 170 CV and lithium ions for the 64 kWh with the 204 CV engine, the latter version that we are comparing against the Renault Mégane E-Tech, the which already has some other evolution since its appearance. That said, it is not surprising that simply because it is the cheapest electric car in the category -it is, even among electric models that are much smaller, less powerful, or with less battery capacity-, the MG 4 has become the electric revelation of the moment.
MG 4: A
CONVINCING ELECTRIC CAR AT A MUCH CHEAPER PRICE
The difference is overwhelming if we take into account the similarity in specifications with other similar cars, but let's go with more specific data. There is only one model cheaper than the basic 170 CV MG 4: the already somewhat veteran 150 CV Nissan Leaf with 40 kWh capacity batteries, justifiable if you have a minimal roadmap approach. An MG 4 204 CV/64 kWh costs almost 1,000 euros less than a Citroën C4 with 136 CV and a 50 kWh battery, around 7,600 euros less than the most affordable Cupra Born, about 9,700 euros cheaper than the renewed ID.3 from VW and about 9,000 euros less than the equivalent Mégane E-TECH, today's rival model in this comparison.
So, is a master buy or just a cheap car? It depends… it fundamentally depends on how you understand the term cheap. Although I assure you that we will deepen this comparison from an absolutely objective and neutral point of view, I do drop that I am one of those who think that the true engine of change towards electric mobility must be sustained in cars with the philosophy of the MG 4 where everything has a more than a logical balance, always giving higher priority to aspects that I understand are essential in an electric car —range, operation, load stability, presumable reliability, etc— and not so much those that seek cost containment as long as safety is not neglected. And the truth is that in this MG 4, there is a bit of everything, although with much more weight on the positive aspects.
DIVERGENT
IN FORM... AND SUBSTANCE
Structurally they are completely different cars, something that in practice can be decisive for certain drivers and more or less advantageous depending on the conditions of use, although for me it is not so much since Renault has made the necessary updates to its Mégane E-TECH to avoid the routs that occurred from the front end. You know, Renault is an "all in front", engine and therefore also traction assimilating a lot of torque, while the MG4 is an "all in the back" like the electric cars of the VW group with which, by the way, it bears a certain resemblance in terms of to proportions and shapes of the body. Without risk, yes, some that the propulsion may compromise driving safety —so it seemed to me even in adverse conditions.
It is true that the architecture and configuration of the MG 4 provide certain natural advantages in terms of motor skills or achieving more dynamic reactions —its weight distribution is almost close to 50/50% on each axis—, although there is something that can be recognized Also the Renault chassis is a magnificent behavior and set-up, perhaps, yes, something more artificial or less "mechanical" than that of the MG 4, which is where I believe the charm of the Chinese car lies. In this sense, and even more so when I assume that an electric car drives with its mind set on not wasting autonomy, we must go more into the nuance of those aspects that can determine a more satisfactory driving and general feel according to the criteria that each one has. , and both MG and Renault have clearly defined their role.
If for me, the MG 4 is more appealing behind the wheel, it is because I notice it is more direct, more reactive, somewhat more agile, and lighter —more than what is assumed from its difference in weight— and above all, because it gives a more clear of the limits of the tire, protagonists also of the good dynamic balance that this car has without the need to resort to disproportionate sizes -20 inches in the case of the Mégane which, remember, suppose an extra cost in the maintenance of the vehicle.
It is curious how a car that does not turn flat gives such a feeling of balance and naturalness, turn after turn, chaining changes of support without breaking down in the least. What it does do very well is contain pitching when braking, accelerating, or changing direction. And you can even provoke some participation from the rear, although the reactions will always be very progressive and totally controllable. In contrast to this attitude, the Mégane's rear axle is more monolithic and its fluidity will really depend on what you do with the steering, noticing a slightly more understeering tendency, by the way, DNA of the French firm. Of course, we have already discussed it, the change that Renault has made to optimize motor skills changes the Mégane E-TECH overnight. Roundabouts, slippery ground, wet white lines, and crosswalks are no longer a handicap and you can also apply a good dose of acceleration in the curve without the inside wheel ceasing to transmit power to the ground.
On that good base mentioned, MG adds a slightly less firm direction than that of the French model but is more pleasant on a day-to-day basis —especially at low speed and for maneuvering—, but above all, a front end that scores better than his rival the start and support of the tire to register the trajectory. The damping provides shorter vertical movements but without leaving comfort in the background, although the damping quality of the French car is clearly superior. And finally, MG's brake pedal also provides more confidence because it's firm, feels better, and modulates with precision, which is especially appreciated when driving in fast-moving traffic or in the city. Here Renault still has some pending duty because its pedal continues to change the point of bite depending on the effect of regenerative braking applied at each moment, making it difficult to modulate precisely in "short distances", when we approach a car, a traffic light, etc
Of
course, thanks to the cams and four possible levels with well-adjusted
intensities, the Mégane's regenerative brake is a great support in any
situation and you can take great advantage of it to avoid pad wear in the long
run —you can save more than 50% of braking—and efficiently regenerate the
battery: Renault claims that the efficiency of its system is 97%. In the MG you
have to adjust its three different degrees by entering the corresponding menu
on the central screen, something that does not invite you to use each mode
depending on what conditions, although it has a predictive mode that does not
work badly. In any case, the retention it brings is less than the top level of
the Mégane.
The packaging is the strong point of the French. It's not the chassis, it's not the suspension, it's not the engine, it's not the finishes; It is a computation of elements working very well as a team. Compared in isolation, the suspensions are not much more flexible although the rear axle does not have as good rebound control, but between the chassis and the body, there is more insulation work and materials, probably also of better quality. It is not quieter than the MG 4 either -in fact, the aerodynamic noise produced in the front pillars from medium speeds makes it more annoying-, but for better or worse, it transmits more and better the feeling of pure rolling electricity providing a more refined final composition not only from the point of view of comfort and refinement but also in the operation of driving aids, where the MG still lacks integration. In this sense, the most critical element is a lane maintenance system with its own will in terms of steering guidance and very violent reactions.
HORSES...
OF DIFFERENT BREEDS
Not just MG. All Chinese brand electrics have a common characteristic: they avoid explosive power delivery and opt for a more linear operation, such as with more oiliness at low revs, a very full mid-range, and not too much force at the end of their stroke, since close to the declared top speed. In the case of the MG 4, for example, its Sport mode comes to have a reactivity similar to the Normal mode of the Mégane E-TECH. From my point of view, it is true that it takes away some of that charm that the accelerations of electric motors have, but on a day-to-day basis, it is more useful, you jerk less, you drive more fluently and the accelerations are also powerful, but softer.
In the case of MG 4, there is a double circumstance: the variability of its performance. It is true that it is something that goes completely unnoticed in normal driving, but not so much if you feel like doing a small stretch of curves, you demand the most from the engine and, above all, batteries. In the situation where you notice it most clearly in the performance tests, where to find similarity in each pair of records that are made by the test you have to let the car "run" under sail, that there is battery cooling and probably also some recharging for regenerative effect. In this case, you match two passes in a thousand-meter test with a standing start with very decent records, going below 30 seconds and finishing the kilometer at 158 km/h. For you to have a reference, in invalid tests in which you feel that this MG 4 "comes apart" it has finished the kilometer above 32 seconds, being unable to increase speed when reaching more or less, about 140 km. /h. It is clear that it is not something subtle; It is noticeable in these types of conditions although we have not noticed it at any time driving normally on the road, and I would bet that it was simply a matter of self-protection of the batteries.
Uploaded to the Mégane E-TECH, it is not its superior power that marks the distances, but that different mechanical spirit that makes this engine give wings to the French car. It is clearly faster, clearly more explosive at low speed, faster, more reactive at medium and high speed. It is always constant, no matter how fast you accelerate, you will feel that aftertaste of electric torque that makes you gain speed so easily. It is an engine with even more punch than the 204 hp electric versions used by the VW group in the ID.3 or Cupra Born, among others, although under normal conditions of use, it is not so much an advantage as decisive as efficiency could be. because the radius of action depends on it and, as is also clear from its benefits, the MG 4 more than meets the questions of dynamism. And that is where we have had the opportunity to verify the other great specialization of the MG 4.
CONTINUOUS
MOVEMENT
For me, it is the section with the most specific weight in the choice of an electric
car of the type we are analyzing, to the point that I would forgive certain
gaps in the finish, quality of materials, and even equipment in exchange for extra
kilometers of the radius of action. The Mégane has already shown that it is a car
with moderate consumption. The MG is, simply, an electric one out of the
ordinary and more specialized for the daily that we can make of a car like
this. Quite simply, it spends very little in the city and also very little on those
varied routes that mix the ring road, and the highway and we move at medium speeds
with highly changing traffic rhythms, where you brake frequently, let the car
move forward by inertia and make a lot of use. of regenerative braking to
reduce speed. But let's go in parts.
The
biggest advantage of low consumption in the city is much more in cost of use
than the eventual lack of autonomy because sooner or later you will end up
resting, in such a way that the advantage of the MG 4 is not that it can cover
an average of 70 km more per charge, but you can avoid one charge per week,
for example, in addition to the fact that, effectively, it's 12.7 kWh/100 km
make each journey more advantageous in terms of electricity cost than the 14.9
kWh needed to travel 100 km in the case of the Mégane E-TECH.
In that second varied use that we have mentioned before is where we obtain one of the most significant values in terms of efficiency: the minimum consumption that the car will have as long as you move normally and are not obsessed to the point of being a nuisance. in traffic for other users. It is basically a combination of sections where we can circulate at 70, 90, and 110 km in more or less the same proportion, and where the MG 4 once again confirms himself as a specialist: 12.7 kWh/100 for him, equivalent at about 470 km if we consider 60 kWh of real battery capacity —MG only provides the total capacity— compared to 14.9 kWh/100 km for the Mégane E-TECH, a value, all told, also quite good with which it could reach 400 km. Another 70 km extra in favor of the MG in these two routes in the long term provides a significant advantage in the number of charges. We have focused more on this type of use because, I think, it represents 80% or more of the average use of a car in normal use, but yes, it is also time to travel and of course, we have two road routes in which equality is, in this case, maximum.
0 Comments