Information & Inspiration For
MG Electric Vehicle Enthusiasts
MG Electric Vehicle Enthusiasts
MG5 Roof rails decorative only
- Thread starter GMitch
- Start date
-
- Tags
- mg5 roof rails
Fluffykins
Established Member
I almost agree with you Stuart but think on this, based on your own words:
What MG have done here is very damaging to the MG5 and the MG brand. I'm not sure it was the fairest thing to do to customers, bearing in mind we have seen no less than four definitive witten statements from MG: 50kg 0kg, 35kg, 0kg, in that order.
What MG have done here is very damaging to the MG5 and the MG brand. I'm not sure it was the fairest thing to do to customers, bearing in mind we have seen no less than four definitive witten statements from MG: 50kg 0kg, 35kg, 0kg, in that order.
SimonomiS
Established Member
As well as those numbers is the photo history; with bikes on roof bars, airbrushed out. Some official website photos were still showing the roof with a load not long ago and may still be.
EWD
Established Member
I spotted a lot of the dealer websites still show the old un-airbrushed photos of the MG5 with the roof rails.
SimonomiS
Established Member
Exactly...
Crunch
Standard Member
Thanks to Les and everyone raising this issue. I had an MG5 on order as a lease as it seemed ideal as a family estate, close to my failing Fabia. Given the publicity pics and accessory listings, assumed the roof rails were usable.
Then via this site I learned about the problem and for me it was a deal breaker. I need a roof box for family camping trips and seems likely we'll be doing more of these for a year or two. Hiring a different car for these alone would add a significant cost.
So, I cancelled the order, though the car was already on its way to my local MG dealer (about 2 weeks after ordering). Other EVs and hybrids didn't quite make sense in terms of money, range and space, so I'll revisit EVs in 3-4 years. I was so excited about making the EV change but got a 2nd hand Octavia for now. Ah well...
Then via this site I learned about the problem and for me it was a deal breaker. I need a roof box for family camping trips and seems likely we'll be doing more of these for a year or two. Hiring a different car for these alone would add a significant cost.
So, I cancelled the order, though the car was already on its way to my local MG dealer (about 2 weeks after ordering). Other EVs and hybrids didn't quite make sense in terms of money, range and space, so I'll revisit EVs in 3-4 years. I was so excited about making the EV change but got a 2nd hand Octavia for now. Ah well...
Cocijo
Distinguished Member
Shame. The ZS is a great car - but less range than the MG5
Crunch
Standard Member
Yes I nearly went for that but looking at the range figures on EVdb it would be a hassle for me recharging on longer cold weather trips, maybe OK in summer.
Villanbee
Standard Member
Without wanting to speak out of turn, wouldn't you have been better off waiting a few weeks for a definite answer from MG?
It seems that MG are trying to sort the issue out, hence the premature 35kg announcement.
This article also seems to suggest MG feel they are close to a solution:
MG5 EV owners told not to use roof rack over fears it could be for decoration only
Owners of the new MG5 EV have been left baffled after marketing brochure which claimed its roof could hold up to 50kg of weight was found to conflict with the owners manual which describes the
garagewire.co.uk
I agree the whole situation is far from ideal and shouldn't have happened, but to write off EV ownership for 3-4 years when this could be sorted in a few weeks...?
I'm sure the Octavia is a great car, but I'm over the moon with my 5 and can't help but feel you've missed out. It's a cracking car.
bb1922
Established Member
This is a very interesting discussion. Here's my take on it.
It is never wrong to be the whistle blower, if you find something is wrong. In that respect, Les is not at fault in any way. The issue was valid and he had every right to raise it with the relevant authorities and consumer associations.
That being said, I understand that Les has a vehicle on order, that hopefully, one day, he will get delivered to him, hopefully with usable roof bars, as that's the way it's looking like it's going, at this time. He will have a vehicle that will have value to him and value when it one day gets resold. He may even use the roof bars to carry a load. You never know!
Most of us in these forums will also either own, or have orders placed on, a vehicle. This includes myself. I am enjoying my new vehicle and it hurts me to see the brand damaged and my car potentially devalued, now that the press have got hold of a story and are writing what I perceive as damaging, impartial, sensationalistic articles on the subject. This does none of us any good.
With hindsight, could Les have conceivably achieved what he did, which is to get the roof bars approved retrospectively to carry a load, without going down the route that he did? I suspect not, as it was obvious MG UK were not going to budge.
However, did Les exhaust every possible avenue to get this resolved, prior to taking it to Which and to DVSA, which was obviously going to make the press? Again, hindsight is a wonderful thing and it is easy to look back and argue that Les could have asked MG if this really was their final stance on this, and give them one final chance to fix it, including giving them notice that he was going to take it to Which and DVSA, prior to actually doing so. Maybe MG would have changed their stance at that point, maybe not. We'll never know.
So, I genuinely want to thank Les for being the voice that brought change. It's a brave thing to do and not something I would have had the courage to do. Hopefully MG will have learnt from this, we will get usable roof bars, and all the bad press on this matter will slowly fade away.
I hope Les now recognises his achievements and makes an equally difficult but active choice to give MG the space and the time that they need to resolve this, preserve the brand and avoid further negative publicity. Continually bringing this topic back into the limelight now is, I fear, unhelpful and unwanted.
I must stress this is my personal opinion only.
It is never wrong to be the whistle blower, if you find something is wrong. In that respect, Les is not at fault in any way. The issue was valid and he had every right to raise it with the relevant authorities and consumer associations.
That being said, I understand that Les has a vehicle on order, that hopefully, one day, he will get delivered to him, hopefully with usable roof bars, as that's the way it's looking like it's going, at this time. He will have a vehicle that will have value to him and value when it one day gets resold. He may even use the roof bars to carry a load. You never know!
Most of us in these forums will also either own, or have orders placed on, a vehicle. This includes myself. I am enjoying my new vehicle and it hurts me to see the brand damaged and my car potentially devalued, now that the press have got hold of a story and are writing what I perceive as damaging, impartial, sensationalistic articles on the subject. This does none of us any good.
With hindsight, could Les have conceivably achieved what he did, which is to get the roof bars approved retrospectively to carry a load, without going down the route that he did? I suspect not, as it was obvious MG UK were not going to budge.
However, did Les exhaust every possible avenue to get this resolved, prior to taking it to Which and to DVSA, which was obviously going to make the press? Again, hindsight is a wonderful thing and it is easy to look back and argue that Les could have asked MG if this really was their final stance on this, and give them one final chance to fix it, including giving them notice that he was going to take it to Which and DVSA, prior to actually doing so. Maybe MG would have changed their stance at that point, maybe not. We'll never know.
So, I genuinely want to thank Les for being the voice that brought change. It's a brave thing to do and not something I would have had the courage to do. Hopefully MG will have learnt from this, we will get usable roof bars, and all the bad press on this matter will slowly fade away.
I hope Les now recognises his achievements and makes an equally difficult but active choice to give MG the space and the time that they need to resolve this, preserve the brand and avoid further negative publicity. Continually bringing this topic back into the limelight now is, I fear, unhelpful and unwanted.
I must stress this is my personal opinion only.
Last edited:
Martin11
Standard Member
Are the rails on the MGZS also decorative?
RossN
Established Member
no. They have a weight limit...not sure what though
Crunch
Standard Member
Just combination of circumstances really, current car becoming unusable, MOT due, no point spending money on it, lease process moved much quicker than I thought. On balance, for my needs (range, space, roof load) and budget, the MG5 was just doable, but ultimately decided I'll have more and better options in a few years. Meanwhile I'm getting an electric bike to reduce my environmental impact instead (already got solar panels and 'green' energy supply) .
Richie
Established Member
Hi Crunch
I was of the same opinion as you. My 5 was ordered in October and wanted delivery this March (we had just bought the ZSev). Then the Rail issue erupted, I held on spoke to dealer who said don't believe the internet, started looking around for alternatives. The e-Nero came closest but 8 to 10k more so at that price considered past ICE cars i.e MB A 200 AMG line even going backwards to an older Land Rover Evoque. I still liked the MG5 and spoke again to the dealer to cancel who of course was reluctant and convinced me to wait for the MG result and then if I don't like the result I can cancel. Which with further consideration was reasonable and fair. So that's where I am at the moment.
As for EV's, the charging infrastructure here and in France where we go often (or did) is abysmal. And as soon as we have more charging points and able to pay with Credit/debit it will put people off buying.
Some people are saying on here and on many EV sites that they are keeping an ICE car as back up and for long journeys. Well, many years ago when the first motor vehicles came about the same people who bought them also kept a Horse & Carriage as back up, so nothing changes. ?
Crunch
Standard Member
Yes, fast charging is particularly not great on motorway routes I would probably need it. Local charging (e.g. Lidl and regional schemes like West Yorkshire | ENGIE Chargepoint Network ) is good though.As for EV's, the charging infrastructure here and in France where we go often (or did) is abysmal. And as soon as we have more charging points and able to pay with Credit/debit it will put people off buying.
[snip]
Some people are saying on here and on many EV sites that they are keeping an ICE car as back up and for long journeys. Well, many years ago when the first motor vehicles came about the same people who bought them also kept a Horse & Carriage as back up, so nothing changes. ?
If I had space and money I can see sense in keeping an ICE car for some people, but I have neither!
MG5 with a bit more range and 75kg roof load would be spot on for me. Nearly there I think.
Richie
Established Member
75kg, that's very hopeful, fingers crossed.
Crunch
Standard Member
I just mean that would be ideal for me in a future car, MG or otherwise.
Similar threads
Latest MG EVs video
MG Hybrid+ EVs OVER-REVVING & more owner feedback
