The frunk!

[Whiskery]

I've taken on board all the serious comments here (and the amusing ones!) including those by the dealer. I made a mistake not removing the frunk prior to taking it in.
Regarding modification, I wonder about putting on a roof rack or adding wind deflectors or a tow bar. Could be considered mods and invalidate the warranty?
I remove the frunk weekly for cleaning underneath and there is zero sign of of deformation of the plastic or the mounting/bolts. I haven't scanned it with an infrared gauge however it has been on for roughly 2+ years and 40,000 miles. I really don't see it as a fire hazard and it is securely mounted.

 

[Archev]

I've taken on board all the serious comments here (and the amusing ones!) including those by the dealer. I made a mistake not removing the frunk prior to taking it in.
Regarding modification, I wonder about putting on a roof rack or adding wind deflectors or a tow bar. Could be considered mods and invalidate the warranty?
I remove the frunk weekly for cleaning underneath and there is zero sign of of deformation of the plastic or the mounting/bolts. I haven't scanned it with an infrared gauge however it has been on for roughly 2+ years and 40,000 miles. I really don't see it as a fire hazard and it is securely mounted.

I have a roof tent which has been fitted for a few weeks now on my five. The insurance noted it but weren’t really interested about it. The car had its third service and first MOT with the tent fitted. There was no mention of the roof rack or the tent from the main dealer and no advisories on the MOT certificate.

 

[Gadget Geek]

From Hastings Insurance:

Here are some of the most popular car modifications, and all of them need to be declared to your insurer:

• Engine. Some motorists take great pride in tuning their car's engine – but it will almost always lead to a rise in premiums as you're improving the performance of the vehicle.
• Wheels. ...
• Sat nav. ...
• Tinted windows. ...
• ECU.

And from Burrows Motor Company:

The definition of a car modification is a change made to a vehicle so that it differs from the manufacturers original factory specification. So it is vital that you consider the extra costs that may accompany your modification.

I personally can't see how a froot would fall into any of these categories.

 

[DB Go Rex]

From Hastings Insurance:

Here are some of the most popular car modifications, and all of them need to be declared to your insurer:

• Engine. Some motorists take great pride in tuning their car's engine – but it will almost always lead to a rise in premiums as you're improving the performance of the vehicle.
• Wheels. ...
• Sat nav. ...
• Tinted windows. ...
• ECU.

And from Burrows Motor Company:

The definition of a car modification is a change made to a vehicle so that it differs from the manufacturers original factory specification. So it is vital that you consider the extra costs that may accompany your modification.

I personally can't see how a froot would fall into any of these categories.

The key word there is "some of".

There is a world of difference to bolting a type-approved towbar to designed-in mounting points, to installing a homebrew frunk to critical high voltage drive train components.

Don't get me wrong, I like the ideas and what people are doing to get around MG's laziness in not designing one, but I wouldn't be betting the house on the warranty or an insurance claim being guaranteed if anything bad happened.

 

[fred12345]

I've taken on board all the serious comments here (and the amusing ones!) including those by the dealer. I made a mistake not removing the frunk prior to taking it in.
Regarding modification, I wonder about putting on a roof rack or adding wind deflectors or a tow bar. Could be considered mods and invalidate the warranty?
I remove the frunk weekly for cleaning underneath and there is zero sign of of deformation of the plastic or the mounting/bolts. I haven't scanned it with an infrared gauge however it has been on for roughly 2+ years and 40,000 miles. I really don't see it as a fire hazard and it is securely mounted.

Generally, to be on a safe side, if approved by MG, it's fine; if not - not. Roof rack/mount is allowed of up to 75kg (or was it 50kg? can't remember) on roof rails. MG tow-bar is OK as it's MG approved, it's optional extra... . Wind-deflectors are usually stick-on these days so shouldn't be an issue but if they somehow get the window stuck (hypothetically speaking) , MG could refuse repair under warranty ...

 

[Narrowgauge725]

Mine bolts to existing tapped holes so there is no modification, I did remove before it went in for service.

 

[DB Go Rex]

Mine bolts to existing tapped holes so there is no modification, I did remove before it went in for service.

The repurposing of those holes would likely count as a modification or change of original specification. Just because you haven't cut into something or replaced something doesn't mean it isn't a modification.

The thing that keeps coming to mind for me for this mod is liability in the case of an incident with a pedestrian.

The bonnet is designed to effectively be a crumple zone with designed deformation if a pedestrian was to hit the bonnet. There is intended to be a gap between the engine (or other components in the case of an EV) for that deformation to happen. ICE cars also typically have plastic engine covers to absorb some of that energy.

Granted, purpose designed frunks restrict that gap, but If anything was to happen, and it was found that there was a non standard modification to the gap between the bonnet and the underside you would be on shaky ground.

 

[Narrowgauge725]

The repurposing of those holes would likely count as a modification or change of original specification. Just because you haven't cut into something or replaced something doesn't mean it isn't a modification.

The thing that keeps coming to mind for me for this mod is liability in the case of an incident with a pedestrian.

The bonnet is designed to effectively be a crumple zone with designed deformation if a pedestrian was to hit the bonnet. There is intended to be a gap between the engine (or other components in the case of an EV) for that deformation to happen. ICE cars also typically have plastic engine covers to absorb some of that energy.

Granted, purpose designed frunks restrict that gap, but If anything was to happen, and it was found that there was a non standard modification to the gap between the bonnet and the underside you would be on shaky ground.

You are of course entitled to your opinion but my frunk will stay. I actually do not have a duty of care to someone I hit unless it is my fault. In case of crumple zone that is a manufacturer's requirement not a drivers. If it was then all those non compliant cars would have to be banned.

 

[DB Go Rex]

You are of course entitled to your opinion but my frunk will stay. I actually do not have a duty of care to someone I hit unless it is my fault. In case of crumple zone that is a manufacturer's requirement not a drivers. If it was then all those non compliant cars would have to be banned.

That's not what the highway code says.

Those with ability to do the greatest harm have largest duty of care in all circumstances.

It's called the "Hierarchy of road users" - I think you need to read it.

Regardless, if you have ever been involved in an accident with a vulnerable road user, you will understand that in any car-person incident, or any cycle-car incident, insurance companies very rarely find in favour of the car driver - they will explicitly warn you of this in the event of a claim.

 

[Gadget Geek]

Regardless, if you have ever been involved in an accident with a vulnerable road user, you will understand that in any car-person incident, or any cycle-car incident, insurance companies very rarely find in favour of the car driver - they will explicitly warn you of this in the event of a claim.

This is why a dash-cam is an essential accesory these days. On the program "Caught On Dashcam", there are a number of amusing attempts of chancers throwing themselves onto car bonnets in an attempt to scam the insurance companies.

 

[DB Go Rex]

This is why a dash-cam is an essential accesory these days. On the program "Caught On Dashcam", there are a number of amusing attempts of chancers throwing themselves onto car bonnets in an attempt to scam the insurance companies.

I think it's much more likely there will be a genuine incident than an attempt at fraud.

 

[RetiredPope]

The bonnet is designed to effectively be a crumple zone with designed deformation if a pedestrian was to hit the bonnet. There is intended to be a gap between the engine (or other components in the case of an EV) for that deformation to happen. ICE cars also typically have plastic engine covers to absorb some of that enenergy.

I might agree with you, if it wasn't for the fact that the ZS was designed as an ICE and has had an EV system retro-fitted. What changes have been made to the car to compensate for the EV system. Zero that I can see.

 

[Archev]

I might agree with you, if it wasn't for the fact that the ZS was designed as an ICE and has had an EV system retro-fitted. What changes have been made to the car to compensate for the EV system. Zero that I can see.

And note the the MG5 is ev only in most markets but was also converted from the Chinese petrol vehicle.
The big transmission hump between the front footwells where the gearbox is in the ice versions gives the game away.

 

[DB Go Rex]

I might agree with you, if it wasn't for the fact that the ZS was designed as an ICE and has had an EV system retro-fitted. What changes have been made to the car to compensate for the EV system. Zero that I can see.

You might have noticed the the large gap between the bonnet and and the AC/DC converter, compressor etc...

I am not sure what point you are making here. The car, as an EV, is approved and tested for the UK market.

 

[Narrowgauge725]

Petrol ZS has plenty under the bonnet higher that the EV

 

[DB Go Rex]

Petrol ZS has plenty under the bonnet higher that the EV

Absolutely, but that engine cover is designed to absorb energy, and what’s there is standard and type approved.

Regardless of the differences, what you’ve done with the frunk is not standard, and that’s the whole point: I am not saying what people have done is 100% unsafe, but what I am saying is that what you’ve done is non standard, not tested by the manufacturer, and in the event of pedestrian collision, there’s likely enough reason to suggest that the integrity of the region of the car was not acting as originally designed.

 

[RetiredPope]

I am not sure what point you are making here. The car, as an EV, is approved and tested for the UK market.

The large gap between the bonnet and converter could be because the front of the car is designed to take and ICE engine. If it was designed as an EV, would the bonnet be lower? Would the equipment be arranged differently to allow a larger battery pack? Converting an ICE car leads to a compromised EV design. Compare the ZS bonnet gap to the MG4 bonnet gap.

 

[DB Go Rex]

The large gap between the bonnet and converter could be because the front of the car is designed to take and ICE engine. If it was designed as an EV, would the bonnet be lower? Would the equipment be arranged differently to allow a larger battery pack? Converting an ICE car leads to a compromised EV design. Compare the ZS bonnet gap to the MG4 bonnet gap.

Yes, obviously it is (although your question about the battery pack I don't think holds, as the battery is in the floor in both cars). If you are going to make use of space, my point is that it's then an untested modification to a part of the car that is in the pedestrian crumple zone area, so regardless of whether it is in actual practical reality safe or not, none of that matters when it comes to an incident and you've modified it.

I am not saying that the solutions here are in actual fact unsafe, I'm just pointing out it's an area of concern to think about in the event of an incident.