It has been a while in the making has MG’s Cyberster. We first saw hints of such a vehicle at the Shanghai Motor Show in 2017 when MG wheeled out a stunner in the form of the E-Motion concept. Admittedly, this was a hardtop GT but it was a two-door two-seater as well, with a coupe shape and scissor-style doors.
That scene stealer was followed up in 2021 by the Cyberster concept, a real flight of fantasy. It debuted the arrow-shaped taillights evident in the production car. The final offering isn’t quite so futuristic, but the three-screen instrument layout and the scissor doors eventually made their way into production.
They’re really all part of the Cyberster’s glamour, a hero car for the brand. There’s the traditional long bonnet and short tail like the ‘70s MGB GT. But the old eight-sided MG badge almost looks out of place on something this modern; MG should have adopted the circular item they used on the E-Motion concept.
Still, the rest of the car sure is attention grabbing, and we’re not talking just about the elegant if impractical scissor doors. On those, this must be the least expensive car ever to feature such exotic entrances.
What’s also interesting about Cyberster is that, despite being almost twice the price of any MG that came before it, it kind of retains the value-first ethos of the company. What else is as quick for the money? Not many, if any. It really has no direct rivals, at least until the electric Boxster arrives. Comparisons with MX-5 are largely pointless. Other than both being two-door convertibles, one is rear drive, the other AWD, one is electric, the other ICE powered. One is a bit over a tonne, the other just under two. The Mazda isn’t even 4m long and has just 130L of boot space. The MG is over 4.5m in length, has 250L of luggage capacity (no frunk but) and is roughly twice the price of the Mazda ($129k plus ORCs). It’s also roughly twice as quick.
This dual-motor machine packs system power of 375kW and 750Nm, enough punch once set up in “Super Sport” or Track mode to reach 100 from zip in 3.2sec. That’s providing you use launch control.
MG is right on with its claim. Our best run was 3.11sec but the rest were all 3.2sec or thereabouts. Without engaging LC it’s still plenty quick, at just under 3.5sec. It’s so surprising because in Normal mode it is merely fast.
The overtake is blistering as well, at 1.98sec. That’s much the same as the almost $260k Taycan Turismo 4S we tested recently. Figures also pretty much overlay those of the $195k EQE 53 4Matic and the Kia EV6 GT.
Read more 2023 MG4 XPower vs MG4 Excite 51 comparison review
Serious ICE power is required to match the performance of the Cyberster. Like, for example, the $375k Aston Martin Vantage. If you want (relatively) cheap thrills of the accelerative type, Cyberster genuinely hits the mark.
We noted right off the bat how good the brakes felt and all emergency stops were in the 33m bracket. A mere brush of the pedal is often sufficient, but then so is regen setting 2 or 3. And because it carries such convincing corner speeds, applying the actual brakes is only necessary every once in a while. Handily, the big Brembos feel and are excellent.
Things Cyberster didn’t kick off too well for us, it must be said. After unlocking it, the driver’s side door didn’t seem to open fully. That’s because you must first push the button and then stand aside. Sensors prevent it from knocking you over. The doors themselves open more up than out. So you must slip in behind them and down into the driver’s seat; the opening is not as big as with a regular door.
By simply sitting in the car it readies itself for action. Only our’s came up with a warning light on, suggesting a tyre pressure issue. Turns out they all had about 33PSI and were meant to have 37. After inflating to the recommended pressures, the warning lights extinguished.
One other issue we had was that ACC wasn’t working. However, we’d experienced this once before in an MG; you can turn it off in the MG Pilot area. Why would you choose to deactivate active cruise, for heaven’s sake? Doesn’t merely turning it off do that? Two issues we were unable to rectify; one-pedal functionality wasn’t working. Never mind, because three levels of regen on the left paddle were entirely sufficient. And neither front seat occupant could alter lumbar support via the infotainment screen. That said, the driver’s seat felt supportive all round. And finally, spelling errors in the main instrument we’d deem inexcusable. Two of them. Recuperation was mispelt, while energy use From Start read Front Start. This is particularly bad given MG has a London office.
At pick up it registered 100 per cent charge and showed 443km, the exact claimed range. After a day of shooting the car and driving around, there was 58 per cent remaining, or 228km of range. It would take 20 hours of slow charging to replenish the 77kWh (74.4 usable) battery, at which point there was an indicated range of 409km. You can achieve a 10 to 80 per cent recharge using a 150kW fast charger in around 40min, apparently, but it’s much cheaper doing it at home overnight.
Hop in and this is replete with synthetic leather and alcantara, but the latter is in a cream colour that would surely dull/dirty over time. Mind you, it’s washable using soapy water and a microfibre cloth.
I’m not so sure that the three-screen layout for the driver works that well. There’s the 10.25-inch central screen with the main info like speed and traffic sign recognition, along with range remaining. Either side are two seven-inch angled touchscreens. Only those are partly obscured by the rim of the wheel. The screen on the right relays mean energy use. MG reckons around 16 but Rightcar says 19.1kWh/100km which is closer to the mark. On the motorway at 100 you’ll sometimes see figures nearing MG’s combined. Our worst according to the trip computer was 26.5kWh/100km during a fast charge through the hills.
There’s rather too much bonging going on – who’d have thought? – the camera aimed at you particularly annoying as it sets off a bong fest as soon as you’re not looking at the road. So we taped over that which silenced it perfectly and permanently. Most others you can quieten down easily enough by turning off MG Pilot items. Though overspeed bongs are merely quieter, with fewer of them.
On the right side of the steering column, the paddle scrolls through drive modes. There’s Normal, Sport and Custom, the latter changing performance and steering heft. No Eco mode seems sensible. The left paddle is for regen.
On the go the driving position is pretty good. We’d like to sit a tich lower but perhaps the battery pack beneath prevents that. Visibility is great for a convertible. It’s even better with the roof down, naturally. And that takes only a little over 10sec to achieve, one way or the other. The hood, in red or black, stows beneath a tonneau cover, and does not impinge on luggage capacity.
We couldn’t quite believe how well road roar was contained. With the roof in situ, no SPL readings exceeded 70dB. Amazing given the quality and amount of rubber.
In the Normal driving mode performance is pretty good; it relies on the 250kW rear motor alone. Step up to Sport and it’s scintillating, with a palpable lift in energy. We guess that Normal is a little more restrained to keep battery reserves in check. For all that, there’s more than enough performance for day-to-day driving in this mode, in or out of town. Track, as we said, is crazy quick.
Despite its beefy kerb weight, much of it is set low and between the axles, thanks to the moderately big battery pack. So there’s an inherent handling advantage of a 50/50 weight split. This turns in well, quickly, as you’d imagine despite the wheel’s 2.75 turns between the lock stops. It’s not darty like smaller, lighter converts but it still changes direction as you might expect for a sportster.
There’s plenty of top-shelf PZero rubber beneath too, the 20-inch rims staggered with 245/40s at the pointy end and 275/35s aft, so this hangs in there nicely. We only drove it in the dry and cornering speeds are heady, the rubber eventually calling time in tight corners as you push towards the elevated limits of adhesion. Those limits are lofty too, matching some reference corner speeds that only exotics achieve.
Despite blowing a fair amount more air into all four corners of the Cyberster, the ride is surprisingly accommodating for this type of car. It’s somewhat relaxed in the springing, which is fixed, and a little more staunch in the damping. The balance works on smooth surfaces, but it is sometimes thrown off line in bumpy corners. We noted suspension bottoming out at times too. While there’s some roll it still manages to hold momentum on roads for which this was designed, making it fast point to point. While lines are not really adjustable with power on or off, good weight balance is reflected in its resistance to understeer. And the helm patters away nicely too. Yes, it’s more of a GT than a track champ but most will be okay with that. And as mentioned, it’s outrageous in a straight line.
Bottom line? It meets its MG value proposition as well as the ZS Hybrid+ we also drove this month. It’s truly impressive for a first-gen machine, with a few remediable foibles. Can’t wait for the Cyber GTS hardtop version that MG will surely put into production.
Speedo error 100 at an indicated 100km/h
Ambient cabin noise 69.8dB@100km/h
Motor output 375kW
Max torque 725Nm
Battery 74.4kWh
Range 443km
Drivetrain Single-speed auto / AWD
Front suspension Wishbones / sway bar
Rear suspension Multilink / sway bar
Turning circle 10.9m (2.45 turns)
Front brakes Ventilated discs
Rear brakes Discs
Stability systems ABS, ESP
Safety AEB, ACC, BSM, LDW, RCTA, ALK, AHB
Tyre size f-245/40R20 r-275/35R20
Wheelbase 2690mm
L/W/H 4535 / 1913 / 1329mm
Track f-1616mm r-1629mm
Luggage capacity 249L
Tow rating Not rated to tow
Service intervals 12 months / 25,000km
Warranty 10yrs / 250,000km
ANCAP rating not yet tested
Weight (claimed) 1985kg
