Among the 30 C-SUV 2019–2023, the HS 1.5T AT FWD ranks 27th of 30 in Combined consumption (7.6 L/100, behind the Bmw X2 sDrive18d), 24th of 25 in Tank range (724 km, behind the Bmw X2 sDrive18d), 29th of 30 in 0–100 km/h (10.0 s, behind the Cupra Formentor VZ).
2021 · GENERATION 2021 → · COMPACT SUV
MGICE
MG HS 1.5T AT FWD
163 hp, 10,0 s 0-100 : among the 30 C-SUV 2019–2023, the HS 1.5T AT FWD ranks 27th of 30 in Combined consumption, 24th of 25 in Tank range, 29th of 30 in 0–100 km/h. Here is what the Caralogy simulations say.
Power
163hp
250 Nm
0 → 100 km/h
10.0s
VMax 195 km/h
Cons.
7.6L
/100 km
Tank
55L
Technical identity card
Full specifications MG MG HS 1.5T AT FWD
Manufacturer data. Consumption and range estimated from the WLTP cycle; performance simulated by the Caralogy physics engine.
Powertrain
| Power | 163 hp |
| Couple | 250 Nm |
| Gearbox | Convertisseur de couple 6 rapports Automatique |
| Transmission | Traction |
Consumption
| Cons. WLTP | 7.6 L/100km |
| Tank | 55 L |
Performance
| 0 → 100 km/h | 10,0 s |
| VMax | 195 km/h |
Dimensions and environment
| Length | 4,574 mm |
| Width | 1,865 mm |
| Height | 1,680 mm |
| Kerb weight | 1,445 kg |
| Cd | 0.34 |
Caralogy Methodology
Performance (0-100, top speed) simulated by the Caralogy physics engine (SCx, Crr, real torque curves). Motorway consumption values estimated from the manufacturer WLTP cycle.
See full methodology →Manufacturer data · WLTP-estimated consumption · Caralogy-simulated performance
Among the 30 C-SUV, the HS 1.5T AT FWD ranks (in the bottom third) in fuel consumption. Caralogy simulates its real-world cost: motorway simulation, consumption simulation and performance simulation.
Caralogy Analysis
Tailored to this vehicle?
Fuel consumption: 7.6 L/100 L/100 (27th of 30 in Combined consumption)
The HS 1.5T AT FWD consumes 7.6 L/100 on the WLTP combined cycle. The segment reference is the Bmw X2 sDrive18d (4.8 L/100).
Tank range: 724 km (24th of 25 in Tank range)
On a full tank, the HS 1.5T AT FWD covers 724 km on the combined cycle. The segment reference reaches 1063 km.
Go beyond this analysis
Recalculate everything for your own profile with the three physics simulators that power this page.
Running cost for your profile
Adjust mileage, driving mix and charging type to estimate your annual energy budget.
Launch simulator →Long-distance trip
Simulate any motorway trip: time, charging stops, total cost.
Simulate a trip →Chronos & accélération
0-100, 0-200, courbe de vitesse, positionnement segment.
Voir la performance →Segment positioning
Where the MG HS 1.5T AT FWD stands against C-SUV
Comparison across 30 C-SUV marketed between 2019–2023.
Combined consumption27e / 30
7.6 L/100
Min 8.6 L/100 · Cupra Formentor VZMax 4.8 L/100 · Bmw X2 sDrive18d
Tank range24e / 25
724 km
Min 705 km · SEAT Ateca 2.0 TSI 190 FR 4Drive 7DSGMax 1 063 km · Bmw X2 sDrive18d
0–100 km/h29e / 30
10,0 s
Min 10,7 s · Citroen C5 Aircross PureTech 130 FWDMax 4,9 s · Cupra Formentor VZ
Direct rivals (same segment, same energy)
Kadjar 1.3 TCe 160 EDC160 hp · 0-100 9.9 s
Q3 Sportback150 hp · 0-100 9.1 s
Q3 SUV150 hp · 0-100 9.1 s
Kuga 2nd Gen EcoBoost 150150 hp · 0-100 10.3 s
Cross-energy alternatives
Same needs, different powertrain.
Model family
The full MG HS range
Other versions
Compare
Popular duels involving the MG HS 1.5T AT FWD
Frequently asked questions
MG MG HS 1.5T AT FWD: what you need to know
Well-argued answers to the most asked questions about this model, based on Caralogy data and simulations.
724 km on a full tank (7.6 L/100 on the combined cycle) - 24th of 25 in autonomie du segment.
Running costs depend on your profile (mileage, charging type, city/highway mix). Use the Caralogy consumption simulator for a personalised estimate.
The Bmw X2 sDrive18d leads in Combined consumption (4.8 L/100 vs 7.6 L/100). The choice depends on your priorities: check the HS 1.5T AT FWD vs Bmw X2 sDrive18d duel for a detailed comparison.
Caralogy does not reproduce manufacturer figures: we recalculate every number through physics simulation, starting from SCx, mass and the power curve. This is why our figures at 130 km/h differ from WLTP. Full methodology on the dedicated page.