How Not To Build a Sports Car: The MG Cyberster is a DISASTER

Product reviewed

MG Cyberster (GT, ~£60,000, 500 hp, two-seat electric sports car)

Key features mentioned

• 2-seater electric sports car (no rear seats)
• Performance:
  • 500 horsepower
  • 535 lb-ft (725 Nm) torque
  • 0–62 mph: 3.2 seconds
    • Launch control is described as easy to use
• Design / “supercar” appeal:
  • Looks good to people around you; lots of attention, photos, and questions
  • “Billionaire” fancy doors with a special opening/closing mechanism
• Practicality:
  • Good-sized boot; enough for “a week away”
• Charging & efficiency (reported/claimed):
  • Peak charging: 144 kW
  • Battery: 77 kWh
  • Claimed range up to ~310 miles
  • Real-world estimated ~250 miles
  • With 7 kW home charging, the car fills by morning (described as convenient for typical use)
• Variants compared:
  • Base Trophy: ~350 hp, single-motor RWD
  • GT (reviewed): dual-motor, 500 hp
  • Only ~£5k difference
  • Trophy has 19-inch rims; GT has 20s
    • Reviewer dislikes the styling/handling feel of the 20s
• Driving modes:
  • Comfort / Sport / Custom
  • Sport helps make acceleration feel less “underwhelming”

Main pros (what works well)

• Strong fundamental concept: electric sports car, two seats, strong “supercar” presence
• Looks/presence: curbside appeal and attention-getting design
• Straight-line speed: feels “as quick as the numbers,” effective for pulling onto busy roads
• Home charging practicality: with 7 kW overnight charging, ownership is described as easy
• Occasional moments of brilliance: sometimes feels genuinely good to experience (quiet, quick, enjoyable)

Main cons (why it’s called a disaster)

1) Door design is problematic

• Fancy door system looks impressive but creates issues:
  • Closing/opening controls are awkwardly placed
  • The raised door mechanism is described as having a sensor that will stop on contact
  • In tight spaces near obstacles (e.g., low walls), it can be a hassle

2) Interior usability and comfort problems

• Seat comfort: driver seat is found “horrible” and not adjustable enough to get comfortable
• Visibility / blind spot: described as dangerous
  • Bonnet visibility is better on one side, but overall is still problematic
• Infotainment/screens are a mess:
  • Too many options
  • Laggy/slow navigation
  • Hard to read content in sunlight
  • Steering wheel/controls feel illogical (buttons change screens, but only one direction; interaction is confusing)
  • Physical controls are tied to the wrong screen functions (confusing mapping)
  • Too much information and unnecessary features (e.g., screen dedicated to dealers/test drives)
• Touchscreen oddities:
  • Example: fog light switch on the touchscreen
  • Reviewer calls it the “stupidest thing” in a car
• Night usability: screens remain bright at night even after attempting to turn them off

3) Ride/suspension and handling are severely disappointing

• Jitter/bounciness at low speeds: road imperfections feel amplified
• Unstable at higher speeds: at times feels dangerous
• Comparison: the car behaves like one that feels ~50 years old, not a modern two-year-old sports car
• Chassis/performance mismatch: power is there, but the car lacks capability and confidence

4) Steering feedback/positioning issues

• Steering is not dead, but texture/feedback is weak
• Reviewer feels too high/awkward seating position, despite battery packaging

Comparisons made with other cars

• McLaren 570S: said to be more comfortable, despite being far more expensive/performance-oriented
• Mazda MX-5 (NC gen with BBR mod):
  • MX-5 is “more interactive” and better on the roads
  • Cyberster is quicker but “less interactive” and less confidence-inspiring
• General sports car benchmark:
  • Reviewer expects proper behavior from cars like “Fiesta to Ferrari” on a bend
  • Cyberster allegedly struggles
• MG HS:
  • Reviewer says HS handled the brief better (MG should “get right” what this review highlights)

User experience verdict from the reviewer (overall)

• The reviewer emphasizes “excellent idea, terribly executed”:
  • much of the concept is right,
  • but execution across doors, cabin tech, and especially suspension/handling makes it hard to recommend.
• They explicitly state the car “should not be on sale in this state” and they cannot recommend buying it.

Key takeaway: excellent concept; poor execution—especially suspension/handling and cabin usability.

Unique points mentioned (consolidated list)

1. Two-seat design (no unusable rear seats)
2. Strong curbside appeal; people photograph/ask questions
3. Fancy “billionaire” doors with multiple entry/closing methods
4. Door controls placement issues (buttons hard to reach from inside)
5. Door sensor behavior with obstacles/tight parking
6. Entry/egress described as generally easy (wide aperture, low sill)
7. Emergency door release is difficult to access
8. Limited cabin space
9. Very poor driver seat comfort; adjustment limits prevent comfort
10. Dangerous blind spot; eyeline/alignment concerns
11. Screen visibility problems in direct sun
12. HVAC controls split across screens / cheap-feeling strip above
13. Screen responsiveness is slow/laggy
14. Too many safety/driver-assist options; annoying repeated changes required
15. CarPlay/Android Auto uses wired USB-A to C (criticized)
16. Steering wheel blocks side screen visuals
17. Dashboard screen info overload; unnecessary dealer/test drive features
18. Confusing screen navigation/control mapping (unpredictable outcomes)
19. Steering wheel shape/ergonomics digs into the wrist
20. “Screen off” mode still leaves important light/brightness (including a fog light touch control)
21. Headlight design praised (funky/concept-like)
22. Performance: 500 hp, 3.2s 0–62, easy launch control
23. Charging: 144 kW peak, 77 kWh battery; real-world ~250-mile range vs 310 claimed
24. Home charging works well (7 kW fills by morning)
25. Suspension feels jittery/bouncy; amplifies imperfections
26. Handling can get sketchy at speed (rear may tuck in)
27. Steering feedback lacks texture; not very keen
28. Seating height feels too high; wants “another inch”
29. Speed limit behavior doesn’t match expectations for a sports/GT
30. Missed opportunity calls for redesign: wheel, seats, suspension, screen reduction

Speaker-specific contributions

• Primary speaker (James, JM on Cars): All substantive evaluation—doors, cabin ergonomics, screen UX, ride/handling, comparisons, and final recommendation.
• No other reviewers/speakers appear in the provided subtitles.

Concise verdict / recommendation

Verdict: Don’t buy it (as currently executed).

Despite impressive concept, styling, practicality, and strong straight-line performance, the reviewer argues the Cyberster GT’s cabin usability and especially its suspension/handling are bad enough that they cannot recommend buying it, and it should not be sold “in this state.”