Do MG make good cars?

thegloriousend

They are cheap and look nice, but how do they drive?
http://www.carzone.ie/usedcars/index.cfm?fuseaction=car&carID=408691

icemanjimbo04

Not sure how they drive but its a rover at the end of the day.. Id rather an Alfa 156, great to drive rumours of unreliability but great looking, Like the mg it will loose its value just as quick.
http://www.carzone.ie/usedcars/index.cfm?fuseaction=car&carID=422764

knifey_spoonie

icemanjimbo04 wrote:

rumours of unreliability

There not rumors its a well known fact.

All of the new MG's are tarted up rovers noting special about them, just remember warrenty will be hard to claim because there are no more dealers, but there is rumors of mg comimg back onot the market within 18 months.

digitaldr

I used to live in the UK and did quite a bit of motorway driving - most of the cars on the hard shoulder with their bonnets open were rovers! My sister once had a city rover as a loner when she crashed her Alfa - was one of the worst cars I've ever seen.

maidhc

thegloriousend wrote:

They are cheap and look nice, but how do they drive?
http://www.carzone.ie/usedcars/index.cfm?fuseaction=car&carID=408691

If I recall correctly that car came out in late 1994 as the Honda Civic (5dr)/Rover 400. As a result it probably drives pretty much like a Ford Escort, Golf Mk III or Nissan Sunny. Old Skool.

I know nothing about Rover's reliability, but the reputation isn't the best.

JohnCleary

The ZS 105 is a bit underpowered (103PS... big car) and is powered by the K Series engine.

You want the ZS180 2.5l ... KV6 engine baby!

natnif

rovers make head gasket go bang!
the only mg worth having is the tf imo

bazz26

thegloriousend wrote:

They are cheap and look nice, but how do they drive?
http://www.carzone.ie/usedcars/index.cfm?fuseaction=car&carID=408691

The MG ZS/ZR are based on the Rover 25/45 which have been around since around 1995. They were based on the Honda Civic of that time but MG added body kits, alloys and tweeked the suspension and handling. The K Series engine was know to suffer from head gasket failure especialy ones that were not maintained properly. Make sure any you are looking at have a full service history including any repair work carried out.

On the plus side they were fairly nippy, even the 1.4 litre still has 103bhp which is alot quicker than the current 1.4 litre Focus, Golf, etc. As these were popular with the Max Power crew check for the usual signs of abuse or DIY modifications. Also make sure that the electrics and trim work as the interiors are quite fragile. MG Rover fit and fitting was not a stronge selling point at the time. Regarding spare parts, as these were popular in the UK spare parts are still being made and will be for a good couple of years yet. To be honest the ZR/ZT is not my cup of tea, I would much rather the Rover 75 or MG ZT verison.

The one in the link above looks a bit expensive for a private sale to be honest imo. I think that is more close to a dealer's price which would include a warranty. I would definately haggle that one down to around €11.5k.

JohnCleary

natnif wrote:

rovers make head gasket go bang!
the only mg worth having is the tf imo

The F/TF uses the same K-Series engine as the Rovers :rolleyes:

colm_mcm

I wouldn't bother with any of them.

natnif

JohnCleary wrote:

The F/TF uses the same K-Series engine as the Rovers :rolleyes:

well there you go!I just didn't realise that!I thought that was still a honda sourced engine, but now that I think about it that doesn't make much sense...they are still meant to be good fun to drive....but I'd just buy an mx5 instead!

JohnCleary

natnif wrote:

well there you go!I just didn't realise that!I thought that was still a honda sourced engine, but now that I think about it that doesn't make much sense...they are still meant to be good fun to drive....but I'd just buy an mx5 instead!

Let's not go off topic, ill close on this.

The Rovers used Honda engines up until 1995. ie. Mk2 200/400 Series were Honda engines. After that, the K Series was used. My K Series has 100k up on it, I give it dogs abuse, pull trailers with it everyday, and its still going strong!

djeclips

To be honast I can't fault the cars.

If I have trouble with a car I'll be the first to bash it.

Had an mg since I was 18.
First was the ZR 105+.Great little car,nippy 1.4 and had 3 years,57k miles of trouble free motoring.Never missed a beat.Was a toss up between the base 1.4 focus and it....no comparison in my opinion.

Last year I upgraded to a Zs 120, 1.8. Again great car, 33k miles on it now and up for sale if anyone is interested http://www.carzone.ie/usedcars/index.cfm?fuseaction=car&carID=409703
Sharp as anything on the corners,but not too harsh day to day.Great 1.8 engine and fuel economy

Just brought over a Zs 180 from england the other week...My god what a car!! the 2.5 v6 is sooooo smooth,and when it hits 3000rpm .Only 3600miles on it too.will be keeping this one for a long time.

By no means an Mg Fanatic,but what elce can you get out there for the money that compairs.Only slate it after you've driven one though...You can be verry suprised!!

On the head gasket front,is unfourtinate.But this is in the late 90's-2001.But they have cured that.What do people expect do...Not to lift the bonnet from one service to the next?? If you pop it once every week or too and give it a 10 second glance you'll be grand.

maidhc

djeclips wrote:

What do people expect do...Not to lift the bonnet from one service to the next??

Unfortunately that is exactly the attitude of most people.

TCP/IP

I have an MGTF 160 and love it to bits best car i have owned, as the lads have said keep an eye on coolant and you will be fine. They are great cars and if I was in the market for my first MG I would buy djeclips one really is mint.

All in all go for it you will not regreat it.

cargrouch

Without commenting on previous MGs, that particular car posted by the OP is brash, tarted up rover with a 1.4 engine. All show, without the matching "go".

JohnCleary

cargrouch wrote:

Without commenting on previous MGs, that particular car posted by the OP is brash, tarted up rover with a 1.4 engine. All show, without the matching "go".

Different body/ECU/engine internals/suspension/interior....

Quite different from a tarted up rover tbh

cargrouch

How does brash, tarted up and insufficiently powered to match "MAX Power from a catalogue" looks grab you?

They mad all that effort to change it from a rover, why make it look "aggressive/sporty" and give it a 1.4? No matter how much you tweak out of it?

Good night, good luck, I'm outta here. 12 hours in this place (work, not motors thread) and everthing is still FUBAR.

unkel

bazz26 wrote:

the ZR/ZT is not my cup of tea, I would much rather the Rover 75 or MG ZT verison

Agreed. But if one is of the Max Power inclination, the ZR / ZS is an interesting proposition. The K-series engine is not bad if you keep an eye out for coolant / gasket problems. The cars should be extremely cheap to buy now new or second hand. A lot of power for the money, or even the engine size. Insurance might be a bit tricky and parts are or will be much more expensive compared to other cars. The cars are very much dated now though. Would only recommend if you want the boy racer look and a bit of power for cheap and you don't care driving an old skool car that doesn't drive that well

thegloriousend

I chose the 1.4 purposely as anything higher than 1.6 seems to go through the roof insurance wise. At the moment I have a Volvo S40 1.8 1997, lovely car to drive but it drinks petrol like water and could be better on insurance. Anything like a volvo s40 would suit me down to the ground? How about the Mitsubishi lancer 1.3 ? 2001 model only though, the 2002+ are disgusting. http://www.carzone.ie/usedcars/index.cfm?fuseaction=car&carID=390014. Also considering Alfa Romeo. Or maybe even volvo again if they all suck. Any opinions Mg? Mitsubishi? Alfa Romeo or Volvo? Or anything else for that matter? My price max is about 15,000.
Thanks for replies by the way.

Gatster

On the head gasket front,is unfourtinate.But this is in the late 90's-2001

Still waiting, but it's looking strongly like a MGTF 160 for me, going to look at one tomorrow before hopping to England to purchase in the next few weeks. Can't strech to an SLK, MR2 is too tight and didn't feel quick and the Alfa spyder, although lovely, wobbled. I was worried about the head gasket, but as the man says from what I gather this isn't much of an issue from 2002 onwards

Ernie Ball

Gatster wrote:

Still waiting, but it's looking strongly like a MGTF 160 for me, going to look at one tomorrow before hopping to England to purchase in the next few weeks. Can't strech to an SLK, MR2 is too tight and didn't feel quick and the Alfa spyder, although lovely, wobbled. I was worried about the head gasket, but as the man says from what I gather this isn't much of an issue from 2002 onwards

I'm beginning to wonder if there wasn't something wrong with the MR2 you drove (assuming you only drove one). The power-to-weight ratio of the two cars is roughly similar but the MR2 is lower and should have less unsprung weight than the MG-TF. I wouldn't imagine there'd be a lot in it, to be honest.

Did the '2 you drove have clunky 17" wheels on it or something?

I'm not trying to sell you on the '2. I'm sure you'll be happy with your choice in any case. I'm just curious.

And, no, I don't want to get into another discussion like the one about the MR2 vs. the S2000. That was fun, but I've had my fill.:)

TCP/IP

Having driven both before buying the TF feels so much more like a proper sports car and much sharper than the MR2.

If you buy the 160 you will fall in love with it trust me, all you need to do then is to head over to http://forums.mg-rover.org/ and introduce yourself.

Only rule is that you must post pics as we love to see new MG's

Atomic Pineapple

thegloriousend wrote:

I chose the 1.4 purposely as anything higher than 1.6 seems to go through the roof insurance wise. At the moment I have a Volvo S40 1.8 1997, lovely car to drive but it drinks petrol like water and could be better on insurance. Anything like a volvo s40 would suit me down to the ground? How about the Mitsubishi lancer 1.3 ? 2001 model only though, the 2002+ are disgusting. http://www.carzone.ie/usedcars/index.cfm?fuseaction=car&carID=390014. Also considering Alfa Romeo. Or maybe even volvo again if they all suck. Any opinions Mg? Mitsubishi? Alfa Romeo or Volvo? Or anything else for that matter? My price max is about 15,000.
Thanks for replies by the way.

what about a lancer mivec 1.6?
lots of power from a 1.6 engine, i think they look nice, as you say much nicer than the new version

http://www.carzone.ie/usedcars/index.cfm?fuseaction=car&carID=336263

thegloriousend

what about a lancer mivec 1.6?
lots of power from a 1.6 engine, i think they look nice, as you say much nicer than the new version

http://www.carzone.ie/usedcars/index...r&carID=336263

Yeah that car looks spot on. How are Mitsubishi's in general though? Reliable? Decent to drive? Good on petrol?

TCP/IP

That Lacer looks so ugly compared to the MG imo