MG as a second hand car- are they reliable?

RATM

Im in the market for a 2nd hand car early next year. My budget is €2-3k but I don't want something that is 10 years old.
I've seen a number of MG's around the €2-3k mark with reg's from 2003-2005 which would suit the bill perfectly.

But I'm wondering whats the catch- why so cheap? Is it that they are unreliable beyond a certain age? Or are parts stupidly expensive? It just seems too good to be true so is it?

If anyone has a recommendation for another make of car that fits my requirements then shout out:)

L1011

Parts are available easily enough despite what people seem to assume

However, there are a number of known problems with MGs and Rovers, particularly the head gasket on the 1.4/1.8 petrol engines. This along with the perception of parts problems and the cars themselves being a bit creaky (the design under the ZR is from 1993 or so) at this stage is why the prices are depressed.

That said, I nearly bought a 2005, new front shaped ZR 160+ from the UK; quite liked it but the price wasn't right.

EPM

Unfortunately the best person in these parts to ask about these isn't around for a couple of days. Best do a search here, loads of info and certainly not a bad buy if you do so with your eyes open

bbam

In fairness the electrics are ropey enough, they are nothing like the standard they once were in the early 90's...

My BIL has had a series of them and all recent ones have been a pain with electrical problems of all sorts... Haven driven all of his cars I find they have a cheap/nasty feel and poor enough handling

Ah yes, MGs. Well I see not many replies but no doubt as soon as I post this the experts will be along to say how MGs are sh1t, I'm biased and talking through my arse, a boggo Mondeo is far better to handle than a ZT bla bla bla. I see we already have a comment regarding the handling from someone whose previous posts mention he went form a 99 B5 Passat to an 02 Passat. Every one is entitled to an opinion but a Passat B5 is no match for a Z anything in the handling department unless it's a 4 motion one. In saying that the search function does through up some very decent threads from bygone years that well informed folk contributed to.

Anyway, I presume you are considering the ZRs or the larger ZSs ? These cars are indeed Rover 25s and 45s respectively but they are incredibly improved in the handling department, incredibly so. But we'll leave the handling to last.

They are cheap as folks don't want them due to the perceived reputation of poor reliability, headgaskets being the main one mentioned.

Most ZRs and ZSs are powered by 4 cylinder K series engines, which Lotus and Caterham used in their cars too. There are indeed loads of ones out there that have encountered head gasket failure. However most of these HG failures would be caused by overheating due to a loss of coolant from the rad, waterpump or inlet manifold gasket, not by random failure of the actual HG itself. The k series is a great little engine that heats up in no time, it's aluminium alloy and the coolant capacity of the system is relatively small so any leaks need addressing prompto. If you get one that is fine when you buy it and keep a weekly check on the coolant level you should be fine, it's when you cook the thing the problems occur. Also the K isn't at all known as a cambelt snapper and many of them are out there overdue a change, more often than not the water pump will start leaking well before the belt goes. I wouldn't put anyone off buying a ZR or a ZS due to a HG worry if they intended to have a peak at the coolant level regularly and give the car the prescribed water pump / timing belt change when needed. Also a headgasket job isn't that expensive anyway realistically. The 1.4s are also over 100bhp and are mad to rev so they are a great little yoke to go even in the ZS, a 1.6 Focus won't pull away from a 1.4 ZS on a straight at less than 100 miles per hour and won't be anywhere able to match it on a twisty road or track. A 1.4 Focus is about 3 seconds slower to 60. Most other manufacturers have yet to get over 100bhp from a nasp 1.4. The 1.6 K series is only 7 or 8 bhp more than the 1.4K but has a good lash of extra torque.

The bigger issue in my view with them is the R65 gearbox, the bearings in these are nylon caged and they do start getting whiney in loads of cars from 60K miles up, they can indeed fail eventually which is not cheap to get sorted. A recon'd box with a new clutch could cost €800 fitted, a good 2nd hand low mileage box is an option if your sure it's good. However 04 and 05 ZRs and ZSs use a Ford box and these don't give trouble. So if you are buying a pre 04 model have a good listen to the gearbox on the test drive, if it's quite enough you may well be fine, most of them don't fail but lots do. Depends on how they've been driven of course.

Diesel ZRs and ZSs are L series powered (great direct injection diesel engine with no DMF or DPF etc) coupled with a PG1 gearbox (so too the 1.8 K series ones) that is well able to cope with the torque from the L. Diesel models don't handle as well as the petrols due to the extra weight over the wheels. ZS was also available with the 2.5KV6, lovely engine but again handling not as good as on the 4 cylinder ones, however loads more power to compensate and the V6 has a lovely soundtrack. No doubt you are considering a 4 cylinder petrol one anyway.




Regarding the handling, nothing short of brilliant compared to most other yokes on the roads over here. It's not even fair to compare a boggo Focus or a Mondeo to a ZS or ZT, they are Worlds apart. Sure the ST220 Mondeo would struggle to keep up with a ZT190 despite a 30bhp advantage according to the Stig's times (me thinks I have a link to back this up) I suppose Stig is biased too and slowed the Mondeo around the corners on purpose. Two seconds around a lap of a track is fairly significant, that's analgous to the manner in which Kaoto Star won his Gold Cups !!

http://car-hotnews.com/car/top-gear-best-super-mini-mg-zr-vs-honda-jazz-vs-ford-fiesta-vs-citroen-c3-vs-nissan-micra/
Note how the Fiesta doesn't come close to the ZR as a suggestion. No doubt the Fiesta is a more modern design but handling wise the ZR is a different proposition altogether, in fairness to the little Ford they didn't design it to compete with a car with superb handling.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x43q97_top-gear-honda-civic-type-r-vs-rena_auto

One of the best handling fwds on the market for the ZS according to Tif !! Let's not forget the powerplant in the Honda is an engineering masterpiece and the CTR is more or less a road ready trackcar so no surprise that the ZS isn't quite up to matching it. Also the ZS is quite large inside, plenty of room for 4 adults in comfort with a great sized boot two. May well be a factor for you.

http://old-site.topgear.com/content/tgonbbc2/laptimes/thestig/

Two ZTs were tested (found that link), one was the V8 260 and the other the V6190, if ye don't reckon that's the case we can say one was the ZT160 if ye like !! Notice how the ST220 Mondeo is a few places below, class, must have been a twisty track eh !! Also the Focus ST is below the Mondeo ST220, chuckle chuckle. I doubt you are looking at a ZT but they are brilliant to drive, really really something special, they could do with more grunt but you'll really really struggle get in trouble in one around a bend, they are glued to the road. I recently was way down in West Cork for a weekend and drove two of the buddies there and back, they were amazed at the ZT, how it clung to the road, no scrabbling for grip, no leaning and yet huge comfort, one of them drives a 225bhp TT quottro so he'd know a thing or two about a fast corner.

Normal Joesoap with a standard ZT 190 on a track, gorgeous engine note
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LH02B-a3pz0


I do hate backing up my comments with links to TopGear etc but from recent threads and here I reckon it necessary, few good articles here from the Evo magazine folk (who know their beans when it comes to sporty cars)

http://www.evo.co.uk/carreviews/cargrouptests/19907/mg_zr_160_v_clio_172.html
The ZR 160 didn't quite cut the mustard against a Clio 172, a ZR 105 is 90% the same except from brakes and ARB bars and bushings not being as big.

http://www.evo.co.uk/carreviews/evocarreviews/19862/mg_zs_180.html
ZS didn't fair too badly, also remember they had it in the wet.
Grouptest
http://www.evo.co.uk/carreviews/cargrouptests/19340/honda_civic_typer_v_mg_zs_180_v_renault_clio_172_v_vw_golf_v5.html
Strange that a car that handles poorly can be thought of so well up against the Clio 172 and Civic Type R, those EVO dudes must be right retards, they should get on boards.ie and listen to the propor enthusiasts !!

http://www.evo.co.uk/carreviews/evocarreviews/19861/mg_zt_190.html
ZT190 they reckon can give the V6 Mondeo a run for it's money (see Toggear lap times above for ZT v ST220 Mondeo), may struggle against an Xtype or a 3 series. Well an X type is AWD and the 3 series of then was the E46 which were well sorted handling wise and rwd too of course.


About the electrics, trawl every MG or Rover forum and you won't find many references to electrical gremlins. Or ask your local auto spark, no doubt he will agree.



So yeah, so summarise, absolutely woeful handling across the range of Z cars !!

So if you were thinking of spending €3500 ish on a fresh 05 MG ZS 105 would I reckon it a good buy, most definitely.
Would I say the same about a €1500 02 ZR or ZS 105, yep if the box was sound and the rest of the car too.