Welcome to our resource for MG Car Information.



MG parts spares and accessories are available for MG T Series (TA, MG TB, MG TC, MG TD, MG TF), Magnette, MGA, Twin cam, MGB, MGBGT, MGC, MGC GT, MG Midget, Sprite and other MG models from British car spares company LBCarCo.

MG ZR ZS ZT Technical - Which 'Plantpot came up with the ZS110 and ZT 120?

Which total loser came up with the ZS 110 and ZT 120? I mean MG's are about speed and power.......thses mirsable little Turds couldn't pull the skin of a rice pudding!

Loser cars, for Loser owners!

Totally agree Mike, I couldn't believe it! You'd have thought power figurres would be going UP not DOWN!

Small wonder Jerry has given up on MGR and bought an EVO VIII....nuff said mate :-(


Not my cup of tea either but not everyone want's an all revs, lots of poke, ar*e through hedge backwards low flying rice pudding burner....... LOL. That's why most manufacturers offer some lower powered base model options.

Didn't really understand why the then ARG produced an A series engined 1275cc Montego option for a number of years. I do now because I've asked 1.3 Montego owners why they have them when they'd have much more fun with the 2 litre Turbo version. Their reasons were quite sound and sensible.

So, the option for a nice lower powered ZS or ZT to go to Tescos in suburbia where speeds of 50 mph are rarely possible can make sense to some car buyers. But, like a certain high revving Focus Clone Buzz Box I could mention, not my cup of tea ........ ;-)

In the final analysis, it's sales that count. I'd bet money that more low powered ZTs would be sold than the V8 versions (if/when they ever appear) despite their having lots of ooomph!

We'll see.

John McFeely

Thought the idea was to make some units available for the fleet markets, where 'speed' is not so important, but fuel ecconomy, tax breaks, and comfort are!!

Read the literature and u will see the MGRs logic... it may yet turn out to be misguided, but it wont have cost them to much money to offer these models and if it sells a few more cars then its a bonus.


Makes sense to me the because i would be much more likly to buy an mg badged car than a rover not that salons are really my bag

is Bletchley in Scotland ?

who is bletchley?

Without offending anyone, as thats not my intention the ZR, & ZS, are becoming stygmatised as Boy Racer cars now , well in Scotland anyway. I think its due to low Insurance deals, low finance deals and basically a not too expensive price. Some of the Saxo, Nova crew seem to be migrating to these models.

Now that there are less powerful options, I would assume these would hold a lower insurance premium so the roll on effect is that more and more of these young uns will become owners.

Its just my personal opinion but if MG is the Sporting Brand of MGR should there cars hold high prices like most other manufacturers ? I mean it will soon get to the stage where an MG will cost marginally more than a middle of the range Clio. Surely Not ?..... I always though of MG as a Prestige Marque.....maybe times are changing and MGR will try anything for a sale.
D Jamieson

>So, the option for a nice lower powered ZS or ZT to go to Tescos in suburbia where speeds of 50 mph are rarely possible can make sense to some car buyers

Isn't that what the 45 and 75 are? Why do they need to badge them as MG?


"Isn't that what the 45 and 75 are? Why do they need to badge them as MG?"

Exactly, either MGR have one brand for all or they keep them differentiated by looks and performance.

To have two brands almost identical is just, well, stupid.

Short term it will see some sales long term will just see the brand de value futher and lead to the ultimate decline of sales for the group as a whole.

If MGR's strategy is to merge the two ranges so much why did they bother with the two badges why not use one badge/identity E.G. MGR not MG or Rover, then clasify vehicles as other manufacturers do with RS or GTI etc to denote the sporty model.

Currently it seems that the MGR group have a very blurred vison of the future ! and if they are confusedwhat are the buying public going to think ??

"Small wonder Jerry has given up on MGR and bought an EVO VIII....nuff said mate :-( "

Jerry got an EVO 8!

And he kicked off at me for getting a CTR!
At lest my "Jap" car was built in Britan!

>> Isn't that what the 45 and 75 are? Why do they need to badge them as MG? <<

First of all: Because some people will buy an MG but not a very similar Rover. Many (and now there are many) of the yoof-ful owners now running about in nippy, agile MG ZRs are first time MG buyers .... they would never buy a Rover even if it was otherwise identical except for the Badge. If these youngsters are pleased with their first MG, they will buy another when circumstances allow ...... Entry level cars will enable a wider buyer base to enjoy an MG. Entry level wins more new to MG buyers, then brand loyalty and all that follows. Plus, the cars are quite good too!

Second of all: Also, I believe (please correct me if I'm wrong) that MG-R can NOT use the name Rover on any future NEW car. So, with this in mind if Longbridge is to survive, it will have to do so using only the name MG for their vehicles, be they fire breathing V8 monsters, nippy little hatchbacks of ZT-vans ...... :-)

Third of all: The low spec, low powered, relatively sluggish BMW 1.6 has sold well over the years and still carry the same logo as the superior higher spec cars. Anyone driving one of these base BMWs, unless they are used to very crappy cars, will not be much impressed with them in any respect. But they sold ..... and that is what counts.

So why all this fuss?

John McFeely

No mg have always been an afordable car. I think that boy racers buying mgs is the ultimate success sybol for the company if mg is to have a future thats whats needed. It was the boy racers of yeasterday such as my gramp and dad that bought mgs then and now but there has to be a new bread of boy racers to keep the marque real. I think the smaller engines make sense as the cars can still have a good firm ride and crisp handling so still a sporty car. Lets face facts mg has made very few fast cars the A was warm in its day the B was room temperature at best and the metro well a lucas friidge. But to me that does not really matter as a car can still be sporty with out being fast like a gti golf or to a lesser extent the smaller engine bms. I think when kids aspire to own mgs mg has achived current status.


>> And he kicked off at me for getting a CTR!
At lest my "Jap" car was built in Britan!<<

Scouse Mike ....If that is true then RESPECT .... However, there's a world of difference between assembled in Britain and Built in Britain. Where are the engines made and designed?

Having said that, lift the bonnet on my seven week old MG ZS and you'll observe a number of BMW logos on several items therein. And the very "newness" stiff ignition key lock never became more free with use as you'd expect and so was replaced last week. This I was told was made in France. In fact a complete lock set was fitted so that only one 'fits all' key is retained. Car is a delight to drive..... with only 120 bhp to play with and that superb ZS handling, the little car has an "unburstable chuckability" about it which has much appeal. Ref. that "chuckability"; Car has 17" alloys fitted. Would those make such difference I wonder?

Even so, nice as it is, despite their age, I still prefer to drive my favourite Montego or Tomcat turbos. Thinks ... how easy would it be to fit a T16 turbo in the ZS ... ;-) Or, has it already been done?

John McFeely

<< but there has to be a new bread of boy racers to keep the marque real. I think the smaller engines make sense as the cars can still have a good firm ride and crisp handling so still a sporty car. >>

If VW brought out a Golf GTI with a 1.3 engine would the GTI marque still have the same respect ? Sililiarly if Ford Introduced an RS Model with a 1.3 Engine would die hard RS fans still regard it with the respect its pedigree deserves.

Yes point of fact as its been put Smaller engines and cheap insurance will attract new younger buyers and boost sales, I also thing cheapening the brand will lose sales. The new buyers wont have the brand loyalty when they come to replace it as something more newer and sexier will be on the market. The lost sales may be older buyers who have followed the brand for many years and owned many models.
D Jamieson

<<If VW brought out a Golf GTI with a 1.3 engine would the GTI marque still have the same respect>>

They already have, it's called the GTI 2.0. It has the performance and handling of a cross channel ferry.
And the marque has nothing like the respect it once had.
Neil Stothert

MG's historically have been about cheap, sporty cars. I think the zeds are cheap, sporty cars. So whats the problem. The brand won't be blemished by 1.4 engines, because that 1.4 engine comes with better handling then any other 1.4 engine out there, for the money. The golf has steadlily got worse as the mark has been revised, the mark1 will spank the latest mark for handling everytime. Sure the TDI's will kill it for performance, but with a fat ar*e like that the mk1 leaves it behind. At the end of the day its about choice, if BMW can offer 1.6 to 4.0 at not effect the brand then so can MG. I personally don't care much for the Rover mark. To me Rover's are cheap luxury cars, with out any luxury. I think MGR would be better suited to just go the motorsport way. People might not like it, but the "boy racer/modifyied market" is growing and bodykits and 17's appeal to this market. Just look at the popularity of the Saxo. I sure MGR would love to sell ZR's and ZS's by the truck load to ex-saxo owners.
Robert Purser

120BHP is sporty, eh? Most 'shopping trollies' (as Mega says) have nigh-on that power!

I much prefer MEMS myself.

never heard of that system, has to be crap.

Is it an ecu that goes haywire all the time?
stands for:
'My Ecu's Gone Again!'

sounds about right LOL.

Not one person has mentioned the tax breaks for company drivers where, as I understand it, the higher the list price the higher the tax liability. How many company cars are sold or leased each year? How many company car drivers have been told they can't have a 2 or 2.2 litre model for their next car. If MGR can take just one extra percentage point of the market by going in this direction then it helps us all in the long run.

>>>where, as I understand it, the higher the list price the higher the tax liability
===nope, that has changed, now it's all down to emissions.

David, the list price of the car is still a big or major consideration in company car tax. The emissions figure is the method of calculating how much tax as a percentage against the car list price.

In this respect I think it will pull over a lot of company car drivers that like the R75 but wouldn't be seen dead in a Rover because they perceive it as an older persons car (thanks to BMW marketing for that: Relax it's a Rover).


After the ZT 120 and the ZS 110,
let's take the logic further and welcome the launch
of 1.4 75HP MG ZSs
(all to be outpaced by 85HP City Rovers)

MGR have lost all concept of brand names & segmentation.
Don R

One of the most interesting threads I have read in ages.

Cant be sure which side to go on.

Rover cars and MGs must be kept seperate, so far they have been, with the MG versions of rovers having different characteristics and performance levels. Therefore I should disagree with the ZT 120 and ZS 110...

Well, no not really, because speed does not mean a sporty car and vice versa. A 1275cc MG midget is not fast, but it is fun to drive. A mk3 VR6 golf is fast, but is not entertaining after you get bored with the accelaration.

I think I have just decided. Low power has another thing going for it. It means less chance of losing your license.
Good Example to back that up, the Ford Ka. So its ugly. And It is said to be a female car (good or bad thing?) Slow too. But good to drive. Recently Ford released the SportKa (Not the streetka) which has the same engine as the streetKa with the intention of taking on Saxo, 106 and of course ZR105. Autocar actually think that this version is less entertaining, because you cant drive at the limits, they are too high.

Overall then, why not have lower power, as long as the cars are still fun, and different in character from the Rovers on which they are based?

And Mike can stay play with ZS180 or ZR160 in his CTR...

Long winded answer tho!

Not so "Dimski" WROTE:

>>Well, no not really, because speed does not mean a sporty car and vice versa. <<

Exactly .... could not have put it better .......

>>A 1275cc MG Midget is not fast, but it is fun to drive. A mk3 VR6 golf is fast, but is not entertaining after you get bored with the accelaration.<<


John McFeely

Exactly. Well put Dimski. As been said before by others, shopping trolleys may have more power, but they also handle like shopping trolleys.
The sad fact is that on today's roads, and the global censorship of speed kills, why are manufacturers chasing increasing power outputs instead of focussing on more important issues?

The problem, as I see it, is that if all MGR products are going to bear the MG badge then they make lose some business and some of the cache of the marque. The reasoning for the move, I believe, is because MGR are not allowed to use the name Rover, this name being owned by Ford (as in Range Rover).

The business will be lost because, no doubt, insurance companies would quote a higher figures for what they perceive as a sporty car (MG have historically only produced sporty cars). Thus the cost of ownership of the lower models, formerly badged as Rover, will increase. Maybe it is MGR's intention to stop competing in the lower end hatchback market. If not, then they should consider resurrecting one of the old marques from the BLMC stable (assuming that Phoenix bought these at the time that they took over Rover). The names that I am thinking of in particular are Austin, Morris, Riley and Wolsely.

The marque cache would be reduced by badging bread and butter hatchbacks and saloons as MG, without any further modification. I already think that they have a steep hill to climb selling the 65k SV under the MG banner. But to add these potboilers into the mix I feel is a big mistake. I certainly wouldn't buy an SV from MG. Unfortunately, MGR don't hold any other suitable name under which to market the SV (other than Qvale, which very few people know how to pronounce).

Finally, I'll ask this question: would Ferrari have the same reputation if the Fiat Punto was also badged as Ferrari? I think not.


MG has always produced cheap, fun and accessable sports cars and saloons. lower spec MG saloons fit this mould perfectly, to the extent that they are probably truer to the marque than the SV and ZT V8s.

MG have a suitable name for the SV, and they are using it, helooo ever wondered what all this X-Power milarky was about?

...would Ferrari have the same reputation if the Fiat Punto was also badged as Ferrari?

nope, but Ferrari isn't an equivallent marque to MG, the nearest thing to it in the Fiat stable is Alfa Romeo. so i put it to you, in more accurate terms, would Alfa Romeo have the same reputation if they took a Marea, tweeked the suspension, altered the styling and badged it as an Alfa Romeo? oh, they are doing this already. and the SV, genuine supercar that it is is badged MG X-Power, a new brand, related to the original, but designed to cater for the new car and make it distinct from the rest of the portfolio.

MG is a great marque and it can cover a multitude of vehicles. MGR at the moment are pushing the boudaries - they are breaking geniunely new ground, but this is not being done to annoy the purists, it is being done for survival.

ask yourself this question, "would you rather have lower spec MG badged saloons on the road, selling in greater numbers to a new market, or would you prefer to see MGR concentrate totally on developing high performance vehicles and go out of business?" MGR need to sell cars, and they need to sell lots of them. They also need to reduce costs, sticking an engine that they are making anyway into a body that they are making anyway that results in more sales to new markets will do this. spending a fortune developing exciting, expensive niche market cars that people aspire to but can't quite afford will see the liquidators moving in.

everyone wants to see MGR succeed and go on to develop some serious machinery, but this wont happen if the company goes bust, and it will go bust if they don't make the most of what they already have and this means lower spec MG saloons.

its a fine line to walk and MGR seem to be doing very well at it at the moment. they seem to be able to develop the niche cars on a shoestring and by doing so keep interest in the marque in the press, while at the same time maximising the potential for the vehicles already in thier portfolio. this is the only way they can succeed in pleasing most of the people, most of the time and i applaud them for it.


>>>>because MGR are not allowed to use the name Rover
===yes they are, as in Rover 75, 45, 25. The restriction AFAIK is only that they cannot use the name Rover on a four wheel drive vehicle.
Incidentally why wouldn't you buy an SV from MG?

>MG have a suitable name for the SV, and they are using it, helooo ever wondered what all this X-Power milarky was about?

Yes, but X-Power is just a model variant identifier, just like TDI, EFI, City, LE and Abingdon. It is not a marque in itself. If you look at the front of an SV you will see the MG badge.

My point is that all other large car manufacturing concerns separate the different market sectors into distinct marques. By doing this they avoid the problems of bad press and reputation of their cheaper products affecting the higher end products. It appears that MGR are intending to sell all their vehicles under one brand, MG, be they a sub 8k runaround or a 65+k supercar.

Why wouldn't I buy an SV from MG? Here are a few reasons:

1. I have better things to spend 65k on.
2. MG dealers (assuming that the SV will be sold/maintained through the existing network)
3. Experience of owning many MG/Rover vehicles


>>>Experience of owning many MG/Rover vehicles
===that sounds quite negative, I thought you had an MGF for 150k-plus happy miles or is that another Ralph?

... If you look at the front of an SV you will see the MG badge.

nope, you will see an MG X-Power badge - its quite distinct, being a silver MG octagon with the words X-Power from bottom left to middle right in black etching. the X-Power badge is to be used as a seperate marque and will cover the competition cars as well as the extreme prototypes.

1. I have better things to spend 65k on.
2. MG dealers (assuming that the SV will be sold/maintained through the existing network)
3. Experience of owning many MG/Rover vehicles

1. me too.
2. based upon the same assumption, me too.
3. only owned 3, but would buy a 4th next time round


OK, here is a list of a few of the problems that I have had (and can remember) with MGs & Rovers...

2 cambelt failures (1 on Maestro 2.0EFi at 43k, the other on MGF 1.8i at 159k)
Water pump failure (MGF)
Clutch damper split open, pouring clutch fliud over exhaust manifold (MG Metro)
Gearbox link failed 4 times before fixed (MG Metro)
Hydrogas pipe failed (MG Metro)
Driver's seat frame cracked (MG Metro)
Bent anti-rollbar (Rover 416)
Snapped anti-rollbar (MGF)
Rust at base of windscreen pillar (MGF)
Burst coolant pipe (MGF)
Suspension dropped by over an inch within a month, destroying the front tyres (MGF)
Bonnet keeps popping open (MG ZS180)

Glutton for punishment, aren't I?

I haven't included problems with older vehicles (e.g. MGB and Rover P6), as the problems could be due to age or POs.

Here's a picture of the badge on the SV:



fair enough, but for balance:-
MG Midget 10 yrs 120k ran out of petrol once
MG Metro, 8 years 75k miles, 1 broken diff (in autotest competition)
Montego estate, 3 years 40k, no problems
MG Montego 3yrs 75k, 1 alternator, 1 wheel bearing
MGBGTV8 5yrs 20k no problems
Rover 420 3 yrs 75k, no problems
MG Montego Turbo 5yrs 30k no breakdowns despite being used continually for hillclimbs and sprints
MGF 2yrs 20k HGF - no problems since
MG ZS 3 months 11k, no problems
Obviously consumables such as clutches and brakes and tyres and exhausts have all worn out, but believe me I use my cars hard but sympathetically (and some may quibble with my interpretation of sympathetically) and find them very reliable. However unless I have to (ie the company vehicles) I keep them well clear of main dealers and do my own maintenance / tuning / repairs / mods.

I think one has to discount cars older than 10 years and 150k miles since by this point the reliability is more an issue of the owner's maintenance schedule than the original manufacturer's quality issues. That is, if we are discussing the quality of cars leaving Longbridge today. As with the Triumph Stag, the reputation of certain models (MGF - HGF) are set in stone from the early cars, and no matter how well the problem is resolved the mud stickes for evermore. Everyone agrees Skoda are good cars, yet back in 1990 they were the butt of all motoring jokes!
I don't think there is any question about BL in the 70's and ARG in the 80's on quality, but today's MG R products are comparable with some Japanese, and possibly better than some German manufacturers.

For the record:
1994 Rover 416SLi 150k mile in 4 years, replaced side windows owing to poor quality of tinting. Otherwise replaced light switch stalk at 110kmiles - cheap Honda rubbish!

1998 Rover 420 SLi 70k miles in 3 years, new engine at 8k miles owing to excessive oil consumption. Drivers window dropped at 50kmiles - motor screws came loose on door.

1999 Rover 75 1.8 Club. Bought 2nd hand at 26k, sold at 60k miles. No HGF! But one or two minor problems with SRS light, some light oil consumption.

1998 Rover 214Si - 30k miles in 5 years to date - manifold gasket replaced at last service. Also driver's window dropped.

2002 MG ZT - touch wood at 14months/30k miles nothing as yet gone wrong apart from a trim screw came loose on exhaust shield!

Bottom line is, with ref to the first part of this thread, that the 'bottom line' is what it is all ultimately about. As MG fans we sometimes risk loosing perspective: MGR is a very small car manufacturer, on the brink of failure thanks to the fact that it has all sorts of financial weaknesses and is currently attempting to survive on old platforms. Anything that keeps the company from going under has got to be a good thing, and if that means selling lower powered versions of some models, or even entering into the used car segment of the market, so be it. Where do you think the capital comes from for further development? MGR is in the BUSINESS of making cars, so that they can make money, and so that investors are willing to risk theirs. One of the best ways to make money in any business is to make lower performing or lesser specced versions of existing products so that a wider part of the market is covered. That's business!
Karl Woodhead

Karl, we have no objection to MGR producing a wide range of products. What is contentious is the use of the MG badge for a car which, as Mega so elegantly put it, 'couldn't pull the skin of a rice pudding'.

I used to own a Rover 416SLi, which is basically the same car as the ZS110. Consequently, I know what the performance of the car is like and it is not up to what one would expect of a modern MG. In 1971, which is when my MGB GT was registered, the ZS110 would have been a sporty car, 32 years on it is just another bread and butter hatchback.



I understand where you are coming from, however in 1971 the BGT had less performance than many average saloons of the day; but if the BGT was still worthy of the MG badge at the time, despite its lack of power, then this illustrates that power isn't everything, and that other attributes also define MG - like handling. From what I can tell, apart from some obvious exceptions, MG have never really been about power anyway, rather, they have predominantly been about handling, fun and low price. In fact, it could be argued that the MG SV is questionable as an MG due to its high power and high price (a comment that will invite all sorts of responses I'm sure!).

Notwithstanding this, maybe 110PS is pushing things a wee bit too low!

Karl Woodhead

Yes,almost every compact car advertised today offers 100HP as 'average',
In MGB days it was more like 60 as the beautiful Magnette with 75 was the favourite crime getaway car after the 3.4 Jag

Ralph wrote about what MEGA wrote:

>> as Mega so elegantly put it, 'couldn't pull the skin of a rice pudding'.<<

They must make some pretty stiff puddens up in Scouseland .... lol

In my books, the best way to "devalue" ANY marque name is lack of sales..... Without a broadened sales base, it's only a matter of time for MG-R ..... think about it!

Drove a Streetwise today ..... nice little car and I'll be very surprised if it does not sell in reasonable numbers despite the still perceived by some 'handicap' of being built by Rover. However, wherever I travel I see signs that that far too long and now outdated perception about Rover is being eroded. Good eh! Let's hope it continues. I think Streetwise will continue the good work and like the Zeds before it, will successfully attract younger buyers who would otherwise not consider a Rover for their next new car.

Although not my cup of tea I could live with a Streetwise day to day. No doubt many other car buyers will be attracted to this car. It has a lot going for it ....

John McFeely

Sorry John but market segmentation implies a different brand name for cars delivering different benefits.
The MGZS brand implies above average performance;to increase sales why not eg offer the ZS 160 turbo which several people have asked for?


No need to feel Sorry ...

"Several people" (including me) just aint anywhere near enough!! I'm on record here on this BBS stating that had a Turbocharged ZS been available, I'd gone for that instead of the ZS120 I now have.

An ever broader customer base with on-going future cross-purchase MG-R brand loyalty potential (can't believe I wrote is essential for the longer term well being of MG-R. The Streetwise and more affordable MGs will help with that. MG-R must not concentrate on the already converted types like what I am ..LOL. Any means of successfully attracting NEW buyers to Rover and MG product must be explored. MG-R's survival depends on the success of these explorations.

On the subject of Turbo K series. Had a good look at a trophy blue ZT 1.8 T today. In that form, it would be a VERY tight fit in a ZS if it fitted at all..... I often wonder what the real reason for a turbo ZS not being offerred is ... anyone know ?

John McFeely

I used your argument to persuade MGR to prepare us a 180HP SV but they refused as it would have diluted the image of that supercar-so much for attracting new buyers!

"Yes,almost every compact car advertised today offers 100HP as 'average',"

But how many of these actually handle like an MG, and how many handle like a shopping trolley?

Why did the Mini continue to sell so well into the Nineties, despite a severely handicapped power output and price? Because it put a grin on the driver's face and made the driver feel like a racing /rally driver.

And as for a ZS 110, I hardly see a 10bhp drop from the ZS120 as being significant, a decent air filter and decent oil/fuel will soon recover that. Sure a 40bhp drop in the ZT shell is going to hurt, but, heck use the gearbox and let the engine sing at peak power!
ZT120 fan

If 110 as opposed to 120HP is not going to make much difference,why complicate life ,spare parts etc by having such model proliferation?

Also consider the press aspect: while everyone else is upgrading power,MG( of all brands!) is decreasing it.
[Maybe OK for Rover which does not have the same performance image]

Great Thread Mega, this is turning into a real Pandoras Box.

Ralph, what are you talking about?

"I used to own a Rover 416SLi, which is basically the same car as the ZS110. Consequently, I know what the performance of the car is like and it is not up to what one would expect of a modern MG."

I have not driven either, but I do read loads of Car Magazines. I read a few years ago that the new (Rover) 45 was a massive improvement on the 400 series, and of course the New MG ZS is totally different in character than the 45, let alone the 400. The handling of the 400 series won few fans, whereas the ZS has recieved universal praise. I dont think it is fair to compare the two.

You may have a point about stright line performance but is that really important? If you can enjoy the car (and that is what MGs are about) then why not have cooking versions, as long as, like I have already said, you keep the character different from the rovers.


Sorry if it is a different engine, but I have read that road testers hate that new K series Turbo installation in the new 75, calling it coarse sounding and generally saying how much they preferred the V6.

I know that they had little choice because of emissions, but this may be why they have not bothered fitting the 1.8T into the ZS.

This is only a guess tho...

Interesting point Dimski-with all their existing coarse diesels,MGR 'HAD TO create a coarse petrol turbo because of emissions levels on the V6'
If this is so,why does not the same problem affect the ZS?

Dimski ... Tony .... BEWARE .... Motoring journos sometimes talk with forked tongue!!

BTW Dimski ... what do you actually mean when you write "road testers"?

Rough eh? Suggest you (we) reserve judgement until we try these things for ourselves. Then decide. Over the years, countless car buyers have been put off their original choices because of what one of their mates told them they read about their chosen car in some over-rated car magazine. As a result, many bought a less suitable or desirable car. Then later they try one of their original but rejected car choices and discover what they've missed out on. I've not read about this in a magazine, simply observed relatives, friends or work colleagues who've experienced that very situation.

Remember, most motoring journos "test" their cars off road on wide open space aerodromes etc where normal driving is never the norm. Such tests are irrelevent for the average car buyer. Thus false impressions are formed and then relayed to the motoring public. Ordinary folk live with their car choices day to day and in a vast variety of driving situations. Only then can a car be fully and accurately assessed against any one individual's needs.

Worth repeating RESERVE JUDGEMENT until you personally know better.

John McFeely

Just to support John's statement, in the Motoring section of the Daily Torygraph today, somebody writes in saying he wants to buy a Rover 800 Coupe, which I also considered a few years ago before I bought my 75. Honest John's answer was to slate the 800 as being unreliable etc etc etc...
He was also asked about u/l fuel in an mgb roadster, and his answer was totally off track.

Plenty of R800s early and later now showing in local breakers yards with 150,000 - 275,000 on their odometres, including the occasional turbo ... all life expired. How unreliable is that!! These old Rovers, alongside BMWs, Mercs, VWs, (even a Quattro!) with similar and often less mileage showing. Honest John's response I suppose would be that these teutonic origin cars have been "round the clock" once which if true, means their drivers must have spent most of their 70 years behind the steering wheels ... stands to reason ...LOL.

Motoring Journos sometimes speak with Forked Tongue ..... ;)

"Accurate" John.......
John McFeely


Point taken about mags and indeed road testers, but as yet I am young -ish and have no opportunity to own or drive (most) of these cars yet. So I read Bout them.

I do take it with a pinch (or bucket) of salt though. I may not have driven many cars, but I have read in one mag the Nissan Micra labelled as fun to drive... and I think that says it all.

I would also comment though, that driving one car, then another one in the same class 1 month later will give a very poor impression of what each are like. To some extent reading about situations where the cars are tested back to back can give a much better impression. Has anyone (Who is not biased) actually done this?

Never mind Bletchley,where is Britan?

After the brilliant eloquence of our introductory I know my F VVC is sh*thot.

Well when it comes to reliability my experiances of R75 / ZTT in the past 3 and a half years is:-

My R75 2.0 V6 covered 95000 miles in 3 years with absolutely no problems whatsoever. In fact I can honestly say it was the most reliable car I've ever had Nissans & Mitsubishis included.

As for my new ZTT, in the first 2 months and 5000 miles of ownership, I have to report the staggering fact that nothing has happened. Yes absolutely nothing to report apart from the fact that its a superb car and I expect that it'll cover another 95000 in the next 3 years with 100% reliabilty.

Adrian Menzies

That'll disappoint Eric, Adrian!
Sorry, mustn't encourage the trolls!

This thread was discussed between 10/07/2003 and 02/09/2003

MG ZR ZS ZT Technical index

This thread is from the archive. The Live MG ZR ZS ZT Technical BBS is active now.