Now I know that Rover are bust and everything but what is the deal with MG cars and Rover cars there basicaly the same

they have just stuck a bodykit on it

Rover 25 3Dr Hatchback 1.4 il 03
102bhp
max speed 112mph

MG ZR 03
ZR 105 3Dr Hatchback 1.4
104bhp
max speed 111mph

Performance is pretty much the same too

But the worst of it is that just looking on the rover 25 and the mg zr

the zr is at least 3grd more than the 25

for what a bucket load of shitt

All they have done is tweaked the engines a bit and got nothing really

 

Great post....

I think MGRover did a good job of turning pony looking cars into things that were quite good looking and sold by the bundle!!!! They were all good to drive as well!

They are worth more money as they look better, drive better and are more desirable...

Its NOT a hard thing to work out.

 

The sad thing is I saw 20 year old men driving the zr thinking it's a race car when they are just driving their mums rover 25

 

You have the ability to read peoples minds?

 

You are right to a pointford4


Those specs up their are for the baby MG's so not alot of difference to the standard Rover fare.

But when you move up to the higher spec MG's then they are good cars for what they are.

The ZS180 a case in point.

 

Wish I had that feature

 

Indeed

But clearly what MG should have done is spent more time trying to squeeze more out the 1.4.

Because of course, anyone buying a sporty hatch for performance reasons would turn to the perky but economical 1.4.

 

Sarcasm at its finest

 

This is an interesting post for me as I was thinking about buying an MG ZS 180, the 2,5 V6 ones as I think these look pretty cool and you can get a low mileage one for 4500- 5000

Anyone driven one or got any opinions?

 

a mate had one, twas a good car really. only a 1.4 though.

 

You can tell the schools are on holidays. The quality of posts on here is going rapidly downhill

 

Bloke I work with has just got an MG ZS180 for £5k with 17k miles on the clock

 

pmsl

As said any opinions on the MG ZS 180?

I really fancy one and can't shell out upkeep / insurance money for a saff

 

theres no difference, they are both fkin w@nk

my bird had a brand new MG tf and it drove like a ten year old car, quality of everything was piss poor

 

Why the hell dvid would you want an mg to be honnest I'd rather drive a metro or cycle everywhere than have a zr (rover25)

As for the mindreading I can't do it it's just the fact that the cars are so common and 17-25 year old men drive them this is boyracer age and boyracer think they are driving a ferrari or something

 

Well there ya go then i'm 23

I was after opinions of those who have been in one / own one, not opinions from someone who sees them purely as glorified Rovers (which to some extent they are i know!)

Reasons for wanting one

1. Affordable with low miles
2. Reasonable to insure compared to other big engined cars
3. Cheap upkeep
4. I like the look of them!
5. Cheaper than new Mondeo ST (other car I like)
6. Need a car this size for part time work etc
7. Missus won't let me get a car that I will throw money at (Cossie!!)

There you go, I'll remember to wave and TRY and avoid teh puddle when I overtake you on your bike

Oh and never said I wanted a ZR

 

Try asking over at XPower if you want advice on MG's

http://forums.xpowerforums.com/

 

Alright but if you need a car for low insurance affordable with low miles and reasonable price by a pegoet 206, seat ibiza, 5dr fiesta, vw golf old model

 

Why? Cause you said so?

The MGs are decent looking motors for the money

 

i think you meant to say they done a good job of making a 10-12yr old car look slightly less shit.. but non the less still shit

a friend of mine had the limited edition 25 (green with red grill) and my god was it totally shit.. god the seats were like an uncomfortable flat bench

imo rover had their day with the very old v8's etc and now their were they should be.. GONE

 

IMO get any car apart from a MG/Rover