![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
I've just had a thought, why did you buy the worst MG-ified Rover, the crappy 400, when for the same money you could have had the best, the ZT? Is it becuase you are under some sort of delusion that a ZS has some sort of 'street cred' that a ZT wouldnt have?
MG cars: manufacturing in britian again
- Thread starter movingtables
- Start date
Why are you taking this to heart?
Last edited:
You're missing the point that's being made.
Given the low market value of pretty much all MG cars, whether parts costs are high or low, they are very likely to get written off in the event of an accident because of labour costs, which make up the bulk of most insurance repairs.
In any car worth at most a couple of grand, any bump that you try and take through the insurance company is liable to get the car written off.
Soldato
- Joined
- 5 Aug 2006
- Posts
- 11,461
- Location
- Derbyshire
If they restarted production of the ZR, ZS and ZT I would be a very happy chappy indeed!
the ZR was and still is a terrible rover 25, the worst possible thing they could do is make those again
The ZR was useful in providing MGR with at least some of the injection of cash it required - it fitted purpose nicely and for a period at least, irrespective of its cackness, was the best selling warm hatchback.
The ZT was a genuinelly good car - built on an all new platform designed mostly with BMW's help. It deserved to do well.
The ZS was.... yea.
It was ancient when they got hold of it, and the new one I went in felt like it was built by a bunch of monkeys, it had more rattles than my (technically very similar) Civic VTi with 100k on the clock for a start.
The V6 engine was ok, but nothing to write home about, it didn't make the car that fast or produce that much power, and the handling I found lacking compared to my very similar (but older) car from Honda.
Did you go in the Mk1 or Mk2 dude?
It depends what you are comparing it to. If I came from Gibbo's mustang to mine I to would probably find it some what...lacking
well lets run some quotes then. If you're telling the truth, this will shut all the haters up. If you're not then we can all laugh at your poor choice of car
What postcode area are you (just give us the first digits, and we'll make up the last ones so you dont give out your real address)
Total thread derailment anyone?
Everyone knows that age, location, history, moon phase, tide affect insurance.
But if you insist - IG7
It wasn't really the same car when they got hold of it, the only thing that remained was the floor pan and suspension.
Strangely I found the handling to be somewhat better than my Civic (even after I replaced the bushes, dampers and springs). The 400/45/ZS is identical to the Civic in terms of most of the body and the floor pan and suspension. However, the ZS180 had some extra development on the front suspension which to me, made it feel sharper than the Civic, even with the heavier engine and a much better ride. It also had a reasonable speed steering rack compared to the ridiculous* thing in the Civic that felt like you were driving a bus.
In terms of performance, there wasn't much between the VTi and the 180, the extra weight blunting the 180's power advantage. Interior wise the ZS is in a different league to the Civic's faux carbon fibre and fairly nasty seat material. The saloon version is also a much nicer looking car than the Civic (or the hatch ZS).
I will agree that general build quality was probably better on the Civic.
* One of the most annoying aspects of the Civic for me was it huge turning circle combined with what felt like 10 turns lock to lock. Like piloting a galleon.
New in 2003, no idea but I'd guess the MK2
It depends what you are comparing it to. If I came from Gibbo's mustang to mine I to would probably find it some what...lacking
I was driving an MB6 Civic VTi at the time, which was essentially the same car but built properly. The 2.5 V6 in the ZS put out approximately the same power as my car did, the V6 was slightly faster off the line, but the Civic was quicker once rolling (which is what you'd expect comparing a V6 with a VTEC 4 pot with similar power outputs). I also noticed the fact that the MG didn't have an LSD whereas the Civic did.
The problem was my civic was a 1997 model worth about £4k at the time, so you'd expect the new car to stomp all over it...
Edit in response to Dogbreath's post: With regards to the handling, I had non-standard suspension on my Civic, which may have made the difference there.
Ahh so if it comes out pretty much identical, you're just going to say "must be the last 3 digits of the post code", or "well it wasn't that when I checked x weeks ago!"? ;D
for what its worth Money Supermarket comes out with Similar Quotes for the ZT+190 as it does the ZR160.
But then, being 19, with 1 write off fault claim, and assuming 1 year NCB, its no supprise they both come out at cheapest 4k.
god knows what favours you had to pull to get reasonable insurance.
not forgetting the SP30
For the record I have not lied on the insurance. I just have a good mate who works at Adrian Flux
- Admiral were the next cheapest at 3k. My insurance was 2k.
While it would be nice for MG to come back it is a big ask for people to buy the same old models again 
Its a big shame but they seem to be starting off down the same route that MG-Rover did in 2000
I saw a pair of the TF LE 500's at the MG show at the weekend and they were just the same as any other TF in my eyes. Slightly different bumper and very minor interior changes but fundamentally the same. Then no 160 (or higher power model) but bundle in a hard top, air con and stuff you do not really need in a bargain convertible. I felt guilty for looking some how as I would never have a brand new car and I think that a lot of people enjoying there F's/TF's thanks to the bargain value they bought them for (inc me!)
The 75 has now been around for donkeys years as well, it was good in 2000 and alright in 2005 but 3 years have passed! The Chinese / MG need to come up with some good new metal unless they want to sell you a car at or below kia / hyaundai / chevvy type prices!
The insurance on my TF went up this year My insurers were kind enough to explain that it was because a lot of cars rather than paying for £600-£1500 body repairs cars were instead paying for a full value write off. Certain new body panels are obviously in short supply and not in production at all.
As for my car I love it. Granted it's no S2000 the interior is quite plastic and its not that solid! But it is fun to drive, no slouch and doesn't cost a lot to run. Most parts are alright and the cars are cheap to drive. Just don't crash!
Its a big shame but they seem to be starting off down the same route that MG-Rover did in 2000 I saw a pair of the TF LE 500's at the MG show at the weekend and they were just the same as any other TF in my eyes. Slightly different bumper and very minor interior changes but fundamentally the same. Then no 160 (or higher power model) but bundle in a hard top, air con and stuff you do not really need in a bargain convertible. I felt guilty for looking some how as I would never have a brand new car and I think that a lot of people enjoying there F's/TF's thanks to the bargain value they bought them for (inc me!)
The 75 has now been around for donkeys years as well, it was good in 2000 and alright in 2005 but 3 years have passed! The Chinese / MG need to come up with some good new metal unless they want to sell you a car at or below kia / hyaundai / chevvy type prices!
The insurance on my TF went up this year My insurers were kind enough to explain that it was because a lot of cars rather than paying for £600-£1500 body repairs cars were instead paying for a full value write off. Certain new body panels are obviously in short supply and not in production at all.
As for my car I love it. Granted it's no S2000 the interior is quite plastic and its not that solid! But it is fun to drive, no slouch and doesn't cost a lot to run. Most parts are alright and the cars are cheap to drive. Just don't crash!