MG ZS 180 - Bargain or Bucket

Would it be more 'accepted' if it had rover badges?

I really don't think most 50+ people care what they look like in a car.

Not really because those stupid seat belt pads made it really funny but with the car it just added to the amusement. It was obviously their grandsons car or something like that or they were rather sporty grannies.
 
[TW]Fox;12485686 said:
Not bad as a young guys car I guess but I can't help thinking a 40-50 year old bloke is going to look absolutely ridiculous in it. I can think of better weekend cars, frankly. Surely at the age of 50 he can afford to buy something decent?

+1

but what happened if he couldn't have afforded anything "better"?
 
I have a facelift ZS 180. Great value for money if you ask me. The 2.5 v6 is a nice engine and the car's handling is excellent. Has double wishbone suspension front and rear. It doesn't have many toys, only climate control (pre facelift had air con), ABS and EBS. If you want something with toys the 75 or ZT have much more.

The KV6 engine is pretty reliable by all accounts. A common fault are the 2 VIS valves. They cost £55 each to replace if they break, or they can be repaired. They change the engine confirguration between high torque at low revs to high bhp at high revs to maximise performance. Not a major worry since they're so cheap to replace.

I've had my 180 for 2 years now and have enjoyed owning it. It is relatively quick, handles great and looks like a much more expensive car than it is. It is a bit boy racery though if you have the big wing on it.

ZS180_4.jpg



£2,500 seems like a lot for a Y reg though if I've picked you up right. You should be able to get a newer model for that kind of money. Had a quick look at Autotrader and there are 2002 models with 30,000 miles for that price.
 
Last edited:
Made me giggle...

I had a Rover 420GSi, it was a nice car - and a very similar car. The spec was also decent and the only problems i ever had was the engine fell out and the CAT went.

But i wouldn't go back.
 
Did somebody say MG? :D

Right, first...the bad.

Common issues with these are (as already said) - VIS valves, £55 each to replace, the inlet plenum tends to go at around 60k - £450 to replace. That's about it...the KV6 engine in general is solid. Mine does see the redline a lot and I'm currently in Manchester and the car didnt miss a beat all the way up here.

The seats are very comfy, I think all the pre-facelift ones come with half leather seats to match the outside of the car.

Also the rear bumper on all of these does 'sag' - this is due to the fact they are not fitted properly. A simple fix brings it back into alignment :)

If you are looking for comfort features then look elsewhere. It has aircon and front electric windows.....the list pretty much ends there. The short shift gearbox is awesome, the car is relatively quick. Oh, at 60k it needs a cambelt change, budget £500 - £700 to do this. Me and a friend are currently looking into it ourselves to save an absolute packet.

The handling on these is fantastic, very similar setup (if not the same) as the Integra. Make sure you treat it with decent rubber and the car will look after you.

Most parts bar body panels are readily available. Most are written off if so much as a moth hits the wing mirror because you can't get hold of them.

Oh, you'll be pleased to know they have started making the KV6 engine again so soon parts won't be a rip off :)

Go and test drive one, they are a lot of fun and I think you willbe surprised
by how likeable they are. I wouldnt say it was a car for a 50yo though.

I paid £2.5k with 60k on the clock and FSH, and mines an 02 plate. There was a Trophy Blue (best colour ofcourse ;)) 04 plate with 30k on the clock sold for 3k the other day...so there are bargains to be found!

And Alan, its not going anywhere ;)
 
That should clear up most of the issues there ;)

However, Integra and MG in the same sentance!? :(

I can't remember who looked it up on wiki but in my original thread when I got it was found to have the same double wishbone setup as the Integra.

Mainly because I came on parading about how good the handling is and people were saying "yeah...good handling from a Rover?"

Then someone found the link about how the design is very similar to the teg and everyone either shutup or said "Fair play" :p

Have you ever been in one? Lots of fun to be had! Ask InvaderGTR - I tool him out at the last RR
 
Then someone found the link about how the design is very similar to the teg and everyone either shutup or said "Fair play" :p

Yea but then you could say that about any honda civic, basic spec integra or rover 4 door.
They all have the same design (and as such parts are interchangeable) but that does not mean it will handle the same.
Hell i have front and rear arms with the whole braking setup from an integra, doesn't make my car handle on par with a type r though.
 
Last edited:
I thought most of the press reviews of the 180 said it was a pretty capable car so no reason to doubt it handles ok :)
 
By coincidence, "Performance car" magazine have a small write up on the ZS in their "Blast from the past" section. Some typical journalistic horse-poo in there though, how many European cars in the last 30 years haven't had independent suspension?

Performance Car said:
When you think about it's roots, not to mention what happened to the company shortly after the ZS went on sale, it is remarkable that any car born out of the MG re-emergence was any cop at all.

Yet in the V6 engined ZS of 2001-2005, MG built something really rather good. Much better than the already 6 year old Rover 400 it was based on, that's for sure. The ZS slid into the MG range between the pretty but lacklustre Rover 25-based ZR, and the handsome but lacklustre 75-based ZT. And whilst the MG F might have managed to garner a few fans, at least that had looks on it's side.

The ZS had something that none of it's siblings could claim though; racing pedigree. Built so that MG could enter the British Touring Car Championship, the ZS sold itself on a combination of race car looks, strong performance and fine handling. And if you followed convention you'd expect that last attribute to be personified best in the smaller engined ZS 120. With 1.8 litres shared between four cylinders, there wasn't anything particularly exciting going on in the drivetrain department, but as MG pointed out (over and over again), the ZS has a suspension setup derived form many hours on the race track. So surely having a nice light four pot up front would be better than a heavy V6?

Well actually, no. The 2.5 litre V6 in the ZS was notable for it's small dimensions, in particular how short it was. This made it, said MG, one of the lightest V6 engines around. Obviously today we'd expect a little more than 175bhp at 6500RPM from a hot hatch, but back in 2001 that figure was pretty much in-line with the competition, as was the ZS's 177lbft at 4000 RPM. It was a good engine too - smooth, free revving and with an appreciable snarl to back up it's performance.

What astounded about the ZS 180 though, was just how much fun it proved, whether you were on your favourite road or even at the track. Turn-in was brilliant, for example, the MG defying the laws of physics; sure it was a relatively small car with a relatively big engine, but you simply wouldn't have guessed from the way it sniffed out and apex and doggedly refused to understeer through long sweeping corners. It was throttle-adjustable to a degree you wouldn't quite believe unless you drove it, and even rode pretty well thanks to independent suspension all round.

For those that wanted to emulate MG's on-track exploits in the BTCC, the ZS was perfect, for here was a genuine road going version of the race car that it aspired to be.
 
Or maybe he doesn't want anything better? Maybe he's owned Rover/MG cars for the past 20 years and doesn't want to move marquee?

my dad's had MG's for the last 20 years, proper ones like the MGB, not a rebadged rover. Its nothing to do with marque loyalty, he's a ford man through and through.

By coincidence, "Performance car" magazine have a small write up on the ZS in their "Blast from the past" section. Some typical journalistic horse-poo in there though, how many European cars in the last 30 years haven't had independent suspension?

maybe independant on the front but not always rear
 
Back
Top Bottom