MG ZR 160's (or alternatives)
- Thread starter Stormster
- Start date
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
I think what Phate is getting at is that people calling it just a rover with different badges is wrong, much like saying an ST220 is the same as an LX but with different badges. The word just implies some brummie stuck different badges on the same car which is incorrect.
Last edited:
To me,
The Vectra Elite and VXR were both made and developed by Vauxhall (correct me if I'm wrong here, as I don't know if that is 100% correct)
The 45 was made by Rover (with some devlopment from Honda I think) then MG (who as you know were also part of the BMC as were Rover) took the 45, revamped the Chassis, Suspension and whatever else and released it as the ZS.
I see it different as Rover and MG, although part of the same group, were not entirely the same company.
The ZS wasn't made by the same people who worked on the 45 originally.
The Vectra Elite and VXR were both made and developed by Vauxhall (correct me if I'm wrong here, as I don't know if that is 100% correct)
The 45 was made by Rover (with some devlopment from Honda I think) then MG (who as you know were also part of the BMC as were Rover) took the 45, revamped the Chassis, Suspension and whatever else and released it as the ZS.
I see it different as Rover and MG, although part of the same group, were not entirely the same company.
The ZS wasn't made by the same people who worked on the 45 originally.
The people who work on the cars don't tend to work on the performance versions. MG has just been a brand for a long while, a brand owned by Rover which was consolidated when british leyland went breasts skyward.
Technically it is still a rover, but it isn't just a rover. if that makes any sense
Lets agree to disagree
Technically it is still a rover, but it isn't just a rover. if that makes any sense
Lets agree to disagree
[TW]Fox;13696326 said:
MG was its own company until it was brought into the BMC in *checks* 1952. And then later merged with Rover.
Saying they are they same cars with different badges is true, saying they are JUST that, is not.
MG has just been a brand ever since that plank at british leyland decided to end production of proper MG cars, a decision he regrets to this day apparently.
Bringing back MG was just a marketing ploy by the new owners of Rover who wanted to tap into the heritage of the brand, nothing more. They could have easily called them Rover GTIs, sports or whatever they wanted.
However calling the MG just a Rover with different badges is rubbish. Much like someone calling a Golf GTI just a Golf with extra badges.
Bringing back MG was just a marketing ploy by the new owners of Rover who wanted to tap into the heritage of the brand, nothing more. They could have easily called them Rover GTIs, sports or whatever they wanted.
However calling the MG just a Rover with different badges is rubbish. Much like someone calling a Golf GTI just a Golf with extra badges.
Last edited:
Thanks for all the replies
As said earlier, spending 2500 (I know it's not much to some) on an 03 reg kinda car is a bit more appealing than an older motor such as the Civic or the GTI6, of which I both like. I don't really want to modify it (I've already got a modified car, of which the make and model I won't mention! lol but it's a trusty Vauxhall which has done me brilliantly, just want something which handles now)
Something I forgot to ask about was security. It's parked on the road - so ideally I'd want deadlocks and would add a decent alarm if ones not already fitted.
Handling and performance wise I guess most cars mentioned are on par. I'll have a look at the ZS's - I do like them really and noticed once how cheap they'd become.
Xsara's - I just can't get to grips with that front end on the newer models. I like the older front end, far more aggressive, but again - older car (so would be cheaper of course in retrospect) - but I'd like something with a newer reg too. So it's a case of combining all my wants and still having good performance (i.e. 0-100 under 20 seconds is what I'm after).
I'll have a looksie on the autotrader at all cars mentioned to see whats about too
Regarding 172's - I do like them... but I wonder how they fair on long sweeping corners at speed... do they feel sketchy and twitchy? Something I've noticed as a common trait of all small cars. Saying that the ZR aint much bigger and sounds quite stiff too so might be much the same lol.
As said earlier, spending 2500 (I know it's not much to some) on an 03 reg kinda car is a bit more appealing than an older motor such as the Civic or the GTI6, of which I both like. I don't really want to modify it (I've already got a modified car, of which the make and model I won't mention! lol but it's a trusty Vauxhall which has done me brilliantly, just want something which handles now
)Something I forgot to ask about was security. It's parked on the road - so ideally I'd want deadlocks and would add a decent alarm if ones not already fitted.
Handling and performance wise I guess most cars mentioned are on par. I'll have a look at the ZS's - I do like them really and noticed once how cheap they'd become.
Xsara's - I just can't get to grips with that front end on the newer models. I like the older front end, far more aggressive, but again - older car (so would be cheaper of course in retrospect) - but I'd like something with a newer reg too. So it's a case of combining all my wants and still having good performance (i.e. 0-100 under 20 seconds is what I'm after).
I'll have a looksie on the autotrader at all cars mentioned to see whats about too
Regarding 172's - I do like them... but I wonder how they fair on long sweeping corners at speed... do they feel sketchy and twitchy? Something I've noticed as a common trait of all small cars. Saying that the ZR aint much bigger and sounds quite stiff too so might be much the same lol.
I've driven plenty of MGR's and generally (with the exception of the 75) am confident of my low opinion of them.
Actually, the badge is one of the things I was saddest to see of the demise of Rover - the name was the only good part left.
You can argue all you like, had Rover produced cars people wanted to buy Rover would have been worth saving and they would still be here today alas history tells you all you need to know.
You think I'm just bashing Rover for the sake of it probably, your wrong. I can assure you I get no pleasure from the demise of Rover & its workforce - I used to deliver to Longbridge & Cowley and was on 1'st name terms with many people there, the irony was most agreed that the product they sold was crap and the writing was on the wall - That the demise took relatively so long was probably the biggest surprise when Rover eventually got put down.
Last edited:
I'm glad we agree.
Err but those two phrases mean the same and you just said it was true
That's why I said most
This might suprise you, but I completely agree and that's why I'll happily say that I think NAC-MG trying to introduce them back into this country is a waste of time. Rover's reputation in the UK is irreparable IMO. The only people who will buy a new MGR are people who liked the cars that they've owned before.
What gets me is people who say that all Rover cars were crap and unreliable. I'm not talking about the later MGRs, I mean the Rover 200, 400, 600 and 800.
Compare the Mk2 Rover 200 and Mk1 Rover 400 (my shape) to the Astra and Escort of the same era. The Rover is a much nicer place to sit, and the whole car just a nicer experience!
The Rover 600, basically a Honda Accord... yet gets an absolute slating because of the Rover badge. The number of times I see Rover 620Ti's on eBay stating "super 110% reliable Honda engine". I wonder if they'd say that if they found out the engine was actually a Rover unit?
I could harp on all day about this, but for the good of this forum I'm not going too. Believe it or not, I'm not biased towards Rover, but I do feel that some of the comments made towards them are unjustified.
Last edited:
Only speaking from past experience (my W plate is rusting on the wing and around the boot lock and my old '98 200 is suffering since mum's owned it) and since the ZS's and ZT's will be getting on a bit it was a concern. But hey, if it's not much of a problem, less of a reason not to own one, right?
which front end? they revised the phase 2 front end in 2003 with a new bumper and fogs located seperately, hence my suggestion.
ignore the wheels, but heres a phase 2.5, not an ideal angle i know but its all i have at work.
if i was you, i'd take the ZR, VTS and 172 all out for a spin.
although more expensive, the 172 is a stonker of a car, if you find the driving position comfortable i doubt you will look elsewhere.
[TW]Fox;13697316 said:I'm glad we agree.
Err but those two phrases mean the same and you just said it was true
I get what phate is trying to say
There was internet bitching about the ZS, that when they made the MG ZS, they didnt put any development into, didnt change anything, and merely took a rover 45 off the production line, and stuck an MG badge on it.
This is not true of course, they did put some effort into it, and changed suspension etc.. The MG was a different model in the range in the same way the ST220 is different from the LX. But to say all that was different between the 45 and the ZS was the badge, isnt true
which i think is what phates getting at.
That's why I said most
Fair enough.