MG-ZT 260 V8 - anyone got one ?

Sneaky Peaky

Sneaky Peaky

Sneaky Peaky

Associate
Joined
21 Jan 2003
Posts
2,499
Location
Farnborough, Hants
Now I've got an MG I'm just getting up to speed with the marque from other forums etc and was reading about these as never really paid much attention to them before but the specs seem epic !

4.6 litre V8 260ps from the Ford Mustang engine, rear wheel drive, 0-60 in 6.2 seconds etc etc..as the review linked to below describes it 'Phil Mitchell on wheels' !

Rare and quite cheap I would imagine and if I was back in the market for a four door performance saloon I would definately consider one over an ST220 for example ?

http://www.aronline.co.uk/index.htm?r40test_03f.htm
 
The very poor fuel economy would have me running for the hills im afraid. I would take the ST over this everytime.
 
I think they're pretty awesome, V8 out of a Mustang and developed with help from prodrive so you can't go wrong :D

It will spend a lot of time in petrol stations mind you.
 
Last edited:
I remember Clarkson's review on TG, he loved it. He was smoking a pipe whiles getting it sideways IIRC :D
 
Got to admit these don't really entice me that much.. I am very much an MGR fanboy but 260ps from an engine that size is really quite poor, with fuel economy to match :(. I am currently looking at the V6 versions of these as well as the MG ZS V6s. Will be interesting to see what you decide!

Dreadnought conversion looks good though, would definately like the V8 if I had a supercharged one :D
 
Reading around, you'll find the 190 V6 is the far better car less the RWD side of things. In terms of economy and running costs for maintenance the two are very different. I think in real world terms, the 190 is just as quick given its weight advantage.
 
i borrowed one for a few days

awesome sounds
pretty comfy
nice handling and brakes
quick enough


i loved it, but that said i only had to pour fuel into it once.
 
Lucero said:
Reading around, you'll find the 190 V6 is the far better car less the RWD side of things. In terms of economy and running costs for maintenance the two are very different. I think in real world terms, the 190 is just as quick given its weight advantage.
Click to expand...

Servicing costs on the V6 are pretty expensive though and I couldn't agree the V6 is as quick either. The 260 is certainly a bit heavier, but has a massive torque advantage (302lbft compared to the V6's 181lbft) so you really have to work the V6 hard to extract decent performance from it.
 
Last edited:
[TW]Fox;13991572 said:
Who pays V8 running costs for only 260bhp from a big saloon?
Click to expand...

Please tell me that you didn't just take the headline peak power figure from an engine configuration like this to be a meaningful indication of its real world performance...

I wont claim to have driven the rover, but i bet the engine feels pretty good.
 
Its engine is nearly double the size of the 190's. The gap in the range is huge, I wouldn't have thought the 2.5 was even close.

Edit, just looked it up. The 260 does 100 in 17 seconds and has 300lb/ft of torque. The 190 is 22 with 180lb/ft, that is rather a large gap :p
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom