MG ZR

Settleddown · 21 May 2010 at 17:53

Hi my friend has looked and test drove a 2002 British racing green MG ZR 160, its a cracking example so he says, full rover history all stamped and well looked after, sitting on 69K miles.

Now I know nothing about said cars, so are they crap? or what to look out for?

He can get it for £1700.

OpenToSuggestions · 21 May 2010 at 17:55

The ZR is just the Rover 25 with a body kit. At the point that the ZR was released it was massively out of date (I mean underneath, not looks).

Then MG went bust so parts will become harder to find long term.

They weren't exactly good on reliability either. Que OMG HGF comments.

Begbie · 21 May 2010 at 18:11

OMG HGF

Dogbreath · 21 May 2010 at 18:12

Apart from the interior, what do you consider was "massively out of date"?

Dreadi · 21 May 2010 at 18:13

mglover070588 said:
The ZR is just the Rover 25 with a body kit.

This

Que OMG HGF comments.

and this.

Settleddown · 21 May 2010 at 18:18

This is the 160 form, here is the said car;

http://www.highashmotorcompany.co.uk/134673/stocklist.htm

metamorphpwner · 21 May 2010 at 18:31

Begbie said:
OMG HGF

definatly a problem on the 1.6+, i know 3 people who've all had HGF, two where with a 1.6 the other was 1.8.
i went with the 1.4, for insurance costs (first car), no problems other than the cheap interior plastics creeking and rattling when i first got it. sorted them problems now.

OpenToSuggestions · 21 May 2010 at 18:33

Dogbreath said:
Apart from the interior, what do you consider was "massively out of date"?

The entire design. iirc a Rover 25 was from 1996, so to see 04 reg ZR's around means it is a very dated design. The car was neither particularly fast, that well at handling and has not got good reliability.

The day the first ZR rolled off the line it was out of date. When I say out of date, I mean the competition was walking all over it!

The ZR may have looks but it is not a good car.

Berger · 21 May 2010 at 18:35

What kind of used car sales place has no landline....

Looks OK for the price.

Check its had the cambelt etc done and for signs of HGF.

Alternatives, Clio 172, Peugeot GTI-6, Xsara VTS.

[TW]Fox · 21 May 2010 at 18:58

How does it have full Rover history when Rover have been out of business for more than half this cars life?

Settleddown · 21 May 2010 at 19:05

Well the last stamp is 01/03/09 and this is by rover? I don't know how? But it has.

Muncher · 21 May 2010 at 19:12

mglover070588 said:
The entire design. iirc a Rover 25 was from 1996, so to see 04 reg ZR's around means it is a very dated design. The car was neither particularly fast, that well at handling and has not got good reliability.

The day the first ZR rolled off the line it was out of date. When I say out of date, I mean the competition was walking all over it!

The ZR may have looks but it is not a good car.

I'd disagree with that, the 160 was a pretty decent car, what would you say is a more competent car in its class for £1,700?

[TW]Fox · 21 May 2010 at 19:16

These cars used to be crap value but now they've depreciated to what they are really worth they are quite decent.

It was a shocking mickeytake for thousands of quid but for 1700 quid?

metamorphpwner · 21 May 2010 at 19:19

I paid £2400 for an "03" plate 1.4 with only 12,000 miles on the clock at the begining of the year, not had a single problem apart from drivers window glass came loose and catch on the glove box didn't lock very well.

Muncher · 21 May 2010 at 19:22

Look at the roadtests at the time, they're pitching it up against the Mini Cooper S for instance, generally saying it's not quite as good, but come on one of those now will cost you 4x as much!

Liquidfox · 21 May 2010 at 19:31

metamorphpwner said:
definatly a problem on the 1.6+, i know 3 people who've all had HGF, two where with a 1.6 the other was 1.8.
i went with the 1.4, for insurance costs (first car), no problems other than the cheap interior plastics creeking and rattling when i first got it. sorted them problems now.

They never did a 1.6 ZR :confused:

It was a 1.4 (103PS), 1.8 (120PS) 1.8VVC (160PS)

Rovers with the 1.6
# Rover 200
# Rover 25
# Rover Streetwise
# Rover 400
# Rover 45
# MG ZS
# MG F
# MG TF

All 3 models are K-series with the HGF problem

Settleddown · 21 May 2010 at 20:07

Ohhhh ahhhh HGF I forgot about that!!!! Hmmm is it a major worry????

Janesy B · 21 May 2010 at 21:00

Settleddown said:
Ohhhh ahhhh HGF I forgot about that!!!! Hmmm is it a major worry????

Put £350 aside, watch coolant like a hawk

As Fox said, they're so worthless, they make a reasonable purchase.

Janesy B · 21 May 2010 at 21:04

Liquidfox said:
They never did a 1.6 ZR It was a 1.4 (103PS), 1.8 (120PS) 1.8VVC (160PS)

Rovers with the 1.6
# Rover 200
# Rover 25
# Rover Streetwise
# Rover 400
# Rover 45
# MG ZS
# MG F
# MG TF

All 3 models are K-series with the HGF problem

You could get a ZS 110 at one point which was 1.6.

agw_01 · 22 May 2010 at 00:24

mglover070588 said:
The ZR is just the Rover 25 with a body kit.

mglover070588 said:
iirc a Rover 25 was from 1996

To say your username is 'mglover' I'd say you were not an mglover at all.

The Rover 25 came about in 1999. I love the people who imply that an MG ZR is identical to a Rover 25 bar the body kit, as this is just so far fetched it makes me laugh.

The ZR handles superbly compared to the 25. It also has a quicker steering rack. Yeah, the engines are the same but the 1.8 (in either 120 or 160) form is fairly potent.

I'm not really a fan of the ZR... too many boy racers (oh the irony eh

) giving them a bad image but they're pretty decent cars. The 160 is definitely a nice buy, especially for £1700.