Tell me about the MG TF
- Thread starter SlyReaper
- Start date
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
And neither will it buy you a straight 02/03 MG TF, either.
Even a 100,000 mile 02 plater bought at trade money is more than this.
After reading this thread, its changed my mind about getting an MG TF
Ive test drove one a few days ago and thought they were nice, interior wasnt shabby at all, good mileage and very good body work.
IT was a 53 plate with 55k on the clock and in black and he wanted £1550 for it.
If it was tidy and not spewing out mayonnaise from the engine that is an exceptionally good price! If it's a 1.8 I'll buy it.
It's heavier and less comfy than the mx5. What other ways are there for it to be better?
Why would you be buying one of these if not for the driver experience? Practicality?!?!?
I could understand running an MX5 for reliability and cheap motoring, but as already discussed, the MG is likely to leave you stranded every two years or so.
Is the closest I can find. Much less info about these days. But they specifically caution against even other types of Goodyear tyre!
In comparison to a Corsa B, maybe, but for a sports car with its genuine competition, its left for dead.
Depends on your definition of sporty and what your expectations are
They're fast (in 160 guise anyway), loud, topless, give you a lot of feedback through the wheel and your arse and you can go around corners a damn sight quicker than in a "normal" car. Yes, you might be faster, or get better feedback in an MX5...but I'm just saying in isolation they arent bad cars
When I'm driving my dad's, I never think "this is rubbish, I could have hit the apex of that corner much better if I was in an MX5", I just drive it with a smile on my face. Granted, living with one on a daily basis is a different matter, but I expect the shortcomings of such a car as a daily would apply to all of them.
They're fast (in 160 guise anyway), loud, topless, give you a lot of feedback through the wheel and your arse and you can go around corners a damn sight quicker than in a "normal" car. Yes, you might be faster, or get better feedback in an MX5...but I'm just saying in isolation they arent bad cars
When I'm driving my dad's, I never think "this is rubbish, I could have hit the apex of that corner much better if I was in an MX5", I just drive it with a smile on my face. Granted, living with one on a daily basis is a different matter, but I expect the shortcomings of such a car as a daily would apply to all of them.
[TW]Fox;17074673 said:
http://www.mgf.ultimatemg.com/group2/tyres/
The bottom line is that all mid-engined cars benefit from high performance tyres, more so than FWD or Front engined RWD cars. This is not unique to the MGF/TF, the MR2 is also quite fussy about tyres.
Last edited:
Permabanned
- Joined
- 4 Jun 2010
- Posts
- 829
Wow so much crap in this thread its untrue.
Yeah the engines were so bad Lotus used them. With a Rover PG1 box too.
Cant believe the utter ignorance of some people on this matter.
The TF didnt even have hydragas suspension!!
Its a cracking wee car for the money, and anything above £3K is a complete rip off, as if you hunt about you can get decent ones for £1500.
For 3K I'd be wanting the 160bhp Trophy version with the 4 pot AP racing brakes upfront, which would rip an MX a new bottom in a straight line.
When the Hydragas suspension was dropped, the chassis stiffness was also increased and turned it into a capable little car. Even better with the hard top fitted also.
EDIT:- LOL at the tyre advisory. This was to stop morons or women fitting Lunglings to the rear to prevent them ending up in a ditch, as the car was RWD. Talk about jumping on the bandwagon with ill-informed misinformation.
Yeah the engines were so bad Lotus used them. With a Rover PG1 box too.
Cant believe the utter ignorance of some people on this matter.
The TF didnt even have hydragas suspension!!
Its a cracking wee car for the money, and anything above £3K is a complete rip off, as if you hunt about you can get decent ones for £1500.
For 3K I'd be wanting the 160bhp Trophy version with the 4 pot AP racing brakes upfront, which would rip an MX a new bottom in a straight line.
When the Hydragas suspension was dropped, the chassis stiffness was also increased and turned it into a capable little car. Even better with the hard top fitted also.
EDIT:- LOL at the tyre advisory. This was to stop morons or women fitting Lunglings to the rear to prevent them ending up in a ditch, as the car was RWD. Talk about jumping on the bandwagon with ill-informed misinformation.
Last edited:
Right, but you would have more fun in the MX5, and it would be more reliable, and you would have a decent driving position instead of a really bad one, so why would anyone get an MGTF?
(the answer is because of the old adage "People are dumb")
[TW]Fox;17074696 said:
That's crap I'm afraid, the TF is a sporty car - if you were talking about the 'F' I'd be inclined to agree. The performance of the VVC model is also significantly better than any standard MX5 from the era.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 4 Jun 2010
- Posts
- 829
Erm no, quite simply because they are cheaper and some people prefer the looks.
You cant argue that the MG TF was a poplular little car, and always did well sales wise, despite the niggles with the gasket.