Tell me about MG ZRs...

therealnerd2

therealnerd2

therealnerd2

Soldato
Joined
25 Oct 2002
Posts
2,569
Location
Cambridge,York,Bristol
Was looking at the Ford Foci 1.8, and having only had Ford cars, I thought I should branch out. The ZR 1.8 VVC has 7.4s 0-60 and 37mpg - sounds pretty tasty. Is the engine going to blow up as soon as I get it? What's not to like with these things?

Thanks!
 
Cheap for a reason really.

Handle average for a hot hatch, go average as well, the 160 will be plenty faster than a Focus 1.8 but compared to other hot hatches its not that quick.

Brakes, should be pretty good.

3 Doors look miles better than 5 doors.

The mk2 facelifted versions will have cost cutting measures, the newer the car the more cost cutting was undertaken by Rover.
 
davy89 said:
Just horrendous cars in every way, having known a few people who have owned them, I wouldn't go anywhere near, personally.
Click to expand...

I think that is overly harsh.

The engine is good, but needs to be looked after, which won't happen in the majority of cases by people not knowing/caring about them and abusing the car. Coupled with the cheap price and its a downward spiral.
 
ZR is essentially a tarted up revision of an old design, which is reflected fairly obviously in the interior.

K series engine used in the car you mention is a good lump, light, powerful and revvy for what it is, but is sadly well known for head gasket failures (partly a design issue but partly poor maintenance in that people don't check the coolant levels often, and the prevalence of head gasket failure is seemingly worsened by botched repairs leading to repeat failures).

There is a lot of hate for the MG on this forum, its far from a great car but its cheap to buy, looks relatively sporty (compared to the likes of focii, golfs and astras) and is not that bad a drive so long as you consider its origins. Id never buy one but its not totally without appeal either.
 
Will said:
K series engine used in the car you mention is a good lump, light, powerful and revvy for what it is, but is sadly well known for head gasket failures (partly a design issue but partly poor maintenance in that people don't check the coolant levels often, and the prevalence of head gasket failure is seemingly worsened by botched repairs leading to repeat failures).
Click to expand...

Any easy way to tell anything helpful when checking the car over?
 
therealnerd2 said:
Can you guys give a bit more detail???
Click to expand...

Sure, the Focus was class leading for many many years, for a car of its type and generation its build well, looks good, drives well, cheap to fix, shouldn't go wrong that oftern and is a safe place to be.

The MG on the otherhand isn't build that well, has more known faults and key issues, the interior is very dated and its pathetic in a crash.
 
Berger said:
I think that is overly harsh.

The engine is good, but needs to be looked after, which won't happen in the majority of cases by people not knowing/caring about them and abusing the car. Coupled with the cheap price and its a downward spiral.
Click to expand...

Reading back it maybe was overly harsh.

Having owned a Rover 200 (£900s worth, 2003) it just infuriated me, it was one problem after another. The thing that irritated me most about it, was it's lack of ability to keep water OUTSIDE of the car, when I'd finished sealing the rear lights it decided to piddle water into the rear passenger foot well. Then inevitably the head gasket went before sale. Having also owned a Focus from a similar period (was a 2001), that gave me 2 years of complete pleasure and lack of frustration, something which was missing after my short spell owning the 200.

Don't get me wrong the MG ZR is actually fantastic value for money, just the cons way way outway the pros, in my eyes. Unless you can pick up an absolute minter for considerably less than what a similarly aged Focus is up for, I'd go for the Focus every day of the week.
 
These when modified seem superb.
Come across MG ZR 160 on track days and they do very well, they are modified as in coil overs, slicks, roll cage, stripped etc but they do well and ar so cheap to pick up.

Also come across trophy ZR 190 and they are very quick. So as a track toy they can certainly perform, but am sure any car stripped out, on slicks etc. Would do well on track. :)
 
Bit like BTCC then, the Volvo 850 did ok in that yet the road going version is a total POS in terms of driver cars.

As you've said those ZR's are so distant from the off the shelf road going version you can't really take anything they show on the track as a factor when buying a run of the mill road going version.
 
Gibbo said:
These when modified seem superb.
Come across MG ZR 160 on track days and they do very well, they are modified as in coil overs, slicks, roll cage, stripped etc but they do well and ar so cheap to pick up.

Also come across trophy ZR 190 and they are very quick. So as a track toy they can certainly perform, but am sure any car stripped out, on slicks etc. Would do well on track. :)
Click to expand...

The Trophy ZR 190 ARE track cars, unless modified to that specification, you couldn't buy them as a road car.

There is a series specifically for for the 160 and 190 cars, 160 are closer to road spec, 190 are pretty full on race spec.

If I was after a track or race car I would seriously consider one due to their excellent VFM and the cheap ease of replacement parts if pranged.


I flew past a standard one at Oulton, but then driver ability and how much you are willing to push counts for a lot on a normal trackday as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom