Is an MG ZR a bad decision?

Dr Who · 10 Sep 2013 at 15:34

Lethal` said:
Parkers would suggest the 25 has slightly more BHP and faster 0-60. You're right though, the difference is pretty marginal and the 1.4 105 engine is pretty good considering.

Parkers show the 1.4 Rover 25 as 103 ps and the ZR 105 as (unsurprisingly) 105 ps

Not sure where you are looking, performance wise as well as the MG is 9.7sec to 60 and the Rover 25 10.2 seconds /shrug.

Lethal` · 10 Sep 2013 at 17:53

Dr Who said:
Parkers show the 1.4 Rover 25 as 103 ps and the ZR 105 as (unsurprisingly) 105 ps

Not sure where you are looking, performance wise as well as the MG is 9.7sec to 60 and the Rover 25 10.2 seconds /shrug.

I was looking at the 1.6 Rover 25.

Liquidfox · 10 Sep 2013 at 20:37

mattyprice4004 said:
Well, I guess I better give my 2p.
Common issues:
Boot loom wiring can chafe - remove the rubber gaitor over the wiring from the car to boot and re-insulate the wires individually.
Build quality - it'll literally rain trim if you go down a bumpy road I kid, but re-secure any loose trim properly and you shouldn't have an issue. Door grab handle covers and sun visors seem common things that need re-securing.

On the plus, parts are cheap as anything.

Those were the two I experienced on my Mk2 one. The latter resulted in the boot not opening any more, that was fun. Along with the drivers side windows repeatedly coming off it's guidelines so either getting stuck or dropping down completely meaning you had to take the door card off and put it back together.

Dr House · 11 Sep 2013 at 00:54

I had a ZR many years ago, handling was good but the car had lots of small issues.

LostPhil · 11 Sep 2013 at 09:46

Pre-facelift cars were better built out of the two as far as I can remember. Questionable interior trim aside, I had a cheap few years motoring out of mine. My 25 GTI was great fun, although it had a less hardcore set up and a lighter engine that the TDI ZR I believe. Starter motor went on both Rovers I owned but was a relatively cheap replacement. The GTI was seemingly falsely diagnosed with head gasket failure, which then threw up other problems after it was "fixed". Cheers, trusty mechanic! That was the petrol though, so won't affect you.

lemonade · 11 Sep 2013 at 12:47

Vita said:
I'm sure the Rover 6xx also shared parts from the Honda Accord. This was one of my gripes with the ATR. I always looked at the rear and thought LOLROVER.

No the 600 platform shared with the 5th gen Accord, not the 6th gen. The 600 was a lovely car, that was a period when Rover were actually making good cars with the partnership with Honda, then BMW rocked in and put a stop to it.

Dogbreath · 11 Sep 2013 at 13:04

Muffin` said:
Which Honda Civic is the ZS based on? MB6?

Both the 5 door Civic (MA/MB chassis codes) and the Rover 400 were jointly developed from the Honda Domani.

ubersonic · 11 Sep 2013 at 14:33

lemonade said:
Vita said:

I'm sure the Rover 6xx also shared parts from the Honda Accord. This was one of my gripes with the ATR. I always looked at the rear and thought LOLROVER.

Click to expand...

No the 600 platform shared with the 5th gen Accord, not the 6th gen.

The 6th gen Euro Accord* was a platform update of the 5th gen, so technically speaking it is as much an update of the Rover 600 as it is of the older Accord (as the 600 was a re-skinned Accord with different interior and engine options).

So if you want to get real nerdy you could say the Euro ATR is an updated Rover 600 with fancy bodywork and a slightly de-tuned Prelude engine, but that's only telling part of the story and selling the car very very short.

*The Accord was actually three different cars with the USDM/JDM/EU versions being completely different vehicles, due to its success the USDM Coupe was later sold here as the Accord V6 Coupe.

mattyprice4004 · 11 Sep 2013 at 14:49

The Rover 620ti absolutely doo-dahs all over the ATR of a similar era (in my opinion) having a lovely 2.0 Turbo rather than VTEC.

Can't beat that turbo pull! Brilliant cars, really miss mine. There's a few YouTube vids of it kicking about.

LiE · 11 Sep 2013 at 16:08

As said, the engine is pretty reliable. Car should do you well.

Here's mine from many years ago.

Dr Who · 11 Sep 2013 at 17:12

mattyprice4004 said:
The Rover 620ti absolutely doo-dahs all over the ATR of a similar era (in my opinion) having a lovely 2.0 Turbo rather than VTEC.

Can't beat that turbo pull! Brilliant cars, really miss mine. There's a few YouTube vids of it kicking about.

Indeed and the LSD gets that power down pretty well!

lemonade · 11 Sep 2013 at 19:04

^ but in my opinion a turbo is no way near as engaging or rewarding as a VTEC.

The 6th gen Euro Accord* was a platform update of the 5th gen, so technically speaking it is as much an update of the Rover 600 as it is of the older Accord (as the 600 was a re-skinned Accord with different interior and engine options).

So if you want to get real nerdy you could say the Euro ATR is an updated Rover 600 with fancy bodywork and a slightly de-tuned Prelude engine, but that's only telling part of the story and selling the car very very short.

Well without being too anal

yes it was an evolution of the previous generation, but they were very different in areas so can't be called just an update of the 600. They had new reworked suspensions, shorter wheelbase, new engines and gearboxes, vastly different exterior and interior, and the chassis was much much improved, sweet chassis on the 6th gen. We had a 5th gen (as you mentioned near identical to the 600) in the family and I own a 6th gen now, very different cars, not that any of it is a bad thing as the 600 was a fine car, and I would be very happy to own one!