I've only gone and done it - I've bought an MG! (Pics inside)

agw_01 · 11 Apr 2006 at 13:08

Malachy said:
did the headgasket go on the forum ?????!!!!!!!111111

jamoor · 12 Apr 2006 at 16:48

http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/news/65671/driver_power_2006_worst_reliability_and_build_quality.html

D4VE · 12 Apr 2006 at 16:52

jamoor said:
http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/news/65671/driver_power_2006_worst_reliability_and_build_quality.html

And the sad part is the 307 doesnt do well what the 306 did. It doesnt handle, it feels clumsy and big and doesnt go very well either.

Oracle · 12 Apr 2006 at 19:58

Nice choice AJ

ZT 4tw though....

Let me explain.....

Dead Dog · 12 Apr 2006 at 20:28

i like the mg range, the ZS is my least favourite of the lot, i very nearly bought a ZTT a few weeks ago myself, but unfortunately he wouldn't give me what i wanted for/been offered for mine. but i'm still looking. and i really like the ZRs too
getting in the ones we have at work they feel a very solid car. as for all this nonsense about rovers with body kits - cosworths? williams renaults ? in fact virtually all 'sports' cars, are 'just' the base models with different engines, suspension, brakes, interiors, wheels, some body panels, bumbers ect ect so what makes MG any different, is a alpina bmw or amg or brabus merc simply chaved up base models then?

jamoor · 12 Apr 2006 at 21:29

Dead Dog said:
i like the mg range, the ZS is my least favourite of the lot, i very nearly bought a ZTT a few weeks ago myself, but unfortunately he wouldn't give me what i wanted for/been offered for mine. but i'm still looking. and i really like the ZRs too
getting in the ones we have at work they feel a very solid car. as for all this nonsense about rovers with body kits - cosworths? williams renaults ? in fact virtually all 'sports' cars, are 'just' the base models with different engines, suspension, brakes, interiors, wheels, some body panels, bumbers ect ect so what makes MG any different, is a alpina bmw or amg or brabus merc simply chaved up base models then?

Arent those cars actually engineered in recent times (when they were launched) and not 10+ years ago?

Simon · 12 Apr 2006 at 22:03

jamoor said:
Arent those cars actually engineered in recent times (when they were launched) and not 10+ years ago?

Yes

ajgoodfellow · 12 Apr 2006 at 22:12

jamoor said:
http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/news/65671/driver_power_2006_worst_reliability_and_build_quality.html

Fair enough that's other people's experiences. My car has no rattles or loose trim at all, there aren't any large panel gaps and everything is screwed together well so I guess I'm just lucky!

Oracle said:
Nice choice AJ

ZT 4tw though....

Let me explain.....

It's a nice car but just too big for me. The 1.8 is a little underpowered for a car of that size and the V6s are rather expensive to insure too

A fair few cars were launched sometime ago and only recently replaced - the Peugeot 406 anyone?

Dead Dog · 13 Apr 2006 at 20:41

i am merely making the point, that pretty much all manufacturers have sports versions of their range. the MG z series was bought out to try to assist rovers problems by bringing out a new sports line and trying to attract new customers to the 'rover group',(without offending its pipe & slipper customers) when the 25,45 and 75 were launched(2000?)soon after (which is the case of most makers) in 2001 the mg versions were available.

i'm not going to defend the managers of rover of the years, they have neglected their range, but with the ZR ZS & ZT they did produce a good car
i've sat in a lot of them zrs&t at work and as i've said before they feel a very solid car that is well made, definately as well made as any of it's rivals, and when i drove the ZT-T i nearly bought i was very impressed with it, and i went there thinking it would be a bad car to drive, it turned me around, and i would own one for sure.

[TW]Fox · 13 Apr 2006 at 20:51

ajgoodfellow said:
A fair few cars were launched sometime ago and only recently replaced - the Peugeot 406 anyone?

That would only be a fair point if the 406 was a 405 with the 5 changed for a 6, and the 405 was a 504 with the numbers reversed.

This was not the case.

ajgoodfellow · 13 Apr 2006 at 22:14

[TW]Fox said:
That would only be a fair point if the 406 was a 405 with the 5 changed for a 6, and the 405 was a 504 with the numbers reversed.

This was not the case.

I meant that the 406 was released in 1996 (same time as the 200/400) and it wasn't replaced until 2004

The 25/45 was in need of replacement, this is without a doubt, but it was only really a few years out of date. It was a catch-22 situation really, developing a new car costs £100s of millions which Rover didn't have. They couldn't raise this as sales were dropping as their current models became more out of date

Matt82 · 13 Apr 2006 at 22:17

id been told the the rover 25 interiors were dated, that doesnt look too bad.

some of the switch gear dated back to the early 80s lol

25s are not my cup of tea, but it seems tidy

ajgoodfellow · 13 Apr 2006 at 22:21

Yeah, it's not too bad. Coming from a '98 Astra though you can definitely see it!

It's got soft-touch plastics on the dashboard and various other more modern touches but it's an odd mismatch of styles. The facelift (2004-2005) models had a far more modern interior

I did laugh when I saw the switchgear though - the heater controls were from the early '90s and the indicator stalks were from the '80s!

Simon · 14 Apr 2006 at 12:00

The CTR has Rover indicator stalks from 1989!

Matt82 · 14 Apr 2006 at 12:18

apparently the DB7 has door handles from the MX5

british car makers do seem to suck somewhat when it comes to parts bins lol