MG TF?

It will be newer than an MX5. That will be about the only thing going for it to be honest.

The MX5 will be better in every other respect.
 
My folks have the 160. It goes like stink and doesn't look too bad for a Rover either. Just don't expect it to work wonders on the bends. Interior is of course of standard Rover quality too.
 
If it was me i would prefer the MG TF to the mx-5, but thats just a personal taste, but i think other choices need to be looked at also:)
 
Assuming you're only looking at 2 seater convertable's, then all I can think of is:

Elise - 98/99 for you money?
Z3 - Don't know enough about them
Fiat Barchetta - Supposed to be good, but LHD only I think?
Lotus Elan?
 
Just to add, I borrowed an MGTF for a week.

Firstly the roof leaked. The rear (plastic) windscreen was so badly 'misted' it was near useless - the zip around it was also broken. The interior looked like it was found at the bottom of a box of cornflakes. Seating position was awkward. Handling not particularly great. Performance was ok (135bhp version). It was noisy. Everything felt loose, it lacked any feel of quality.

It was a '54 reg and 6 months old when I borrowed it (8,000 miles on the clock). The only redeeming feature was that it was fun to drive with the roof down. Buy an MX5/MR2 mate.
 
i prefer the looks of the MGTF to the mx5s, if you wanted the better car then its the mx5, if you want freedom of choice and prefer the looks and can handle it not being the best in the twisties (might not be a problem as you might not do a lot of twisties) then get one.
the metallic blue looks great imo
 
Last time I saw a MGTF if was spinning around a round about. :S.

I think the MG looks miles better than the MX-5. However i've not driven either car so can't comment on any other aspect.
 
I own an MX-5 and having test-driven a TF I would have had to dump the missus if she'd bought it. At the time, I had a J-plate MR2 which was considerably better than the 52-plate MG. The MG looks good, but is not as good as the '5 to be fair - christ, it ain't as good as a 90k miles 1992 MR2!!!
 
I much prefer the looks of the TF. The reason that they are great value for money is that they are perceived to be really bad, and obviously the whole MGR company problems. After extensive driving of a TF135 I find it brilliant fun, great handling with enough poke to make journeys interesting. On the inside it's a nice place to be, and although the 'sporty' ride might not be for all I bet the competition has an equal amount of road feeback shall we say.

Ideally you'll be looking at the 160 2004 model or later. Modifications were made like a low coolant sensor which make HGF less likely.

What you should really do is look at some good examples of both and see which you like most.

Look at the mg-rover.org forums and also xpowerforums.com
 
6thElement said:
But if you're under 50 and not an ex DTM Touring Cars World Champion you'll crash and kill a blue whale :p
Click to expand...
Heheheh, yes I forgot about that.

Buy a boring saloon.
 
Has Jollygreen got his car yet then. The MG is the better looking car but I would still get the Mazda unless my dad was a mechanic :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom