MG ZR View's?

Richdog said:
I drove a mates ZR the other week and to be honest compared to my (admittedly lowly) Renault Clio 1.4RT it is diabolical... my Clio handles and drives so much nicer in comparison,
Click to expand...

you see i reckon this is where owner bias kicks in. Having driven a ZR a few times (and with plenty of gusto) it absolutely destroyed a 106 1.4 a mate has, no contest. Stiffer through the twisties and so much more power that it eft his 106 standing.

Dont get me wrong, i wouldnt want one, but comparing it to a standard form 1.4 clio - spec aside (we've cleared that) the ZR is undoubtedly the better (and quicker) drivers car.

As for the Saxo - having owned one for 3 years i can honestly say ignore the image, they're an amzaingly capable warm hatch...
 
Pug said:
you see i reckon this is where owner bias kicks in. Having driven a ZR a few times (and with plenty of gusto) it absolutely destroyed a 106 1.4 a mate has, no contest. Stiffer through the twisties and so much more power that it eft his 106 standing.

Dont get me wrong, i wouldnt want one, but comparing it to a standard form 1.4 clio - spec aside (we've cleared that) the ZR is undoubtedly the better (and quicker) drivers car.

As for the Saxo - having owned one for 3 years i can honestly say ignore the image, they're an amzaingly capable warm hatch...
Click to expand...

Owner bias? That's a bit patronising mate. It's a 1.4 Clio not an Audi TT, I have no reason to "big it up". I want to change cars a soon as finances allow and I am under no illusions about the quality of the car. However I know what I like driving and I know what feels good to me... and the ZR didn't. In comparison I have driven a Saxo VTR and a Peug 106 and they both felt better than my Clio to drive (saxo especially). I just didn't like the ZR... my personal opinion.
 
no offence intended mate, and it wasnt patronising.

You probably found the ride rough and uncomfortable? Which translates to superb when sending it on through the twisties. I found it to be a very capable car when pushed.

either way, to each his own - least we all agree the Saxo is fun :)
 
Pug said:
As for the Saxo - having owned one for 3 years i can honestly say ignore the image, they're an amzaingly capable warm hatch...
Click to expand...

Agreed i would have a VTR over a MG ZR105, anyday of the week. Go look and one and drive one ignore the image, its probably one of the best warm hatches!
 
R124/LA420 said:
Better chassis,better built and, its RWD. 3 plus points for a start.
Click to expand...

Ahhh, true. Although for a n00b, understeer > oversteer. :) And seeing the look of anger when a ZR/25 beats a BMW 316/318 is awesome :D

oweneades said:
The last MG ZR 105 I saw had drums on the back. Can't comment on any of the other points as I havn't driven either.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the 105's do have rear drums. The 120's and 160's have discs all round.

Richdog said:
I drove a mates ZR the other week and to be honest compared to my (admittedly lowly) Renault Clio 1.4RT it is diabolical...
Click to expand...

Somehow I doubt it! I've been in a mates Clio (albeit a 1.2). Horrible horrible car (and to think I was going to buy one).

How on earth a 1.4 Clio on some super skinny tyres can handle better than a 1.4 MG ZR on wider wheels, with better suspension and probably a lighter engine is beyond me.
 
agw_01 said:
How on earth a 1.4 Clio on some super skinny tyres can handle better than a 1.4 MG ZR on wider wheels, with better suspension and probably a lighter engine is beyond me.
Click to expand...

I haven't got super skinny tyres, and it's lowered. I prefer my Clio from a driving point of view, whether you believe that or not it simply... unimportant. :p
 
Richdog said:
I haven't got super skinny tyres, and it's lowered. I prefer my Clio from a driving point of view, whether you believe that or not it simply... unimportant. :p
Click to expand...

Well, then I think this argument is pointless :p

Instead of arguing, I insist you get some photos up... as it sounds quite smart. :)
 
agw_01 said:
How on earth a 1.4 Clio on some super skinny tyres can handle better than a 1.4 MG ZR on wider wheels, with better suspension and probably a lighter engine is beyond me.
Click to expand...

But of course, the same basic chassis as the one which makes the Clio 172/182 so great. Whereas the ZR's chassis is the one which underpins legendary hot hatches like... erm... errrrr... moving swiftly on...
 
agw_01 said:
Well, then I think this argument is pointless :p

Instead of arguing, I insist you get some photos up... as it sounds quite smart. :)
Click to expand...

lol it's no looker but has been a great first car. When CF card arrives i'll take a piccie. Was thinking about getting a bit more out of it but am I right in thinking Clio 1.4RT's are pretty untweakable? :)
 
[TW]Fox said:
But of course, the same basic chassis as the one which makes the Clio 172/182 so great.
Click to expand...

We must be thinking of different cars Fox. When I hear 1.4RT, I think of the old shape Clio. Didn't know they made a new shape with 'RT' spec. I thought they were all named "Element" or "Dynamique".

Whereas the ZR's chassis is the one which underpins legendary hot hatches like... erm... errrrr... moving swiftly on...
Click to expand...

The Rover 220 GSi Turbo?

Ok, so not great. But apart from the brakes, it's quite a capable car.

Richdog said:
lol it's no looker but has been a great first car. When CF card arrives i'll take a piccie. Was thinking about getting a bit more out of it but am I right in thinking Clio 1.4RT's are pretty untweakable? :)
Click to expand...

Don't ask me, I'm no expert on Ren's :) Maybe one of the other Renault owners (Finch or MadPierre - if he's still around) can point you in the right direction.
 
agw_01 said:
We must be thinking of different cars Fox. When I hear 1.4RT, I think of the old shape Clio. Didn't know they made a new shape with 'RT' spec. I thought they were all named "Element" or "Dynamique".
Click to expand...

The first 172's were accually in the old shape. :) Made between 2000 and 2001.

7186822fl.jpg


Just like the Clio V6 was.

 
[TW]Fox said:
But of course, the same basic chassis as the one which makes the Clio 172/182 so great. Whereas the ZR's chassis is the one which underpins legendary hot hatches like... erm... errrrr... moving swiftly on...
Click to expand...

Torsion bar rear and MaccyP fronts is hardly revolutionary on the Clios, its just the rather expensive Sachs dampers with the typical french long travel suspension that does the tricks on the sport/172 etc.

There all pretty rudamentary basic suspension you get in any shopping trolley, lets not get carried away here. Neither feature any sort of double wishbone setup or semi independant rear ends. Rover always had soft suspension, the MG setup makes them taut enough to control what is an okay chassis to be more than enough for most drivers on the UK's unpredicable roads.
 
Jonnycoupe said:
Torsion bar rear and MaccyP fronts is hardly revolutionary on the Clios, its just the rather expensive Sachs dampers with the typical french long travel suspension that does the tricks on the sport/172 etc.
Click to expand...

I thought only the trophy had the sachs dampers?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom