MG ZR

[TW]Fox;10574515 said:
From a marketing point of view the MGification of the 25 was very sensible - after all the Max Power brigade are incredibly easy to sell to and it gave Rover much needed cash but dont think for one minute that this stops the ZR being a 25 in drag.
Click to expand...

I wanted one based on its looks alone, then I drove it :(

Ended up with a Fiesta ZS instead.
 
[TW]Fox;10574404 said:
Of course, we are all wrong, Rover made amazing cars, this is why they still trade. Long live Rover.
Click to expand...


If you can quote me the part where I said Rovers are great I'd appreciate it. Many times I have seen you get annoyed when people assume you have said something when you actualy haven't, why do it to others?

I am simply saying that a single bad experience with a car is utterly inconclusive. Are all Mondeos crap because I drove one that suffered from an electrical problem?
 
It's not just a 'single' bad experience with Rovers though, is it? There are numerous well documented failings. There is no smoke without fire.
 
Here's my Rover 400 in drag:

mg.jpg


New engine should finally be in this weekend. It is a fun car to drive though, when it works. I bought it as I only work 1 mile away and didn't want to keep using my BMW for such a short journey.

I've been pretty much cycling ever since I got the MG, which has it's benefits I guess but it wasn't really the idea!
 
I have a rover 218is at the minute. Not for too much longer I hope, but I want something newer that's all.

It starts fine, it runs fine and it is fun to drive. I appreciate the sentiment that they are unreliable, but I believe that if you are careful, hgf can be avoided.

It's tough to judge really, if you have one and they aren't broken then they are great imo. Whether you can get one that isn't/won't break is another question. Mine isn't for sale yet.
 
ajgoodfellow said:
No surprises here - as usual someone mentions an MG/Rover and we get loads of posts slating it

They're not the best cars and they aren't the most reliable (mine has cost me a fair bit of money) but they're not bad cars

They are a lot of fun to drive - don't know where the dull to drive comment came from. One of the main things going for the car is how it drives!

If you're used to driving something like an Ibiza, A4, C30, Astra, et al then the MG is far better.
Click to expand...


your comparing a rover 200 in drag to the above?

ok lets compare to the appropriate versions

Astra Coupe turbo mmmkay lot better than the rover

Audi A4/S4/RS4 it wont break down every 5 minutes sorry but sitting in a recovery truck or on the hard shoulder is not fun, i had enough of that in my 205 gti days although a fairer comparison would have been the a3

C30 possibly its french after all

Ibiza? are you mad the psuedo a3 vag mobile wipes the floor with the rover
Have a slap you silly boy ;)



The mg is a potential money pit with no dealer network and pee in a pot residuals its built on an ancient platform and i certainly wouldnt put one anywhere near a list of fun cars,
 
ajgoodfellow said:
Rover did make some good cars (namely the 75) but due to poor management, poor reputation, poor reliability, poor press and the overtly retro appearance (which wasn't what the public, on the whole, wanted) it didn't sell as well as it should
Click to expand...

I cant tell if you were trying to be funny, if not see below:

WHOOOOOAH THERE CAPTAIN!

Just read that back to yourself before you type anything else.

You are saying Rovers were badly managed, poorly made, unreliable, badly syled, had a terrible PR department and basically made a car nobody wanted.

But on the whole, they deserved to sell more cars?
 
To be fair, my father-in-law's 1998 420 has been near faultless in the 7ish years he's owned it. It's only had normal wear-and-tear stuff done. I think a lot of that is down to his looking after it like a baby, it never gets above 4k rpm and it's serviced religiously.

It's not a bad car to drive either, just dull.
 
sormicoft said:
your comparing a rover 200 in drag to the above?

ok lets compare to the appropriate versions

Astra Coupe turbo mmmkay lot better than the rover

Audi A4/S4/RS4 it wont break down every 5 minutes sorry but sitting in a recovery truck or on the hard shoulder is not fun, i had enough of that in my 205 gti days although a fairer comparison would have been the a3

C30 possibly its french after all

Ibiza? are you mad the psuedo a3 vag mobile wipes the floor with the rover
Have a slap you silly boy ;)



The mg is a potential money pit with no dealer network and pee in a pot residuals its built on an ancient platform and i certainly wouldnt put one anywhere near a list of fun cars,
Click to expand...

I wasn't comparing the A4 directly to the ZR. I was just saying that the difference between an A4 SE/Sport is like the difference between a 25/ZR - that's it

The C30 is a Volvo - Swedish designed. Not sure where it's made though

An Ibiza is a dreadfully dull car with a nasty cheap interior with hard plastics and awful super super light steering with no feedback. It might be fine as a reliable shopping cart but it's hardly a drivers car!
 
atpbx said:
I cant tell if you were trying to be funny, if not see below:

WHOOOOOAH THERE CAPTAIN!

Just read that back to yourself before you type anything else.

You are saying Rovers were badly managed, poorly made, unreliable, badly syled, had a terrible PR department and basically made a car nobody wanted.

But on the whole, they deserved to sell more cars?
Click to expand...

I believe that if they had got the styling, PR, etc right then it would have sold far more. It wasn't a fundamentally bad car - it won the What Car Compact Executive award after all. My Dad had a 2.0 V6 for 6 years and he now has the CDTi and they've been faultless

I just believe that poor management etc made the situation worse. Cost cutting under the Phoenix Four can't have helped matters either

They were in an awkward position. They were too small ultimately so couldn't raise enough cash to develop a new model (costing £100s of millions). The sales therefore dropped on their ageing model range, making the situation worse
 
Had my Rover 1999 214Si for 2 years now and havent had any major problems as of yet...Just the usual tires and exhaust etc.

Headgasket went on the first day I had it thought :p But took it back and got it all sorted as it was in "early stages" of it buggaring up.

Still GREAT LITTLE CAR :D
 
Ah i'm a little late :)

Theres no way the car will appeal to everyone, i bought mine under strange circumstances expecting to sell it immediately on after receiving it in part exchange. Since being stuck with an mg zr (almost identical one to AJ's except colour afaik) i've grown to really like it as a car thats certainly fun, i'd say certainly a lot more fun than an a4 for me personally but then i can understand why someone who buys an a4 would feel an mg zr is totally not their cup of tea, thats natural isn't it?

I've done 24k miles in my mg zr 120+ and bills so far:

2 tyres = £70 (nanking f t w !! :D )
replacement standard exhaust mid + backbox = £150
basic servicing / little bits = £50

3 yrs ownership = £270 / 156 weeks = £1.70 a week excluding MOT's so far.

I find it hard to grumble with that for me personally.

Further more, the guy wants it for his girlfriend and its become clear to me over the past few years that women really like the look of mg's and the styling.
 
[TW]Fox;10569760 said:
It would be unwise to purchase an MG ZR. Do not be taken in by the sporty styling. It is a Rover 200 in drag, with Rover 200 engines. There are better alternatives.
Click to expand...

You took the words right our of my mouth.
 
[TW]Fox;10574515 said:
Dogbreath seems to think it is seeing as he went to the trouble to point out that they never made a 200 and a ZR at the same time, as if this makes any difference to the discussion :)
Click to expand...

Dogbreath is simply giving you a taste of your own pedanticism ;) Does it taste bitter? It makes all the difference in the world if you want one of the more powerful engines or the better suspension that only came in the ZR. It certainly makes a difference if you want a 2001 onwards car when the 200 was no longer available.

Someone asks for advice on a ZR and gets told that if they want a Rover they should buy a Rover. They clearly didn't want the Rover version (the 25), but wanted the MG version, so why all the stupidity?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom