New car for summer fun

thing is though, sneaky peaky was an impreza caveman in a wooly hat

i just cant see him in a big old boat of an jag. I agree its for wafting around in comfort with the top down.

But thats not what the OP wants ;)

Alright, like I said, fair enough, but please dont **** the jag.
 
An XJS is hardly a boat. I don't see much of a track record for MGF's.

Plus MGFs are dingy, fat little things that every peasant and his dog is driving around in. Soft-top late XJSs are among the most beautiful cars ever designed. If the man wants practicality he should go buy a Xsara Picasso is all I'm saying. Plus chances are that MGF will spend more time in the garage than a good XJS.

Maybe you could go and start an XJS Appreciation thread or something?

This thread is about a car for the summer and that is cheap and cheerful. An XJS, which I'm sure is a nice car, is not really in the same category that this thread is about.

The OP clearly wants something he can hoon down a few back roads with the roof off.

BTW: It's an MG TF 160 he's looking at. There are pretty "rare" on the road unlike regular MG F's...
 
i really like the look of the car, black suits it well. I really couldn't live with the interior though, that wood effect looks hideous. If you can source some parts to change that cheap then you would have a nice looking car!
 
Easy customisation is one of the nice things of having a popular little sports cars. This goes for the MX-5 as well, there are a few specialist companies out there that can supply you with revised trim panels, seats, steering wheels etc. I went to an open day once and one of the silly attention to detail things they wanted to do was leather cover the panel where you insert the key, as I think most other things were done in the car. People spend a daft amount of time thinking and making new things for the car, I'd rather just drive mine!

http://www.mgfcentre.com/
http://www.mikesatur.com

One more Jag thing..... a Jag is not meant to be a Corvette or any other muscle car. You miss the point of having a wafty cruiser when you remove the silencers, decat or just remove the exhausts!
 
Mine:

Boggo interior but fairly resistant:
http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h105/HowardJacks/My MG/mgint.jpg

Front after a quick swill with some really muddy tyres (standard get your car filthy by camping at Santa Pod):
http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h105/HowardJacks/My MG/mgext.jpg

Rear:
http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h105/HowardJacks/My MG/mgext.jpg

Side on when I first got it:
http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h105/HowardJacks/My MG/mg100307-2.jpg

Oddly I have no pics with the new 7 spoke wheels I put on last year.
Same as these: http://www.emgeeeff.com/images/Alloys_0042.jpg
 
Last edited:
Has anyone driven a TF? They're a lot of fun to drive and far more focussed than an F

Whether they're as good as an MX-5 is another matter but don't dismiss it as being dull to drive!

I have driven 2 TF's, neither were fun to drive and were truly terrible. If you have a good car to compare it to, they are rubbish.

I can see why one would be impressed if they had no other actual sports cars to compare though.
 
I have driven 2 TF's, neither were fun to drive and were truly terrible. If you have a good car to compare it to, they are rubbish.

I can see why one would be impressed if they had no other actual sports cars to compare though.

It's all relative I guess, the TF is very different to an MX-5, and I think they are both good in their own right, it depends on what you want.

For example, if you want to hustle an MX-5 around a small roundabout at full attack, it's a great feeling of control when you have the arse end slightly sideways and you are progressively feeding the power to get as much traction out the roundabout as you can.. But do the same in an MGTF and it's totally different, it has massive rear grip, and you can really get the power down exceedingly well, with it almost slingshotting you out the roundabout with little understeer etc..
Very different, with much less drama, but still entertaining, just in a different way.

I don't quite get the term 'terrible'? in what way is it so deficient as to be deemed terrible? I have been on several track days in an MX-5 and with a mate in an MGF Trophy, and quite frankly on track, although quite different, lap times where quite similar, and in no way did I not enjoy the time in the MGF, it handled reasonably tidily, good turn in, little body roll, the only initial learning I had to do was getting to grips with the MG's rear end grip, but that's technique to a large extent, and the 160 engine once loosened up is more willing then the MX. I've also driven my brothers MGTF at a fair lick, and despite feeling more refined with less feel, it was still a hoot.. Then again, I have no real complaints about the MX-5, on track and on the limit it's entertaining, it's nicely balanced, if a little soft, but I couldn't ever come to the conclusion it was a million times better then a F/TF (160 variants).. Although my 'performance and handling' criteria is usually down to laptimes etc..
 
Last edited:
hmm - just spotted this one, a Goodwood Green Special 80th Anniversary Edition with 5,000 miles and in budget :eek:

Interior is a bit retro but I kind of like it :cool:

MD_MGTF_80th_24.jpg


MD_MGTF_80th_23.jpg
 
It's all relative I guess, the TF is very different to an MX-5, and I think they are both good in their own right, it depends on what you want.

For example, if you want to hustle an MX-5 around a small roundabout at full attack, it's a great feeling of control when you have the arse end slightly sideways and you are progressively feeding the power to get as much traction out the roundabout as you can.. But do the same in an MGTF and it's totally different, it has massive rear grip, and you can really get the power down exceedingly well, with it almost slingshotting you out the roundabout with little understeer etc..
Very different, with much less drama, but still entertaining, just in a different way.

I don't quite get the term 'terrible'? in what way is it so deficient as to be deemed terrible? I have been on several track days in an MX-5 and with a mate in an MGF Trophy, and quite frankly on track, although quite different, lap times where quite similar, and in no way did I not enjoy the time in the MGF, it handled reasonably tidily, good turn in, little body roll, the only initial learning I had to do was getting to grips with the MG's rear end grip, but that's technique to a large extent, and the 160 engine once loosened up is more willing then the MX. I've also driven my brothers MGTF at a fair lick, and despite feeling more refined with less feel, it was still a hoot.. Then again, I have no real complaints about the MX-5, on track and on the limit it's entertaining, it's nicely balanced, if a little soft, but I couldn't ever come to the conclusion it was a million times better then a F/TF (160 variants).. Although my 'performance and handling' criteria is usually down to laptimes etc..

I agree with all of this. The MG TF 160 is a fantastic little bit of kit. People that focus on the quality of the interior, for example, are just missing the point of it IMO.

The F/TF are mid-rear engine layout which is why they have great balance and rear end grip.
 
Back
Top Bottom