ZR160 VS 172

[fcuk1_6]

the age of the design actually aids the mgs reliability,they have mad minour changes loadsa times 2 elimin8 any common problems.the only problem is the head gasket cracking really and on a new car itll b no worries.besides u get a 3 year warrenty with a new car.and the mg looks way more destinctive/better than the 172. what is it that most people do 2 modify there 172s on here,17s,twin exhaust,mayb a subtle spoiler,skirts mayb, these all come on the mg 2 start with. 19s go straight on the mg and almost anythin u can get 4 the clio u can get equivilant 4 the mg,the cups have the performance edge (not the 172) but the mg wins on looks hands down IMO.

another point is the 160 is insurance group 10 where as the clios r both group 17!

if u buy the mg id advise gettin eibach springs 4 it,makes the handelin second 2 none.

 

[Lagerlout]

Quote: Originally posted by fcuk1_6 on 09 January 2004


the age of the design actually aids the mgs reliability,they have mad minour changes loadsa times 2 elimin8 any common problems.the only problem is the head gasket cracking really and on a new car itll b no worries.besides u get a 3 year warrenty with a new car.and the mg looks way more destinctive/better than the 172. what is it that most people do 2 modify there 172s on here,17s,twin exhaust,mayb a subtle spoiler,skirts mayb, these all come on the mg 2 start with. 19s go straight on the mg and almost anythin u can get 4 the clio u can get equivilant 4 the mg,the cups have the performance edge (not the 172) but the mg wins on looks hands down IMO.

another point is the 160 is insurance group 10 where as the clios r both group 17!

if u buy the mg id advise gettin eibach springs 4 it,makes the handelin second 2 none.

An ex-friend of mine drove my 172 and he said it was noticeably quicker than his 160. The book figures tell the same story.

 

[fcuk1_6]

im goin by top gear magazines times

the 160: 0-60=7.4, max=131

the 172: 0-60=7.4, max=134 (top gears own test times)

the cup: 0-60=6.8, max=138

 

[edde]

Quote: Originally posted by fcuk1_6 on 09 January 2004


.the only problem is the head gasket cracking really and on a new car itll b no worries.



Errr isnt that quite an important part not to break all the time?

It is a worry on new cars in my opinion think about reasle the resale values are bad enough what are people going to pay for a car tht has a known cylinger head gasket problem.

Makes the Clios problems seem unimportant least they start and our head gasket dont crack.

EDD

 

[fcuk1_6]

it aint a cause 4 worry till bout 85k miles onwards!

 

[fcuk1_6]

edde, have u tried a mg without sunroof as they take up headroom. im 62" and fit in the 25 without any probs

 

[Lagerlout]

Quote: Originally posted by fcuk1_6 on 09 January 2004


im goin by top gear magazines times

the 160: 0-60=7.4, max=131

the 172: 0-60=7.4, max=134 (top gears own test times)

the cup: 0-60=6.8, max=138

but in the Top Gear magazine in front of me, the figures are as follows;

160: 0-62 = 7.7, max = 128

172: 0-62 = 7.4, max = 134

Dont know which one your reading!! Incidently, they are the poorest performance figures Ive seen for a 172.

The Knowledge;

160: 0-60 = 7.4, max = 131, Bhp/ton = 147, Torque = 128lb/ft @ 4500

172: 0-60 = 7.1, max = 138, Bhp/ton = 156, Torque = 147lb/ft @ 5400

Not a million miles apart Ill admit, but far enough!!!

 

[MIKE-CUP]

My mate has an MG ZR 105+ that is on an 03 plate and has done approx 3000 miles. It has just been into Rover because the cylinder head has warped and has been overheating. Now they have replaced it, the car stalls when its hot. What a load of Bob Munk.

 

[Tom]

This is rediculous i know this is a clio site and i know we are biased but seriously now the 160 is not a 172 rival imho.

The build quality is sh*te, the aftersales is even worse, and parts take an age to arrive.

Not to mention the car!! its sh*te!! its still got bits on it from my 1989 214gsi!!! (and that caught fire!!!)

The equipment levels on the mg are sh*te too.

The only good thing is tuning potential.

 

[jon_r]

My local garage can replace a k series head gasket in 32 minutes.

What does that tell you about a Rover?

 

[Weeman]

Quote: Originally posted by Tomclio182 on 07 January 2004

Quote: Originally posted by hip_spasm on 07 January 2004

Lol! I like the looks though and my mate has a 160 - no problems with it and its very fast and handles very nicely.

the only 160 i know that fits that is this

http://www.caterham.co.uk/images/showroom/detail/road_03.jpg





LMAO. One of the guys at work has a ZS180, sounds lovely, but the steerings as vague as Jordan, not as sharp as the 172, feels awfully slow aswell, and if you think the Builds bad on a Renault??

 

[fcuk1_6]

my figures r comin from feb 2003 Top gear,sounds like the times ur gettin 4 the 160 r top gears own times which they may have recorded after my magazine was published.and they may b usin renaults figures 4 the 172,thats the only explanation 4 the same mag givin different times that i can think of.

i think the 172 vs 160 would b down 2 the driver really altho the cup should really have the 160 no bother.

the aftersales 4 both mg and renault aint 2 gr8 i must say

tom, 2 my knowledge the 160 has the same equipment levels as the 172 bar a standard cd player and sunroof,correct me if im wrong.

 

[Tom]

Quote: Originally posted by fcuk1_6 on 09 January 2004


my figures r comin from feb 2003 Top gear,sounds like the times ur gettin 4 the 160 r top gears own times which they may have recorded after my magazine was published.and they may b usin renaults figures 4 the 172,thats the only explanation 4 the same mag givin different times that i can think of.

i think the 172 vs 160 would b down 2 the driver really altho the cup should really have the 160 no bother.

the aftersales 4 both mg and renault aint 2 gr8 i must say

tom, 2 my knowledge the 160 has the same equipment levels as the 172 bar a standard cd player and sunroof,correct me if im wrong.





Errr no mate, climate control? esp? cruise control? automatic lighting, automatic wipers? the list goes on and on and on leather trim isnt standard either.

There is no way the 160 is a better car it even costs more!!

i went to my local rover dealer to see how much it would cost £15,600!!!! wtf!!! rediculous.

 

[Mitchy]

FCUK1_6.................Just to let you know the ZR160 is a group 16. The ZR120 is a group 10, and the ZR105 is group 6. I know, i used to have the 160.

Looks goes to the 160.

Performance........JUST.......goes to 172

Interior.......... Both sh*te, but the 172 will just pip it.

Tom....... The tuning capability of the 160 is not that good, max reliable is 190bhp before reverting to solid cams, hence the expense. A turbo conversion can be put in place for around 2-3k but its using the cast iron heavy T16 lump, which no doubt would off balance the cars handling.

 

[Tom]

Quote: Originally posted by Mitchy on 09 January 2004


Tom....... The tuning capability of the 160 is not that good, max reliable is 190bhp before reverting to solid cams, hence the expense. A turbo conversion can be put in place for around 2-3k but its using the cast iron heavy T16 lump, which no doubt would off balance the cars handling.

Im going on the bits that are avalible for caterhams and elises, which i figured will fit to this engine.

 

[Weeman]

Tom, Whats the score with the Automatic lights on a 172? i cant say Ive ever figured out what they actually do.

 

[Tom]

when i get mine ask me then.

Ps: this thread is silly its not even a contest

172 £14,600. Fully loaded.

ZR160 £14,660. List.

 

[JonC]

The MG hatchbacks are no match for the 172. In most magazine tests, if not all, where the MGs are pitted against the 172s, the 172s always give the MGs a beating, in performance, handling and equipment etc. Besides they look like a maxpowered Daewoo Nexia

 

[fcuk1_6]

bu**er, i thought group 10 was 2 good 2 b true, bl**dy misprints!!!

 

[admob]

Quote: Originally posted by Dutch 172 on 09 January 2004
Tom,  Whats the score with the Automatic lights on a 172?  i cant say Ive ever figured out what they actually do.


allow me to answer on toms behalf.. this is not meant to be sarcastic but lights that come on on their own when its dark and go off again when its light... go thru a tunnel inthe middle of the day to get the best example...you never have to touch the light stalk, keep it in the off position with auto activated and hey presto!

 

[Weeman]

I knew they came on on their own, just never found the Auto switch,, Left hand stalk then, Im guessing is where I switch it too Auto? LMAO at my own stupidity I kept meaning to check in the manual, but its in Dutch, and itll take me too long to work it out. Thanks

 

[Dan_mk1]

id much rather have a 172 over any mg!

theres an air of class about the 172, the mg is more halfords as some people have said before.

 

[D-CUP]

Im sure the 160 is a decent drive but it just doesnt have a desirability factor. Its like an Astra Turbo.

 

[fcuk1_6]

Quote: Originally posted by Tomclio182 on 09 January 2004

Quote: Originally posted by fcuk1_6 on 09 January 2004


my figures r comin from feb 2003 Top gear,sounds like the times ur gettin 4 the 160 r top gears own times which they may have recorded after my magazine was published.and they may b usin renaults figures 4 the 172,thats the only explanation 4 the same mag givin different times that i can think of.

i think the 172 vs 160 would b down 2 the driver really altho the cup should really have the 160 no bother.

the aftersales 4 both mg and renault aint 2 gr8 i must say

tom, 2 my knowledge the 160 has the same equipment levels as the 172 bar a standard cd player and sunroof,correct me if im wrong.






Errr no mate, climate control? esp? cruise control? automatic lighting, automatic wipers? the list goes on and on and on leather trim isnt standard either.

There is no way the 160 is a better car it even costs more!!

i went to my local rover dealer to see how much it would cost £15,600!!!! wtf!!! rediculous.

the 160 comes wi leather and air con,doesnt have the others tho,the equipment u mention doesnt appear in ordinary mags hence my comment.

i aint sayin the 160 is the better car,just that u could b equally happy with either dependin on what ur lookin 4.i prefer the looks of the 160 but the 172 is better VFM,the other consider8ions r similar (performance, handelin, exclusivity)

 

[Tom]

But one is a far better car in every respect so equality is out the window.


Speed=172
Comfort=172
Reliablity= 172
Safety=172
Performance=172
Handing=172
Equipment=172
Looks=Close but im gonna go with 172
VFM=172
Name me an area where its better?

 

[Lagerlout]

Quote: Originally posted by Tomclio182 on 09 January 2004


But one is a far better car in every respect so equality is out the window.


Speed=172
Comfort=172
Reliablity= 172
Safety=172
Performance=172
Handing=172
Equipment=172
Looks=Close but im gonna go with 172
VFM=172
Name me an area where its better?

End of discussion methinks. Get a172!!!

 

[Mitchy]

It is Cliosport though. There is a couple of things i disagree with.

Reliability.........From a French car??.....Prefer British engineering.

Safety.........Where did you pull that 1 from?? The cup is just a metal tin shell. Theres nothing wrong with the ZR safety.

Speed.........144/145mph.........so roughly the same.

Looks.......... I cant believe people say the clio, it has to have the ugliest back end EVER. There is nothing nice about the clio back end, not 1 bit. At least the MG has the twin pipes, and a nicely shape. The clio is just pancake flat.

Performance, handling and VFM.....ill give to the clio.

Have just heard a rumour of a 210bhp ZR in the production line, with a kerb weight of just 1050kg. The car has been displayed at recent motor shows, but who knows when MG will release. All promises, but no actions.

They are just about to release 2 cracking cars though. The ZT385, and an SV with stupid amount of power. ( I think top model has around 750+bhp) Dont know if theyll mass produce that 1 though.

 

[Tom]

Quote: Originally posted by Mitchy on 09 January 2004


It is Cliosport though. There is a couple of things i disagree with.

Reliability.........From a French car??.....Prefer British engineering.

Do you, dont you own a subaru? Fair play though mate.

Safety.........Where did you pull that 1 from?? The cup is just a metal tin shell. Theres nothing wrong with the ZR safety.

What???

http://www.euroncap.com/content/safety_ratings/details.php?id1=1&id2=99Rover, please click

http://www.euroncap.com/content/safety_ratings/details.php?id1=1&id2=64Renault, please click (and thats the old shape without side airbags)

Speed.........144/145mph.........so roughly the same.

So thats a draw

Looks.......... I cant believe people say the clio, it has to have the ugliest back end EVER. There is nothing nice about the clio back end, not 1 bit. At least the MG has the twin pipes, and a nicely shape. The clio is just pancake flat.

Your opinion mate but most other people seem to agree with that

Performance, handling and VFM.....ill give to the clio.

Cheers






Clio wins. 6-3 (that was me giving you draws on the speed and reliability bits, and a point for looks.)

 

[Paul_P1]

"Safety.........Where did you pull that 1 from?? The cup is just a metal tin shell. Theres nothing wrong with the ZR safety."

Cheees, Ive been away a while but youre still spouting sh*te!

NCAP has the Clio at 4 stars and the ZR at 3. Ive seen many a Cup rolled, rear ended and with side impacts, the cars looked very good considering!

 

[Tom]

can we stop this b****cks now?

Anything it can do we can do better. fact.

Just specd up a zr 160 on the mg site to as close as i could get it to the 172/182 spec came out at: £ 15,585.00 oh dear.

 

[jonnyboy]

End of the day a beefed up clio is better than a max powered rover which is what the rover is. Its a good try to be fair but they are never gonna be respected as much as the renno hatches, and for good reason. The 172 IS a better car.

 

[edde]

Quote: Originally posted by fcuk1_6 on 09 January 2004

edde, have u tried a mg without sunroof as they take up headroom. im 62" and fit in the 25 without any probs

Im just over 6 "4 I think the one I tried didnt have a sunroof and it wasnt to good space wise.

The Clio isnt much better. The best car I evvery drove was an old shape Micra. Its a good car the Micra cheap to run however you drive it 50mpg on adverage drivng it the same as my DCi and ~30mpg hammering it flat out with 3 people on the motoway for 4hrs.

EDD

 

[Viv172]

Why are you all still banging on about this??? Get a life for god’s sake they are only cars!!!!!



(Clio’s r best! Clio’s r best! nananana!)

 

[Mitchy]

Viv.....aint this a car forum where people come to speak about cars or have you forgotten

 

[Viv172]

Quote: Originally posted by Mitchy on 09 January 2004

Viv.....aint this a car forum where people come to speak about cars or have you forgotten

Er.....was meant to be sarcastic.....why dont we have a sarcastic smiley?

 

[kartman]

Yeah! Sarcastic smiley!! Sorta this but with tongue?

Sorry...

Ill get me coat..

 

[steve a]

I ve test driven the MG Zr 160 and to be honest it felt about as quick as my valver. Interior is pants, and the build quality is not one of its strong points either. I think they look alright but a bit dated. Would much rather have a 172 anyday of the week.