ClioSport.net
Register a free account today to become a member!
Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Read more here.
Tom
ClioSport Club Member
EV (s)
the only 160 i know that fits that is this
http://www.caterham.co.uk/images/showroom/detail/road_03.jpg
996 Carrera
bro-in-law has the 1.4 ZR and hes had nothing but trouble:
- ABS failed
- speedo stopped working for 3 months
- doors have dropped off hinges
I could go on.
The dealer has been worse than useless, even more so than Renault.
He wants shut of it quickly. He prefers to drive his parents 8 year old escort instead of his car, its THAT bad.
Get a Cup/172. Brilliant drivers cars and faster than the ZR160
I bought a new 214Sli (R Plate) - Had to have a new engine fitted after 2 weeks cos of a crank problem.
The fitted the new engine - Head gasket blew after 5 miles, they towed it back - Phoned me up couple of days later and said they had fixed it.
I told them I never wanted to see the car again.....I rejected it, and eventually Rover paid 50% towards an upgrade 214Si (16v).
Cracking car for its size engine, took it for its first service....guess what. it needed a new HEAD GASKET!!!
Part exed it for a new Honda CRV.
Ill swing it the other way. The MG all the way.
Looks are important, and IMO the 160 is far superior looking than the clio. The clio back end is ugly, very ugly. To the average Joe, theres not much difference between the 2.0 and the 1.2. Why is it Halfords?? If any of you had a clue who actually designed the ZR, you would be shocked.....very shocked.
Paddy.....why would someone be mocked for driving a 160?? IMO its far superior to a red 172. Much nicer looking.
Its British vs French mate.....and the build quality of MOST french cars is sh*te. The body shell of a ZR is very good, go on the MG website and see how many people that have been saved by it. Me included.
Performance wise. 0.3 secs disadvantage to 60 and around 1-1.5 secs to 100. Can be tuned to around 200bhp though as in my case and that would outpace the 172.
Cracking car mate.....has the vvc engine, handles good. Cabin is a bit sh*t, but then again so is the clios.
Its going to be biased on here so go over to the x-power forums or MG rover.org and make up your own mind. Dont be influenced by this biased lot.
On the other hand and if you buy wisely, they make excellent cheap cars.
I was recently offered my aunts new-shape 214i 3-door on a P-plate for... £1300!! Thats a hell of a nice car for that money - and more reliable than the family wreck Volvo 340 we had at the time (we always run one cack car as well as the others, just for going to the tip etc). In the end, my brother stumped up £1000 and I managed to sell the 340 for £300. Hes taken the car to over 110,000 miles and treats it like poo. But it just keeps on running fine. Lovely interior, perky engine and WELL BUILT.
One of my colleagues bought a 1990 414Si (with a 103bhp 1.4 16v - not bad for 13 years old!) for £50. Again, its comfortable, reliable and just what you need for canny basic motoring.
The current range is a bit iffy (particualrly the 45), but theyre far better than most people imagine.
Oh, and BTW, my next door neighbour has a ZR 160 - it wasnt as quick as my old 16V and isnt as quick as my Willy either. Hanles well though and makes more sense than a lot of hot hatches.
Dont understand how anyone can say this car is ugly. http://erc.qmuc.ac.uk/cliosport/gallery/full/1073502039__820Front_view-med.jpg
its an austin/halfords window collison, call me cynical but take 1 old piece of crap rover thats been around for ages sling some different wheels and hideous bumpers/spoilers on it tune it a bit and badge as mg, imo its a coffin dodgers favourite cheaply rehashed to appeal to a younger market, id avoid personally
Not many boyracers have 15k spare in there back pockets.
The car is outdated and MG need to pull there finger out and do something about it. As someone has said theres not much difference inside to that of a Rover 200 series.
The bumpers are plain and simple, nothing like the stupid halfords saxos and novas. Do some research and learn who designed the ZR and what other car he was famous for designing.
I think the build quality is quite decient on the old ones we have a R reg estate at work and its not treated easy and it still goes. It only has 40k on it as its maximum journey is 3 miles so the engine never warms up which is terriable for wear on the engine.
I heard the VVT on the 160 engien was difficult to modify and that fixed cams were better. Is it true ?
I looked at Mg when I was looking for a new car and although I couldnt sit in one they were good cars IMO. The dash and all is old but it looks good and they handle well. Plus they have all the boy racer bodykit on them. No decient diesels though. They need a 3 liter BWM one and rear wheel drive.
EDD
Nippy white cup
I suppose if performace isnt an issue, get the 105bhp MG. Same looks (i think) and less cost.
But dont do that, get a Cup!
Chris
Mondeo STTDCI
Lots of replies chaps but I think a test drive is the only way to decide. Ill have to take out a 160, a cup and a 172 for a blast and see what I like.
I have to say though my 1.2 extreme has f**kloads of rattles and pisses me off. My mates ZR160 is silent, just the roar of the engine hehe.
I know the cabin is a bit bare but a bit of neon tubing around the console and the door cards and it looks lovely and NOT OTT.
I sway to the 160 atm. Im a few months off but research now will save me pain later.
i had to make that decision in the summer...it was between a 1.9tdi Golf MK4 or the MG ZR 2.0 TD
Well i test drove the ZR 1.4 and i was pretty nippy and it seemed nicely built. But there was one major major problem...my hair was like touchin the roof!! Im 6ft and i struggled to get in, seriously! and the salesman said u couldnt change the height of the seat. But other than that, if u fit in, its a fun car to drive and if u like to modify cars, then ur well on ur way!! Oh and u can discount with MG easy, i was gonna get a brand new 2.0 TD ZR with the extra kit, 17" rims, etc etc for like less than £12k!! It was loaded with stuff aswell.
If i had to choose now though, i do regret not getin it, but what can u do if u cant fit in it
oh and its not as well built as my tank of a golfif u get the zr in Xpower grey wi grphite grey wheels go 4 the black widow snake eye rear lights 2,look sweet i think. im 62" and i fitted in the rover 25,the seats on decent trim level mg/rovers have height adjustment.lovely motas.heres my old 25
http://erc.qmuc.ac.uk/cliosport/gallery/full/1067452576__rover.jpg
AVOID!!!!
the 1.8k series is a double edged sword. On the one hand its a cracking engine really tunable revs to the heavens once unleashed, on the other hand its a unreliable heap of sh*t that if it goes wrong you may as well bin
really my mate has a rover coupe with the 1.8 vvc engine it replaced the 220 turbo coupe, a big mistake in my opinion,
and in 5 months of ownership its blown the hg twice, cracked a liner, leaks, rattles, and is slow for a performance car, my r5 can leave it for dust in a straight line. and he has the audasity to call my car french crap lol guess whos not getting the bus to work every morning lol. in nearly 2 1/2 years of ownership its hardly gone wrong and its faster lol.
Even lotus are changing the engine for the new exige there gonna use the 190 celica vvti engine. because its well too unreliable.
and with regards to the tuning the vvc is a it of non starter. if you want serious power you need you need to ditch the vvc mechanism and go for normal cams and its expensive. personally id go for a clio but i am a renault enthusiast
I had the same choice when I brought my 172 . The MG could not compete with the 172 on any terms. Performance wise theyre not miles apart (on paper - never actually driven one, they only had a 120 available for test drive when I was looking), but everything else on the MG feels exactly as it is - old. Even down to little things like switch gear in the cabin. They dont look too bad from the outside though, albeit a bit Max Power-ish. I would recommend the Clio, but seeing as I own one I guess Im biased. You only have to look at road tests comparing the two, and the Clio always comes out on top.
bloke at work had the 1.4 105bhp model and it spent a good month in the garage having the engine stripped down to find out what the problem was. He told me it was like someone banging two bits of metal together, ie not good. They fixed it in the end but i think it toally f**ked the engine, so he either had a new engine or a couple of very important expensive bits replaced.
