Squizz

Well, I like the new range of 'Z' cars and the MGF/TF and now especially the MG Xpower SV.

If anyone's vaguely interested in them go to:

www.xpowerforums.com

Great site, lots of info and a link to the Zed forum.

Corpulent Tosser

I am surprised no-one was made the old comment - but my scooby would be quicker on the twisties/in the wet

But that looks an awesome car, a little expensive for me but more power to them, the technology etc may filter down to the less expensive cars, lets hope so, we may all be buying MGs in a few years

Alpine

My problem with the new z range is I don't really like badge engineering. They may well be excellent cars but to me they are Rovers with a make-over and I personally wouldn't buy one. They would have more cred in my mind if they were still badged rover..

As for MG.. never really liked any of their cars since the early midget.. Never really found the shape or drive that appealing. (Oops MGA is a beaut too!)

I think getting people to move from 20k for the mgf to 65k for this (in my eyes, monstrosity), is a leap of faith. Honda struggled to get people to make the same leap with the NSX even given their current profile in F1 and using Senna etc etc..

Porsche or MG let's see..

CrisPDuk

Well it looked the business on the MG stand at the motorshow yesterday.

Raks

I would have thouhght there would have been more power (bhp) available to these cars as standard. I mean, with all the weight reduction techniques and the huge lumps of engines that they put in, I would have expected some more serious power figures.

Eg, the M3 knocks out about 320ish bhp right?? And that engine is a little over a 3litre

Maybe its the torque that counts though, as there must be a lot!

All IMO opinion though!

Cheers
Raks

Rich and Mini

Looks great, sounds awesome!!

I've driven the MG ZR 160, and MG ZT 190, not the ZS 180 though, which as previously mentioned, is meant to be the best of the bunch. However, the 160 was still pretty quick, a little screamer, showed up some tw@t in a convertable 325 E30, handled well too, if a little 'understeery', only natural I s'pose, good grip levels though. Looks great if you like that kinda thing, too

190 is simply lovely, smooth, pretty quick, handles very well for it's size, nice seats ( as above did too ), and in silver subtle, still had reps in their Mondeos trying it on though ( soon got a shock, LOL at their faces ). Both turned lots of heads too ( this was when they first came out ) but that may have been because I was driving ( a baby faced 17 year old at the time, hehe ).

I think it's about time people gave MGR a chance. They'll definately take notice when the top spec 500bhp ZT based machine comes out, RWD, 0-100 in 10 seconds, mmm

Even the Rover 200vi/25gti/200BRM spec cars were quick, with their 1.8vvc motors, very under rated too. 220 coupé turbo was quick in a straight line, if not round the twisties, same with 600Ti ( both had 197bhp ).

Rich

MGJohn

Well said and good advice Rich. You obviously speak from the very best evidence available .... direct personal experience...

Far too many so called motoring enthusiasts today still rely on 2nd hand info for their opinions of MG/ARG/Rover etc. Foreign cars are best, everyone knows that. Brit cars are crap. Several of my colleagues at work are of this mindset with comments like "well they (MG-Rover)are doing better now that BMW are in control ..... where have these people been for crissakes? ... soon updated their mindset .... :P

IMHO, MG-Rover will do well to achieve the near impossible .... educate people with misconceptions like those. Difficult but NOT impossible ... Good luck to them all I say , they will need some.

Alpine

Let's face it the Britcar of the masses was crap.. I agree that things are better but mud does stick.

In my mind the thing that really pushed japanese cars forward was the willingness of their manufacturers to get behind their cars and offer cast iron warranties. I think it was Mitsubishi that first offered the five year deal.. If British manufacturers want to kill some of the old myths they need to get behind their own product in similar ways... IMHO

Mmmmm

Rover keep getting refinanced with big corporate deals, but they aren't actually doing well at all, they just aren't selling enough cars and thier production costs are huge.

One of the problems with buying one of these cars is that the company probably will not exist in the not to distant future then your stuck with a US engine in an late 1980's Italian Chassis dressed up in some new body panels.

The company should be concerntrating on its market strengths trying to develop new main stream models for the over fifties with the Rover Brand and a small cheap priced enjoyable open topped sorts car with the MG brand.

None of thier previous attempts at badge engineering have ever been successful on Saloons
MG 1500 based on the 1950's Wolesley
MG 1100 based on the Morris 1100
MG Montego/Maestro
(Sorry the little MG Metro worked )

And the large engined MGBs
the 3.0 6 MGC, the MGB V8 GT and that other one they produced in the early 90's ?
These were never successful.

£65000, will buy lots of very competent performance cars all with better brand image, a 911 4S, Mazza 4200 GT, Jag XKR or for pure bangs per buck a TVR Tuscan 4,0s £48k is faster , cheaper and has a more sporting image. Given this I doubt they will sell very many cars and because of MG/Rovers image the ones they do will lose money very quickly.

Woz

reckon the're going for the next Batmobile competition?
kinda thing u did a primary school.
nice motor...wud love a ride the 900brake rocket/plane/ surely not a car

Little Miss WRX

That looks gorgeous!!!!!

Might even sway me from my fettish with Vipers. I love aggressive looking masculine cars. None of this girly styling for me

I can't wait to see it in the metal at the Motorshow

In my fave colour too........silver

jonny32

not sure who owns who anymore ,but why go to ford for the engine?