1997 MG F VVC Series 1 1.8 from UK and Ireland

Summary:

Can be fun , but tread with caution

Faults:

Window wiper mech.

Side window mechanisms.

Alternator.

Water pump.

Cooling issues.

Several coolant pipes.

Serious scuttle shake.

Greedy fuel consumption.

Gear change linkage.

Soft-top window zip.

Clutch.

Coil packs.

Head gasket.

Feeble cabin fan.

Water ingress.

Questionable build quality.

General Comments:

I had a stage 2 tuned MGF VVC MK1. Overall, it's a cleverly designed car and has more to it than meets the eye. It was great fun to drive with surprising performance and decent roadholding. The drive was good most of the time; it felt modern and planted at most speeds. Although pint-sized, it could be pushed a lot once tweaks and tuning were done.

However, I found the MK1 to be less reliable than a tame 1.6 standard MGF Mk2, which gave me no problems (I sorted out anything that could go wrong first with that one). There were aspects that seriously let the side down: notably the build quality, space inside, and reliability.

The build quality was very much of the era. Not quite the horror of 1970s British Leyland, but everything felt a bit parts-bin and had an "oh well... that'll do for now" approach to it. This gave me the reassuring feeling that something could well break at any point. Which it did.

The scuttle shake was alarming when going over uneven roads. In all fairness, most cheap cars of that era did have flaky quality control, and this MG was no exception. Seeing as it was made from bin parts as a weekend side project, that feeling permeated throughout the whole car. This probably gives some insight into why BMW called MG Rover "The English Patient." This wouldn't really happen today; we live in a different world now.

With reliability, something usually went wrong most months. This could range from small, niggling things to something more serious that required urgent garage attention. The engine's a pig to get to as well, being mid-engined and hidden under a conveniently bolted-down hatch. It could take a lot of patience and ingenuity to get to things.

Whilst the spares were reasonable enough to get, it became increasingly expensive once it needed my tame MG specialist to sort things out. It wouldn't be accurate to say it was a total money pit, but all the costs and hassle involved did add up. After several years of ownership, it slowly began to become a liability—it just couldn't be trusted on a run out of town. The cabin was too cramped for my tall frame, and long journeys became completely out of the question. In the end, the dreaded head gasket went south—even though it was an upgraded one. I came to the conclusion that my MG experience was well and truly over... so I bailed out.

I have since got a more modern Jaguar, which is properly made, fast, comfortable, and totally reliable.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? No

Review Date: 15th July, 2026

1997 MG F MPi 1.8 from UK and Ireland

Summary:

You can't drive on wishes

Faults:

Head gasket failure at 134,000 miles.

Head gasket failure at 134,500 miles.

Head gasket failure at 135,000 miles on brand new engine with upgraded HG, etc.

Water pump leak.

Cambelt went, bent valves.

Block cracked due to leaking water pump.

Corrosion at subframe mounting points.

Exhaust flexi joint.

Lambda sensor.

Backbox totally rusted out.

Catalytic converter disintegrated.

Trim loose and easily broken.

Radio stopped working.

Driver's window loose and lets in rain.

Hood doesn't close properly and leaks.

Ball joints need replacing every couple of years.

Underfloor coolant pipes rusted through.

New underfloor coolant pipes rusted through.

Sensors and ECU's randomly fail.

Loads more.

General Comments:

The car keeps in the tradition of British made car, in their quirkiness and their unshakable unreliability.

A standard car that wasn't built to last, with an engine that wasn't tested or developed properly. Not fast, and handling isn't really that great; at the bottom of the list in all departments compared to MX5's, MR2's, etc. A fact that is often questioned, but is true I'm afraid.

If you buy one, you will be constantly paying out for repairs. Fans of the car seem to be blind to this, and also to the awful reliability of the engine, but I can no longer keep paying out for it.

Constantly checking the coolant temp gauge level and hoping the water is still at the same level, just isn't worth it for a very normal, under-developed car.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? No

Review Date: 5th April, 2011

28th Jul 2016, 17:33

The most biased review I read in many years. 3 head gaskets with only 500 miles between each!!!??? Admitted these cars aren't the most reliable, but what are obviously shoddily carried out repairs don't make it a bad car.

31st Jul 2016, 18:26

I have to agree - somebody has not done their homework here if 3 head gaskets were needed in such a short space of time. The belt should have been checked and done at the same time thus saving the valves. The exhaust and associated rusted out boxes and catalysts are just wear and tear, and to buy a 14-15 year old convertible and expect it to be watertight is unrealistic.

Personally I wouldn't have one of these under any circumstances, but the OP's expectations from a car of this mileage and age I fear were unrealistic. That coupled with what I suspect was cut price repairs was never going to end well.