2002 MG ZR Reviews - Page 2 of 4

2002 MG ZR 105 1.4 16v from UK and Ireland

Model year2002
Year of manufacture2002
First year of ownership2005
Most recent year of ownership2006
Engine and transmission 1.4 16v Manual
Performance marks 7 / 10
Reliability marks 7 / 10
Comfort marks 5 / 10
Dealer Service marks 4 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 7 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
6.0 / 10
Distance when acquired49000 miles
Most recent distance52000 miles
Previous carVauxhall Astra

Summary:

Very nice looking and a good first sports car

General Comments:

I have found the car sluggish when pulling off. It needs lots of revs or it stalls, but when it gets going, it can shift. I've had 70mph in second, which is not bad for a 1.4, but top end it just about goes over 100mph.

Very good handling in the dry though.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 27th May, 2006

2002 MG ZR 105 1.4 petrol from UK and Ireland

Year of manufacture2002
First year of ownership2005
Most recent year of ownership2006
Engine and transmission 1.4 petrol Manual
Performance marks 8 / 10
Reliability marks 8 / 10
Comfort marks 3 / 10
Dealer Service marks 8 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 8 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
7.0 / 10
Distance when acquired36000 miles
Most recent distance47000 miles
Previous carSeat Cordoba

Summary:

So far so good

Faults:

Speedometer needle jammed at 38,000 miles.

Power steering pump started squealing at 45,000 miles.

General Comments:

So far the ZR 105 has proved itself to be a fun to drive and reliable small car. Its interior is cramped and uncomfortable. Otherwise it's hard to fault.

Was a great bargain at £4,500 for a sporty three year old hatchback.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 15th April, 2006

2002 MG ZR 1.4 16v twin cam from UK and Ireland

Model year2002
Year of manufacture2002
First year of ownership2005
Most recent year of ownership2006
Engine and transmission 1.4 16v twin cam Automatic
Performance marks 9 / 10
Reliability marks 9 / 10
Comfort marks 7 / 10
Dealer Service marks 5 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 8 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
7.6 / 10
Distance when acquired36000 miles
Most recent distance49000 miles
Previous carFiat Bravo

Summary:

I Love It!! Fab Car and FAST

Faults:

The Cat converter went at 40,000 miles. No other problems.

General Comments:

This is a fab car, its fast, sporty and my god does it hold the road well... takes bends brilliantly.

The seats are so comfortable and the half leather interior looks well.

Good looking car, with eye catching features such as the rear spoiler.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 21st February, 2006

13th May 2007, 03:58

No other problems?! Isn't the speedometer bad enough?

2002 MG ZR 160 1.8 VVC from UK and Ireland

Year of manufacture2002
First year of ownership2005
Most recent year of ownership2005
Engine and transmission 1.8 VVC Manual
Performance marks 9 / 10
Reliability marks 9 / 10
Comfort marks 8 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 7 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
8.3 / 10
Distance when acquired29100 miles
Most recent distance29410 miles

Summary:

Great car overall and very quick!!

Faults:

Nothing as yet "Touch Wood"

General Comments:

A lovely car to drive.

Comfortable seats and nice interior.

Very quick car, leaves others standing.

Great looking car, mine is in Trophy Yellow which I think is the best color out of all of them.

Not had the car long, but am very pleased and impressed overall, insurance is not bad if you look around.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Don't Know

Review Date: 13th May, 2005

27th May 2005, 05:31

The ZR160..

Is very dated and dull, isn't that quick as I have owned one.

All its good for is falling apart and showing its age.

29th Jun 2005, 14:42

The zr 160 isn't quick? It has a 158 bhp, and 0-60 in 7.4 seconds. That is quick for a car with only 158 bhp. The new 2.0 fiesta ST takes 8.0 secs, and the 182bhp Clio sport is only 0.5 secs quicker.

Yes the design is dated, but it still works well, looks good and handles brilliantly. Which is what matters in this market.

And yes the interior is cheap, but so are most hatchbacks! This is not what the car is about. This car is about the driving experience which is very fun and affordable.

I have owned two ZR's, a 1.4 105 and a 2.0 TDi 115. Nothing has gone wrong with either. Only niggles have been a slightly rattly interior in the diesel model. But that is it! they have both been good cars.

I find that too many people rubbish rovers due to the stereotype. Many of these people have never even driven one in the first place. Go and drive one and see for yourself!

2002 MG ZR 105+ 1.4 from UK and Ireland

Year of manufacture2002
First year of ownership2004
Most recent year of ownership2004
Engine and transmission 1.4 Manual
Performance marks 10 / 10
Reliability marks 10 / 10
Comfort marks 8 / 10
Dealer Service marks 6 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 8 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
8.4 / 10
Distance when acquired10500 miles
Most recent distance11500 miles
Previous carRover - Austin 200

Summary:

Fun, quick and my god does it hold the road!!

Faults:

Driver's door handle (inside) has broken. Apart from the the car is A1.

General Comments:

Superb little MG. I just can't believe the difference between this and the Rover 200 we had. The road holding is second to none and the feel of the car is very sporty. It also sounds like an MG should.

I particularly like the interior. The seats do their job and the 1/2 leather is a nice touch.

The twin cam 16 valve 1.4 engine is remarkable for it's size - much quicker than my company VW 1.6 Bora and much more willing.

I had an MGB Roadster in 1976 and it is great to get that feeling agiain.

Well done MG Rover.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 27th June, 2004

2002 MG ZR 105 1.4 from UK and Ireland

Year of manufacture2002
First year of ownership2002
Most recent year of ownership2004
Engine and transmission 1.4 Manual
Performance marks 8 / 10
Reliability marks 6 / 10
Comfort marks 5 / 10
Dealer Service marks 2 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 8 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
5.8 / 10
Distance when acquired5 miles
Most recent distance13000 miles
Previous carCitroen Xsara

Summary:

Nice Car - Shame about the dealers

Faults:

Lacquer bubbled and flaked off front bumper.

Folding rear seat release handle broke rendering rear seat unfoldable - Parts took 7 months to arrive.

Heater control knob broke off.

No less than 12 various pieces of rubber and plastic have fallen off the interior trim.

Engine decided to one day refuse to start, then when it did on a third attempt started to belch white smoke out of both ends of the car, along with flashing engine light and heavy petrol smell. Dealer could not find a fault and described it as the car having ' a moment' - not confidence inspiring!

General Comments:

Nippy small car, handles like a dream, hard ride horrendous on long journeys which may put off normal buyers who won't accept the pay off that good handling means hard ride. This is not a car you buy for motorway driving or town driving - it's a country roads car!

Cabin nicely laid out, but would be good to see more modern switchgear - parts from 1980's Metros, Maestros and Rover 200's don't make you feel like you are driving something brand new. Equipment level is very sparse for the price. Some might say weight saving!

MG Image is generally good, ZR starting to suffer from the Boy Racer image in my opinion, which it didn't use to have.

Dealers seem to argue heavily over every warranty claim and the warranty is not very comprehensive, with too many exclusions and catches after Year 1 - Customer Service is generally poor and puts me off buying another car from the company . I can accept problems if they are dealt with effectively, but I have yet to experience a speedy and hassle free warranty claim, with 4 different dealers across the country.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Don't Know

Review Date: 6th February, 2004

Average review marks: 7.2 / 10, based on 15 reviews