2003 MG ZR Reviews - Page 5 of 6

2003 MG ZR 120 plus 1.8 from UK and Ireland

Year of manufacture2003
First year of ownership2003
Most recent year of ownership2004
Engine and transmission 1.8 Manual
Performance marks 3 / 10
Reliability marks 1 / 10
Comfort marks 3 / 10
Dealer Service marks 0 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 8 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
3.0 / 10
Distance when acquired6105 miles
Most recent distance7200 miles
Previous carHonda Accord

Summary:

The ZR is poorly made and designed, it has constant rattles and terrible reliability. Don't buy one

Faults:

Back window was replaced due to the demisters breaking.

Sunroof was replaced due to leaking.

All the badges internally and externally were replaced due to delamination.

The wires in the seats were replaced due to them not folding forward.

The Gearbox was replaced at 6500 miles, due to it breaking on a motorway. The car has always been driven well.

The drivers window rattles.

Both the doors rattle badly.

The center column rattles badly.

The parcel shelf rattled.

The interior light bulb kept on blowing, - 5 times.

The injection system needed the timing resetting.

It used a lot of oil.

It consumed a lot of petrol in normal driving conditions, and an astronomical amount of petrol if acceleration of any magnitude is required. It is possible to see the fuel needle go down.

There are many stone chips, due to the paint being too soft. My previous car was 10 years old and had half the amount of chips.

The windscreen glass is too soft and it scratches easily, unless you check the wipers for dirt and grit every time you drive.

The ZR has typical Rover reliability,- it is terrible.

General Comments:

This car has the most terrible build quality I've ever encountered.

It has more faults than a Rover 200, even thought it is practically the same car.

The interior is dated, and the materials used are cheap and badly designed.

This car does not even qualify as a boy racers car, as it's only attributes are small modifications that can be made to any car, such as bigger wheels to improve handling, and stiffer suspension to improve handling.

The service at all the Rover dealerships I've been to has been appalling, and I've been to 4 of them.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? No

Review Date: 15th December, 2004

22nd Dec 2004, 08:24

If it is so dated, cheap, badly designed and with only tiny modifications to a Rover 200, it does beg the question - why did you buy it?

4th Jan 2005, 07:04

I purchased the car for the simple reason that I got a good deal on the car, and it looks OK at first, in a short time it begins to look like the rover 200 which it is. Oh how one can be fooled by a sheep in wolves clothing. Peter Stevens designed the body kit for the ZR and it does look alright at first until you realize that everyone see's through the body kit, and see's the 20 year old Rover 200 lurking beneath, with all the original faults. Jeremy Clarkson put it well when saying the MG ZR chassis is based on a brontosauraus. The patriotism I have also played a part in the purchase of the car, as it does with almost all Rover sales, as all the models are out classed and better priced. The moral of this story is, don't buy anything out of patriotism, or anything that has been improved by gluing lumps of plastic to it.

2003 MG ZR 105 1.4 from UK and Ireland

Year of manufacture2003
First year of ownership2003
Most recent year of ownership2004
Engine and transmission 1.4 Manual
Performance marks 8 / 10
Reliability marks 8 / 10
Comfort marks 8 / 10
Dealer Service marks 9 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 7 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
8.0 / 10
Distance when acquired0 miles
Most recent distance16000 miles
Previous carPeugeot 306

Summary:

Value for money hot hatch

Faults:

Unfortunately I crashed the ZR and it took 3 months to get the parts, of course this was according to the repairer and I have to wonder whether they could have got them any quicker by the V.O.R (vehicle off road) system that manufacturers operate.

Nearside skirt has come adrift, but this is being fixed under warranty.

General Comments:

The car is a head turner.

Its very quick for a 1.4 c. c motor producing 110 brake horse power.

It handles like its on rails due to the McPherson struts, 205 track tires and stiffer suspension.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 15th July, 2004

8th Jun 2005, 08:09

It actually produces 103 bhp and "IS NOT A HOT HATCH"

Its not even a warm hatch! Its far too slow and heavy.

23rd Jun 2006, 18:19

It is a hot hatch without any doubts, anyone who chooses to differ must drive an aston martin or something!!

23rd Jun 2006, 18:22

It is one of the quickest 1.4cc (standard) on the road. if you don't like it then don't buy it, simple as that!

Average review marks: 6.7 / 10, based on 20 reviews