2nd Jun 2005, 15:50

I had a MGzr 105 and have to say "it was slow!".

Its only got 105 bhp and it weighs some!

People who think it is fast are more than likley used to driving 900cc cars.

29th Jun 2005, 14:22

For all of you saying the 1.4 ZR is slow, remember one thing... It is a 1.4!! What do you expect?? furthermore how many other (non turbo) 1.4 cars have over 100 bhp?? not many. The ZR 105 is very fast for a 1.4, but you have to take it over 4000 rpm to find the power band. Maybe a lot of you saying it is slow have not give it a few revs to find out. I owned one for 14 months, the interior was cheap, and we all know it is a 10 yr old design (not 20 like someone said) but it still looks great, handles great, and reliable.

I sold it last year, for another ZR, but the diesel version. I have had no problems with either car other than the cheap interior and it always feels fun to drive. Go and drive one before you brand it rubbish!

13th Jul 2005, 22:02

It's sad when people who want to badmouth a vehicle, do so by repeating the same message they posted months ago. Is that supposed to convince people that you're right and everyone else is wrong?

Anyway... I was wondering, what exactly are the changes made in the recent facelift on the MG ZR? I searched for pics, reviews and articles on the net, but couldn't find anything really useful. Any information or links would be welcome.

24th Jul 2005, 19:28

Regarding the previous comment...

The MG-Rover website is still working, and there is a fair amount of info, so check it out.

Right, where to start...

I must apologise for my overusing of 0-60 times, as I don't believe they are a true representation of performance, they are merely a guide to performance, and are most readily available for research and to support any arguments I make.

Firstly, if you're going to slate a car by comparing it aside another car. Please compare "apples with apples”. A £16,380 2.0 200bhp insurance group 17 car (Honda Civic Type-R) is more like comparing Morris Minors and Ferraris of the "hot-hatch" world when comparing a 103bhp 1.4 insurance group 7E car. Granted, the Civic is an awesome, reliable hot-hatch, but it is no apple when the ZR 105 is the other apple being compared.

Secondly, the £11,195 1.4 95bhp Punto according to the manufacturer's listings is 9.9 seconds to 60. Whereas the ZR is 10.0. Now taking into account how much bigger the ZR is, substantially bigger if you're in the back seat. I can tell you where I'd rather be for 0.1 of a second! and be getting to my destination without that vague steering and masses of body roll, ultimately limiting the Punto's "fun-factor" and a spree in a ditch. "I'll take the MG".

Also, addressing the "Punto eating the ZR's dust" comment. Have you considered that perhaps you are a better driver than your mate? Not to sound like "I'm blowing my own horn" but back in the day when I first had my little, crappy, PEUGEOT 106 1.1 (standard; before you tar me with the "boy racer" brush) I've left a fair few people with far superior cars to me behind. Clearly, nothing to do with cars on these occasions. Purely drivers. I'm sure Michael Schuie could leave you or I "for dust" in any identical car that we stepped into. Drifting off a wee bit now...

Again, granted Fiat make cheap, fairly reliable cars that are good so long as you'd like 31% of your £11,195 left after 3 years. YES, they drop like stones. Alternatively, spend the same money on an MG (perhaps less, as some have posted (£9-10k) for a new ZR) and 3 year old ZR's are still fetching £5k even after MG-Rover have gone into administration. Speaking of administration, get yourself a real deal on some ZR's. Some places 2005 '05' plate around 8k mark. No warranties mind, but you won't need one. However, if you're that much of a facetious git you can buy a 3-year warranty for £300.

Thirdly, (although it feels like a lot more than my third point). Peugeot 206 comments. The 206 is by no means a spring chicken. I believe if my sources are correct, it is in it's heading for its 8th year in production. That would mean '97, '98 it was released. So what is this all about:- "The MG ZR has nothing on the Peugeot 206. I have the 206 1.6 16V - and it's amazing! Much better than a car that has the body design of a 90's Rover 200. Peugeot any day of the week - you can keep your MG". I believe your 206 was released in the 90's. What makes that so much better? After all, it was based on the platform of a 205. Which was by no means a winning formula.

The 1.6 110bhp 206 does 0-60 in 9.5 seconds, which again, considering the size of the MG, isn't that much better. 0.5 of a second and a jump up in insurance groups, let alone Peugeot unreliability. Granted the 206 handles better than the Fiat Punto, it can't touch the MG. I think people are missing the point of MG cars. They're sported-up Rover 25's. Which can be labelled as standard. The 206 is a standard car like the 25. Nobody has spent time and money tweaking a standard car to perform better and more like a sport's car should at Peugeot (apart from the GTi's). At MG that's what they were doing. So I'd far rather have a car that can handle going round corners than a car that can roll over into the adjacent field, crushing and deforming its "so-called" epic bodywork. Please note, the 103bhp MG ZR is a 1.4. So if you would like to compare 1.4's, the 1.4 206 which produces 90bhp has a 0-60 time of 10 seconds and also features mushy handling.

Finally, the stereotype "boy-racers and the ZR" comment:- "The boy racer image always seems to live up to its stereotype, and it appears the inexperience of youth is the only thing keeping Rover afloat, as most older folk see the ZR for what it is - a 20 year old car design, the Rover 200 with a body kit". Now, now, now. Boy racers buy just about any car and do just about anything to them. Me thinks a Renault 5 fits the boy-racer stereotype far more appropriately than an MG ZR does. Anyhow, it's just the chassis that the ZR has been incorporated from the Rover 200. Obviously modified since the days of the 200. It's a wonder how MG have managed to pull-off such a good handling car based on what they have to work with, due to cynical folk such as yourself who are inclined to prejudge and adopt a "Clarkson-esque" biased opinion, slamming the car and making the first hurdle higher. Ultimately, resulting in the death of MG-Rover and crippling any chances to sell these cars, develop them by creating new chassis and resolving your criticism of the chassis.