2005 MG ZS Reviews - Page 3 of 3

2005 MG ZS 180 2.5 KV6 from UK and Ireland

Model year2005
Year of manufacture2005
First year of ownership2005
Most recent year of ownership2005
Engine and transmission 2.5 KV6 Manual
Performance marks 9 / 10
Reliability marks 9 / 10
Comfort marks 9 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 3 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
7.5 / 10
Distance when acquired2500 miles
Most recent distance6000 miles
Previous carFord Focus

Summary:

Great

Faults:

Nothing at all.

General Comments:

Lovely machine. The engine sounds great. Got rid of my 2002 ST170, and I was glad to. So much more power there.

There are loads of biased claims on this site about the ST170 being a quick car. That's not the case at all, and you end up always changing gear.

MG has good build quality. The engine loves to be worked hard, and is quite quick, no matter what speed you're going.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 31st October, 2005

1st Nov 2005, 05:25

I'm still confused as to whether this is supposed to be a review of a ZS or a slagging of the Focus. It doesn't really do either properly.

2nd Nov 2005, 07:46

Yawn. Typical hot hatch driving willy-wavers!

10th Nov 2005, 10:07

ST 170 is quicker as I have owned both!

17th Nov 2005, 20:15

St170 is nowhere near as quick. you must have dodgy mg.180 0-60,0-100 and top end is quicker. so hows the focus faster. or perhaps you can't drive properly. I leave st170 and 220 in my wake every time.

18th Nov 2005, 08:50

St170's got less torque,bhp and top speed. 0-60 and 0-100 time is slower. so how did you work that one out? typical ford owner.

22nd Nov 2005, 09:07

ST170 has better power to weight ratio then heavy weight mg.

...st would leve the old rover 45 for DEAD!!!

1st Dec 2005, 04:28

St is 40kg lighter 500cc smaller,40lb/ft less, slower 0-60,0-100, and top speed. so WTF YOU ON ABOUT.

If your gonna critises the speed of this car, actually race one on a dual carriage way, instead of at the lights before saying they're slow.

20th Jul 2007, 11:30

ST 170: 171 bhp, 1208kg = 143 bhp/tonne

ZS 180: 175 bhp, 1235kg = 144 bhp/tonne.

Simple maths. ZS has more torque (broader power band) but ST has 6 gears to counter this. Thrashed they are pretty close, but the MG would have the edge in a straight line assuming the power figures and kerb weights are accurate (they often are not). Bottom line is that independent tests show the MG to be quicker.

2005 MG ZS 180 2.5kv6 from UK and Ireland

Model year2004
Year of manufacture2005
First year of ownership2005
Most recent year of ownership2005
Engine and transmission 2.5kv6 Manual
Performance marks 10 / 10
Reliability marks 10 / 10
Comfort marks 10 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 3 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
8.3 / 10
Distance when acquired2500 miles
Most recent distance4600 miles
Previous carRover - Austin 200

Summary:

Perfect

Faults:

Nothing whatsoever,

General Comments:

This car just goes to show what mg are capable of.powerful, amazing handling, will destroy any other car in its price range. raced a pug 206gti 180 and demolished him.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 3rd October, 2005

10th Nov 2005, 15:19

Sure you did...LOL.

The pug 180 gti would demolish you, in your old rover 45 with bodykit.

21st Nov 2005, 08:11

The MGZS 180 has 175 bhp as standard is very heavy and will complete the 1/4 mile in 16.6 sec.

...NOT your utter LIES of 13.something sec, with only a forced induction.

It's a slow car period!

22nd Nov 2005, 04:54

The Pug weighs 1159kg, that's 125kg less. The Pug has got 30lb/ft less torque. It would kill any of you Renault Cup owners in a race round Brands Hatch. The MG has amazing all round performance, so how would any of them kill it. You have no idea what you're talking about!

My pal's got a 182, and he'll get to 60 quicker, but from there on I'm gone, The Clio is pathetic above 100. The Pug and ST170 have got low top speeds.

6th Dec 2005, 20:49

Bhp means nothing without traction and handling. mg has great chassis and puts its power down well.

9th Aug 2008, 18:34

Who cares!! As long as your happy with your car does it really matter?

I have a Mondeo ST220 and MG ZS 180 MK2. Love em both. If someone else thinks there crap then so be it, I love to drive them so like I said who cares!!

Who needs all this negative banter? Just enjoy the driving guys and gals, with fuel prices as they are and road tax climbing you may not be driving at all in the future!

Peace :)

2005 MG ZS 180 2.5 KV6 petrol from UK and Ireland

Year of manufacture2005
First year of ownership2005
Most recent year of ownership2005
Engine and transmission 2.5 KV6 petrol Manual
Performance marks 10 / 10
Reliability marks 10 / 10
Comfort marks 8 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 6 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
8.5 / 10
Distance when acquired3 miles
Most recent distance2500 miles
Previous carVolkswagen Bora

Summary:

Fast, capable and an utter bargain!

Faults:

Nothing.

General Comments:

Bought for bang on half RRP from a dealer clearance sale 3 weeks ago. No warranty, and the dealer has just gone bust, so no come back at all.

When you can pick up a very quick, very capable sports saloon for the price of a lower mid spec Toyota Yaris however, you can make allowances. Parts are not a problem as there are 2 million MG Rover cars on British roads, and several companies are catering for them.

The V6 engine is smooth and powerful, and returns about 25 mpg average. Performance and handling both sensational, and as a driver's car, this blows my 2000 VW Bora V5 away in every respect. Build quality is above average, but the details and interior are dated.

I will put about 100k on the car over the next two years as part of my work. Therefore residual values are irrelevant, and at £8,500 for a 180 PS V6, sub-7 second 0-60 time and a corking chassis, I'm not griping. I intend to carry out all basic maintenance myself, and I have already confirmed with several local specialists that they can diagnose and repair any engine management or electrical problems.

On the evidence of this car, Rover didn't deserve to meet such a sad end. The ZS's only faults really are dated styling and details. Handling, engine and ride beat the Bora, build quality and comfort are only just behind. Other manufacturers did (do) far worse. At RRP it was even good value. Great drivers car but practical for the family too.

Will update as the miles go on.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 29th April, 2005

14th May 2005, 08:55

I agree - it seems the recent MG Rover products highlighted the gulf between the motoring press and the real world. These cars were universally given "avoid at all costs" reviews, yet seem to receive nothing but praise from owners. At the end of the day, owners views are far more valid than those of motoring journos, many of whom get free, fully expensed cars to tool around in and wouldn't know, or much less care, what buying and running a car out of your own pocket to perform a set of real world tasks is like. As for the wannabe Clarksons and that odd type who tend to choose turgidly dull BMW 316i's over a better but "lesser badged" equivalent, they frankly wouldn't know a decent car if it smacked them between the eyes.

I have come to the conclusion that one's opinion of MG Rover, and the ZS in particular, is dictated primarily by how corrupted you are by that little bit of fashion victim that resides in all of us. For example, I have proven my factory standard ZS180 to be no slower around the Brands Hatch Indy circuit than a Clio 182 Cup or a Civic Type-R, and just as involving and entertaining as either on the road - in fact in my opinion it eclipses the Civic. Unlike the others it also has the added features of seating five in comfort, boasting a vast boot, and being comfortable and refined enough to drive for 600 miles at a time with no fatigue or aches. In terms of what it does, it's an absolute cracker (apart from <25 mpg economy).

None of this was mentioned in any detail in any review I read, so I have not read a car magazine since. They were wrong about this car from my point of view, so why pay to read more reviews that are probably wrong from my view too?

Average review marks: 7.9 / 10, based on 9 reviews