2005 MG ZS 180 2.5 KV6 from UK and Ireland
Nothing at all.
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.