7th Sep 2007, 17:43

Absolutely right! and lets face it, I'd rather be in a 106 GTi! lol Only kiddin.

27th Oct 2007, 16:10

And I think folk, that we can be pleased.

We got this thread back! Its no longer taken over by the daft Saxo, my car vs. your car rubbish.

Entertaining reading, though.

22nd Feb 2008, 17:26

Sorry above poster, I am not sure you are entirely correct...

I think earlier versions of the V6 in the ZS and ZT (the KV6) were in the 600 series, and back then, did have (minor) headgasket issues.

It was well resolved by the time the ZS and ZT came about. And was never as bad as the K series anyway.

Which, whilst we are on that was not THAT bad anyway. In fact, as someone mentioned above, it was a problem that affected the 1.8 mainly, the 1.4 k series (like rover 214) did not suffer. And even the 1.8, it was usually a coolant shortage causing the problem. Regular checks on the coolant level will avoid problems. (Engine was designed to heat up quickly, but hammering it before the thermostat has opened, or even a slight loss of coolant would result in headgasket going.)

If you have a 1.8 rover engined car, 2 simple steps to ensure your headgasket will last. Check coolant level regularly. And do not thrash the engine before it is warm. Which applies to all cars anyway. Done.

27th May 2008, 10:30

I own a civic type r EP3 and used to own a MG ZR but since getting the civic I have raced a few MG-ZS and have left them for dust. To be fair the civic is more powerful and lighter, but the ZS is still a nice enough looking car, my friend has one and even he said its not as quick as the civic as he owned a type r previous to this, but he said its good due to the fact there is more room and is more practical for family use.

24th Jun 2008, 16:34

Hi, I've owned an MG ZS 120 for the past 2 months, and it's the best car I've ever driven, handles well, roomy and responsive, looks great too, can't understand why the ZS is so underrated. Love it so much I'm upgrading to the 180 next week. Can't wait ;0)

25th Jun 2008, 14:39

Having owned a ZS180 in the past, I would you advise against getting one as you will be asking for a whole load of problems. The head gasket is a MAJOR cause for concern, as is general reliability!

Fuel consumption is also very bad... for the amount of petrol the ZS180 uses per mile, you would expect it to be a lot quicker! Also 2.5v6 and ONLY 173bhp...NOT GOOD.

The plus side is you can pick them up for next to nothing. Cheap to buy... EXPENSIVE TO RUN!!!

15th Jul 2008, 11:53

MG ZS 180 you are simply the best!!!!Thank you

17th Jul 2008, 04:49

"MG ZS 180 you are simply the best!!!Thank you"

LOL... Only 173bhp from a 2.5v6. Honda gets 198bhp from its 2liter Type r!

Zs180 is pathetic!

17th Jul 2008, 07:14

I'm not siding with anyone here, I've never owned neither a Type R or an MG, but I have had a V6, and I can tell the last commenter hasn't.

They may not have the out and out power of the Type-R's, but the power band is a lovely smooth curve with power all over it.

The vtec's remind me of a diesel, no power until the very last 2000 rpm.

Where's the fun in that???

17th Jul 2008, 07:59

When developing an engine, there are lots of considerations, none least than cost. There wasn't the money for the VVC mechanism for a 6 cylinder like that of which the Type R enjoys - that goes part way to explain why it has less power per CC. However I'd say that the Type R engine is more stressed than the KV6. Would be interesting to see how the torque figures vary between the two engine through the whole rev range however.

Ultimately if both engines were max tuned and money wasn't a concern, I'd put my money on the KV6 being the most powerful cos at the end of the day... it's half a ltr bigger and has 6 cylinders and there is no getting away from that.

23rd Jul 2008, 10:29

Every diesel I've driven the power is in the middle of the rev range, usually in between 2-4000 revs, and about as far from a vtec engine as you can get! Having to rev the car to death to get the power from it may not sound like fun, but in the Honda vtec it is, as the noise and power delivery at 6000 rpm is just a buzz, and has to be experienced to be appreciated.

I think like most things it's down to personal preference, as I had an Integra Type R, and thought I'd try something different, and got a Leon Cupra R, which was a much more comfortable car with very smooth power delivery and effortless power, but I got bored after a couple of months, and got a Civic Type R, so I think it will be down to what power delivery you prefer.

25th Jul 2008, 12:36

All well and good saying you rebuild engines, and that you have done just as many Type R's as you have ZS 180 engines, but it still doesn't give an accurate impression of the reliability of the two engines does it? Anyone with car knowledge knows that the Honda Type R's are incredibly well built and that they are ultra reliable.

Just look at the residuals for a Honda Type R vs a ZS 180; I can't think of many cars that drop in value more than the MG. I own a Rover myself and I am the first to defend the brand, but I'm realistic as well.

As for laughing at the comment about the tuning potential, I really don't see what there was to laugh about... Go onto the Rover forum and ask the owners what sort of power gains they have achieved maximum, then go onto a Honda website and repeat.

28th Jul 2008, 13:49

The civic doesn't just feel quicker, it is quicker. It has an extra 20 hp and is lighter; it's not rocket science!!

If the Civic lost then it would be due to poor driving. I'm not saying the Civic would destroy it or anything - far from it as they are still similar powered, but the Civic would win every time!

A Clio 182 is fractionally slower than a Civic in a straight line, and that has very similar power to the MG and is a lot lighter.

29th Jul 2008, 08:57

The comment from the 28th July has it spot on.

29th Jul 2008, 12:41

LOL at the K series being used so much because it is such a great engine -- it is almost purely due to the very low cost of the engine. Rover got their bad reputation for reliability because of these engines being so prone to headgasket failure (which I will admit was over-publicised but still very much an issue).

The type R does lack torque I will agree with that and so an interesting comparison would be power delivery. I have driven torquey V6's and type R's and for me I prefer the Vtec as I like the all or nothing power. Understandably some people would rather the effortless torque.

If you want to know which car is faster then simply look at the official times and then power to weight for a good indication for comparison.