2005 MG ZS 180 from UK and Ireland - Comments

"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!

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???

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.

I owned a 51 type r and am now driving a 54 Zs 180. The vtec in the civic makes you want to take it to the limiter all the time, however it feels a bit 'barryish' (not sure that's a word), the kv6 in the Zs is a much more refined source of power and you tend to floor it around less, at the time I preferred the civic, now i'm a little bit older I prefer the zs. As for all this talk of power, you could make the kv6 as stressed as the the vtec and as a result more powerful/vicious but for me the beauty of the engine is in how smoothly and consistently it delivers the power. And finally on the subject of engine size in relation to bhp, my mother drives a Lexus is200se with a 2litre straight six and I think it produces around 150bhp, but its like getting under your duvet and driving your bed when your behind the wheel, so relaxing... but yes ultimately slow! lol.

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.

Just like to point out that the comments describing the type R engines as stressed give a false impression of the honda vs the 180. Some interesting figures id like to see would be engine repairs on a type R vs engine repairs on a 180. The ZS is ultimately a K series rover engine and whilst its not as prone to headgasket failure as some of the other variants (e.g. zr 160 etc) it is still a common occurance in these cars. If you really want to talk about tuning them up go onto owners websites and you will see that the ZS is not easy to get huge gains from especially with reliability --- unlike the hondas.

Just appreciate its good value for money and stop trying to compare it against a blatantly superior engine.

Lol at last comment, if your idea of 'tuning' is bolting on an induction kit then yes, there won't really be any gains, put some real mods on the engines, (i.e. lairy cams, chip, uprated fueling and others) and you will definatly see the v6 will gain more power time and time again.

I rebuild engines for a living, and I have had the mg v6's in but I've also seen a fair share of honda type-r engines too so that point is really irrelevant.

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.

My mate drives a Type R and I drive a ZS180 (facelift) both great cars. The vtec is a seriously good engine, but the kv6 is right up there with it.

However I'm only posting to say in a four way straight line race out of hours on a tarmac stretch on a farm, we had me in my ZS, my mate in his Type R, my brother-in-law in his 1.8t GTi, and his brother in his tuned 1.8 Metro. I'm not going to lie and say it left us for dust, but the Metro won! And having driven it since, I have never had so much fun in a car; got back in the mg afterwards and felt like an old man!

Incidentally, I came second, which I didn't expect as I thought the Civic was a quicker car, feels quicker when you're in it anyway! And as for the Golf, seemed to have more lag than boost coming from that turbo; it's a recent purchase that he's now regretting!

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.

My engine is more powerful than your car nonsense doesn't really mean that much cos an engine is only ever in a state of tune. A manufacturer has X amount to spend on the engine in a car that will cost Y amount and target this particular audience. Reliability, longevity, durability, emissions, fuel economy are just as important as power!

Remember that MG BTCC successfully got 300bhp from their 4-cylinder 2.0lts K-Series engines normally aspirated. How does the Type-R compare to this? Which numpty on here said that the K-Series can't be tuned? I believe it's the most numerous engine in the motorsports industry... unsurprisingly as it is capable of high specific outputs and is very light.

Im sure someone with more money than sense has got 300bhp+ from a KV6 but would MG/Rover put this engine into production in the ZS - er NO! The engine would be so highly stressed it would need re-builds and the engine would probably cost more than the £16k price tag of the whole car.

Incidentlly outright power BHP isn't the only test of performance - have the Type R drivers never heard of Torque?

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

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.

The K-series has been so widely used not because of the cost, but due to its compact size and light weight; both of which are key in motorsports. At under 100kg with its fluids.

Right here we go. The MG ZS180 is a good car, I do own one, but this is about honesty. The interior is terribly dated as in the early 90's, and the build quality is pretty bad as well, though nothing has fallen off mine yet and it's six years old.

However the handling is great, and traction in the wet or dry rates very well, but do if possible fit the recommended tyres for the car. Now this is a car that despite being built within the last eight years, does not rely on traction control, it doesn't have it. There is no ESP either, in fact the only driver aids you get are power steering and ABS - that's it.

Now a lot of other medium cars I see, the Focus, the Astra, NOT A SAXO that's a super mini, well in their high end performance models and in many other manufacturers you will see ESP, traction control and a whole lot of things to improve the cars handling. Now when you check back on many reviews of the ZS 180, you will see the handling is well credited. Makes you wonder doesn't it, an old 1990's based car with no ESP or traction control handling wise can mix it with modern Ford, Audi, Vauxhall and many others that do.