22nd Nov 2005, 02:34

MG ZS has reliability issues as well as build quality issues.

Performance is overrated as well, in reality its NO faster than the SLOW Focus ST170.

MGZS180 will cover 0-60 no faster than 8 sec and 0-100 no faster than 24.3sec.

Its far too heavy, is underpowered for its weight, which equates to sloppy "boat" like handling. Also the interior is very very poor quality!

...MG ZS "Cannot" cut it as a hot hatch.

22nd Nov 2005, 08:48

Mg is a sports saloon, not a hatchback.

23rd Nov 2005, 03:39

You wish. Polo's only have a 1600 lump, I've wasted too many Golfs and Polo's to remember, all of them don't come anywhere close.

23rd Nov 2005, 04:19

Are you sure is a ZS180 and not a ZS120? Only the new Golf GTi or the R32 is quicker and yours definitely is neither. Get back into your poxy little car and play with Saxo VTRs, those are more in your league.

23rd Nov 2005, 13:29

MG "ZS180" is what I have raced and BEAT, and on a few occassions at that! I don't rate erm performance wise, NOT MANY PEOPLE DO.

25th Nov 2005, 05:59

Did you race on playstation?

The car is only as good as the driver that is in it. Maybe he wasn't a very good driver. On a level playing field there is no competition against a Polo GTi, the ZS180 will win. Maybe if you can afford it get yourself a new Golf GTi then come on here and make your claims.

27th Nov 2005, 11:02

Mg zs180 is far to heavy to be classed as a performance car, focus st170 would destroy it. Both have same power to weight ratio, but the ST170 would kill it around a circuit.

27th Nov 2005, 16:42

Polo gti would not beat a mgzs 180 in performance, but the st170 focus would give the mg something to worry about.

29th Nov 2005, 16:32

BTCC cars bear no resemblance under the skin to the road going versions.

1st Dec 2005, 04:13

St170 is 0-100 in 24.8 seconds, I've timed mine at 14.7 with just itg maxogen. that's 10 seconds faster, enough to lose it.

30th Dec 2005, 09:02

Guys, I think we have to listen to the people who have owned both. Side by side, it can be surprising how little difference there is between cars.

For example, my current Audi S6 is much, MUCH faster than my old Mondeo V6. However, if we are at 80, side by side, both cars were put into 4th and belted, by the time we reached 100, the Audi would prob only be 1 car length ahead (What else do you expect, it doesn't take long!)

Oh, and the best polo was the G40, followed by the 1.4 16V, that hundred brake engine and low ratio gearbox was a gem. The only way a Polo GTI would beat a ZS180 is if the ZS was in reverse.

All of this, is just my opinion though. Please don't take too seriously!

3rd Jan 2006, 08:13

Yes, but you only have 173bhp, so power to weight ratio is the same as the old slow focus st170. If you really want a fast car, then ditch yours.

7th Jan 2006, 10:28

Head gasket just went on my zs180, only done 14300 miles?

Very dissapointed! Is this a common fault as a few other people seem to have the same problem?

10th Jan 2006, 04:41

Do you have a mk1, mk2's are stronger.

10th Jan 2006, 10:44

I have a mk2!

26th Feb 2006, 09:04

I've owned my MG ZS 180 from new and never had a thing go wrong with it. I've now done 55,000 miles, just had it serviced (that's dealer servicing throughout), and the only thing that needed some attention was a sticking throttle body. Job done.

As for the Polo out gunning a ZS, this is obviously a no brainer. My other vehicle is an R1, so the MG is for shopping and going out with my mates, the bike is for the FUN and real performance; 0-60 3.2 seconds, then thru to 180mph in the time the ZS gets to 60. LOL. Where's the Polo? LOL.

26th Feb 2006, 15:26

Yea, but come on, it might be fast, but its still a bike, no thanks!

27th Feb 2006, 00:51

I own one and like my Zs180, as you can pick one up for next to nothing and have a nice looking, good performing car.

Having owned other sporty cars, I found it Compares well with the older ford focus st170, ford mondeo st24 in performance. No way near the st220 though (totally different league) st220 has a LOT more straight line power.

Overall a fast robust looking car.

13th Mar 2006, 22:58

This just made me laugh that there quicker than 182's etc, but not civic type r's. Kinda funny really considering that there is nearly no difference between the 2 of those cars either The civic is only slightly quicker. But the clio has better handling, but mainly down to the driver.

The ZS180 is an OK car unfortunately it would get creamed coming up against a 182 especially in the corners. There is enough people on the clio forums that would be willing to prove this to you in there 172/182's.

If you beat them they were not giving it there all simple as.

17th Mar 2006, 16:47

You know, one other reason why someone reckoned their polo "allegedly" beat a ZS180 is because the MG was brand new and not at all run in. I've got a Skoda Octavia vRS and during the first 4000 miles or so it was absolutely useless, but then the engine loosened up and it became like it should be.

Other reasons are that the polo was souped up boy racer vehicle? I dunno.

Anyway I test drove a (brand new) ZS180 and thought the handling was great, but (because of that) the ride was too harsh and the build quality was poor so I plumped for the Skoda. Plus back then my insurance company would not insure the ZS unless I fitted a tracker! Due to depreciation and the collapse of Rover I think I made a good choice, but with the current price of the ZS these days I think a 2nd hand one could turn out to be a performance bargain...

20th Apr 2006, 09:20

Hi guys, loads of fun reading about 172/182s, Polos, Type Rs, but could someone please tell me costs to run a 180? As I have just test driven one, and it was no way slow. But I would like to know how much this car is to run, as opposed to my 307 XSi (which by the way is a joke).

5th May 2006, 17:35

I have a ZS 180. No way slow, been timed at 0-60 in 6.6 seconds. 1/4 mile 14.8 seconds, terminal speed 91mph. Costs to run are not bad for 2.5 litres, average 28 MPG, shop around for insurance. Parts, I don't know, cos nothing's broke.

Big boot, 4 doors, seats 5, 4 in comfort. OK dash, looks a bit dated, but it's functional, doesn't need traction control, chassis can handle it well.

Comments about keeping up with CTR's are true. The V6 has lots of low down torque, peaking at 4000 RPM. The Civic doesn't kick in until the ZS is nearly at the red line. It's all down to where the power comes in and how the chassis handles it.

Check out http://forums.xpowerforums.com/ for all the facts on running one of these affordable beasts.

And enough of this Polo rubbish FGS.