2001 MG ZT Reviews - Page 2 of 2

2001 MG ZT 190 tourer 2.5 petrol from UK and Ireland

Year of manufacture2001
First year of ownership2002
Most recent year of ownership2003
Engine and transmission 2.5 petrol Manual
Performance marks 8 / 10
Reliability marks 9 / 10
Comfort marks 7 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 7 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
7.8 / 10
Distance when acquired17600 miles
Most recent distance21000 miles
Previous carVauxhall Omega

Summary:

At last a British car that gives the Germans something to think about

Faults:

Slight clutch-drag (ticking noise when in idle). Occasional leak from glass section of back estate door.

General Comments:

A beautiful-looking car.

Stunning performance from a 2.5 engine in a body this big.

Excellent grip in all driving conditions.

Driver's seat really locks you in to the car.

Driver controls a little 'plasticy'.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 8th January, 2003

11th Jan 2003, 14:53

One of you says it's beautiful, the other that it's ugly and I think it's OK (but would much rather have a nice Rover 75). A case I think of 'Horses for courses'

12th Jan 2003, 10:33

Get it to the dealer and insist they sort it out!

7th Feb 2003, 05:15

Looks are an acquired taste, but how good is it to drive, and how reliable is it? After spending 3 years visiting VW dealers every 2 months for warranty work with my Passat Estate I'm willing to give a British product a try. I also happen to like a fairly hard ride since I also have an MX5 (TF is too soft) and used to have a MkII GTI Golf.

5th Apr 2003, 20:15

Rover USED to be owned by BMW, however BMW sold Rover in 2000 after being unable to turn a profit during the 6 or 7 years under BMW control.

The only part of Rover/MG that BMW kept was the rights to the Mini. If I recall correctly, MG Rover has reverted back to British ownership.

8th Jan 2006, 13:01

If I ever make it into power, ill-informed bigots will be shot against the wall.

It was BMW's mismanagement that caused the demise of Rover, as well as an uncooperative Labour government in many areas. Granted, BMW's head man wanted only the best for Rover, hence the reason he insisted Rover developers went the whole hog in developing it, i.e. No British Leyland cost-cutting. It was mainly the impatience of the Quandt family, demanding a swift return in an investment which would realistically take a matter of years to give a return to its parent.

BMW were simply too over-ambitious in their plans and in being so, shot themselves in the foot. This was their fault and nothing to do with an component of Rover.

Try reading some source material in future, it only leads to embarrassment.

As for the German vs British manufacturing comment, I suggest you take a glance at the VW Golf board on here. I really like blue myself...

Average review marks: 7.4 / 10, based on 5 reviews