2005 MG ZS 180 from UK and Ireland - Comments

I was talking about the saxo VTS, hence 120 bhp, and I was also talkting about the 2004 WRX impreza not the turbo 2000, don't like them. But with impreza's its also the gearing that gives them exellent acceleration, even the 208 bhp T 2000 is 6.1 I think, not 6.7. But at the same time I can imagine the rover being quiker than the official figre's. Being a 2.5! Anyway we've taken over the saxo comments!

The MG ZS 180 2.5 V6 is not even comparable with a saxo vtr/vts. Saxo owners live in a dream world if they claim they have 'won' mg zs 180's. To everyone who thinks the saxo is in league with a zs 180, do you think your in a league of seat leon curpa r's? They have 1.8 turbo 20v engine which has 0-60 in 7.7 (zs 180 7.3) top speed 142 (zs 180 139). I mean that from anyones view shows how good the mg zs 180 is.

This lead me to talk about the leon 225 0-60 in 7.2 and top speed 150. So with these figures how can anyone try to say the mg zs is powerless!!!

To anyone is saying this car suffers from head gasket failure you are wrong! Call your local garage and ask about these underrated cars.

To all the people who call the zs 180 saloon heavy you are wrong. it weighs 1285 kg whilst the cupra is 1376kg,.

So with accurate figures like these don't underestimate the MG.

Hi all, id just like to ask the person who seems to know that the head gaskets are a weak spot how he knows this? I don't know of any problems with them. I have heard of a few of the 1.8k series having this problem, but not the kv6, it is a completely different engine mate.

Also on the citroen argument, oh forget it whats the point, they don't listen, go back to school, do maths again, and come back here and carry the argument on (you can't).

I don't think anyone is saying saxo's are as fast as the big engine rover. But they are good in their own right, on the VTS, 120 bhp and 0-60 in 7.8 is damn good for a N/A 1.6 I expect their fun cars. Rovers don't do bad either, 177 bhp from N/A 2.5, some vauxhall's only manage 168 bhp from 2.5 and 147 bhp from 2.2, that's poor.

Clio sport 182 has a 2.0 N/A engine, yet produces 180bhp.

Bigger engine produces more torque. clio is a lot less. st170 only has 141 lb/ft. mg has 177lb/ft.

It needs more torque as well as it is a damn sight heavier and a lot slower as well, the zs180 is better at drinking the fuel though, also blowing head gaskets!

Head gasket went on mine after only 10000 miles.

The same thing happend to my Zs180, not at 10000 miles though. Mine went at 17300 miles. I have been told by my local garage that it's a common problem with the Zs180.

MG ZS 180 RULES!!

That's the opinion I have anyway, my dad bought a mk 2 ZS 180 just before Christmas which I have the pleasure of driving and it's a beast. As for comparing it to other cars, it holds its head up remarkably high. I myself have had a whole host of fast cars since I passed my test four years ago, which to date include a Mini Cooper (Rover model, the best!) a 205 GTi 1.6 and a 205 GTi 1.9, a Rover 216 and 218 vvc coupe, a Honda Concerto (1.6 twin cam, good car, as fast as my mates 306 GTi 6! we raced them on a local airfield), a Rover P6 V8, and a Nissan 300 ZX twin turbo. To prove how good the MG is, I honestly barely notice the difference between the two, and the MG is far better handling. So for the ZS 180 to be slow when I had a 300 bhp Nissan and put them very close together, I doubt very much.

As for the ZS basically being a 45 in disguise, I don't see that as a problem, we have a 1.6 Rover 45 at home as well and that's remarkably quick, even my friend with the GTi 6 was surprised how quick it was, as was the lad who tried to pass me in a 106 GTi and got shown up. Remember all this from a 1.6 rover 45 with 109 bhp, so whats a ZS with a 177 bhp going to do?

Yes they are good cars, but watch the tail in the wet. as I found out. suspension designed to perish under extreme force or crash to avoid injury to passengers. very safe cars.

Insurance rather high. group 17. I have a 02 astra turbo which has more power, faster all round and lighter and is only group 15. weird.

Just to correct a few of the common myths about the MG zs 180.

Head gasket failure was a problem of the original KV6 wich was draticly changed in the ZS 180 and is now not a problem although head gaskets can blow on any car so inevitably it will occour in rare accasions.

To the saxo owners and the like you need to get a grip son as you obviously now very little about cars. Now the performance figures 7.3 to 60 139 175 bhp 240 n/m of torque wich is easily tuned with closed induction (BMC or itg) piper zaust performance manis and cat super chip and cams youll be seeing around 225 bhp and doing sub 14 sec 1/4 mile times at pod.

So for those who are truly interested in a ZS 180 V6 monster don't be shy buy one and you won't be disapointed.

P.S I've had mine 2 years and the only thing I've had to replace are tyres and the usual servicing oarts (filters etc)

All the best and enjoy KV6 power.

You will never see sub 14sec in the 1/4 mile. Zs180 only puts out 144bhp per ton, same as the old slow focus st170. Nowhere near the clio sport 170+ bhp per ton. 7.3 sec to 60mph was mg claims, but in fact the car does it in more like 7.8sec.

Agreed that the zs180 is no real performance car, its no quicker than the ST 170 focus. But it DOES NOT cost the earth for a overall cracking car.

Nice looking cars these MG ZS's don't know what they feel like to drive, but they seem like quality stuff for the money. ZR's too. But rover should have designed newer cars instead of facelifting older models.