Discussion
As the title sugests. I am looking to buy a cheap little every day car that is cheap to run but still a bit of fun. Everyone I have spoken to says dont bother with an MG they are a load of trouble.
Maybe the first ones were but I belive that the Toyota engined cars (if thats what they are), are as
good as an MX5.I am looking to spend £2.5K. I am not expecting a car to 'set the world alight', but
do want something that will be reliable and economical. I already have two very expensive cars to run
so dont want a third that will cost a fortune. By looking through the adds, it does seem to me that you can get a lot more car for your money with a TF, plus I prefer the look of the TF over the MX5.
If you had £2.5K to spend, what would you buy?
Maybe the first ones were but I belive that the Toyota engined cars (if thats what they are), are as
good as an MX5.I am looking to spend £2.5K. I am not expecting a car to 'set the world alight', but
do want something that will be reliable and economical. I already have two very expensive cars to run
so dont want a third that will cost a fortune. By looking through the adds, it does seem to me that you can get a lot more car for your money with a TF, plus I prefer the look of the TF over the MX5.
If you had £2.5K to spend, what would you buy?
verminator said:
Maybe the first ones were but I belive that the Toyota engined cars (if thats what they are),
are you thinking of the Lotus Elise?there's loads of threads in this forum alone about MG F/TF possible head gasket and tyre issues let alone the rest of the web, there's also a MX-5 forum on here to tell you about the rust and other possible issues - all cars have faults, many of those faults are introduced by the previous and present owners
you need to do more research and cross-reference any information you get from any source with a couple of other reliable sources
there's a few people who know what they're talking about that have already posted here on the subjects in this forum - avoid 'pub wisdom' and 'internet wisdom' from people who have learnt wrong by lack of proper research
ETA: forgot the F !
Edited by na on Tuesday 12th February 16:06
Driven all the F and TF models and most of the MX5s.
No such thing as a Toyota engined F or TF. Your getting confused with the Elise which started off using a K series then went Toyota.
You should incidentally also consider looking at cheap Toyota MR2 Roadsters and ropey S2000s.
On those 2, I don't know if the Mr2 roadster has come down to your price range yet but I do know of a few which have suffered engine faults, so beware if buying at the bottom end of the market. An S2000 that is within a grand of your budget will be very ropey indeed but a potentially good car, it is a step above the other cars.
On the 5 vs MG issue. I prefer the MG, I owned an MX5 (a couple infact) and had 5s and TFs as company cars. An Mx5 is a safe bet, they rot like pears, the back suspensions are a nightmare, brakes are a pain they have some ridiculous engineering around the car and I hate working on them, but it's a safe and very strong engine and mechanically they are reliable. But any MX5 from mk1 up to the latest one out of the showroom will rot. Badly.... So check for rot, if it's solid then keep it solid and you have a good car. They are also surprisingly water tight.
The MG is more interesting to drive I think, the engine is just behind you and is more involving, the handling is very steady as is the 5, they can rot but not terribly, the engine is the weak point, but with care they can be extremely reliable.
I think one vital question is when did you last check the fluids on your current car? If it wasn't within the last week buy an MX5 they don't need mollycoddling but the MG does, it requires a constant eye on the water level, that's not to say it's unreliable but if the level drops for any reason it will risk blowing the head gasket.
If I was buying another car in this class I'd probably risk a late TF special edition.
No such thing as a Toyota engined F or TF. Your getting confused with the Elise which started off using a K series then went Toyota.
You should incidentally also consider looking at cheap Toyota MR2 Roadsters and ropey S2000s.
On those 2, I don't know if the Mr2 roadster has come down to your price range yet but I do know of a few which have suffered engine faults, so beware if buying at the bottom end of the market. An S2000 that is within a grand of your budget will be very ropey indeed but a potentially good car, it is a step above the other cars.
On the 5 vs MG issue. I prefer the MG, I owned an MX5 (a couple infact) and had 5s and TFs as company cars. An Mx5 is a safe bet, they rot like pears, the back suspensions are a nightmare, brakes are a pain they have some ridiculous engineering around the car and I hate working on them, but it's a safe and very strong engine and mechanically they are reliable. But any MX5 from mk1 up to the latest one out of the showroom will rot. Badly.... So check for rot, if it's solid then keep it solid and you have a good car. They are also surprisingly water tight.
The MG is more interesting to drive I think, the engine is just behind you and is more involving, the handling is very steady as is the 5, they can rot but not terribly, the engine is the weak point, but with care they can be extremely reliable.
I think one vital question is when did you last check the fluids on your current car? If it wasn't within the last week buy an MX5 they don't need mollycoddling but the MG does, it requires a constant eye on the water level, that's not to say it's unreliable but if the level drops for any reason it will risk blowing the head gasket.
If I was buying another car in this class I'd probably risk a late TF special edition.
Another vote for the F over the MX. I've done 10-20k in an MGF, and around 14k in an MX5 mk1.
Both were fun, but I just couldn't get on with the MX5. It felt slow, I had a 1.6 but there's not a lot in it anyway, and incidentally I had mine dyno'd and it made factory power, so it wasn't in a bad way. It was fun to throw about, and oversteered on demand, but it just wasn't as much fun to me as the MGF.
The MGF is a pain to work on, access to the engine bay takes ages compared to lifting the bonnet, but I found it more settled on the road, and the engine is far torquing. It was more rewarding to drive "everyday" than the MX, in that it was quite happy zippy around without having to wring it's neck.
The K Series also sounds great with an induction kit, something the MX never manages thanks to the flapper style MAF that mutes any decent induction noise.
I found the MGF felt sturdier as well. Out of the 2, I'd have an MGF again, bizarre, as it was my partners, and I was dead set against her getting one having heard all the horror stories. Ours was faultless the entire time she had it, requiring 4 tyres and a track rod end.
Both were fun, but I just couldn't get on with the MX5. It felt slow, I had a 1.6 but there's not a lot in it anyway, and incidentally I had mine dyno'd and it made factory power, so it wasn't in a bad way. It was fun to throw about, and oversteered on demand, but it just wasn't as much fun to me as the MGF.
The MGF is a pain to work on, access to the engine bay takes ages compared to lifting the bonnet, but I found it more settled on the road, and the engine is far torquing. It was more rewarding to drive "everyday" than the MX, in that it was quite happy zippy around without having to wring it's neck.
The K Series also sounds great with an induction kit, something the MX never manages thanks to the flapper style MAF that mutes any decent induction noise.
I found the MGF felt sturdier as well. Out of the 2, I'd have an MGF again, bizarre, as it was my partners, and I was dead set against her getting one having heard all the horror stories. Ours was faultless the entire time she had it, requiring 4 tyres and a track rod end.
what must the present and previous owners do to destroy a Toyoto engine (before volume obsession), a mate had three MR2 Mk2 and they were also great as touring cars
obviously you'd a expect a possible F/TF bias here and probably a 100% bias (and probably much misinformed) on the MX-5 forum
I can't comment as I've only had a Mk2 MX-5 and no F/TF
(still makes me laugh when I think of Rover releasing a TF model name)
obviously you'd a expect a possible F/TF bias here and probably a 100% bias (and probably much misinformed) on the MX-5 forum
I can't comment as I've only had a Mk2 MX-5 and no F/TF
(still makes me laugh when I think of Rover releasing a TF model name)
5paul5 said:
Drive both and if your a true petrolhead you will pick the mx5.
Just not true I'm afraid, they leave me cold and I've owned them.The usual plasticy japanese syndrome. Nasty thin clangy metal. Terrible engineering albeit cleverly engineered (I realise that sounds contradictory, only working on an MX5 makes it make sense). Bland handling albeit proper sports car handling it's just not got the grunt to make it truly fun.
But a sensible option as a small sports car to own goes. I'll probably own another one at some point, but the b
ks about not being a petrol head unless you love them just isn't true they are riddled with faults and as far as petrol head cars go are in my opinion very low on the list.wildoliver said:
5paul5 said:
Drive both and if your a true petrolhead you will pick the mx5.
Just not true I'm afraid, they leave me cold and I've owned them.The usual plasticy japanese syndrome. Nasty thin clangy metal. Terrible engineering albeit cleverly engineered (I realise that sounds contradictory, only working on an MX5 makes it make sense). Bland handling albeit proper sports car handling it's just not got the grunt to make it truly fun.
But a sensible option as a small sports car to own goes. I'll probably own another one at some point, but the b
ks about not being a petrol head unless you love them just isn't true they are riddled with faults and as far as petrol head cars go are in my opinion very low on the list.having owned a Mk2 MX-5 and used my mate's 1.8 MK1 Eunos special (one of many specials) I'd have to say there is a certain blandness to the Mk2 particularly (and probably onwards but I don't know as I've never driven them)
as for grunt, I've had cars with lots and lots of grunt and some with very little grunt you can enjoy both types in different ways
as for being a true petrolhead I don't think I'd want to be, that would mean carrying a drooling bowl, saying that certain cars are heavenly and to only support certain marques or models in a ManU way
I'm happy to say I'm not a true petrolhead and I've owned and driven girlie cars, and like it, a lot
I'm not interested in macho men or what macho men like, especially when they band together in support of a macho interest
I mean you never see a gay footballer or F1 driver
I don't know, are there any openly gay F1 drivers, no of course not what am I saying, I'll get myself beaten up by ManU minded, celebrity following, drool bowl carrying, macho, true petrolheads
I take it back where's the drool bowl, all but certain cars have faults and flaws and these certain cars are worthy of worship - please, please tell which these certain cars are as - I want to be so macho, I wanna be so macho, big and strong . . .
as for grunt, I've had cars with lots and lots of grunt and some with very little grunt you can enjoy both types in different ways
as for being a true petrolhead I don't think I'd want to be, that would mean carrying a drooling bowl, saying that certain cars are heavenly and to only support certain marques or models in a ManU way
I'm happy to say I'm not a true petrolhead and I've owned and driven girlie cars, and like it, a lot
I'm not interested in macho men or what macho men like, especially when they band together in support of a macho interest
I mean you never see a gay footballer or F1 driver
I don't know, are there any openly gay F1 drivers, no of course not what am I saying, I'll get myself beaten up by ManU minded, celebrity following, drool bowl carrying, macho, true petrolheads
I take it back where's the drool bowl, all but certain cars have faults and flaws and these certain cars are worthy of worship - please, please tell which these certain cars are as - I want to be so macho, I wanna be so macho, big and strong . . .
verminator said:
I am not bothered if it is a petrol heads car or not as I own a v12 Aston and a TVR Cerbera.
I would be looking at maybe a 2003-4 car. What engines do they have? I take it that they weren't by then the dreadfull Rover K series.
The Rover K-Series engine is a brilliant engine. Very advanced even now, let alone in the mid 80's when it was first designed. It's only real vice is potential HG issues. But this is very well documented and there are solutions.I would be looking at maybe a 2003-4 car. What engines do they have? I take it that they weren't by then the dreadfull Rover K series.
Also worth noting the K-Series is still in production today (under the name of N Series).
Further food for thought, remember the K-Series was used in Metro's, Rover 100's, Rover 200's, Rover 400's, 25's, 45's, ZR's, ZS's, ZT's, Freelanders, Elises, Eviges, Caterhams, Morgans and many other cars.
Basically there are 100,000's in use each and every day across Britain and the world. Most, in fact I suspect almost all are perfectly fine for daily use.
As for the MG itself, well it's a fairly basic car with many Rover 200 parts being used. So it's not difficult to maintain. Engine access is a little limited, but not a huge issue for most things.
Should the HG go, then it'll cost about the same as having a cambelt done on a V6 motor. It isn't terminal and if done properly is unlikely to be an issue again any time soon. In return you get one of the sweetest 4 pot engines ever made.
The F's were available in 1.8i (118bhp) guise. VVC 143bhp (later on 158bhp) and 1.6 (116bhp??).
The VVC is the one to get, although the 1.8i is rather nice too.
Personally I prefer the look of the F over the TF and I think the Hydrogas suspension is superior to the traditional strut setup on the TF. Rover only changed to regular struts because the cost price of the Hydrogas units (not made by Rover) went up 3 or 4 fold or something silly like that. But Hydogas does give a superior ride.
The biggest difference to an MX-5 is driving style. The MX-5 is more tail out hooligans car and more adept at being driven sideways. The F is much more about precision and smooth driving and will not take kindly to trying to make it go sideways everywhere. I think this is the most important decision to make on which car is better for you.
Also the F (VVC) is faster than the MX-5's and in my experience better on fuel. MK1 MX-5's are known for crappy mpg (just look in the MX-5 forum) where many get 25-28mpg daily out of them. MK2's a little better.
I do agree on the poor fuel consumption. It's another real bugbear for me about the car, there is no reason why a fairly aerodynamic little light car with a relatively small in theory quite efficient 16 engine should be so damn thirsty.
Oh and they sound horrible, it's a nasty sounding engine, to say they bought an MGB to try to copy the exhaust note they failed.
Oh and they sound horrible, it's a nasty sounding engine, to say they bought an MGB to try to copy the exhaust note they failed.
We got our TF in 2010 and after sorting out the neglect its been 100% reliable in spite of not getting used enough. We are in the MGCC and WAMGOC so it was a bit of a no brainer really, however I would have one again without hesitating. I got the 1.6 and tuned it mildly and put the VHS Bilstein kit on it. the handling is amazing and high 40s MPG is a nice bonus. Ours has a Pipercross air filter Z and F remap Piper stainless cat and a Toyosport stainless cat back which incresed the fun factor a lot. I had to do lot of work to eliminate rust from the sub frames but I think I was unlucky there. Usually their rot resistence is exemplary. I prefer the looks of the TF and the wet suspension has spares issues, you can fit TF subframes to an F though. 
Edited by SMGB on Wednesday 13th February 11:23
NA, My apologies. I have since done some reading on the forums and it does seem that the engine
is a well thought of unite. I did see a lovley looking TF in a particularly nice blue, with cream
leather that looked superb. It was an 03 car with only approx 40k miles for about £2,300. I much
prefer the looks of the MG over the 5. SWMBO and myself are also keen on the car (and bike, Harley) scene and so the MG scores on that point also. It's only the reliability issues that would sway me.
is a well thought of unite. I did see a lovley looking TF in a particularly nice blue, with cream
leather that looked superb. It was an 03 car with only approx 40k miles for about £2,300. I much
prefer the looks of the MG over the 5. SWMBO and myself are also keen on the car (and bike, Harley) scene and so the MG scores on that point also. It's only the reliability issues that would sway me.
no need to apologise to me, I meant you need to do much more research on both cars if you don't know what engine went in all F and Tfs (and Lotus, Caterham, others, kit cars, etc.) - there lots of info on the MX-5 (best selling sports car ever) and separate forum here, big club, for F/TF there's the Rover forums, MG clubs etc.
if I put that a Cerbie was just a 4 seater Chim you'd know I needed to do more research if I was thinking of buying one
the only things I know about F/TFs is that they are very tyre dependent (which you'll understand with a TVR) and that like a lot of cars a lot of the car's problems are because the of the previous and present owners and things like HGF can happen on all/most(?) cars, I look after my cars well and I've 5 different HGF on 5 different cars none of which were K-series
I test drove a F when the first came out and it was the braking that I remember well as it was almost too good and I thought if anything other than another F was behind me when braking then I'd have that vehicle in the boot
ETA: by your having a Aston and Harley and what you've put you might be more suited to a F/TF, I'm not sure how the old duffers in the MGOC and MGCC take to the F and (modern) TF though as I never go to meetings of MGOC and am still far too young to be in the MGCC and don't race a car, the MX-5 club (certainly locally) I'm told is very well attended
if I put that a Cerbie was just a 4 seater Chim you'd know I needed to do more research if I was thinking of buying one
the only things I know about F/TFs is that they are very tyre dependent (which you'll understand with a TVR) and that like a lot of cars a lot of the car's problems are because the of the previous and present owners and things like HGF can happen on all/most(?) cars, I look after my cars well and I've 5 different HGF on 5 different cars none of which were K-series
I test drove a F when the first came out and it was the braking that I remember well as it was almost too good and I thought if anything other than another F was behind me when braking then I'd have that vehicle in the boot
ETA: by your having a Aston and Harley and what you've put you might be more suited to a F/TF, I'm not sure how the old duffers in the MGOC and MGCC take to the F and (modern) TF though as I never go to meetings of MGOC and am still far too young to be in the MGCC and don't race a car, the MX-5 club (certainly locally) I'm told is very well attended
Edited by na on Wednesday 13th February 16:17
Gassing Station | MG | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff