MG ZS180 or ZR160?

[cerbman]

I'm considering one of these 2. I want an interesting 4 seater that doesn't guzzle fuel or break down too much. After my present car both will feel cheap and nasty, so the cheap interiors are something I will get used to again. Any ideas?

[Roman]

I would prefer ZS180 out of the two personally - excellent handling (Zr will also have this) & excellent engine (KV6 has a much better reputation for reliability than the K series) that is very well matched to the chassis - very linear & torquey power delivery - in the 'real world' this makes it a faster and more capable car than mere statistics may suggest.

I get 28+ mpg from my considerably heavier ZT 190 with the same engine (more modern solid build & better quality materials though a little slower than the ZS180).

ZT not that quick off the mark but very fast & composed 'cross country' point to point car. ZS more 'old school' fun.

[Wee_skids]

I've had expereince of the various Z cars, from ZR160's used at the race school, through driving and riding in ZS180's on trackdays to using a ZT260 as my everyday car.
The ZS180 is a more grownup and capable fast car than the ZR. The ZR is still good fun in an old school hot hatch way but the ZS has the edge.
Whilst the ZT's are good sports saloons, they are just a tad to heavy to dynamically be a match for the ZS.

Tony

[nick young]

Hi Robin, long time no talk!

As I've owned all of them at some point (ZR,ZS,ZT190), I can categorically state that the ZR is the only one I miss driving. The ZS 180 is quicker that the ZR no doubt but not as much fun to drive (IMHO!), but as long as you maintain your car well, the ZR is just as reliable (possibly more so!), and is certainly much much cheaper. Our ZS managed just 15-17 mpg around town, and just over 25 on a run. The ZR managed high twenties around town and mid thirties on a run. Tax is cheaper too.

All three cheaper to run and more reliable than my current charge

One thing I'd say though - unless you can buy VERY cheaply I'd steer clear and get a focus or similar.

How are things anyway? That Jag must be thirsty?

[cerbman]

Thanks to you all.
Hello Nick, how are you and of course Nat? Is the ZS really that bad on fuel? those figures around town are little different to the Jaguar. The Jag is a superb car, I've always loved them, it feels as if it is made from solid granite.
I see the Tuscan has gone, how was she?
If I was to buy an MG I would not want to pay much more than about £3K, the Jag is worth 6 or 7K, but I'm not sure I could live without this car. I must be sure.

[oc7]

cerbman said:

I'm considering one of these 2. I want an interesting 4 seater that doesn't guzzle fuel or break down too much. After my present car both will feel cheap and nasty, so the cheap interiors are something I will get used to again. Any ideas?

Hello.

Had my ZR 160 two years now and can mentioned a short report on the following:

Good:

- Never broke down, in the long run, sound engine, decent road using car.
- Has that umph!! when you do put your foot down. (Sensibly of course)


Bad:

- Expensive to run - always used super.
- Came from a Saxo VTR and with the suspension, I hope you dont like a comfy ride.
- 4 seater, not 5. To me, you would struggle to get 3 in comfort, depends on the driver height.
(I'm 6ft 3, and more or less sit in the back of the car)

Looking at other vehicles now a days, I should have gone for the bigger of the two.

Best of luck with your decision.

Gavin.

[nick young]

Hi Robin, we're fine, thanks for asking - hope life is treating you well.

Well, our ZS 180 was that bad on fuel, can't speak for anyone elses though

What do you make of the new XK - I'm in love, just can't afford one.

Yes, tuscan has gone but is not forgotten - Just didn't get driven enough for the size of the maintenance bills, and a two seater with two small children doesn't quite work. If anyone out there still has her (T6SCN) I'd love to hear how she is doing now.

[cerbman]

Nick
I love the XK too, XKR should be even better. Even mine is quite a character, a Limo when you want her to be, but is happy to lift her petticoat and go quicker than her 3.2 litres would suggest - quicker than my old Ti - and with a snarl that sends shivers.
So, was the TVR as unreliable as our friend Mr Flint wanted to believe?

[Yugguy]

cerbman said:

I'm considering one of these 2. I want an interesting 4 seater that doesn't guzzle fuel or break down too much. After my present car both will feel cheap and nasty, so the cheap interiors are something I will get used to again. Any ideas?

Depends really. I have a ZS180 that I get 29mpg from its daily cross-country razz. It all depends on how you like your engine, the ZR160 is a vvc 1.8, so it will need revving but some people like that hooligan feel. The ZS180 is a 2.5V6 so it has a broader power band and is more usable when you don't feel like ragging the nuts off it but crucially is still very quick when needed, 0-60 7.3 as standard. I can corner in 5th and accelerate from idle when I can't be arsed to change gear. We also own a Clio 172 which is similar in style to the ZR160 and while fun I prefer the ZS as an all-round drive.

If you buy a face-lifted Mk2 ZS the interior is a lot nicer than the Mk1 that I own.

Test drive both I'd say.

[cerbman]

Many thanks.

[cerbman]

This morning I saw a ZR160 5 door in Anthracite which is ideal for me being a family man. So, I waited and spoke to the owner, what she said really made me think especially the mpg figures. She said that she puts £20 in a fortnight and this last 160 miles around Exeter, also she and her husbands did a 350 trip to Heathrow for £40, this sounds incredible, is it possible?

[900T-R]

Driven them all three extensively, ZS is the one to have IMO. ZR is old school hot hatch, but ultimately not capalbe enough to justify its overall coarseness, ZS is SUCH a well judged affair dynamically, and the KV6's wail at mid/high revs isn't drowned out by tons of sound isolation like in the ZT. ZT 190 overall a better 'quality'experince, a fantastic gentlemen's express that goes for a song nowadays - but indeed a bit too heavy to be in the same league dynamically as the ZS.

[bullitt rich]

I've had my ZR 105 from new, I got it in December 2002, and to this day I still enjoy driving it everyday. I've never regretted buying, not once.
They are so much fun.

[chris watton]

bullitt rich said:

I've had my ZR 105 from new, I got it in December 2002, and to this day I still enjoy driving it everyday. I've never regretted buying, not once. They are so much fun.

They are fun, that's what these little cars, now a complete bargain to buy, are all about. They never got the credit they so richly deserved from the British motoring press, IMHO.

[sl114]

chris watton said:

bullitt rich said: I've had my ZR 105 from new, I got it in December 2002, and to this day I still enjoy driving it everyday. I've never regretted buying, not once. They are so much fun. They are fun, that's what these little cars, now a complete bargain to buy, are all about. They never got the credit they so richly deserved from the British motoring press, IMHO.

completely agree with you on that one, I bough a new MK2 105 ZR for just under £8k and love it to bits. low insurance and fun to drive, what more do you need. Well more power but that came later on and still kept insurance low