MG ZT Wich one???
Discussion
The 260 has a Ford Mustang V8 and rear-wheel drive.
Quite rare and becoming collectible. Think there are some minor reliabilty issues, but owners' clubs and specialists know the fixes.
120 & 160 have Rover K-series 1.8 4-cylinder (160 has a turbo).
Small engine for the size of car, and there are well known issues with the cooling system and potential head-gasket failure.
180 (auto) & 190 have Rover 2.5 KV6 6-cylinder.
Plenty of satisfied owners of these on PH.
Cambelt change is costly, I believe, so check service history carefully.
Diesel is BMW 4-cyl 2 litre turbo.
Quite rare and becoming collectible. Think there are some minor reliabilty issues, but owners' clubs and specialists know the fixes.
120 & 160 have Rover K-series 1.8 4-cylinder (160 has a turbo).
Small engine for the size of car, and there are well known issues with the cooling system and potential head-gasket failure.
180 (auto) & 190 have Rover 2.5 KV6 6-cylinder.
Plenty of satisfied owners of these on PH.
Cambelt change is costly, I believe, so check service history carefully.
Diesel is BMW 4-cyl 2 litre turbo.
Of the petrol engined ones I've driven the 260's just brilliant, the 190's quite quick for what it is, very smooth, sounds quite nice, but (IMHO) a little gutless unless/until you rev its nuts off (this may because I drove it back-to-back with the 260!), and the 160 V6 is the same as the 190 V6 but not as quick.
Mines a CDTi, and for my money (which of course it was) if you can't have afford/justify the cost of running a 260 it's the one to go for - the lazy power delivery seems to suit the "vibe" of the ZT better than the quite revvy 6 cylinder engines. I'm probably going to get laughed at for this but, with it's high gearing, long legged nature, and lazy power delivery I think the CDTi actually feels surprisingly like the 260 (until of course you use more than half throttle and/or 4000 RPM!) and I'm liking it a lot more than I thought I would. You're right about it being a BMW unit by the way, apparently it's very similar to (but not the same as) the 318D/320D.
Of the petrol engined one's I've not driven the 120 just seems like rather a lot of metal for a 1.8 K series to lug around but I have a feeling that the 160 Turbo (which by all accounts packs a surprising amount of wallop at low-to-middling engine speeds) might just prove to be nicer than the 190 and if you can't bring yourself to turn to The Dark Side could just possibly be the pick of the bunch!
--
JG
Mines a CDTi, and for my money (which of course it was) if you can't have afford/justify the cost of running a 260 it's the one to go for - the lazy power delivery seems to suit the "vibe" of the ZT better than the quite revvy 6 cylinder engines. I'm probably going to get laughed at for this but, with it's high gearing, long legged nature, and lazy power delivery I think the CDTi actually feels surprisingly like the 260 (until of course you use more than half throttle and/or 4000 RPM!) and I'm liking it a lot more than I thought I would. You're right about it being a BMW unit by the way, apparently it's very similar to (but not the same as) the 318D/320D.
Of the petrol engined one's I've not driven the 120 just seems like rather a lot of metal for a 1.8 K series to lug around but I have a feeling that the 160 Turbo (which by all accounts packs a surprising amount of wallop at low-to-middling engine speeds) might just prove to be nicer than the 190 and if you can't bring yourself to turn to The Dark Side could just possibly be the pick of the bunch!
--
JG
The 1.8 160 turbo would be my pick bearing in mind tax and petrol costs now. It can be tuned to over 200bhp and when you take the power to weight ratio into mind it will be as quick if not quicker than a 260. OK you don't get the classic Mustang soundtrack of the 260 but i think it would be a fair trade off !
Mat C said:
The 1.8 160 turbo would be my pick bearing in mind tax and petrol costs now. It can be tuned to over 200bhp and when you take the power to weight ratio into mind it will be as quick if not quicker than a 260. OK you don't get the classic Mustang soundtrack of the 260 but i think it would be a fair trade off !
It's only 250ish kg lighter and will be well down on torque so you'd have to rag the turbo to death and you'd still be left for dead IMO. To quote the cliche, there ain't no replacement for displacement
Mat C said:
The 1.8 160 turbo would be my pick bearing in mind tax and petrol costs now. It can be tuned to over 200bhp and when you take the power to weight ratio into mind it will be as quick if not quicker than a 260. OK you don't get the classic Mustang soundtrack of the 260 but i think it would be a fair trade off !
For that matter there are people on the Austin/Rover forums who claim to be getting 170+ BHP out of tweaked CDTis - I really don't think either that or a tweaked 160 are going to trouble a 260 much (for a start the 260's RWD chassis is absolutely outstanding - I was probably more impressed by that than the engine when I tried one!) but I suspect either has the potential to spoil a 190 owners day...--
JG
mechsympathy said:
Mat C said:
The 1.8 160 turbo would be my pick bearing in mind tax and petrol costs now. It can be tuned to over 200bhp and when you take the power to weight ratio into mind it will be as quick if not quicker than a 260. OK you don't get the classic Mustang soundtrack of the 260 but i think it would be a fair trade off !
It's only 250ish kg lighter and will be well down on torque so you'd have to rag the turbo to death and you'd still be left for dead IMO. To quote the cliche, there ain't no replacement for displacementUnless you happen to be mechsympathy of course. Then you buy one already converted. Git.
mechsympathy said:
I've driven your car too, remember!
This is a friends ZT-260 with the Dreadnought supercharger conversion. An awesome car. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFNkrwRmba8
I've had a ZT190 for 100,000 miles and its running better now than ever. No problems at all other than the fuel filter bowl in the tank falling apart (54p clip required to fix)...
It does 29.1 to the gallon and gets driven very hard. Its had oil changes when the service indicator says so (good quality semi synth, or synth) and cambelt change (£600) at 90,000 miles as recommended.
As far as the performance is concerned its pretty quick when its wound up but needs to be over 4,000 revs to be at its best. In a back to back with a Civic Type R it is only slightly slower. I would say its going better now than it ever has, so don't be afraid of higher mileages if its been properly maintained.
I've done a trackday in it and it certainly didn't disgrace itself against Clio Sports and trackday focussed hatchbacks and it is definitely the best handling front wheel drive car I've owned.
Given how cheaply they can be bought for I think they are exceptionally good cars - very underrated and sound fantastic.....
It does 29.1 to the gallon and gets driven very hard. Its had oil changes when the service indicator says so (good quality semi synth, or synth) and cambelt change (£600) at 90,000 miles as recommended.
As far as the performance is concerned its pretty quick when its wound up but needs to be over 4,000 revs to be at its best. In a back to back with a Civic Type R it is only slightly slower. I would say its going better now than it ever has, so don't be afraid of higher mileages if its been properly maintained.
I've done a trackday in it and it certainly didn't disgrace itself against Clio Sports and trackday focussed hatchbacks and it is definitely the best handling front wheel drive car I've owned.
Given how cheaply they can be bought for I think they are exceptionally good cars - very underrated and sound fantastic.....
forsure said:
120 & 160 have Rover K-series 1.8 4-cylinder (160 has a turbo).
Small engine for the size of car, and there are well known issues with the cooling system and potential head-gasket failure.
You are not kidding.. I drove a 120 the other day and frankly I could have got out and crawled faster. I wasn't after a fast car by any means but I thought It'd feel/be quicker than my 18yr old 160,000+ mile 1.8 estate...shame 'cos they are nice cars... and i cant afford to run the 160 upwards models.Small engine for the size of car, and there are well known issues with the cooling system and potential head-gasket failure.
By coincidence I also drove a 160 the same day... thats more like what I was expecting... Anyone know how the diesel compares to the 120?
Plus I was told by a salesman the k series engines in the zt's have a new head gasket to avoid the problems... Whether or not this is true I don't know though.
MoleVision said:
Anyone know how the diesel compares to the 120?
Dunno about the 120 but I've driven a V6 160, liked the diesel better and have ended up owning one. The lazy power delivery, big lumps of low-to-middling range torque, and rumbly noise of the diesel engine suit the car very well.--
JG
littlemidgetgem said:
ZR - is FWD, ZS - again is it FWD or RWD? ZT - is RWD
It's only the big V8 powered ZT260 which is RWD, the rest are all FWD - I've occasionally wondered what the 260 chassis would have been like with the 190 engine and sometimes daydreamed about the ZT20 RWD chassis with something like the big BMW 6 cylinder twin turbo diesel that's in the 535/635/735...--
JG
Poledriver said:
littlemidgetgem said:
I thought the modern MG saloons and hatches were FWD!
Glad to here the ZT is RWD
ZR - is FWD, ZS - again is it FWD or RWD? ZT - is RWD
Only the 260 is rear wheel drive. great fun but beware reliability if using as everyday drive!Glad to here the ZT is RWD
ZR - is FWD, ZS - again is it FWD or RWD? ZT - is RWD
fanastic car and soooooo unsuspecting.I'm not in the market but not worried about using anything as the daily drive - my Midge is a daily driver
Gassing Station | MG | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff