What MPG from a MGZS 2.5V6 ?
Discussion
Thinking of buying an MGZS 2.5V6.............
Owned an MGZS 1.8 before & really liked it. However I have always fancied the 2.5V6, seems a lot of car for very little money. However, would I be making a HUGE mistake?
I commute 44 miles a day round trip, average speed for 80% of that is 50mph so what MPG could I expect? Is 35mpg at this steady speed too much to ask?
Whats the road tax? Is it in a very high bracket due to engine size?
What are the things to look out for except timing belt replacements and rattling inlet manifolds?
All in all, are they a good car or should they be avoided? Will it bankrupt Me on running costs?
Please no daft 'Its a Rover so its s
t' comments! I like MG's and thats it, I'm not a fan of so called 'superior' cars like Golfs/BMW's/Audi's/Volvo's etc, to Me they are dull!
Any advice etc greatly appreciated!
Owned an MGZS 1.8 before & really liked it. However I have always fancied the 2.5V6, seems a lot of car for very little money. However, would I be making a HUGE mistake?
I commute 44 miles a day round trip, average speed for 80% of that is 50mph so what MPG could I expect? Is 35mpg at this steady speed too much to ask?
Whats the road tax? Is it in a very high bracket due to engine size?
What are the things to look out for except timing belt replacements and rattling inlet manifolds?
All in all, are they a good car or should they be avoided? Will it bankrupt Me on running costs?
Please no daft 'Its a Rover so its s
t' comments! I like MG's and thats it, I'm not a fan of so called 'superior' cars like Golfs/BMW's/Audi's/Volvo's etc, to Me they are dull!Any advice etc greatly appreciated!
I got just over 30mpg from my old ZS180 saloon. That was mostly on motorways, but at quite an enthusiastic rate.
Good cars? Yes. More to the point they're hugely undervalued. Not quite up there with things like the Civic Type R perhaps, but they're 90% there and only 40% of the price. They're also a massive step on from the Rover 400, so if you've ever had the misfortune to drive one don't hold it against the ZS (and possibly the 45 to be fair).
No major problems that I'm aware of. The variable intake system (VIS) has a habit of packing in, but that's not the end of the world. A lot of people hear the K in KV6 and assume the head gaskets will pop left right and centre, but I'm not aware of this being a problem.
Oh, only thing - if you have to carry large lumps, like mountain bikes or anything like that, you might be better off with the hatchback as the saloon has a sort of panel between the back seats and the boot. There's still a hole to poke things through when the seats are folded, but you don't get the full area if that makes sense. The hatchback is smaller overall, but you don't have the panel in the way. On a related note, some people claim the saloon's bodyshell is more rigid than the coupe. I can't say I noticed a huge difference on the only brief drive I've done in a ZS180 hatch, but it is alleged to be noticeable!
Good cars? Yes. More to the point they're hugely undervalued. Not quite up there with things like the Civic Type R perhaps, but they're 90% there and only 40% of the price. They're also a massive step on from the Rover 400, so if you've ever had the misfortune to drive one don't hold it against the ZS (and possibly the 45 to be fair).
No major problems that I'm aware of. The variable intake system (VIS) has a habit of packing in, but that's not the end of the world. A lot of people hear the K in KV6 and assume the head gaskets will pop left right and centre, but I'm not aware of this being a problem.
Oh, only thing - if you have to carry large lumps, like mountain bikes or anything like that, you might be better off with the hatchback as the saloon has a sort of panel between the back seats and the boot. There's still a hole to poke things through when the seats are folded, but you don't get the full area if that makes sense. The hatchback is smaller overall, but you don't have the panel in the way. On a related note, some people claim the saloon's bodyshell is more rigid than the coupe. I can't say I noticed a huge difference on the only brief drive I've done in a ZS180 hatch, but it is alleged to be noticeable!
Cheers, seems like a good car then! Seen a really nice one with service history for £1500 with a full test & taxed. Seems there are quite a lot around for this price to be honest. If you were getting 30mpg and not particularly driving economically then I probably wont notice the difference in economy between that and my Mk1 MX5 which does around 35mpg max.
Oh & I want a saloon, I'm not a hatchback fan no matter how practical and I do think the saloon looks better. Put it this way, if I get a really nice example are the bikes going to be allowed on the back? Not a chance! The bike rack can go on the missus's Micra!!
Oh & I want a saloon, I'm not a hatchback fan no matter how practical and I do think the saloon looks better. Put it this way, if I get a really nice example are the bikes going to be allowed on the back? Not a chance! The bike rack can go on the missus's Micra!!
Funny enough I had a mk1 MX5 before that - I got about 5mpg more out of the Mazda on the same commute.
You gotta get one in Trophy Blue! Mine was a slightly anonymous silver colour and it didn't look anything like as good as the blue saloon I now see every morning. Bikes were no great issue, but I'm a mountain biking nut and the MTB was worth nearly as much as the car so I didn't dare perch it on a rack.
Have fun with the search. £1,500 does sound particularly good. I didn't realise they'd got quite that low for good examples, but I think they're good value at twice that. There are enough about to shop around and get a good one. Just avoid (mechanically) noise engines or any dubious modifications.
You gotta get one in Trophy Blue! Mine was a slightly anonymous silver colour and it didn't look anything like as good as the blue saloon I now see every morning. Bikes were no great issue, but I'm a mountain biking nut and the MTB was worth nearly as much as the car so I didn't dare perch it on a rack.
Have fun with the search. £1,500 does sound particularly good. I didn't realise they'd got quite that low for good examples, but I think they're good value at twice that. There are enough about to shop around and get a good one. Just avoid (mechanically) noise engines or any dubious modifications.
Chris71 said:
I got just over 30mpg from my old ZS180 saloon. That was mostly on motorways, but at quite an enthusiastic rate.
Good cars? Yes. More to the point they're hugely undervalued. Not quite up there with things like the Civic Type R perhaps, but they're 90% there and only 40% of the price. They're also a massive step on from the Rover 400, so if you've ever had the misfortune to drive one don't hold it against the ZS (and possibly the 45 to be fair).
No major problems that I'm aware of. The variable intake system (VIS) has a habit of packing in, but that's not the end of the world. A lot of people hear the K in KV6 and assume the head gaskets will pop left right and centre, but I'm not aware of this being a problem.
Oh, only thing - if you have to carry large lumps, like mountain bikes or anything like that, you might be better off with the hatchback as the saloon has a sort of panel between the back seats and the boot. There's still a hole to poke things through when the seats are folded, but you don't get the full area if that makes sense. The hatchback is smaller overall, but you don't have the panel in the way. On a related note, some people claim the saloon's bodyshell is more rigid than the coupe. I can't say I noticed a huge difference on the only brief drive I've done in a ZS180 hatch, but it is alleged to be noticeable!
Don't know which model 400 you drove, but in fairness I have to say that my old 400 (SLDi turbo), in which I covered over 100,000 miles was better put together and much more comfy than my present ZS. Yes, the ZS handles superbly on the stiffer settings, but the 400 (correctly maintained)) handled exceptionally well too.Good cars? Yes. More to the point they're hugely undervalued. Not quite up there with things like the Civic Type R perhaps, but they're 90% there and only 40% of the price. They're also a massive step on from the Rover 400, so if you've ever had the misfortune to drive one don't hold it against the ZS (and possibly the 45 to be fair).
No major problems that I'm aware of. The variable intake system (VIS) has a habit of packing in, but that's not the end of the world. A lot of people hear the K in KV6 and assume the head gaskets will pop left right and centre, but I'm not aware of this being a problem.
Oh, only thing - if you have to carry large lumps, like mountain bikes or anything like that, you might be better off with the hatchback as the saloon has a sort of panel between the back seats and the boot. There's still a hole to poke things through when the seats are folded, but you don't get the full area if that makes sense. The hatchback is smaller overall, but you don't have the panel in the way. On a related note, some people claim the saloon's bodyshell is more rigid than the coupe. I can't say I noticed a huge difference on the only brief drive I've done in a ZS180 hatch, but it is alleged to be noticeable!
Such a shame that 'safety' regulations now seem to dictate the fitting of seats like planks of wood.
On balance I'd rather they'd kept up the build quality, apart from the rusty arches of course.
It was on of the rounded off Rover 45 shaped ones, but before they rebranded. I've driven several of the original square shape Rover 200s and was actually quite impressed - I can imagine the 400 of the generation was a decent car too.
For that matter it's entirely possible the later one I drove was a poor example, but it was truly staggeringly bad. Somehow it managed to possess no traction at the same time as quite dramatic torque steer, it wallowed like a small boat in a large storm (can't remember the mileage, but it was well under 80,000 miles...) and the brakes were appalling. The steering was vague and disconcertingly unprecise.
It was, however, a garage courtessy car, which probably explains quite a lot. It wasn't that old and the mileage wasn't that high though.
For that matter it's entirely possible the later one I drove was a poor example, but it was truly staggeringly bad. Somehow it managed to possess no traction at the same time as quite dramatic torque steer, it wallowed like a small boat in a large storm (can't remember the mileage, but it was well under 80,000 miles...) and the brakes were appalling. The steering was vague and disconcertingly unprecise.
It was, however, a garage courtessy car, which probably explains quite a lot. It wasn't that old and the mileage wasn't that high though.
Mine was a 1997 420 diesel (103bhp), with all the extras including 4 leccy windows. Tightarses only put front ones on this ZS 115 +.
Couldn't fault the car really, and I do like to 'press on'.
Never missed a beat, used no oil, and sold her at 160,000 still running great.
Always looked after though.
Oh, also had a 200SDi (rounded shape). Not as comfy as the 400, and lacking in headroom for me.
Didn't keep it long.
Couldn't fault the car really, and I do like to 'press on'.
Never missed a beat, used no oil, and sold her at 160,000 still running great.
Always looked after though.
Oh, also had a 200SDi (rounded shape). Not as comfy as the 400, and lacking in headroom for me.
Didn't keep it long.Edited by grahamw48 on Wednesday 19th May 22:34
Gassing Station | MG | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff