RE: MG Montego Turbo: Time For Tea?

[alfaman]

People saying 150bhp was not great are missing the point.

The torque was epic ... way ahead of anything available at similar price like a Citroen BX 16V , or Peugeot 406 Mi16 etc etc

IIRC the in gear 30-50 and 50-70 times (maybe in 4th gear?) were 3 + seconds (?). And I seem to remember a road test in some car mag which rated the MG turbo ahead of a BMW 325i ( !!)

In hind sight a 325i is a better car in many ways - but slower ....

Cripplingly thirsty though - I struggled to get better than 25-27 mpg even on a long motorway cruise .. Shocking by today's standards..

Edited by alfaman on Thursday 24th April 05:59

[Baz Tench]

J4CKO said:

PHMatt said:

I dont get it?
150bhp from a 2.0 Turbo was surely bad then, embarrassing now?

I get their flimsy nature meant they were fairly light but it's 4.6m long, the same as my E46, that's not a little car so must still be in excess of 1k kg's?

I wouldn't put this in the same league as a Cosworth or Cavalier GSi / Turbo 4x4

No, 150 bhp was big power then, cars generally didnt have much more than 100 bhp in most cases, a normal Sierra had a 1.6 engine with 73 bhp, the Cosworth came a couple of years later with 204 bhp but it was a lot more expensive and was a homoglation special, the top Sierra in 1985 was the XR4i with about 150 bhp as well.

Supercars were much less powerful, a Testarossa had 390 bhp, a Countach which was the most barking, fastest bedroom wall adornment of the time had 450 bhp, which nowadays is not that big of a deal.

Everything does this, its called progress, tvs got bigger, mobile phones got smaller and engine power increased markedly.

Out little sub supermini Citroen C1 has 68 bhp, it is only 5 bhp down on a full size family car from
back then.

So, the Montego was a big deal really as we werent overburdened with cars with much more power, plus its still fairly quick now, 0-60 in 7.3 and 0-100 in 20 sec is not that shabby, even now.

Spot on! Plus, factor in smaller wheels, skinnier tyres, no catalytic converters, no nannying traction control to speak of and on turbo models - lag, lag, lag....boom! Off we go!

Hot hatches and turbo saloons such as the Montego felt so much more alive than anything that had come before them, and were arguably much more alive than a lot of performance stuff that came after, which had more power, but also more weight and nannying.

Edited by Baz Tench on Thursday 24th April 06:35

[ToothbrushMan]

Those old Autocar road tests really were very detailed and thorough!!

the 0-30 time for Maestro (think similar for the Monty) looks quick too at 2.6 sec given that a Classic Subaru Impreza turbo 2000 went on to do the same benchmark in 1.8sec thanks to the AWD and a 50+ bhp advantage remember.

the 50-70 time in 5th gear at 7.9 is also very good. still not bad today.

wonder if this engine would have fitted into an MG Metro? that would of been insanely quick.....

[s m]

ToothbrushMan said:

Those old Autocar road tests really were very detailed and thorough!!

the 0-30 time for Maestro (think similar for the Monty) looks quick too at 2.6 sec given that a Classic Subaru Impreza turbo 2000 went on to do the same benchmark in 1.8sec thanks to the AWD and a 50+ bhp advantage remember.

the 50-70 time in 5th gear at 7.9 is also very good. still not bad today.

wonder if this engine would have fitted into an MG Metro? that would of been insanely quick.....

There were only a few hot hatches in the 80s that got into the 6s for the 60 sprint IIRC - the Maestro Turbo, 5GT Turbo and the Astra GTE 16v

alfaman said:

People saying 150bhp was not great are missing the point.

The torque was epic ... way ahead of anything available at similar price like a Citroen BX 16V , or Peugeot 406 Mi16 etc etc

IIRC the in gear 30-50 and 50-70 times (maybe in 4th gear?) were 3 + seconds (?). And I seem to remember a road test in some car mag which rated the MG turbo ahead of a BMW 325i ( !!)

In hind sight a 325i is a better car in many ways - but slower ....

Cripplingly thirsty though - I struggled to get better than 25-27 mpg even on a long motorway cruise .. Shocking by today's standards..

Alfaman, the mag article you're possibly thinking of is Performance Car, forerunner to EVO?

It was a triple test with an Alfa 75 as well

[otolith]

I think the 16V Astra was about 7.5 to 60.

[s m]

otolith said:

I think the 16V Astra was about 7.5 to 60.

As with the Maestro turbo test above, if you pick the fastest set of figures there were tests where it was timed at 6.9 - same as with the little Renault 5GTT. I think the Maestro managed faster than the Autocar test above as well. I'll have a hunt around for the test. I think these were the only three I can remember to dip into the 6s from that era. As with all these old hatches with no traction control getting them off the mark is the art - especially on 185 tyres! It was slightly lighter than the Maestro and had a couple more horses as well - witness the time to 100 was slightly better as well, no doubt helped by the slippery shape compared to the boxier Maestro

[Limpet]

What Car achieved 0-60 in 6.9 seconds in the Astra GTE 16v when they first tested it (1987 I think). I remember that being significant enough for them to make a massive deal of it in the test itself. It's also impressive in the context of the truly appalling traction off the line which must have had a significant impact.

I don't remember the 5 GT Turbo ever being quoted in the 6s. The Maestro Turbo certainly was, as was the Civic / CRX VTEC of the era. It was a rare feat at the time.

[s m]

Limpet said:

I don't remember the 5 GT Turbo ever being quoted in the 6s.

Performance Car mag May 1987 page 44 IIRC

Edited by s m on Thursday 24th April 12:31

[GC8]

MadDog1962 said:

I recall Car magazine's the Good, Bad & the Ugly section commenting on the "appalling torque steer" of both the Montego and Maestro turbos. Neither were very well made, but they also suffered from being rather easy to steal. That meant that many of them ended up being used for ram-raids and "joyrides" before being torched.

I suspect that this was trite clichéd journalism rather than inside knowledge and fact.

Any 1985 car was easy to steal, even a Saab. Through the nineteen nineties you could steal any Vauxhall using a couple of tea spoons.

1997 was a watershed, but before that you could steal any British Ford/Austin-Rover/Vauxhall without tools if you were prepared to break the window.

[GC8]

I will correct myself, youd need something tool-like to turn the starter switch, but that could be an old key.

[s m]

GC8 said:

MadDog1962 said:

I recall Car magazine's the Good, Bad & the Ugly section commenting on the "appalling torque steer" of both the Montego and Maestro turbos. Neither were very well made, but they also suffered from being rather easy to steal. That meant that many of them ended up being used for ram-raids and "joyrides" before being torched.

I suspect that this was trite clichéd journalism rather than inside knowledge and fact.

Taglines for the most part just to fill out the section at the back of the mag.

The Montego Turbo was revised after launch to dial out a lot of the undesirable characteristics - most of the later tests reflected that

[michaelcolby83]

s m said:

ToothbrushMan said:

Those old Autocar road tests really were very detailed and thorough!!

the 0-30 time for Maestro (think similar for the Monty) looks quick too at 2.6 sec given that a Classic Subaru Impreza turbo 2000 went on to do the same benchmark in 1.8sec thanks to the AWD and a 50+ bhp advantage remember.

the 50-70 time in 5th gear at 7.9 is also very good. still not bad today.

wonder if this engine would have fitted into an MG Metro? that would of been insanely quick.....

There were only a few hot hatches in the 80s that got into the 6s for the 60 sprint IIRC - the Maestro Turbo, 5GT Turbo and the Astra GTE 16v

Correct, any car which could crack 0-60 in under 10s. was considered a fast car back then.
IIRC cars like the Sierra/Cavalier 2.0 (i.e. a faster car than most people owned) were pulling 0-60 times of just under 10s. The Montego Turbos and Maestros Turbos times of low 7s and high 6s respectively were very fast back then.

Edited by michaelcolby83 on Thursday 24th April 13:01

[J4CKO]

My Montego GTI was broken into it was saved by the two bits of wire and switch my dad put in as a rudimentary immobiliser, the screwed the lock, the cowl, the steering column, the ignition switch.

I can only revel in imagining them going to all that effort and it not starting, also, whoever it was cut themselves a bit as there was blood smerared about, how they got Tetanus or Roveritis.

Every car in the nineties had one of those crappy covers round what was left of the door lock, it was only a matter of time.

I used to work in the Arse end of Stockport at the time and had to park in the road, luckily my desk overlooked where I parked and fairly regulalrly some toerag would start hanging round, used to open the window and politely ask if I could help them, which was their cue to fk off.

[s m]

michaelcolby83 said:

s m said:

ToothbrushMan said:

Those old Autocar road tests really were very detailed and thorough!!

the 0-30 time for Maestro (think similar for the Monty) looks quick too at 2.6 sec given that a Classic Subaru Impreza turbo 2000 went on to do the same benchmark in 1.8sec thanks to the AWD and a 50+ bhp advantage remember.

the 50-70 time in 5th gear at 7.9 is also very good. still not bad today.

wonder if this engine would have fitted into an MG Metro? that would of been insanely quick.....

There were only a few hot hatches in the 80s that got into the 6s for the 60 sprint IIRC - the Maestro Turbo, 5GT Turbo and the Astra GTE 16v

Correct, any car which could crack 0-60 in under 10s. was considered a fast car back then.
IIRC cars like the Sierra/Cavalier 2.0 (i.e. a faster car than most people owned) were pulling 0-60 times of just under 10s. The Montego Turbos and Maestros Turbos times of low 7s and high 6s respectively were very fast back then.

Edited by michaelcolby83 on Thursday 24th April 13:01

The hot hatches mentioned above had, basically, contemporary BMW M3 performance at legal speeds. That was why they attracted a lot of press attention

[T66ORA]

Both quick in there day. MGR really should have introduced the Maestro Turbo a few years earlier, 5 door "hot hatches" with 150 ish BHP were pretty thin on the ground in the mid 80s.
I always take Autocar road test figures as the benchmark, so out of interest the following 0-60 (good pub talk only) times are below.

MG Maestro T ... 6.9
Phase 1 R5GTT ... 7.1
Phase 2 R5GTT... 7.3
Astra 16v .... 7.6

You could, of course quote lots of other Magazines Figures, plus 0-60 times are hardly representative of a cars overall performance, but makes for good debate

[s m]

T66ORA said:

0-60 times are hardly representative of a cars overall performance, but makes for good debate

Especially not 80s hatches with no traction control and 185/195 tyres

[Dave Hedgehog]

horrible to look at inside and out

i do not miss them from the roads

[otolith]

s m said:

T66ORA said:

0-60 times are hardly representative of a cars overall performance, but makes for good debate

Especially not 80s hatches with no traction control and 185/195 tyres

It's interesting how close the Maestro gets to a 2002 Civic Type-R (200bhp c.1200kg) to 60 and how very far off it is to 100.

[s m]

otolith said:

s m said:

T66ORA said:

0-60 times are hardly representative of a cars overall performance, but makes for good debate

Especially not 80s hatches with no traction control and 185/195 tyres

It's interesting how close the Maestro gets to a 2002 Civic Type-R (200bhp c.1200kg) to 60 and how very far off it is to 100.

Does better against the 2007 Type R though ( which was timed over 2 second slower to 3 figures ). So many variables with track conditions, tester etc

[otolith]

s m said:

Does better against the 2007 Type R though ( which was timed over 2 second slower to 3 figures ). So many variables with track conditions, tester etc

More weight, no more power.