RE: MG 6 | Shed of the Week
Discussion
Om said:
mooseracer said:
I think they did the same with the 6 - here is Autocar's mini-review in 2011:
"Better still is the MG 6’s chassis, which is quiet and supple, yet still controls body movements tightly. It’s clear that a great of MG Motor UK Ltd’s effort has gone into creating a convincing compromise between composure and sporting feel here, and it hasn’t wasted that effort. Hydraulic steering assistance allows for plenty of steering feel too."
Previously, in their drive of a pre-production model, they'd gone so far as to say it was a better chassis than the Focus of the time.
What do they know though? It was put together in Birmingham from some bits that came from China. It doesn't even have a German badge! "Better still is the MG 6’s chassis, which is quiet and supple, yet still controls body movements tightly. It’s clear that a great of MG Motor UK Ltd’s effort has gone into creating a convincing compromise between composure and sporting feel here, and it hasn’t wasted that effort. Hydraulic steering assistance allows for plenty of steering feel too."
Previously, in their drive of a pre-production model, they'd gone so far as to say it was a better chassis than the Focus of the time.
Some blokes on the internet who didn't know it existed before this morning will be along to put Autocar right soon.
I've always thought that these have a bit of a GM/Vauxhall influence on the interior design. A review back in the day slated it for poor paint quality. Possibly a good source for reliable K series based engines. Diesel was a copy of a BMW engine? 4 door Magnette must be very rare. IIRC Longbridge assembly wasn't much more than dropping the engine/transmission in. Design mainly done by Ricardo with some ex-Rover engineers. At least we didn't get the original MG5. At least they were in the BTCC series.
A former workplace had a diesel one of these as a pool car just after they were launched, tempted by very low lease deals from the local dealer. I did several thousand miles in it.
- A very competent suspension/chassis, fully in keeping with the obvious know-how at Longbridge and the car's shared heritage with the Rover 75/MG ZT. Comfortable but very composed, supple ride but lovely progressive body control, sharp turn-in and good steering feel. Fairly neutral unless it was pushed too hard, when the nose weight of the diesel made it understeer. Strong and very nicely progressive brakes.
- Engine (basically a Fiat JTD unit, iirc) was quite clattery when cold and at low rpm, and 'old-skool turbo diesel' in having very narrow rev range but huge torque when in that range. Very punchy performance if you were in the right gear. It did impressive MPG (but can't remember the specific figures now). Smooth, refined and easy in the cruise. It had a manual gearbox which I don't recall being either exceptionally good or notably deficient in terms of change quality (see below for other aspects...)
- Interior fit/finish was very good but the material quality was low-rent - shockingly so in some nooks and crannies. Nasty plasti-leather seats that everyone in the company, regardless of height, weight or gender, found too narrow in the shoulder. No squeaks or rattles and I don't remember anything actually breaking, but hard/scratchy plastics, flimsy trim and wobbly switches. Exterior paint finish was very good and lustrous on the 'topside' but got very thin and patchy on the underside. I recall that lots of the suspension/engine bay bolts, clamps and other little fittings began rusting after only a few months - presumably poor material or anodisation.
- The HVAC system was like something of a nuclear bunker, delivering blast furnace heat or meat locker chill and everything in between. The sat nav wouldn't accept UK postcodes so you had to settle for either heading for the town centre and then finding your way or entering Lat/Long positions.
And, the most important issue, reliability:
Appalling. When it was less than 48hrs old a pedal sensor failed so it wouldn't recognise you had your foot on the clutch and brake, which was required for it to start. After only 1800 miles or so it needed a new gearbox. At about 5000 miles it needed either a new clutch or a new clutch release mechanism. It had almost weekly engine management warning lights, and had multiple trips back to the dealer for ECU updates and various new sensors. Then the pedal sensor issue resurfaced, then at about 18mnths old it began crunching its gears. A new shift cable cured it for a few weeks then it turned out it needed Gearbox #3. The service from both the dealer and attempts to get help from MG Motor UK were shockingly bad.
So the company pulled the lease deal on the grounds the car wasn't fit for purpose and had a long fight to get rid of the car.
I found it a genuinely pleasant car to drive and it's dynamics were far, far better than a lot of more mainstream stuff with much bigger price tags (I thought the same about the original MG3, for what it's worth) but it was not a quality product, or even a functionally dependable one.
- A very competent suspension/chassis, fully in keeping with the obvious know-how at Longbridge and the car's shared heritage with the Rover 75/MG ZT. Comfortable but very composed, supple ride but lovely progressive body control, sharp turn-in and good steering feel. Fairly neutral unless it was pushed too hard, when the nose weight of the diesel made it understeer. Strong and very nicely progressive brakes.
- Engine (basically a Fiat JTD unit, iirc) was quite clattery when cold and at low rpm, and 'old-skool turbo diesel' in having very narrow rev range but huge torque when in that range. Very punchy performance if you were in the right gear. It did impressive MPG (but can't remember the specific figures now). Smooth, refined and easy in the cruise. It had a manual gearbox which I don't recall being either exceptionally good or notably deficient in terms of change quality (see below for other aspects...)
- Interior fit/finish was very good but the material quality was low-rent - shockingly so in some nooks and crannies. Nasty plasti-leather seats that everyone in the company, regardless of height, weight or gender, found too narrow in the shoulder. No squeaks or rattles and I don't remember anything actually breaking, but hard/scratchy plastics, flimsy trim and wobbly switches. Exterior paint finish was very good and lustrous on the 'topside' but got very thin and patchy on the underside. I recall that lots of the suspension/engine bay bolts, clamps and other little fittings began rusting after only a few months - presumably poor material or anodisation.
- The HVAC system was like something of a nuclear bunker, delivering blast furnace heat or meat locker chill and everything in between. The sat nav wouldn't accept UK postcodes so you had to settle for either heading for the town centre and then finding your way or entering Lat/Long positions.
And, the most important issue, reliability:
Appalling. When it was less than 48hrs old a pedal sensor failed so it wouldn't recognise you had your foot on the clutch and brake, which was required for it to start. After only 1800 miles or so it needed a new gearbox. At about 5000 miles it needed either a new clutch or a new clutch release mechanism. It had almost weekly engine management warning lights, and had multiple trips back to the dealer for ECU updates and various new sensors. Then the pedal sensor issue resurfaced, then at about 18mnths old it began crunching its gears. A new shift cable cured it for a few weeks then it turned out it needed Gearbox #3. The service from both the dealer and attempts to get help from MG Motor UK were shockingly bad.
So the company pulled the lease deal on the grounds the car wasn't fit for purpose and had a long fight to get rid of the car.
I found it a genuinely pleasant car to drive and it's dynamics were far, far better than a lot of more mainstream stuff with much bigger price tags (I thought the same about the original MG3, for what it's worth) but it was not a quality product, or even a functionally dependable one.
2xChevrons said:
The sat nav wouldn't accept UK postcodes so you had to settle for either heading for the town centre and then finding your way or entering Lat/Long positions.
Interesting insight into driving one of these long term! I never had the pleasure, but I remember Mrs D was given one as a rental away on business and found it a bit gutless but otherwise fine.The satnav /postcode thing, I seem to recall that was quite a common design flaw with built in satnavs of the era regardless of brand. At best you'd get the first segment of the postcode and the first letter of the second segment, which maybe got you close enough to send up a signal flare. Always bemusing that it was an option costing thousands of pounds yet a £100 Halfords jobby did a better job even then.
It's not exciting in any way, but as others have said it would make a decent buy for anyone who didn't care about badge or image but wanted a half-decent everyday car.
I had to laugh at the reference to the Rover P6! When my P6B was 7 years old the top mount for the De Dion rear axle pulled out of the passenger side inner wing. Before I got it fixed I had a look at the other side, and sure enough it had already been repaired. If that was Rover's finest effort no wonder the company went the way it did! It was rustier than the 9 year old Fiat it replaced.
I had to laugh at the reference to the Rover P6! When my P6B was 7 years old the top mount for the De Dion rear axle pulled out of the passenger side inner wing. Before I got it fixed I had a look at the other side, and sure enough it had already been repaired. If that was Rover's finest effort no wonder the company went the way it did! It was rustier than the 9 year old Fiat it replaced.
donkmeister said:
Interesting insight into driving one of these long term! I never had the pleasure, but I remember Mrs D was given one as a rental away on business and found it a bit gutless but otherwise fine.
Reliability aside I thought the MG6 made a good package - enjoyable to (capital D)rive, comfortable and refined when merely (small d)riving, loads of kit, spacious etc. etc. The low-rent materials and the rather agricultural engine were excused by the low price. Had it been dependable it would have made a case for itself, I feel. But as recounted, the reality was that it was dire.rottenegg said:
I don't know what the MG6 is like but the 2021 MG3 I had on loan last year had brilliant steering feel and self centering heft. Waaaaay better than anything German I've driven, but then again, improving on Merc, BMW and VAG steering isn't difficult.
I had an MG3 on loan for a weekend and spent that weekend hooning it around all my youthful haunts in the South Downs. It was brilliant fun! It basically drove like a brand new 1980s hot hatch, because that's what it was in the engineering sense - nasp. 16-valve four-pot engine, five-speed manual gearbox, Macpherson struts at the front, torsion beam at the back, hydraulic power steering. Engine was a generation or two behind the state of the art even then, with regard to ultimate power, refinement and fuel economy but the handling/roadholding was absolutely beyond reproach - absolutely planted however hard I chucked it about yet always felt buoyant and 'alive', lovely smooth gearbox, pin-sharp steering with loads of feel. And the interior was leagues better than the '6. Yes, still swathes of hard plastics but it felt rock-solid. Genuinely nice little car and very in keeping with the spirit/heritage of MG, I thought. For all they often got wrong, there were people at Longbridge who were absolute masters of taking ASDA ingredients and turning them into Fortnum & Mason driving experiences. The MG6 and MG3 exhibited that talent in spades, being far better (and more fun) to drive than they had any right to be.
Mr Tidy said:
I had to laugh at the reference to the Rover P6! When my P6B was 7 years old the top mount for the De Dion rear axle pulled out of the passenger side inner wing. Before I got it fixed I had a look at the other side, and sure enough it had already been repaired. If that was Rover's finest effort no wonder the company went the way it did! It was rustier than the 9 year old Fiat it replaced.
The P6 was the pinnacle of Rover's engineering/design prowess. Almost Citroen levels of innovation, bold thinking and clever thoughts. But the P6 was a far more mass-market car than they were used to and they always struggled to build it to decent standards. Rover took on loads of new workers to expand capacity to build the P6. These workers were not the years-served diehards who were part of the 'Rover family firm' of the old days and a lot of them came from other Birmingham firms where they had either been laid off or forced out as troublemakers - neither made them predisposed to harmonious relations or effective work. The build and material quality on the P6 started off pretty poor, reached a just-about-decent standard in the late 1960s/very early 70s then entered a nosedive to become some of the worst of the worst as BLMC and the industry as a whole went from crisis to crisis.In terms of quality the peak for Rover was late P4/early P5, when they were truly exceptionally well-turned-out cars. Even the P5 suffered towards its end, partly because of labour relations and problems at the suppliers but also because Rover refused to renew the tooling. If you have a good eye you can 'date' a P5 by how much metal is between the trailing edge of the badge on the front wing and the door shut; it gradually grew as production went on because the tooling wore so the panel 'spread'.
2xChevrons said:
A former workplace had a diesel one of these as a pool car just after they were launched, tempted by very low lease deals from the local dealer. I did several thousand miles in it.
- A very competent suspension/chassis, fully in keeping with the obvious know-how at Longbridge and the car's shared heritage with the Rover 75/MG ZT. Comfortable but very composed, supple ride but lovely progressive body control, sharp turn-in and good steering feel. Fairly neutral unless it was pushed too hard, when the nose weight of the diesel made it understeer. Strong and very nicely progressive brakes.
- Engine (basically a Fiat JTD unit, iirc) was quite clattery when cold and at low rpm, and 'old-skool turbo diesel' in having very narrow rev range but huge torque when in that range. Very punchy performance if you were in the right gear. It did impressive MPG (but can't remember the specific figures now). Smooth, refined and easy in the cruise. It had a manual gearbox which I don't recall being either exceptionally good or notably deficient in terms of change quality (see below for other aspects...)
- Interior fit/finish was very good but the material quality was low-rent - shockingly so in some nooks and crannies. Nasty plasti-leather seats that everyone in the company, regardless of height, weight or gender, found too narrow in the shoulder. No squeaks or rattles and I don't remember anything actually breaking, but hard/scratchy plastics, flimsy trim and wobbly switches. Exterior paint finish was very good and lustrous on the 'topside' but got very thin and patchy on the underside. I recall that lots of the suspension/engine bay bolts, clamps and other little fittings began rusting after only a few months - presumably poor material or anodisation.
- The HVAC system was like something of a nuclear bunker, delivering blast furnace heat or meat locker chill and everything in between. The sat nav wouldn't accept UK postcodes so you had to settle for either heading for the town centre and then finding your way or entering Lat/Long positions.
And, the most important issue, reliability:
Appalling. When it was less than 48hrs old a pedal sensor failed so it wouldn't recognise you had your foot on the clutch and brake, which was required for it to start. After only 1800 miles or so it needed a new gearbox. At about 5000 miles it needed either a new clutch or a new clutch release mechanism. It had almost weekly engine management warning lights, and had multiple trips back to the dealer for ECU updates and various new sensors. Then the pedal sensor issue resurfaced, then at about 18mnths old it began crunching its gears. A new shift cable cured it for a few weeks then it turned out it needed Gearbox #3. The service from both the dealer and attempts to get help from MG Motor UK were shockingly bad.
So the company pulled the lease deal on the grounds the car wasn't fit for purpose and had a long fight to get rid of the car.
I found it a genuinely pleasant car to drive and it's dynamics were far, far better than a lot of more mainstream stuff with much bigger price tags (I thought the same about the original MG3, for what it's worth) but it was not a quality product, or even a functionally dependable one.
https://autos- A very competent suspension/chassis, fully in keeping with the obvious know-how at Longbridge and the car's shared heritage with the Rover 75/MG ZT. Comfortable but very composed, supple ride but lovely progressive body control, sharp turn-in and good steering feel. Fairly neutral unless it was pushed too hard, when the nose weight of the diesel made it understeer. Strong and very nicely progressive brakes.
- Engine (basically a Fiat JTD unit, iirc) was quite clattery when cold and at low rpm, and 'old-skool turbo diesel' in having very narrow rev range but huge torque when in that range. Very punchy performance if you were in the right gear. It did impressive MPG (but can't remember the specific figures now). Smooth, refined and easy in the cruise. It had a manual gearbox which I don't recall being either exceptionally good or notably deficient in terms of change quality (see below for other aspects...)
- Interior fit/finish was very good but the material quality was low-rent - shockingly so in some nooks and crannies. Nasty plasti-leather seats that everyone in the company, regardless of height, weight or gender, found too narrow in the shoulder. No squeaks or rattles and I don't remember anything actually breaking, but hard/scratchy plastics, flimsy trim and wobbly switches. Exterior paint finish was very good and lustrous on the 'topside' but got very thin and patchy on the underside. I recall that lots of the suspension/engine bay bolts, clamps and other little fittings began rusting after only a few months - presumably poor material or anodisation.
- The HVAC system was like something of a nuclear bunker, delivering blast furnace heat or meat locker chill and everything in between. The sat nav wouldn't accept UK postcodes so you had to settle for either heading for the town centre and then finding your way or entering Lat/Long positions.
And, the most important issue, reliability:
Appalling. When it was less than 48hrs old a pedal sensor failed so it wouldn't recognise you had your foot on the clutch and brake, which was required for it to start. After only 1800 miles or so it needed a new gearbox. At about 5000 miles it needed either a new clutch or a new clutch release mechanism. It had almost weekly engine management warning lights, and had multiple trips back to the dealer for ECU updates and various new sensors. Then the pedal sensor issue resurfaced, then at about 18mnths old it began crunching its gears. A new shift cable cured it for a few weeks then it turned out it needed Gearbox #3. The service from both the dealer and attempts to get help from MG Motor UK were shockingly bad.
So the company pulled the lease deal on the grounds the car wasn't fit for purpose and had a long fight to get rid of the car.
I found it a genuinely pleasant car to drive and it's dynamics were far, far better than a lot of more mainstream stuff with much bigger price tags (I thought the same about the original MG3, for what it's worth) but it was not a quality product, or even a functionally dependable one.
te.com/topic/56859-warren-works-an-mg6-in-for-test-it-fails-now-pistonheads-approved-car/Here's my thread on working an MG6.
Hub said:
You would have been certifiable to buy one new, but as a throwaway shed you could do worse.
My parents bought a year old one for 11 grand I think it was, used it for 8 years and part exed it for three grand, so it cost them a grand a year, can think or worse deals really.Thing is, its not the best car out there by any means, but to be fair its 13 years old and still manages to drag itself round, pass an mot and do car stuff, when you have limited funds you need to check your prejudices at the door, could buy something better but it would only do the same job, but be a bit nicer, bit safer, but more economical but it does say 90 percent of what an Audi A4 does.
A lot on here will wax lyrical on here about some old utter rubbish because nostalgia with some added group think, then turn their noses up at something like this, I know its different criteria but it does seem rather fickle.
No desire for one, but looking past the badge and the fact its warmed over leftovers, its really not that bad as a car, its not cool, desireable or iconic by any means, but for getting from place A to B, carrying people and stuff, it will do that job pretty well.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff