Octavia VRS or MG ZS 180 / MG ZT 190 and why??

[broken biscuit]

Ok folks, after much pondering, I have managed to narrow my search for a new car to one of the following:

Octavia VRS (around 2002) - MG ZS 180 (mk2, 2004) - MG ZT 190 (2003)

Pros - Have had MGs before, so know the issues to look for.
Drive Octavias all day - just not VRs

Cons - Not had any dealings with the Octavia VRS, but on other hand know what running costs of MGs can be.

Anyone care to help me choose, or give me good reasons to go one way or another.

All three meet my requirements - decent size, look sporty, decent performance, ok insurance. I just cant decide whether to go back to what I know with the MGs or try the Skoda

[marcosgt]

broken biscuit said:

Ok folks, after much pondering, I have managed to narrow my search for a new car to one of the following:

Octavia VRS (around 2002) - MG ZS 180 (mk2, 2004) - MG ZT 190 (2003)

Pros - Have had MGs before, so know the issues to look for.
Drive Octavias all day - just not VRs

Cons - Not had any dealings with the Octavia VRS, but on other hand know what running costs of MGs can be.

Anyone care to help me choose, or give me good reasons to go one way or another.

All three meet my requirements - decent size, look sporty, decent performance, ok insurance. I just cant decide whether to go back to what I know with the MGs or try the Skoda

I made this decision when I bought my vRS in 2002.

MG ZS is supposed to be an ok car, but if you've looked at a ZT, it's very hard not to think of the ZS as very cheaply made... They're night and day.

The ZT was great, sounded good, went well, handled suprisingly nimbly for a big, heavy car (down my favourite twisty lane), rode well, V6 scared the elderly neighbour, but new they wanted £23K when the vRS was just £15K!

vRS - nicely made, taut, pokey, fun to drive, huge boot, much more economical than the ZT (saw 40MPG+ on one gentle motorway run - Over 30 most of the time).

If I could get a ZT for a similar price to a vRS, I'd choose the MG, because it was running costs and purchase price that put me off when I bought.

That said, I never once regretted buying the vRS and would happily have another.

M.

[miniman]

ZT's are cheap as chips. Here's mine, 76k, FSH, £1,000

[TriumphVitesse]

I would go for the MG ZT on looks alone as it stands out from the crowd. To Me the Skoda just looks like everything else, dull & boring.

And on that note I prepare to be flamed......

[kambites]

I'd go for a ZT, I think. Lovely cars.

[Chris71]

Depends on your criteria. I'd say the MGs have more character and offer better value to buy, but the vRS is a better car in most quantifiable respects (particularly fuel economy). The ZT is arguably the nicer place to sit (if a little olde worlde) but the vRS is probably better screwed together.

I'd definitely go for the ZT if your first name is Wing Commander.

[broken biscuit]

ZT is looking promising. Now to find a nice example with history and preferably that has had the belts changed. Ideally not too far from the PE postcode area. Next dilemma - saloon or tourer?

[motorbreath]

One vote here for the VRS I bought one 2 months back and am realLy enjoying it, HAD NO REGRETS! Will never get board of listeing it boost up .

Handles well, electric everything, half leather, 180bhp on tap and easyily tunable to 210 with a low cost (£300ish) re map. and most of all ts got an epic boot!

Some thing I noticed when I was looking was that they appear to be well looked after, not many abused ones out there.

Either way, hope you find a decent one!

[nottyash]

MG's are actually Rovers .........which everyone knows are dog st. They are cheap for a reason.
VRS all day long

[miniman]

nottyash said:

MG's are actually Rovers .........which everyone knows are dog st. They are cheap for a reason.
VRS all day long

Useful input.

[broken biscuit]

Found a Octavia VRS for £2800 on 02 plate - 50k miles, FSH, 2 owners, full MOT, black, all the kit, bluetooth handsfree built in, looks sweet. What kind of MPG do you get from it?

[Pentoman]

ZT.
You've got all the rest of your life to buy a turbocharged volkswagen clone.

[Dimski]

nottyash said:

MG's are actually Rovers .........which everyone knows are dog st. They are cheap for a reason.
VRS all day long

Rubbish.

The MGs are totally different to drive compared to the Rover version.

A pal has a ZS diesel with SDI injectors and a couple of other minor bits, and I suspect would give a VRS diesel a very hard time.

VRS vs ZT190, I'd go for the ZT.

If your post was an intentional wind up, feel free to insert whoosh parrot below.

[matchmaker]

broken biscuit said:

Found a Octavia VRS for £2800 on 02 plate - 50k miles, FSH, 2 owners, full MOT, black, all the kit, bluetooth handsfree built in, looks sweet. What kind of MPG do you get from it?

High of 44.5mpg.
Low of 7.8mpg


Oh, and when Autocar did a group test of the vRS, ZS and Bora 1.8T, the Skoda came out top.

Edited by matchmaker on Tuesday 23 November 20:05

[petrolsniffer]

nottyash said:

MG's are actually Rovers .........which everyone knows are dog st. They are cheap for a reason.
VRS all day long

Really? hmmm

My brothers just bought a zt with a knocking bottom end (Due to lack of Maintenance)

Both me and him have been impressed how well made it is.

[Jayho]

nottyash said:

MG's are actually Rovers .........which everyone knows are dog st. They are cheap for a reason.
VRS all day long

Yeah, very true. Except, by that point both brands were under BMW, and the MG's suspension ect were fine tuned to perform. There's a MG ZT which was developed with side by side with the BMW 3 Series and if you can get your hands on would be brilliant. Before the BMW buyover the Rover 200 and Rover 400 were developed along side the Civic's of that era, so handling shouldn't be too bad.

My friend had the mk2 MG ZS 180, and the first time I was in it I thought, boy I bet this is going to be fast in the straight, but a dog in the wet, and to my astonishment, it could hold its corners pritty well!!!

I would personally go for the MG ZS mk2 as I find it quite an attractive car, has beeen proven to me that it handles well for a big car. Buying one shouldnt cost you too much either. If your worried about the HG issues which usually come with a MG/Rover then you should do a bit of research, i'm not sure if the bigger engines are affected, but you can always buy uprated gaskets and upgrade it if you're worried.

[tr7v8]

nottyash said:

MG's are actually Rovers .........which everyone knows are dog st. They are cheap for a reason.
VRS all day long

The ZT comprehensively beat the Passat in the JD Power report for reliability. So given the Skoda is a cheap VW then what do you suppose will be the better more reliable car?

The ZS & ZT are different cars in different classes so not apples vs apples.

[Jayho]

Oh yeah, Just wait for 300BHP to get onto this thread, then you'll have all you need to know about MG's and Rovers Answered! :P

[Mike 820]

I remember reading somewhere someone saying 'ZT's are 2/3 of an m3 (m5) for 1/2 the price.

Edited by Mike 820 on Tuesday 23 November 20:51

[miniman]

Mike 820 said:

I remember reading somewhere someone saying 'ZT's are 2/3 of an m3 (m5) for 1/2 the price.

Hmmmm... not sure I'd go that far. They are, after all, front wheel drive and significantly less well built.