Discussion
I am off to the Prodrive test track in Kenilworth tomorrow to drive the new MG6. Has anyone already been to one of the test days already held this week & if so what is the car like to drive?
I drove a left hooker in european spec (soft suspension settings etc) up the hill at the Goodwood Moving Motors event last year so it will be interesting to see how the RHD car compares to the one i drove last year.
I drove a left hooker in european spec (soft suspension settings etc) up the hill at the Goodwood Moving Motors event last year so it will be interesting to see how the RHD car compares to the one i drove last year.
lankybob said:
I'm glad people seem to like it. Not looking forward to Top Gear telling the whole world its crap just because its an mg though.
I still don't understand the 1.8 turbo engine only producing 158bhp either.
Because turbos can be used to boost torque and even improve fuel efficiency. They don't have to be tuned to heap power into a narrow band somewhere near the redline.I still don't understand the 1.8 turbo engine only producing 158bhp either.
300bhp/ton said:
Yes, because new engines have almost nothing in common with older ones...... 
The N-series is the K-series with a stiffer block and oil rail, it was designed to be a reliability update of the K-series, taking on Land-Rovers upgrades like the steel head gasket. It was shelved when Rover died.No VVC, no high compression, no direct injection. EuroIV emissions, when some manufacturers are already exceeding EuroV with non-turboed 1.8 engines, and aiming for EuroVI.
So yes, it's still an 80s engine.
HellDiver said:
The N-series is the K-series with a stiffer block and oil rail, it was designed to be a reliability update of the K-series, taking on Land-Rovers upgrades like the steel head gasket. It was shelved when Rover died.
No VVC, no high compression, no direct injection. So yes, it's still an 80s engine.
You really are an idiot aren't you HellDriver. Do you seriosuly think ALL current production engines employ any or all of the technologies you've just mentioned???No VVC, no high compression, no direct injection. So yes, it's still an 80s engine.
lankybob said:
I'm glad people seem to like it. Not looking forward to Top Gear telling the whole world its crap just because its an mg though.
I still don't understand the 1.8 turbo engine only producing 158bhp either.
I suspect part of the answer is. This setup while not mind boggling in HP terms has taken a 118bhp engine and with the addition of a turbo has increased HP by 40hp and and broader fatter torque curve while likely retaining mpg and co2 emissions. I still don't understand the 1.8 turbo engine only producing 158bhp either.
I suspect at low boost levels it also means the stock internals should be happy, so good for costs.
I would think there will more potent versions on offer at a later date also.
Mr Gear said:
lankybob said:
I'm glad people seem to like it. Not looking forward to Top Gear telling the whole world its crap just because its an mg though.
I still don't understand the 1.8 turbo engine only producing 158bhp either.
Because turbos can be used to boost torque and even improve fuel efficiency. They don't have to be tuned to heap power into a narrow band somewhere near the redline.I still don't understand the 1.8 turbo engine only producing 158bhp either.
So called high outputs at narrow high revving power bands look good on paper and for those doing the talk down the pub. They are not the best way to go for a competent daily driver car. It's the spread of power that really does it for me. The wider the spread, the more I enjoy that engine.
If it was about high power outputs at stupidly high and narrow rpm bands and nothing below 10,000 rpm, we would all be using F1 spec engines which stall below their 7,000 rpm idle...
OK an exaggeration, but it illustrates the point. The figures rarely ever tell the story.
Until I tried a K-Series VVC, I was under the false impression ~ thanks Journos ~ that it behaved in the same way as some of the Japanese engines with trick valve gear ~ and thus not to my liking. I was wrong which I soon discovered when I tried a VVC engined car for myself and was pleasantly surprised.
I've not driven one of these MG6 Turbos cars yet and until I do, not just a quick spin round the block, I shall reserve judgement. Above all, I now never take any Motoring Journalist's assessment of any car as gospel. They have very different motoring needs and values to the average car buyer that time and again, underlines just how out of touch their inaccurate assessments of certain cars can be.
Decades ago, I did take their words as gospel. After all, they're professionals so must know what they're on about. Yeah ... right. Until I saw the light I was put off buying several cars as a result of what they wrote and in so doing, missed out on a good car until I tried one just to see how bad they are.... Yeah ... right... Cushioned against reality Motoring Journalists from Clarkson upwards, or downwards depending on your viewpoint...
... often haven't got a clue.One such journo I have little time for is Quentin Wilson. As it happens, he has given the MG6 the thumbs up. We shall see.
So, reserve judgement until you can try one for yourself. Then you will know if it suits you or not.
..
What I left out of my first comment was that other manufacturers are getting similar from a 1.4 petrol in the name of fuel efficiency. I was thinking that SAIC(right order?) maybe would have been better off working on the smaller N-series engines. The 1.8 part may put off a few buyers as they will think that the fuel consumption will be dire compared to other cars.
lankybob said:
The 1.8 part may put off a few buyers as they will think that the fuel consumption will be dire compared to other cars.
It will be. As will CO2 emissions, which mean a big bill every year.Despite what Spoonhead says, almost every manufacturer either already has or is working on a variable valve timed, direct injection, small turbocharged engine in their lineup to replace the older low output engines. Renault, Ford, GM, Hyundai, PSA - all have strong lineups of high output small engines.
Hyundai get 108PS out of a normal 1.4 litre engine, GM are getting 115hp out of a 1.6VVT, Ford have tarted up their old Sigma 1.6 with VVT to give 120hp and the same engine with a turbo and direct injection is seeing up to 180hp in the C-Max EcoBoost. Renault slapped a low pressure turbo and a different head on their ancient old 1.2 16v lump, turned it into the 1.2TCE and now it gets 100hp and replaced both the 1.4 and 1.6 engines in the Clio.
Heck, my old Vectra 1.8VVT, totally standard pulled 161hp on two rolling roads. That's 3hp more than MG's turbocharged engine. That Vectra got an average of 39mpg.
I don't see that capacity makes the blindest bit of difference to anything.
However, I suspect that you're right that this wont be an efficient engine. They desperately need either a modernish diesel or a very modern petrol engine in the line-up if they want to sell it to the general public here. Still, I'd hope it can do something approaching 40mpg on the combined cycle, even if the real world mpg is much lower (as it tends to be with turbocharged engines).
Ultimately, it's nice to have what appears to be a drivers' car in the budget sector of the family hatchback segment for the first time in god knows how long. It's clearly not a car for the people who value cuddly plastics over driving enjoyment, but for me that's a good thing, not a bad one. I'd buy one (second hand in a few years' time) if it doesn't blow its head gasket all the time.
However, I suspect that you're right that this wont be an efficient engine. They desperately need either a modernish diesel or a very modern petrol engine in the line-up if they want to sell it to the general public here. Still, I'd hope it can do something approaching 40mpg on the combined cycle, even if the real world mpg is much lower (as it tends to be with turbocharged engines).
Ultimately, it's nice to have what appears to be a drivers' car in the budget sector of the family hatchback segment for the first time in god knows how long. It's clearly not a car for the people who value cuddly plastics over driving enjoyment, but for me that's a good thing, not a bad one. I'd buy one (second hand in a few years' time) if it doesn't blow its head gasket all the time.
Edited by kambites on Thursday 24th March 18:30
The Crack Fox said:
I was hoping to drive one, as I've heard that it is OK on the road, but everything else about it seemed pretty poor (for the money). My experience with the MG6 is below;
Come to Longbridge and have a look at the new MG6 they said. So I did.
Did it come wrapped in chocolate because it looks like Kinder did the dash?Come to Longbridge and have a look at the new MG6 they said. So I did.
I love it. The blue one in the Evo link is a gorgeous car imo. I even like the interior. Yes, it looks a little cheap but TBH, most car interiors these days look pretty cheap IMO.
I think what will let it down (and I've said all along) is the fact that it uses the K-series engine. Its the failing point in ALL rovers of the last 2 decades and they are still using it. Yes, its an N-series engine with all of the uprated bits the K should have got but its still a K-series underneath.
Not that thats all bad. The K-series is a good little engine when working properly, just that they have more common problems than a lot of other engines.
Fingers crossed, MG have sorted it for good this time, although even if they have, I imagine a lot of potential buyers will be put off knowing it's still just an "unreliable old Rover".
I think what will let it down (and I've said all along) is the fact that it uses the K-series engine. Its the failing point in ALL rovers of the last 2 decades and they are still using it. Yes, its an N-series engine with all of the uprated bits the K should have got but its still a K-series underneath.
Not that thats all bad. The K-series is a good little engine when working properly, just that they have more common problems than a lot of other engines.
Fingers crossed, MG have sorted it for good this time, although even if they have, I imagine a lot of potential buyers will be put off knowing it's still just an "unreliable old Rover".
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff