Tuesday 8th January 2002
MG TF
MG keep up the momentum with fresh new successor to the MGF
Discussion
They have not really developed the character of the car. Rather taken the minimalist approach. The front is a definite improvement but the back is awful.
What is it with car designers and the rear end of a vehicle ???
There seem to be so few that appear to take any time over actually designing it rather than just covering it !!
If your going to have a minimalist looking rear end then why have a boot badge and a boot lock. It spoils the look and lines. Why, when there are so many examples of badgeless and handleless cars have they done this !!!
Good effort, but could do better !
That was a real rant for me, not like me at all !!
What is it with car designers and the rear end of a vehicle ???
There seem to be so few that appear to take any time over actually designing it rather than just covering it !!
If your going to have a minimalist looking rear end then why have a boot badge and a boot lock. It spoils the look and lines. Why, when there are so many examples of badgeless and handleless cars have they done this !!!
Good effort, but could do better !
That was a real rant for me, not like me at all !!
quote:
Why was it dated at launch ?
The MGF will have proper suspension rather than Hydragas rememeber so should handle better.
What's wrong with the way an MGF handles ???? Have you ever driven one ? The only thing that needs to change is for the understeer to be dialled out. It flattens out bumps so well whilst having a fairly flat cornering stance I think it can be one of the fastest cars you get get for a twisty B road.
Oh, and it could do with 200 bhp for the straighter bits
The 160 is a VVC unit. Rumour has been rife on the MG sites that a version using the KV6 engine may be on the cards. However I would point out that this rumour has been doing the rounds for the last few years and has never materialised as a car so we'll have to wait and see.
As someone who runs an F at the moment I can say truthfully that having driven plenty of high performance cars that the F is very slow in comparison. But it is damn good fun to drive down a twisty road, it has immense reserves of grip (if you fit decent tyres rather than the OEM ones) and handles pretty well. ANd it looks a lot nicer than an MX5 if you ask me...
I'm trading in mine soon though
, so far I've driven 911's (old and lumpy), chimeras (nice but cramped), maserati Ghibli cup (cool), NSX(lovely but a bit 'safe'), BMW M3 (-image), Alpha GTV6(ok), esprit(cramped). None have totally floated my boat yet though.
However the new mg does look nice, but as the previous man said the chassis could cope with more power, and until they provide it I'll go elsewhere..
As someone who runs an F at the moment I can say truthfully that having driven plenty of high performance cars that the F is very slow in comparison. But it is damn good fun to drive down a twisty road, it has immense reserves of grip (if you fit decent tyres rather than the OEM ones) and handles pretty well. ANd it looks a lot nicer than an MX5 if you ask me...
I'm trading in mine soon though
, so far I've driven 911's (old and lumpy), chimeras (nice but cramped), maserati Ghibli cup (cool), NSX(lovely but a bit 'safe'), BMW M3 (-image), Alpha GTV6(ok), esprit(cramped). None have totally floated my boat yet though. However the new mg does look nice, but as the previous man said the chassis could cope with more power, and until they provide it I'll go elsewhere..
quote:
I'm trading in mine soon though , so far I've driven 911's (old and lumpy), chimeras (nice but cramped)
Cramped? That one surprises me - I bought a Chimaera a year & half ago (instead of a Griffith) because of the amount of space it had (for a 2-seater that is)
What part of it was cramped? Are you aware that the pedal-box is movable?
Now the new Tamora - that's cramped; I found that I could look over the windscreen & my head bangs of the roof strut. If I got one I would definately have to ditch the sieats & get something thinner.... How does Peter Wheeler fit? - I'm only 5'11 & I found it a problem.
cheers,
Craig
quote:
Cramped? That one surprises me - I bought a Chimaera a year & half ago (instead of a Griffith) because of the amount of space it had (for a 2-seater that is)
What part of it was cramped? Are you aware that the pedal-box is movable?
Didn't know that, so maybe I'll have another go.
As for owners problems on the F, it is known that the head gasget on the K series isn't the strongest and the placement of the MG engine doesn't aid cooling particularly well. However in 2 1/2 years and 48k miles in mine I haven't had any serious problems. (Exhaust Manifold replaced under warranty and a snapped gear clable - my fault that one, racing an f360 at the time!!!.....)
quote:
quote:
What's wrong with the way an MGF handles ???? Have you ever driven one ?
You have obviously never driven an MX5 to see how crap the hydragas MGF`s handle.
Any yes I have driven the new MGTF and MGF as I have been a design engineer on both projects.
OK - what aspects of the MX5 handling do you prefer to the MGF ?
And how does the handling of the TF improve over the F ?
Cheers,
Andy.
The 160 is the VVC, they've dropped the VVC moniker, that's all.
Regards
Steve Childs
webmaster www.mg-rover.org
Regards
Steve Childs
webmaster www.mg-rover.org
quote:
Hmm. Having had an MGF that I didn't fit (I'm 6'4" and my leg kept getting trapped between the steering wheel and the transmission tunnel) I'm surprised that you consider the F roomier than the Chimp!
Didn't say the F was roomier than a chimp, just that as I'm looking forward to getting away from a very cramped F, a slightly cramped chimp isn't what I'm looking for. However seems that the pedal are ajustable, so maybe I had the misfortune to try a chimp previously owned by a midget...
Cerb is the best fit of any car I've sat in yet. Oh no.......
Gassing Station | Motoring News | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff