RE: Shed of the Week: MG ZR

RE: Shed of the Week: MG ZR

Author
Discussion

_Neal_

2,658 posts

218 months

Saturday 18th March 2017
quotequote all
Good shed. Had a 105+ (02 plate) as my first vaguely interesting car, and really liked it. Reliable, sounded good when revved, quick enough to be interesting, handled well, sensible insurance. Fun all round, and this looks decent for the money.

Also I bought it for about £6k and sold it for about the same (about 3 weeks before Rover went under). Result.

ETA at the time it was ZR or Fiesta Zetec-s, don't regret choosing the ZR.

Edited by _Neal_ on Saturday 18th March 21:39

R400TVR

542 posts

161 months

Monday 20th March 2017
quotequote all
MadDog1962 said:
No more MGs or Rovers please.
They are all shed money for a very good reason.
It's because they are sheds.
Why is this person on PH, when they obviously don't know much about cars? Rovers were seen as old people cars, but that doesn't mean that they are bad cars. My 75 cdti is an excellent car. It's probably the best motorway car i've driven, it's more solid than most modern cars, and it's not just a bland box. Rover and MG engineers were some of the best around, and the results they got for a small budget in turning the 26, 45, and 75 into great fun cars is testament to that. If only they'd had better management, but that's a different story!

Shore

412 posts

87 months

Monday 20th March 2017
quotequote all
Back in 2011/2012 I remember buying 3 BRMs and stripping them for parts. Back then I was picking them up for £300 and would get the cost of the car back on the gearbox. Many summer nights enjoyed stripping them down. The rover community were delighted with the steady supply of parts. I remember being ban from a BRM website because the owners and members took expectation to me breaking the cars. The ones I had were rust buckets so fit for the breakers anyway.

J4CKO

41,284 posts

199 months

Monday 20th March 2017
quotequote all
BigGingerBob said:
I had a Rover 200 with the 101hp engine and am now driving a 25 with the 84hp engine.
The 101hp (105+) was an absolute peach. It loves to rev and had a character I haven't seen before in a 4 pot engine before. That is what is overlooked in these cars I think.

120k and virtually no maintenance I scrapped my 200 but my 25 is another great car. Everything works aside from a leaky aircon, no rattles and I'm going to change the throttle body to the 101hp version.

When people hate on these cars it really gets my goat. Great cars, much much better than the equivalent corsa, saxo or anything else at the time.
Bob, the only difference with the 84 BNP is the throttle body, source and fit one from a 104 Bhp version you get the missing 20 or so horses, did it on my mums with the spare one from my BRM, noticeable difference.

squirdle

60 posts

150 months

Monday 20th March 2017
quotequote all
J4CKO said:
they arent fast, but "Slug", they have 105 bhp, looked sporty and were cheap to buy and insure, suited the market, the Kia Rio 1.3 of the era had 75 bhp, easily more nippy than a car with 30 bhp more ? really ? the ZR did 60 in 10 seconds, the Kia, was 13.7.

Yours must have been poorly, used to drive the older models with the same engine all the time as company cars, could really rag the crap out of them, they handled well and had enough usable go to make decent progress, everything else of the era with a 1.4 engine was 20 or more bhp down, but they did need to be revved, they werent torquey like say an 8 valve MK2 Golf GTI which I had at the time, but though the Golf felt faster, very little in it.
'Poorly'? It was brand new. It started, went, and stopped well enough, it just didn't do any of those quickly.'Looked sporty'? Really? Compared to what? A Rover 25? The reason I bought one at all was to try to support a British manufacturer (I'd had friends who'd worked on the line at Longbridge). I repeat, more fool me.
Have you driven the Rio and the ZR, both brand new and properly looked after? If you have, then I bow to your superior judgment. If not, you'll have to take my word for it. The pick up on the throttle was much better and​ response through the gears was better too.

kambites

67,461 posts

220 months

Monday 20th March 2017
quotequote all
squirdle said:
The pick up on the throttle was much better and? response through the gears was better too.
That does sound like there was something wrong with the ZR (which is far from impossible with Rover's quality control, especially if it was a later car produced under BMW ownership). The K-series is many things but "unresponsive" is certainly not one of them; short of carbs or ITBs I'm not sure you'll find a mainstream engine with better throttle response. That's one of the reasons it's such a popular engine for sports cars.

Edited by kambites on Monday 20th March 08:57

J4CKO

41,284 posts

199 months

Monday 20th March 2017
quotequote all
squirdle said:
J4CKO said:
they arent fast, but "Slug", they have 105 bhp, looked sporty and were cheap to buy and insure, suited the market, the Kia Rio 1.3 of the era had 75 bhp, easily more nippy than a car with 30 bhp more ? really ? the ZR did 60 in 10 seconds, the Kia, was 13.7.

Yours must have been poorly, used to drive the older models with the same engine all the time as company cars, could really rag the crap out of them, they handled well and had enough usable go to make decent progress, everything else of the era with a 1.4 engine was 20 or more bhp down, but they did need to be revved, they werent torquey like say an 8 valve MK2 Golf GTI which I had at the time, but though the Golf felt faster, very little in it.
'Poorly'? It was brand new. It started, went, and stopped well enough, it just didn't do any of those quickly.'Looked sporty'? Really? Compared to what? A Rover 25? The reason I bought one at all was to try to support a British manufacturer (I'd had friends who'd worked on the line at Longbridge). I repeat, more fool me.
Have you driven the Rio and the ZR, both brand new and properly looked after? If you have, then I bow to your superior judgment. If not, you'll have to take my word for it. The pick up on the throttle was much better and? response through the gears was better too.
They sold in droves to 19 year old lads who wanted something with a dash of sportiness, they succeeded on that front, they were everywhere early 2000's.

Never had the pleasure of driving a Rio but drove loads of 25's and 200s, just cant get my head round a car with 30 bhp less, that weighs a similar amount being faster than something that always surprised me with its reasonable turn of speed, you did have to rev them to get the progress though, they werent exactly torquey.



squirdle

60 posts

150 months

Monday 20th March 2017
quotequote all
Oddball RS said:
J4CKO said:
squirdle said:
I bought one of these new in 2004. More fool me. What a slug! I did a load to it to try to make it faster, to no avail. At the same time, my wife bought a Kia Rio.(Remember the 'car for £1' ads?) The Kia, with a 1.3 engine was easily more nippy and could outdrag the ZR any time.
they arent fast, but "Slug", they have 105 bhp, looked sporty and were cheap to buy and insure, suited the market, the Kia Rio 1.3 of the era had 75 bhp, easily more nippy than a car with 30 bhp more ? really ? the ZR did 60 in 10 seconds, the Kia, was 13.7.

Yours must have been poorly, used to drive the older models with the same engine all the time as company cars, could really rag the crap out of them, they handled well and had enough usable go to make decent progress, everything else of the era with a 1.4 engine was 20 or more bhp down, but they did need to be revved, they werent torquey like say an 8 valve MK2 Golf GTI which I had at the time, but though the Golf felt faster, very little in it.
Says more about his tuning ability I think.
Perhaps, oh great tuning guru, you could enlighten me, and any other pour soul who might wish to improve the performance, what they could do?

squirdle

60 posts

150 months

Monday 20th March 2017
quotequote all
J4CKO said:
They sold in droves to 19 year old lads who wanted something with a dash of sportiness, they succeeded on that front, they were everywhere early 2000's.

Never had the pleasure of driving a Rio but drove loads of 25's and 200s, just cant get my head round a car with 30 bhp less, that weighs a similar amount being faster than something that always surprised me with its reasonable turn of speed, you did have to rev them to get the progress though, they werent exactly torquey.
I'd gone from a 200Vi to the ZR, so perhaps it lost out a little in comparison, but I still maintain that the Rio was more spritely.

Rikki55

677 posts

148 months

Monday 20th March 2017
quotequote all
Ahh I do miss my old ZR, was only the 1.4 but still went well for what it was! Seemed to be let down by extremely long gearing though - 75mph in 2nd gear! haha! But yeah.. I'd happily own another one for a cheap laugh! smile