RE: Shed of the Week: MG ZS180
Discussion
rallycross said:
Not long after having the ZS I bought one of the mentioned above Civic 1.8 Vti to compare them back to back (as a DC2 fan I was expecting something quite special) and that Honda was an absolute dud, a stonking engine mated to the wrong gearing to blunt its performance, and dreadfull bouncy suspension and light steering, just no good in any respect, which surpsied me but also made me appreciate just how good Rover made that MG ZS180 in terms of handling, grip and grunt.
I had an MB6 civic as well as the ZS180, and I totally agree with the above. The handling with standard suspension was mediocre at best, certainly nowhere near the ZS180. There was also a annoying gap in the gearbox ratios and the engine, whilst not terrible, was not a patch on the B16 in the EK Civic VTi. It just never had the same kind of urgency and enthusiasm to rev. Didn't keep that one for long.AlexC1981 said:
Jex said:
My 1988 XR4x4 had 150 bhp from a 2.8 litre V6
And a 1988 Rover 800 would have had 169bhp from a 2.7 litre V6. Manufacturers tend to tailor the engine output to suit the application, not go for all out power. My dad had one and I’ve always wanted one. Very rare now
Jimmy Recard said:
AlexC1981 said:
Jex said:
My 1988 XR4x4 had 150 bhp from a 2.8 litre V6
And a 1988 Rover 800 would have had 169bhp from a 2.7 litre V6. Manufacturers tend to tailor the engine output to suit the application, not go for all out power. My dad had one and I’ve always wanted one. Very rare now
I went for a driver coaching session at Thruxton 15 years ago. They wheeled one of these out.
Within half a lap I was hugely impressed. Lovely linear power delivery, very throttle-adjustable handling, super damping.
It reminded me of a Mk1 Focus ST170. The same quality of damping and steering.
Good shed.
Within half a lap I was hugely impressed. Lovely linear power delivery, very throttle-adjustable handling, super damping.
It reminded me of a Mk1 Focus ST170. The same quality of damping and steering.
Good shed.
Redlake27 said:
I went for a driver coaching session at Thruxton 15 years ago. They wheeled one of these out.
Within half a lap I was hugely impressed. Lovely linear power delivery, very throttle-adjustable handling, super damping.
It reminded me of a Mk1 Focus ST170. The same quality of damping and steering.
Good shed.
When these came out, my friend was a salesman at Carnelian, the MG dealer in Shrewsbury. He came round in one to show me as he was so impressed with the car and knew I'd like it. Nice V6 noise and the brakes were excellentWithin half a lap I was hugely impressed. Lovely linear power delivery, very throttle-adjustable handling, super damping.
It reminded me of a Mk1 Focus ST170. The same quality of damping and steering.
Good shed.
Every track test I've seen of standard road cars these are almost identical time wise to a Clio 172
dme123 said:
Jimmy Recard said:
AlexC1981 said:
Jex said:
My 1988 XR4x4 had 150 bhp from a 2.8 litre V6
And a 1988 Rover 800 would have had 169bhp from a 2.7 litre V6. Manufacturers tend to tailor the engine output to suit the application, not go for all out power. My dad had one and I’ve always wanted one. Very rare now
I'm a self confessed MGR fan, but these never really did it for me.
They are in the traditional of MG certainly from the 1960s. The idea of making sporting versions of Austin's Morris etc. I think the concept worked well in the ZR and the ZT. (I had a ZT-T V6) but the MG add-ons don't sit well for me on the Rover 400. And that rear wing! No, just no.
If this was the V6 Rover version, I'd have a different view.
That said, for the money this could be fun for someone. I love the idea of a big V6 in a family car.
I'd rather spend my money on a ZT or, if I could find one that escaped the council estate, a ZR 160 in a monogram shade.
They are in the traditional of MG certainly from the 1960s. The idea of making sporting versions of Austin's Morris etc. I think the concept worked well in the ZR and the ZT. (I had a ZT-T V6) but the MG add-ons don't sit well for me on the Rover 400. And that rear wing! No, just no.
If this was the V6 Rover version, I'd have a different view.
That said, for the money this could be fun for someone. I love the idea of a big V6 in a family car.
I'd rather spend my money on a ZT or, if I could find one that escaped the council estate, a ZR 160 in a monogram shade.
Well haven’t we proved that this is king amongst sheds. 6 pages of comments, some good, some bad. Whether you love or marmite hate it you have to admit that it’s nice to be able to discuss a British built motor nowadays.
The ZR, ZS and ZT make great everyday runners and can be purchased for a little amount of money. There are less available now as sensible people are buying them, taking them off the road and storing them.
I have fond memories of watching the owners circuit parades at the BTCC of ZR, ZS and ZTs.
I run a daily ZT 190 in Trophy Blue with 70k on the clock that cost a mere £600. It’s a great runner.
The ZR, ZS and ZT make great everyday runners and can be purchased for a little amount of money. There are less available now as sensible people are buying them, taking them off the road and storing them.
I have fond memories of watching the owners circuit parades at the BTCC of ZR, ZS and ZTs.
I run a daily ZT 190 in Trophy Blue with 70k on the clock that cost a mere £600. It’s a great runner.
Having owned a few MG’s I will say that the handling on the ZT was superb. It felt like a heavy car but handled great. My ZT is the only car I miss owning. The steering was almost as good as my parents 2016 BMW 335. That says a lot. I would not buy an MG ever again but I do still have the odd moment where I think yes, let’s get another ZT. Spoke to many who own a ZS and they love it.
Wildcat45 said:
I'm a self confessed MGR fan, but these never really did it for me.
They are in the traditional of MG certainly from the 1960s. The idea of making sporting versions of Austin's Morris etc. I think the concept worked well in the ZR and the ZT. (I had a ZT-T V6) but the MG add-ons don't sit well for me on the Rover 400. And that rear wing! No, just no.
I'd rather spend my money on a ZT or, if I could find one that escaped the council estate, a ZR 160 in a monogram shade.
I've never driven a ZS and they have always garnered praise for how they drive. Given how tidily the ZR and ZT drive I have no reason to doubt it, but I also find that on pure aesthetics the ZS is one of the trio which sits the worst with me, inside and out. They are in the traditional of MG certainly from the 1960s. The idea of making sporting versions of Austin's Morris etc. I think the concept worked well in the ZR and the ZT. (I had a ZT-T V6) but the MG add-ons don't sit well for me on the Rover 400. And that rear wing! No, just no.
I'd rather spend my money on a ZT or, if I could find one that escaped the council estate, a ZR 160 in a monogram shade.
All MGs have been far from bespoke (remember what the initials stand for!) and using mundane mechancial parts to startlingly good effect has kind of been the marque's USP for 90-odd years. They've taken all sorts of insipid dross (from 1938 Morris Ten to Wolseley 4/44 to Morris 1100 to Austin Metro to Rover 75) and made it sparkle. But the ZS seems too many degrees removed. It's a Honda Civic turned into a Rover turned into an MG. I'm pretty sure none of that would matter to me if I drove one, but judging them from a distance that's what striked me.
The Z-cars are a sad reminder of how much talent there was at Rover/MG-Rover. With fairly uninspiring starting points and minimal budget they consistently turned out some of the most entertaining and well-resolved driving enthusiast's cars on the market. Not the fastest, not the most efficient and certainly not the most reliable but they are all a hoot to drive and they all have personality.
Arklight said:
Good timing PH, i have just picked up a lovely MkII in the last week, Its had all the niggles sorted with an ITG filter on it plus a nice sheddist clutch kit.
It'll be accompanying the existing ZR160 as part of the growing sub 1k track-day fleet, absolutely fantastic handling cars and can keep most thing honest in the bends.
I've not had anything for anywhere near the same price that has come near them.
I missed this pic paging through - looks very smart in that colour and the later spec......especially for the money!It'll be accompanying the existing ZR160 as part of the growing sub 1k track-day fleet, absolutely fantastic handling cars and can keep most thing honest in the bends.
I've not had anything for anywhere near the same price that has come near them.
These had the slightly wider rims didn't they?
When you take into account the performance they offer ( E30 325 Sport ) combined with the handling it's worth getting the belts done
Spritely off the line for a fwd car too - 60 in 7 seconds - a 330 BMW with extra power and rwd launch is only tenths quicker
I am slightly biased as I own a couple, but it has to be one of the best handling cars I’ve driven on track, which is why I use it as a race car. With choice modifications it will embarrass some much more expensive machinery on track 😂 power wise you are a little limited with the bottom end unless you spend considerable amounts of money. But you can see around 230bhp with cams, ITG intake, janspeed manifolds and decent exhaust, then a bit of rolling road tuning. Suspension wise replacing the bushes for polybushes is a great start unfortunately there are a lot of them, and then a decent set of coilovers. Brakes are suprisingly good with a decent set of pads and discs. And weight wise you can get down to near enough 1000kg by putting the car on a pretty severe diet.
But like I said I’m slightly biased, there’s no badge snobbery here I just know a good car when I drive one. Build quality wise if you get an early mk1 they are much better built than the later mk2’s before they cost cutting brigade got their way at mgr.
Few pics of mine if you are interested
But like I said I’m slightly biased, there’s no badge snobbery here I just know a good car when I drive one. Build quality wise if you get an early mk1 they are much better built than the later mk2’s before they cost cutting brigade got their way at mgr.
Few pics of mine if you are interested
kambites said:
Fair enough but why wouldn't you just buy Civic Type-R? It'd be far cheaper. 
I love high reving engines, but I'd take a 7000rpm V6 over an 8000rpm i4, all things being equal.
My point was that if the transplant was easy, a B Series can be made to produce 230bhp pretty cheaply and you’ve got yourself a cheap Honda-ish. I love high reving engines, but I'd take a 7000rpm V6 over an 8000rpm i4, all things being equal.
I had a 2003 saloon (Mk1 with small spoiler) from new for 6 years. They are great cars to drive and lots of fun. I replaced it with a Focus ST 2.5 which is faster and more refined/better ride but the MG felt more alert and handled better.
The best bits were:
1) the characterful and tractable engines (pull from 30mph in top no problem).
2) the handling and steering feel.
3) the space, especially the boot for a car of its size.
The less good bits were basically the Honda derived items.
1) the dashboard was very dated and not really that nice even when the Rover 400/Civic of the generation were new - a step backwards after the previous R8.
2) the car felt very tinny - basically a car based on a mid 90s Honda and it really showed. Compared with the R75/ZT the difference in solidity was enormous and you would struggle to believe they were both built by the same company.
3) linked to the above, the chassis set-up felt more rigid than the body - a slightly peculiar sensation and the complete opposite of the R75/ZT with was a very solid car. I have no doubt that a ZS fitted with front an rear strut braces and possibly even a cage would handle even better without the compromise in structural rigidity of the Honda-designed body.
4) average refinement thanks to build and lightweight.
However, what makes the ZS a less good road car actually helps make it a great track car - excellent feel, great (firm) chassis and lightweight build + a very reliable Rover built engine with lots of character. A ZT is a great road car, but a ZS is the better track car. If I were to be in a position to buy a track day only car then a ZS 180 or an RX8 R3 (another underestimated car) would be my choices.
The best bits were:
1) the characterful and tractable engines (pull from 30mph in top no problem).
2) the handling and steering feel.
3) the space, especially the boot for a car of its size.
The less good bits were basically the Honda derived items.
1) the dashboard was very dated and not really that nice even when the Rover 400/Civic of the generation were new - a step backwards after the previous R8.
2) the car felt very tinny - basically a car based on a mid 90s Honda and it really showed. Compared with the R75/ZT the difference in solidity was enormous and you would struggle to believe they were both built by the same company.
3) linked to the above, the chassis set-up felt more rigid than the body - a slightly peculiar sensation and the complete opposite of the R75/ZT with was a very solid car. I have no doubt that a ZS fitted with front an rear strut braces and possibly even a cage would handle even better without the compromise in structural rigidity of the Honda-designed body.
4) average refinement thanks to build and lightweight.
However, what makes the ZS a less good road car actually helps make it a great track car - excellent feel, great (firm) chassis and lightweight build + a very reliable Rover built engine with lots of character. A ZT is a great road car, but a ZS is the better track car. If I were to be in a position to buy a track day only car then a ZS 180 or an RX8 R3 (another underestimated car) would be my choices.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff