RE: MG ZS 180 | Shed of the Week
Discussion
stickleback123 said:
Rover V8 - frequent HGF at 100k but the engine was worn out by then anywayz
Yep, camshafts made out of chocolate. Not really acceptable on an engine produced right up to the late 90s/early 00s!Edited by stickleback123 on Friday 22 November 13:33
Also before anyone flames me I have owned a Classic Range Rover 3.5, 4.0 P38, TVR 350i and a TVR Chimaera. I'm just a realist I guess
Edited to add I have also owned a facelift MG ZT V6.
ruprechtmonkeyboy said:
Headgaskets are always a problem on Rovers.
Not so. Once the head gasket on the K series is replaced with a new mls gasket along with the dowels and new headbolts it's no more trouble.
The issue with the original gaskets were the raised rubber seals around the water way's which degraded with time/mileage.
I owned one of these when it was brand new. I loved it and felt it was a bit special, just thought it was a bit dated looking and some of the interior bits were a bit scratchy. However the power and handling were enough to still make me smile. It's a shame rather than throwing loads of money at the MG Xpower they should have re bodied it with bold, modern styling, lights, better interior and sold it as a coupe, convertible and saloon, and they would have had a winner.
Edited by Sootyboy on Friday 22 November 19:24
Smitters said:
monzaxjr said:
Worked on these and PDI'd them when new. Yes the quality was truely appalling. Cheapest of crap fitted to the interior, you could spit through the cheap leather on seats. Had cars coming from the production line with panels that had been painted on the outside but not the inside. Cars that had electric windows fitted but winders fitted to the doorcards, same with the mirrors, both manual and electric adjusments fitted. Cars that leaked like a sieve when split new. As mentioned previously they had problems with the VIS, thermostat, water pumps were bad for leaking and the belts are a pig of a job. The cylinder head casting was also extremely bad. However they drove great when working properly.
I'm sure there's a whole thread in this, if you felt like starting one... hint, hint.
ruprechtmonkeyboy said:
Yep, camshafts made out of chocolate. Not really acceptable on an engine produced right up to the late 90s/early 00s!
Also before anyone flames me I have owned a Classic Range Rover 3.5, 4.0 P38, TVR 350i and a TVR Chimaera. I'm just a realist I guess
Edited to add I have also owned a facelift MG ZT V6.
And yet even VW had chocolate camshaft issues with the pd150. The 2.0tfsi wasn't exactly a great example of a reliable engine either. I'd have said that should be more damaging to VAG than it is, rather than Rover having a slightly hyped up flakey engine reputation. Also before anyone flames me I have owned a Classic Range Rover 3.5, 4.0 P38, TVR 350i and a TVR Chimaera. I'm just a realist I guess
Edited to add I have also owned a facelift MG ZT V6.
km666 said:
ruprechtmonkeyboy said:
Yep, camshafts made out of chocolate. Not really acceptable on an engine produced right up to the late 90s/early 00s!
Also before anyone flames me I have owned a Classic Range Rover 3.5, 4.0 P38, TVR 350i and a TVR Chimaera. I'm just a realist I guess
Edited to add I have also owned a facelift MG ZT V6.
And yet even VW had chocolate camshaft issues with the pd150. The 2.0tfsi wasn't exactly a great example of a reliable engine either. I'd have said that should be more damaging to VAG than it is, rather than Rover having a slightly hyped up flakey engine reputation. Also before anyone flames me I have owned a Classic Range Rover 3.5, 4.0 P38, TVR 350i and a TVR Chimaera. I'm just a realist I guess
Edited to add I have also owned a facelift MG ZT V6.
tshow is rather disingenuous. After the early 1980s the only wise engine choice in any Rover was the one that had arrived in a crate from Japan.If my memory is still operating - the MGZS never competed in BTCC as many think.
Seem to remember it was, for homologation purposes, the Rover 45 2.0 Auto that was technically the car used in BTCC - of course no one really cared and they had MG badges andd of course no relationship to a 45 in engineering, but it always made me giggle that a car which had a delete hat on parcel shelf option was supposed to be the one that the lads threw around the circuits.
Seem to remember it was, for homologation purposes, the Rover 45 2.0 Auto that was technically the car used in BTCC - of course no one really cared and they had MG badges andd of course no relationship to a 45 in engineering, but it always made me giggle that a car which had a delete hat on parcel shelf option was supposed to be the one that the lads threw around the circuits.
Numeric said:
If my memory is still operating - the MGZS never competed in BTCC as many think.
Seem to remember it was, for homologation purposes, the Rover 45 2.0 Auto that was technically the car used in BTCC - of course no one really cared and they had MG badges andd of course no relationship to a 45 in engineering, but it always made me giggle that a car which had a delete hat on parcel shelf option was supposed to be the one that the lads threw around the circuits.
Yawn.Seem to remember it was, for homologation purposes, the Rover 45 2.0 Auto that was technically the car used in BTCC - of course no one really cared and they had MG badges andd of course no relationship to a 45 in engineering, but it always made me giggle that a car which had a delete hat on parcel shelf option was supposed to be the one that the lads threw around the circuits.
Well they look great, for sure.
Back in the mid-2000s I was talking to a work colleague who had one as a company car for 3 years and loved it - I can't remember what he got next, but he wasn't nearly as impressed!
But this must have been developed when MG/Rover were owned by BMW, so it ought to have handled pretty well. After all the R series BMW Minis handled brilliantly from day one.
And my 2002 BMW E46 325ti Sport Compact handled really well, but it would be interesting to see how the MG felt compared to that.
Back in the mid-2000s I was talking to a work colleague who had one as a company car for 3 years and loved it - I can't remember what he got next, but he wasn't nearly as impressed!
But this must have been developed when MG/Rover were owned by BMW, so it ought to have handled pretty well. After all the R series BMW Minis handled brilliantly from day one.
And my 2002 BMW E46 325ti Sport Compact handled really well, but it would be interesting to see how the MG felt compared to that.
Massive soft spot for the ZS. I bought one as my first car, as a fresh-faced driver back in 2008. I only had the cooking-spec 120bhp engine, but as an 18 year old it was the fastest car in the college car park, and I echo the comments about it handling amazingly well for what was effectively a Rover 45 sport.
I miss that car. If I had space I'd probably buy another one to run as a shed. Funnily enough, my love of the ZS led me to Imprezas, and I've had a sheddy Impreza on the drive for a few years now.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff