RE: MG ZS 180 | Shed of the Week
Discussion
Mr Tidy said:
After all the R series BMW Minis handled brilliantly from day one.
Probably because they were developed by MG/Rover. 
I don't think BMW had much input into to the design of the cars produced by MG and Rover under their stewardship other than to insist on cutting costs and reducing quality. Don't get be wrong, MGs and Rovers produced before the BMW takeover were hardly a paragon of quality control and reliability but things got far worse after BMW took over.
Edited by kambites on Saturday 23 November 13:36
kambites said:
Mr Tidy said:
After all the R series BMW Minis handled brilliantly from day one.
Probably because they were developed by MG/Rover. I don't think BMW had much input into to the design of the cars produced by MG and Rover under their stewardship other than to insist on cutting costs and reducing quality. Don't get be wrong, MGs and Rovers produced before the BMW takeover were hardly a paragon of quality control and reliability but things got far worse after BMW took over.
Edited by kambites on Saturday 23 November 13:36
It was also BMW who foisted the rather tepid Chrysler engine on the car. Rover were very keen to use the K-series, but apparently bonnet clearance was an issue. BMW's solution was to unilaterally force them to use another engine. For all it's foibles, I think a K-series engined R50 mini would have been great.
The same article talked about the genesis of the Rover 45 and MG ZS. It was supposed to rekindle the happy relationship between Rover and Honda that led to the Rover 600, however Honda were much more controlling about the design process the second time around. Rover became so frustrated and almost abandoned the project until Honda made a couple of last-minute concessions. As such, the Rover 45 and MG ZS really are more Honda than Rover. Not sure that applies to build-quality though...
I managed to buy a spotless, one-owner, face-lift MG ZS 180 about a year ago. It had been meticulously kept, with no expense-spared and even undersealed. Recent new belts, recent new intake manifold, ITG maxogen intake. The only thing it needed was the sheddist clutch. The first owner had the good judgement to order it without the silly wing and, in black, it made a very smart but understated car.
I didn't expect very much of it, but thought it would be an interesting, cheap family car. We fell in love with it. The engine sounded nice, the interior was comfy if dated, and it was the best-handling FWD car I've ever driven. We decided to maintain it and keep it as long as possible.
Had it six months before some miserable, old sow rear-ended it and turned it into a CAT B. I've scoured the classifieds since and not found another quite as good.
NDNDNDND said:
Annoyingly I can't find the article now, but apparently BMW were quite interfering when it came to the development of the R50 mini. Apparently Rover wanted to use double-wishbone front suspension, but BMW insisted upon MacPherson struts as it was some sort of 'BMW design philosophy'. On the other hand, BMW did let them use their Z-axle for the rear.
It was also BMW who foisted the rather tepid Chrysler engine on the car. Rover were very keen to use the K-series, but apparently bonnet clearance was an issue. BMW's solution was to unilaterally force them to use another engine. For all it's foibles, I think a K-series engined R50 mini would have been great.
The same article talked about the genesis of the Rover 45 and MG ZS. It was supposed to rekindle the happy relationship between Rover and Honda that led to the Rover 600, however Honda were much more controlling about the design process the second time around. Rover became so frustrated and almost abandoned the project until Honda made a couple of last-minute concessions. As such, the Rover 45 and MG ZS really are more Honda than Rover. Not sure that applies to build-quality though...
I managed to buy a spotless, one-owner, face-lift MG ZS 180 about a year ago. It had been meticulously kept, with no expense-spared and even undersealed. Recent new belts, recent new intake manifold, ITG maxogen intake. The only thing it needed was the sheddist clutch. The first owner had the good judgement to order it without the silly wing and, in black, it made a very smart but understated car.
I didn't expect very much of it, but thought it would be an interesting, cheap family car. We fell in love with it. The engine sounded nice, the interior was comfy if dated, and it was the best-handling FWD car I've ever driven. We decided to maintain it and keep it as long as possible.
Had it six months before some miserable, old sow rear-ended it and turned it into a CAT B. I've scoured the classifieds since and not found another quite as good.
I had a 2005 120+ non wing in blue for a while, when it was only a few years old, and really enjoyed it. Not particularly quick in a straight line but surprisingly capable of maintaining it's pace in the twisties. I think it might have been the sheddist clutch that I had fitted too, back then I got it through the xpower forum when mine failed but now it appears to be available on Ebay as well. It made a massive difference to the clutch pedal feel. I also had xpower springs fitted which made a noteable improvement to how flat it cornered but didn't really sacrifice any ride comfort, was well worth having done. There was also a guy who had developed some dampers, I'm sure it was with Bilstien, and I would have got some of them as well but all of a sudden he stopped trading which was a shame. I'd had quite a long chat with him where he explained that he was hoping to develop a three point front strut brace as well so I'm not sure whaat happened. I only ever had a few niggles with mine. I had to have the connectors under the seats for the airbags removed but that was about it other than the clutch. It was a good car and I'd consider another as a cheap snotter.It was also BMW who foisted the rather tepid Chrysler engine on the car. Rover were very keen to use the K-series, but apparently bonnet clearance was an issue. BMW's solution was to unilaterally force them to use another engine. For all it's foibles, I think a K-series engined R50 mini would have been great.
The same article talked about the genesis of the Rover 45 and MG ZS. It was supposed to rekindle the happy relationship between Rover and Honda that led to the Rover 600, however Honda were much more controlling about the design process the second time around. Rover became so frustrated and almost abandoned the project until Honda made a couple of last-minute concessions. As such, the Rover 45 and MG ZS really are more Honda than Rover. Not sure that applies to build-quality though...
I managed to buy a spotless, one-owner, face-lift MG ZS 180 about a year ago. It had been meticulously kept, with no expense-spared and even undersealed. Recent new belts, recent new intake manifold, ITG maxogen intake. The only thing it needed was the sheddist clutch. The first owner had the good judgement to order it without the silly wing and, in black, it made a very smart but understated car.
I didn't expect very much of it, but thought it would be an interesting, cheap family car. We fell in love with it. The engine sounded nice, the interior was comfy if dated, and it was the best-handling FWD car I've ever driven. We decided to maintain it and keep it as long as possible.
Had it six months before some miserable, old sow rear-ended it and turned it into a CAT B. I've scoured the classifieds since and not found another quite as good.
Bland styling??? How can that ever be called bland? It's a nice looking car, especially against some modern overdone things.
The engine is excellent, the handling was, and still is, superb. These were rated as one of the finest handling fwd cars ever, even against things like Honda Type R's. The only thing which might let it down is the interior. But, that depends on why you're buying it - to drive, or have kit. It would take a relatively serious modern hatch to see one of these off across country, and even they might not be as much fun.
If you look hard enough, there are Sprintex superchargers available, as these were a factory fit to the ZT in Australia.
Vastly underrated cars.
The engine is excellent, the handling was, and still is, superb. These were rated as one of the finest handling fwd cars ever, even against things like Honda Type R's. The only thing which might let it down is the interior. But, that depends on why you're buying it - to drive, or have kit. It would take a relatively serious modern hatch to see one of these off across country, and even they might not be as much fun.
If you look hard enough, there are Sprintex superchargers available, as these were a factory fit to the ZT in Australia.
Vastly underrated cars.
kambites said:
Mr Tidy said:
After all the R series BMW Minis handled brilliantly from day one.
Probably because they were developed by MG/Rover. I don't think BMW had much input into to the design of the cars produced by MG and Rover under their stewardship other than to insist on cutting costs and reducing quality. Don't get be wrong, MGs and Rovers produced before the BMW takeover were hardly a paragon of quality control and reliability but things got far worse after BMW took over.
Edited by kambites on Saturday 23 November 13:36
As someone already said the Chrysler engine in the R50 wasn't great; the BMW/Peugeot one in the R56 was way better.
And I also liked the styling of the 25 and 45 models, but then I did have a 2000 Leon Cupra some years ago that to me at least looked quite similar to a 25 or MG ZR.
Mr Tidy said:
As someone already said the Chrysler engine in the R50 wasn't great; the BMW/Peugeot one in the R56 was way better.
The Peugeot engine is a POS. The timing chain, tensioner and guide aren't fit for purpose. There was a class action against BMW in the US, over here it's tough s
t. They also drink oil, but that's become quite common amongst a lot of engines.
Second Best said:
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.
I shared a garage with this smart looking 'shed' at a Brands Hatch track-day yesterday.
Two guys had gone halfs on it and seemed pretty pleased with their purchase. Their preparation was just to clear the leaves from under the bonnet and fit the Toyos. Proper shedding!
But surely the car deserves a proper service now?
Two guys had gone halfs on it and seemed pretty pleased with their purchase. Their preparation was just to clear the leaves from under the bonnet and fit the Toyos. Proper shedding!
But surely the car deserves a proper service now?
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff