RE: Shed of the Week | MG ZT-T 160

RE: Shed of the Week | MG ZT-T 160

Friday 18th November

Shed of the Week | MG ZT-T 160

Surely not winter wagon week already - comes around sooner every year...


This might shock some of you but Mrs Shed is, at heart, a decent person. She’s just a bit naive. Last week, on the strength of some classic PR bilge about top-secret processes, years of development, alien technology harnessed by NASA scientists and guaranteed super-low energy consumption, she cracked open her purse for a £13.99 plug-in ceramic room heater.

Unfortunately, it turned out that the ceramic room heater was a heater with a ceramic element in it, rather than the heater for a ceramic room that she thought it was and that (she also thought) would improve life in the tiled outside toilet that Shed steadfastly refuses to upgrade. Things got nasty when Shed angrily wrenched the heater out of the extension reel plughole with a view to returning it post haste to the NASA scientists’ laboratory in Guangzhou. That’s when he found that the surface temperature of the accursed device was only marginally lower than that of freshly erupted magma.

The moral of this story for Mrs Shed is don’t believe everything you read, and that’s a lesson which very much applies to today’s Shed of the Week, an MG ZT-T 160.

Generally speaking, whenever Shed puts forward one of these MGs or something similar from the Rover 75 range, there will be no shortage of negative forum comments about old geezers’ motors that aren’t worth £150 let alone the £1,500 this one is going for. There will also be some positive comments, most often from those who have actually driven and/or owned these cars.

In a minute, for some triangular balance, Shed would like to introduce a third source of comment: what road testers said about this car when it came out. First though, let’s take a quick look at what the ZT-T 160 Tourer was offering back in 2003, when our Shed was built.

Brought in to replace the smooth but expensive to run 2.5 V6 ZT-T 160, the 1.8 T used a Garrett-turbocharged 1.8 K-Series engine to produce around the same amount of horsepowers as the 2.5 V6 (160hp, 40hp more than the naturally aspirated 1.8) with over 30g/km less pollutions than the V6 and a usefully improved 35mpg average fuel consumption figure to boot. The performance numbers – 0-60 in 8.9sec and a 130mph top speed – were practically identical to the 2.5’s but the 1.8 T gave you a chirpy dose of torque steer when the boost kicked in rather rudely at 3,500rpm.

The interior of the MG had none of the ‘rolling wardrobe’ vibe associated with its Rover sibling. Tree meat was replaced by Alcantara-u-Like, the cabin materials were solid and well put together, the seats were comfy, supportive and nicely low, and the suspension was firm enough to make for a rewarding drive – as was confirmed by these genuine MG ZT-T 160 press quotes from back in the day.

‘Among the best-looking cars in its class… promises to be relatively inexpensive to run… appears excellent value for money, especially compared to high-prestige German rivals… superb handling… quick and agile chassis… surprisingly supple ride… slick-changing manual gearbox… nicely weighted steering…’ The list goes on, or at least it would do if Shed could be bothered to do any more research on it.

As Shed will glumly tell you, into every life a little rain must fall. The ZT-T wasn’t perfect. We all know about K-Series head gaskets, but a near-20-year-old 101,000-mile example like this one is almost certain to have had this put right some time ago. Front coil springs rust and break, but again we can see from the MOT history that pretty much the entire front suspension (and some of the rear) was replaced after a fail in June this year. Either that or the re-tester wasn’t wearing his specs when it flew through the test with no advisories two months later. Throw in the new clutch 12,000 miles ago and a recently carried out major service and there’s no reason why you shouldn’t get at least nine months of worry-free motoring out of this wagon until the next test date comes up.

Mrs Shed is quite interested in this car, actually. As a keen philatelist – Shed’s head still bears the saucepan mark from when she first told him that – she is excited at the bit in the ad that talks about stamps in the service book. Oh well, you just can’t help some people.


See the original advert here

Author
Discussion

Al the Mad

Original Poster:

4 posts

31 months

Friday 18th November
quotequote all
My kind of shed. Top shedding

Piginapoke

3,991 posts

169 months

Friday 18th November
quotequote all
Where do I sign?

Chubbyross

3,889 posts

69 months

Friday 18th November
quotequote all
Sheer shedders’ delight!

Lecket

280 posts

60 months

Friday 18th November
quotequote all
Brilliant shed. Getting better looking with age too.

Court_S

9,239 posts

161 months

Friday 18th November
quotequote all
Looks alright that; it’s presentable and has been cleaned which is a massive bonus compared to sone of the other cars featured. Reckon you could do a lot worse for the cash.

Pughmacher

277 posts

27 months

Friday 18th November
quotequote all
Cracking shed! Looks a good car. Must admit I didn’t realise they turbod the 1.8? I thought it was 160 with n/a with variable valve timing over the 120 in standard guise?

Period correct silver too! Too good to shed around in?!

N.A.R.T Spyder

8 posts

44 months

Friday 18th November
quotequote all
These days £1500 doesn't get you much car wise. This isn't bad at all. A mate of mine owned one back in the day, I remember the satnav even had a TV function. Wasn't this from when BMW briefly owned Rover ?

Alorotom

10,850 posts

171 months

Friday 18th November
quotequote all
I had an almost new blue ZTT touring as a courtesy car for a few weeks in 2002/2003 before my new company car arrived and it was absolutely awful - hated pretty much everything about it - it didn’t ride well, it was poorly built with massive uneven panel gaps, it shook and rattled like a hooker with falsies, lots of old boys wanted to talk about it as it was an ‘“MG”, and worst of it all - it’s Rover 75 bedmate twin. Urgh.

At least it is large enough to be a shed.

Personally I wouldn’t give them £1.50 for it, but to each their own.

yme402

192 posts

86 months

Friday 18th November
quotequote all
The 1.8T replaced the 2.0 KV6, and not the 2.5 which continued throughout the full production run, although I believe the MG versions only ever had the 1.8, 2.5, 4.6 V8, or diesels.

Blackpuddin

14,173 posts

189 months

Friday 18th November
quotequote all
Alorotom said:
I had an almost new blue ZTT touring as a courtesy car for a few weeks in 2002/2003 before my new company car arrived and it was absolutely awful - hated pretty much everything about it - it didn’t ride well, it was poorly built with massive uneven panel gaps, it shook and rattled like a hooker with falsies, lots of old boys wanted to talk about it as it was an ‘“MG”, and worst of it all - it’s Rover 75 bedmate twin. Urgh.

At least it is large enough to be a shed.

Personally I wouldn’t give them £1.50 for it, but to each their own.
MG ZT/Rover 75 Shed Bingo full house!

sjc

12,647 posts

254 months

Friday 18th November
quotequote all
Bought my V6 version around 2 1/2 years ago for £1175 at 90k miles with complete FSH as my daily/work/carry anything leave anywhere hack. Now on 115,000 and other than a thermostat and two VIS motors £100) it’s needed nothing out the blue.Its actually too good for its purpose,so it’s now it’s going time be treated to some love. It recently had 4 Michelin PS4’s,now it’s having two front discs,sunroof drains unblocked,a nice stainless back box and a heater flap motor (12 quid off Ebay).
For me they are looking better with age,values for good ones are rising slightly,kit wise the top spec ones have all you need,and other than being a bit needy on fuel( mines a 180 V6 with a nannying auto), they’re pretty hard to fault.

https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...

Pughmacher

277 posts

27 months

Friday 18th November
quotequote all
yme402 said:
The 1.8T replaced the 2.0 KV6, and not the 2.5 which continued throughout the full production run, although I believe the MG versions only ever had the 1.8, 2.5, 4.6 V8, or diesels.
Totally forgot about the 2.0 v6. Wasn’t the 2.5 rated at 180hp? I seem to remember there being a 160, 180 & I forget that output for the V8?

cerb4.5lee

24,942 posts

164 months

Friday 18th November
quotequote all
This is a really good shed I reckon. I'm onboard with this.

sjc

12,647 posts

254 months

Friday 18th November
quotequote all
Pughmacher said:
yme402 said:
The 1.8T replaced the 2.0 KV6, and not the 2.5 which continued throughout the full production run, although I believe the MG versions only ever had the 1.8, 2.5, 4.6 V8, or diesels.
Totally forgot about the 2.0 v6. Wasn’t the 2.5 rated at 180hp? I seem to remember there being a 160, 180 & I forget that output for the V8?
The 2.0 V6 was never available in the MG versions,and dropped in the 75 life cycle relatively early.
The 1.8T replaced the 160 BHP version of the 2.5 V6,the 180 BHP (auto only)versions and the 190 (5 speed manual ) versions remained all the way through.

ballans

571 posts

89 months

Friday 18th November
quotequote all
sjc said:
Bought my V6 version around 2 1/2 years ago for £1175 at 90k miles with complete FSH as my daily/work/carry anything leave anywhere hack. Now on 115,000 and other than a thermostat and two VIS motors £100) it’s needed nothing out the blue.Its actually too good for its purpose,so it’s now it’s going time be treated to some love. It recently had 4 Michelin PS4’s,now it’s having two front discs,sunroof drains unblocked,a nice stainless back box and a heater flap motor (12 quid off Ebay).
For me they are looking better with age,values for good ones are rising slightly,kit wise the top spec ones have all you need,and other than being a bit needy on fuel( mines a 180 V6 with a nannying auto), they’re pretty hard to fault.

https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
Love the colour. Green seems to be making a comeback which I am very onboard with.
I also like the wheels but I have just got a set of 16’ Hairpins for my R53 Mini.



Numeric

1,160 posts

135 months

Friday 18th November
quotequote all
I wouldn't swear to it but I believe a car of this age would likely have had the softer suspension set up which I felt made a big difference to the ZT line up. The original set up was so stiff it didn't allow the car to flow, but the later set up with greater compliance to my mind made the car quicker cross country.

This engine was never that great but I stand to be shot down on that as for me the pick was the diesel, but still a lot of car for the money.

aestivator

162 posts

14 months

Friday 18th November
quotequote all
Ooooh, look at the size of that rear glasshouse. They don't make them like that anymore.

J4CKO

37,992 posts

184 months

Friday 18th November
quotequote all
I like these, for £1500 if its as nice as it looks its a good deal. Sort of almost into classic territory, 20 years old next year.

Someone will be along to say it not a classic, never will be, crush it etc, but if an SD1 is, why not a 75/ZT ? What is a classic is a personal thing to define, I cant tell you it is, you cant tell me it isnt.

Considering the reputation, its amazing how many you still see, not as common as they once were but neither are they a rare sight, my dad has a ZT 190 Saloon he has had from a year or two old and its as new. Occasionally have a ride in it and I like it, makes a nice noise and love how it looks, downsides are its not that fast these days but meh, and it has a few creaks here and there.

aestivator

162 posts

14 months

Friday 18th November
quotequote all
I had it in my head that these were offered with an incredibly gutless V8, and sure enough:

https://www.pistonheads.com/buy/listing/14193637

Gentlemen drive V8 estates.

TheMilkyBarKid

235 posts

13 months

Friday 18th November
quotequote all
Great shed this one I reckon. Ideal for bunging muddy dogs, bikes and sticky children in the back, prefer the pre facelift front/lights too.