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

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

Author
Discussion

trevalvole

517 posts

17 months

Friday 18th November
quotequote all
Limpet said:
trevalvole said:
2xChevrons said:
It was probably the best-made Rover, and quite possible the best all-round Rover, since the P5.
I found it interesting that HubNut preferred the 400 and 45 that he's had to his 75. I gather that the 400/45 was originally based on a Honda model and that some of the Honda engineering was still present.
According to my neighbour who has owned 3 75s (each bought new), the rule is the earlier the better where quality is concerned. The early cars launched under BMW’s stewardship were really nicely finished, and very well put together.

As MG Rover became more cash strapped, they started engineering cost out of their cars which became more extreme as time went on. My neighbour said you’d have struggled to recognise his last one as being even from the same manufacturer as the first. All the nice materials were gone, and the car felt flimsy and cheap.
Hubnut's car wasn't a late one - it was a 2001. His main criticisms were the transverse installation of the BMW diesel and the lack of space. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IibHofF5g9E

Evil.soup

3,181 posts

189 months

Friday 18th November
quotequote all
Never owned one or driven one but always liked the way they looked.

Cracking shed for the money!

defblade

6,884 posts

197 months

Friday 18th November
quotequote all
If anyone's tempted by this one, check it over carefully. This dealer is not too far from me, and their cars are, in general, accurately and fairly (for dealer prices) priced on condition.
I've seen plenty of cheap cars there, but never a bargain wink

Muddle238

3,337 posts

97 months

Saturday 19th November
quotequote all
Silver75 said:
trevalvole said:
I found it interesting that HubNut preferred the 400 and 45 that he's had to his 75. I gather that the 400/45 was originally based on a Honda model and that some of the Honda engineering was still present.
I always found HubNut's critique of the 75 weird and appeared to be nothing more than some classic reverse snobbery. As a Rover enthusiast who likes (and has owned) both the 75 and 45, the idea that the 45 is a better car is laughable.

His main critiques of the 75 seemed to be that the BMW diesel engine is too complicated to work on at home and that the Saloon variant isn't as practical as a large hatchback.
The thing with HubNut is that he runs his fleet on a shoestring, or at least did with his 75. The 75/ZT can be a decent, reliable car but they do require maintenance and money to be spent on them. This is often at odds with owners who don’t want to invest in the maintenance, because the car is worth relatively little. Ultimately it means there are a lot of tatty, shed-level 75ZT’s because people won’t pay to keep them in good order.

I believe HubNut was stung by his 75 experiences because he wouldn’t keep the cars long enough to bother investing time in their upkeep and longevity.

His practicality complaints also baffled me; don’t complain about the lack of practicality with the saloon when you choose it over the Tourer/estate…

I’ve got a diesel 75 Tourer with a under bonnet fuel pump that’s just started playing up. There were two options; cheapo aftermarket pump for £69 or genuine OEM spec pump for £185. I’ve chosen the latter because it’s bound to be a better and more reliable component than the aftermarket part. But many will opt for the cheapest parts and then complain when they get stung later down the line. Seems to happen a fair bit in the Rover world.

soad

31,686 posts

160 months

Saturday 19th November
quotequote all
Evil.soup said:
Never owned one or driven one but always liked the way they looked.

Cracking shed for the money!
Can only agree. But why is it missing the radio?

barrya56

1 posts

184 months

Saturday 19th November
quotequote all
I've got one and love it, it's a daily driver and an ongoing project. If you're up for that in your life, I highly recommend an MG ZT-T.

Evil.soup

3,181 posts

189 months

Saturday 19th November
quotequote all
soad said:
Evil.soup said:
Never owned one or driven one but always liked the way they looked.

Cracking shed for the money!
Can only agree. But why is it missing the radio?
I would imagine the previous owner had upgraded to something with Bluetooth and took it out before moving it on. Wouldn't be surprised if the original one was a tape player lol

shtu

2,749 posts

130 months

Saturday 19th November
quotequote all
soad said:
But why is it missing the radio?
Because any true sheddist removes the radio before sale - it's usually worth a solid 15% of the overall value. biggrin

See also - preople with a selection of decades-old radiocassettes in the garage.

Rob 131 Sport

1,483 posts

36 months

Sunday 20th November
quotequote all
Numeric said:
Rob 131 Sport said:
I find looking at these Rover 75 things quite upsetting, knowing that they substantially contributed to the ending of Rover. Moreover 22 years previously they produced the fantastic SD1.
I think I would reverse that. The SD1 looked good for its day but was a dogs dinner in terms of quality and I knew people at the time who swore at them and never got another Rover product, it could be argued that far from a great car it was borderline the vehicle that started the catastrophe.

The 75 was a very good car, solidly engineered and well specced, it also had a clear definition of what it was looking to do. I still say few cars can match its long legged capability, if you want to drive 1000 miles a 75 td is a brilliant thing.

Its problem was the definition was wrong, it was harking to a time that had passed. Rather than glorious comfort and a calming cabin, people wanted audi and BMW with mediocre performance and rock hard suspension and big tyres that made a lot of road roar. Why? I have absolutely no idea.

The ZT was the correct reaction to that and produced on a shoestring budget it did well, but the demise of the company had long been in place, even before BMW, the Rover brand was dying and even MG was losing resonance. Far from being the cause of the issue, for me the 75/ZT pre facelift were the last unexpected and really decent hurrah.
The Rover SD1 was a great sales success, because it was a fantastic car with great appeal back then and now.
Yes there were some quality problems with early cars because it was a victim of its own success, as demand was so high. The post 1979 cars were great and lasted well.

The 75 and it’s various variants were sales disasters because they had no appeal. It’s similar with Saabs. No one wanted them and they folded.

The contemporary BMW’s that I ran from 2000 to 2006, a 325i Coupe and 330i Sport had great performance (not mediocre) and rode well. They also held their price well.

Arsecati

1,785 posts

101 months

Sunday 20th November
quotequote all
Weso60 said:
I am late joining too!, would look so much better with the correct rear numberplate, the curved one.....
Well I would personally say the 'curved' one was totally incorrect - and just plain ugly. But that's just my opinion/taste, and isn't it just great we all have a choice. wink

Rumblestripe

2,296 posts

146 months

Sunday 20th November
quotequote all
Rob 131 Sport said:
Numeric said:
Rob 131 Sport said:
I find looking at these Rover 75 things quite upsetting, knowing that they substantially contributed to the ending of Rover. Moreover 22 years previously they produced the fantastic SD1.
I think I would reverse that. The SD1 looked good for its day but was a dogs dinner in terms of quality and I knew people at the time who swore at them and never got another Rover product, it could be argued that far from a great car it was borderline the vehicle that started the catastrophe.

The 75 was a very good car, solidly engineered and well specced, it also had a clear definition of what it was looking to do. I still say few cars can match its long legged capability, if you want to drive 1000 miles a 75 td is a brilliant thing.

Its problem was the definition was wrong, it was harking to a time that had passed. Rather than glorious comfort and a calming cabin, people wanted audi and BMW with mediocre performance and rock hard suspension and big tyres that made a lot of road roar. Why? I have absolutely no idea.

The ZT was the correct reaction to that and produced on a shoestring budget it did well, but the demise of the company had long been in place, even before BMW, the Rover brand was dying and even MG was losing resonance. Far from being the cause of the issue, for me the 75/ZT pre facelift were the last unexpected and really decent hurrah.
The Rover SD1 was a great sales success, because it was a fantastic car with great appeal back then and now.
Yes there were some quality problems with early cars because it was a victim of its own success, as demand was so high. The post 1979 cars were great and lasted well.

The 75 and it’s various variants were sales disasters because they had no appeal. It’s similar with Saabs. No one wanted them and they folded.

The contemporary BMW’s that I ran from 2000 to 2006, a 325i Coupe and 330i Sport had great performance (not mediocre) and rode well. They also held their price well.
I would disagree entirely with that, the 75 was well thought of and sold well in its market segment at the time. The problem for Rover and why BMW ditched them in short order was the aging 200/25 and 400/45 models which were desperately in need of replacement. They had the MINI of course which they kept and ultimately expanded into the full model range we see now.

Export56

464 posts

72 months

Sunday 20th November
quotequote all
Lovely cars had one as a company car, felt very posh in 2003, really solid chunky interior and brilliant seats. Did 90k in it, only faults were alternator, front shock , Maf sensors dying in the rain and buckled front wheels as the low profile wheels didn’t like potholes. Have aged really well. Mine was the slate grey which looked a lot nicer mind.

Rob 131 Sport

1,483 posts

36 months

Sunday 20th November
quotequote all
Rumblestripe said:
Rob 131 Sport said:
Numeric said:
Rob 131 Sport said:
I find looking at these Rover 75 things quite upsetting, knowing that they substantially contributed to the ending of Rover. Moreover 22 years previously they produced the fantastic SD1.
I think I would reverse that. The SD1 looked good for its day but was a dogs dinner in terms of quality and I knew people at the time who swore at them and never got another Rover product, it could be argued that far from a great car it was borderline the vehicle that started the catastrophe.

The 75 was a very good car, solidly engineered and well specced, it also had a clear definition of what it was looking to do. I still say few cars can match its long legged capability, if you want to drive 1000 miles a 75 td is a brilliant thing.

Its problem was the definition was wrong, it was harking to a time that had passed. Rather than glorious comfort and a calming cabin, people wanted audi and BMW with mediocre performance and rock hard suspension and big tyres that made a lot of road roar. Why? I have absolutely no idea.

The ZT was the correct reaction to that and produced on a shoestring budget it did well, but the demise of the company had long been in place, even before BMW, the Rover brand was dying and even MG was losing resonance. Far from being the cause of the issue, for me the 75/ZT pre facelift were the last unexpected and really decent hurrah.
The Rover SD1 was a great sales success, because it was a fantastic car with great appeal back then and now.
Yes there were some quality problems with early cars because it was a victim of its own success, as demand was so high. The post 1979 cars were great and lasted well.

The 75 and it’s various variants were sales disasters because they had no appeal. It’s similar with Saabs. No one wanted them and they folded.

The contemporary BMW’s that I ran from 2000 to 2006, a 325i Coupe and 330i Sport had great performance (not mediocre) and rode well. They also held their price well.
I would disagree entirely with that, the 75 was well thought of and sold well in its market segment at the time. The problem for Rover and why BMW ditched them in short order was the aging 200/25 and 400/45 models which were desperately in need of replacement. They had the MINI of course which they kept and ultimately expanded into the full model range we see now.
Mjudge Contrary to your statement they did not sell well that is completely understandable.
How could they sell against the contemporary Alfa 156, Audi A4, BMW 3 Series, Ford Mondeo, Jaguar X Type and Mercedes C Class.
Of all my friends and business associates back then no one bought or was the least bit interested in the Rover 75.

Watcher of the skies

162 posts

21 months

Sunday 20th November
quotequote all
Regardless of the fact that it was a great car, the general perception was that it was an old man's car.
The maxim in the car industry is "you can sell an old man a young man's car, but you can't sell a young man an old man's car".
Sadly a lesson that had been previously learnt hence the P6 and SD1 being targeted at a younger market.

Masiv

244 posts

67 months

Sunday 20th November
quotequote all
defblade said:
If anyone's tempted by this one, check it over carefully. This dealer is not too far from me, and their cars are, in general, accurately and fairly (for dealer prices) priced on condition.
I've seen plenty of cheap cars there, but never a bargain wink
It's straight down the hill from me. I might go and have a look just out of curiosity.

LuS1fer

39,730 posts

229 months

Sunday 20th November
quotequote all
Watcher of the skies said:
Regardless of the fact that it was a great car, the general perception was that it was an old man's car.
The maxim in the car industry is "you can sell an old man a young man's car, but you can't sell a young man an old man's car".
Sadly a lesson that had been previously learnt hence the P6 and SD1 being targeted at a younger market.
Ford had a knack of being able to make a car appeal to old and young so you had the old "Ghia" spec but equally a sporty "S" spec with nice wheels and some bling. Think Cortina GT or Sierra Sapphire Cosworth.

Rover's attempt to sportify the Rover was just badly done. It needed lowering, some shouty colours, maybe some air dams and spoilers, a bit of black trim and some wide wheels. It just looked like a Rover.

david.h

364 posts

232 months

Sunday 20th November
quotequote all
To be an MG (whatever that is !) a car doesn't HAVE to look like an Halfords special!
The face lift bonnets on all of them were an awful fit (they just are too small for the opening!)
I had one from new when MG Rover were still going...it replaced an Audi 2.8 quattro automatic Avant. That was a really good car despite dodgy VW group electrics. However the MG was more comfortable, just as reliable (clutch needed replacing after 35k) both did over 110,000 miles in/ 4 years, MG was cheaper on servicing/tyres etc and had much better steering and excellent road holding. OK no 4WD which I did miss! As A/R were going down the pan when the MG came to be replaced and I didn't dare buy a 260 v8 I had a Subaru Legacy automatic 3 litre Wagon which was thirsty, bit plasticy, but really went! Also 100% reliable.

Rob 131 Sport

1,483 posts

36 months

Sunday 20th November
quotequote all
LuS1fer said:
Watcher of the skies said:
Regardless of the fact that it was a great car, the general perception was that it was an old man's car.
The maxim in the car industry is "you can sell an old man a young man's car, but you can't sell a young man an old man's car".
Sadly a lesson that had been previously learnt hence the P6 and SD1 being targeted at a younger market.
Ford had a knack of being able to make a car appeal to old and young so you had the old "Ghia" spec but equally a sporty "S" spec with nice wheels and some bling. Think Cortina GT or Sierra Sapphire Cosworth.

Rover's attempt to sportify the Rover was just badly done. It needed lowering, some shouty colours, maybe some air dams and spoilers, a bit of black trim and some wide wheels. It just looked like a Rover.
The Ford Specs in the 70’s and 80’s were just so cool. The ‘Ghia’ specification appealed to both young and old, whilst the ‘S’ spec was probably more for the under 50’s. However I’m 50 and always choose the M Sport specification in a BMW.

Mr Tidy

18,752 posts

111 months

Monday 21st November
quotequote all
Rob 131 Sport said:
LuS1fer said:
Watcher of the skies said:
Regardless of the fact that it was a great car, the general perception was that it was an old man's car.
The maxim in the car industry is "you can sell an old man a young man's car, but you can't sell a young man an old man's car".
Sadly a lesson that had been previously learnt hence the P6 and SD1 being targeted at a younger market.
Ford had a knack of being able to make a car appeal to old and young so you had the old "Ghia" spec but equally a sporty "S" spec with nice wheels and some bling. Think Cortina GT or Sierra Sapphire Cosworth.

Rover's attempt to sportify the Rover was just badly done. It needed lowering, some shouty colours, maybe some air dams and spoilers, a bit of black trim and some wide wheels. It just looked like a Rover.
The Ford Specs in the 70’s and 80’s were just so cool. The ‘Ghia’ specification appealed to both young and old, whilst the ‘S’ spec was probably more for the under 50’s. However I’m 50 and always choose the M Sport specification in a BMW.
I can relate to that as I had a Rover P6B 3500S then a MK2 Granada 2.8 Ghia that was so much better in every way, just a bit gutless.

Then I had a MK2 Escort RS2000 and a 2.8i Capri.

Rover/MG went wrong with the BMW diesel as it only had 129bhp, but my 2004 E46 320td had 150bhp.

And while the Rover/MG V8 was a great idea it only had 260bhp - my 2005 BMW E90 330i has 258 bhp! Even if it is an SE. laugh







Bobstar86

37 posts

64 months

Monday 21st November
quotequote all
Good shed. The MG ZT-T seems to have aged really well. I have a Jaguar X-Type Sport Premium estate for a winter wagon. Another top shed in the right spec. Flying high on 147k and no issues at all.