RE: Longbridge MG TF Plans Shattered
Discussion
V2RAC said:
Vauxcrayzee said:
So MGF's did not have metro brakes and suspension, along with the least reliable mass-produced engine of all time?
GTFO.
You wouldn't be referring to the head gasket every 7000 miles syndrome by any chance would you.GTFO.
--
JG
Is the MGF regulary praised for its confortable yet sporting ride?
Usually its either been one or the other yet here's a car with both. . . . .
Good thing surely?
They weren't all that bad, certainly good looking cars easily distinguishable from the crowd which in this day and age of motoring is a rare thing.
Usually its either been one or the other yet here's a car with both. . . . .
Good thing surely?
They weren't all that bad, certainly good looking cars easily distinguishable from the crowd which in this day and age of motoring is a rare thing.
bigbadbikercats said:
V2RAC said:
Vauxcrayzee said:
So MGF's did not have metro brakes and suspension, along with the least reliable mass-produced engine of all time?
GTFO.
You wouldn't be referring to the head gasket every 7000 miles syndrome by any chance would you.GTFO.
--
JG
bigbadbikercats said:
V2RAC said:
Vauxcrayzee said:
So MGF's did not have metro brakes and suspension, along with the least reliable mass-produced engine of all time?
GTFO.
You wouldn't be referring to the head gasket every 7000 miles syndrome by any chance would you.GTFO.
--
JG
Vauxcrayzee said:
I don't know why anyone would be anything but glad over this news. MG Rover was an amalgamation of crappy British car brands that manufactured nothing but fail for too long.
Sure it's a shame people lost their jobs, and it's a shame we don't have a car industry any more... but IMO the blame lies with those who decided that selling cars made with parts designed 20 years ago was acceptable.
Sure it's a shame people lost their jobs, and it's a shame we don't have a car industry any more... but IMO the blame lies with those who decided that selling cars made with parts designed 20 years ago was acceptable.
B10 said:
Vaux you are a misinformed ****** of the highest order. Go back to junior school and learn a bit more about the UK car industry and it's history.
He certainly isn't wrong. Only this weekend we were discussing how the 1972 Marina was nothing more than a 1948 Moggy Minor in a bigger body.heebeegeetee said:
Vauxcrayzee said:
I don't know why anyone would be anything but glad over this news. MG Rover was an amalgamation of crappy British car brands that manufactured nothing but fail for too long.
Sure it's a shame people lost their jobs, and it's a shame we don't have a car industry any more... but IMO the blame lies with those who decided that selling cars made with parts designed 20 years ago was acceptable.
Sure it's a shame people lost their jobs, and it's a shame we don't have a car industry any more... but IMO the blame lies with those who decided that selling cars made with parts designed 20 years ago was acceptable.
B10 said:
Vaux you are a misinformed ****** of the highest order. Go back to junior school and learn a bit more about the UK car industry and it's history.
He certainly isn't wrong. Only this weekend we were discussing how the 1972 Marina was nothing more than a 1948 Moggy Minor in a bigger body.Vauxcrayzee said:
MG - Limited success but mostly fail
Er, MG were in production for more than 70 years, the best competition department in the world ran from Abingdon for a time, and they made the worlds biggest selling sports car until the MX5, amongst other things. Bloody good competition record over the years too, with class wins at such names as Mille Miglia, Le Mans, Targa Florio, Monte Carlo Rally, Sebring, Nurburgring, any famous venue you care to mention, actually. The MGOC is still the biggest single marque club in the world.The ZS 180 was a very quick car indeed for the money.
Anyone who thinks the MGF is better than an MX5 is certifiable.
I don't want to enter into the argument...
But from reading yours posts, you're both wrong!
And i'd say the truth was somewhere in between.
MG did make some good cars at the end (yes, i have driven them). But I think that shows what british engineers can do if given the chance.
I don't know how you can compare it with a scooby though... and Ford and Vaux weren't much better, but have they made much more money?! (haven't they been loosing a lot? they just have BIG companies behind them)
Why do car forums always need an argument?
Why can't we all be happy and debate like we would if we were down the pub?
But from reading yours posts, you're both wrong!
And i'd say the truth was somewhere in between. MG did make some good cars at the end (yes, i have driven them). But I think that shows what british engineers can do if given the chance.
I don't know how you can compare it with a scooby though... and Ford and Vaux weren't much better, but have they made much more money?! (haven't they been loosing a lot? they just have BIG companies behind them)
Why do car forums always need an argument?
Why can't we all be happy and debate like we would if we were down the pub?Vauxcrayzee said:
VladD said:
Name a car in the same segment that was better looking than the MG ZT.
MG ZT was based on the Rover 75 IIRC? Hardly the recipe for win.Audi A4 wins hands down on looks, ride quality, engines, build quality, parts availability, image, reliability... something which I'm sure the motoring press and 95% of petrolheads would agree with.
The 75 was a superb design, massive stiffness in the body structure along with a sophisticated suspension layout meant that the same basic package could be setup to give either class-leading ride comfort and decent if uninspiring handling in the original Rover version or, with the deletion of a few rubber bushes, stiffer springs/damping, and quicker steering in the MG, class leading handling and acceptable (miles better than an A4 with the S-line wheel/suspension package) ride comfort. If it wasn't for the implosion of MG/Rover, consequent (misplaced) worries over parts/servicing, and cold-feet on the part of finance companies I'd be driving the ZT now, in just about every respect bar image (whatever that's worth) and the feel of some of the interior trim the MG was just plain better. Good as it is in many ways and in spite of a couple of memorable wet/damp/slimy track days as a drivers car the A4 leaves me with a feeling of having been conned somewhere along the line...
--
JG
RichardR said:
I thought the original plans were for Nanjing to press the bodyshells and them ship them over with the necessary additional components for final assembly at Lonbridge.
If that's the case what do STADCO, who appear to be an American engineering and fabrication company with a UK operation, have to do with the operation?
I heard the top quote before and though this was the case, the 2nd quote is not true as Stadco is not an American Engineering company as I used to work there as its based in the U.K. with its head quarters 2 miles down the road where I live in Shrewsbury. Stadco is an abbreviation of Shrewsbury Tool And Die CompanyIf that's the case what do STADCO, who appear to be an American engineering and fabrication company with a UK operation, have to do with the operation?
Interesting enough STADCO did a joint project in Brazil some years back with KUKA a German robotics company within the car industry together with Ford sharing costs 3 ways so this would be uncommon. They also have a large plant literally next door to Ford Saarlouis where they make the Focus and C-max where this plant supplies all the inner assemblies and sub assemblies for only this car.
Edited by EviLScooB on Tuesday 15th April 16:14
odyssey2200 said:
bigbadbikercats said:
V2RAC said:
Vauxcrayzee said:
So MGF's did not have metro brakes and suspension, along with the least reliable mass-produced engine of all time?
GTFO.
You wouldn't be referring to the head gasket every 7000 miles syndrome by any chance would you.GTFO.
--
JG
I have to admit however that the clinching point for me was that you can't fit a Fender Stratocaster guitar in it's hard case in the boot of an MX5 and the 'F swallows it very nicely with enough room left for a small amplifier as well - no mean trick for a mid-engined roadster
--
JG
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Actually the ZT I had was very fresh and modern inside, much better than my mates 330i Coupe, which was very nasty and plastic looking, though he had the Tan interior which didn't help. Having said that, I'd take the 330 too, though the price of used examples would steer anyone on a budget to the MG.andymadmak said:
Vauxcrayzee said:
So MGF's did not have metro brakes and suspension, along with the least reliable mass-produced engine of all time?
GTFO.
Thats right. They didn't. Most accurate thing you've posted all day. GTFO.
MGFs had modified Rover Metro suspension. Note the use of the term modified. In fact most manufacturers use parts across their ranges. Whats the problem? And as for the metro brakes - whats your problem with 4 pot callipers? Sounds pretty good to me.
Of course by the time the TF came along, MG had moved the car onto all steel suspension, all disc brakes etc, but hey, why let the truth get in the way of what you know.
And the calibra? That wasn't a cavalier with a swoopy body? Didn't make it any less of a desirable car did it? And how ancient was the chassis under you Corsa? (do the research and prepare to be shocked)
Now as for the K series being the least reliable mass produced engine of all time, I assume you have the stats to back this up? No? Really? Not another slogan you heard in class surely? Why am I not surprised.
They are unreliable, badly designed, badly built cars.
The K-series IS prone to head gasket failure.
The Interior does appear to be made from bakelite and styrofoam.
How do i know all this? Because i drive an MG TF160. Despite it's faults though, i do like the car (which is why i stuck with it). The interior is stupidly cramped, and the ride is far too stiff, but i love it.
As for NAC selling the new one for £17.5k - see my other thread from a few weeks ago. Its ludicrous.
My TF160 has less than 30k on it, is an 02 plate, and cost a mere £5k. The equivalent MX-5 was a '99, 2000 maybe, with over 60k on the clock.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
The ZT wasn't naff and retro inside. It was pretty nice, and used the same smooth modern looking laminate style dash you see in the new MINI's. It was a very nice and tidy interior. Some bits were a little of a let down but on the whole it was a very place to be, with exceptional seats.The ZS and ZR were considerably worse in fit and finish than the ZT but they made up for in their handling - particulrly the ZS, although the ZR's we had the race school felt betten on track than the Coopers S's.
Getting a bit O/T here aren't we?
So about longbridge....
Will the Chinese ever build a car there?
Did they ever intend to build a car there?
If they do, will it sell given the age of the TF now?
Did the UK government get its leg lifted when it gave NAC £Millions?
Sadly I suspect the answers are No, No, No and Yes.
So about longbridge....
Will the Chinese ever build a car there?
Did they ever intend to build a car there?
If they do, will it sell given the age of the TF now?
Did the UK government get its leg lifted when it gave NAC £Millions?
Sadly I suspect the answers are No, No, No and Yes.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
That would be an interesting and entertaining call to have to make. The ZT260 chassis actually left as much of a favourable impression as it's engine did, and, with a stonking great V8 up the front that's saying something. Anyway, if we're talking mods then I'll take the ZT260 with a Dreadnought supercharger kit http://www.dreadnoughtgarage.co.uk/Supercharger%20...--
JG
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff