Are MGFs rubbish?

[Beeby]

kambites said:

S18DMW said:

I've driven one, would never in a million years recommend it. Bit of a PH cliche, but why not go for an MX5? Better car in every way.

No it's not. It's a better car, but not in every way.

Agreed. MX-5's rust badly

[300bhp/ton]

SiF said:

300bhp/ton said:

HellDiver said:

swiftpete said:

I know this is probably a completely wrong car for this, but what are MGFs like?
Cheers.

Like a Mini Metro in drag with an impossible to access engine bay.

Btw you're wrong on both counts.

Apart from subframe, suspension, engine (k series) and some switchgear you mean.

They use the sub frames, not the engines as there was never a 1.8 Metro and the engine was not actually used in a Metro first but in other Rover products.

But claiming it as a metro in drag would be the same as saying a BMW M Coupe is only a 316 compact in drag. Or maybe that an Audi TT is nowt but a Skoda in drag.

SiF said:

I tried one out as I am a MG/Rover fan, but found it a bit devoid of character (a sporty hatchback really). And cramped for a 6 footer (later ones have adjustable steering). Design and build of earlier ones appear poor (they were designed for a fraction of the normal engineering development cost). Nice classic lines though.

They drive totally differently to a hatch, very differently. Direct comparison of a vvc powered Rover 200 and a MGF.

I had an N 95 plate and an R 97 plate one, both where pretty fantastic and neither fell apart.

[Mr2Mike]

J4CKO said:

I think sometimes the reality and the internet lore get mixed up, sure an MX5 is better but I remember at the time they came out, tests put them not that far apart.

You remember well. The MGF, MX5 and Mk3 MR2 were tested by a few magazines and they all had various strengths and weaknesses.

Even Evo loved the MG TF, but thought it was too expensive compared to the MR2.

Edited by Mr2Mike on Monday 12th September 21:14

[nickythesaint]

If she doens't want a sporty car, then get a cruiser.

My car of choice would be an e46 318,320 or 323, you'll get one in budget and provided its been serviced will go on forever. Alternatively I'd also consider a Saab 9-3, also pretty reliable and nice motorway cruiser. Not sure if she'll be able to see over the steering wheel though



£1,395
1997 BMW 3 SERIES 318i 2dr Convertible 99,900 miles, 2 Door Convertible, Green, Petrol, Manual. Full leather (black) In excellent condition. Tax & MOT. New convertible rear window fitted. Boot CD changer. Faultless drive. 1st to see will buy. (YES - it has a working roof). Mileage 99900. £1,395 Negotiable.

http://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/2011...

Also:

http://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/2011...


£1,000 - 1998 SAAB 9-3 2.0T SE 2DR FULL LEATHER CLIMATE CONTROL. 69k miles.

http://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/2011...

Plenty more online.


Pug 306 cab is very pretty car too and in budget, but not sure how reliable / well put together they are.

Edited by nickythesaint on Monday 12th September 21:17

[lescombes]

I would go for MX5, Japanese and "bulletproof" as MGF are known for Head Gasket Failure... if not well maintained...although there are various extra coolant pipes I believe to help reduce the risk of HGF

[J4CKO]

I think the MX5 bulletproof thing is perhaps overstated, girl at work had one and it had its fair share of issues, one being coolant pipes that went porous and let all the water out then she overheated it, this was the second engine, first was it was burning oil. They are good but they do have problems.

[nickythesaint]

J4CKO said:

I think the MX5 bulletproof thing is perhaps overstated, girl at work had one and it had its fair share of issues, one being coolant pipes that went porous and let all the water out then she overheated it, this was the second engine, first was it was burning oil. They are good but they do have problems.

I agree with this. Even reliable cars suffer from wear and tear. I had a Honda Type R which was very relaible, but I still spent plenty of cash keeping it that way.

Likewise, those cars that people dismiss as being lemons, can often be owned reliably provided they are properly maintained and not driven too hard.

[swiftpete]

She doesn't want an e36 bmw or a saab 9-3. I've had a 323 before and a saab 9000 and we test drove a 9-3. As she's a bird, she wants something that looks nice and she thinks 2 seater convertibles look nice and doesn't like saloons. I've given up trying to tell her what she should or should have now as she usually doesn't like whatever I suggest, but this is a car that she likes that I probably wouldn't mind thrashing around on occasion too.
As usual budget has potentially crept up a little now, it looks like there are quite a few 40-50k examples around for the budget which is not too bad.

[300bhp/ton]

swiftpete said:

She doesn't want an e36 bmw or a saab 9-3. I've had a 323 before and a saab 9000 and we test drove a 9-3. As she's a bird, she wants something that looks nice and she thinks 2 seater convertibles look nice and doesn't like saloons. I've given up trying to tell her what she should or should have now as she usually doesn't like whatever I suggest, but this is a car that she likes that I probably wouldn't mind thrashing around on occasion too.
As usual budget has potentially crept up a little now, it looks like there are quite a few 40-50k examples around for the budget which is not too bad.

For this budget I'd be tempted to consider an Alfa Spyder and a Fiat Barchetta. And also a del sol CRX (watch for rust though), Honda reliability and better mpg than an MX-5. The VTI 1.6 VTEC is pretty rapid too. And the trans top is waaay cool

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7yuX3x7rEQ

[pthelazyjourno]

I'd actually buy the MG.

Lots of ill informed and ignorant posts here.

Both MX5s and the MG have faults, both can be a lot of fun. Try both. I think the MG looks better, especially with a hard top and in TF 160 trim!

You get a lot for your money, and surprisingly they're a lot better than the Mazda for rust.

[66comanche]

If the car you are thinking of begins with MG... and is made after 1995, don't even think about it. 1982-1995 they were at least entertaining but crap, after 1995 - pure crap.

[300bhp/ton]

66comanche said:

If the car you are thinking of begins with MG... and is made after 1995, don't even think about it. 1982-1995 they were at least entertaining but crap, after 1995 - pure crap.

Have you owned, driven or actually sat in any?

[pthelazyjourno]

66comanche said:

If the car you are thinking of begins with MG... and is made after 1995, don't even think about it. 1982-1995 they were at least entertaining but crap, after 1995 - pure crap.

FFS, that's bks as well. What's the point in a forum to help inform people, when the 'help' they get is biased, misguided and just plain wrong.

[Petrolhead_Rich]

swiftpete said:

My OH needs another car. Budget prob about £1500. She gets a lift to work most days, but sometimes has to drive. Probably 1 day a week. On those days she has a 100 mile round trip, all motorway miles. I know this is probably a completely wrong car for this, but what are MGFs like?
Cheers.

most are ok, some have had issues, all have a reputation, oh and they are difficult to work on, other alternatives out there for the money, does she want a little sports car or would a hatchback suffice?

Bear in mind alot of the hype is because "everyone knows mgrover's are all st and they all had head gasket failure, and then it went bust so you can't get parts" then look at all the mg rover fans and the massive parts supplier base and make up your own mind!

I've had a few k-series in my time and never had any of the "known" issues (no HGF despite one being purely rallied in a field and constantly overheating!) I also know a few people who have had f's and tf's and loved them them

Edited by Petrolhead_Rich on Monday 12th September 22:56

[g3org3y]

300bhp/ton said:

g3org3y said:

Ozzie Osmond said:

They must be good - the Chinese built/are still building new ones at Longbridge!

Quite, just as Lotus are still building the equally as old Elise still but in Norfolk

Don't want to use this image again but...

[300bhp/ton]

g3org3y said:

300bhp/ton said:

g3org3y said:

Ozzie Osmond said:

They must be good - the Chinese built/are still building new ones at Longbridge!

Quite, just as Lotus are still building the equally as old Elise still but in Norfolk

Don't want to use this image again but...

How serious were you being?

The Elise and MGF where launched at the same time pretty much, using many similar components too in fact.

The MGTF is pretty much as significantly altered and different from the MGF as the S2 Elise was from the S1. Both are still in production.

The only bigger change Lotus made was the Toyota engine, but that wasn't on the S2 change over. The current TF uses the N Series engine, so has had another change too.

[swiftpete]

Hmm from a bit of a read a 160 mgtf looks pretty good. 160bhp in 1100kg and RWD. 0-60 in 6.9. Sounds pretty good on paper. Lots of 40-50k examples around, generally less than 2 grand. Of course she won't ever drive it quickly or ever even know its RWD but I'll be able to baz it round sometimes.
The mx5s I've seen for that sort of price are generally 1999 models, whereas you can get a 2004 mgtf for that, which do undeniably look a lot more modern. Which is all a woman is interested in really.

[nickythesaint]

Sounds like MG TF might be the car.

I'm sure if its regularly serviced you'll get good reliabiliyt out of it. Just keep an eye on the gasket

Tis a lot of car for the money:


2002 (52 reg)
Convertible
43,800 miles
Manual
1.8L
Petrol

MG TF for sale, in mint condition with low mileage of 43800 miles. The car is a rare iridescent silver-blue, with dark grey roof and dk grey suede/ black leather interior.----- Oil and water checked regularly; the car has been loved and well looked after; no head gasket or engine problems. The cam and fan belt were replaced as a precaution when bought in March. Taxed until the end of Sept 2011 with MOT until February 2012.----- All tires, steering and breaking are good, no problems to note anywhere. Exhaust also good.----- I absolutely loved this superb car; it?s a pleasure to drive along country lanes with the roof down. Reluctant sale due to arrival of baby! Therefore priced low to be sold quickly. Very sure you will enjoy this car as much as we did!----- Also: Petrol, Manual, Steering wheel rake adjustment, Driver's airbag, PAS, Immobiliser, Alarm, Adjustable Lumbar Support, Central Locking, Alloy Wheels, Body Coloured Bumpers, Body Side Molding, Front Fog Lights, Power-assisted Steering, ABS. £1,550 ONO.




http://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/2011...

[SlowStig]

As with all cars, do your research and check out enthusiast sites(http://forums.mg-rover.org) for well looked after examples with jobs done on the cars which a regular owner might not think about.

Main points I am aware of is the coolent system is a pain in the arse in every way. Its massive(compared to most other cars due to the MR arrangement), the under car pipes rot unless you get stainless replacements and to do the cambelt/waterpump needs somebody who knows their way around a MGF/TF as it can be easier to drop the rear subby rather than leave the engine in situ.

The MGF was the older model, hydrolastic suspension with 2 engine variations of the K series; 1.8 "Solid cam" which is 118bhp or the 1.8 VVC which is 143bhp.
In between MGF and MGTF was the MGF Trophy. Limited edition but with upgraded brakes, suspension and with a 1.8 VVC 160bhp engine instead.
The MGTF was the newer model with coilover suspension and came with more engine variations; 1.6 16v with 112bhp, 1.8 "Solid Cam" with 135bhp, 1.8 VVC 160bhp.

I have never had chance to drive one but when I have been in them the driving position felt very low slung and quite sporty compared to normal car seats but the interior didn't impress me too much, was completely full maroon red leather dash, seats, door cards etc as well as a bit of a cheap feel.

IMO, find a 1.6 MGTF for her and let her have some fun with it as it wont be too fast but still feel sporty and the car will be quite new due to most people wanting the 1.8 engines.

Those who compare a metro to a MGF are correct however, the MGF is basically a backwards metro but with better hydrolastic suspension units, different steering rack and some other bits(other than the obvious body shell). They even keep the same PCD as a metro so people use MGF and MGTF wheels on their metro's as there isn't much after market wheels which fit for a metro.

[Mr2Mike]

SlowStig said:

Those who compare a metro to a MGF are correct however,

No they aren't, it's a completely ridiculous comparison. They share some components, that is all.

Edited by Mr2Mike on Tuesday 13th September 09:54