Who buys modern day MGs?

Who buys modern day MGs?

Author
Discussion

kambites

60,301 posts

181 months

Monday 13th July
quotequote all
yes The 1.5 engine really is pretty dire.

They also have a 1.0 three cylinder turbo which is a much better unit but is only available mated to what is possibly the worst automatic gearbox available in the automotive market today. The 1.0 engine with the manual from the 1.5 might be just about passable as a drivetrain, but still wouldn't be great.

Their EV drivetrain however, is reasonable. Not exceptional, but perfectly acceptable compared to the competition.

Edited by kambites on Monday 13th July 06:47

MonkeyMatt

6,015 posts

167 months

Monday 13th July
quotequote all
Argleton said:
..and like most Chinese products its blatant copy of other cars. The MG SUV is an amalgamation of Qashqai and Mercedes.

Is that a bad thing, well to some, maybe not but it just looks like it's trying to be something its not.
Its no more a copy of those cars than half the other cars in the same segment

stickleback123

7,008 posts

149 months

Monday 13th July
quotequote all
leef44 said:
Having just read this thread, the one thing that strikes me is a lot of poor reviews about the quality/feel of the engine.
So it's 1.5 NA with over 100bhp, over 40 mpg but lethargic.

These statistics match my Suzuki Ignis which is an exciting fizzy revvy engine.

Can it really be that bad or are people comparing it to a Clio 182 or EP3 Type-R confused
It's really, really rare to find a small NASP engine from the last few years that doesn't feel weirdly strained and gutless. I've always assumed it's due to emissions tuning, but things like the 1.6 engine in the last model of Focus, the 1.8 in the last Insignia; they should have been OK but not fireballs in cars like that but they were absolutely pitiful sluggish revving gutless things despite looking fine on paper.

kambites

60,301 posts

181 months

Monday 13th July
quotequote all
stickleback123 said:
It's really, really rare to find a small NASP engine from the last few years that doesn't feel weirdly strained and gutless. I've always assumed it's due to emissions tuning, but things like the 1.6 engine in the last model of Focus, the 1.8 in the last Insignia; they should have been OK but not fireballs in cars like that but they were absolutely pitiful sluggish revving gutless things despite looking fine on paper.
yes They seem to generate their power at high revs (as most naturally aspirated engines do) yet they feel really reluctant to actually rev. The MG one is particularly bad though. 100bhp in a 1.3 tonne car (in the ZS) is never going to set the world on fire but it really should feel adequate... it doesn't.

l354uge

1,980 posts

81 months

Monday 13th July
quotequote all
kambites said:
stickleback123 said:
It's really, really rare to find a small NASP engine from the last few years that doesn't feel weirdly strained and gutless. I've always assumed it's due to emissions tuning, but things like the 1.6 engine in the last model of Focus, the 1.8 in the last Insignia; they should have been OK but not fireballs in cars like that but they were absolutely pitiful sluggish revving gutless things despite looking fine on paper.
yes They seem to generate their power at high revs (as most naturally aspirated engines do) yet they feel really reluctant to actually rev. The MG one is particularly bad though. 100bhp in a 1.3 tonne car (in the ZS) is never going to set the world on fire but it really should feel adequate... it doesn't.
Massive flywheels is the main culprit, and massively conservative mapping. Most cheaper car engines are so gutless (non turbo 4 pot ones), noisy and unreliable (turbo 3 pot) or flat (turbo 4 pot ones) I nearly think car makers want us to beg for electric power train..

J4CKO

32,067 posts

160 months

Monday 13th July
quotequote all
Might be emissions and whatever but also we have all generally become used to stuff with turbos and the torque they provide.

So going to a small capacity, none performance variant NASP afterwards is like finishing your last bottle of eight percent Belgian beer and then having a can of Fosters.

The 1.4 K series was always ok, we had them as company hacks (214 SLI's)in the nineties and even then they didnt do much until you had some revs up, I had a MK1 Golf GTI at the time and that felt much stronger low down but in reality no quicker than the Rover.


MG now isnt MG, you could argue that the last tranche of ZR, ZS and ZT were the last, this is not traditional MG by any means, its a badge stuck on some Chinese cars, I wouldn't get any nostalgia about buying one. It would be like some random Chinese bloke turning up dressed in my late Grandads clothes he got from a charity shop claiming to be my granddad.


leef44

1,600 posts

113 months

Monday 13th July
quotequote all
J4CKO said:
Might be emissions and whatever but also we have all generally become used to stuff with turbos and the torque they provide.

So going to a small capacity, none performance variant NASP afterwards is like finishing your last bottle of eight percent Belgian beer and then having a can of Fosters.

The 1.4 K series was always ok, we had them as company hacks (214 SLI's)in the nineties and even then they didnt do much until you had some revs up, I had a MK1 Golf GTI at the time and that felt much stronger low down but in reality no quicker than the Rover.


MG now isnt MG, you could argue that the last tranche of ZR, ZS and ZT were the last, this is not traditional MG by any means, its a badge stuck on some Chinese cars, I wouldn't get any nostalgia about buying one. It would be like some random Chinese bloke turning up dressed in my late Grandads clothes he got from a charity shop claiming to be my granddad.
Thanks everyone for the replies. It does sound like a combo of cheap heavy moving parts, emissions and heavy flywheel.

I've had a 300bhp Impreza, 200bhp EP3 Type R, now driving a 400+bhp SLK55 but my little Suzuki with its 1.5ltr 100bhp engine is really really fun to rev. It's a 2005 car so maybe that's why.

I sometimes take the Suzuki rather than the AMG to North Wales trips because its so fun to drive on those roads. It wouldn't compute for your average modern driver due to NVH and lack of torque.

Anyway, back to topic. From all the feedback, it does seem like a unanimous vote to stay away from the MG 1.5

kambites

60,301 posts

181 months

Monday 13th July
quotequote all
leef44 said:
Anyway, back to topic. From all the feedback, it does seem like a unanimous vote to stay away from the MG 1.5
Not if you're after anything remotely engaging. The engine works in that it moves the car along the road, it's not even THAT slow on paper, but that's about all that can be said of it. The naturally aspirated 1.6 in the Dacia Duster, for example, is a much nicer unit.

leef44

1,600 posts

113 months

Monday 13th July
quotequote all
kambites said:
leef44 said:
Anyway, back to topic. From all the feedback, it does seem like a unanimous vote to stay away from the MG 1.5
Not if you're after anything remotely engaging. The engine works in that it moves the car along the road, it's not even THAT slow on paper, but that's about all that can be said of it. The naturally aspirated 1.6 in the Dacia Duster, for example, is a much nicer unit.
...and there lies my bigger problem. I want something engaging and within speed limits. The 2005 Ignis with 100bhp is all that is required nowadays and it is difficult to replace with a modern car.