Wednesday 13th February 2002
MG ZT190
Sheep in wolf's clothing? We scratch the patriotic veneer and give our verdict on MG's sporting saloon
Discussion
You miss the point entirely Robert old fruit!
For 20k the ZT190 is brilliant value. Not everyone wants a scooby you know! When you consider that an asthmatic 4 banger BMW 318se costs more you begin to realise where MG is going with this.
Having driven in a new 318se very recently am I alone in having a distinctly "emperors new clothes" type suspicions that its not all its cracked up to be? - rough, noisy, notchy gearbox, poor ride quality overlight steering and bugger all grip!
So what if the MG aint no TVR!? Wait for the firebreathing 385bhp supercharged V8 version due out later this year, reputedly for less than 30K if thats what you want.
Your piece betrays the rather depressing habit of too many current journalists, namely that you find it easier to keep up the historic (and it must be said entirely warranted) "Look at me I've got street cred cos I join in with the crowd and bash MG" approach rather than have the wit or courage to give them a break and judge them fairly on their current efforts.
Sad, especially as I think that the Pistonheads website deserves a rather better and (dare I say it?)more professional attitude from contributors.
ANDY 400SE
For 20k the ZT190 is brilliant value. Not everyone wants a scooby you know! When you consider that an asthmatic 4 banger BMW 318se costs more you begin to realise where MG is going with this.
Having driven in a new 318se very recently am I alone in having a distinctly "emperors new clothes" type suspicions that its not all its cracked up to be? - rough, noisy, notchy gearbox, poor ride quality overlight steering and bugger all grip!
So what if the MG aint no TVR!? Wait for the firebreathing 385bhp supercharged V8 version due out later this year, reputedly for less than 30K if thats what you want.
Your piece betrays the rather depressing habit of too many current journalists, namely that you find it easier to keep up the historic (and it must be said entirely warranted) "Look at me I've got street cred cos I join in with the crowd and bash MG" approach rather than have the wit or courage to give them a break and judge them fairly on their current efforts.
Sad, especially as I think that the Pistonheads website deserves a rather better and (dare I say it?)more professional attitude from contributors.
ANDY 400SE
Agree with almost all you say Andymac except for your point about MG bashing (most mags I've read have been pretty positive about them). No the bit alot of car journo's seem to share is the 'more power' fixation - it's starting to get my goat. I've actually stopped buying CAR, and EVO makes me cringe on a regular basis! Many car reviews are becoming almost a parody of themselves and are amazingly predictable in their conclusions (RF is not the only proponent). I'm not saying I could do a better job but these guys write for a living and to be honest I expect more.
As a side note the figures seem quite respectable for the MG, wouldn't buy one tho'
Just my personal feelings on the state of Auto Journalism.
>> Edited by Hoganscrogan on Wednesday 13th February 11:15
As a side note the figures seem quite respectable for the MG, wouldn't buy one tho'
Just my personal feelings on the state of Auto Journalism.
>> Edited by Hoganscrogan on Wednesday 13th February 11:15
The 'more power' thing is fair comment, although given the MG's aggressive looks I thought it might be a tad quicker.
I'm mighty impressed with the way the new boys at MG have turned the marque around though. A couple of years ago they were producing cars that were exclusively targeted at retired bank managers. To use the same platform to appeal to a younger generation seems obvious, but I guess BMW wouldn't have let them when they owned it.
I'm mighty impressed with the way the new boys at MG have turned the marque around though. A couple of years ago they were producing cars that were exclusively targeted at retired bank managers. To use the same platform to appeal to a younger generation seems obvious, but I guess BMW wouldn't have let them when they owned it.
I agree it's got 'the look' but that to be honest is all that matters to alot of people (think debadged BMW's or 318 with M3 kit).
However I know the readers of this site are not generally in that cat.
I admire that with what they are working with, MG are building up the beginings of a very desirable marque.
>> Edited by Hoganscrogan on Wednesday 13th February 11:18
However I know the readers of this site are not generally in that cat.
I admire that with what they are working with, MG are building up the beginings of a very desirable marque.
>> Edited by Hoganscrogan on Wednesday 13th February 11:18
No. My schizophrenia doesn't extend that far.
Reading the article I wonder if RF actually drove the car!
OK, it doesn't have bucketfulls of power, but it handles superbly well, as a drivers car for the road it's actually surprisingly agile for a car of that size. Comparing it with it's true competition, the Mundano, BMW 4-pot's, Passat, Laguna etc. it shows it's strengths to anyone who likes to drive, making most similar saloons feel wooden and dull to drive.
For an article directed at a bunch of pistonheads readers, this one was surprisingly one-dimensional.
OK, it doesn't have bucketfulls of power, but it handles superbly well, as a drivers car for the road it's actually surprisingly agile for a car of that size. Comparing it with it's true competition, the Mundano, BMW 4-pot's, Passat, Laguna etc. it shows it's strengths to anyone who likes to drive, making most similar saloons feel wooden and dull to drive.
For an article directed at a bunch of pistonheads readers, this one was surprisingly one-dimensional.
quote:
For 20k the ZT190 is brilliant value.
Er, No! For 16k the New Civic Type-R is brilliant value.
I wanted to like the new MG machines but sitting in them at the Scottish Motor Show I discovered that I don't fit, and I'm not even 6 feet tall. Seat right back as low as possible with the steering wheel as high as possible I was still banging my knee off it during clutch operation.
The MG ZT is a class piece of engineering, and undeniably excellent value for money (at least until trade-in time). I've said as much in the review.
The only "problem" with the ZT is the product's misrepresentation. MG's ads position the car as some kind of Max Power, wild and crazy, high-performance saloon. That it ain't.
I'd also like to point out that I'm not a horsepower freak. There are plenty of so-called "ordinary" cars that have earned my respect and admiration. The Ford Focus is one. The MG-ZT is another.
That said, if a UK buyer IS a performance freak, if speed matters, then his or her 20k is better spent elsewhere. Fair enough?
The only "problem" with the ZT is the product's misrepresentation. MG's ads position the car as some kind of Max Power, wild and crazy, high-performance saloon. That it ain't.
I'd also like to point out that I'm not a horsepower freak. There are plenty of so-called "ordinary" cars that have earned my respect and admiration. The Ford Focus is one. The MG-ZT is another.
That said, if a UK buyer IS a performance freak, if speed matters, then his or her 20k is better spent elsewhere. Fair enough?
Yes and no Robert!
I have reread the article several times and there is clearly a smell of damnation by faint praise about it:
Quote
" The entire concept is a bit worrying. The ZT is based on the Rover 75, BMW's ode to corporate hubris. No shade of eyeball assaulting paint can disguise the ZT's humble origins as a mid-market luxury barge built for the blue rinse and flat cap brigade."
Humble origins? It's based on a five series chassis for gawds sake, that hardly makes it humble does it? It even has BMWs famous Z axle. Need I also point out that Rover was not always about flat caps and blue rinses. They were sold as "doctors cars" and were viewed as the professional persons choice. later they came to be known as discreet performance cars. In fact in the 60's and early 70s the buyer profile probably wasn't too different to todays BMW buyer!
Quote
If ever a car was voted "least likely to thrill anyone ever", the Rover 75 is it. And yet…"
It was never meant to thrill. It was designed to relax you. Journos like you smacked Rover hard at the 75s launch cos it dared to be different and offer relaxation rather than max power as the prime message. So then when they do what you want you smack them again! They must be forgiven for asking what they can do to please guys like you.
Quote
Someone in Rover's Marketing Department must have decided English retirees find oval shapes irresistibly soothing. Every single control is oval-shaped: air vents, gauges, horn, heater controls, door pulls, side mirrors, turning stalks, window buttons, the lot. "
And your problems with ovals is what exactly? At least the design is original and the theme is consistant throughout the interior design.
Quote
"There's plenty of space for luggage, but not enough rear legroom for a four-year-old."
Utter nonsense. I do not have a 75 or a ZT but I have tried one and its got more room than my Volvo S60 and my colleagues 318. My 3 kids sat in it just fine.
Luxo barge size it aint (despite your eroneous comment earlier in the piece) but its bigger and more comfortable than its peers.
Quote
"Still, the doors clunk with Aryan solidity. There are no paint or glue drips, or nasty unfinished edges. Nothing broke, fell off, failed or rusted during my occupancy. The [thankfully] octagonal MG badge hasn't adorned anything this well built since, um, ever."
can almost taste your disapointment at having to write that paragraph.
Quote
For the non-technical, that's barely enough grunt for a lightweight roadster. Lest we forget, the ZT is a four-door saloon. Fifteen hundred kilos is an awful lot of weight for a small capacity six to schlep around. As a result, when it comes to speed, the ZT is only slightly more than merely adequate."
The 0 - 60 sprint takes 7.8 seconds.
Err Hum, that doesn't seem too slouchy to me!
Quote
....laughable for a car that's supposed to brand you a hooligan. Standstill to the ton requires 22 seconds - a scant two seconds faster than a 2.5 litre Ford Mondeo. "
same price as the Mundano though isn't it Robert? And the same money gets you a slower 1.8T Audi A4 or a BMW 318 thats even slower again. Now pardon me but isn't the BMW the one supposed to be the drivers car?
Don't hear guys like you taking a pop at BMW for building slow, rough engined "drivers cars" very often. But then again I forget myself! BMWs come with that lovely blue and white badge don't they? makes all the difference, obviously.
Quote
"Hit the autobahn, stick the ZT in fifth, plant your foot and… you'll eventually achieve a hardly-worth-the-risk 141mph."
Back to my first point here re faint praise. Why is 141mph in the ZT "hardly worth the effort" when compared to 141mph is anything else?
I could go on but whats the point? You dress up your antipathy towards MG Rover in faint praise and expect a pat on the back for it. The ZT is not to everyones taste but then again neither is a Tiv, a BMW an Audi or any other car on the market.
It stands on it's own considerable merits. Against it's peers it is faster, handles at least as well, is more comfy, has a nice V^ engine, is well built and looks pretty good to most peoples eyes, even with it's oval themed interior!
C'mon Bob, give em a break!
Andy 400se
I have reread the article several times and there is clearly a smell of damnation by faint praise about it:
Quote
" The entire concept is a bit worrying. The ZT is based on the Rover 75, BMW's ode to corporate hubris. No shade of eyeball assaulting paint can disguise the ZT's humble origins as a mid-market luxury barge built for the blue rinse and flat cap brigade."
Humble origins? It's based on a five series chassis for gawds sake, that hardly makes it humble does it? It even has BMWs famous Z axle. Need I also point out that Rover was not always about flat caps and blue rinses. They were sold as "doctors cars" and were viewed as the professional persons choice. later they came to be known as discreet performance cars. In fact in the 60's and early 70s the buyer profile probably wasn't too different to todays BMW buyer!
Quote
If ever a car was voted "least likely to thrill anyone ever", the Rover 75 is it. And yet…"
It was never meant to thrill. It was designed to relax you. Journos like you smacked Rover hard at the 75s launch cos it dared to be different and offer relaxation rather than max power as the prime message. So then when they do what you want you smack them again! They must be forgiven for asking what they can do to please guys like you.
Quote
Someone in Rover's Marketing Department must have decided English retirees find oval shapes irresistibly soothing. Every single control is oval-shaped: air vents, gauges, horn, heater controls, door pulls, side mirrors, turning stalks, window buttons, the lot. "
And your problems with ovals is what exactly? At least the design is original and the theme is consistant throughout the interior design.
Quote
"There's plenty of space for luggage, but not enough rear legroom for a four-year-old."
Utter nonsense. I do not have a 75 or a ZT but I have tried one and its got more room than my Volvo S60 and my colleagues 318. My 3 kids sat in it just fine.
Luxo barge size it aint (despite your eroneous comment earlier in the piece) but its bigger and more comfortable than its peers.
Quote
"Still, the doors clunk with Aryan solidity. There are no paint or glue drips, or nasty unfinished edges. Nothing broke, fell off, failed or rusted during my occupancy. The [thankfully] octagonal MG badge hasn't adorned anything this well built since, um, ever."
can almost taste your disapointment at having to write that paragraph.
Quote
For the non-technical, that's barely enough grunt for a lightweight roadster. Lest we forget, the ZT is a four-door saloon. Fifteen hundred kilos is an awful lot of weight for a small capacity six to schlep around. As a result, when it comes to speed, the ZT is only slightly more than merely adequate."
The 0 - 60 sprint takes 7.8 seconds.
Err Hum, that doesn't seem too slouchy to me!
Quote
....laughable for a car that's supposed to brand you a hooligan. Standstill to the ton requires 22 seconds - a scant two seconds faster than a 2.5 litre Ford Mondeo. "
same price as the Mundano though isn't it Robert? And the same money gets you a slower 1.8T Audi A4 or a BMW 318 thats even slower again. Now pardon me but isn't the BMW the one supposed to be the drivers car?
Don't hear guys like you taking a pop at BMW for building slow, rough engined "drivers cars" very often. But then again I forget myself! BMWs come with that lovely blue and white badge don't they? makes all the difference, obviously.
Quote
"Hit the autobahn, stick the ZT in fifth, plant your foot and… you'll eventually achieve a hardly-worth-the-risk 141mph."
Back to my first point here re faint praise. Why is 141mph in the ZT "hardly worth the effort" when compared to 141mph is anything else?
I could go on but whats the point? You dress up your antipathy towards MG Rover in faint praise and expect a pat on the back for it. The ZT is not to everyones taste but then again neither is a Tiv, a BMW an Audi or any other car on the market.
It stands on it's own considerable merits. Against it's peers it is faster, handles at least as well, is more comfy, has a nice V^ engine, is well built and looks pretty good to most peoples eyes, even with it's oval themed interior!
C'mon Bob, give em a break!
Andy 400se
Re: The comments about the MG being a tad 'Pedestrian'.
I think alot of us forget that to most people 7.8 seconds to 60, is blistering!! It's all right for us to sit back in our Griff 500's, (and I do
) and scoff at anything that can't hit the magic 60 under 5 odd seconds, but the target cutomer base for this car will have been weaned (sp) on a diet of 1.4 Astras and 1.8 Mundanos'.
MG are spot on with their advertising, when ever I see their plug on the telly I think 'YES! Bloody right!!!, you tell 'em!'
Thats what I think anyway...
Cheers Dan
I think alot of us forget that to most people 7.8 seconds to 60, is blistering!! It's all right for us to sit back in our Griff 500's, (and I do
) and scoff at anything that can't hit the magic 60 under 5 odd seconds, but the target cutomer base for this car will have been weaned (sp) on a diet of 1.4 Astras and 1.8 Mundanos'. MG are spot on with their advertising, when ever I see their plug on the telly I think 'YES! Bloody right!!!, you tell 'em!'
Thats what I think anyway...
Cheers Dan
I'm sorry Robert, but every way I read the article it sounds like you thought the readership of PH would snigger along with you at the boring pedestrian MG.
We do like fast cars, speed matters right? But we also appreciate balanced objective articles, humour is good but don't try to base an entire review on one shaky premise, namely that MG advertise the car as a super saloon and it doesn't drive like a TVR.
We do like fast cars, speed matters right? But we also appreciate balanced objective articles, humour is good but don't try to base an entire review on one shaky premise, namely that MG advertise the car as a super saloon and it doesn't drive like a TVR.
Blimey, poor author's taken a bit of a kicking. So, just to add my boot's worth... I'm about to buy a VR6 - Golf/Vento/Corrado, I'm not bothered - and they're quite nippy. Similar pace, it would seem, to the ZT. They're all quite okay for road use, while not exactly making your eyes bleed from the sheer grunt, and are solid machines that carry a number of people in comfort. You can't compare a ZT to anything other than similarly sized cars, the kind that you drive and think 'if only it had a bit more poke and grip'. Bingo; the ZT does.
I admire MG for what they're doing. In a world where we're all being told how nice, good for the environment and safe modern cars are, MG is bucking the trend and recognising that we all like to get on with it on a good road.
The report was a grudging recognition that the ZT is good, but it was filled with so much cynicism, sarcasm and 'humour' that the compliments are difficult to find. RF shouldn't start off bleating about the 75; the ZT is a very different animal. It's like starting a 911 test by saying that the Beetle was uncomfortable and slow. Oh, and use an English spell checker - we have litres in Britain.
I admire MG for what they're doing. In a world where we're all being told how nice, good for the environment and safe modern cars are, MG is bucking the trend and recognising that we all like to get on with it on a good road.
The report was a grudging recognition that the ZT is good, but it was filled with so much cynicism, sarcasm and 'humour' that the compliments are difficult to find. RF shouldn't start off bleating about the 75; the ZT is a very different animal. It's like starting a 911 test by saying that the Beetle was uncomfortable and slow. Oh, and use an English spell checker - we have litres in Britain.
Gassing Station | Motoring News | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff