MG-Cars.net

Welcome to our resource for MG Car Information.

Recommendations

Parts

MG parts spares and accessories are available for MG T Series (TA, MG TB, MG TC, MG TD, MG TF), Magnette, MGA, Twin cam, MGB, MGBGT, MGC, MGC GT, MG Midget, Sprite and other MG models from British car spares company LBCarCo.

MG ZR ZS ZT Technical - Another 'Which ZT?' thread...

Yes, okay, sorry ANOTHER ZT thread - but getting test drives in all the ZT-T variants is proving difficult at present to arrange.

Background is that we're currently looking to replace the 'family' 2.0 V6 75. In the absence of the RD60 based ZS for the foreseeable future (next year or two), we're thinking of the 'family wagon' version of the ZT - the ztt.

Already driven the 190. Now we're spoilt. What an absolutely fantastic car!!! Hugely more torque than our venerable 2.0 KV6, and the chassis and steering is first class.

But of course, the ZTT chassis is shared by all the cars in the range, so with running costs in mind, I wondered how the 160 1.8T and the 135 TD stack up? Will arrange test drives of each (preferably back to back) - but I wondered what you folks thought of the relative merits of your 160 1.8Ts and 135 TDs?

Is the diesel actually capable enough for me not to really bemoan the lack of 190ps of creamy KV6 power? (I think I know the answer to that already actually, but you never know! LOL)

Cheers
Rob Bell

Rob
Given the extra weight of the ZT-T, I know at Donnington last year I kept pace with a 190 in my 160, so go for the 190 or the 135. On Xpower forums, Adrian Menzies has had his 135 about a month or so and is really pleased with it. Roger Parker reckons the 160 1.8T has tuning potential to take it towards the 190 league, but is lacking below 2000rpm. But he says it isn't as smooth as the V6.

HTH
Martin

Rob,

If MPG is your concern then the difference between the two 2 V6s is almost none existent.

Saloon combined 29.2 (2.0) vs. 28.9 (2.5)
Estate combines 29.5 (2.0) vs. 30 (2.5)

These figures are straight out of the brochure for the Rover version with manual gearbox. These seem to suggest that the estate is more fuel efficient than the saloon and the 2.5 more efficient than the 2.0 when in the estate!

I spent a half day testing all the cars back to back before ordering. The 1.8 seemed underpowered in comparison to our old 1.6 200 particularly when pottering around town. I have not driven the Turbo version but all the reports are the need to "wind it up". This is not a fun way to drive around town or a big car!

The diesel was only the 116 version. I was surprised how good it was around town but always with the preface "for a diesel". My brain said this would be OK and cheap to run. Heart however always (wisely) advised me that I was not swapping to 200 for the 75 to save money.

I did not try the 2.0 because of the above figures. The 2.5 however just seemed so much better than the rest and Ann fully concurred (and she is no petrolhead). The ZT 190 was THE best drive but was rejected for interior (we are very old!) and the lack of auto option (rather proves the previous point!).

We also thought the ride in the Rover estate was firmer and better than the saloon. I think you can now get the MG suspension set-up on the Rover and if buying again would go for this.

So a big vote for the 2.5 - you know it makes sense. Our MPG (auto estate) has varied from 31 (being very careful and long trips) to 28 on good mixed driving. The worst is in the teens (15 to 18) when Ann uses it only for commuting 3 miles to work, the shops and collecting me from the station!

Remember no one buys a 75 to save money - it is an indulgence so do it properly and get the 2.5!

Cheers

Patrick
Patrick Beet

"Remember no one buys a 75 to save money - it is an indulgence so do it properly and get the 2.5!"

LOL thanks Patrick! Yes, you are right! I'm sure that a 190 will be duely ordered - but I feel 'honour bound' to try the more economical 1.8T and 135TD before making that decision...

Regarding the estates being more economical - crumbs, I hadn't spotted that before! Certainly your fuel economy seems to be pretty much what we get out of our current 2.0V6 - hmm... Lovely engine that 2.5 litre!

Martin, thanks for your input... I'll check out the XPF and see what Adrian has to say about his fine new steed :o)

Cheers
Rob Bell

This thread was discussed between 01/08/2003 and 04/08/2003

MG ZR ZS ZT Technical index

This thread is from the archive. The Live MG ZR ZS ZT Technical BBS is active now.