MG return

StevieDB9

StevieDB9

Road Burner
Points
72
Location
(was) Allanton, Scotland
Car
Ford Focus 1.4
anyone else think the (frankly philistine) chinese cop-out of a "British Sports-Car" that is the new MG is truly offensive, looks like it came from a lucky bag! :sad2:
 
No. I think if it had ANY other badge on people would give it a fair chance. Admittedly it's trading on a heritage it doesn't deserve but then so does the current so-called 'mini'. The mg6 doesn't look any better or worse than any other of the current crop.
 
It just not the car it promises to be. The name they are trading on is not that good TBH. In recent years under Rover the MG badge became a boy racer plastic addon badge rather a real thoroughbread performance car.

The V6 engines are good and the 1.8 VVC were quite good but I'm not that impressed with the new MG.
 
waynne said:
It just not the car it promises to be. The name they are trading on is not that good TBH. In recent years under Rover the MG badge became a boy racer plastic addon badge rather a real thoroughbread performance car.

The V6 engines are good and the 1.8 VVC were quite good but I'm not that impressed with the new MG.
Click to expand...

Meh. The zs180 was a cracker to drive. I'd love the chinese to give the british engineers the green light to make a monster Z version of the mg6.
 
waynne said:
It just not the car it promises to be. The name they are trading on is not that good TBH. In recent years under Rover the MG badge became a boy racer plastic addon badge rather a real thoroughbread performance car.

The V6 engines are good and the 1.8 VVC were quite good but I'm not that impressed with the new MG.
Click to expand...

I disagree with you there Waynne, the MGs which were badged Metro's, Montego's etc were the poorer versions in terms of overall package. The Z range were a different animal especially when it came to the ZR160, ZS180 and ZT260, these were engineered MG versions which held their own against much more expensive models from other respected marques. Hardly a plastic add-on for the chavs. (ZR105 or 120 would be the ones targeted for wannabe 160s etc)

Back on topic the MG6 is okay, but remove the badge and most will struggle to identify it as it a generic design. I have seen modifed pre-production versions and they look stunning but for some stupid reason they have stuck with a measly 1.8! If they had made a flagship version with at least 280bhp then that would be making a statement.
 
I agree. I know the biggest sellers of any car are the shoppinh versions but I'd love to have seen mg6 equivalents of the focus st, focus rs, meganesport 250. If they were engineered like the Zs they'd be excellent to drive and used prices would plummet so they'd be performance bargains. Perhaps if the mg6 does ok it will happen.
 
stamford said:
I disagree with you there Waynne, the MGs which were badged Metro's, Montego's etc were the poorer versions in terms of overall package. The Z range were a different animal especially when it came to the ZR160, ZS180 and ZT260, these were engineered MG versions which held their own against much more expensive models from other respected marques. Hardly a plastic add-on for the chavs. (ZR105 or 120 would be the ones targeted for wannabe 160s etc)

Back on topic the MG6 is okay, but remove the badge and most will struggle to identify it as it a generic design. I have seen modifed pre-production versions and they look stunning but for some stupid reason they have stuck with a measly 1.8! If they had made a flagship version with at least 280bhp then that would be making a statement.
Click to expand...

I go right back to the MG B GT and MG C, these were cracking cars in their time. I don't have any experience of a Z and kind of forgot they existed. The Newer MG F (I think it was) was a complete dog to drive and totally disrepected the heritage of the MG name.

The Maestro MG turbo was a real cracker and I'll defend this to the hilt. ;)
 
The controversy continues! We have two MGFs in the family and have found the wife's SE to be a great car. Handles like a kart and nippy for a 120, I would consider a VVC for track use if I didn't love my ZS so much. Can't see where it was a dog and have never heard them mentioned as such. You cannot compare older MGs with those of recent years as they are poles apart in terms of build quality and design. Each to their own I say.
 
stamford said:
The controversy continues! We have two MGFs in the family and have found the wife's SE to be a great car. Handles like a kart and nippy for a 120, I would consider a VVC for track use if I didn't love my ZS so much. Can't see where it was a dog and have never heard them mentioned as such. You cannot compare older MGs with those of recent years as they are poles apart in terms of build quality and design. Each to their own I say.
Click to expand...



Agreed MGF's are great handling cars imo.
 
I drove one and found the steering to be vague, the car wondered around and the power was just not there.

Wasnt there an issue with the tyre type on these when they were first out.

I do sound like i'm disrespecting the mg and don't mean to. I'm sure that i've probably just been unlucky and others have had a very different experience to myself and don't suppose I can really pass a fair judgement.
 
Last edited:
Must have been a bad un.

I think I have a soft spot for MG simply because my ZS punched way above its weight and if the build and component quality had matched up to the engineering design it really would have been excellent.
 
I knew a bloke with 2 MG Maestros, exactly the same year and similar mileages. One drove like a dog and the other was a dream. At the end of the day when he got the suspension renewed and realigned both were stunning cars again.

Note to self: Mustn't be too critical of car brands based on limited experience! :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Please watch this on my YouTube channel & Subscribe.


Back
Top