[Closed] MG ZT-T

You'll look great in it.

I had one a few years ago. There's an air sensor for the turbo that fails which stops the turbo cutting in until late in the rev range. They last 30k miles. I fitted an aftermarket piggyback ecu that used its own sensor to fix mine.

Fuel consumption was disappointing - 37mpg.

Does it have heated wing mirrors?

Surely NO ONE has heated wing mirrors in these days of economic hardship?

You know why Rover and MG went out of business? Because their cars were terrible. Shame, sad, but true.

Unless I've been brilliantly trolled, I had you down as a brighter man, iDave.

I bet I know who recommended it....

Rover that has ben coated in glue and driven through Halfords innit?

IHN - Member
You know why Rover and MG went out of business? Because their cars were terrible. Shame, sad, but true.

Wasn't the Rover 75 largely developed by BMW though? I thought it got pretty good reviews; admittedly always along the lines of "good, but a 3-series, C-class, A4 is better".
The ZT-T is a chavved Rover 75 from the post BMW era, but surely they couldn't have messed it up that much??

Yeah, it had great reviews at the time. It's a BMW put together by brummies. They are very cheap (or were, I assume they still are).

I really didn't like mine, but if I'd have bought a BMW touring I suspect I wouldn't have liked it either.

There was a thread - but seeing as a search doesn't even find [i]this[/i] thread I think something's borked.

Yeah, build quality was never great in the first place, never mind after they started trying to make them as cheaply as possible in order to stay in business.

I still stand by the fact that, if the cars had been any good, people would have bought enough of them for the company to stay in business. My other half has a 25, only 55k-ish miles and it's an absolute heap of cr@p. My twice as old, twice the mileage Golf was at lest twice the car.

Oh, and the ZT-T looks awful.

Oh, and the ZT-T looks awful

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/another-car-thread-decent-estate-for-2k-ish

can't be bothered to link properly as I'm on the psp.

Rovers were decent enough cars - but no-one ever remembered to invest in them and keep updating the lineup - the 400/45 was ~14 year old design and still being sold, the 200/25 not too far behind.

The 75 was an all new car, but that wasn't enough to save the company that wasn't really wanted by anyone as all the assest were slowly stripped away.

[i]Harsh criticism from a golf owner! [/i]

🙂 Golf's are bland, I'll admit, but not awful

ZT-Ts are awful. I mean, come on, they are.

My mrs had a golf. It was small. I can't get past that. OK for girls I guess.

IHN - Member

ZT-Ts are awful. I mean, come on, they are.

I quite like the ZT-T. Especially the estate....

Does it really look any more awful than other (dull but practical) old estate cars? Care to suggest a better looking alternative, not that looks are that important?

[img] http://pictures2.autotrader.co.uk/imgser-uk/servlet/media?id=1875264719 [/img]

Looks as good as any estate to me.

I've got one, had it just over a year. It's comfy, quick enough, well specced (much better than owt else for similar money) and does the job for me. There are a few things to consider though. Tyres are an odd size and hence expensive. They also don't seem to last that long. Fuel consumption is not great for a turbo diesel at 38mpg ish over the year mainly driving on country roads with a 15 mile commute. My dampers died and cost a bugger load to replace. The rear is good and long but not very tall so you have to think a bit carefully about bike packing but the car works fine with a tow-bar rack.

I'm pleased with mine apart from this little things. I also think that as a big estate it actually looks really rather good with good proportioning

Fair enough, the one in the pic is not too chavved-to-the-max as some. I don't really like the colour, but that car is not awful looking.

Passats are better looking IMO, as are Beemers (3 or 5 series), Volvos are sort of handsome in a strange way.

But, as you say, looks aren't important if practicality is what you're after. If you like it, buy it.

I always think 'Chaved up Rover' when I see one, what about a sporty Mondeo (chaved up Ford)?

iDave - Member
Does it really look any more awful than other (dull but practical) old estate cars? Care to suggest a better looking alternative, not that looks are that important?

TJ? After all, is a tandem not the eq of an estate?

IMO the ZT looked a hell of a lot better than the 75. My old man had a 75 and while it was comfortable and moved along at a steady pace on the motorway I still think it was crap. The suspension was too soggy as was everything else come to think about it, it felt like the steering column was made out of sponge. But to be fair I did (and still do) have a Focus which is a much better feeling car.

The one time I tried I struggled to get a bike in the back I can't remember exactly why but it bloody annoyed me at the time.

Have a 75 2lite diesel in the household.
Good: comfy, surprisingly quick, quiet, so far relaible (54plate, 60k miles) 55mpg on a run (we don't do much town driving), cheap for a car with all the toys.
Bad: Not as big aboot as some rivals, lack of foot space for front passenger, gets through front tyres and brakes surprisingly quickly, image.
Miles better than a 25/45 of the same age.
If the budget will go to a V70 though I'd go for one of those, but that's mainly for the boot space.

I've got the Rover 75 variant and am well happy with the last 5 years of ownership.The engine is from the pre 2000 BMW 320 diesel

Main things on the 75/ZT diesel are ,

MAF sensor - these go out of spec after about 50k and the engine can start overfueling (more a problem in summer than winter) the original Bosch one can be replaced with a Pierburgh one with a compensator box .have a look on http://tuning-diesels.com/75Zt/R75serv.htm#b .

Slave cylinder - as it's inside the clutch housing it's an expensive fix . In fact anything to do with the clutch on these engines is a bit pricey , my replacement clutch/slave and master cost me £500.

Rear coil springs - on the tourer models especially they have a nasty habit of breaking near the bottom of the coil and unless you remove the wheels you can't tell.

There have been some reports of front coils breaking and a lot of cars were recalled to have a plastic tyre saver fitted around the lower half of the coil in case of snappage.

That really is about it , I get 42mpg on combined journeys >120 miles max but tickling the throttle fully loaded on a run I've had nearly 55mpg. As for spares there's plenty about , a lot of the parts are straight out of BMW's parts bin.

Have a look on here http://forums.mg-rover.org/forumdisplay.php?f=90

Okay, experience from someone who had one.

I had one as a company runabout (the V6 one). My mate bought one.

As a car it was pretty good - it was comfy and I quite liked it but it was very boring. The worst part was the servicing - the V6 has a dry sump as I seem to remember and was a pain to service.

If it was my money, if it was cheap enough I would buy another. But for your money you can do a lot better. At the time I then got a Vauxhall MV6 - that was tonnes more fun and a lot better specced. I'd buy another MV6 before the Rover. That;s not to say the Rover was a dog - the MV6 was just miles better and more fun for similair money...

Fun is no longer a factor for me - too many points and fines over the years in fast cars. Will also look at V70s and maybe old Mercs.

I have a cheap V-70 estate and have brushed up on many subjects, including filling it up.

If fun is not a factor iDave then I would say get one.

Yes it's not the most fun for the cash but you have said you are not looking for that. So, it will get you from A to B and in a huge amount of comfort and it fairly cheap to run. Unless you go for the V6 - seriously, avoid that bugger! It's a bloody nightmare.

For a regular one - the parts are cheap and easy to find. And they are easy to fit.

But most importantly, as I said, it's a hugely comfy car for not only you but your passengers too.

and if you want to carry bikes you can fit a tow bar (which also allows you to tow a trailer and opens up a whole load of awesome!) or a roof rack easily.

Oh! and the old V70's were ace - the new ones are very small in comparisson. I was very dissapouinted.

Can't believe nobody has suggested the RWD V8 version.... 🙂

The MV6 is RWD but I don't think he wants that?

I want a dull diesel estate of questionable kudos

rep in work has one, it is a BMW engine and he's had it chipped.

not the best looking car but the inside is ok and as above very comfortable. hes had **** all trouble with it in about 4 years.

monkey_boy - Member
not the best looking car but the inside is ok and as above very comfortable.

See! This is what I'm trying to say.

It ain't the best driving car but it is hugely comfy. As you get older this becomes way more important over performance.

As I said, for comfort I would happily buy one again...

Slight hijack, IDave, what Saabs did what type of blowing up may I ask?

My 93 has recently blown a turbo and it was a costly fix. Anything else I should be wary about?

I've had two 9-5 2.3 turbo's blow up. Allegedly a design 'feature' in the earlier ones related to the sump??

What should I know about buying one, the 2.0 CDTi specifically.

Not sure - nowt has gone wrong with it so far. You already seem to know it's BMW bits in it. Not especially fast but corners well. Bit of a pig around town at low speeds imho (or maybe that's just the stiffer suspension in mine) but nice once you're up and cruising.

Erm, not that much leg room on the front passenger side. Bit of bonus storage space under the hatch in the boot. Looks nice from some angles; looks like a standard boring estate from others.

Can't think of anything else.

A sad story. The 75 was actually a very good car, they under-priced it which had a two fold effect:
1 - less margin
2 - it wasn't taken seriously enough and therefore didn't sell in big enough numbers.

I think the touring and saloon had a Jag-esque style, I liked it.

WWCS ?

(What would Clarkson say).....

Anything a bit needlessly controversial - probably hate it 'cos it's a diesel (not enough POWER), not a Ford (didn't his Mrs work for Ford) and not a supercar. Strangely enough, he probably doesn't buy many cheap diesel estates. Maybe suggest a Range Rover to get the full Clarkson effect?

I know you're all waiting, it's now between a V70 D5 and a MG ZT-T, looking at them both on Monday.

I think it will be the Volvo.

Maybe too late, but...

[img] [/img]

More practical than the lime green Bentley x