26th May 2010, 12:16

The 180 MG is a ZS (the ZT is the Rover 75, whereas the ZS is the 45). Also the V6 engine is not bombproof; it also has its faults, and I have heard of some real horror stories. However, it is less likely to have head gasket failure than the 1.8k series, thanks to being less stressed (180bhp from a 2.5 V6 is hardly groundbreaking).

7th Jun 2010, 08:16

Head gasket failure in all K series engines is due to wrong procedure being followed by dealer's garages when changing coolant. It shall be done using coolant vacuum system fillers to avoid airlocks; and warm up the aluminium alloy engine before rev it up to minimise the difference in heat expansion in between the cylinder head and engine block.

7th Jun 2010, 12:08

Head gasket failure in the K series isn't purely due to those two things. Thermostat failing is just as likely, and the small tank makes it so that there's not much water in reserve, or it can just be drivers not checking the coolant often enough. The original head gaskets aren't upto the job either, hence why people tend to opt for the Land Rover MLS if fitting a replacement.

3rd Sep 2010, 06:36

I also own an MG ZR 160, and have done for the last four years now. Personally I have not experienced HGF in all that time.

From purchase, the miles were 38000, and now on 81000 miles.

The only problems I have experienced was small things like coil packs and rocker cover leaks; all easy fixes. And yes I do rag the car about.

I also had a coolant leak, which I could not detect till I noticed a slight leak when cold on the thermostat housing. Did not realize they have 3 O-rings fitted, and they were the cause of my leaks.

All I can personally say is don't listen to all the scare stories, and use your own intuition on the car, and ask the seller lots of questions, and then provided that you regularly service them, they can and will last. Like most have said, it's the idiots who drive their cars for months without checking water and oil levels.

HAPPY DRIVING.

21st May 2011, 18:22

It is a fact there are dodgy garages changing coolant without a vacuum pump, leaving air in the cooling system. The dealer my ZR was originally sold by was going to dilute the out of date concentrate with tap water. In Adelaide Australia, the water is one of the hardest in the world, and asking in the only two other garages in Adelaide, it is a common practice. I have no other option but buying a vacuum refill kit and an air compressor to do the timing belts, water pump and fresh long life orange coolant with demineralised water by myself. Warming the engine up before moving the car is mandatory to avoid head gasket failure due to different aluminium expansion coefficient in between head and block. Crossed fingers though, it is a British kettle!

1st Jul 2011, 20:33

You bring your Golf to me then and we'll film it on you tube. My ZR 160vvc would eat your Golf for breakfast.

Also to the guy who got thrashed by a Clio 182. I don't know what he's driving, but it's defo not my 160. Type Rs, ST170s, 172, 182, bring em all on.

6th Jul 2011, 07:29

A ZR 160 won't get thrashed by a Clio Sport or a CTR, but will lose as it's down on power compared to the others. I had a 160 years ago, and it would stick with these cars to around a ton, but past that they will be pulling away!

17th Jan 2012, 16:03

Excellent review buddy! I have the MG ZR 160 myself, and love the car. Obviously though I'm getting paranoid checking for leaks every single day, as I've heard all about the head gasket failures etc. I've also been told like yourself, that if you look after the car and get the oil and coolant serviced every 8k or so, there's no reason why the gasket will ever go. The gasket doesn't just blow, it's always something that makes it blow like a water pump, cooling fan failure or thermostat. Happy driving buddy!!

7th Feb 2012, 14:50

For some reason, people people think the Clio 182, Type R etc are super cars. I've had a go in a ZR 160 and a 172, and I couldn't tell the difference in performance. What's the difference? The Clio is 7.2 and the ZR is 7.4 to 60; hardly any difference.

The VVC is a cracking engine. I would say better than the Clio when pushed to the limiter, and more fun to drive. Also, the Clio's steering wheel is too big.

8th Feb 2012, 10:57

I agree there isn't too much in it, but it's more than the 0.2 book figures suggest. Check car reviews on the Internet and owners forums, and you will read that the Clio's and Type R's can consistently pull 0-60 in sub 7 seconds, and the ZR cannot, and to be honest it's only going to get more noticeable from there on in.

It's simple power to weight ratio. The ZR has less BHP, but weighs more than the Clio, and the Civic has far more BHP, meaning power to weight is also greater. Driving the three you might not notice TOO much difference, but whereas the Clio and CTR are neck and neck, the 160 is somewhere between them and a Fiesta ST. Same goes for the old Focus ST170 and the MG ZS180, and many others I'm sure.

10th Feb 2012, 07:03

One of my old work mates has a Type R, and the engine sounds great, but it's vastly overrated performance wise. The ZR160s are cracking little cars, and they only weigh 1090kg.

14th Feb 2012, 16:22

I have a 160 ZR, and my mate has a 172, and there's very little in it. Half a car's length, if that. Both are top cars, but the Clio is better in the bends.

9th Apr 2012, 14:10

I use to own an MG ZR 160. One of the best cars I've had. Very brutal acceleration.

I now own an Audi TT 3.2 DSG; very smooth engine and a great cruiser. But a different type of car. But the Zed was more exciting.

Very powerful little car. Would recommend to anyone.

2nd Mar 2019, 17:03

One of the best cars I've had, and I had several Lotus Elises and also have an BMW E36 compact with an M3 3.2 engine swap. The ZR160 handles very tightly, not as great as an Elise (which has been the landmark in handling for sports and super cars for the last 20 years, read a real sports car magazine), but way tighter than the compact.

The engine is great and a bit dull at the same time, as it has all the torque from idle almost (remember that is exceptional for a petrol engine, even more since there is no turbo!). The dull bit is that it lacks character, you know from low revs it pulls, there isn't a big (or even small) slingshot effect higher in the revs, it's the most linear engine I've ever had. It doesn't come alive at 2/3rds of the rev range like a classic (non VVC) petrol engine, it's alive from idle. Great for pulling of the line ASAP.

The gearbox ratios are too close IMO and because of this, engine RPM could have been lower at motorway speeds, especially as the torque would have allowed this. Maybe they wanted to appeal too much to track day enthusiast who apparently can't get enough of close ratios and quick steering racks (too much is too much and not nice on a daily drive where most of the driving is in a STRAIGHT line).

Instead of reading and propagating BS regarding head gasket failure or HGF (mostly by idiots knowing nothing about how an engine works and just parroting exaggerations), educate yourself. The K series was 10 years ahead of its time, people and mechanics have made mistakes on them as they weren't used to the innovative design. Yes, some were assembled less well because of Rover intentional bad management, but the engine itself is great and used by loads of track day vehicles. Sorry, but if abused and proven on track isn't enough for you, you simply don't deserve this car.

The main 4 reasons for HGF are plastic dowels, not ideal original head gasket, not ideal liner protrusion on some cars, and finally thermostat location on mid engined cars (MGF, Elise) and big thermal differential between radiator and engine on those mid engined cars.

The 5th reason is maybe the biggest one: idiots who never bother to open the bonnet and continue to drive when clearly something is wrong. It happens on every car; my sister had a bombproof (I serviced it well) VAG 1.9 TDI, while my 1.9 TDI (in another car) with lesser mileage has HGF.

If you think Rover/MR is expensive to fix, lookup fixes for turbodieseled Germans (turbo failures are VERY expensive and often blow up the whole engine if you keep driving them) or comically unreliable french diesels (lots of ads with 'engine changed under warranty at 30-50k miles').

Shady mechanics took advantage of stupidity by changing head gaskets for no reason at the slightest hint of overheating.

The VVC variants need and were developed for semi-synthetic oil, NOT fully synthetic, so service to spec.

The VVC (usually with VVC heads kept but VVC mechanism removed, partly for simplicity) engines can now be tuned to around 240bp (real world experiences, not internet legend) which is incredible for a block that started life as a 1.1L (the original K series design) and is VERY high for a naturally aspirated engine. A 2L Honda (K20 or F20C) doesn't do better (and at a higher price).

THE CAR ITSELF:

As stated, very sharp handling in ZR160 form; with lighter alloys (SSR type-C for instance) the ride is noticeably more compliant and car accelerates a bit harder. If you prefer softer but still sporty ride, fit 16". You can fit 14" as far as I know as the brake disc dimensions are the same as on Rover 25 equipped with 14".

The wheel PCD is 4x100 is the most widespread standard so loads of wheels available (unlike the 4x95.25 PCD of old).

Interior: it's no limo, it's a sports car. I really don't get official reviewers ranting about 'outdated' interiors! It's bloody functional and instinctive (no digital rubbish climate control etc). The few faults are known and easy to repair (did I forget to mention ultra cheap too?). It's way more simple to fix than the gizmos on 'better' equipped cars (which will fail in time I can assure you).

The half leather description buggers me, it's no real leather, so please call it what it is, vinyl. It's no way BMW leather. It's not the same price either and is also lighter (yes I have taken many seats out of cars and weighed them). It's either sports OR luxury, you can't have both in a car.

If you are a fashion victim caring about what shallow people will say, go ahead and buy a new Mini. If you care about car enjoyment regardless of image, take this car for a spin, you won't regret it. Yes you'll need a JCW Mini to beat the ZR160, a regular Cooper won't suffice.

At least a ZR and a 'bini' both still look good and sporty. A Fabia vRS on the contrary and other hatchbacks... not.

It's way bigger inside than a Polo or french hatch, in fact it's a big car. It just looks small because of its rounded shape, but due to basic trim it's very roomy inside. No it's no 7 seater MPV... obviously. But far easier to use the available space and hatch than a german estate ('variant', 'touring', 'break').

The fit is perfect for me (long legs, short trunk, decently comfy and great support in sharp bends) as I read ill fit reviews, you have to try it out instead of assuming everybody has the same body. You know bodily proportions between a man and woman are significantly different don't you? So try for fit.

It's as comfy as my compact, which has 5 adjustment on the leather seats. I'm also very satisfied with the 2 adjustments on an Elise seat and can't stand the low back springing (it's the cushion seam stitching) of the seats in my Seat Alhambra.

Electrics: known faults, especially the wiring loom part that wears out at the junction body-tailgate. Fix this with ultra supple silicone wiring from R/C cars and I'll last forever (regular car wires are quite stiff and break due to the bending of the wires).

Also take the immobilizer and security bolts out, these things are useless and a PITA that can leave you stranded, they have no use anymore (except annoying everybody when the alarm goes off), it's no new car (even then it's useless) and pro thieves can disable them in a heartbeat.

Compared to other hot hatches of the period it's a bit less powerful, but it's also lighter and cheaper to maintain and more reliable (no turbo).

Just like a Lotus, the best bit is in its 'bad' reputation: it makes for undervalued bargains which have been closely checked by previous buyers/owners thanks to paranoia. Almost all possible problems will have manifested within the first 10 years and are either solved (most very cheap by a competent DIY'er) or a small bargaining point. More 'modern' cars will show a s**tload of expensive problems after 10+ years. Too bad the motoring reviewers from new don't test the cars after 10 years hey? To see how much longtime ownership REALLY costs.

Most troublesome items can be easily and cheaply fixed and will very probably have been upgraded over the years (stainless exhausts etc).

Treat the engine well, and when the day comes that rust has eaten the car away, you'll still get your money back for the engine alone (well, the VVC160 at least or the VVC145 in the Rover GTI).