Welcome to the MG ZT review page, as you can see this page provides you with all our user generated reviews of MG ZT cars. AA Cars provide our users with the best feedback on all car makes and models all across the uk to give you the best possible information, to help you make your decision when buying a new used car. We break each vehicle review down into five categories (preformance, running cost, comfort, reliability and space practicality) making it very easy to understand, giving you feedback directly form the vehicle owner. This provides you with all the information you need to make the decision of which car is perfect for you.
Currently they are one of the most underrated car in the UK (09/02/2017), this is actually of great benefit because like me you can pick one up for around £700 that has been cherished by its previous owner despite being the sportier model derived from the Rover 75. So in all seriousness for that money how can you rate a car as good as this for such little buying cost as anything but as good as it gets, so don't compare this against a similar BMW's from around 2004 which at there price you can afford a ZT and insurance and road tax with some money left over for a second rate holiday in Spain. In serious terms the ZT is a stiffer car then the Rover 75 as its the sports version, however even with wide tires there ride quality and comfort is of exceptional quality so long as your not use to the Bentley and Rolls Royce market. The performance from the Diesel ZT can only be rated as exceptional considering its cost, and for those looking for a bit more power there is a MAP upgrade taking the power output up to 160 BHP with no noticeable change to the vehicles economy which is impressive given its originally rated at 130 BHP. In terms of aesthetics the car looks very good for what it is, and to be honest I would not complain if I paid its new price, so at £700 currently its a steal. And you can have the pick of the market between the MK1 and MK2 front bumper, the MK1 in some ways does not look as good but there is less cost cutting in there manufacture where as the MK2 looks better but has some cut backs such as reduced quality of material used in the front grill. In terms of space and practicality the saloon boot is huge despite what the expert car reviewers say, but there are many estates available too which have there own charm against a saloon. In terms of practicality its as good as any "Premier German Car Brand" door bins, floor mats, wipe clean leather, believe it or not power steering just like a "Premier German Car Brand" and electric wing mirrors which are great. So basically my point is that if you get in an estate car and think its rubbish because you cant maneuver then your stupid, funnily enough the ZT gets branded as this sometimes. Its reliability is very good if its looked after, people think cars are rubbish if they don't do 150,000 miles without fault. Well in simple terms components wear out or fail, but if people treated machinery with respect they last longer. However in all seriousness this car reliability is very good and for those who are only loyal to "Premier German Car Brands" the engine is actually a BMW M47 engine so even better for you!
An almost very good car spoiled by unprofessional and/or "smart" and/or incompetent features in its detail design. Main points: economy awful, performance poor, gearing inane, comfort good, handling very good (although achieved via awkward (retro?) column rake angle). In more detail: high garage costs due to very bad accessibility in and around engine; engine flat below 3000 rpm; visibility appalling; very thirsty; door, boot and bulkhead designs sacrifice function (load access) for aesthetics or economics (shape); exceptionally poor minor controls (location, shape, feel); gear ratios perverse; specious styling feature of unit between front seats obstructs elbow when changing gear; various trivial irritations where misdirected efforts at "being trendy" lose functionality (eg grey clock hands on grey background!); poor seat adjustment design (can't combine "up" with "back"); various other sillies, like "hi spec" headlamp bulbs that need to be changed by a garage but perform no better than ordinary owner-changeable bulbs on eg the Rover 800. In assessing this car, I am influenced by its comparison with my previous car, from the same manufacturer, a Rover 800 Vitesse. The MG beats the Rover for internal storage, but the Rover matched the MG for handling, was ahead of it on comfort, and knocked it into a cocked hat in every other department -- performance AND fuel economy, gear ratios, boot access, storage, visibility, as-supplied audio, servicing costs, easy starting, accessibillity and "feel" of minor controls (eg indicator/dip stalk, lamp switches, clock adjustment, windows, heating), headlights, ... .
I have owned mine for 3 years and have enjoyed 25000 miles of driving enjoyment. If you choose to have a spirited drive you can rev the nuts off it and confidently fling it around corners to your heart?s content or, if you feel like driving it the way those who chose the Rover 75 counterpart you can cruise along quite happily and get reasonable mileage but there are less thirsty options out there from other manufacturers but good luck finding something this fun with similar mileage for the price you can pick these up for now. There?s decent space but as others have mentioned the access to the boot on the saloon version is awkward for bulky items. Others have also mentioned a problem with the centre arm rest getting in the way when changing gear, I personally have never had a problem and neither have the 4 other people who have borrowed my car. I find the storage very useful. This is a car that is endlessly loveable if you get a good example, yes it has the odd flaw but the company didn?t have the likes of VW or Honda's money to create this car I refer to them as "Roverisms", it?s got a personality, most cars don?t especially for the money these are these days. Service costs haven?t been too bad; Get one that?s had its cam belt already changed because that particular job was quite pricey at £685! Everything else has been fair. If a car is just A to B to you this isn?t for you. For me however there?s no way I'm selling it!
I have owned this car from new and generally have been happy with it. It is comfortable and very quick when pushed up the rev range.It is a bit limited for space both inside and within the boot.The build quality and paint finish is exceptional. The ZT has enough gadgets to keep the driver happy and a good quality stereo system.It does not however have an I Pod plug in. The cost of running it is fairly high.It attracts a road tax bill of £145 every six months which is extortion.I get approx 50 miles for every £10 worth of unleaded fuel and this has fallen some 25 miles due to the ever increasing cost of fuel since it was new in 2003. The best part about owning and driving an MGZT is the exclusivity of the model. It still looks great whether parked or moving and when cleaned and polished still manages to turn heads. Reliability has only been an issue on occasions.Being an AA member I have had to call them out over the past ten years for water coolant faults three times. This engine (K series ) has a track record for overheating and constant checks need to be made over water coolant levels to avoid this problem. Overall I have enjoyed owning this car and I intend to stick with it for as long as it still keeps going.
Comfort OK bar sillies like centre storage unit impedes elbow on gear change and seat adjustment non-orthogonal and self-impeding. Internal storage OK, boot large but poorly shaped, especially lid. Engine flat below 3000 rpm and unreasonably thirsty (eg 60-65 mph on motorway gives 31mpg compared with 42 mpg in larger and more powerful 800 Vitesse). 2nd and 5th gear ratios inanely low for a 2.5 V6; 54mph max in 2nd at 6750 rpm (no use for overtaking) and 5th too low for m/way cruise (can almost use it in 30-limit built-up!). Far too many minor faults! (sensor failures, leaks, failed seat pivots, sticking boot release, spring breakages, sticking fuel gauge, ...). Handling excellent with the right tyres (although steering column rake inappropriately "retro"). Ill-considered minor controls (shapes, location) -- compare with predecessor 400 and unjustly maligned 800 series. Too much "trendy" or "arty" or fashion vs function. Very nearly a very good car indeed, but somehow botched.
Used to have the much more powerful 190bhp version, but with the increased fuel costs and mileage I was doing, swapped to the diesel version. I can do 500 miles on a tank compared to the 300 I was getting with the petrol version, so about 40% further on a full tank - mpg is around 35-40 in the diesel. Not a lot compared to more modern cars, but a huge difference in running costs for me! The engine is from BMW so I have reliability without the price tag. As you can tell, I am not image-conscious! The car is long and wide, so space inside is enough for 5 adults and the boot is likewise great. The only downside to a heavy car is that I have to change the tyres every 15-20,000 miles. Am waiting impatiently for MG to bring out an updated diesel estate with even better mpg - I think it will be a long wait!
Britain's most underrated car, the Rover 75 & MG ZT has suffered from ignorance from the motoring press and certain motoring journalists. Still a bargain buy and a lot of car for the money. I'm a big fan of this future classic having owned my MG ZT-T diesel for nearly five years with little issues.
Had car from new, now 12 years old, and apart from routine maintenance and tyres, has been very reliable. Very comfortable on long journeys and while not the fastest car in its class, it still returns an average of 34mpg which isn't bad for a V6.
I have always been happy with my MG. Comfortable, roomy and, so far trouble free.