MG-Cars.info

Welcome to our Site for MG, Triumph and Austin-Healey Car Information.

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 - Saw my 1st MG ZT V8 Today.

... and yes, I liked what I saw. Spotless in the local showroom, it looked the part in that nice Starlight Silver I believe it's called. Still prefer the older Silver leaf from the mid-1980s though. To my eyes, one of the fimer shades of silver on any car.

That V8 engine was not such a tight fit in the engine compartment as I was expecting. In fact, although I did not see them side by side, it appears there is more access room than with the V6 in the ZS 180.

At first glance, the car looks just like any other ZT, which incidentally, are quite a frequent sight now on local roads. From the front, I could see no signs that this was the V8 version. Even from the rear view it is not immediately obvious until you see the small silver ingot style V8 on the left of the number plate area and the real clue, those four exhaust pipes.

Don't really know why but, one item I did not immediately like to see was the polished silver ingot style galloping Mustang on an engine component right at the top in full view. This horse is about four or five inches across. It's in the same style as the front grill galloping Mustang horse logo on the original Ford Mustangs. Perhaps the purist in me will always associate that Mustang image with another car. I dont remember seeing this mentioned in any of the press reports on the ZT V8s so perhaps the motoring press hacks dont open car bonnets (hoods). I had not expected to see that when I opened up the bonnet. However, the horse image soon became acceptable and on second thoughts, it appears a nice touch, not simply a gimmick as it reminds us of this powerplant's true origins.

Next, a test drive ......
John McFeely

John,

The car is fantastic. Now all I need is MORE power.
Jerry Flint

>>>Now all I need is MORE power

You sound like Captain Kirk Jerry from the Enterprise :-)
Kelvin

Jerry, Kelvin,

"Beam me up Scottie ...."

Err ... No can doo Cap'n... we noo do beemers heyah! My drive is not warped, it's an MG!!

..... but, to get things into perspective, I've read that the V8's 0-60 time is no better than my 13 year old Rover Tomcat Turbo. Is that the case? If those figures I've seen are accurate, I doubt if the real top speed is much better either ... and little better than my soon to be 20 year old MG Montego Turbo.... and I don't think my cars are exceptional performers. I wont mention the MG Maestro version ....

What was that about progress ...;-) Mind you, fully loaded with adults and their luggage, it could be a different story.

Having said all that, I'll have one anyday ... make that someday ..:0)))

Meantime I'll content myself creeping about in the aged turbos ...lolol....:D

JMcF
John McFeely

Jerry,

BTW, does your example have that galloping silever Mustang on top of the engine? Quite a nice touch - I've not seen any mention of that in the press.

John
John McFeely

Nice Nice Nice
Neil

>>>that galloping silever Mustang on top of the engine? Quite a nice touch - I've not seen any mention of that in the press.<<<

Initial press fleet cars had the Mustang removed from the top of the Plenum chamber. These are very effectively stuck to a small recess created in the plenum top for this logo plate and the time it takes to remove this and the remains of the adhesive is excessive and impractical form a production perspective. For this reason and the fact that there is no hiding the source of the engine, the logo will remain. Now quite whether this applies to the new Rover V8, where the Mustang and Rover brand images are far less suited to each other, is another matter.

Perfromance of the ZT260 is more a case of the way it achieves what it does, rather than the bare figures. It was also always intended as the bottom rung on a separate RWD ZT ladder and the true perfromance variants to follow and take the lead. As a bottom rung means that there are plenty of steps to climb up to higher specs relatively easily. Being a well used and tuned engine in the States there is a vast array of perfromance parts available at really good prices. The first fruits of which have started to percolate to the UK and are now available.

11bhp from a new (5mm bigger) throttle body and matching plenum chamber - £415 plus vat. Underdrive pulley kit for another 5bhp for £165. Different cam specs for upwards of 15bhp from £695. Modified heads, stroker crank to 5 litres and low pressure supercharging will allow well over 400 bhp if you want to go there. In addition one of the already announced specialist suppliers to MG is developing a new exhaust manifold kit which in conjunction with a new system and cats that do not have to comply with all the drive by noise and full range of exhaust gas composition checks should allow between 25 and 45 more bhp depending on engine spec.

Finally someone needs to look into developing an auxillary fuel tank kit!

Rog
Roger Parker

Roger WROTE about the V8 MG ZT:

>>Perfromance of the ZT260 is more a case of the way it achieves what it does, rather than the bare figures. <<

Know EXACTLY what you mean Roger ... less effort = less stress to both driver and motor ...;-)

As the slinky lady in the frogmobile car TV adverts often repeated ... size matters ...:O))

John
John McFeely

Roger wrote...

>>>Finally someone needs to look into developing an auxillary fuel tank kit!

Er, surely you mean auxillary fuel TANKER??? LOL.

R.
Richard J.

The ZT V8 has to be revved hard to get any kind of performance from it. OK, the torque does allow you to stay in the gears a poodle around like a ROVER owner.

Like Roger I looked at the Sean Hyland tuning stuff, but I've heard some so-so reports about their stuff (plus it will invalidate the engine warranty). The recommendation from someone at MG was to look at the Rousch catalogue. I doubt I'll do that either apart from fit the Headers and exhaust under development by Sport & Racing!

Finally, after driving the ZT 260 for 1600 miles and then returning to our EVO VIII, I can honestly say the journalists that compare these cars must be MORONS, they are as different as chalk and cheese. The EVO is a pure performance rocket, whereas the ZT is a luxo-cruiser (that incidentally burns more fuel than the EVO per mile).

Jerry

EVO VIII FQ300, ZT260 and Metro owner!


Jerry Flint

They're completley different cars, Lancer Evo's are for overpayed Max power saddos, the ZT is a refined cruiser.

People drive MG's because they want to drive an MG, not because they want to drive a car that looks like it was styled at halfords.

I have to ask, why would anyone own a ZT260, an Evo 8 and a metro ?
Mcdude

Metro is a massive understatement - think MG, Metro, and then put these together in the correct order 6, R & 4!
Martin ZT

Jerry,

Hows this for a rear window sticker:

My other car is a Metro .... 6R4 ...lol
John McFeely

But the 6R4 only looks like a Metro, it shares only 19 common components. A Mondeo LX has more in common with a DB7 than a Metro with a 6R4.

mcdude

The 6R4 *IS* a Metro. What's your point ?
David S

Not only looks like a Metro but is called a Metro. Unless I have missed something the DB7 is not called a Mondeo DB7.

Cheers

Patrick

PS I m suprised that the Metro has as many as 19 components!
Patrick Beet

I'd bet money that more than 19 items are involved.....or does he have in mind large components excluding numerous smaller ones...

Looking at various cars in breakers, I bet I could find 19 common components between the Mondeo and Metro, let alone Metro and V6R4 .... even the makers logos are not always there on many shared components. Makes sense for all manufacturers to take advantage of commonality which reduces production costs.

I recently replaced the perished long breather tubes on my aged MG Montego turbo with similar ones from a late SAAB turbo .... those on the older MG being no longer available from MG-R ... which is not surprising ... perfect fit by the way and made some difference. Size does indeed matter but remember, the little things also count ... ;-).

Even though the Metro V6R4 was not a production car .... it does indeed look every bit a Metro ... on steroids. ... which is exactly what it is...lol.

This commonality is no new thing. Thirty years ago, when I asked my boss if I could leave work a little early to get some parts for my car before the place closed, he agreed provided I also bought some carb parts for his Volvo. They used SU's similar to those on my MGB.....

Safety Fast MotorinG JMcF
John McFeely

Dave, What exactly makes the 6R4 a Metro?

Patrick, the Mondeo is not called a DB7 but the Aston DB7 is full of Mondeo parts pulled from the Ford parts bins. The 6R4 has the very MOD nomenclature of 6 Cylinder Rally car with 4 wheel drive, hence 6R4. The Road legal models were called the 6R4 Clubman, and the last few rally models were sold as the 6R4 Clubman 300, after group-b cars were banned in international rallies.

John, Fair enough, you may be right (I was told 19 by someone who knows his stuff but is by no means an MG expert), but I bet if you dont include bolts/washers etc its not far off.

How could you put a bespoke mid V6 and a 4WD drivetrain into a car designed for a front mounted A+ driving through the front wheels without radically changing the design?.

The interior is gone (on the group B 6R4s not the road legal models), the suspension has changed, the engine has changed, the brakes are drastically uprated, the chassis now has to contain that drive train, the body is more flared and arched than a 911, the fuel tank is now in the front. Even the windows have changed.




Mcdude

GM sold a car in the US called a Metro - that is a Metro too. If it's marketed as a Metro then it's a Metro, seems clear to others, which bit don't you understand?
David S

Thats the worst arguement I've ever heard.

By that reasoning a Chevy Nova is the same car as a Vauxhall Nova, a Triumph Spitfire would be putting out 1475Bhp from its Merlin engine and a Vauxhall Viscount would be an El Cheapo Minty dark chocolate biscuit.

mcdude

Or even worse an arguement, people might think the MINI is an evolution of the Mini, or the new Beetle is an evolution of the old!
Martin ZT

as I asked before, what point are you making please? It's not an argument - it's a statement of cold fact that if an object is sold as a Metro it's called a Metro. I have at no time either stated or suggested that it's the same car.
BTW - >>>How could you put a bespoke mid V6 and a 4WD drivetrain into a car designed for a front mounted A+ driving through the front wheels without radically changing the design?.
===how do you explain the R5Turbo or the Clio thingy then?
David S

You seem to have changed your tune there Dave, you were adament that the 6R4, the Metro and there american namesake were exactly the same car, now you are saying that if they are called the same then they have the same name. I have to ask, what was your point in stating the bleeding obvious?.

My point here is this, if you pull a car apart and replace 95% of the components then it ceases to be the original car, the body and soul have been ripped out and discarded. Call it what you will, the 6R4 is not a Metro.

The R5 Turbo is 2wd drive and is powered by a 1.4 engine, the Clio 255 is mid engined and is 2WD (and RWD thank god with 255 BHP). Both completely different as they haven't been redesigned from the bottom up.

Mcdude

In my books the V6R4 is a Metro ...

It can hardly be confused with anything else. In the final analysis, that's all that matters ... to me.. and most of the rest of Joe Public. The 6R4 was after all, like most serious competition cars, simply another means to advertise production cars..... the fact that they were later released for sale to the public is simply a bonus.

My other car IS a Metro .... 6R4

Yeah, that'll do nicely..... lol.

JMcF.
John McFeely

A Metro IS a Metro, be it an underground train, a bus or even a car!
John McFeely

>>>>you were adament that the 6R4, the Metro and there american namesake were exactly the same car,
====er, no, actually. Go read the posts again....
You seem determined to deliberatley avoid reality - the Metro 6R4 was not a case of 'pull apart, replace 95%,' - it was designed from the ground up to do a job in a particular marketplace, just as was the Metro 1.1.
For good marketing reasons the Metro 6R4 had the same windscreen and superficially similar body shape and proportions as the other Metro models that went before it, and they are all Metros.
My point in stating the bleeding obvious was to get you to understand the bleeding obvious, in which I seem only to have partially succeeded. If you take a FWD car such as the base R5 or Clio, mount the engine amidships to drive the rear wheels, double or treble the power, with braking and suspension systems to suit, you are saying that does not constitute a redesign?
David S

I read the posts, it makes perfect sense

"GM sold a car in the US called a Metro - that is a Metro too. If it's marketed as a Metro then it's a Metro"

"it was designed from the ground up to do a job in a particular marketplace, just as was the Metro 1.1."

So its the same car but its completely different ?, at least be consistent. Dont contradict yourself and then accuse me of avoiding reality, you've clearly reinforced my point in the above quote.


All I am saying is that the car is a completely new design, not a modification, not a Metro thats had a V6 (Well actually a chopped rover V8 on early models) shoe-horned into it.

It doesn't matter what its called, if it isn't the same car its not the same car, theres nothing else too it.

The Clio 255 and R5 turbo are not redesigns, they are modifications of an existing design, The r5 (even the Evos and GTs)in particular has had very little done to it. How can you not see the difference between a modification and total redesign.




Mcdude

>>>All I am saying is that the car is a completely new design
=== you said more than that originally, I quote "But the 6R4 only looks like a Metro" and then asked "What exactly makes the 6R4 a Metro?"

The answer still is - it's a METRO 6R4.
David S

This is a fantastic discussion that has developed from the ZT260.

Yes, I agree the EVO VIII is an ugly brute but it wraps rings around the cruiser ZT (which I adore BTW). The surprise is after all the negative publicity on EVO fuel consumption the EVO is much better than the ZT.

And if you think the EVO is ugly, what say you about the metro Mcdude? Its gross.

But what it has got is oodles of character. Oh and its fuel consumption is 1 litre per mile.

Jerry

Jerry Flint

Jerry WROTE: (much snipped):

>>But what it has got is oodles of character. <<

and, not forgetting one of the best sounding engines, both induction and exhaust noises separately and in a perfect mix ....Ever!!! ... and over the years, I've heared the lot including the best!
John McFeely

John

I agreee, not only do I love the sound of the car when I'm in it - I'm sad enough to visit John Prices site to listen to the recording of his engine.

SAD I know.

BTW, we must meet some time - I'm live near Burford.
Jerry Flint

Whoopie skip saddo...
Paul Tegler

Paul Tegler, Jr., from Maryland,

You'll have to explain your comments in English, English.

Jerry Flint

This thread was discussed between 20/02/2004 and 12/03/2004

MG ZR ZS ZT Technical index

This thread is from the archives. Join the live MG ZR ZS ZT Technical BBS now