MG-Rover.org Forums banner

Autocar are not impressed with the new TF

6.3K views 65 replies 33 participants last post by  forehead  
#1 ·
#2 ·
Pretty daming stuff from http://www.autocar.co.uk :(

Regards

John

MG TF LE500
Test date Tuesday, August 26, 2008 Price as tested £16,399

The cheap interior is very much the same as that on the old TF and MGF
What is it?
This is the reborn MG TF, fresh from MG’s Chinese owner, assembled at the Longbridge factory from parts largely sourced from China and featuring the lightest of makeovers.

The revisions consist of a new front bumper and grille assembly, a modernised main instrument pack, an engine that’s been cleaned up to meet Euro4 emissions and modified in (yet another) quest to cure this lightweight motor of its infamously weak headgasket.

Improved hood sealing is said to reduce water leaks, another sporadic MGF/TF problem, and parking sensors are now an option.

>> See more pictures of the new NAC MG TF LE500


Those radar sensors are standard on this introductory LE500 model, which comes with the bulk of the options MG Rover used to offer on the TF for more than £6000 less than they would have cost at the time.

>> Read about NAC MG UK's future plans
Read Richard Bremner's blog


Don’t think that you’ll be driving a car of huge sophistication as a result, though.

Three years ago, when MG Rover went under, air conditioning was an option, as was the LE’s hardtop, leather trim, metallic paint and a bundle of other cosmetic features.

There’s an expensive stereo – an aftermarket Pioneer, whose absurdly small buttons must be the reason for providing a remote control unit in one of the smallest cockpits on the market today – the pedals are alloy and many of the decorative interior mouldings that were once silver are now piano black.

What’s it like?
If you’ve ever sat in a TF, or an MGF, this interior will seem very familiar, right down to a wheel that can only be adjusted for rake, those sunvisors extended by flimsy-looking flaps and the fake allen bolts around the gear lever.

Much of the interior looks old – which it is – and even cheaper than it did when new, partly because that was so long ago.

>> See more pictures of the new NAC MG TF LE500


Still, the new instrument pack – apparently under development at MG Rover when it went down – looks good.

It includes an orange bar graph temperature gauge and even a gearlever change-up light, though the strained sounds emerging from behind your back during the final 500rpm assault to the 7000rpm limiter makes this fairly unnecessary. The absent sixth gear would be useful.

Not a promising start, then. Yet it’s hard not to enjoy actually driving the TF. With only 133bhp it’s not terribly brisk, especially for a sports car. It’s also confined inside and far from quiet. But it’s fun.

The engine, now redubbed ‘N’ Series, sounds eager - even if the only way it will torch asphalt is by self-immolating - the gearlever can be shifted with more accuracy than its rubbery movements suggest, and this compact little car darts about with the kind of zeal that goads you into pushing it harder.

The electric power steering, among the very earliest of the breed, offers more feel than plenty of modern set-ups, and you also get plenty of feedback through the (cheaply) leathered seat.

This latest TF runs the softer standard suspension of the previous MG Rover edition (a good decision; the old sport set-up was far too firm) but the car rides on the bigger, lower-profile 16in rims, producing a compromise set-up that generally works well.

On some potholes the suspension clatter slightly, but most of the time this car rides with a suppleness that has you wondering whether its still suspended with the MGF’s Hydragas spheres.

But it’s not, and the steel suspension’s occasionally less absorptive capabilities can be exposed on a bucking B-road.

Push the TF hard and it understeers, and without kicking out its engine-heavy tail if you lift off. It’s good, safe stuff from a potentially treacherous mid-engined layout that does without the protections of ESP.

The keen will wish the tail kicked with more ease, but this disappointment does little to prevent this car being a surprisingly satisfying, if somewhat crude, steer down an English country lane, where its lack of bulk is a major advantage.

Should I buy one?
Unless you’re a completist MG collector, probably not. And certainly not with a price tag that puts it into contention with a Mazda MX-5 one generation on from the model extant when the TF fell into hibernation.

Eager demeanour and amusing handling apart, this MG has a lot less going for it now other than the curiosity of driving a car that has been reincarnated.

Its prospects might be improved if the mainstream model is significantly cheaper; a base price of £12,500 would suddenly make it very attractive.

Longbridge will need to improve quality too. The pre-production car we drove had an abysmally fitted passenger door, paint flaking from the front bumper, a rear tonneau cover that part-snapped free at 85mph, carpet quality of the kind you used to find in base Metros and possibly the nastiest key (inherited from the old F) supplied with any new car on sale today.
 
#4 ·
I would be more surprised if Autocar did like the TF as they were quite damming about the original incarnation 6 years ago. They do have a point about the carpets and key although I am not sure how the tonneau cover can come away unless it was incorrectly fitted. I am not sure it was a good idea to give the reviewers pre-production cars as the fit and finish isn't a patch on the production car that I saw last night.
 
#6 ·
Best thing about the TF it still looking good and that is one advantage it has. It seems that these days no proper cars can be designed anymore. For instance :

new Twingo versus old Twingo the new one is boring already.
new Ka against the old one the new one is nothing special compared to the old one. Saw the new Ibiza for the first time what a horrible design. Saw the new XF and even that one I still don't like. the new Golf pfffffff. The only cars that stand out are based on cars 40 years ago the Mini and the 500. I hope MG can put something special on the road with the new models because now is the time to do it.
 
#16 ·
I'm surprised, disappointed even. I actually like Bremner, or at least I tend to like and to agree with his rantings.

Anyhow, back to the article. Having reread it, to my mind it simply states what I would expect it to state. Indeed, it is on the whole objective rather than subjective. If anyone feels differently, then perhaps they could be courteous enough to point it out - as I for one cannot see it.

The TF I've always maintained was never the car to relaunch MG in the UK - I think this simply confirms it. Though in fairness, much the same could have been said about the RV8... ;)

Regards

John
 
#11 ·
Given the very, very low sales ambitions for the car... MG might just be able to get away with this, if pitched in a similar vein to the RV8.

I've always said the TF was the wrong car to relaunch the brand with - and in that context Autocar's comments do not surprise me one iota.

The simple fact is that MG need new metal - a fact which they realise and are acting fast to remedy :)

Regards

John
 
#10 ·
Its no surprise that from Autocar. I bought my last Autocar magazine years ago and see it hasnt changed much. It is even worse than TopGear for its terriable bias towards German cars. Any test that involves a star/propeller/rings comes out on top - you know before you read the first paragraph.

As usual, anything British is slated. Some comments I agree with, others are just pure bad journalism and shouldnt be given the time of day. As for the comments on the story at the bottom - just about sums up our poor effort for a country!! You wouldnt get those responses about homegrown products in Germany, Italy, France etc.
 
#14 ·
Autocar, CAR and Top gear are only interested in cars well over £30k these days.. a new beemer or Audi comes out no matter the price they will test it over and over.. the amount of print given is hidieous..

Is sad.. because its so easy to design and engineer a car with a blank cheque.. much harder and challenging to design a car for the real world,
 
#18 ·
Clearly you are not going to get good reviews for the TF because its a bit like Ford launching a 1995 Escort as replacement to a 2008 Focus.

Yeh i like the TF but there is no way i would buy a new one now. If your not bothered about selling many then i guess its ok, but relaunching a car some 3 years later from a company that went bust largely because its range of vehicles were becoming highly dated isnt going to set the world on fire.

Added to issues about the age of the design then i think people may be sceptical about the large amount of Chinese parts and the cottage industry style assembly operation
 
#21 ·
There is obviously going to be bias by MG Enthusiasts on a website isn't there - that goes without saying.

I'm surprised how you paint Autocar - your statement may well have been true four of five years ago, but I don't think it is entirely true nowadays. They definitely have a love of everything with BMW or Audi stamped on the front, to the exclusion of everything else.

I've noticed the degradation, especially having been a keen reader for over 25 years.

Their first drive appraisals are notoriously known for buttering up the manufacturer (Probably to get the ad campaigns) and then back tracking several months later.
 
#22 ·
To be fair though, Autocar have made a lot of valid points. The car is virtually unchanged from the car MG-Rover built in 2005 and the cars origins in the 1995 MG F are undeniable.

But credit where credit is due - I don't read this article as being negative: they've given the car credit where it is due: improved instrument panel, enjoyably entertaining yet safe handling.

They're comparing the car with the Mazda MX-5 - hardly surprising that - and conclude that as a direct comparison with the MX-5, the MX-5 is a better car. Okay, sure, you get more toys with the MG, but purely as a sportscar, they believe the Mazda is the better car. Is that surprising?

If you look at Autocar now, there are two more articles on MG as well, including one by dear old Keith Adams.

Now, anyone fancy slagging off Keith Adam's for his hostility towards all things MG and Rover and his love of all cars German?
 
#23 ·
I am inclined to give Autocar the benefit of the doubt on the basis we are all MGR supporters/enthusiasts, they aren't in that business. Also they have always been great fans of the ZT 260 ( and 75 range in general) and only a few months ago commented on how that car is still a good drive. They also wrote glowingly about the ZS in terms of the huge transformation MGR had made to a boring pipe and slippers 45 to one of the best drivers cars in its class at the time.

In objective commercial terms it will be a struggle to pursuade a non MG enthusiast potential buyer of a 2 seater sports car to choose the TF over an MX5 in the showroom or after atest drive.

I agree Autocar is not what it used to be but it is still far better than Autoexcess. As you know Ian I recently returned to the fold as a reader of What Diesel ( having started with issue 2 many moons ago) along with many other motoring magazines related to particular brands ( Audi Driver for instance) so have a spread of 'muttering rotters' to compare with!
 
#27 ·
To be honest, I thought that the report read fairly well - yes, there are obviously issues about the car being so old etc. - but my argument is that the car worked then, and it works now too! What is the point of changing something that works so well.

We all know that a new car is coming along in 2010+, but in the meantime I am delighted that we have a new production of what has been one of the biggest selling British Sportscars of all time, and will guarantee a supply of quality used cars for years to come. What the report did not give enough credit to is that the car is beautiful. Really, really good looking. The reason I did not think it that bad was that they admitted that it was a great drive. And let's be honest, what is more important at the end of the day:

MG - fantastic looking car, drives beautifully, has a rubbish key.

MX-5 - you will look like a hairdresser driving it, not as much fun to drive, better build quality and nicer key.

Hmmmm, not sure what to go for there...
 
#36 ·
Has everyone read a different review to me? I thought it pretty fair and by no means awful.

It basically says it's fun to drive but old (true) and has some failings which can be pretty much summed up as all the things you expect when you compare a 1995 car to a 2008 competitor. Cars have moved on one heck of a lot since then.

It also says that at £16500 (and £16500 buys a lot of car at the moment) you have to start comparing it with the MX-5 when any argument falls apart for it somewhat. It also says at £12500 it is in a whole new segment where its failings on age may become a lot less relevant.

I've never found Autocar baised against MGR either. Even in the last MGR days they gave the facelifted ZS 180 a good review and even ran a ZT 260 as a long term car after the company had gone bust.
 
#45 ·
Autocar have always been quite harsh in their reviews IMO. I'm a fan of the magazine and I like their work in general.

Can anyone honestly say they're surpised by this verdict? The TF is a 12 year old car now. I think NAC missed the mark by not giving the TF a new interior. MGR missed the mark by not doing it when the TF was 'born'.

I don't think the TFs interior was that bad. I recently tested a SEAT and the dash in that was far worse quality. It felt thin and cheap, it didn't rattle though.

The LE500 is still over priced IMO. Sub £15k would be better, but I suppose you can haggle at the dealers.