Welcome to the mad house..

From experience.. I'd go for the 160.. At some point there will be a very good chance you'll want to up the power or do tweaks.. So cheapest option is start with the 160

 

imo (which might not count for much going by my previous car history) it all depends on what you want out of the car.

id say go for the 160, but only because i dont see the tf as being a 'sensible' car, so might as well go for the most powerful. if you are worried about fuel consumption or insurance then look at the 1.6, but then you lose out on features standard on the 160, eg. the wheels, brakes, central locking, leather/half leather seats (although all of these were options and a previous owner might have added them on later down the line, so you can find 1.6s with all or most of those).

two choices out of the 1.8, the 135 and the 160.
the 135 is more to tax, and on paper, fuel consumption is worse (dunno how true that is in real life).
however, when i looked to buy, the 135 models are generally easier to find, usually in better condition/lower mileage, and cheaper to buy.

as you are asking, you probably dont mind either way (for me, it was the 160 or nothing), so find one you like the look of in terms of colour, spec, mileage etc, and give it a look over.

 

well, you do still get wheels and brakes on the non 160 cars, there just not as good.

 

MGFnTFbitz have a tasty 160 in at the moment. Kinda wishing i bought it! but i have my amazeballs 135 now

 

There isn't much difference between the 1.6 and the 1.8 (including the 1.8 160) to be honest except at the extremes. 0-60 is quicker in a 160 but the gap narrows after that so you wouldn't notice normally, both are noticeably quicker than the 1.6 however. The 1.6 is more economical than the others. Top speed is marginal again, if you are concerned about doing 120 or 130+.

Insurance is likely to be lower with a smaller engine of course.

What sort of driving do you want to do?

 

There isn't much difference between the 1.6 and the 1.8 (including the 1.8 160) to be honest except at the extremes. 0-60 is quicker in a 160 but the gap narrows after that so you wouldn't notice normally, both are noticeably quicker than the 1.6 however. The 1.6 is more economical than the others. Top speed is marginal again, if you are concerned about doing 120 or 130+.

Have to disagree. I have a 160 and a 135 and the 160 is a lot better for driveability, especially having fun around country lines and traffic lights. The 135 (LE500) is the better long distance tourer. Saying that, we have toured Italy in both and they kept us smiling all the way, but the LE has a slight edge on comfort. Like for like driving I find the 160 more economical too.

 

The 160 can potter about at 30 in 5th. Very nice drivability. *** it down to second and floor it. Woopee.

 

I've not driven the others but am constantly amazed by the driveability of the 160, as above you can potter comfortably in 5th at 30 or bounce it off the rev limiter going through the gears.

I went for the 160 as I know myself and know that I would regret not having the top of the range.

Whatever you get enjoy it.

 

The gear ratios are the same for the 135 and 160 interestingly and the 135 is very flexible too. Best thing to do is determine what you want to spend and see what is out there - good time of year to buy of course

 

I'd get the one of the last 135 the "Chinese" MGTFs, they were the best especially the 85th Anniversary which had developed into the best MGTF there is.

Z&F Tuning can reprogram it to 153bhp if the number is important to you

 

Z&F Tuning can reprogram it to 153bhp if the number is important to you

Wow, Thats good going for a remap on a NA motor.

 

Just add stripes for more power - 5 bhp per stripe.

 

Phweer, at least Dave.

Sticker? You didn't tell me there was a sticker That exhaust is a work of art by the way, and the sound :cloud9:

Thanks Chris.

 

Thanks for replies, top end speed is not important I race karts so get my speed kicks that way, mainly will be used as summer 2nd car, is reliability of 1.6 engine better than 1.8 although from what I am told once head gasket is upgraded there should be no issues
thanks

 

Providing the job is done properly and the whole cooling system checked and serviced then the head gasket should be fine. There are loads of how toos and advice on how the maintain the cooling system but let's face it most drivers never lift the bonnet the blame the car when it goes wrong.

 

AFAIK the engine is pretty similar, and correct me peeps if I'm wrong but the head is the same (1.6 to 1.8mpi)

I wish mine was a VVC... I 'want' the extra power...

 

The head, liners and pistons are the same. The difference in engine size is in the stroke rather than the bore.

 

why not try to have some test drives in all the engine sizes then decide whats best for you, just make sure you drive them as they'll be driven
i suspect once you try the 160 that'll be the one you go for

 

My 1.6 is fine plus the Mrs has not put in ditch yet
She has dumped a few cars....but I love her still.....and she bought me a chamois that is huge.

 

she bought you a goat? Wow!

 

Don't believe those who tell you there's nothing much between a standard mpi and 160 engine.

I part exchanged my 1.8mpi for a Trophy 160 back in 2001, and I can tell you with confidence that the difference was like night and day - the extra power was very noticeable in any gear - the mpi felt lethargic by comparison.

Having said that, it depends on what you want the car for - if it's just to cruise with the hood down on nice Summer days, it doesn't matter so much - but if you want to have fun on the twisties, you will always wish you had the most powerful version - and if you like the traffic lights grand prix - buy a different car altogether - as you'll be more disappointed than not (but that's not what the car's about, anyway)

 

Oh I move through the gears alright, double declutching down from 4 to 3 to 2 and back again is a blast and turns heads. So is straight across a clear roundabout in third

 

Straight across a roundabout is likely to turn heads, yes.

I had a 1300 85bhp Toyota Corolla when I added the 135TF, which was a revelation. When I couldn't bear what had become a rather underpowered hatchback any more (and it needed a lot of work for its next MoT) I got rid of the Corolla and bought the 160 ZR as that certainly isn't an underpowered hatchback.

There is a difference in the engines. Both are very responsive, but the 160 just seems to do everything better. And that's the one I haven't had remapped [yet].

The 135 is perfectly adequate, and produces an enjoyable top-down run in the sunshine which I'm very happy with, but to have a 160 on board would be awesome.

 

One small point. Whilst the 160 VVC rocks. It has a more complex valve gear set up. More to go wrong. Pretty reliable with regular oil changes of the correct grade.

 

Been following this thread with interest but also noticed that the normal VVC is not mentioned. How does the VVC (148 bhp) stack up driving and performance wise?

 

the 143bhp vvc was in the mgf, so would explain why its not mentioned as the op was asking about tf's.

theres a thread here about the difference between an mgf vvc and a tf 160 vvc
http://forums.mg-rover.org/showthread.php?t=205932

 

I'd go for the 200bhp non VVC 1.9 8,100 rpm lump myself..

:minxy:

 

two choices out of the 1.8, the 135 and the 160.
the 135 is more to tax

If you buy a later 135 the tax band is tha same as the 160

I part exchanged my 1.8mpi for a Trophy 160 back in 2001, and I can tell you with confidence that the difference was like night and day - the extra power was very noticeable in any gear - the mpi felt lethargic by comparison.

The MGF 1.8 MPi is not a 135 it is rated at 120ps. There will be a difference between a 135 and a 160, but for most people it will not be much of a difference in day to day use. I have had a Z&F remap on my 135 and that made a big difference to responsiveness.
As has been said, the best advice is to test drive a few of each variant and decide if the differences matter to you. Once you have decided which you want based on your experience driving them, then look for one that you want to buy in that specification, but remember to test drive that one as well.

 

If you do test drive a 160 I would always get it up to temperature and then, when safe, take it to the red line. It doesn't hurt it and will show you 2 important things.

The first thing it will show you is why a lot of people prefer the 160 to the 135. Taking it up to 7100 rpm through the gears can become very addictive, especially if you have fitted a nice exhaust.

The second thing you will find is whether it will reach the red line. Some of these cars have faults which limit the revs. If you can't get it above 4 - 5k then there is a problem that will need fixing.

If you don't take the car above 3 - 4k then you will not notice much of a difference between it and a 135 and will walk away wondering what all the fuss was about.

If you do take it to 7k then you will buy a 160.

 

still need the like button on the forum

 

Only ever had a MGF VVC 143 so can't comment on any others but if you are buying the car to have fun in my advice would be buy the most powerful one you can afford, then don't be afraid to rev it out. These cars need to be revved to get the power out of them. Personally I would love to fit a turbo to get some grunt further down the range as I am more used to driving turbo diesels, but that is just me.

 

These cars need to be revved to get the power out of them.

A lot of lotus guys have been 'up specing' their engines for years.. Now some F/TF owners with deep pockets are doing the same.. Know of 2x super charged K's being built by people on here.. And one TF owner on here just bought some Jenveys and some expensive kit..

These engines do like a thrash.. Hence why some of the above have now gone for full bottom end balancing (every component in the bottom that moves) and have increased the rev limit..

Warning though.. Engine modding is expensive and addictive lol

 

I would also say that it you are new to rear wheel drive and even more new to mid engine rear wheel drive with a healthy power to weight ratio - there have never been that many out there, ever - take it easy until you are experienced driving it. So very different to a Corsa.

 

Hmmmm don't think that I have driven a Corsa. Last smallish car driven was the Skoda Felica and before that the R8 214. The 75 with it's 2.5 KV6 and the 623 with the H22 DOHC 2.3 litre are different beasts altogether.

It will certainly be interesting to drive the MGF once she is fixed up and am looking forwards to it.

Largish 4x4's also require a different driving technique. The 4.0 Litre Jeep Cherokee is prone to trying to swap ends if pushed into bends in slippery conditions as I found out. The B series Vauxhall Frontera was better in this respect but still needed respect when hustling it along. Lots of weight to control can make twists and turns interesting indeed.

 

Corsa is of course a typical modern car much favoured by driving schools and new drivers. Other small front wheel drive cars are available as Plezier says.

The main issue is that if you can afford a very low price, still quite high performance car and are used to driving Mum and Dad's car carefully then watch out, the car is great fun but requires respect and understanding

 

7.0 liters is a mountain of torque
5.8 is a lot of fear
5.6 is a bit of both with finesse

5.4 is like a a ZT 4.6 but with a lot more to give

2.0 T-series I cant wait

1.8 k 143 hp is not bad

On topic get a 160 from the start rather then wishing you had latter down the track

 

7.0 liters is a mountain of torque
5.8 is a lot of fear
5.6 is a bit of both with finesse

5.4 is like a a ZT 4.6 but with a lot more to give

2.0 T-series I cant wait

1.8 k 143 hp is not bad

On topic get a 160 from the start rather then wishing you had latter down the track

I've just bought an '96 MGF VVC...Can anyone tell me the difference between the 143bhp and the 160(engine wise!!)??

Regards
Manic