Well I have not driven a ZS, but I have driven a ZR. I have been in both and the ZS doesn't feel as bouncy as ZRs do, they corner really flat and can go round corners faster. ZR handles well, but the ZS is in a different league to the ZR, ride is harsher but as I said not a bouncy so more relaxing I think.

 

Believe me, my 160 has no problem overtaking. As for zr vs zs its a personal opinion thingy. Personally i prefer the styling of the zr over the zs. Apparently the zs handles better, but in london you wont really notice, then when you do get to a country road, youll be having to much fun to care

Personally i would get a zr, but thats just my opinion...

 

I used to have a R25, with ZR suspension, and currently have a mgzs, both diesels.

The handling with the zs is far superior to the zr, its in a different league.

OK, the zs is heavier, but it is the superior car overall, imho.

I would say the performance will be slightly less with the same engine in the zs, over the zr, as the zr is much lighter.

Test drive both, make your judgement from that.

Cheers
Dave

 

Superior in what way?
I can't imagine a ZS 180 going round a corner faster than a ZR 160 tbh.
As for accel I think they should be pretty close within each other? The ZS has a little bit more power and noticeably more torque, but it weights like 200 kg more.

 

correct me if I'm wrong but is it not the same engine - the 1.8 in the ZR and the ZS? A good guide on speeds etc can be found here: http://www.phoenix-mg-rover.org/mg_zr_power_stats.html the navigation at the top has links to the ZS stats to compare

 

I can only compare my 1.4 to my mates ZS 1.8 so hope this helps.

the ZS is better built in my opinion. it feels more planted in the corners and the interior is better i think. my mates certainly has a better spec than mine.

The ZR looks better (apart from the MK2 ZS 180 which is proper sexy) the ZR also gets a lot more looks and attention than the ZS. the ZR is cheaper to run and insure as well. For me though and not sure how this will matter to you, when modified the ZR looks nice whereas the ZS looks like a middle aged mans car thats trying to look cool.

 

The ZR looks better (apart from the MK2 ZS 180 which is proper sexy) the ZR also gets a lot more looks and attention than the ZS. the ZR is cheaper to run and insure as well. For me though and not sure how this will matter to you, when modified the ZR looks nice whereas the ZS looks like a middle aged mans car thats trying to look cool.

I don't agree about the ZR looking better. My ZS turns a lot more heads than any ZR I've driven. Mind you, it is sexy trophy blue. ZS middle aged mans car? Completely disagree... Ever seen the type of people who drive Ford Mondeos?

Yeah it is. There is always the higher end in any model.

The 120 is far to underpowered for the size of the car if compared to similar cars in its class. Diesels, not for me so I never bring them into any equation.

I wouldn't say that. It all depends what you use it for. My ZS 120 seems quick enough for me and I absolutely love it.

Out of all the MG-Rovers I've owned and driven this ZS is the best by far. It's cost me a fortune in repairs (previous owner was a <insert word here>) but now it's running it's so damn fun and always puts a smile on my face. Personally I'd go for a ZS but then you need to test drive both and make your decision from that.

 

You can get a 120 1.8 Zr and a 120 1.8 zs you can't get a vvc zs a zs has the basic to be a animal in the handling aspect because its baysically a Honda underneathe so all the adjustible things you can buy for the Honda can go into a zs pure magic

 

The suspension set up for a start, is much better than the ZR.

It is generally accepted, that the zs is superior handling wise than a zr, might be worth doing a search of the forum

Cheers
Dave

 

Interesting. Not MG's no, but my old 1999 Rover 214SI used to handle better than the 1998 Rover 416S my parents had. Or did it? It certainly seemed to handle better, but I guess it depends what 'better' actually means? The 416 had more body roll than the 214Si, the 214Si was soo much more fun and seemed to fly round the corners better. I have driven 2 other Rover 200 series neither of them or my girlfriends Rover 25 handle as well as that 214.

Out of my girlfriends year 2000 Rover 25 and my year 2000 Rover 45, I couldn't really say what handles better. I was going to say the 45, but then I would say it handles 'differantly' rather than better - they are both very differant cars. A small/nimble 25 1.4, and a big 45 1.8 saloon.

The ZS is meant to handle better than a ZR, but again.....what does 'better' mean?

 

Having had a 200Vi , MGZR td , MGZS 180 ............ The ZS was a league above the Vi + Zed TD , however I've never driven a 160 ZR but it would have to be a **** load better than the ZS .

The ZS's interior was so CRAP TBH ......... I prefered the ZR for interior . If space was'nt an issue I'd have the ZR .......

ZS for the full package, without a doubt

 

Guys, thanks so much for all your helpful tips - I read them with great interest and I also watched the Topgear video someone attached - the verdict in it definitely in favour of ZS but I think I will probably stick with ZR. Firstly, because I've driven one for 9 years, and secondly, because it probably is cheaper to ensure and run, and to be honest, though I do like a fun drive, it's extremely rare when I can actually get one in London I think for fun drives I'll be using my MTF - it's quite fun (though not great in 1-60 acceleration).

Last but not the least, I agree with someone who said that the looks of ZS are a little bit middle-aged middle-manager like, I think I prefer the design of a ZR.

It's really great to hear different opinions - thanks so much!!

 

ZR unless you buy a proper ZS

 

What's a proper one?

And about the insurance thing, my 180 is £200 cheaper for me to insure! Dunno how they worked that out but there ya go. Hoping to get a hefty drop down on the ZR insurance when I get it back on the road.

 

A 180, anything else is pointless.

 

I don't know if that's fair (to the TD and 120 anyway) but the 180 is the best ZS for sure. As with the ZR I would say the 120 offers the best mix of performance, economy, affordability and handling.

 

Yeah it is. There is always the higher end in any model.

The 120 is far to underpowered for the size of the car if compared to similar cars in its class. Diesels, not for me so I never bring them into any equation.

 

I personally don't like the 180. It just sounds nice.

 

I just want it to be easily tuneable but it aint :/
It does sound nice and hopefully moreso when I get my exhust pieces for it

 

Super charge it.

 

haha when i get the rest of it sorted it is an option!
May measure up to see if turbos are viable think id have more fun in a turbo and there isn't one that ive seen on forums. and if i forge internals i can increase piston size etc.
so much to do so little money! ha!

 

ZR pros

Looks
Insurance
MPG
Interior
Servicing costs

ZS pros

Handling
Build quality
Performance (in 180 spec)

 

I thought the later MG's were really cheap and plasticy inside.

 

Yeah I'd agree with that
my 200 was lovely compared to the later mg's and quiet!

Just done a quote for my ZR (for when i get it on the road) it came in at £476.
My 180's premium is £481, so the difference in insurance is negligable at best and I'm only 25 and have three points for speeding, so should be fair to insure if you're older and have no penalties

 

As stated above...

The ZS is the best handling MG in the Z range... However the ZS doesnt have a 160 model.

ZR ZS
1.4 105 1.6 110
1.8 120 1.8 120
1.8VVC 160 2.5 V6 180


You should compare the 2 120s but not the 160 and 180
As owning a V6 in London I can only imagine will be stupidly expensive...

So the ZS you're looking at will be on par to your current ZR, but better handling.
Or the ZR160 which is a bit quicker and makes better noises.
However both of them will be fun when you take them on faster roads.

It comes down to your budget and opinions on the looks
For the sake of living in London I'd write off the 180...

That leaves you the ZR 120 and 160 (which would be quicker)
And the ZS 120 which will handle better, which could mean more fun???

Test drive is in order...

 

The problem with the 180 and fitting a turbo Is you need the exhaust to come from both banks to work properly.

This is where space becomes and issue.

 

yeah some fancy pipe work needed or two small turbos which would require some equally fancy boost pipework.
or just supercharge it haha

 

Are we forgetting the diesel variants??

Cheers
Dave

 

Doesn't seem the best choice for driving around a city... London city... to be honest.

 

Having driven alot around london, the derv is ideal for nipping into those small gaps, due to the low down torque.

The only downside i can see is, if in stop start traffic, the clutch can get a little heavy.

Cheers
Dave