75ZT Community

Err - no thank you.

PaulT wrote:Err - no thank you.

Unfortunately that is why they went bust in the first place

I hope the company fares better than the last our Mr Guy Jones was involved with.

I have nothing to say on the matter.

Oh buggar! Just did.

Anyway, I read somewhere recently that Tesco were to start selling cars. Look's like this could be the ideal model for them, I mean there's going to have to be a 'Buy One Get One Free' offer to shift them

I'm sorry to say its bloody awful what a total rubbish body-shape design who's going to buy one..................... not many I don't think.

Why after 16 years they can only come up with something thats so not very nice looking......

I do wish MG well with the release of the 6, just hope they can knock out something with a bit of style next time.

Some very unfair quotes above. Don't knock it until you try it. All the reports of test drives that I have read have nothing but praise for it.
If you were expecting another ZT or sports car shape then you are many years behind the times. This is a small family car and as such it is modelled in that vein, you'll have to wait a few years for a 2 seater replacement for the TF, which to my mind was beaten with an ugly stick in comparison to the F.

As for why the company went bust? Employing 6.5K people when less than 2K were required. That's where all the real money went. IMNSHO

I do hope this revives that horrible word "brand" a little for M.G.,true its not perhaps what will appeal to many M.G. folk but hopefully it might lead to better things.Its nice to see the letters M.G. again............but then I am a little biased...after many a long years of blood and sweat we shall be on the road again this year, almost there now........................

Mick! I cant see it doing well against its rivals, to over priced for an ordinary motor far better looking motors out there me thinks......

Good luck to them though, like the history of it all new and old.......

Just in case my previous post sounded negative, It wasn't meant so.

I hope the company does well and it's good to see the results of work by some talented British Engineers too. A shame it's pretty much just an assembly operation, but to be fair what cars aren't? Remember the Triumph acclaim?

I would like to see the Euro NCAP results. Let's hope they did a competent job.

Perhaps a little "off thread" but just shows how you can take an old design(probably one of the most beautiful shapes ever) and lift it straight into this century..at a price.Stunning shape,such a shame the new XJ does'nt look the same.............

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDWQ26Z_ ... re=related

i hope things go well for longbridge , what ever i think of the mg6 i can't afford it but i wish it well and i think we may see one at pol . i hope it sells and so making it possible for more cars to come from longbridge and keep mg alive and well

The trouble with many people saying it isn't a proper MG etc and to expensive, have never spent even half the RRP to get "their" MG.
Not many of the MG drivers supported or purchased new from the company even in ZT era, and there is the main problem. Someone has to buy new to furnish all the secondhand car drivers.

To small for me but who knows when they may design/sell a 75 sized Tourer vehicle.

stevemac wrote:

PaulT wrote:Err - no thank you.

Unfortunately that is why they went bust in the first place

Steve

A little confused by your reply. Should I buy things that I do not like the look of to keep a company going.

I do drive a Rover 75 - the MG version does not appeal nor the Contemporary 75 because of the interior.

An important part of a car for me is the dashboard. The exterior is important but I will also spend hours looking at the dash and if it is not appealing then I am not interested in the car.

As for MG their big market place was in the US so perhaps this car needed to be a little retro so as to appeal to the nostalgic Yanks who once and perhaps do still own a B or a Midget.

Paul

PaulT wrote:

stevemac wrote:

PaulT wrote:Err - no thank you.

Unfortunately that is why they went bust in the first place

Steve

A little confused by your reply. Should I buy things that I do not like the look of to keep a company going.

I do drive a Rover 75 - the MG version does not appeal nor the Contemporary 75 because of the interior.

An important part of a car for me is the dashboard. The exterior is important but I will also spend hours looking at the dash and if it is not appealing then I am not interested in the car.

As for MG their big market place was in the US so perhaps this car needed to be a little retro so as to appeal to the nostalgic Yanks who once and perhaps do still own a B or a Midget.

Paul

I wasn't having a go, sorry if it sounded that way. The point I was making was simply that not enough customers bought the models, for whatever reason, to keep the company going. Whatever mis-management MG Rover had, would not have mattered if they were creating enough turnover. It's the same in all commercial activity. The problem they have now, and I do sympathise, is that it costs millions of £ to develop a car, so they have a choice. Either to design a "eurobox" which will appeal to a large customer base or go for something more radical, which could fail and only create low sales. They, like almost all other manufacturers such as the new Jags have played it safe and created a fairly bland shape. At 500 yards you couldn't tell the difference between most of the hatchbacks produced today. Querky/retro models do sell well, such as the Fiat 500, but not in the quantities to keep Fiat going. Most other Fiats are the standard "eurobox". The mistake here, as others have pointed out, is the engine. In this day and age a diesel or a eco-petrol would have been my first choice to launch with. Rover 75/MG ZT enthusiasts like us naturally drift towards the "retro" look, which is why we own the cars, but we are still a small minority. Which brings me back to my original point of not enough cars sold.

Sorry to have misunderstood Steve

Bland and all the same do seem to be the order of the day. As you say the R&D budget is absolutely phenomenal.

Any firm that did some radical things, and here I am thinking of the independent Rover Co and Citroen, have been taken over and their innovation has been killed off.

Will admit Mercedes started using some unusual design lines - I am referring to the bent line of the body which looks to me as though the body has bent. I have seen cars like that before Mercedes came up with it but they had all been in crashes.

Paul

PaulT wrote: I have seen cars like that before Mercedes came up with it but they had all been in crashes.

Paul