[MK3GtiWannabe]

Was so annoyed when I read this in Rover's quaterly sales magazine that dad gets. They were saying that their 1.4 MG ZR 105 was quicker 0-60 than a Golf GTi. Quite misleading though as they were comparing it to the 2.0 Golf not the 1.8T. The 1.8T GTI would wipe the floor with that 1994 bodykitted Rover 200 piece of poo.

 

[25thAE thompson]

here here, they are pants theres a silver one near me and it's windows are tinted, blue

 

[Gary Cundliffe]

I've seen that, it is misleading, but always a pleasure in my 1.8T when one of those 105bhp things tries to take me on!!

On the other hand, they do a 160bhp version what once wiped the floor with me, but whoever bought it new would have paid more than a new Golf 1.8T, what is a big big mistake. Two years later, the Rover will have lost significantly more cash than the Golf. Just look for the "160" under the ZR on the tailgate. If it says "105" then demonstrate the mistake they have made!!!

 

[MK3GtiWannabe]

its about time Rover launched something new rather than just sticking bits of plastic and/or raising suspension on 14 year old car designs

 

[Royster]

Sad when car makers have to compare to another manufacturer instead of highlighting their own achievements...

 

[pope1]

What's that grille you've got on your car Mk3? It's similar (but nicer) than the one I have on mine. Yes, it's off topic I'm afraid!

 

[Milkfloat]

I blame VW UK for this. they incorrectly badged the 2.0 as a GTI, so now they face the comparisons where it appears that VW GTI's are slow and rubbish.

 

[MK3GtiWannabe]

Hi pope its an oettinger replica see here http://www.uk-mkivs.net/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=25891

 

[simch]

Fair play though, those K series motors are peachy! So sweet and revvy. I had a 216si company car that was a real flyer, would kick all the 2 litre zetecs into next week!!

My gf has a rover BRM LE. Since new just 60k now. excellent engine, 147hp, but pulls like a train and will do 75 (yes really) in second!!

And do you know what, apart form routine services, incl one set of pads and 4 tyres done by me as out of warranty) NOT ONE THING has gone wrong on it. NOT one!! I did have to buy one bulb for it though!! It drives like the day we got it too.

Maybe just a good one, but it is a good one. I wish all the VWs I've had were as good as it!!-shame about the residuals!!

 

[GrahamOliver]

 

[LIAMH]

I was borrowing a 200 1.4 last week - broke down after 2 days

left me stranded on the motorway hard shoulder

Needed a replacement engine

 

[MK3GtiWannabe]

Was in Dads 45/400 or whatever Rover wish to call their 1994 Rover 400 and i felt like I'd travelled back in time, felt like I was in a Montego from the 80's with that switch gear and Orange illumination.

 

[simch]

Best touch wood then! Its been a cracker, but my co car did have gearbox trouble and that contributed to a blown motor, (went into 2nd at 90 not 4th!!).

I went to a trackday at Castle Coombe in it when my MK2 broke a driveshaft. It was surprisingly quick! A guy in a Pulsar GTiR who's arxe I was glued to (he was holding me up in the turns big time!!) came over in the pits after and said, "wow, you were all over me! What you done to it!" He seem a bit surprised when I said "pumped the tyres up!!"

Its top spec one of course and has a jazzy interior (Full bright red leather and allly controls etc), but it does really fly. To be honest not much slower than my chiped 1.8T, especially if you use the revs!

GF loves it too,the interior is a bit of a tarts boudoir, so it suits her! Which is good news for me as she don't nag me then!!

Say what you like about Rovers, but at least they aint Saxos! lol

 

[MK3GtiWannabe]

I don't mind Rovers, Dad has never had anything but them, remember him buying an MG Montego was a nice car at the time, but Rover really need to get their act together and get a new car out sometime soon. At the minute all they seem to be doing is cosmetically changing old cars that are about 10-15 years old now. That streetwise Rover just makes me laugh, whats the point in it? And then there's Rover releasing the Rover sorry Tata City Car. It used to be a good company and I will agree they are reliable, Dad has never had any problems with them and he has had a good few of them, and I will also admit they are quick compared to other similar engined cars but I think they have gone down hill of late especially since they have to compare themselves to other cars rather than sell themselves on their own merits. The MG badging thing was clever but IMO it only really appeals to women and Maxpower readers, its not a serious car IMO.

 

[fatbob]

Quote: posted by Gary Cundliffe on 19/03/2004 12:15:17

I've seen that, it is misleading, but always a pleasure in my 1.8T when one of those 105bhp things tries to take me on!!

On the other hand, they do a 160bhp version what once wiped the floor with me, but whoever bought it new would have paid more than a new Golf 1.8T, what is a big big mistake. Two years later, the Rover will have lost significantly more cash than the Golf. Just look for the "160" under the ZR on the tailgate. If it says "105" then demonstrate the mistake they have made!!!

I don't think they badge them anymore - i used to see them as 120's or 160's, but no more - only blacked ZR logo's and silver ZR logo's.

Dunno if that means anything.

Even if it say '160', you must give it a go.... circumstances permitting.[]

 

[Irish]

But sure you can hit 70 in 2nd in a Golf GTI too, I certainly did in my Golf GTI. Wonder what the MKV will do in second?

Yeh I hate seeing even 2.0 "GTI" owners go on about their car being one and dropping in at the last minute that it's a 2.0.

VWs fault entirely though.

 

[Chris]

Totally agree... VW brought it totally on themselves. I cannot beleive they were so naive about it... yes it sold more car's... but it created bad press and ruined the 'GTI' name.

To be honest, i don't think you could class either petrol GTI's a GTI... the 1.8T was not quick in 150bhp form by any stretch of the imagination. I wouldn't say the 180 was rapid... but its a huge improvement in over the 150.

 

[Irish]

I don't think it was the 180bhp which let the GTI down, it was the handling more than anything. A 1.4 Ford Focus handled better.

 

[djhorace]

The 1.8 20v and 2.0 GTi Golf should have been classed as Si or something similar. I remember my VTi Civic leaving both many times. Those GTi's were nothing of the sort IMO out of the box. Not only were they slow in comparison to other fast hot hatches, they could not handle either.

125-150bhp was not enough power for the GTi MKIV Golf. It was heavier than previously and any way measurable the older ones were faster. The 1.8T was nothing special in the performace stakes either.

In my opinion the GTi should have had the S3 210bhp engine from the start, the S3 should have had the TT225 engine and the Leon Cupra the 150bhp engine. And the handling should have been better to boot.

The VAG line up often makes no sense to me and variations seem to appear in different places like the 150PD 4 motion for example in the Leon and Golf. The 160bhp PD engine in the Ibiza and not the Fabia. The 160PD engine not in any other VAG car. Etc etc etc.

I think VAG always learn from previous mistakes, so hopefully the future will be a bright one!

 

[Royster]

Whoa! where'd this topic resurface from?

The bowels and Bilges of the forum servers no doubt!