My Chav mate at work has been banging on about how quick his new golf is, and i keep defending the statement with the Zed! i know he's probably right (B*stard), but just wanted to hear your views! Come on, do it for Zed's everywhere! haha!
take them both to the rolling road, run them both and get the figures they give the exact proof, its about £20 just to run them on the roller for 1 test may be that could be the bet loser pays the rollers bill,
Check out the thread called Bottom Gear in this general discussion part of the forum and you'll see I posted this:-
I've just written a nice little letter to the editor of Top Gear magazine. I hope you like it.
Since I had a few hours to kill on a train I decided to pick the November edition of your mag since I usually quite enjoy your programme. I have to admit though that I'm completely baffled by the way you score your reviews.
I was looking at the review of the Golf 4Motion and decided to check it against a similar car, so I picked out the MG ZR 160. So how did it fare? Well, quite frankly, I'm totally bamboozled by the comparisons. Lets try a few.
Price wise, the Golf comes out tops since at about £19,000 its about four grand more than the MG, but that oughta work in the MG's favour, no?
Ok, lets try 0 to 60 then. Nope again there matey. The Golf does it in 9.2 seconds whereas the MG does it in 7.4. The maximum speeds are very close I admit, but the MG still comes out on top with a healthy 131 mph against the Golfs 129 mph. This is done funnily enough despite it having a smaller engine inside it. This is probably why the MG has a higher MPG rating, 37.6 against 33.5, than the German machine.
Somehow, your review manages to defy all logic, even womans logic as my girlfriend was equally as unimpressed as I was, by giving the Golf a healthy 12 out of 20, whereas the MG has a paultry 6 out of 20. The car must look absolutely stunning then to get such a massively higher score, but no, It looks very very average, whereas the ZR is a superb looking car from all angles. Don't just take my word for it, ask the people who I have never met before in my life who have come up to me and said that my car, admittedly only a 105 but with the same looks at a 160, is gorgeous.
There is the old argument that the ZR is only a Rover 25 really and that its mutton dressed as lamb, but the Golf has been out for a whole lot longer than even the 25 (my mother was selling them way back in the 1970's), so isn't the Golf more like fossil dressed as lamb by comparison?
Maybe though, I'm just interpreting the scores wrongly. Perhaps the lower the score then the higher your rating, sort of in the same way that A4 paper is larger than A5, which would mean that a hell of a lot of the cars with big marks really are quite shite and the ones with the lower scores are the ones to watch out for. Either that or your reviews are garbage.
I hope that helps you a bit. There were a few other comments that followed it from various people too.
bless em!! some nice comments tho as well as the usual speel!!
i love v dubs tbh and have owned 3!! But i also love my z!! Couldn't comment on speed tbh as i wouldn't have brought a 105 if thats what was most important to me!! Altho, my ickle car will beat a 2.0 GTI i know(0-60)!! Its great having a light car!!
on the rolling road my car went 135mph before the unichip to 147mph thats a good figure for the size of car that was on 17" alloys, my mr2 turbo reached 162mph and thats a 2ltr twin entry turbos with countless blizt upgrades and 370bhp and £16k owing me, so £9k and 147mph is sound and its still got to go back for more set up,
i suppose the thing that makes us all different is our taste and although the golf is a legend in its own right it just isnt for me . ive been a rover mg man all my driving life and will be for a long time yet.
Well at least on the whole they kept it a reasonable argument.
Thing is they think MG's are just Rover 25's and they are grandad's cars.
Most of us here don't really like the Golf's and find them boring.
I'd rather have the ZR because it's just a little different, I never have liked Golf's but each to their own I guess.
Golf VR6 is a fast car, handles well but new i think it was 20 grand the ZR160 new can be had for 14 or maybe 13 with some of the deals out now.
Thing in the Golf's favour is it will keep it's value.
The ZR will half in value in 3 years.
It's a matter of taste.
As for speed only a rolling road will tell.
Was the 2.0 16v golf 0-60 10.2 seconds?
Same as the ZR 1.4?
Interesting debate. It's funny how they call it a 25 Grandad Car. Well the 25 is but the ZR isn't. When I bought my car it came down to a choice between the Golf TDI and the ZR TD. The Golf looked too boring for the missus - she likes shiny things - so the ZR won! :smile: There is no way that the Golf is better looking than the ZR. The Golf is more of a family man car - unless you get a top spec one which costs mucho moola. Saying that, if someone gave me a free Golf I wouldn't say no...
I dunno...a 4motion (maybe) or R32 woud thrash a 160, no doubt there...but the 2.0L GTi isnt all that quick, cos it's so bloody heavy...and the GTi Diesel uses the same engine as the Passat TDi and that only kicking out 130BHP, and again it's heavy.