The MGF Register Forums

This thread is intended as a light-hearted look at what in your opinion defines a MG, not an opportunity to run down other models.

In Cath’s view the definition of a MG is a sports car with or without a removable hood. As she has previously owned a MGB-GT V8, MG Roadster and now an F, I was in complete agreement with her (I didn’t have a choice), until I took my ZT-T for its MOT.
The ZT-T passed the MOT but with an advisory for a slight leak on the nearside rear shock.
No problem I thought £20 - £30 each side, I will get them both done.
Phone Euro Parts, Bennets Car Spares and my local independent local Motor Factor’s, none of which could find a listing for them!!!!! So I Googled MGZT Rear Shocks and found this list. The only way to find out which type should be fitted is to lift the rear seat and find a piece of paper glued to the Bodywork and hope it is still there and not fade so badly it’s unreadable. Now it this isn’t in the spirit of a MG what is

They have been discontinued, Gary, but replacements are available for all types_

Mykel wrote:They have been discontinued, Gary, but replacements are available for all types_

Bildschirmfoto 2016-04-24 um 17.46.49.png

Thanks Mykel, I ended up getting them from "Discount MGRoverSpares"

cath's mg wrote:

Mykel wrote:They have been discontinued, Gary, but replacements are available for all types_

Bildschirmfoto 2016-04-24 um 17.46.49.png

Thanks Mykel, I ended up getting them from "Discount MGRoverSpares"

Matt at DMGRS is very very helpful

colintf wrote: Matt at DMGRS is very very helpful

I totally agree Colin, a pleasure to do business with them. I will defiantly be singing their praises on the 75/ZT forum if the shocks are as good as their advertising blurb says

Now this is Master Yoda's definition

Rob Bell wrote:MG Rover only existed after 2001 Gary. Before that, it was Rover Group (it was Rover Group when the MGF was launched in 1995). Before that, it was Austin Rover Group. Before that British Leyland. Before that there were separate companies, but the core bit was the British Motor Corporation (that included the MG Motor company at Abingdon) - which of course was formed from the merger of the Nuffield group (Morris - Woleseley - Riley - MG) and Austin.

Apologies for any companies missed out on the way....

Now who can argue with that

An MG is anything with an MG badge

MGB owners will say that the F isnt a proper MG
Some MGF owners dont rate the Z-Cars as proper MGs
Some dont count the NAC cars (Later TFs, MG6, MG3)

TO me, they all keep the brand alive, and therefore are worthy of the name.

sniperpenguin wrote:An MG is anything with an MG badge

MGB owners will say that the F isnt a proper MG
Some MGF owners dont rate the Z-Cars as proper MGs
Some dont count the NAC cars (Later TFs, MG6, MG3)

TO me, they all keep the brand alive, and therefore are worthy of the name.

sniperpenguin wrote:An MG is anything with an MG badge

MGB owners will say that the F isnt a proper MG
Some MGF owners dont rate the Z-Cars as proper MGs
Some dont count the NAC cars (Later TFs, MG6, MG3)

TO me, they all keep the brand alive, and therefore are worthy of the name.

Totale agree, for me history has repeated several times:
T-type owners didn't go with MGA drivers as the car was much too modern. (At the time no car had the classical wings as th TF anymore)
MGA owners didn't go with MGB drivers: the car was much too modern. (It didn't have a separate chassis)

And all those who call themselves MG fans who do't like the "modern" MG's" like the F, TF and the Zed's. Well they haven't looked back it time. So the knowledge and involvement is not what I expect of a true MG addict.

(Owning an MG TF, MGF, MGC CGT and looking for a pre war MG.)

Kasper wrote:

sniperpenguin wrote:An MG is anything with an MG badge

MGB owners will say that the F isnt a proper MG
Some MGF owners dont rate the Z-Cars as proper MGs
Some dont count the NAC cars (Later TFs, MG6, MG3)

TO me, they all keep the brand alive, and therefore are worthy of the name.

Totale agree, for me history has repeated several times:
T-type owners didn't go with MGA drivers as the car was much too modern. (At the time no car had the classical wings as th TF anymore)
MGA owners didn't go with MGB drivers: the car was much too modern. (It didn't have a separate chassis)

And all those who call themselves MG fans who do't like the "modern" MG's" like the F, TF and the Zed's. Well they haven't looked back it time. So the knowledge and involvement is not what I expect of a true MG addict.

(Owning an MG TF, MGF, MGC CGT and looking for a pre war MG.)

Well said Kasper

Kasper wrote:

sniperpenguin wrote:An MG is anything with an MG badge

MGB owners will say that the F isnt a proper MG
Some MGF owners dont rate the Z-Cars as proper MGs
Some dont count the NAC cars (Later TFs, MG6, MG3)

TO me, they all keep the brand alive, and therefore are worthy of the name.

Totale agree, for me history has repeated several times:
T-type owners didn't go with MGA drivers as the car was much too modern. (At the time no car had the classical wings as th TF anymore)
MGA owners didn't go with MGB drivers: the car was much too modern. (It didn't have a separate chassis)

And all those who call themselves MG fans who do't like the "modern" MG's" like the F, TF and the Zed's. Well they haven't looked back it time. So the knowledge and involvement is not what I expect of a true MG addict.

(Owning an MG TF, MGF, MGC CGT and looking for a pre war MG.)

Spot on Kasper!
Always get the same comment about the FWD & Z range as they are "Badge engineered" so I just remind them how MG started