Currently reading: Greatest road tests ever: MG Rover ZT 260

A marriage made in heaven? When British charm and American muscle birthed a 260bhp exec saloon

Tested 13.1.04

MG Rover’s decision to reengineer the ZT to squeeze in a Detroit V8 seemed slightly unhinged from a commercial perspective, but we loved the results. Only a second pair of exhausts and some badges marked the 260 apart from other ZTs externally, but myriad changes brooded beneath. 

A Ford Mustang V8 was longitudinally mounted (the engine in V6 ZTs was transverse and powered the front wheels), while the Mustang’s Tremec five-speed manual gearbox, fitted with new ratios, sent power to the rear wheels via a limited-slip differential. The ZT’s bodyshell was altered for the V8, the struttype front suspension reworked and the rear multi-links totally reconfigured. Front brakes remained unchanged but larger rear rotors featured. 

Mg zt 260 front

Despite the 200kg weight gain in-gear acceleration impressed, which was just as well given the ponderous gearbox action. The surprising lack of traction control and stability control was countered with wonderfully neutral handling leading to enjoyably progressive oversteer, besting even BMW’s 330i for driver involvement. The ride was firm but never wearing. 

The cabin was both outdated and cramped, but refinement was acceptable. Touring economy was 20.4mpg, but we returned a dismal 8.3mpg on track.

For: Character, V8 engine, subtlety, chassis balance 

Against: Economy, lack of traction control, gearbox

Factfile 

Price: £27,995 Engine: V8, 4601cc, petrol Power: 260bhp at 5000rpm Torque: 302lb ft at 4000rpm 0-62mph: 6.7sec 0-100mph: 17.1sec Standing quarter mile: 15.3sec at 95mph Top speed: 149mph Economy: 16.8mpg

What happened next? 

A facelift soon followed for the ZT saloon and ZT-T estate, but the promised ZT 385 supercharged V8 never materialised in production form. Sales ended with the fall of MG. 

Join the debate

Comments
1
Add a comment…
si73 10 October 2022
Iirc didn't they alter the engines position in this compared to the 75? The ZT had the engine closer to the bulkhead for better turn in and less understeer whereas the 75 had the engine as far forward as possible to enhance refinement. I seem to remember reading this in Autocars review.
I always loved the look of both the 75 and ZT, elegant design and in ZT guise, especially the MK1 with the wire mesh grill, aggressive and purposeful.
I only had a lowly 120+ but I loved it, in trophy blue it looked absolutely amazing, it drove superbly and was, in my opinion, a far classier proposition than the more expensive Vectra 1.8sri or Mondeo 1.8 zetec.