You have missed the point, you hold the ZR in high esteem as you own one, nothing wrong in that, but the reality is it wasn't that great hence why MGR failed.I have owned both, and hand on heart would say the 3 is a better car than the ZR
It damn well should be - the ZR is a 15 year old model based on a 21 year old design. The point you are missing is that the 3 doesn't appear to potential buyers to be good enough to be worthy of consideration. The 3 may well be better than a ZR (though that is debateable because the 3 is only really comparable to the ZR 105, there being no range topping performance model to compare to the 160), and I believe the 3 is a sound car, but many people do see it as inadequate for what they percieve an MG should be.
I am well aware of the negative baggage that goes with all
of the legacy badges that MGR and now SAIC have inherited - that is why I think they should have started with a new one. In the early NAC days, I had hoped and expected that the car buying public would adjust to the MG marque covering all bases, but I have had to accept that there is an entrenched view of what an MG should be which wil never change, and for most people the SAIC/MG offerings simply do not measure up - the MG badge is IMO a hindrance, not an asset.
Suggesting that the inadequacy of the ZR is the reason MG Rover failed is, quite frankly laughable. The 25 and ZR together were the only source of hope in the MGR era - sales of 45/ZS and particularly 75/ZT were pretty dismal (I say 'particularly' for the 75 because it was a very expensive car to manufacture for a company staring into the abyss).
Originally Posted by Snifferdog
I can't believe the crap that I just read about it not deserving the MG badge and looking like a city Rover?!
Well, just stand back and take a good look at it - both are the same boxy, high stance 'city' car type of design. It defies belief that anyone with reasonable eyesight can't see the very obvious similarities. It may also help to explain why so many non-MG enthusiasts dismiss the 3 in the same disparaging way that they also dismissed the CityRover without even sitting in one, let alone driving one.
If the CityRover had been given a major facelift, something like the MG3 could
have been the result, and it is why I am convinced that the 3 would have fared better wearing a different badge and styled and trimmed to suit the mainstream small hatchback buyer rather than trying to pretend to be a sports car with the brightly coloured trim and graphics. Of course, MGR had planned to market an MG version of the CityRover, but were dissuaded from putting the MG badge on it for pretty much the same reasons that I think the 3 should have been something other than an MG.