MG6 v Vauxhall Insignia CDTi

[john newey]

Forget all the road tests etc. The only proper way to measure a cars performance is on the road, head to head. Tonight on my way home from selling MG's (to people who don't want to watch weddings!!) I came up against a Vauxhall Insignia CDTi on a long stretch of national speed limit dual carriageway. Though with his low down diesel grunt he was slightly quicker than the MG6, I soon caught him and he couldn't leave me. I stuck to his tail for a couple of miles. RESULT? Both cars are on a par for performance AND I'd probably have saved enough money by buying the MG6 that I'd have enough to run it for about 9 years before I'd have gained any fuel savings that a smelly diesel would give!!

[great_kahn]

So what your saying is.. the MG6 is pretty much as fast a diesel insignia that is slower on paper and weighs more?

Wonder if it was the 160bhp version that is 1 second slower to 60 on paper or the 130bhp version that is 3 seconds slower.

Now if you had come on here and said you went up againt 2.8 v6 turbo insignia and stayed with it i would be impressed.


Ahhhh just pulling your plonk

[john newey]

Just giving the reality of driving on Great Britains roads! Perhaps it would've been better if I'd released the handbrake? Oh and maybe the CDTi was chipped? Just know how he couldn't lose me and i wasn't trying and I was weighed down by the several thousand one pound coins I'd got in my pocket because of how much cheaper the MG6 was!!!!!

[great_kahn]

Originally Posted by john newey

Just giving the reality of driving on Great Britains roads! Perhaps it would've been better if I'd released the handbrake? Oh and maybe the CDTi was chipped? Just know how he couldn't lose me and i wasn't trying and I was weighed down by the several thousand one pound coins I'd got in my pocket because of how much cheaper the MG6 was!!!!!

V good sir, v good

[john newey]

Glad you liked it! I've often been known to throw in a touch of humour to get a point across!!!

[andycolm]

Although his 50 odd mpg would have made the 6 look a bit expensive to run mind. I know what I would choose for big motorway miles..
It certainly wasn't chipped, otherwise you wouldn't have been able to see him for dust (and black smoke)

[forehead]

Try doing it to a Golf GT TDi on about a 53 plate. Same horsepower and I guarantee if he's trying he'd leave you for dead.

I tried the same trick in my ST170 and had to bounce it off the rev limiter to stay with him.

If the guy in the diesel was up for it and knew what he was doing a gutless 1800 petrol wouldn't stand a chance and YES I know how to drive a diesel and NO you wouldn't stay with me.

You sold many yet

[forehead]

And I bet G K would tell you the same ....

[Ian]

Racing on public roads isn't something to be proud of at all.

[great_kahn]

Originally Posted by forehead

And I bet G K would tell you the same ....

If they put the 160 bhp cdti engine from the Insignia into the MG6. Not only would it complete the package, but it would be faster car.

If they could offer that car for 19k fully loaded.... kaching.

[Ian]

The biggest problem with the Insigina 2.0 CDTi is the gearing. It is so highly geared for economy that you drop out of the power band very easily and end up with a lot of gear stick waggling to make decent progress. The Astra is exactly the same, which uses the same engine.

The sooner Vauxhall move over to their own engines the better. Their new 2.2-litre engine is supposed to be a cracker.

[Shammy]

Originally Posted by andycolm

Although his 50 odd mpg would have made the 6 look a bit expensive to run mind. I know what I would choose for big motorway miles..
It certainly wasn't chipped, otherwise you wouldn't have been able to see him for dust (and black smoke)

This^

If it was chipped it would of outpaced the MG6 as well as returning a LOT better mpg!

I'm looking forward to seeing what the new diesel engines will produce bhp/mpg wise in the MG6.

[wilko]

Hi All

I dont normally post, (given that anything relevent I have to say has usually already been said by someone else!) But I recently bought an Insignia CDTi 160, a 2009 model after owning a ZTT cdti.

I find that although I reckon its ostensibly better in a great many ways (high speed ride, faster, better mpg, bigger interior and so on) there is an air of fragility about it that was missing in the MG; the back doors ping rather than thump, the engine installation, from an NVH and driveline point of view, isnt great and the gearshift is inconsistant and the cabin materials are flimsier.

I dont think all the bugs had been ironed out at launch, and the 2.0litre engine has some odd quicks (such as occasionally using coolant for no apparent reason)

I suspect that as new cars are being designed, corners are cut to reduce time to market and compromises for weight leave the cars feeling less substantial.

And dont get me started on electric power steering, on of the reasons I think that the 6 is getting plaudits for its driving experience is the hydraulic system...everyone else uses electric now i think. I've got high hopes for the new MG, specially as its now a proven design, having been on sale elsewhere for some time, and Ill certainly be considering a diesel 6 in future...

Regards

Jim

[MGJohn]

Watching Snooker highlights as I type this ~ who says men cannot multitask ...

Earlier today, in my recently acquired Rover 45 Connoisseur, I 'matched strides' with a BMW 330d who was really pressing on. Surprisingly, I was easily able to keep up with the other car which just slightly had the edge on acceleration, very slightly. This Rover 45 car has a 1.8 normally aspirated K-Series and the engine is not running perfectly at the moment. Today's event coincided with another 'Italian tune Up' on the car. The car flies once the engine reaches 4,500 rpm when the engine really impresses. At times, almost like a turbocharger coming on right round to 7,000 rpm. Below 3,000 rpm this engine is not as sprightly as the identical engine in my MG ZS. Maybe an illusion but, in a straight line, the R45 may actually be faster on the top end. These aspects of this car's performance is an enigma at the moment and investigations are onging.

Why is it that 'on paper', diesels appear quite quick but, in reality, I cannot remember any one Oil Burner able to really outclass my humble old Rovers ever. Quite the opposite usually. Yes, the others are trying ~ the plumes of black stuff is a dead giveaway particularly with VAG diesels.

Where acceleration is concerned, the much more frequent need to change gear with the diesels usually means they struggle after that brief, often very brief unitial nosing ahead away from the lights.

One other puzzling thing. The Rover 45 has poor acceleration in 5th. In 4th and lower ratios it flies. That is not the case with the MG ZS which appears to accelerate much better than the 45 in 5th. I wonder if there are different ratios in their respective gear clusters. Another thing to check.

[forehead]

Originally Posted by Ian

Racing on public roads isn't something to be proud of at all.

Indeed and wasn't suggesting that at all.

[Windy]

Originally Posted by MGJohn

That is not the case with the MG ZS which appears to accelerate much better than the 45 in 5th. I wonder if there are different ratios in their respective gear clusters. Another thing to check.

Should be the other way around as the ZS does have different gear ratios and should have more revs for a given road speed.

Sounds like the cam timing is out on the 45 - maybe the cambelt one tooth out?

[patpending]

so what's next - the Fast and the Furryroos?

If we are given a budget to buy our cars with, then comparisons of "similar" cars take on a whole new meaning if we say "for the price". When I bought my first 180 I test drove a B*W 320 with "sporting suspension" - it was far less fun to drive and cost nearly half as much again. A Subaru Impreza WRX was also a little (£3k) more expensive than the MG, though doubtless far more of a turbo nutter.

Volvo used to sell great value cars. For that matter, Fords didn't use to cost the earth either.

[JohnH]

I have an Insignia 1.6 petrol turbo and it is pretty quick, 0 to 60 in about 8 seconds and 140 mph.

The Insignia is a great car, upmarket looks, nice interior quality (on the whole, but not everywhere) and great motorway refinement. It eats the miles and performs well.

It's a great leap forward for Vauxhall and makes an excellent buy, especially used. I have even had peoplemmistaking it for an XF, leaving me having to explain that it is only a Vauxhall :-(

However, the Insignia is a "nearly" car. There are several little niggles that let it down and the biggest on is the steering. I agree with those who criticise modern power steering systems. They are too remote and it is not a nice feeling.

I also have a BINI and the steering on that is incredible, despite being power assisted.

I haven't driven an MG6 and it wouldn't be the sort of car I'd buy, but I am encouraged to hear it has hydraulic steering. Perhaps that could be a USP?

[great_kahn]

Originally Posted by MGJohn

Watching Snooker highlights as I type this ~ who says men cannot multitask ...

Earlier today, in my recently acquired Rover 45 Connoisseur, I 'matched strides' with a BMW 330d who was really pressing on. Surprisingly, I was easily able to keep up with the other car which just slightly had the edge on acceleration, very slightly. This Rover 45 car has a 1.8 normally aspirated K-Series and the engine is not running perfectly at the moment. Today's event coincided with another 'Italian tune Up' on the car. The car flies once the engine reaches 4,500 rpm when the engine really impresses. At times, almost like a turbocharger coming on right round to 7,000 rpm. Below 3,000 rpm this engine is not as sprightly as the identical engine in my MG ZS. Maybe an illusion but, in a straight line, the R45 may actually be faster on the top end. These aspects of this car's performance is an enigma at the moment and investigations are onging.

Why is it that 'on paper', diesels appear quite quick but, in reality, I cannot remember any one Oil Burner able to really outclass my humble old Rovers ever. Quite the opposite usually. Yes, the others are trying ~ the plumes of black stuff is a dead giveaway particularly with VAG diesels.

Where acceleration is concerned, the much more frequent need to change gear with the diesels usually means they struggle after that brief, often very brief unitial nosing ahead away from the lights.

One other puzzling thing. The Rover 45 has poor acceleration in 5th. In 4th and lower ratios it flies. That is not the case with the MG ZS which appears to accelerate much better than the 45 in 5th. I wonder if there are different ratios in their respective gear clusters. Another thing to check.

330d is it now.

[Rover_King]

Originally Posted by MGJohn

Watching Snooker highlights as I type this ~ who says men cannot multitask ...

Earlier today, in my recently acquired Rover 45 Connoisseur, I 'matched strides' with a BMW 330d who was really pressing on. Surprisingly, I was easily able to keep up with the other car which just slightly had the edge on acceleration, very slightly. This Rover 45 car has a 1.8 normally aspirated K-Series and the engine is not running perfectly at the moment. Today's event coincided with another 'Italian tune Up' on the car. The car flies once the engine reaches 4,500 rpm when the engine really impresses. At times, almost like a turbocharger coming on right round to 7,000 rpm. Below 3,000 rpm this engine is not as sprightly as the identical engine in my MG ZS. Maybe an illusion but, in a straight line, the R45 may actually be faster on the top end. These aspects of this car's performance is an enigma at the moment and investigations are onging.

Why is it that 'on paper', diesels appear quite quick but, in reality, I cannot remember any one Oil Burner able to really outclass my humble old Rovers ever. Quite the opposite usually. Yes, the others are trying ~ the plumes of black stuff is a dead giveaway particularly with VAG diesels.

Where acceleration is concerned, the much more frequent need to change gear with the diesels usually means they struggle after that brief, often very brief unitial nosing ahead away from the lights.

One other puzzling thing. The Rover 45 has poor acceleration in 5th. In 4th and lower ratios it flies. That is not the case with the MG ZS which appears to accelerate much better than the 45 in 5th. I wonder if there are different ratios in their respective gear clusters. Another thing to check.

What year was the 330d? I have to say I would think a 330d should be considerably quicker than a 1.8 non turbo petrol engined car. The 330d is a 3.0 turbocharged diesel correct?

After coming back from the pride of longbridge rally a couple of weeks ago, near home where there is a stretch of dual carridge way with several round abouts and sets of traffic lights on, there was this guy in a 3.0 Audi - either an A6 or A8 I think, wasnt an A4, it was a 3.0 TDi. He was accelerating very quickly off of the round abouts and away from the traffic lights etc. I was behind him. I knew that his 3.0 Turbocharged car would be quicker than my 140k mile 1.8 non turbo 45, but I was interested to see how mine would keep up behind his.....so come the next set of trafficlights when I was directly behind him, when the lights turned to green off away he went chucking out loads of black smoke from the exhaust, and I tried to keep up making the most of my rev range in first and second - yes of course he got ahead a fair amount quicker, however he diddnt 'leave me for dead' like I was expecting. I thought he would get further and further away from me as we went on but no, he initially got ahead alot quicker, but once going, both of us accelerating, we stayed equal distance apart.


I do find that people which own diesel engined cars, certainly quickish ones are very very single minded. I think they forget that their engines are turbocharged, and what non turbo diesels are like.

I dare GreatKahn to remove his turbocharger than see how fast it is ;-) lol