1 series coupe ?

front 3/4s are fine but after that???

Not sure about the 1 series coupe. Looks ok from some angles.

I didn't like the signature of one of the posters though...

The ZT/ZTT-not for chavs ,unlike a 318i........

Peter Fenwick wrote: Not sure about the 1 series coupe. Looks ok from some angles. I didn't like the signature of one of the posters though... The ZT/ZTT-not for chavs ,unlike a 318i........

Well they have to try and get a dig of some sort. I mean, fancy having to go through life with a millstone like a ZT round your neck!
Rubbish design + Rubbish quality + Rubbish build = Rubbish car.

The fact is, any BMW with any size engine is infinitely more desirable than a pimped up Rover with tacky MG badges. That's why BMW sell lots of cars & MG Rover didn't, period.

Nigel wrote: I'm afraid those 75 thingies are rather good value for money at the moment, and the forum is largely made up of motoring enthusiasts.

isn't that a contradiction in terms?

Nigel wrote: Naw you pink puff, remember BMW's first car ?

Eh? No, sorry - I'm not as old as you!

Nigel wrote: their first car was an austin built under licence, bmw called it a Dixie I think.

nearly......

Licensed from Britain, the first BMW car

A German version of the British Austin Seven, the European counterpart of the Ford Model T

In 1927, 100 Austins were delivered from England and 42 Dixi DA/1's were built in Germany. In 1928 and 1929, 9,308 Dixi DA/1 models were produced in Germany.  From 1929 until 1931, 12,468 Dixi DA/2 and DA/3 models were made. In 1931 and 1932, DA/4 models were produced, all under the BMW name.

The DA/4 had independent front suspension, an 18 hp engine and a top speed of 53 mph. Three leaves were added to the radiator cover to help distinguish the BMW from the Austin.

not a Real BMW though

A bit like claiming that a MG Mousetro is a real MG!

thePits vs Nigel

Edited by BeemaBoy

dryle wrote: Nigel i have been reading some of the posts and u seem to be extremley rude to them. keep up the good work

You'll never become a mod if you keep that up!

I've just had a read of those two threads & can't believe what a bunch of mis-informed blinkered numpty's there are on there.

They bang on about how great fwd is - it's great if you want a shopping car and/or you're not really bothered about the driving experience.

They either don't know or choose to forget but the Rover 75 was based on a modified E34 floor pan with a modified Z-axle without drive shafts. Turning the 75 back into rwd wasn't that hard.

BMW bought Rover for several reasons, one of which was to gain fwd expertise. Only after buying the company did they find Rover didn't have any - it all came from Honda.

Rover's demise was inevitable. Poorly designed, badly built and saddled  with an image that nobody wanted it was only a matter of time despite the investments that BMW made.

After 3 Honda's I bought a Rover in 1991 after believing all the hype in the motoring press including CAR. It turned out to be the most disappointing car I've ever owned with the exception of my first car, a 5 year old '71 Mini that was rotten to the core. My brother also bought a Rover & was disappointed too. He went back to German cars & I moved over to Audis which gave me a taste of Teutonic. Once I'd tried a BMW there was no going back.

Despite all the claims by proud owners, an MG Z-whatever isn't a very good car at all even if you do try & justify it on a cost basis. After all, you can't polish a turd.

Well I had registered on that forum quite a while ago but when I logged in again to try an contribute I am not allowed to post for some reson. Still they sound like a bunch of dead heads anyway.

AndyS. The MG ZT isn't a bad car, it might not be in the same league as a 5 series but that doesn't make it bad. Be careful, your BMW blinkers might just be as bad as their MG Rover ones :D