I've noticed a few adverts here and there about MG's being better than BMW's. It made me laugh when I realised which cars they were comparing (a 318i SE and a ZT 190+). Its like comparing chalk and cheese! Of course the MG's going to be better, its a top of the range model! Now if theyd have compared it to an M3 or an M5, the MG wouldve been crapped on. It seems to me that MG/Rover are still upset about being sold by BMW.

Given the choice, what would you rather own? A top of the range Beemer or MG?

A top of the range Beemer

what do the two models cost tho?

if the rover is way over the cost of the bm they are comparing it to then fair do's.. If the two models compared cost similar money then i think the test, in that respect, is entirely fair.


Phil

the costs of the cars are the same. but you cant compare 2 things when theyre in a different class and in different price brackets.

So if they cost the same, irrespective of thier stature within the manufacturers own heierachy of models, then surely its a reasonable comparison?

I take the point that one is meant to be the range topper with the other being low/mid range, but at the end of the day the main driving force (evidently for the target audience of the ad) is budget, so therefore the element of "thats a BMW and that *ugh* is a rover" wont come into it.

and my answer to which i would rather have is neither. Would settle nicely for a camaro V8

Phil