Well, these are two pretty similar cars we have here! It's only details that could potentially make the difference. Considering they both belong to the luxury car segment and utilize the same 5-door wagon body style and the front wheel drive system, it all comes up to the specific petrol engine choice they offer. Both the engines are Rover-engineered . The first one has a 6-cylinder, 24-valves 160hp unit, while the other one gets its power and torque from a 6-cylinder, 24-valves 177hp one.

Eventhough they might appear to be different models, both cars are actually structurally the same, so none of the two gets an advantage over the other when it comes to safety.

I don't like generalizing things when it comes to reliability, although it does seem that Rover as a brand displays somewhat better results, at least on all of the models level. These are the results of an independent reasearch, while our visitors describe reliability of MG with an average rating of 5.0, and models under the Rover badge with 4.5 out of 5. Unfortunatelly, I don't have enough insight that would allow me to comment in more details on the specific models level. Above it all, drivers of cars with the same engine as MG ZT rank it on average as 3.0, while the one under the competitor's bonnet gets 5.0 out of 5.

MG is a bit more agile, reaching 100km/h in 0.9 seconds less than its competitor. In addition to that it accelerates all the way to 211 kilometers per hour, 5km/h more than the other car. When it comes to fuel economy the winner has to be MG ZT, averaging around 9.6 liters of fuel per 100 kilometers (29 mpg), in combined cycle. We can't ignore that 10% difference compared to Rover 75.

Rover is apparently more reliable, not too much, but just enough. The most important thing when deciding between any two vehicles should always be safety, both passive and active. In this case though, it seems that both cars show similar levels of passenger protection all together, so that won't break a tie. But one thing that actually could is the performance, with MG being considerably quicker, thus putting more smile on driver's face. To make things even better, it consumps less fuel! It's not difficult to say then that if I'd need to make a choice, it would definitely be the MG. Anyway, that's the most objective conclusion I could've came up with and it's based solely on the information found on this website. Aspects such as design, practicality, brand value and driving experience are there for you to measure them out. I suggest you spend two more minutes in order to find out which car, based on your needs and budget, would be picked by the virtual adviser™, among thousands of similar, yet so different vehicles.