MG F

MG F: which version to buy and why

If you are choosing an MG F, you are not choosing between generations — there is only 1 generation (1995–2002), body Cabrio. You are choosing among 4 petrol mid-engined, rear-drive versions that share a 1.8-litre four-cylinder layout and then split on power (120 hp vs 145 hp), gearbox (Manual vs Variable), and kerb weight. The numbers below decide which split is worth living with.

If you are choosing an MG F, you are not choosing between generations — there is only 1 generation (1995–2002), body Cabrio. You are choosing among 4 petrol mid-engined, rear-drive versions that share a 1.8-litre four-cylinder layout and then split on power (120 hp vs 145 hp), gearbox (Manual vs Variable), and kerb weight. The numbers below decide which split is worth living with.

Specs table: all MG F versions

Engine placement is Central on every version. Injection is Distributed injection (multi-point) on every version. Fuel grade is 95 on every version. Boost is No on every version. There is no second generation to “buy newer” — the choice is inside this table.

Engine: 120 hp vs 145 hp (same 1.8 family)

Two power levels sit on almost the same displacement: 1795 cc on both 1.8 MT cars and 1796 cc on both 1.8 CVT cars (1 cc, 0.06%).

• 145 hp on 1.8 MT (145 hp): 145 / 1.795 ≈ 80.8 hp per litre. Peak at 7000 rpm. Torque 174 Nm at 4500 rpm. Compression ratio 10. Bore × stroke not measured.
• 145 hp on 1.8 CVT (145 hp): 145 / 1.796 ≈ 80.7 hp per litre. Same peak rpm and the same 174 Nm at 4500. Compression 10.5. Bore × stroke 80 × 89.3.
• 120 hp on 1.8 CVT (120 hp): 120 / 1.796 ≈ 66.8 hp per litre. Peak at 5500 rpm. Torque 160 Nm at 4000. Compression 10.5. Bore × stroke 80 × 89.3.
• 120 hp on 1.8 MT (120 hp): 120 / 1.795 ≈ 66.9 hp per litre. Same 5500 rpm / 160 Nm at 4000. Compression 10.5. Bore × stroke 80 × 89.3.

What the extra 25 hp (145 − 120) buys on paper: +20.8% power, +14 Nm (+8.8%) torque, and a peak that is 1500 rpm higher (7000 vs 5500). You pay for that with an engine that makes its number later in the rev range. The 120 hp pair make peak torque 500 rpm earlier (4000 vs 4500). If you want the engine to be done working sooner, the 120 hp versions match that; if you want the highest specific output in this catalogue, both 145 hp versions sit near 81 hp/l.

There is no diesel, no turbo, no other cylinder count. 4, Inline, Gasoline, No boost is the entire engine story.

Gearbox: Manual 5 vs Variable

Gearbox is the second split, and it is independent of power — the data give you a 2×2 matrix.

• Both manuals list 5 gears. Both CVTs list gears not measured (the data field is empty; that is not the same as “one gear”).
• You cannot “buy an automatic with a gear count” from this catalogue: the non-manual box is labelled Variable, not a stepped automatic.

If the buying question is “I want to row gears,” only the two 1.8 MT names apply. If the buying question is “I do not want a clutch,” only the two 1.8 CVT names apply. Power is then a second, separate tick-box.

Performance: 0–100 and top speed (what the extra power and box actually change)

Arithmetic that matters when you choose:

• Same 145 hp, swap Manual for Variable: 0–100 goes from 7 s to 7.7 s (+0.7 s, about +10% time). Top speed goes the other way: 209 vs 212 km/h (+3 km/h for the CVT). The 145 hp CVT is the fastest car in this set by peak speed; the 145 hp MT is the fastest by 0–100.
• Same 120 hp, swap Manual for Variable: 0–100 goes from 9 s to 10 s (+1.0 s, +11%). Top speed drops from 193 to 190 km/h (−3 km/h).
• Same Manual, 120 → 145 hp: 0–100 9 → 7 s (−2.0 s, −22% time). Top speed 193 → 209 (+16 km/h, +8.3%).
• Same Variable, 120 → 145 hp: 0–100 10 → 7.7 s (−2.3 s, −23%). Top speed 190 → 212 (+22 km/h, +11.6%).

Buy 1.8 MT 145 hp if the only number you care about is 0–100. Buy 1.8 CVT 145 hp if the only number is top speed. Buy neither 120 hp car if you want the short 0–100 times — they are 2.0–3.0 s slower than the 145 hp MT.

MPG / fuel consumption: only one version was measured

Fuel use is not measured for three of four versions. Stating that is part of the buying decision: you cannot rank economy across the range from this catalogue.

The only measured set is 1.8 CVT 120 hp:

• city 11.6
• highway 6.4
• combined 8.3

Tank volume is 50 on every version, so range cannot be compared by tank size. Combined consumption is not measured for 1.8 MT 145 hp, 1.8 CVT 145 hp, and 1.8 MT 120 hp. CO2 is not measured on all four. Eco class is not measured on all four.

If “I need a published combined figure before I buy” is a hard filter, only 1.8 CVT 120 hp passes. That is also the slowest car (10 s, 190 km/h). The data do not let you claim the 145 hp cars use more or less fuel.

Dimensions, weight, and kg per horsepower

Wheel sizes are not measured on all four versions. Ground clearance is 140 on all four — ride height is not a reason to pick one MG F over another.

Kerb and gross weights are where the versions actually diverge, and two manuals list a gross figure below kerb. Those values are reported as given, not “corrected.”

What the weight numbers do to the buying case:

• Lightest kerb: 1.8 CVT 120 hp at 1035. Heaviest kerb: both 1.8 MT cars at 1320. Difference 285 kg (+27.5% on the CVT 120 hp kerb).
• Best mass-to-power on kerb: 1.8 CVT 145 hp at 7.31 kg/hp. Worst: 1.8 MT 120 hp at 11.00 kg/hp. The 145 hp CVT carries 3.69 kg less per horsepower than the 120 hp MT (−33.5%).
• 1.8 MT 145 hp has the same 1320 kerb as the 120 hp MT, so the extra 25 hp is “free” on weight: kg/hp improves from 11.00 to 9.10 (−1.90 kg/hp, −17.3%) with no kerb change in the data.
• Both CVTs sit in a tight kerb band (1035 and 1060, 25 kg apart, +2.4%). Stepping from 120 to 145 hp on CVT costs 25 kg and gains 25 hp — 1 kg per extra horsepower on kerb.

Gross weight is 1320 on both CVTs. Gross is 1070 on 1.8 MT 145 hp and 1060 on 1.8 MT 120 hp. Payload cannot be derived as a selling point when gross is listed below kerb on the manuals; treat those two gross figures as catalogue values, not as a load you can count on.

Chassis: what is the same and what is not

Front suspension is Independent hydropneumatic on all four. Front and rear brakes are Disc / Disc on all four. Drive is RWD on all four. Clearance 140 on all four.

Rear suspension is the chassis split:

• Both 1.8 MT versions: rear Independent hydropneumatic (same family as the front).
• Both 1.8 CVT versions: rear Independent, spring.

If you want hydropneumatic at both ends, you are in the Manual column. If you want a spring rear with hydropneumatic front, you are in the Variable column. That split lines up exactly with gearbox in this dataset — you cannot mix “CVT + hydropneumatic rear” or “MT + spring rear” from these four rows.

Which version to choose

There is one generation, so there is no “later facelift generation” to prefer. Use the 2×2 of power × gearbox.

Choose 1.8 MT 145 hp if you want the shortest 0–100 in the set (7 s) and a 5-speed Manual. You accept the joint-highest kerb (1320), kg/hp 9.10 (second-worst), fuel not measured, wheels not measured, and a listed gross (1070) below kerb. Specific output is the joint-best (≈80.8 hp/l). Rear suspension is Independent hydropneumatic.

Choose 1.8 CVT 145 hp if you want the highest top speed (212 km/h) and the best kerb-to-power ratio (7.31 kg/hp) without a clutch. You give up 0.7 s on 0–100 versus the 145 hp MT (7.7 vs 7) and you get a spring rear. Kerb 1060 is 260 kg below the 145 hp MT (−19.7%). Fuel not measured. This is the version where “extra power” and “low kerb” land on the same car.

Choose 1.8 MT 120 hp if you want a Manual but not the 7000 rpm power peak. You get 0–100 in 9 s and 193 km/h — 2 s and 16 km/h behind the 145 hp MT, at the same 1320 kerb, so you are buying the worst kg/hp (11.00). Fuel not measured. The only reason this wins over the 145 hp MT in the same gearbox is a lower peak rpm (5500 vs 7000) and earlier torque (4000 vs 4500). It does not win on weight, 0–100, or top speed.

Choose 1.8 CVT 120 hp if you need the only published consumption (11.6 / 6.4 / 8.3) and the lightest kerb (1035). You accept the slowest 0–100 (10 s) and the lowest top speed (190 km/h). Versus the 145 hp CVT you save 25 kg and lose 25 hp, 2.3 s on 0–100, and 22 km/h on top speed. kg/hp 8.63 is mid-pack — better than both manuals, worse than the 145 hp CVT.

Hard filters from the data

• Must have a combined consumption number → only 1.8 CVT 120 hp.
• Must have 0–100 under 8 s → 1.8 MT 145 hp (7) or 1.8 CVT 145 hp (7.7). The 120 hp cars are 9 and 10.
• Must have top speed at least 200 km/h → both 145 hp versions (209 and 212). Both 120 hp versions miss (193 and 190).
• Must have Manual → the two 1.8 MT names; both weigh 1320 at the kerb.
• Must have Variable → the two 1.8 CVT names; both weigh 1035–1060 at the kerb and use a spring rear.
• Must have hydropneumatic rear → Manual only.
• Wheel size, CO2, eco class → not measured on every version; they cannot break a tie.

What “the extra money” can buy, using only these numbers (no prices in the source): moving from the slowest/lightest-spec combination (1.8 CVT 120 hp) to the strongest 0–100 combination (1.8 MT 145 hp) costs 285 kg of kerb, gains 25 hp, cuts 3.0 s off 0–100, and adds 19 km/h. Moving instead to 1.8 CVT 145 hp keeps you in the light CVT kerb band (+25 kg only), still gains 25 hp, cuts 2.3 s, and adds 22 km/h — that is the highest return in speed and kg/hp without taking on the 1320 kg manuals.

Problems and reliability are not measured in this dataset; they are not a version-to-version differentiator here. The buying decision that the numbers actually support is: pick 145 hp unless you require the one measured mpg set; pick Variable if kerb and kg/hp matter; pick Manual if 0–100 of 7 s and a hydropneumatic rear matter more than 260–285 kg of extra kerb.