MG TF

MG TF: which version to buy (2002–2005)

The MG TF was sold as one generation of Roadster from 2002-01-01 to 2005-12-31, with four gasoline versions: 1.6 MT (116 hp), 1.8 CVT (120 hp), 1.8 MT (136 hp), and 1.8 MT (160 hp). All four are rear-wheel drive, none has boost, and all use Distributed injection (multi-point) on 95 fuel.

The MG TF was sold as one generation of Roadster from 2002-01-01 to 2005-12-31, with four gasoline versions: 1.6 MT (116 hp), 1.8 CVT (120 hp), 1.8 MT (136 hp), and 1.8 MT (160 hp). All four are rear-wheel drive, none has boost, and all use Distributed injection (multi-point) on 95 fuel. The buying choice is not “which generation” — there is only one — but which of these four powertrains matches how you will use a light Roadster.

Specs that actually separate the four versions

Compression ratio is 10.5 on every version. Bore × stroke is 80 × 79 on 1.6 MT and 80 × 89.3 on all three 1.8 engines. Number of gears on 1.8 CVT is not measured.

Power per litre and kg per horsepower

Specific output (hp ÷ litres):

• 1.6 MT: 116 ÷ 1.588 = 73.0 hp/l
• 1.8 CVT: 120 ÷ 1.795 = 66.9 hp/l
• 1.8 MT (136 hp): 136 ÷ 1.796 = 75.7 hp/l
• 1.8 MT (160 hp): 160 ÷ 1.796 = 89.1 hp/l

The CVT is the least efficient use of displacement: 207 extra cubic centimetres over the 1.6 MT buys only 4 hp (120 − 116) and the lowest specific output of the four. The 160 hp 1.8 MT extracts 22.1 hp/l more than the CVT from essentially the same 1.8-litre block (1796 vs 1795 cc).

Kerb weight per horsepower (kg/hp):

• 1.6 MT: 1095 ÷ 116 = 9.44 kg/hp
• 1.8 CVT: 1125 ÷ 120 = 9.38 kg/hp
• 1.8 MT (136 hp): 1105 ÷ 136 = 8.13 kg/hp
• 1.8 MT (160 hp): 1115 ÷ 160 = 6.97 kg/hp

The 160 hp car is 2.47 kg/hp lighter on paper than the 1.6 MT, even though it is 20 kg heavier in kerb weight (1115 vs 1095). That is the core of the “which version” question: extra mass is small; extra power is not.

Performance: what the extra horsepower buys

0–100 km/h (measured):

• 1.8 MT (160 hp): 7.6 s
• 1.8 MT (136 hp): 8.8 s — 1.2 s slower than 160 hp
• 1.6 MT: 9.8 s — 2.2 s slower than 160 hp, 1.0 s slower than 136 hp
• 1.8 CVT: 10.2 s — 2.6 s slower than 160 hp, 0.4 s slower than the smaller 1.6 MT

Top speed:

• 1.8 MT (160 hp): 220 km/h
• 1.8 MT (136 hp): 205 km/h — 15 km/h less
• 1.6 MT and 1.8 CVT: 190 km/h — 30 km/h less than 160 hp, 15 km/h less than 136 hp

Peak torque:

• 160 hp 1.8 MT: 174 Nm at 4700 rpm
• 136 hp 1.8 MT: 165 Nm at 5000 rpm (−9 Nm, 300 rpm higher)
• 1.8 CVT: 160 Nm at 4000 rpm (lowest peak rpm of the four)
• 1.6 MT: 145 Nm at 4700 rpm (−29 Nm vs 160 hp)

The CVT’s torque arrives earliest (4000 rpm) and power peaks earliest (5500 rpm vs 6250–6900 on the manuals). That does not make it the fastest: it is still last to 100 km/h. The 160 hp engine peaks power at 6900 rpm, 150 rpm above the 136 hp 1.8 MT (6750) and 650 rpm above the 1.6 MT (6250).

Fuel consumption (mpg in catalogue terms: l/100 km)

Mixed / city / highway:

• 1.6 MT: 7.1 / 9.7 / 5.6
• 1.8 MT (136 hp): 7.9 / 10.2 / 6.0 — mixed is +0.8 vs 1.6 MT
• 1.8 CVT: 8.3 / 11.6 / 6.4 — mixed is +1.2 vs 1.6 MT and +0.4 vs 136 hp 1.8 MT
• 1.8 MT (160 hp): mixed, city, and highway are not measured

On a 50-litre tank (all four versions): mixed range from the measured figures is about 50 ÷ 7.1 ≈ 7.0 full tanks per 1000 km of mixed driving for 1.6 MT, 50 ÷ 7.9 ≈ 6.3 for 136 hp 1.8 MT, and 50 ÷ 8.3 ≈ 6.0 for 1.8 CVT. The 160 hp 1.8 MT tank is still 50 litres; consumption for that version is not measured, so range is not measured.

The CVT is the thirstiest measured car in town (11.6 vs 9.7 on 1.6 MT, +1.9 l/100 km). If economy is the filter, 1.6 MT wins every measured column.

Dimensions and weight: same clearance, different mass and wheels

Ground clearance is 125 mm on all four. Fuel tank is 50 litres on all four. Gross weights: 1.6 MT and 136 hp 1.8 MT share 1320 kg; 160 hp 1.8 MT is 1340 kg (+20); 1.8 CVT is 1350 kg (+30 vs 1.6 MT). Payload (gross − kerb): 1.6 MT 225 kg, 1.8 CVT 225 kg, 136 hp 1.8 MT 215 kg, 160 hp 1.8 MT 225 kg.

Wheels:

• 1.6 MT and 136 hp 1.8 MT: 185/55 R15 and 205/50 R15
• 1.8 MT (160 hp): 195/55 R16 and 215/40 R16 (one inch larger diameter, wider rear)
• 1.8 CVT: wheel sizes not measured

Front suspension is Independent, spring on all four. Rear suspension is Semi-independent, spring on the three manuals and Independent, spring on 1.8 CVT. Front and rear brakes are disc on all four (labels in the data: Disc).

Engine position is the other hardware split: Central on 1.6 MT and both 1.8 MT cars; Front, transverse only on 1.8 CVT. If you want the mid-engined layout the TF is known for in this catalogue, the CVT is the version that does not have it.

Generations: nothing later to wait for

There is 1 generation (2002-01-01 to 2005-12-31), body type Roadster, 4 versions, no restyling row in the data. You are not choosing between generations. You are choosing among four concurrent powertrains of the same years.

Which version to choose

Choose 1.8 MT (160 hp) if the numbers that matter are speed and specific output. It is the only version at 160 hp, 174 Nm, 7.6 s, and 220 km/h. Versus the 136 hp 1.8 MT you pay +24 hp, +9 Nm, −1.2 s to 100 km/h, +15 km/h top speed, +10 kg kerb (1115 vs 1105), and R16 instead of R15 wheels. Versus 1.6 MT that is +44 hp (38% more), +29 Nm, −2.2 s, +30 km/h, +20 kg. Fuel use is not measured, so you cannot claim it is economical from this catalogue.

Choose 1.8 MT (136 hp) if you want the mid-engined 1.8 Manual without the 160 hp peak. It is 20 hp and 20 Nm above 1.6 MT, 1.0 s quicker to 100 km/h (8.8 vs 9.8), 15 km/h faster (205 vs 190), 10 kg heavier (1105 vs 1095), and 0.8 l/100 km thirstier mixed (7.9 vs 7.1). Versus 160 hp it is the slower, lighter-tyred, fully measured-economy alternative. Same 5-speed Manual, same RWD, same Central engine, same 185/55 R15 and 205/50 R15 as 1.6 MT.

Choose 1.6 MT if economy and lowest mass come first. It is the lightest kerb weight (1095 kg), lowest mixed/city/highway use (7.1 / 9.7 / 5.6), smallest engine (1588 cc), and still matches 1.8 CVT on top speed (190 km/h) while beating it to 100 km/h by 0.4 s. You give up 20 hp to the 136 hp 1.8 MT and 44 hp to the 160 hp 1.8 MT. Power per litre (73.0) sits close to the 136 hp 1.8 (75.7); the gap to 160 hp is specific output, not just displacement.

Choose 1.8 CVT only if Variable gearbox is the requirement. It is the heaviest (1125 kg kerb, 1350 kg gross), slowest to 100 km/h (10.2 s), thirstiest measured mixed figure (8.3), and the only Front, transverse engine with Independent rear spring suspension. Peak torque is usefully early (160 Nm at 4000 rpm), but 4 hp more than 1.6 MT does not offset +30 kg and the CVT. Wheel sizes are not measured. Gears are not measured.

Reliability / problems: this dataset has no failure rates, recalls, or owner-fault frequencies. Those topics are not measured here. What is measured is hardware split: three Central manuals sharing disc brakes and 125 mm clearance versus one Front, transverse Variable car with a different rear suspension and no measured wheels.

Short rule from the arithmetic: if you want the TF as a mid-engined Manual Roadster, the ladder is 1.6 MT (lightest, least fuel) → 1.8 MT 136 hp (balanced, all economy figures present) → 1.8 MT 160 hp (fastest, consumption not measured). 1.8 CVT is the odd one out on layout, mass, and economy, not a halfway step between 116 and 136 hp.