Perhaps your fuel economy will improve when it loosens up a bit - if it lasts that long.

???

I didn't drive it particularly gently, and used throttle and gears to accelerate as and when.

I don't think the stop start/crawling helped a lot.

Kindly tell me/us why you don't think it will last long?

Isn't that what was said about japanese motorcycles and cars in the 60's and 70's onwards, and then korean. I have no axe to grind for chinese or other cars, It is a-b transport for me.

what was important was high seating. n/a 4 cyl engine. There appear to be no engine issues since the MG3 came out apart from grumbles that it doesn't act like a high powered engine,

(it isn't)

Like the Kia venga before, if you "floor it" it will move, actually sounds quite throaty...

And finally, getting at a good price, that I am happy with is ok. Dealer service so far in getting bits and advice has been exemplary.

Kindly tell me/us why you don't think it will last long?

I didn't say that. However, the average age of scrappage is less than 14yrs and the average mileage at scrappage is apparently 125,000. So 'if it is to last as löng' as our Focus I suggest you adopt my very careful and economical ideas of maintenance ;-)

If the OP adopts your service schedule he will loose what is currently one of the main selling points of the MG range which is the 7 year warranty. In time used MG's less under 7 years old without any warranty left may well have the residuals of a used crisp packet.

Fuel economy on the 440 mile drive fully loaded inc full size 17" alloy and tyre 36.8 mpg driving A12-M25-A2- Dover. A16 Calais-Bruges, fair bit of local driving

I would consider that a very disappointing figure for "modern" car from 2018. In similar circumstances our similarly spacious (but not as tall) 1989 1.8 Bluebird would manage about 35 mpg and that was from the stone age mechanically, it even had a carburetor.

Compared to our Nissan Note which externally was smaller but looking at internal dims is equally spacious as the ZS it does make you wonder why they don't use a more modern engine. Our Note had about the same power and torque (1.2 supercharged with the biggest 16" alloys and a full size spare) but on a decent run with some town use would easilly manage the high 50's driving at National speed limits.

They still have a way to go.

Yes, a VAG 1.4 or 15 TSI might have given MPG in the high 40s / low 50s on the trip that ORB has just done.

But he got a nearly-new MG for £11,000, whereas a nearly-new equivalent VAG SUV, a Skoda Karoq, would have set him back about £10,000 more to buy.

Yep, cracking value, shame the misseses SX4 is so darn reliable (as in nothing ever goes wrong - it just gets an oil and filter service once per year) - or I'd find an excuse to buy a ZS to replace it! She doesn't care about cars, so had absolutely no interest in me buying her a new one, indeed protesting "what's wrong with mine"? which of course - I retorted - "nothing".

I know they're Chinese cars with an MG badge but I still have a soft spot because of the said badge - weird eh?

Interestingly there are plenty of old Thames Television road test on you tube from cars of the seventies. Small family cars engine size around 1.3litre with 70 hp are quoted with economy of 28-33 mpg. Also they were lighter and have no tech compared to today. Progress has clearly been made.

If we were not lumbered with catalytic converters which force us to run relatively rich fuel mixtures to keep the exhaust gas temperatures in check, we'd be running compression ignition petrol engines doing 80mpg by now. Sometimes technology works against you.