It has been said that the MG Maestro was never planned for during the LM10 development programme – certainly, early prototypes were badged as Austin Maestro EXPs.
The MG badged versions came along as a result of the success of the MG Metro and as a result of this hasty development, the first MG Maestro 1600s were considered to be a rather patchy car…
MG Maestro 1600
The R-Series version was replaced by an S-Series version of the MG Maestro 1600 in July 1984, but lived a very short life – 2722 S-series cars were produced in total.
Performance: 0-60mph, 9.6seconds, maximum speed, 110mph
MG Maestro EFi
Without doubt the MG Maestro EFi (later badged MG Maestro 2.0i) was the finest mass-market car that Austin Rover offered during the 1980s.
Performance: 0-60mph, 8.4seconds, maximum speed, 114mph
MG Maestro Turbo
Performance: 0-60mph, 6.6seconds, maximum speed, 129mph.
Created www.austin-rover.co.uk in 2001 and built it up to become the world's foremost reference source for all things BMC, Leyland and Rover Group, before renaming it AROnline in 2007.
Is the Editor of the Parkers website and price guide, formerly editor of Classic Car Weekly, and launch editor/creator of Modern Classics magazine. Has contributed to various motoring titles including Octane, Practical Classics, Evo, Honest John, CAR magazine, Autocar, Pistonheads, Diesel Car, Practical Performance Car, Performance French Car, Car Mechanics, Jaguar World Monthly, MG Enthusiast, Modern MINI, Practical Classics, Fifth Gear Website, Radio 4, and the the Motoring Independent...
Likes 'conditionally challenged' motors and taking them on unfeasible adventures all across Europe.
I remember my aunt having one of these, she hated it, i loved it, so much so i bought a 1.6l and then a 1.6VDP, i thought they were great cars, loved them.
LM10 was designed from the outset to take the O series so why didn’t they slot that in from the start – even in twin SU form if injection wasnt available in 1983? Come to that given the recent(ish) investment in the O, why did they mess around cobbling together the R/S series from the E series when a 1.7 version of the O existed? The money wasted on the R/S would have been far better spent refining the O series with the likes of hydraulic tappets to make it more competitive with the Ford CVH and GM Family 1/2 of that era.
My parents owned an early MG 1600 R series, owned between 1988 and 1993. I managed to snap a front passenger door handle off once. Coincidentally, this happened outside a Unipart shop! The digital dashboard would go completely blank on hot summer days. Other than that it must have been a decent car if they kept it for 5 years.
I remember my aunt having one of these, she hated it, i loved it, so much so i bought a 1.6l and then a 1.6VDP, i thought they were great cars, loved them.
LM10 was designed from the outset to take the O series so why didn’t they slot that in from the start – even in twin SU form if injection wasnt available in 1983? Come to that given the recent(ish) investment in the O, why did they mess around cobbling together the R/S series from the E series when a 1.7 version of the O existed? The money wasted on the R/S would have been far better spent refining the O series with the likes of hydraulic tappets to make it more competitive with the Ford CVH and GM Family 1/2 of that era.
My parents owned an early MG 1600 R series, owned between 1988 and 1993. I managed to snap a front passenger door handle off once. Coincidentally, this happened outside a Unipart shop! The digital dashboard would go completely blank on hot summer days. Other than that it must have been a decent car if they kept it for 5 years.
I owned an F-reg Efi identical to the green one photographed.
I’d have it back right now if I could. Loved it.