L reg MG?

[Slaphead]

Hi All,
I've just spotted a L reg MG 2.0i Maestro in the classifieds,on this site. I didn't know any existed on an L plate. The latest i've ever seen was on a 'J'. Has anyone else seen an L reg MG?

[E_T_V]

I suppose it could be a very late registered one but I'm pretty sure that the MG's were out of production then and only clubmans were left.

[Slaphead]

I suppose it could be a very late registered one but I'm pretty sure that the MG's were out of production then and only clubmans were left.

That was another quick reply. I thought they were out of production too.

[Guest]

I have seen a L reg Metro Turbo(late registered) but never an MG Maestro.
Though with the metro, it seems to make it possible that it is a very late registered MG Maestro.

As i'm sure we have all seen, when it comes to AR/MGR anything is possible.

Mal.

[Jonathan]

This one came in by email. I did ask the seller and apparently it's a genuine 'L' reg registered 18th October 1993, which makes it the latest registered MG Maestro I'm aware of. I knew there were a couple of 'K' plates knocking around but this one must have been a very late registration. Got to be worth having for novelty value?

[Ed]

I have heard of atleast three L reg MG Montys and was told ages ago that there were a lot of the last cars left unsold for ages because everyone was buying Rover GTis which were cheaper (MG Monty Turbo was more expensive than a 216/220GTi apparently) and probably better built than the MGs. I remember researching this about 5 years ago when i was considering buying a K reg MG Monty. Most of the late registered cars had CAC as the registration letters. Obviously an L reg one would have been about 2 years old when it was first used.

[G51 NAV]

Obviously an L reg one would have been about 2 years old when it was first used.

Yeah, probably why the owner says "some bodywork needed": it was probably stood around unsold in everything nature could throw at it for a good two years. Same reason why a lot of the H-reg Maestro Turbos seemed to suffer from more rot sooner than the F and G ones.

[D87SMW]

MG

Yeah, probably why the owner says "some bodywork needed": it was probably stood around unsold in everything nature could throw at it for a good two years. Same reason why a lot of the H-reg Maestro Turbos seemed to suffer from more rot sooner than the F and G ones.

My MG 2.0i is a 1990 car on an H (91) plate. This must have been the same, and already the second set of rear arches are going .

Mind you, 9 owners later...

[G51 NAV]

My MG 2.0i is a 1990 car on an H (91) plate. This must have been the same

The difference is MG 2.0i's were still being made as late as '91, unlike Turbos which were all made between between March and November 1989. 79 Turbos received an H-plate, which means they were registered at least 10 months after they were made. The earliest-numbered car on an H-plate is #251, which was first registered on 09/10/1990. Compare that with my #502 which was first registered 9 months earlier!

having said that there's no saying when your particular model was made: it too could have been stood around for a while.

...and already the second set of rear arches are going .

Mind you, 9 owners later...

That sounds like either shoddy workmanship or extreme lack of maintenance (i.e.: they were never cleaned out from behind)

[Guest]

I have seen a L reg Metro Turbo(late registered) but never an MG Maestro.

That is late for Metro!!!