Rover 75 V8 thoughts?
Discussion
stigcv8 said:
red_rover said:
And as for dubious past, I give you three cars that defined Britain perfectly in their time;
no arguments, some great cars there but interestinlgy you missed out:
metro
maestro
montego
yeah! YEAH!
don't forget the MG Magnette! that was just a Wolsey with a bodykit!
There most certainly was a Rover Montego:
"The range went unchanged until late 1988, The Austin from "Austin Rover" was dropped and all Austin models were badged Rover. The launch of the Rover Montego at the October 1988 motor show was meet with a new 81bhp Turbo diesel engine and some subtle styling changes. The most obvious was the new front grill, flat rear light clusters and revised fasia incorperating a "Roverised" instrument panel and turn knob heater controls to replace the old slider controls".
It was also badged Rover Montego in India.
As for the 75 V8. Lovely car to look at. Different but very underpowered. Too much weight for the old 260hp Mustang engine.
"The range went unchanged until late 1988, The Austin from "Austin Rover" was dropped and all Austin models were badged Rover. The launch of the Rover Montego at the October 1988 motor show was meet with a new 81bhp Turbo diesel engine and some subtle styling changes. The most obvious was the new front grill, flat rear light clusters and revised fasia incorperating a "Roverised" instrument panel and turn knob heater controls to replace the old slider controls".
It was also badged Rover Montego in India.
As for the 75 V8. Lovely car to look at. Different but very underpowered. Too much weight for the old 260hp Mustang engine.
The ZT *is* a proper sporting saloon, has a firm ride and good handling. If you want luxurious 'wafty' type driving then do *not* choose the ZT.
As to performance tuning - there are some bespoke Zero exhausts commissioned for the ZT, IIRC they are being adapted for the 75 but IMO the lovely V8 growl on my car will be a tad inappropriate for the Rover version.
You can get 10% or thereabouts with a larger Accufab throttle body, but it's not a big deal. The supercharger gets a reliable 400 bhp from the engine (mine is booked in already!) but I'm not sure whether the kit fits the 75 - presumably the engine fitment is pretty much the same, but it's pretty tight under the bonnet with that V8 and you'll need to contact Dreadnought (who fit the supercharger) to be sure.
The actual Kenne Bell supercharger has lots of headroom - if you swap the conrods and pistons (and potentially crank) for stronger kit (around £4k from Dreadnought) then you go for a 14 psi pulley on the stock charger for around 540 bhp, though at that level of power output it's advised to uprate brakes, dampers and transmission. For street racing I reckon the standard transmission may be OK but any circuit work will need oil coolers, diff coolers and a stronger gearbox.
As to whether the charger works on the 75 with the automatic gearbox, no idea. I'm souping my ZT V8 up as it's a great car... but I'm not sure a ripsnorter engine would be what you want in a 75. Maybe keep it as it is, with woofly torque and long gearing, for the authentic 'waft' experience. You wouldn't want dump valve whooshing and wheelspin in your leather and wood cocoon, would you?
As to performance tuning - there are some bespoke Zero exhausts commissioned for the ZT, IIRC they are being adapted for the 75 but IMO the lovely V8 growl on my car will be a tad inappropriate for the Rover version.
You can get 10% or thereabouts with a larger Accufab throttle body, but it's not a big deal. The supercharger gets a reliable 400 bhp from the engine (mine is booked in already!) but I'm not sure whether the kit fits the 75 - presumably the engine fitment is pretty much the same, but it's pretty tight under the bonnet with that V8 and you'll need to contact Dreadnought (who fit the supercharger) to be sure.
The actual Kenne Bell supercharger has lots of headroom - if you swap the conrods and pistons (and potentially crank) for stronger kit (around £4k from Dreadnought) then you go for a 14 psi pulley on the stock charger for around 540 bhp, though at that level of power output it's advised to uprate brakes, dampers and transmission. For street racing I reckon the standard transmission may be OK but any circuit work will need oil coolers, diff coolers and a stronger gearbox.
As to whether the charger works on the 75 with the automatic gearbox, no idea. I'm souping my ZT V8 up as it's a great car... but I'm not sure a ripsnorter engine would be what you want in a 75. Maybe keep it as it is, with woofly torque and long gearing, for the authentic 'waft' experience. You wouldn't want dump valve whooshing and wheelspin in your leather and wood cocoon, would you?
I had a dice with a fully-prepared Dreadnought ZT V8. Looked normal but sounded the business. And as for the smile the driver had on his face, well it was priceless......
Ultimate Q-car? Probably not, but not far off - who would think that a "Rover" would have over 400BHP at the wheels and sound like a NASCAR racer? I am sure that it has already scared a few M5's and AMG Mercs.... and its a "Rover"
For the price of them its a bit of a steal - since they are less than 3 years old and second hand down to the price of an M5 from 2000/2001. Only the fuel consumption is the bad bit - standard they are crap, tuned they are even worse.....
Ultimate Q-car? Probably not, but not far off - who would think that a "Rover" would have over 400BHP at the wheels and sound like a NASCAR racer? I am sure that it has already scared a few M5's and AMG Mercs.... and its a "Rover"
For the price of them its a bit of a steal - since they are less than 3 years old and second hand down to the price of an M5 from 2000/2001. Only the fuel consumption is the bad bit - standard they are crap, tuned they are even worse.....
cyberface said:
...presumably the engine fitment is pretty much the same, but it's pretty tight under the bonnet with that V8 and you'll need to contact Dreadnought (who fit the supercharger) to be sure.
Am I right in suggesting the engine in the 75 version is mounted further forward than in the ZT (to accommodate more sound deadening on the Rover)? Presumably this affects interchangeablility of some ZT tuning kit.
red_rover said:
Lets remember that FORD own Rover now. SIAC only own the blueprints to the 75.
There have been a lot of rumours that Rover will most certainly return.
There have been a lot of rumours that Rover will most certainly return.
I thought Ford only got Land Rover?
Who got Range Rover?
I'm surprised they aren't back already. What are SIAC doing? Why isn't the MGF (which sold in OK numbers) back in production?
And what has happened to the many rumours concerning the Smart Roadster appearing with an MG badge?
cymtriks said:
red_rover said:
Lets remember that FORD own Rover now. SIAC only own the blueprints to the 75.
There have been a lot of rumours that Rover will most certainly return.
There have been a lot of rumours that Rover will most certainly return.
I thought Ford only got Land Rover?
Who got Range Rover?
I'm surprised they aren't back already. What are SIAC doing? Why isn't the MGF (which sold in OK numbers) back in production?
And what has happened to the many rumours concerning the Smart Roadster appearing with an MG badge?
Ford own Land Rover/Range Rover but didn't own the Rover badge so in order to ensure that they would not be stopped using the Rover badge, they had first option on it which they exercised to protect the use of the Land Rover name. The chances of Rover returning are about nil because Ford can lose plenty of money on their own without resurrecting another liability. MG Rover were the last bastion of the mainstream Buy British brigade who now largel; don't exist and who wouldn' regard Rover in the same way if owned by an American manufacturer.
There are some large differences between the ZT and Rover V8's. Firstly the rover has a 4 speed auto box which stiffles the performance slightly. Secondly, the suspension on the Rover is a lot softer - to suit the Rover badge obviously! Spring rates dampers and ARB's are different between the two, and the Rover does not have the third damper on the rear diff housing that was fitted to control the rear of the ZT under fierce acceleration. (Take a look under the rear of the ZT V8 and you'll see the third yellow Bilstein damper mounted on the diff.
For the car that Rover intended it to be I think the choice of a 4.6 litre V8 was the wrong one.
The car sucked too much fuel (thanks in part to a 4 speed auto), chucked out a bucketload of CO2 and delivered performance that could so easily be achieved by a smotth V6. The engine is too uncouth for a car like that, it just doesn't suit. it's not as if Rover made the most of the rear wheel drive platform either, giving the car an understeery balance, something which sought only to make if feel more leaden.
In my opinion, not that it's an expert one, the face of the V8 should have been kept but the chassis of the FWD Rover 75 V6 tuned to provide comfort and a larger V6 should have been fitted to suit the car's character better. A mini XJR it was not, so why spend so much money developing it?
I love the ZT 260 but the 75 V8 seems pointless to me.
The car sucked too much fuel (thanks in part to a 4 speed auto), chucked out a bucketload of CO2 and delivered performance that could so easily be achieved by a smotth V6. The engine is too uncouth for a car like that, it just doesn't suit. it's not as if Rover made the most of the rear wheel drive platform either, giving the car an understeery balance, something which sought only to make if feel more leaden.
In my opinion, not that it's an expert one, the face of the V8 should have been kept but the chassis of the FWD Rover 75 V6 tuned to provide comfort and a larger V6 should have been fitted to suit the car's character better. A mini XJR it was not, so why spend so much money developing it?
I love the ZT 260 but the 75 V8 seems pointless to me.
astec815 said:
What are peoples thoughts on this car?
I've heard alot about the ZT 260, but not so much about the rover version (yes I know they are the same car virtually).
Looking at some websites, a fully kitted one costs just 20k (including sat nav and tv etc) and it looks good imo:
So what are peoples thoughts on this car?
I've heard alot about the ZT 260, but not so much about the rover version (yes I know they are the same car virtually).
Looking at some websites, a fully kitted one costs just 20k (including sat nav and tv etc) and it looks good imo:
So what are peoples thoughts on this car?
If its any help, we're doing a buyers guide on them in our Dec issue.
astec815 said:
What are peoples thoughts on this car?
I've heard alot about the ZT 260, but not so much about the rover version (yes I know they are the same car virtually).
Looking at some websites, a fully kitted one costs just 20k (including sat nav and tv etc) and it looks good imo.
So what are peoples thoughts on this car?
Its reasonably fast (0-60 <7 seconds) 150 ish mph top speed, quiet etc.
Do you think that it would have sold well if Rover hadnt gone into administration.
The only thing I would change would be to tune the engine a little better to get better performance/mpg from it.
I've heard alot about the ZT 260, but not so much about the rover version (yes I know they are the same car virtually).
Looking at some websites, a fully kitted one costs just 20k (including sat nav and tv etc) and it looks good imo.
So what are peoples thoughts on this car?
Its reasonably fast (0-60 <7 seconds) 150 ish mph top speed, quiet etc.
Do you think that it would have sold well if Rover hadnt gone into administration.
The only thing I would change would be to tune the engine a little better to get better performance/mpg from it.
I like ‘em.
For about 14k (still unregistered), you get a lot of car for your money. Hold on to it for a while, and there’s not much that comes close for the money.
towman said:
Stigmund - just watched the vid on your home page. You are one lucky far car!
Just watched that too
Very noble of you stating that you had no hard feelings of the guy that was (indirectly) responsible.
I see also from your profile that you ride an R1. After that, getting back behind the wheel must have been really hard - infact you must have had balls the size of a space-hopper as I know what I was like after being batted of my bike a few years ago
Fruitcake said:
For the car that Rover intended it to be I think the choice of a 4.6 litre V8 was the wrong one.
The car sucked too much fuel (thanks in part to a 4 speed auto), chucked out a bucketload of CO2 and delivered performance that could so easily be achieved by a smotth V6. The engine is too uncouth for a car like that, it just doesn't suit. it's not as if Rover made the most of the rear wheel drive platform either, giving the car an understeery balance, something which sought only to make if feel more leaden.
In my opinion, not that it's an expert one, the face of the V8 should have been kept but the chassis of the FWD Rover 75 V6 tuned to provide comfort and a larger V6 should have been fitted to suit the car's character better. A mini XJR it was not, so why spend so much money developing it?
I love the ZT 260 but the 75 V8 seems pointless to me.
The car sucked too much fuel (thanks in part to a 4 speed auto), chucked out a bucketload of CO2 and delivered performance that could so easily be achieved by a smotth V6. The engine is too uncouth for a car like that, it just doesn't suit. it's not as if Rover made the most of the rear wheel drive platform either, giving the car an understeery balance, something which sought only to make if feel more leaden.
In my opinion, not that it's an expert one, the face of the V8 should have been kept but the chassis of the FWD Rover 75 V6 tuned to provide comfort and a larger V6 should have been fitted to suit the car's character better. A mini XJR it was not, so why spend so much money developing it?
I love the ZT 260 but the 75 V8 seems pointless to me.
They would have been better off fitting the GM LS1 - same price, 350hp, simpler, lower CofG and physically smaller than the Ford IIRC. Whatever they did, it was never going to save the company.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff