Rover 75 V8 thoughts?
Discussion
LuS1fer said:
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.
Wise words and very true. The LS1 engined Holden HSV 4 door and LS1 / LS2 Vauxhall Monaros are far superior. Far more tuning potential too. The main UK tuner for Rover / MG 4.6 V8s allegedly refuses to remove speed limiters even after charging for superchargers etc
No problem with GM tuners 
Both cars are mine out of interest so comparison based on first hand experience.
When JC reviewed this on Top Gear, he said it wasn't fast for using a 4.6 V8 Mustang engine. What he failed to mention, is that this engine is not the new Mustang engine. I believe the engine used in the Rover is probably about 2 generations old. So it does not offer the same performance or refinement as the new Mustang's newly designed all alloy 3-valve 4.6 V8 engine.
So if you don't mind a newish car with old Mustang technology, then go for it!
So if you don't mind a newish car with old Mustang technology, then go for it!
I have a 75 as my daily drive and it's a tireless wafter with a very comfortable and quiet ride, a superb motorway cruiser. Since Rover's sad demise, the only bits I've needed in 60,000 miles of motorway slog are a new set of cooling fans (a known weakness) which were available on the day. Parts availability is no problem and there are some very well known, trusted names that supply them and some have 40 years+ track record in Rover parts. Former Rover dealers will still service them and very competitively priced too.
I loved my test drive in the Rover 75 V8, the burble is there, the cruise noise is all smiles and yet it holds 70mph at an inobstrusive 2000rpm on the auto. The throttle is a little stiffer than the normal 75 which I think is deliberate, I had an empty motorway slip with traffic lights to merge onto the M4.
Once I had mastered the throttle, I booted the throttle right down and the thing threw me back into the seat, pushed my head back into the headrest and 70mph came up very quickly, the 0-60 figure of 6.3 seconds is credible. The auto held all its gears perfectly, upchange was practically unnoticable, the dealer had a smile on his face. The half throttle kickdown was equally impressive too and the V8 soundtrack was just as good as the Rover V8 of yore.
As for the Rover V8, well, it's like fish and chips or cheese and onion, the two words are synonymous. Although this V8 is a nod more to the P5B than the more sporty P6B and SD1 Vitesses (which the ZT260 fills very well).
One little known thing with Rover V8s is that they tune them for torque not horses. The original V8 was a 145Bhp with 220lb/ft.
As for the modern incarnation this is no different, it's thirsty but the 16v 'Stang V8 is easier to tune, proven simplicity and unburstable than its 32v cousin (no plastic pulleys or cambelts on these babies, chain cam and metal everything). The reason for the 16v is through the original deal when they bought Qvale and they had a license with Ford to supply these engines.
I wouldn't mind such an 'ancient' lump the main reason is the availability of parts and its easier to tune with many options for tuning (Roush, Scott Hyland etc, etc.) and it's a doddle to service.
You are getting a lot of genuinely good components in these cars, Bilstein & Eilbach suspension components, AP brakes, Dana rear diff (with a limited slip option), Tremec manual gearbox (ZT260 only) or a perfectly acceptable Getrag 4-sp self-shifter.
If I was buying now I would get an LPG conversion, the boot is cavernous and will easily take an 80-litre cylinder and get the equivalent to 40mpg+ on LPG for the price of unleaded. It's a straightforward conversion, I know a chap with a ZT260 who had his done without problems. Parts for 75s are easily sourced and they can be serviced without hassle. The only thing with the V8 is I think they need a 6,000 mile oil service.
Supercharging is available to take the stock 260Bhp to 385Bhp is you have deep pockets.
They are a rare car, less than a 1000 manufactured (including one very rare 385Bhp estate) and an instant classic.
If you want one, get one.
I loved my test drive in the Rover 75 V8, the burble is there, the cruise noise is all smiles and yet it holds 70mph at an inobstrusive 2000rpm on the auto. The throttle is a little stiffer than the normal 75 which I think is deliberate, I had an empty motorway slip with traffic lights to merge onto the M4.
Once I had mastered the throttle, I booted the throttle right down and the thing threw me back into the seat, pushed my head back into the headrest and 70mph came up very quickly, the 0-60 figure of 6.3 seconds is credible. The auto held all its gears perfectly, upchange was practically unnoticable, the dealer had a smile on his face. The half throttle kickdown was equally impressive too and the V8 soundtrack was just as good as the Rover V8 of yore.
As for the Rover V8, well, it's like fish and chips or cheese and onion, the two words are synonymous. Although this V8 is a nod more to the P5B than the more sporty P6B and SD1 Vitesses (which the ZT260 fills very well).
One little known thing with Rover V8s is that they tune them for torque not horses. The original V8 was a 145Bhp with 220lb/ft.
As for the modern incarnation this is no different, it's thirsty but the 16v 'Stang V8 is easier to tune, proven simplicity and unburstable than its 32v cousin (no plastic pulleys or cambelts on these babies, chain cam and metal everything). The reason for the 16v is through the original deal when they bought Qvale and they had a license with Ford to supply these engines.
I wouldn't mind such an 'ancient' lump the main reason is the availability of parts and its easier to tune with many options for tuning (Roush, Scott Hyland etc, etc.) and it's a doddle to service.
You are getting a lot of genuinely good components in these cars, Bilstein & Eilbach suspension components, AP brakes, Dana rear diff (with a limited slip option), Tremec manual gearbox (ZT260 only) or a perfectly acceptable Getrag 4-sp self-shifter.
If I was buying now I would get an LPG conversion, the boot is cavernous and will easily take an 80-litre cylinder and get the equivalent to 40mpg+ on LPG for the price of unleaded. It's a straightforward conversion, I know a chap with a ZT260 who had his done without problems. Parts for 75s are easily sourced and they can be serviced without hassle. The only thing with the V8 is I think they need a 6,000 mile oil service.
Supercharging is available to take the stock 260Bhp to 385Bhp is you have deep pockets.
They are a rare car, less than a 1000 manufactured (including one very rare 385Bhp estate) and an instant classic.
If you want one, get one.
Edited by 215cu on Friday 24th November 10:37
215cu said:
I have a 75 as my daily drive and it's a tireless wafter with a very comfortable and quiet ride, a superb motorway cruiser. Since Rover's sad demise, the only bits I've needed in 60,000 miles of motorway slog are a new set of cooling fans (a known weakness) which were available on the day. Parts availability is no problem and there are some very well known, trusted names that supply them and some have 40 years+ track record in Rover parts. Former Rover dealers will still service them and very competitively priced too.
I loved my test drive in the Rover 75 V8, the burble is there, the cruise noise is all smiles and yet it holds 70mph at an inobstrusive 2000rpm on the auto. The throttle is a little stiffer than the normal 75 which I think is deliberate, I had an empty motorway slip with traffic lights to merge onto the M4.
Once I had mastered the throttle, I booted the throttle right down and the thing threw me back into the seat, pushed my head back into the headrest and 70mph came up very quickly, the 0-60 figure of 6.3 seconds is credible. The auto held all its gears perfectly, upchange was practically unnoticable, the dealer had a smile on his face. The half throttle kickdown was equally impressive too and the V8 soundtrack was just as good as the Rover V8 of yore.
As for the Rover V8, well, it's like fish and chips or cheese and onion, the two words are synonymous. Although this V8 is a nod more to the P5B than the more sporty P6B and SD1 Vitesses (which the ZT260 fills very well).
One little known thing with Rover V8s is that they tune them for torque not horses. The original V8 was a 145Bhp with 220lb/ft.
As for the modern incarnation this is no different, it's thirsty but the 16v 'Stang V8 is easier to tune, proven simplicity and unburstable than its 32v cousin (no plastic pulleys or cambelts on these babies, chain cam and metal everything). The reason for the 16v is through the original deal when they bought Qvale and they had a license with Ford to supply these engines.
I wouldn't mind such an 'ancient' lump the main reason is the availability of parts and its easier to tune with many options for tuning (Roush, Scott Hyland etc, etc.) and it's a doddle to service.
You are getting a lot of genuinely good components in these cars, Bilstein & Eilbach suspension components, AP brakes, Dana rear diff (with a limited slip option), Tremec manual gearbox (ZT260 only) or a perfectly acceptable Getrag 4-sp self-shifter.
If I was buying now I would get an LPG conversion, the boot is cavernous and will easily take an 80-litre cylinder and get the equivalent to 40mpg+ on LPG for the price of unleaded. It's a straightforward conversion, I know a chap with a ZT260 who had his done without problems. Parts for 75s are easily sourced and they can be serviced without hassle. The only thing with the V8 is I think they need a 6,000 mile oil service.
Supercharging is available to take the stock 260Bhp to 385Bhp is you have deep pockets.
They are a rare car, less than a 1000 manufactured (including one very rare 385Bhp estate) and an instant classic.
If you want one, get one.
I loved my test drive in the Rover 75 V8, the burble is there, the cruise noise is all smiles and yet it holds 70mph at an inobstrusive 2000rpm on the auto. The throttle is a little stiffer than the normal 75 which I think is deliberate, I had an empty motorway slip with traffic lights to merge onto the M4.
Once I had mastered the throttle, I booted the throttle right down and the thing threw me back into the seat, pushed my head back into the headrest and 70mph came up very quickly, the 0-60 figure of 6.3 seconds is credible. The auto held all its gears perfectly, upchange was practically unnoticable, the dealer had a smile on his face. The half throttle kickdown was equally impressive too and the V8 soundtrack was just as good as the Rover V8 of yore.
As for the Rover V8, well, it's like fish and chips or cheese and onion, the two words are synonymous. Although this V8 is a nod more to the P5B than the more sporty P6B and SD1 Vitesses (which the ZT260 fills very well).
One little known thing with Rover V8s is that they tune them for torque not horses. The original V8 was a 145Bhp with 220lb/ft.
As for the modern incarnation this is no different, it's thirsty but the 16v 'Stang V8 is easier to tune, proven simplicity and unburstable than its 32v cousin (no plastic pulleys or cambelts on these babies, chain cam and metal everything). The reason for the 16v is through the original deal when they bought Qvale and they had a license with Ford to supply these engines.
I wouldn't mind such an 'ancient' lump the main reason is the availability of parts and its easier to tune with many options for tuning (Roush, Scott Hyland etc, etc.) and it's a doddle to service.
You are getting a lot of genuinely good components in these cars, Bilstein & Eilbach suspension components, AP brakes, Dana rear diff (with a limited slip option), Tremec manual gearbox (ZT260 only) or a perfectly acceptable Getrag 4-sp self-shifter.
If I was buying now I would get an LPG conversion, the boot is cavernous and will easily take an 80-litre cylinder and get the equivalent to 40mpg+ on LPG for the price of unleaded. It's a straightforward conversion, I know a chap with a ZT260 who had his done without problems. Parts for 75s are easily sourced and they can be serviced without hassle. The only thing with the V8 is I think they need a 6,000 mile oil service.
Supercharging is available to take the stock 260Bhp to 385Bhp is you have deep pockets.
They are a rare car, less than a 1000 manufactured (including one very rare 385Bhp estate) and an instant classic.
If you want one, get one.
Edited by 215cu on Friday 24th November 10:37
Or, if you want to see how they should have been built with better build quality, performance, reasonable service intervals and no continual niggles buy a BMW 540i up to 2002 for similar money, a Monaro or the best, a Holden 4 door HSV. With the exception of the excellent (rear not front!) AP brakes, suspension and Tremec box the build quality is dire. Ride at low speed in the MG IS too stiff but handling good when pressing on. The diff is an absolute pain and requires very regular oil services unlike any other, if it didn't have its oil changed in the first 1000 miles its allegedly going to break too.
Al Rush said:
They may not be dynamically cutting edge, but for the money, you can't get away from the fact that they're a heck of a lot of car.
At their current price............around 14K to 16K for a 'new' unregistered MG non SE (the lighter, better version with no obsolete toys or dreaded traction control) they are very good value as long as you are aware they do have faults which are a pain, but at their original retail price of 29 to 34K they were inferior to all competitors. I love my MG but it isnt in the same league as similar cars I own or have owned but paid far more for new. Second hand V8 BMWs, Mercedes, Monaros or my favorite Holden HSVs are a better investment in my experience.
Al Rush said:
They may not be dynamically cutting edge, but for the money, you can't get away from the fact that they're a heck of a lot of car.
Only if you're looking at new cars imo. If you're looking at 2nd hand cars too then you'll get a much better car for your money. Imo the fact that an effectively new one can be had for 15k or whatever it is means very little.Paul-C said:
215cu said:
I have a 75 as my daily drive and it's a tireless wafter with a very comfortable and quiet ride, a superb motorway cruiser. Since Rover's sad demise, the only bits I've needed in 60,000 miles of motorway slog are a new set of cooling fans (a known weakness) which were available on the day. Parts availability is no problem and there are some very well known, trusted names that supply them and some have 40 years+ track record in Rover parts. Former Rover dealers will still service them and very competitively priced too.
I loved my test drive in the Rover 75 V8, the burble is there, the cruise noise is all smiles and yet it holds 70mph at an inobstrusive 2000rpm on the auto. The throttle is a little stiffer than the normal 75 which I think is deliberate, I had an empty motorway slip with traffic lights to merge onto the M4.
Once I had mastered the throttle, I booted the throttle right down and the thing threw me back into the seat, pushed my head back into the headrest and 70mph came up very quickly, the 0-60 figure of 6.3 seconds is credible. The auto held all its gears perfectly, upchange was practically unnoticable, the dealer had a smile on his face. The half throttle kickdown was equally impressive too and the V8 soundtrack was just as good as the Rover V8 of yore.
As for the Rover V8, well, it's like fish and chips or cheese and onion, the two words are synonymous. Although this V8 is a nod more to the P5B than the more sporty P6B and SD1 Vitesses (which the ZT260 fills very well).
One little known thing with Rover V8s is that they tune them for torque not horses. The original V8 was a 145Bhp with 220lb/ft.
As for the modern incarnation this is no different, it's thirsty but the 16v 'Stang V8 is easier to tune, proven simplicity and unburstable than its 32v cousin (no plastic pulleys or cambelts on these babies, chain cam and metal everything). The reason for the 16v is through the original deal when they bought Qvale and they had a license with Ford to supply these engines.
I wouldn't mind such an 'ancient' lump the main reason is the availability of parts and its easier to tune with many options for tuning (Roush, Scott Hyland etc, etc.) and it's a doddle to service.
You are getting a lot of genuinely good components in these cars, Bilstein & Eilbach suspension components, AP brakes, Dana rear diff (with a limited slip option), Tremec manual gearbox (ZT260 only) or a perfectly acceptable Getrag 4-sp self-shifter.
If I was buying now I would get an LPG conversion, the boot is cavernous and will easily take an 80-litre cylinder and get the equivalent to 40mpg+ on LPG for the price of unleaded. It's a straightforward conversion, I know a chap with a ZT260 who had his done without problems. Parts for 75s are easily sourced and they can be serviced without hassle. The only thing with the V8 is I think they need a 6,000 mile oil service.
Supercharging is available to take the stock 260Bhp to 385Bhp is you have deep pockets.
They are a rare car, less than a 1000 manufactured (including one very rare 385Bhp estate) and an instant classic.
If you want one, get one.
I loved my test drive in the Rover 75 V8, the burble is there, the cruise noise is all smiles and yet it holds 70mph at an inobstrusive 2000rpm on the auto. The throttle is a little stiffer than the normal 75 which I think is deliberate, I had an empty motorway slip with traffic lights to merge onto the M4.
Once I had mastered the throttle, I booted the throttle right down and the thing threw me back into the seat, pushed my head back into the headrest and 70mph came up very quickly, the 0-60 figure of 6.3 seconds is credible. The auto held all its gears perfectly, upchange was practically unnoticable, the dealer had a smile on his face. The half throttle kickdown was equally impressive too and the V8 soundtrack was just as good as the Rover V8 of yore.
As for the Rover V8, well, it's like fish and chips or cheese and onion, the two words are synonymous. Although this V8 is a nod more to the P5B than the more sporty P6B and SD1 Vitesses (which the ZT260 fills very well).
One little known thing with Rover V8s is that they tune them for torque not horses. The original V8 was a 145Bhp with 220lb/ft.
As for the modern incarnation this is no different, it's thirsty but the 16v 'Stang V8 is easier to tune, proven simplicity and unburstable than its 32v cousin (no plastic pulleys or cambelts on these babies, chain cam and metal everything). The reason for the 16v is through the original deal when they bought Qvale and they had a license with Ford to supply these engines.
I wouldn't mind such an 'ancient' lump the main reason is the availability of parts and its easier to tune with many options for tuning (Roush, Scott Hyland etc, etc.) and it's a doddle to service.
You are getting a lot of genuinely good components in these cars, Bilstein & Eilbach suspension components, AP brakes, Dana rear diff (with a limited slip option), Tremec manual gearbox (ZT260 only) or a perfectly acceptable Getrag 4-sp self-shifter.
If I was buying now I would get an LPG conversion, the boot is cavernous and will easily take an 80-litre cylinder and get the equivalent to 40mpg+ on LPG for the price of unleaded. It's a straightforward conversion, I know a chap with a ZT260 who had his done without problems. Parts for 75s are easily sourced and they can be serviced without hassle. The only thing with the V8 is I think they need a 6,000 mile oil service.
Supercharging is available to take the stock 260Bhp to 385Bhp is you have deep pockets.
They are a rare car, less than a 1000 manufactured (including one very rare 385Bhp estate) and an instant classic.
If you want one, get one.
Edited by 215cu on Friday 24th November 10:37
Or, if you want to see how they should have been built with better build quality, performance, reasonable service intervals and no continual niggles buy a BMW 540i up to 2002 for similar money, a Monaro or the best, a Holden 4 door HSV. With the exception of the excellent (rear not front!) AP brakes, suspension and Tremec box the build quality is dire. Ride at low speed in the MG IS too stiff but handling good when pressing on. The diff is an absolute pain and requires very regular oil services unlike any other, if it didn't have its oil changed in the first 1000 miles its allegedly going to break too.
I'm sorry but that's total garbage. For a start, 75 build quality is superb, the German and Japanese didn't bestow this car with major awards for engineering and quality for nothing. The specialist dampers and suspension parts are for all four corners. As for dodgy rear-diffs, a Dana rear-diff that needs regular oil changes!!!!???? Pull the other one, it's nearly Christmas. The Dana rear-diffs are from the same Dana component group fitted to the Monaros/Holdens for Pete's sake. If they were fragile, why do they fit the same diff to the 500Bhp+ Holdens?
whilst mr cubic inch's tone is a bit strong(!) i'd be interested in this point being resolved - ARE the components the same in holden and rover? and if not how do they differ?
looking at paul-c's photos i have to say the final version of the zt was pretty good looking eh? i certainly prefer it to monaro/commodore. but if i were in the market for something like that i think i'd go for the holden as they seem more 'complete'.
looking at paul-c's photos i have to say the final version of the zt was pretty good looking eh? i certainly prefer it to monaro/commodore. but if i were in the market for something like that i think i'd go for the holden as they seem more 'complete'.
215cu said:
I'm sorry but that's total garbage. For a start, 75 build quality is superb, the German and Japanese didn't bestow this car with major awards for engineering and quality for nothing. The specialist dampers and suspension parts are for all four corners. As for dodgy rear-diffs, a Dana rear-diff that needs regular oil changes!!!!???? Pull the other one, it's nearly Christmas. The Dana rear-diffs are from the same Dana component group fitted to the Monaros/Holdens for Pete's sake. If they were fragile, why do they fit the same diff to the 500Bhp+ Holdens?
The manufacturer of the Dana differential state that it should have an oil change at the first 1000 miles and every 10,000 miles thereafter. There is an MG Forum somewhere which will give details but if not call Horners of Rochdale who supplied my car who will confirm on 0800 0287575 or Monkfish Performance (Holden / Monaro specialists) who will confirm service requirements for this diff if fitted to Monaros on 01280 841385. The diff on my Holden is a Kaaz. The build quality is not in the same league as the other cars. My drivers door handle jams for fun (overtravels), the wiring for the airbags under the seat is too short so the connector comes apart even if held together with plastic ties when seat is moved, the fuel pumps unscrew, the top heater hose bursts as weak..........I could go on but you get the picture. I own these cars and have first hand experience. Merry Christmas
Not sure why the diff is getting stick - I've done 44k miles in my Zt260 and the diff is serviced as per MG Rover requriements -IE: Bugger all. It is still quiet and works, and I have used it on track (and it will be at Silverstone on Sunday). If anything the diff locking is a bit too soft, not locking enough for my tastes.
Build quality on the 260 is poor in places - certain aspects have not been properly developed- unlike the 75. Not enough time -also, later cars seem to have more build problems (maybe as the guys building it knew they were loosing their jobs soon).
Low speed ride is stiff - it can jiggle your man breasts quite badly on certain surfaces - but it is a minor point - just go faster!
Short test drives can be misleading as well - they have poke but the enginee needs at least 20,000 mile on it - fresh and low mileage engines feel awfully tight and underpowered - I know - I've run mine from just 70 miles and the car had noticable step ups in performance as the miles passed under it's wheels.
I think they are a cracking car, with a genuine character.
Build quality on the 260 is poor in places - certain aspects have not been properly developed- unlike the 75. Not enough time -also, later cars seem to have more build problems (maybe as the guys building it knew they were loosing their jobs soon).
Low speed ride is stiff - it can jiggle your man breasts quite badly on certain surfaces - but it is a minor point - just go faster!
Short test drives can be misleading as well - they have poke but the enginee needs at least 20,000 mile on it - fresh and low mileage engines feel awfully tight and underpowered - I know - I've run mine from just 70 miles and the car had noticable step ups in performance as the miles passed under it's wheels.
I think they are a cracking car, with a genuine character.
dern said:
Al Rush said:
They may not be dynamically cutting edge, but for the money, you can't get away from the fact that they're a heck of a lot of car.
Only if you're looking at new cars imo. If you're looking at 2nd hand cars too then you'll get a much better car for your money. Imo the fact that an effectively new one can be had for 15k or whatever it is means very little.Agreed (and to Paul too). I think I said earlier, that if you want a new warranted car that you're prepared to keep, and if you're after a certain 'Britishness', they're well worth a look.
astec815 said:
you could always bolt on a supercharger lol.
Anyhow lets keep this on topic as the rover = poo/not poo argument has been done a gazillion times.
in a similar price bracket, what else is available that offers the same package of speed and comfort?
Anyhow lets keep this on topic as the rover = poo/not poo argument has been done a gazillion times.
in a similar price bracket, what else is available that offers the same package of speed and comfort?
How about the VW Passat W8? Probably more of a rival for the Rover V8 rather than the ZT, nevertheless quite a worthy rival?
Well nothing like good ol Rover to split the trusty pistonhead opinion.
My 5p, I've not driven a V8 but took a 135cdt twice from Essex to Dublin and back.
(In Rover trim.. Not MG)
I loved the car.. Looks quite different from BM's and VW's etc.. Infact in my opinion it looks better.. It looks more British... Like a baby Bentley..
Anyway.... Dare to be different.. Get the 75.. I very much doubt you'll regret it.
My 5p, I've not driven a V8 but took a 135cdt twice from Essex to Dublin and back.
(In Rover trim.. Not MG)
I loved the car.. Looks quite different from BM's and VW's etc.. Infact in my opinion it looks better.. It looks more British... Like a baby Bentley..
Anyway.... Dare to be different.. Get the 75.. I very much doubt you'll regret it.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff