MG Montego Turbo

[Jumturbo]

DannyVTS said:

Jumturbo said:

HereBeMonsters said:

Jumturbo said:

HereBeMonsters said:

The car is a retro dream, but the wheels are horrific. Get it on some period alloy, son.

Also, what the fk is up with that stereo? A silver Goodmans tape deck? Really?

The wheels have stirred up mixed opinions! Some like, some don't.....that's life, but I like!
The radio cassette player was fitted in the late 90's when the original packed up. It was the last thing to change. It now has a radio,cd/dvd player, but I suppose the Goodman's was at least 'period' complete with hungry tape deck with a taste for tape!

PS the standard cross-spoke period alloys are in my garage....period!

I hope the new kit is more in keeping with the brilliant interior.

I just think the wheels make it look like you're really trying to overstate its qualities and make it look more modern, when you don't need to. Doesn't have to be standard alloys, but something period would be great - shows you appreciate the car for what is - an 80s classic - rather trying to "bring it up to date".

Nah, couldn't disagree more! The wheels are not an attempt to make the car look modern. In fact the only external mods apart from the wheels are lowered suspension and a Tomcat boot spoiler, none of which are an attempt to update. Ok, the wheels are 18", but in the mid 90s 17" wheels were common fit to 80s cars of similar shape, such as the Sierra Cosworth, Cavalier and BMW E30 M3. Don't see why the Montego can't join in the fun! I also remember being influenced by the early to mid 90s touring cars which all wore 17" wheels with low profile rubber.....the boxy volvos included and none were trying to be modern! Thanks
for the other comments though!
PS BK 299s have been around for a good few years and the actual design is a crib from the 90s DTM wheel...

Edited by Jumturbo on Monday 27th December 20:01

I have to agree with Herebemonsters

The first thing I noticed were the halfords alloys, i'm sure they set you back a fair amount but they don't match the car at all in my eyes. In one of the pics next to the same car but with standard alloy wheels, the standard wheels look much nicer.

And what the hell is with those car mats ?

On the whole though, nice motor.

Danny

Thanks Danny, but I don't particularly like the red mats either. They were in my garage for a while as I got the set for a fiver while shopping in Blackpool! You must see some of the 1980s MGs red seat belts! Yuk!
As already said, the wheels I like!

[tali1]

Jumturbo said:

tali1 said:

Jumturbo said:

Good try Pothole, but the Merc 500SEL was a monster sized saloon with a monster V8 engine to go with it. More in the same league as a Jag or 7 series Beemer than the Montego! I guess my post should have read ' at it's launch, the MG Montego Turbo was the fastest accelerating 4 door saloon in it's class'.

Edited by Jumturbo on Monday 30th August 22:58

I knew there was something out there before the Monty - Colt Lancer 2000EX Turbo from 1980 -170BHP 0-60 in 6.9 and 0-100 in just over 18 seconds
Just over a year later the VW Jetta GTI 16v was keeping pace with Monty Turbo - with 17bhp less.
Also BMW (who did not make a M3 specifically to beat the Monty)had the M535i from 1981
Anyway not knocking the Monty Turbo as i owned one (could pull away from a cold start in 4th gear).
My brother has even seen a v late M reg![/quote




Sorry mate, the Jetta GTi 16v was in a smaller class and was almost a full second slower 0-60 too! The Colt Lancer Turbo of 1981 was before the Monty's time but was also in a smaller class and about 1.5s slower to 60 than the Monty!
Oh and the M535i was in a different class too, being bigger and a coupe. I'm sure too that that BMW didn't produce the M3 just to beat the Monty, but their 325i was too slow!

Edited by Jumturbo on Tuesday 28th December 20:06

Yes they were smaller i grant you that - but performance figures you are wrong . Jetta Gti 16v was road tested against Monty so was seen as rival.325 likewise lot smaller but Monty seen as a bargain rival
Autocar =7.1 and 100 in 20.9 -how is " 7.1 a full second slower 0-60 too"???
Likewise lancer turbo "1.5s slower to 60 than the Monty!" i think you are quoting Autocar 8.6 which was in - all every other road tests were well in the 7 sec mark.And as a 2litre Turbo 4dr saloon with similar price it, 100%, if it had been around at Monty time been seen as a direct rival
M535I is A 4DR SALOON -NOT A COUPE -you thinking of M655CSI???
The Sierra Cosworth was not introduced because of Monty Turbo -it has sweet FA to do with it
BMW 325 again WAS keeping with MG Turbo performance 60-7.4, 100 in 19.9 - i dunno where you get your facts from mate -or are you cherry picking the slowest figures?- as i've seen 8.3 for Monty Turbo in road test
I'm not dissing the Monty(or you i should hasten to add -so please do not take offence) as it offered speed , and equipment -all at a price the other cars mentioned could not match

Edited by tali1 on Tuesday 28th December 22:37

Edited by tali1 on Tuesday 28th December 22:44

[Jumturbo]

tali1 said:

Jumturbo said:

tali1 said:

Jumturbo said:

Good try Pothole, but the Merc 500SEL was a monster sized saloon with a monster V8 engine to go with it. More in the same league as a Jag or 7 series Beemer than the Montego! I guess my post should have read ' at it's launch, the MG Montego Turbo was the fastest accelerating 4 door saloon in it's class'.

Edited by Jumturbo on Monday 30th August 22:58

I knew there was something out there before the Monty - Colt Lancer 2000EX Turbo from 1980 -170BHP 0-60 in 6.9 and 0-100 in just over 18 seconds
Just over a year later the VW Jetta GTI 16v was keeping pace with Monty Turbo - with 17bhp less.
Also BMW (who did not make a M3 specifically to beat the Monty)had the M535i from 1981
Anyway not knocking the Monty Turbo as i owned one (could pull away from a cold start in 4th gear).
My brother has even seen a v late M reg![/quote




Sorry mate, the Jetta GTi 16v was in a smaller class and was almost a full second slower 0-60 too! The Colt Lancer Turbo of 1981 was before the Monty's time but was also in a smaller class and about 1.5s slower to 60 than the Monty!
Oh and the M535i was in a different class too, being bigger and a coupe. I'm sure too that that BMW didn't produce the M3 just to beat the Monty, but their 325i was too slow!

Edited by Jumturbo on Tuesday 28th December 20:06

Yes they were smaller i grant you that - but performance figures you are wrong . Jetta Gti 16v was road tested against Monty so was seen as rival.325 likewise lot smaller but Monty seen as a bargain rival
Autocar =7.1 and 100 in 20.9 -how is " 7.1 a full second slower 0-60 too"???
Likewise lancer turbo "1.5s slower to 60 than the Monty!" i think you are quoting Autocar 8.6 which was in - all every other road tests were well in the 7 sec mark.And as a 2litre Turbo 4dr saloon with similar price it, 100%, if it had been around at Monty time been seen as a direct rival
M535I is A 4DR SALOON -NOT A COUPE -you thinking of M655CSI???
The Sierra Cosworth was not introduced because of Monty Turbo -it has sweet FA to do with it
BMW 325 again WAS keeping with MG Turbo performance 60-7.4, 100 in 19.9 - i dunno where you get your facts from mate -or are you cherry picking the slowest figures?- as i've seen 8.3 for Monty Turbo in road test
I'm not dissing the Monty(or you i should hasten to add -so please do not take offence) as it offered speed , and equipment -all at a price the other cars mentioned could not match

Edited by tali1 on Tuesday 28th December 22:37

Edited by tali1 on Tuesday 28th December 22:44

Hey Tali, no offence taken. My Monty is just a bit of fun. I don't have access to data for all cars, the figures I found were from a quick scan on the web.Certainly don't have time to cherry pick. Here's where I got the Colt Lancer data from. It's a Mitsubishi original advert and so they are quoting the figures themselves, not me!

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/MITSUBISHI-LANCER-2000-TURBO...


Yeah, I got mixed up with the M535i saloon and M635i coupe....sorry. Both these cars were about 1 sec quicker to 60 than the Monty, but they were also both in different and bigger classes and at least twice the price, so should not be compared.
Would be interested to see the feature stating the Monty Turbo as having a 0-60 time of 8.3! I have all the launch tests and none are above 7.4 secs, the best being 7.2. Maybe the one you've read was of a used example with a dodgy turbo! I'm not putting down the 325i either as these were a great car and seriously quick in their day and a seriuos contender, but a lot dearer and still a bit slower than the Monty.
Anyway, no dissing and have a happy new year!

PS,forgot to mention the Jetta 16v, only thing I could find was this:-

http://www.carfolio.com/specifications/models/car/...

This seems more realistic seeing as the Jetta was a Golf with a boot and so heavier but mechanically identical. So 8 sec for the Golf and 8 plus for the Jetta seems about right, unless the Jetta had more power or something?
The only other thing I found was on golf gti forum where someone had posted up some figures for both golf and jetta 16v and to everyones surprise the golf was only 8 sec 0-60 and the Jetta 7.1. The post did not give the original Autocar report, just quotes, so i'd be interested to see it if you can post it up. Anyhow, the golf and jetta are still in a different class...smaller. Wouldn't mind seeing the Monty turbo v jetta 16v feature too.....not one I've got.

Something I've learnt is never believe everything you read on forums, best to take info from reputable sources!

PPS. have you seen the date that the Jetta 16v figures were posted on that forum......I reckon it was an April fool joke!!!

Edited by Jumturbo on Wednesday 29th December 12:31

Edited by Jumturbo on Wednesday 29th December 12:50

Edited by Jumturbo on Wednesday 29th December 13:00

[Gompo]

[kingysilvers]

I've got no prior affinity to these cars but that sir is a very smart motor and I think the wheels look good .

[Schmeeky]

Mr Dave said:

(snip) and I think they are quite a handsome car.

Yep, still looks a sharp piece of design! There's a mint estate version round here, and it looks like a much younger car than it actually is!

Didn't the Montego win some sort of design award when it was new?

[tali1]

Jumturbo said:

tali1 said:

Jumturbo said:

tali1 said:

Jumturbo said:

Good try Pothole, but the Merc 500SEL was a monster sized saloon with a monster V8 engine to go with it. More in the same league as a Jag or 7 series Beemer than the Montego! I guess my post should have read ' at it's launch, the MG Montego Turbo was the fastest accelerating 4 door saloon in it's class'.

Edited by Jumturbo on Monday 30th August 22:58

I knew there was something out there before the Monty - Colt Lancer 2000EX Turbo from 1980 -170BHP 0-60 in 6.9 and 0-100 in just over 18 seconds
Just over a year later the VW Jetta GTI 16v was keeping pace with Monty Turbo - with 17bhp less.
Also BMW (who did not make a M3 specifically to beat the Monty)had the M535i from 1981
Anyway not knocking the Monty Turbo as i owned one (could pull away from a cold start in 4th gear).
My brother has even seen a v late M reg![/quote




Sorry mate, the Jetta GTi 16v was in a smaller class and was almost a full second slower 0-60 too! The Colt Lancer Turbo of 1981 was before the Monty's time but was also in a smaller class and about 1.5s slower to 60 than the Monty!
Oh and the M535i was in a different class too, being bigger and a coupe. I'm sure too that that BMW didn't produce the M3 just to beat the Monty, but their 325i was too slow!

Edited by Jumturbo on Tuesday 28th December 20:06

Yes they were smaller i grant you that - but performance figures you are wrong . Jetta Gti 16v was road tested against Monty so was seen as rival.325 likewise lot smaller but Monty seen as a bargain rival
Autocar =7.1 and 100 in 20.9 -how is " 7.1 a full second slower 0-60 too"???
Likewise lancer turbo "1.5s slower to 60 than the Monty!" i think you are quoting Autocar 8.6 which was in - all every other road tests were well in the 7 sec mark.And as a 2litre Turbo 4dr saloon with similar price it, 100%, if it had been around at Monty time been seen as a direct rival
M535I is A 4DR SALOON -NOT A COUPE -you thinking of M655CSI???
The Sierra Cosworth was not introduced because of Monty Turbo -it has sweet FA to do with it
BMW 325 again WAS keeping with MG Turbo performance 60-7.4, 100 in 19.9 - i dunno where you get your facts from mate -or are you cherry picking the slowest figures?- as i've seen 8.3 for Monty Turbo in road test
I'm not dissing the Monty(or you i should hasten to add -so please do not take offence) as it offered speed , and equipment -all at a price the other cars mentioned could not match

Edited by tali1 on Tuesday 28th December 22:37

Edited by tali1 on Tuesday 28th December 22:44

Hey Tali, no offence taken. My Monty is just a bit of fun. I don't have access to data for all cars, the figures I found were from a quick scan on the web.Certainly don't have time to cherry pick. Here's where I got the Colt Lancer data from. It's a Mitsubishi original advert and so they are quoting the figures themselves, not me!

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/MITSUBISHI-LANCER-2000-TURBO...


Yeah, I got mixed up with the M535i saloon and M635i coupe....sorry. Both these cars were about 1 sec quicker to 60 than the Monty, but they were also both in different and bigger classes and at least twice the price, so should not be compared.
Would be interested to see the feature stating the Monty Turbo as having a 0-60 time of 8.3! I have all the launch tests and none are above 7.4 secs, the best being 7.2. Maybe the one you've read was of a used example with a dodgy turbo! I'm not putting down the 325i either as these were a great car and seriously quick in their day and a seriuos contender, but a lot dearer and still a bit slower than the Monty.
Anyway, no dissing and have a happy new year!

PS,forgot to mention the Jetta 16v, only thing I could find was this:-

http://www.carfolio.com/specifications/models/car/...

This seems more realistic seeing as the Jetta was a Golf with a boot and so heavier but mechanically identical. So 8 sec for the Golf and 8 plus for the Jetta seems about right, unless the Jetta had more power or something?
The only other thing I found was on golf gti forum where someone had posted up some figures for both golf and jetta 16v and to everyones surprise the golf was only 8 sec 0-60 and the Jetta 7.1. The post did not give the original Autocar report, just quotes, so i'd be interested to see it if you can post it up. Anyhow, the golf and jetta are still in a different class...smaller. Wouldn't mind seeing the Monty turbo v jetta 16v feature too.....not one I've got.

Something I've learnt is never believe everything you read on forums, best to take info from reputable sources!

PPS. have you seen the date that the Jetta 16v figures were posted on that forum......I reckon it was an April fool joke!!!

Edited by Jumturbo on Wednesday 29th December 12:31

Edited by Jumturbo on Wednesday 29th December 12:50

Edited by Jumturbo on Wednesday 29th December 13:00

No worries
Dunno why Colt quoted such low figures in their ads- and they never changed to the better figures.
I can only assume 8.6 was the first road test car and they wanted the publicity material asap.Likewise VW underplayed the Jetta 16V- which oddly gave Golf beating figures- they were same power
LT road test-not mine sorry for poor scan(this car is owned by a member of LT forum and is a very black one - as vast majority of the 425 uk cars were white) - but i think 0-100 is showing in 19 secs - What Car? got 7.9 and 100 in 19 .....in the wet

Jetta v Mg and Bluebird was What Car? -although iirc seller mistakes Galant for jetta
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/CAR-Oct-86-MG-Montego-Turbo-...

My fave colour for MG ultra rare slate grey which only come with ultra rare "VP dish" alloys(one only spotted) and ultra rare opaline Green(only seen one)
Unusual colour for test car
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Autocar-12-6-1985-featuring-...

Edited by tali1 on Wednesday 29th December 17:28

[Jumturbo]

Gompo said:

Thanks Gompo....that settles that then! Mind you, it's still a different class of car, more in the category of say the Orion and Belmont. Also looking at the figures it was obviously geared purely for the 0-60 dash, as if you wanted to get to 70 you'd have to wait over 3 secs! Almost half the time it took to get to 60!
However, this does not explain where Carfolio got their figures from, which seem more realistic when comparing the identically mechanical Golf which could only manage 8 secs!

Edited by Jumturbo on Friday 31st December 13:13

[Jumturbo]

tali1 said:

Jumturbo said:

tali1 said:

Jumturbo said:

tali1 said:

Jumturbo said:

Good try Pothole, but the Merc 500SEL was a monster sized saloon with a monster V8 engine to go with it. More in the same league as a Jag or 7 series Beemer than the Montego! I guess my post should have read ' at it's launch, the MG Montego Turbo was the fastest accelerating 4 door saloon in it's class'.

Edited by Jumturbo on Monday 30th August 22:58

I knew there was something out there before the Monty - Colt Lancer 2000EX Turbo from 1980 -170BHP 0-60 in 6.9 and 0-100 in just over 18 seconds
Just over a year later the VW Jetta GTI 16v was keeping pace with Monty Turbo - with 17bhp less.
Also BMW (who did not make a M3 specifically to beat the Monty)had the M535i from 1981
Anyway not knocking the Monty Turbo as i owned one (could pull away from a cold start in 4th gear).
My brother has even seen a v late M reg![/quote




Sorry mate, the Jetta GTi 16v was in a smaller class and was almost a full second slower 0-60 too! The Colt Lancer Turbo of 1981 was before the Monty's time but was also in a smaller class and about 1.5s slower to 60 than the Monty!
Oh and the M535i was in a different class too, being bigger and a coupe. I'm sure too that that BMW didn't produce the M3 just to beat the Monty, but their 325i was too slow!

Edited by Jumturbo on Tuesday 28th December 20:06

Yes they were smaller i grant you that - but performance figures you are wrong . Jetta Gti 16v was road tested against Monty so was seen as rival.325 likewise lot smaller but Monty seen as a bargain rival
Autocar =7.1 and 100 in 20.9 -how is " 7.1 a full second slower 0-60 too"???
Likewise lancer turbo "1.5s slower to 60 than the Monty!" i think you are quoting Autocar 8.6 which was in - all every other road tests were well in the 7 sec mark.And as a 2litre Turbo 4dr saloon with similar price it, 100%, if it had been around at Monty time been seen as a direct rival
M535I is A 4DR SALOON -NOT A COUPE -you thinking of M655CSI???
The Sierra Cosworth was not introduced because of Monty Turbo -it has sweet FA to do with it
BMW 325 again WAS keeping with MG Turbo performance 60-7.4, 100 in 19.9 - i dunno where you get your facts from mate -or are you cherry picking the slowest figures?- as i've seen 8.3 for Monty Turbo in road test
I'm not dissing the Monty(or you i should hasten to add -so please do not take offence) as it offered speed , and equipment -all at a price the other cars mentioned could not match

Edited by tali1 on Tuesday 28th December 22:37

Edited by tali1 on Tuesday 28th December 22:44

Hey Tali, no offence taken. My Monty is just a bit of fun. I don't have access to data for all cars, the figures I found were from a quick scan on the web.Certainly don't have time to cherry pick. Here's where I got the Colt Lancer data from. It's a Mitsubishi original advert and so they are quoting the figures themselves, not me!

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/MITSUBISHI-LANCER-2000-TURBO...


Yeah, I got mixed up with the M535i saloon and M635i coupe....sorry. Both these cars were about 1 sec quicker to 60 than the Monty, but they were also both in different and bigger classes and at least twice the price, so should not be compared.
Would be interested to see the feature stating the Monty Turbo as having a 0-60 time of 8.3! I have all the launch tests and none are above 7.4 secs, the best being 7.2. Maybe the one you've read was of a used example with a dodgy turbo! I'm not putting down the 325i either as these were a great car and seriously quick in their day and a seriuos contender, but a lot dearer and still a bit slower than the Monty.
Anyway, no dissing and have a happy new year!

PS,forgot to mention the Jetta 16v, only thing I could find was this:-

http://www.carfolio.com/specifications/models/car/...

This seems more realistic seeing as the Jetta was a Golf with a boot and so heavier but mechanically identical. So 8 sec for the Golf and 8 plus for the Jetta seems about right, unless the Jetta had more power or something?
The only other thing I found was on golf gti forum where someone had posted up some figures for both golf and jetta 16v and to everyones surprise the golf was only 8 sec 0-60 and the Jetta 7.1. The post did not give the original Autocar report, just quotes, so i'd be interested to see it if you can post it up. Anyhow, the golf and jetta are still in a different class...smaller. Wouldn't mind seeing the Monty turbo v jetta 16v feature too.....not one I've got.

Something I've learnt is never believe everything you read on forums, best to take info from reputable sources!

PPS. have you seen the date that the Jetta 16v figures were posted on that forum......I reckon it was an April fool joke!!!

Edited by Jumturbo on Wednesday 29th December 12:31

Edited by Jumturbo on Wednesday 29th December 12:50

Edited by Jumturbo on Wednesday 29th December 13:00

No worries
Dunno why Colt quoted such low figures in their ads- and they never changed to the better figures.
I can only assume 8.6 was the first road test car and they wanted the publicity material asap.Likewise VW underplayed the Jetta 16V- which oddly gave Golf beating figures- they were same power
LT road test-not mine sorry for poor scan(this car is owned by a member of LT forum and is a very black one - as vast majority of the 425 uk cars were white) - but i think 0-100 is showing in 19 secs - What Car? got 7.9 and 100 in 19 .....in the wet

Jetta v Mg and Bluebird was What Car? -although iirc seller mistakes Galant for jetta
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/CAR-Oct-86-MG-Montego-Turbo-...

My fave colour for MG ultra rare slate grey which only come with ultra rare "VP dish" alloys(one only spotted) and ultra rare opaline Green(only seen one)
Unusual colour for test car
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Autocar-12-6-1985-featuring-...

Edited by tali1 on Wednesday 29th December 17:28

Thanks Tali. I have the Autocar launch mag. I think I have a copy of the 1986 test but I'm sure the Galant is one of the competitors and that was definitely slower. The Montego came out top in acceleration but don't remember the Jetta in the mix. I'll have a look, cheers.

[Gompo]

True, but I dont imagine the Montego would be much quicker to 70mph. I'm not trying to side with Jetta, I'd like the Montego to be quickest..

[Jumturbo]

Gompo said:

True, but I dont imagine the Montego would be much quicker to 70mph. I'm not trying to side with Jetta, I'd like the Montego to be quickest..

Just had a look in a road test portfolio by Transport Source Books. The Autocar launch test had the Montego down as 0-60 in 7.5 and 0-70 in 10 dead. Your wish has come true! Maybe we're splitting hairs now though! The Autocar lists competitors and 0-60s as, Audi 90 9.9, BMW 323i 8.3, Mitsubishi Galant 2000 Turbo 8.6, Nissan Bluebird Turbo ZX 8.8, Saab Turbo 8v 9.1, Subaru 1.8RX Turbo AWD 9.5.
There's a copy of a 'What Car' magazine group test where the Montego Turbo is pitted against Subaru RX turbo and BMW 323i. They got the Monty to 60 in 7.2, the Subaru in 8.9 or 7.9 without AWD and the BMW in 8.5. I suppose the differences in mags down to conditions and driver on the day......

[tali1]

The Jag XJ12(yes different category of car) held for a long time fstest 4 dr saloon in world- surprisingly the BMW 735 of 1979 ran it close
Jumturbo -What distintion (not related to performance) does the MG Montego Turbo hold?

[Jumturbo]

tali1 said:

The Jag XJ12(yes different category of car) held for a long time fstest 4 dr saloon in world- surprisingly the BMW 735 of 1979 ran it close
Jumturbo -What distintion (not related to performance) does the MG Montego Turbo hold?

Turbocharged depreciation!!

[tali1]

Jumturbo said:

tali1 said:

The Jag XJ12(yes different category of car) held for a long time fstest 4 dr saloon in world- surprisingly the BMW 735 of 1979 ran it close
Jumturbo -What distintion (not related to performance) does the MG Montego Turbo hold?

Turbocharged depreciation!!

Well , if you exclude the one off Aston Lagonda Turbo, the MG montego Turbo was Britain's first 4dr turbo car .Austin/Rover had quite a few other British firsts - which most people will be unaware of.

[Jumturbo]

The car has a small feature in the latest February edition of 'Retro Cars', albeit in the 'readers rides' section. The feature is short and sweet with 3 photos, but looks cool. There's a very nice BMW E30 M3 on the front cover too, so worth buying!

[davepoth]

First standard alloy wheels for one. Can anybody name the model?

[poo at Paul's]

davepoth said:

First standard alloy wheels for one. Can anybody name the model?

MIni Clubman with the 12 inch Denovos or whatever they were called? MGBs had ally centres but steel rims IIRC?

[tali1]

davepoth said:

First standard alloy wheels for one. Can anybody name the model?

Triumph Dolomite Sprint ?

[minimatt1967]

poo at Paul's said:

davepoth said:

First standard alloy wheels for one. Can anybody name the model?

MIni Clubman with the 12 inch Denovos or whatever they were called?

They were Steel.

Pretty sure it was the Dolomite Sprint.

[James P]

minimatt1967 said:

poo at Paul's said:

davepoth said:

First standard alloy wheels for one. Can anybody name the model?

MIni Clubman with the 12 inch Denovos or whatever they were called?

They were Steel.

Pretty sure it was the Dolomite Sprint.

Yes, definitely