Rovers - were they really that bad?
Discussion
I currently have a ZT 190. It's a shed in terms of condition, was very cheap and has had 9 previous owners (I'm the 10th) and I bought it with the intention of 'running it into the ground'. I've done 11k miles in it so far, and I actually feel quite bad running it as a shed sometimes; I want to spend money on it to sort out some of the problems and potential issues (belts) but I just can't justify spending large amounts of cash on one issue, as if another issue appears, it becomes a slippery slope. The previous owner assured me that the belts had been done (by another previous owner), but I have no real way of knowing if they've actually been done, and seeing as the belts cost somewhere in the region of £600 to replace, which is close to what I paid for the whole car, it's not worth it. The engine mount needs replacing (I've been meaning to do this for a while, but never got round to it) the clutch is a bit juddery on take off (not sure if that's symptomatic of the engine mount though) and the AC isn't cold. I've got the MOT and an oil and filter change booked for Saturday, fingers crossed!
Anyway, I guess my point is that these late MGs/Rovers are actually properly decent cars. Despite the inherent sheddiness of mine, almost everyone has been very impressed with it. I'm only 22, but I'd really like an Automatic V6 75 at some point. I've watched the fifth gear video, and SJC, yours looks absolutely lovely; criminally undervalued IMO.
I also only found out recently, the MG ZT lives on, as the MG 7! I knew there was a Rover (or Roewe) version still made, but didn't realise there was an MG one too. Interesting that they've kept the pre facelift looks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MG_7
Anyway, I guess my point is that these late MGs/Rovers are actually properly decent cars. Despite the inherent sheddiness of mine, almost everyone has been very impressed with it. I'm only 22, but I'd really like an Automatic V6 75 at some point. I've watched the fifth gear video, and SJC, yours looks absolutely lovely; criminally undervalued IMO.
I also only found out recently, the MG ZT lives on, as the MG 7! I knew there was a Rover (or Roewe) version still made, but didn't realise there was an MG one too. Interesting that they've kept the pre facelift looks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MG_7
Edited by George7 on Tuesday 10th December 10:27
Auntie Rovers- P4s - well made, bit staid. 3litre- poor mans Roller- beautifully made , good to ride in . 3.5 ditto with more poke and Coupe very cool . 2000 - absolutely superb car in almost every respect ; very contemporary styling (so 60s in a white heat of technology sort of way ), comfortable and brisk. Quick in 3500 format.
SD1 - pretty neat that you could buy a big saloon hatch that aped a Daytona. Good to drive but build quality iffy. After that ... well the 75 was retro cool at its finest and bonkers 260 V8 a triumph of passion over logic. All the rest - meh
SD1 - pretty neat that you could buy a big saloon hatch that aped a Daytona. Good to drive but build quality iffy. After that ... well the 75 was retro cool at its finest and bonkers 260 V8 a triumph of passion over logic. All the rest - meh
Used to have a 414Si in British Racing Green. It did rust quite quickly (grille on front of the bonnet, and top of sills under the kick plates). 105PS 1.4 K-series went very well, but it got VERY floaty above 90mph, really could have done with a 3" drop on the suspension. Brakes were rubbish - far too small for the performance of the engine.
Otherwise it was a good car, had very few issues apart from the central locking taking a wobbler once, and the alternator going on fire. Far more reliable than any of the Fords I've had.
Otherwise it was a good car, had very few issues apart from the central locking taking a wobbler once, and the alternator going on fire. Far more reliable than any of the Fords I've had.
I think it's worth remembering that, during the '80's and '90's, a lot of (mainstream) cars still rusted quite badly, not just Rovers. I had a Fiesta from new in '88 (E-reg) - by 1990, is was as rusty as hell, same with an Escort L-reg (living the dream!) I bought in '96 - signs of rust within 2 years of ownership, amongst many other issues.
George7 said:
Anyway, I guess my point is that these late MGs/Rovers are actually properly decent cars. Despite the inherent sheddiness of mine, almost everyone has been very impressed with it. I'm only 22, but I'd really like an Automatic V6 75 at some point. I've watched the fifth gear video, and SJC, yours looks absolutely lovely; criminally undervalued IMO.
Cheers George, I bought mine for the same unsentimental reasons as yours, but whether it's the stupid value, the refinement or the reverse snobbery of the thing I get as much pleasure out of it as I do my M400 and Granturismo...which is er.. odd! And to put the whole thing into perspective, it's purchase price in 2009 with 28K miles was the same as the bill for the service on the wifes' 2007 Discovery this week.Find a good 75/Zt and it's a motoring bargain.
George7 said:
I currently have a ZT 190. It's a shed in terms of condition, was very cheap and has had 9 previous owners (I'm the 10th) and I bought it with the intention of 'running it into the ground'. I've done 11k miles in it so far, and I actually feel quite bad running it as a shed sometimes; I want to spend money on it to sort out some of the problems and potential issues (belts) but I just can't justify spending large amounts of cash on one issue, as if another issue appears, it becomes a slippery slope. The previous owner assured me that the belts had been done (by another previous owner), but I have no real way of knowing if they've actually been done, and seeing as the belts cost somewhere in the region of £600 to replace, which is close to what I paid for the whole car, it's not worth it. The engine mount needs replacing (I've been meaning to do this for a while, but never got round to it) the clutch is a bit juddery on take off (not sure if that's symptomatic of the engine mount though) and the AC isn't cold. I've got the MOT and an oil and filter change booked for Saturday, fingers crossed!
Anyway, I guess my point is that these late MGs/Rovers are actually properly decent cars. Despite the inherent sheddiness of mine, almost everyone has been very impressed with it. I'm only 22, but I'd really like an Automatic V6 75 at some point. I've watched the fifth gear video, and SJC, yours looks absolutely lovely; criminally undervalued IMO.
I also only found out recently, the MG ZT lives on, as the MG 7! I knew there was a Rover (or Roewe) version still made, but didn't realise there was an MG one too. Interesting that they've kept the pre facelift looks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MG_7
Brake pipes are the problem on these, they rust like nothing else. Mine's in getting them done this week.Anyway, I guess my point is that these late MGs/Rovers are actually properly decent cars. Despite the inherent sheddiness of mine, almost everyone has been very impressed with it. I'm only 22, but I'd really like an Automatic V6 75 at some point. I've watched the fifth gear video, and SJC, yours looks absolutely lovely; criminally undervalued IMO.
I also only found out recently, the MG ZT lives on, as the MG 7! I knew there was a Rover (or Roewe) version still made, but didn't realise there was an MG one too. Interesting that they've kept the pre facelift looks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MG_7
Edited by George7 on Tuesday 10th December 10:27
M3DGE said:
The Maestro/ Montego were absolutely grim though.
I have to leap to the Montego's defence here. It was just as good as its main competitors, cars like the MkII Cavalier and the Sierra, and better in many ways.I had a Montego 1.6SL for four years in the early 90s, and it was comfortable, well-equipped, reliable, and tidy handling. Alright I came to it from a 1.0 Vauxhall Nova, but even so, unlike anything else I could have got for the same money, it had a 5-speed box, power steering, central locking, electric windows, mirrors and tilt/slide sunroof, 4 speaker stereo, decent seats, all sadly lacking from the Astra and Cav 1.3s in the same price range. Massive boot, decent handling, enough performance. Alright, the rust started to appear by its third birthday, but that was true for many another car at the time, and while it did start to look a bit dog-eared, it carried on working faithfully for another 4 years in my sister's ownership after I'd finished with it.
I've had many more exotic and powerful cars since, but I've never felt the Montego to be anything other than the right car at the right time, and do think it's been treated a bit unfairly by history.
That is a distinct possibility, given that, as rightly stated, there is very scarce info available on this engine fitted to stags. Add to that the car WAS one of the very last off the production line, it may have been an attempt to "save face", in similar vain to the late V8 engined MG roadsters...... The point is that the Rover V8, whilst being tainted by the Rover name, has and will remain, a bloody good engine used to power a vast variety of vehicles. I'm fairly sure they were used in some models of the TVRs, although whether as factory fitted or conversions, I do not know. I also know of a trio of Morgans fitted with this engine, again, factory or converted, I can't say. They sound great and go like a scalded cat though!
As a MG ZT owner I'm slightly biased but I love the Rover 75, had one as a company car and that prompted me into getting a ZT 260
As a family we have had a few
Grandfather in 1963
Father had a SD1 3500
Me at Spa
Grandfather worked in the Argyll Motorworks in Alexandria and the last car he built/modified was in 1964, this car was still running around in Alexandria in 2000. My grandfather put on a new roof and everything from the front doors back.
As a family we have had a few
Grandfather in 1963
Father had a SD1 3500
Me at Spa
Grandfather worked in the Argyll Motorworks in Alexandria and the last car he built/modified was in 1964, this car was still running around in Alexandria in 2000. My grandfather put on a new roof and everything from the front doors back.
I don't think BL motors rusted any more than the competition back in the 70s most cars rusted back then...
You could buy new sills and top mounts over the counter for most makes and model cars as that was the way it was..
And every year come mot time the welder and angle grinder had to come out..or the body filler newspaper and black underseal.
I found fords always needed top mounts and sills come mot time..
In fact the cars you never wanted to touch back then were Jap and Italian the home grown cars were far better at keeping the rust bug at bay..
You could buy new sills and top mounts over the counter for most makes and model cars as that was the way it was..
And every year come mot time the welder and angle grinder had to come out..or the body filler newspaper and black underseal.
I found fords always needed top mounts and sills come mot time..
In fact the cars you never wanted to touch back then were Jap and Italian the home grown cars were far better at keeping the rust bug at bay..
teacake said:
M3DGE said:
The Maestro/ Montego were absolutely grim though.
I have to leap to the Montego's defence here. It was just as good as its main competitors, cars like the MkII Cavalier and the Sierra, and better in many ways.I had a Montego 1.6SL for four years in the early 90s, and it was comfortable, well-equipped, reliable, and tidy handling. Alright I came to it from a 1.0 Vauxhall Nova, but even so, unlike anything else I could have got for the same money, it had a 5-speed box, power steering, central locking, electric windows, mirrors and tilt/slide sunroof, 4 speaker stereo, decent seats, all sadly lacking from the Astra and Cav 1.3s in the same price range. Massive boot, decent handling, enough performance. Alright, the rust started to appear by its third birthday, but that was true for many another car at the time, and while it did start to look a bit dog-eared, it carried on working faithfully for another 4 years in my sister's ownership after I'd finished with it.
I've had many more exotic and powerful cars since, but I've never felt the Montego to be anything other than the right car at the right time, and do think it's been treated a bit unfairly by history.
mikal83 said:
The montego was an overweight tank whose head gasket exploded/leaked/cracked.
Really? My 1.6 was a shade over 1000kg. Seems about average for the time. As for head gaskets, which engines, because the Montego had quite a few different series fitted during its lifespan? All of them?Have spoken to my father, and Auntie is correct. The stag he has WAS a "prefered" dealer one off, engine speced by my father, so appolagies to all for causing a modicum of mayhem and confusion. Also turns out my father supplied the majority of his stags to a client who exported them, hence the predomoninance of straight 6s that passed through the showroom in its heyday. He has finally decided to sell the stag, which interestingly enough, has a complete set of paperwork direct from the factory, including owners manuals and the original bill of sale and shipment! Wonder how much that will add to the value? Oh, and the car has LESS than 50k recorded miles on the clock!
welshpete said:
Have spoken to my father, and Auntie is correct. The stag he has WAS a "prefered" dealer one off, engine speced by my father, so appolagies to all for causing a modicum of mayhem and confusion. Also turns out my father supplied the majority of his stags to a client who exported them, hence the predomoninance of straight 6s that passed through the showroom in its heyday. He has finally decided to sell the stag, which interestingly enough, has a complete set of paperwork direct from the factory, including owners manuals and the original bill of sale and shipment! Wonder how much that will add to the value? Oh, and the car has LESS than 50k recorded miles on the clock!
Though the original design for the Stag was for an in-line 6, this was I thought changed for production, and I'm not aware of a single production car leaving the factory with anything other than the 3.0 V8. Can you verify this?I know of lots of cars ending up with Rover V-8s, the Triumph 6 or Ford V-6s, but never heard of anything leaving the factory like that.
teacake said:
mikal83 said:
The montego was an overweight tank whose head gasket exploded/leaked/cracked.
Really? My 1.6 was a shade over 1000kg. Seems about average for the time. As for head gaskets, which engines, because the Montego had quite a few different series fitted during its lifespan? All of them?Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff