RE: MG Montego Turbo: Time For Tea?
Discussion
I remember being given some kind of Montego for a trip when I worked for British Aerospace, had to go from Kingston to Warton. I remember it being utterly horrid - cheap plastics, don't think anything was actually held in by anything so expensive or solid as a screw, rattled like hell, the engine was just rough and noisy, gearchange rubbery and awful and oh boy did it drink. It wasn't that fast, either, but it did torque-steer like a b
h away from every junction. Next time I made that trip, I told my bosses where they could stick their Montego and that I would do it in my own car (then a '73 Rover P6 3500S). Despite being a significantly older design, the P6 was just so vastly superior. Of the cars of this era, the Montego has possibly aged the worst - it looks absolutely bloody awful to me and MGF alloys just look wrong on it. Peugeot 405s look so much smarter, as do Citroen BXs (not too many of those left) in their own wacky way. Personally, my view on the MG Montego Turbo is this - you're after a spacious, practical, front-wheel-drive car with a powerful turbo engine... how badly do you not want a Saab 900!
h away from every junction. Next time I made that trip, I told my bosses where they could stick their Montego and that I would do it in my own car (then a '73 Rover P6 3500S). Despite being a significantly older design, the P6 was just so vastly superior. Of the cars of this era, the Montego has possibly aged the worst - it looks absolutely bloody awful to me and MGF alloys just look wrong on it. Peugeot 405s look so much smarter, as do Citroen BXs (not too many of those left) in their own wacky way. Personally, my view on the MG Montego Turbo is this - you're after a spacious, practical, front-wheel-drive car with a powerful turbo engine... how badly do you not want a Saab 900!Can't say I agree with any of that. The gear change especially was nice and direct , one of the cars strong points thanks to it being a honda sourced box , the quality of the interior was pretty much the same as anything else mass produced at the time, and seriously why does this 'torque steer' thing come up every time and be massively exaggerated ,my maestro hardly had any and it was nearly 100bhp more than standard, an LSD would have been epic but it's how you drive them.
Kidders said:
Can't say I agree with any of that. The gear change especially was nice and direct , one of the cars strong points thanks to it being a honda sourced box , the quality of the interior was pretty much the same as anything else mass produced at the time, and seriously why does this 'torque steer' thing come up every time and be massively exaggerated ,my maestro hardly had any and it was nearly 100bhp more than standard, an LSD would have been epic but it's how you drive them.
Not all of them had a Honda box - some of them used a VW box.RoverP6B said:
I remember being given some kind of Montego for a trip when I worked for British Aerospace, had to go from Kingston to Warton. I remember it being utterly horrid - cheap plastics, don't think anything was actually held in by anything so expensive or solid as a screw, rattled like hell, the engine was just rough and noisy, gearchange rubbery and awful and oh boy did it drink. It wasn't that fast, either, but it did torque-steer like a bh away from every junction. Next time I made that trip, I told my bosses where they could stick their Montego and that I would do it in my own car (then a '73 Rover P6 3500S). Despite being a significantly older design, the P6 was just so vastly superior. Of the cars of this era, the Montego has possibly aged the worst - it looks absolutely bloody awful to me and MGF alloys just look wrong on it. Peugeot 405s look so much smarter, as do Citroen BXs (not too many of those left) in their own wacky way. Personally, my view on the MG Montego Turbo is this - you're after a spacious, practical, front-wheel-drive car with a powerful turbo engine... how badly do you not want a Saab 900!
Not that fast, likes a drink, then you say you have a Rover 3500S ?h away from every junction. Next time I made that trip, I told my bosses where they could stick their Montego and that I would do it in my own car (then a '73 Rover P6 3500S). Despite being a significantly older design, the P6 was just so vastly superior. Of the cars of this era, the Montego has possibly aged the worst - it looks absolutely bloody awful to me and MGF alloys just look wrong on it. Peugeot 405s look so much smarter, as do Citroen BXs (not too many of those left) in their own wacky way. Personally, my view on the MG Montego Turbo is this - you're after a spacious, practical, front-wheel-drive car with a powerful turbo engine... how badly do you not want a Saab 900!The P6 is a nice car but seems strange to slate the Montego for the same limitations.
I have to say of the dozen or so people I knew who had Montegos and Maestros, none had any major problems, and all were very happy with them. Rot was a problem as they aged, but then it was no different for Escorts, Astras, Cavaliers, Sierras etc.
My uncle had three in succession - a 1.6HL, an MG EFi and a GTI. The GTI was nicked 4 hours after they got it home, but otherwise all drama free.
The only Rover I remember people complaining about was the 800. Loads of gremlins.
My uncle had three in succession - a 1.6HL, an MG EFi and a GTI. The GTI was nicked 4 hours after they got it home, but otherwise all drama free.
The only Rover I remember people complaining about was the 800. Loads of gremlins.
When I worked for Unipart about a thousand years ago I had various hand me downs from Austin Rover at Cowley next door. One of which was a Montego Countryman 2.0D Estate, a metallic brown turd with beige velours and already with 100'000 miles in two years. It was great, would chunter along at 90-100 and it was amazing on fuel - I could get near on 50 mpg most of the time. It rode and handled well enough and the boot was massive. We ran a fleet of Maestro vans as well that regularly had the st kicked out of them, and they very rarely (if ever) went wrong over six figure mileages. Before I left I had a Rover 218D on a K plate, non turbo 1.9 Pug engine and 125'000 miles old. A bit slow but solidly built and a decent mile muncher.
My fave was the non turbo MG Maestro 2.0EFi, a very pleasant and capable hot hatch. Much, much better than the '3i or the hateful Mark 3 GTi my Mum drive at the time.
t kicked out of them, and they very rarely (if ever) went wrong over six figure mileages. Before I left I had a Rover 218D on a K plate, non turbo 1.9 Pug engine and 125'000 miles old. A bit slow but solidly built and a decent mile muncher.My fave was the non turbo MG Maestro 2.0EFi, a very pleasant and capable hot hatch. Much, much better than the '3i or the hateful Mark 3 GTi my Mum drive at the time.
J4CKO said:
Not that fast, likes a drink, then you say you have a Rover 3500S ?
The P6 is a nice car but seems strange to slate the Montego for the same limitations.
The P6 was reasonably economical for what was a very quick car for its time - 26mpg average and could be persuaded as far as 32mpg on a decent run. It was simply miles faster than the Montego, probably had double the bhp, but the MPG was actually better in the old Rover. The Montego needed thrashing to get anywhere.The P6 is a nice car but seems strange to slate the Montego for the same limitations.
RoverP6B said:
Not all of them had a Honda box - some of them used a VW box.
All 2 litres engines , o series and the Perkins diesel used a pg1 honda box . Only the 1.3 and 1.6 used a vw box , pg1 on later post 88 montegos , 1.6 maestro continued with the vw box till production end.I can only assume the car you drive was not a turbo variant, it would piss all over any P6 with a v8.
Kidders said:
All 2 litres engines , o series and the Perkins diesel used a pg1 honda box . Only the 1.3 and 1.6 used a vw box , pg1 on later post 88 montegos , 1.6 maestro continued with the vw box till production end.
I can only assume the car you drive was not a turbo variant, it would piss all over any P6 with a v8.
It was a petrol, I think a 1.6, it was none too new and had probably seen the usual fleet abuse. However, I dispute that the turbo would be faster than the P6 - the P6 had 34 extra bhp and 41 extra lbft 500rpm lower, although it was also 200kg heavier. The Rover had a slight power-to-weight advantage (143bhp/ton to the Montego's 136bhp/ton) and the extra torque would have helped.I can only assume the car you drive was not a turbo variant, it would piss all over any P6 with a v8.
Kidders said:
Can't say I agree with any of that. The gear change especially was nice and direct , one of the cars strong points thanks to it being a honda sourced box , the quality of the interior was pretty much the same as anything else mass produced at the time, and seriously why does this 'torque steer' thing come up every time and be massively exaggerated ,my maestro hardly had any and it was nearly 100bhp more than standard, an LSD would have been epic but it's how you drive them.
Here you go Kidders - interesting piece about the revisions they did to the Montego. I like reading this type of stuff about the development of cars - looks like they considered a VLSD
mtboreva by .,RoverP6B said:
However, I dispute that the turbo would be faster than the P6 - the P6 had 34 extra bhp and 41 extra lbft 500rpm lower, although it was also 200kg heavier. The Rover had a slight power-to-weight advantage (143bhp/ton to the Montego's 136bhp/ton) and the extra torque would have helped.
34bhp extra? Is yours modified? Both cars standard I think the Montego Turbo would have the legs on itiSore said:
My fave was the non turbo MG Maestro 2.0EFi, a very pleasant and capable hot hatch. Much, much better than the '3i or the hateful Mark 3 GTi my Mum drive at the time.
Car's GBU entry for the MG Maestro 2.0i was;For: Dynamic
Against: Doesn't look it
Sum-up: Better than Darren's XR3i
And for the Montego;
For: So much better than it looks
Against: Which is just as well
Sum-up: Better than a Sierra
otolith said:
iSore said:
My fave was the non turbo MG Maestro 2.0EFi, a very pleasant and capable hot hatch. Much, much better than the '3i or the hateful Mark 3 GTi my Mum drive at the time.
Car's GBU entry for the MG Maestro 2.0i was;For: Dynamic
Against: Doesn't look it
Sum-up: Better than Darren's XR3i
And for the Montego;
For: So much better than it looks
Against: Which is just as well
Sum-up: Better than a Sierra
alpha channel said:
Still looks good even today (at least externally anyway), looks good with the MGF alloys on as well.
Agreed. Mine does have the VVCs now. Previous "Metric" early versions of runflats far too expensive and not as nice visually.I had FIVE MG Montego Turbos at one time. All very reliable and never lost money on any of them. One or two I sold on have since changed hands again at more than I got...
Sold some after using them for years. Now down to just one of the earliest off the production line. My favourite car for numerous reasons.Back in the 1980s, a work colleague commuted Bristol~Cheltenham each working day. Some of his quicker Monty-Turbo point to point journey times would be hard to achieve nowdays in any car.
Someone I know has several Montegos. Well, more than several :~
http://forums.mg-rover.org/showpost.php?p=6938393&...
Could that be a barn find and then some with the passage of time? ...
Montego haters in all their various forms best not view this... 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DeX74SqLAdw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DeX74SqLAdw
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff