RE: MG Montego Turbo: Time For Tea?
Discussion
Limpet said:
A mate had one of these. It was fast, very wayward, and completely reliable despite years of abuse. I'd love one.
Mate of mine,Jimmy, also had one of these,in Silver, 2.0 Efi, Turbo...Me and Mrs visited my mother in Gillingham in our Sierra 120 miles away from home and the Sierra got nicked outside my Mums one morning, Jimmy drove all the way out to pick me and the Mrs up in it in the early 90's...
My Mrs moaned all the way home cos Jimmy floored it all the way and was touching 125 mph for miles...
Just blasted it, great Car in them days...
I preferred the Maestro just for the shape but never had one though I'm ashamed to say I did get my hands on a Black MG Metro....
Those were the days...
Edited by Muffsy on Saturday 26th April 13:44
The Efi was nothing special but the Turbo was- pulled like a train even low down in 5th.My brother had one and easily kept pace long run with a arrogant cock in a 944 who violently exited the motorway in embarassment and a rally spec Opel Manta.The look on Manta boy trying to impress his rear seat Disco dolly birds as he saw a a 4dr BL box nail him.Hehe
Also blasted a Rover 827 Vitesse for dead.
Also blasted a Rover 827 Vitesse for dead.
s m said:
184bhp for a P6? Never heard of that option before
I've never heard of 161bhp either, and I see the lower of your images doesn't list a bhp figure. I believe the Series One 3500 was 152bhp but the Series Twos were 184bhp. I did have mine dyno'd and it made 184bhp @ 5250rpm and 210ftlbs @ 3000rpm. Yes, it was a wee bit heavier than the Montego Turbo (though not by 220kg - it was 197kg), but it was a bit quicker than them at the time, didn't torque-steer as it sent the power to the correct wheels and was in a different league for comfort and refinement. I'd also have said that the acceleration figures given in the lower image are a tad conservative - mine was well below 8 seconds to 60. I can tell you also that I was able to maintain a steady cruise of a fairly effortless indicated 125mph at about 5000rpm - no GPS in those days of course, but I'd have been surprised if that car wouldn't have gone past 130mph (though I never actually went for a flat-out top-speed run in it). Despite the body roll, which really could be as shown in the photo above, it handled very securely and fairly skinny (185 section if memory serves) tyres notwithstanding, needed a lot of provocation to get the tail out. Understeer was never a problem. I used to be able to thrash that car round my local abandoned airfield and the speed I could carry through corners was fairly astonishing.If Rover had carried on making cars as fast for their time, as comfortable and as well-built as that P6 (and making the same improvements in rust protection as the Germans and French did in the 80s) they could have been a very prestigious and successful car-maker today. Instead, we ended up with the Montego and a series of more-or-less awful rebadged Hondas, the last of which ended up outstaying their welcome, outliving the successors to the Hondas they were based on, then the final indignity of the CityRover... the 75, L322 Range Rover and the new Mini COULD have been the beginning of a big Rover revival, in the same way the first-generation CTS so revived Cadillac at the same time, but BMW torpedoed the first of them by making untrue disparaging comments about it and suppressing the estate (only finally brought out under Phoenix management) and stole the other two (promptly selling Land Rover to Ford)... as much as I like my BMWs, the way they behaved over the whole Rover fiasco still pisses me off. They're still sitting on the Triumph and Riley brands to ensure nothing can ever be done with them, too - killing off an effort by a direct descendant of the founder of Riley to do something automotive using his own surname. Really is unjust.
MGJohn said:
Montego haters in all their various forms best not view this... 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DeX74SqLAdw
Flipping love that guy's delivery and voice! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DeX74SqLAdw
RoverP6B said:
s m said:
184bhp for a P6? Never heard of that option before
I've never heard of 161bhp either, and I see the lower of your images doesn't list a bhp figure. I believe the Series One 3500 was 152bhp but the Series Twos were 184bhp. I did have mine dyno'd and it made 184bhp @ 5250rpm and 210ftlbs @ 3000rpm. Yes, it was a wee bit heavier than the Montego Turbo (though not by 220kg - it was 197kg), but it was a bit quicker than them at the time, didn't torque-steer as it sent the power to the correct wheels and was in a different league for comfort and refinement. I'd also have said that the acceleration figures given in the lower image are a tad conservative - mine was well below 8 seconds to 60. I can tell you also that I was able to maintain a steady cruise of a fairly effortless indicated 125mph at about 5000rpm - no GPS in those days of course, but I'd have been surprised if that car wouldn't have gone past 130mph (though I never actually went for a flat-out top-speed run in it). Despite the body roll, which really could be as shown in the photo above, it handled very securely and fairly skinny (185 section if memory serves) tyres notwithstanding, needed a lot of provocation to get the tail out. Understeer was never a problem. I used to be able to thrash that car round my local abandoned airfield and the speed I could carry through corners was fairly astonishing.Irrespective of what bhp is claimed for the cars, ultimately it's what they do on the road that really counts - I do like the road tests for that as no matter what is claimed you can see what they actually did .
I found 3 different tests from when they were new
These were from Autocar or Motor ( 2 separate mags in the 70s ) who ran instrumented tests. They either mention 152 or 162ish bhp. One of the cars is automatic as you can see from the data.
None of them seem to be near Montego Turbo performance? Low 7 seconds to 60 for a standard car.
I couldn't find any mention of 184bhp for a standard production P6 V8 but I don't dispute that yours puts out that much or does 125mph, just that it doesn't seem typical of any ones the mags got to test.
If you have any scans or copies of old mags where they put the 184bhp version through timed tests I'd be interested to see though.
s m said:
RoverP6B said:
s m said:
184bhp for a P6? Never heard of that option before
I've never heard of 161bhp either, and I see the lower of your images doesn't list a bhp figure. I believe the Series One 3500 was 152bhp but the Series Twos were 184bhp. I did have mine dyno'd and it made 184bhp @ 5250rpm and 210ftlbs @ 3000rpm. Yes, it was a wee bit heavier than the Montego Turbo (though not by 220kg - it was 197kg), but it was a bit quicker than them at the time, didn't torque-steer as it sent the power to the correct wheels and was in a different league for comfort and refinement. I'd also have said that the acceleration figures given in the lower image are a tad conservative - mine was well below 8 seconds to 60. I can tell you also that I was able to maintain a steady cruise of a fairly effortless indicated 125mph at about 5000rpm - no GPS in those days of course, but I'd have been surprised if that car wouldn't have gone past 130mph (though I never actually went for a flat-out top-speed run in it). Despite the body roll, which really could be as shown in the photo above, it handled very securely and fairly skinny (185 section if memory serves) tyres notwithstanding, needed a lot of provocation to get the tail out. Understeer was never a problem. I used to be able to thrash that car round my local abandoned airfield and the speed I could carry through corners was fairly astonishing.Irrespective of what bhp is claimed for the cars, ultimately it's what they do on the road that really counts - I do like the road tests for that as no matter what is claimed you can see what they actually did .
I found 3 different tests from when they were new
These were from Autocar or Motor ( 2 separate mags in the 70s ) who ran instrumented tests. They either mention 152 or 162ish bhp. One of the cars is automatic as you can see from the data.
None of them seem to be near Montego Turbo performance? Low 7 seconds to 60 for a standard car.
I couldn't find any mention of 184bhp for a standard production P6 V8 but I don't dispute that yours puts out that much or does 125mph, just that it doesn't seem typical of any ones the mags got to test.
If you have any scans or copies of old mags where they put the 184bhp version through timed tests I'd be interested to see though.
tdm34 said:
s m said:
RoverP6B said:
s m said:
184bhp for a P6? Never heard of that option before
I've never heard of 161bhp either, and I see the lower of your images doesn't list a bhp figure. I believe the Series One 3500 was 152bhp but the Series Twos were 184bhp. I did have mine dyno'd and it made 184bhp @ 5250rpm and 210ftlbs @ 3000rpm. Yes, it was a wee bit heavier than the Montego Turbo (though not by 220kg - it was 197kg), but it was a bit quicker than them at the time, didn't torque-steer as it sent the power to the correct wheels and was in a different league for comfort and refinement. I'd also have said that the acceleration figures given in the lower image are a tad conservative - mine was well below 8 seconds to 60. I can tell you also that I was able to maintain a steady cruise of a fairly effortless indicated 125mph at about 5000rpm - no GPS in those days of course, but I'd have been surprised if that car wouldn't have gone past 130mph (though I never actually went for a flat-out top-speed run in it). Despite the body roll, which really could be as shown in the photo above, it handled very securely and fairly skinny (185 section if memory serves) tyres notwithstanding, needed a lot of provocation to get the tail out. Understeer was never a problem. I used to be able to thrash that car round my local abandoned airfield and the speed I could carry through corners was fairly astonishing.Irrespective of what bhp is claimed for the cars, ultimately it's what they do on the road that really counts - I do like the road tests for that as no matter what is claimed you can see what they actually did .
I found 3 different tests from when they were new
These were from Autocar or Motor ( 2 separate mags in the 70s ) who ran instrumented tests. They either mention 152 or 162ish bhp. One of the cars is automatic as you can see from the data.
None of them seem to be near Montego Turbo performance? Low 7 seconds to 60 for a standard car.
I couldn't find any mention of 184bhp for a standard production P6 V8 but I don't dispute that yours puts out that much or does 125mph, just that it doesn't seem typical of any ones the mags got to test.
If you have any scans or copies of old mags where they put the 184bhp version through timed tests I'd be interested to see though.
I did have a book on the P6 in which the 184bhp figure is quoted. Unfortunately it fell apart a few years ago and I'm not sure if I still have its remains. I'll have a look around online to see what I can find. One thing's for sure, it was a sight quicker than the figures mentioned in those road-tests. Maybe the previous owner had tweaked it somewhat, I don't know. Anyway, the point I made which started this whole P6 argument was that I had the displeasure of driving a Montego on a long-distance trip of over 450 miles (return) and subsequently told the management they could shove their Montego, I was taking the Rover due to its much superior comfort and refinement. That the Rover with an engine over double the size of the Montego's actually burned a bit less petrol in the process was also good. Had there been a direct replacement for the P6, of the same size and with the Vitesse V8 in it, they could have had a real winner on their hands. Honda's V6s could subsequently have gone in lesser versions. Instead, we got the Rover 200, the Montego and, replacing the likeable but comparatively crude SD1, the bloody awful 800. At that point, I realised that the lunatics really had taken over the asylum...
RoverP6B said:
I did have a book on the P6 in which the 184bhp figure is quoted. Unfortunately it fell apart a few years ago and I'm not sure if I still have its remains. I'll have a look around online to see what I can find. One thing's for sure, it was a sight quicker than the figures mentioned in those road-tests. Maybe the previous owner had tweaked it somewhat, I don't know. Anyway, the point I made which started this whole P6 argument was that I had the displeasure of driving a Montego on a long-distance trip of over 450 miles (return) and subsequently told the management they could shove their Montego, I was taking the Rover due to its much superior comfort and refinement. That the Rover with an engine over double the size of the Montego's actually burned a bit less petrol in the process was also good. Had there been a direct replacement for the P6, of the same size and with the Vitesse V8 in it, they could have had a real winner on their hands. Honda's V6s could subsequently have gone in lesser versions. Instead, we got the Rover 200, the Montego and, replacing the likeable but comparatively crude SD1, the bloody awful 800. At that point, I realised that the lunatics really had taken over the asylum...
Here you go, I've done your homework for you The 184bhp figure for the P6B came from the old measurement of manufacturers quoting gross figures for engine output rather than the later/current fashion of net figures.
Australian/U.S. Mags of that time still tended to quote the gross figure I.e. The output of the bare engine on a bench dyno unencumbered by generator/alternator/ancillaries etc whereas the UK mags had already moved onto the net figure i.e. The output as it appeared in ten engine bay of the car ready to drive
Here's a road test of a manual P6B from an Aussie mag quoting the 184bhp gross[ figures rather than the 162-ish bhp net figures of the UK road tests further up in the thread.
Doesn't seem to be any quicker than the UK cars even with 184bhp quoted as you'd expect though. I've put the Motor road test of the Montego Turbo below
If yours was putting out 184 flywheel or at wheels installed in your car I'd say it was definitely tweaked by a previous owner as you suggested.
I'm convinced that a standard P6 would have nothing on a Montego Turbo.
In my extended family there must have been 6 or 7 Montegos (the only turbos being 2 diesels, unfortunately) and I can't remember anything bad about any of them. Certainly nothing any worse than the competition. One diesel went on to do well over 200,000 miles without much wrong. However, it's true that they were easy to steal. Of that number 3 were stolen and all recovered. One was written off due to a crash, another was stripped and burnt out and the last was returned with just the radio missing.
Also, you're saying really that Rover could be a great name today had they not made cars like the Montego. The Montego was an Austin/MG and latterly unbranded (after the Austin name was withdrawn). I remember seeing Rover written only on the tape cassette door, presumably because it was easier and cheaper to use that rather than commission two different designs. I seem to remember that they mostly used Philips units then. I know that my mother's Rover 800 and my uncle's Montego were the same Philips unit.
In my extended family there must have been 6 or 7 Montegos (the only turbos being 2 diesels, unfortunately) and I can't remember anything bad about any of them. Certainly nothing any worse than the competition. One diesel went on to do well over 200,000 miles without much wrong. However, it's true that they were easy to steal. Of that number 3 were stolen and all recovered. One was written off due to a crash, another was stripped and burnt out and the last was returned with just the radio missing.
Also, you're saying really that Rover could be a great name today had they not made cars like the Montego. The Montego was an Austin/MG and latterly unbranded (after the Austin name was withdrawn). I remember seeing Rover written only on the tape cassette door, presumably because it was easier and cheaper to use that rather than commission two different designs. I seem to remember that they mostly used Philips units then. I know that my mother's Rover 800 and my uncle's Montego were the same Philips unit.
Right. Well, I don't have the car any more so I can't check it. The problem with the Montego for Rover was that everyone knew it was part of ARG, Rover copped a lot of bad publicity over it. Didn't help that the Maestro/Montego badge was the same shape as the Rover one. The 200 and 800 were just as bad, though, the former possibly more so.
RoverP6B said:
Right. Well, I don't have the car any more so I can't check it. The problem with the Montego for Rover was that everyone knew it was part of ARG, Rover copped a lot of bad publicity over it. Didn't help that the Maestro/Montego badge was the same shape as the Rover one. The 200 and 800 were just as bad, though, the former possibly more so.
They did sell quite a few though, bad publicity or not. Almost everyone I grew up with owned a Rover/MG product at some timeHaving read all about how quick P6B Rovers were supposed to be - an anecdote. In 1979 I worked within the Leyland empire and had an MGB rubber bumper company car. (JSC858T). This was a standard emission-reduced version and totally gutless. We were allowed to have the cars serviced at any BL dealer, and I used a local garage - Hope Scott in Edinburgh - who were pretty active in racing at the time. At the first service I got them to get rid of all the emission stuff and set the carbs/timing etc for performance. Transformed - handling was still very roly poly but it was significantly quicker in a straight line. One Sunday evening soon after this I was leaving London on the A40 which at the time was a wide dual carriageway with lots of traffic lights several lanes wide. At one of these I was at the front of the "grid" and did a pretty quick getaway noticing a Rover 3500S also having a go. Basically the B (two up) left it for dead. Unfortunately it soon became apparent that the Rover was in fact a Met Police traffic training car who pulled me over. The Rover driver couldn't believe that the B had seen him off and was convinced it was a V8. I had to show him the engine to prove it only had the B series four. A few years later I had an MG Montego Turbo on the company and it was miles quicker than the B. Could a P6B Rover beat a Montego Turbo in a straight line. No way.
3059hp said:
Having read all about how quick P6B Rovers were supposed to be - an anecdote. In 1979 I worked within the Leyland empire and had an MGB rubber bumper company car. (JSC858T). This was a standard emission-reduced version and totally gutless. We were allowed to have the cars serviced at any BL dealer, and I used a local garage - Hope Scott in Edinburgh - who were pretty active in racing at the time. At the first service I got them to get rid of all the emission stuff and set the carbs/timing etc for performance. Transformed - handling was still very roly poly but it was significantly quicker in a straight line. One Sunday evening soon after this I was leaving London on the A40 which at the time was a wide dual carriageway with lots of traffic lights several lanes wide. At one of these I was at the front of the "grid" and did a pretty quick getaway noticing a Rover 3500S also having a go. Basically the B (two up) left it for dead. Unfortunately it soon became apparent that the Rover was in fact a Met Police traffic training car who pulled me over. The Rover driver couldn't believe that the B had seen him off and was convinced it was a V8. I had to show him the engine to prove it only had the B series four. A few years later I had an MG Montego Turbo on the company and it was miles quicker than the B. Could a P6B Rover beat a Montego Turbo in a straight line. No way.
That P6 must have been any one or combination of an auto, in a poor state of tune or armoured... I could leave any 4-cylinder B (including some fairly 'hot' ones) way behind.RoverP6B said:
3059hp said:
Having read all about how quick P6B Rovers were supposed to be - an anecdote. In 1979 I worked within the Leyland empire and had an MGB rubber bumper company car. (JSC858T). This was a standard emission-reduced version and totally gutless. We were allowed to have the cars serviced at any BL dealer, and I used a local garage - Hope Scott in Edinburgh - who were pretty active in racing at the time. At the first service I got them to get rid of all the emission stuff and set the carbs/timing etc for performance. Transformed - handling was still very roly poly but it was significantly quicker in a straight line. One Sunday evening soon after this I was leaving London on the A40 which at the time was a wide dual carriageway with lots of traffic lights several lanes wide. At one of these I was at the front of the "grid" and did a pretty quick getaway noticing a Rover 3500S also having a go. Basically the B (two up) left it for dead. Unfortunately it soon became apparent that the Rover was in fact a Met Police traffic training car who pulled me over. The Rover driver couldn't believe that the B had seen him off and was convinced it was a V8. I had to show him the engine to prove it only had the B series four. A few years later I had an MG Montego Turbo on the company and it was miles quicker than the B. Could a P6B Rover beat a Montego Turbo in a straight line. No way.
That P6 must have been any one or combination of an auto, in a poor state of tune or armoured... I could leave any 4-cylinder B (including some fairly 'hot' ones) way behind.Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff