RE: MG Montego Turbo: Time For Tea?
Discussion
tdm34 said:
If you look at the test reprints above the 3500S (184bhp) vs Monty Turbo now look at the acceleration graph for P6 the 0-90mph time seems to be around 22 seconds, now look at the 0-90 time for the Montego it's just under 16 seconds! Game over!
I call complete bulls
t on the 22-second figure. Nowhere near that long. Mine, albeit apparently tweaked for a bit more power, was about 8 seconds to 60 and I think about 15 to 90. 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!
Pool cars are always awful no matter what they are. Nobody looks after them so get lots of abuse, like hire cars.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!Nothing on any of mine ever fell off, no rattles and the gearchanges were nice and slick. The Turbo was not good on fuel but you don't buy a turbo car for economy. Wasn't that fast? As they were only about a second slower that the Porsche 944 Turbo and 928, certainly much quicker than the P6, I am struggling to understand that.
Wasn't a 1.3, used and abused pool/hire car was it?
RoverP6B said:
I call complete bullst on the 22-second figure. Nowhere near that long. Mine, albeit apparently tweaked for a bit more power, was about 8 seconds to 60 and I think about 15 to 90.
I can't find any evidence to support your claims, neither have you offered any. Is it possible your rose-tinted glasses need a polish?t on the 22-second figure. Nowhere near that long. Mine, albeit apparently tweaked for a bit more power, was about 8 seconds to 60 and I think about 15 to 90. I had a later SD1 V8 and this despite being a nice car was nowhere near as quick as the Monty. The Turbo had such a nice even delivery of power (unlike its rivals including the 900) that it possibly did not feel as fast as it was. I would take that over the turbo lagged 900 any day of the week!
My new car, an Alfa Romeo Spider has a 2 litre twinspark engine putting out 150 BHP, same as the Montego Turbo yet it is over a second slower to 60, despite revving to 7500 revs (is this why the Type R beats it at the top end?).
I fully support ARG bashing where it is due (built in rust for example) but the Montego was quite ground breaking at the time in its front drive, high power configuration. The normal cars looked frumpy but the MG ones looked nice with the body kit and colour coding.
Edited by JagXJR on Sunday 27th April 10:41
I stopped at the Ian Oglivy SDi bit. I'll watch the rest another time. The voice over artist reminds me of the Cabin Pressure Radio 4 comedy.To be perfectly honest I would have put the diesel Montego on par with a P6 Rover let alone the petrol turbo
At the time we had new Montego diesels at work I was driving a SD1 V8 Rover and there wouldnt have been much in it on the road
A good Rover V8 only make about 160hp , a 10 year old one would struggle to top 100hp I reckon
At the time we had new Montego diesels at work I was driving a SD1 V8 Rover and there wouldnt have been much in it on the road
A good Rover V8 only make about 160hp , a 10 year old one would struggle to top 100hp I reckon
JagXJR said:
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!
Pool cars are always awful no matter what they are. Nobody looks after them so get lots of abuse, like hire cars.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!Nothing on any of mine ever fell off, no rattles and the gearchanges were nice and slick. The Turbo was not good on fuel but you don't buy a turbo car for economy. Wasn't that fast? As they were only about a second slower that the Porsche 944 Turbo and 928, certainly much quicker than the P6, I am struggling to understand that.
Wasn't a 1.3, used and abused pool/hire car was it?
RoverP6B said:
I call complete bullst on the 22-second figure. Nowhere near that long. Mine, albeit apparently tweaked for a bit more power, was about 8 seconds to 60 and I think about 15 to 90.
I can't find any evidence to support your claims, neither have you offered any. Is it possible your rose-tinted glasses need a polish?t on the 22-second figure. Nowhere near that long. Mine, albeit apparently tweaked for a bit more power, was about 8 seconds to 60 and I think about 15 to 90. I had a later SD1 V8 and this despite being a nice car was nowhere near as quick as the Monty. The Turbo had such a nice even delivery of power (unlike its rivals including the 900) that it possibly did not feel as fast as it was. I would take that over the turbo lagged 900 any day of the week!
My new car, an Alfa Romeo Spider has a 2 litre twinspark engine putting out 150 BHP, same as the Montego Turbo yet it is over a second slower to 60, despite revving to 7500 revs (is this why the Type R beats it at the top end?).
I fully support ARG bashing where it is due (built in rust for example) but the Montego was quite ground breaking at the time in its front drive, high power configuration. The normal cars looked frumpy but the MG ones looked nice with the body kit and colour coding.
Edited by JagXJR on Sunday 27th April 10:41
liner33 said:
To be perfectly honest I would have put the diesel Montego on par with a P6 Rover let alone the petrol turbo
At the time we had new Montego diesels at work I was driving a SD1 V8 Rover and there wouldnt have been much in it on the road
A good Rover V8 only make about 160hp , a 10 year old one would struggle to top 100hp I reckon
Mine was dyno'd at 184bhp. It's not hard to get considerably more than that out of them. They really are the (sort of) British equivalent to the Chevy 350 or Ford 302 - very tuneable and reliable engines.At the time we had new Montego diesels at work I was driving a SD1 V8 Rover and there wouldnt have been much in it on the road
A good Rover V8 only make about 160hp , a 10 year old one would struggle to top 100hp I reckon
RoverP6B said:
......The figures for the Turbo aren't THAT impressive considering its light weight - as I've said, my P6 was a bit faster despite a 200kg weight penalty, principally because it had usefully more torque. .......
The power output is low as it was supplied with a turbo installation that delivered power even and cleanly instead of all or nothing like similar cars such as the Saab 900. The MG Turbo models were still faster than most of the competition at the time (including I suspect your P6).Check out the difference between the Saab 93 150 BHP and 185 models, same car same weight. See how much the 35 BHP increases the performance and you will see your P6 will need much more power to match the Montego/Maestro Turbos acceleration. Its easy enough to work out.
We have all heard stories about 1.3 Fiestas tuned to beat BMW M3s .....................
RoverP6B said:
Mine was dyno'd at 184bhp. It's not hard to get considerably more than that out of them. They really are the (sort of) British equivalent to the Chevy 350 or Ford 302 - very tuneable and reliable engines.
Its not hard but very expensive especially compared to a 302 or 350 Yours was obviously an exceptional one , do you still have the sheet ?
JagXJR said:
We have all heard stories about 1.3 Fiestas tuned to beat BMW M3s .....................
I do like the P6 Rover. smoked around in one 30 years ago for about 3 months. Wallowy but epic! I think a suitably updated and uprated one would be high on my lottery win fleet. Lowered, dark colour, smoked glass, 5 litre engine....
That being said, the Montego Turbo would eat a standard P6B for brekky. Although, quite why anyone would compare two cars from completely different eras and completely different target markets (classes) is beyond me
AKM
liner33 said:
Its not hard but very expensive especially compared to a 302 or 350
Yours was obviously an exceptional one , do you still have the sheet ?
No, any documentation I had to do with the car is either long since lost or sold with the car, alas. Why are they more expensive to tune than the 302 or 350?Yours was obviously an exceptional one , do you still have the sheet ?
RoverP6B said:
tdm34 said:
If you look at the test reprints above the 3500S (184bhp) vs Monty Turbo now look at the acceleration graph for P6 the 0-90mph time seems to be around 22 seconds, now look at the 0-90 time for the Montego it's just under 16 seconds! Game over!
I call complete bullst on the 22-second figure. Nowhere near that long. Mine, albeit apparently tweaked for a bit more power, was about 8 seconds to 60 and I think about 15 to 90. I had a P6 Auto not long before I got my Monty Turbo.
The early P6 needed 5* petrol to be run at full advance to make full power.
I tried every thing to get it to run on 4* it would not unless it was retarded, which cut the power.
The P6 was probably the most comfortable car I have had.
An Allegro ran into the back and destroyed itself, my bumper and boot lid got bent.
It had anti drive front suspension and de Dion anti squat rear, it was very sophisticated from and Engineering point of view. Rovers often said to be over Engineered.
Did 15 MPG mostly, 25 on a long run.
BUT, the Monty Turbo was a LOT faster from 0-60, handled so much better ( mine 1989) and was just nicer to drive due to that turbo torque.
I had 145 on the clock on a slightly down hill Mway and still pulling.
Sold it to my friend who said he got 150 on the clock in Germany.
Great cars both of them to be honest.
Just to add, once had a new Impreza Turbo (2000), which only had one thing going for it, 0-60 in 5.2, everything else was a HUGE disappointment! I hated it, turbo lag monster!
The guys who did the Monty Turbo install, were very good!
I did get to drive a 3500 auto on one occasion. As refined and comfy as mine, but oh boy was it slow. If mine had a bit more power, and it definitely had an extra gear and no dimwitted automation, it's no surprise it was quicker. I seem to recall period road-tests saying that 3500 manuals were a good 1.5 to 2 seconds quicker to 60 than the autos!
SkepticSteve said:
The guys who did the Monty Turbo install, were very good!
Indeed they did.Apparently, an F1 outfit based not a million miles from East Anglia were involved with the pre-production MG Turbos' development. MG Metro and MG Montego. Could have been called Lotus Montegos .... and why not ? ...
A third of a century ago technology remember. Even by today's performance standards, not bad for aged technology Carb with forced induction ... RoverP6B said:
I did get to drive a 3500 auto on one occasion. As refined and comfy as mine, but oh boy was it slow. If mine had a bit more power, and it definitely had an extra gear and no dimwitted automation, it's no surprise it was quicker. I seem to recall period road-tests saying that 3500 manuals were a good 1.5 to 2 seconds quicker to 60 than the autos!
Interesting points, if yours had been on a dyno and made the 184bhp I'm not surprised it was faster than a standard Auto (with possibly retarded ignition to cope with 4*?). 184 is very good, as TVR had to replace the pistons, rods, and cam to get 200!
Once rolling a bit and holding 2nd my 3500 felt very rapid to be honest and a car I enjoyed owning, until the rot killed it, and still probably the most comfortable car I have ever had.
SkepticSteve said:
Interesting points, if yours had been on a dyno and made the 184bhp I'm not surprised it was faster than a standard Auto (with possibly retarded ignition to cope with 4*?).
184 is very good, as TVR had to replace the pistons, rods, and cam to get 200!
Once rolling a bit and holding 2nd my 3500 felt very rapid to be honest and a car I enjoyed owning, until the rot killed it, and still probably the most comfortable car I have ever had.
SD1 Vitesse 3.5 made 190, Twin Plenum made 210. Standard manuals were substantially quicker than standard autos. And yes, mine was rapid and very very comfortable and succumbed to disastrous rot.184 is very good, as TVR had to replace the pistons, rods, and cam to get 200!
Once rolling a bit and holding 2nd my 3500 felt very rapid to be honest and a car I enjoyed owning, until the rot killed it, and still probably the most comfortable car I have ever had.
RoverP6B said:
SD1 Vitesse 3.5 made 190, Twin Plenum made 210. Standard manuals were substantially quicker than standard autos. And yes, mine was rapid and very very comfortable and succumbed to disastrous rot.
I wonder if it was first car to hide it's bhp?And ultra rare VP Efi got twin plenum?
tali1 said:
I wonder if it was first car to hide it's bhp?
And ultra rare VP Efi got twin plenum?
Book figure for a bog standard Vitesse was 190bhp, I've no idea what the real world figure was, whether it was lower, higher or the same. The twin plenum added 20bhp to the book figure. The SD1 never really interested me so I didn't keep up with what it did.And ultra rare VP Efi got twin plenum?
We had the Montego turbo on trial as a traffic car in North Yorkshire back in the 80's. The truly shocking understeer prevented it from being a serious contender. All the development budget seemed to have been spent on the in-gear overtaking ability. The steering wheel was all but redundant....
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff