RE: MG Montego Turbo: Time For Tea?
Discussion
tali1 said:
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?
tdm34 said:
Only the Vitesse got the twin plenum motor, as far as I know
I think the twin plenum came from the racing version, as competed in successfully by Walkinshaw etc... most Vitesses were single plenum though.mickyveloce said:
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....
This was my experience with the lesser Montego too. Understeer, torque steer, you name it... anything but what you actually wanted. My P6, despite having only 185 section tyres, was so much more secure... understeer right off the menu and oversteer only if you drove it like an absolute thug. I reckon that chassis could take a LOT more power... I did once see someone had built one with a twin-turbo 4-litre making IIRC about 420bhp... that could have been interesting...J4CKO said:
Want the P6 a much more expensive car with fancy rear suspension ?
More Comparable with the Sterling V6
De Dion tube rear end, like the old Astons and Alfa Romeos, but to a better design than either - the others both (IIRC) lacked a sliding joint and so were prone to locking up, which in the Alfa 75's case gave it a bit of a reputation for snap oversteer. Here's the P6's: More Comparable with the Sterling V6
Not really comparable with anything to emanate from the Midlands since. Certainly not the FWD 800/Sterling.
The 800s had double wishbones on the front, and could be made to handle as the last Vitesse Sport 2.0 turbo
had a decent reputation, for going where it was pointed.
The Monty/Maestro Turbos where (like all other A-R group products at the time) were put together by people that basically didn't care, unless you were very lucky, at the garage I worked for all Sporty ARG cars had their geometry and tracking checked, i'd say 80% came off the transporter with all four wheels pointing in different directions, I always fitted a Moto-build spring set to my demos, which lowered the front by 25mm and the back by 15mm and it made a huge difference, set up properly there weren't many comparible cars at the time that would hold a candle to them.
And yes i'd include the 205/309GTis in that statement, as I know for a fact that ARGs press dept didn't do anything to the cars so it was pot luck, and once people start throwing mud around it sticks.
My first demo Maestro Turbo had the spring kit fitted, and the motor tweaks (waste-gate actuator, Carb needle and banded intercooler) which gave about 180bhp reliably, as well as the Geo/Tracking set and it went in a straight line and only torque steered if really provoked!
I found that if you could get people in the seat to actually drive it, they usually came away very impressed, I did a couple of closed track days with AR for "good customers" the factory hired a load of Pro drivers and had obviously spent a bit of effort to make sure they were set-up properly, it was in the spring of 1990 just after the launch of the 200/400 series and strangely most people only wanted a go in the Maestro Turbo, after getting blitzed by it when they were driving the 200/400/800, and the "Pro Drivers" loved it only criticizing
the brakes which tended to fade after 4-5 spirited laps!
had a decent reputation, for going where it was pointed.
The Monty/Maestro Turbos where (like all other A-R group products at the time) were put together by people that basically didn't care, unless you were very lucky, at the garage I worked for all Sporty ARG cars had their geometry and tracking checked, i'd say 80% came off the transporter with all four wheels pointing in different directions, I always fitted a Moto-build spring set to my demos, which lowered the front by 25mm and the back by 15mm and it made a huge difference, set up properly there weren't many comparible cars at the time that would hold a candle to them.
And yes i'd include the 205/309GTis in that statement, as I know for a fact that ARGs press dept didn't do anything to the cars so it was pot luck, and once people start throwing mud around it sticks.
My first demo Maestro Turbo had the spring kit fitted, and the motor tweaks (waste-gate actuator, Carb needle and banded intercooler) which gave about 180bhp reliably, as well as the Geo/Tracking set and it went in a straight line and only torque steered if really provoked!
I found that if you could get people in the seat to actually drive it, they usually came away very impressed, I did a couple of closed track days with AR for "good customers" the factory hired a load of Pro drivers and had obviously spent a bit of effort to make sure they were set-up properly, it was in the spring of 1990 just after the launch of the 200/400 series and strangely most people only wanted a go in the Maestro Turbo, after getting blitzed by it when they were driving the 200/400/800, and the "Pro Drivers" loved it only criticizing
the brakes which tended to fade after 4-5 spirited laps!
Edited by tdm34 on Friday 2nd May 16:45
The SD1 was built in Solihull and it was spectacularly unreliable!
Longbridge and Cowley certainly had some issues, but by the late 80s the cars were at least as good as the compeition in terms of mechanical reliability. I did a LOT of miles back then and the only two brands to leave me stranded by the wayside were Ford and Audi. I never once had a Austin Rover product die on me, over hundreds of thiusands of miles.
I personally took new delivery of the following AR cars in that time:
MG Maestro 1600
MG Montego Turbo
MG Maestro Turbo
Rover 825 Sterling
Rover 820 Vitesse (hatch)
Rover 820 Vitesse Sport ( 200bhp) Saloon
My ex wife also ran MG Metros and an Austin Maestro 1600 Mayfair in the period.
Two colleagues ran MG Montego and Maestro Efis, plus a Rover 820 Vitesse Sport
Not one of them ever broke down and in total those cars must have covered nearly 700k miles in the period.
The Fords and the Audi? Well lets just say we got on first name terms with the AA guys in our area for the Audi, , and one Ford was eventually dumped back at the dealership ( Scorpio) and the Sierra XR4x4 needed all new suspension bushes, a new gearbox and a whole throttlebody/injection unit in the first 20k miles.....
There were niggles with the AR products. Things squeeked and rattled on hot days and the Maestros in particular were prone to A and C pillar rust at the seam. The Rovers were OK, but the headgasket on the T16 engine used to weap oil at the fron rh corner of the block ( messy, but not a failure per se).
But our company BMWs were beset with electrical gremlins, our Astra GTEs used to unbolt their front suspension all by themselves ( and the paint rubbed off) and as for the Peugeots ( 205 GTI and 405Mi16) both had major major brake problems that took ages to rectify. They both rusted too.
I do love Rover P6s, but really you are not comparing eggs with eggs. They dont handle, and they don't go unless you mod them a lot, or wait for the thing to rust itself away to Lotus style lightness!
Longbridge and Cowley certainly had some issues, but by the late 80s the cars were at least as good as the compeition in terms of mechanical reliability. I did a LOT of miles back then and the only two brands to leave me stranded by the wayside were Ford and Audi. I never once had a Austin Rover product die on me, over hundreds of thiusands of miles.
I personally took new delivery of the following AR cars in that time:
MG Maestro 1600
MG Montego Turbo
MG Maestro Turbo
Rover 825 Sterling
Rover 820 Vitesse (hatch)
Rover 820 Vitesse Sport ( 200bhp) Saloon
My ex wife also ran MG Metros and an Austin Maestro 1600 Mayfair in the period.
Two colleagues ran MG Montego and Maestro Efis, plus a Rover 820 Vitesse Sport
Not one of them ever broke down and in total those cars must have covered nearly 700k miles in the period.
The Fords and the Audi? Well lets just say we got on first name terms with the AA guys in our area for the Audi, , and one Ford was eventually dumped back at the dealership ( Scorpio) and the Sierra XR4x4 needed all new suspension bushes, a new gearbox and a whole throttlebody/injection unit in the first 20k miles.....
There were niggles with the AR products. Things squeeked and rattled on hot days and the Maestros in particular were prone to A and C pillar rust at the seam. The Rovers were OK, but the headgasket on the T16 engine used to weap oil at the fron rh corner of the block ( messy, but not a failure per se).
But our company BMWs were beset with electrical gremlins, our Astra GTEs used to unbolt their front suspension all by themselves ( and the paint rubbed off) and as for the Peugeots ( 205 GTI and 405Mi16) both had major major brake problems that took ages to rectify. They both rusted too.
I do love Rover P6s, but really you are not comparing eggs with eggs. They dont handle, and they don't go unless you mod them a lot, or wait for the thing to rust itself away to Lotus style lightness!
P6s don't handle? I must have imagined the eight years I spent caning the arse off mine. The SD1 was certainly not without problems, but not all were built in Solihull. Castle Bromwich and Cowley built a large number of them. However, by this point, Solihull was being subjected to damaging changes by BL management, including a new paint facility which used duff paint and very much less of it than formerly the case. Having stripped some P6 panels back to bare metal for painting, I can tell you that the paint on those was incredibly thick, so many coats, and I never once got a noticeable stone-chip mark back to bare metal on mine. The SD1's paint was KitKat wrapper thin by comparison.
RoverP6B said:
P6s don't handle? I must have imagined the eight years I spent caning the arse off mine. The SD1 was certainly not without problems, but not all were built in Solihull. Castle Bromwich and Cowley built a large number of them. However, by this point, Solihull was being subjected to damaging changes by BL management, including a new paint facility which used duff paint and very much less of it than formerly the case. Having stripped some P6 panels back to bare metal for painting, I can tell you that the paint on those was incredibly thick, so many coats, and I never once got a noticeable stone-chip mark back to bare metal on mine. The SD1's paint was KitKat wrapper thin by comparison.
If you think the management in BL days were bad, let's see if Andy will put up that fantastic dissection of the wonderful way BMW Management ran Rover into the ground!!
Over to you Andy.......
tdm34 said:
If you think the management in BL days were bad, let's see if Andy will put up that fantastic dissection
of the wonderful way BMW Management ran Rover into the ground!!
Over to you Andy.......
I cant do that till next week or so. Moving house at the moment ( boxes boxes everywhere! ). of the wonderful way BMW Management ran Rover into the ground!!
Over to you Andy.......
I will get to it when I can!
tdm34 said:
If you think the management in BL days were bad, let's see if Andy will put up that fantastic dissection
of the wonderful way BMW Management ran Rover into the ground!!
Over to you Andy.......
BMW were very bad too and I deeply resent what they did to Rover. Rover never recovered from losing its independence. The 1967 merger with Triumph and Leyland to form the Leyland Motor Company was bad: the following year's merger with the BMC+Jaguar conglomerate "British Motor Holdings" was disastrous. The Phoenix Four did some good, although their financial scruples were lacking. If they'd had more development capital and been able to bring the nearly-completed 45 replacement to market in 2006, I think they'd have survived.of the wonderful way BMW Management ran Rover into the ground!!
Over to you Andy.......
As it is, Tata is sitting on the brand. I understand from JLR that Ratan Tata is keen to do something with the brand but feels it's a bit early yet in terms of public perception of the brand.
RoverP6B said:
tdm34 said:
Only the Vitesse got the twin plenum motor, as far as I know
I think the twin plenum came from the racing version, as competed in successfully by Walkinshaw etc... most Vitesses were single plenum though.tali1 said:
Oddly once the twin plenum was introduced the standard Vitesse sales fell badly- and it became rarer during that time period C to E reg .Same thing seems to have happened to Montego Turbo once Maestro Turbo was introduced.
Did total Vitesse sales including the TP fall, or did more customers simply opt for the more powerful engine?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...
For such a rover bore you seem to be forgetting that the 800 was a capable car, Tony pond set the 100mph average barrier around the IOM TT course and his record stood for 21 years, hugely impressive for a standard car that was in no way designed to do that.Personally I'd love a MG turbo of some description to run alongside the M5, it's just finding a good enough example.
Sir Cato said:
For such a rover bore you seem to be forgetting that the 800 was a capable car, Tony pond set the 100mph average barrier around the IOM TT course and his record stood for 21 years, hugely impressive for a standard car that was in no way designed to do that.
Personally I'd love a MG turbo of some description to run alongside the M5, it's just finding a good enough example.
Have you forgotten that it used a Japanese platform, shell, panels and drivetrain? Or that the V6 was incredibly prone to head gasket failure? It was also - the indignity! - front-wheel-drive, in a market which has historically demanded (and continues to do so today) rear-wheel-drive. Tony Pond's achievement is indisputable but I rather wonder if he was out-driving the car.Personally I'd love a MG turbo of some description to run alongside the M5, it's just finding a good enough example.
RoverP6B said:
Have you forgotten that it used a Japanese platform, shell, panels and drivetrain? Or that the V6 was incredibly prone to head gasket failure? It was also - the indignity! - front-wheel-drive, in a market which has historically demanded (and continues to do so today) rear-wheel-drive. Tony Pond's achievement is indisputable but I rather wonder if he was out-driving the car.
The original Honda V6 was near bullet proof, the KV6 fitted towards the end of the line models was basically a test bed for the R75, they sorted the issues before it ended up in that car.. Yes it was based on a Honda (you say it like it's bad!) didn't share that many panels with the Honda Legend if any, had a much nicer interior and those post 1996 Vitesse 200PS turbos were fantastic, handled extremely well, were genuinely quick and a great place to be in. So there.
Kidders said:
The original Honda V6 was near bullet proof, the KV6 fitted towards the end of the line models was basically a test bed for the R75, they sorted the issues before it ended up in that car..
Yes it was based on a Honda (you say it like it's bad!) didn't share that many panels with the Honda Legend if any, had a much nicer interior and those post 1996 Vitesse 200PS turbos were fantastic, handled extremely well, were genuinely quick and a great place to be in. So there.
The original 2.5 Honda V6 was a total and utter basket case! The 2.7 was rather better sorted. The 800 was absolutely covered in Honda stickers on door shutfaces and the like and the interior was pretty cheap'n'nasty - Rover needed to be going after Jaguar and Mercedes, not the Ford Scorpio/Vauxhall Carlton market! Hell, even they were rear-wheel-drive...Yes it was based on a Honda (you say it like it's bad!) didn't share that many panels with the Honda Legend if any, had a much nicer interior and those post 1996 Vitesse 200PS turbos were fantastic, handled extremely well, were genuinely quick and a great place to be in. So there.
RoverP6B said:
tali1 said:
Oddly once the twin plenum was introduced the standard Vitesse sales fell badly- and it became rarer during that time period C to E reg .Same thing seems to have happened to Montego Turbo once Maestro Turbo was introduced.
Did total Vitesse sales including the TP fall, or did more customers simply opt for the more powerful engine?RoverP6B said:
Kidders said:
The original Honda V6 was near bullet proof, the KV6 fitted towards the end of the line models was basically a test bed for the R75, they sorted the issues before it ended up in that car..
Yes it was based on a Honda (you say it like it's bad!) didn't share that many panels with the Honda Legend if any, had a much nicer interior and those post 1996 Vitesse 200PS turbos were fantastic, handled extremely well, were genuinely quick and a great place to be in. So there.
The original 2.5 Honda V6 was a total and utter basket case! The 2.7 was rather better sorted. The 800 was absolutely covered in Honda stickers on door shutfaces and the like and the interior was pretty cheap'n'nasty - Rover needed to be going after Jaguar and Mercedes, not the Ford Scorpio/Vauxhall Carlton market! Hell, even they were rear-wheel-drive...Yes it was based on a Honda (you say it like it's bad!) didn't share that many panels with the Honda Legend if any, had a much nicer interior and those post 1996 Vitesse 200PS turbos were fantastic, handled extremely well, were genuinely quick and a great place to be in. So there.
There were no head gasket issues, but it had one Achilles heel, which I found out to my cost. Coming home one evening I pulled up to a petrol station, when I noticed a small escape of steam from the front grille area of the car, so I lifted the bonnet to see a small stream of water from the radiator, so I dashed into the garage and bought a can of radweld, gave it a good shake and poured it into the header tank, and topped up with water
Well all was well until I'd done about 10-15 miles, I noticed the temp gauge steadily climbing! So I indicated left and rolled onto the hard shoulder in a cloud of steam, as I rolled to a stop the engine just locked up! Yes it'd seized!!
Called the RAC, and after 40 minute the van appeared, upon explaining to the guy what'd happened he asked was it the V6?
I said yes, he said you should've read the radweld instructions on the back of the bottle (I'd used it before on other cars so thought there was no problem) he had a bottle in the van and handed it to me, and there in tiny letters was the legend
"Do not use in Rover 825/827 or Honda Legends". Apparently it blocks some key waterways and basically massively overheats the engine, leading to complete meltdown!!
I sourced another engine and fitted it, but i stripped the seized unit to see if there was any useable bits, and even though the engine had massively overheated the head gaskets were intact!
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff