RE: Rover 75 V8: Guilty Pleasures

[soad]

grindmunky said:

ebay

£9k? That's a lot of dosh.

[Luther Blisset]

Usget said:

Love this! Proper sleeper. How cheaply could one be brought to 350-400bhp, do we think? All of the ZT tuning pages on Google seem to be from 2004...

Better off looking for Ford Modular 2v tuning.
Supposed to be pretty decent, though not a patch on the LSx

[Jim AK]

Saw & heard a silver one of these at Ashford Outlet Mall on Saturday.

Makes you realise just how bland our euro boxes are these days IMO

[J4CKO]

dme123 said:

I wanted to love these at the time and I just couldn't. There was a time when 256BHP, a four speed auto and 21MPG were acceptable and that time was 1986, maybe that fits in with the cheesy retro look. Hopeless and pointless, and at this point it does nothing that a V8 S-Type or an XJ8 can't do so very much better.

I think they are actually a very handsome car, the Jag X and S Type took the Cheesy Retro crown by shamelessly aping previous Jags, not sure why previous Rover the 75/MG actually looked like, or what else ?

SD1 - Nope
P6 - Nope
200/400/600/800 - Nope
P4 - Not really

P5 is the only one where I can see a dash of 75/ZT in the lines, in the right configuration it is a really good looking car, if of course the anti Rover blinkers are taken off, at worst it can be a bit tweedy looking in certain Rover versions.

My uncle had the V8 MG and loved it, remember the 260 was the first and intended entry level into the RWD range, other versions with 385 bhp were due but the company folded before that which is a shame.

I think decent ZT's and 75's, the V8's and the V6's particularly will eventually become collectible, the V8 already is I suppose.

remember as well, this year it is ten years since the last one was built, still see a few about so they cant have been that bad.

[LewG]

I always had a strange like for these too, yes they were always going to be the underdog compared to German rivals etc. but they have a certain spark that makes them strangely cooler.
Still rather have a Vitesse though!

[Matt Bird]

jamespink said:

Why the love for this over a Vandem Plas Rover SD1?

I didn't say over an SD1, I'd love one of those too!

[B10]

davea18h said:

It never ceases to amaze me the amount of people that feel they have to almost apologise or try to make an excuse for what were some very good cars, no they weren't the best but they were good. it was lack of investment, greed and bad decisions latterly that was cause of MG Rover's demise and also the reason that they got left behind. The 75/MGZT was a great car and drove beautifully as it was based on the BMW 5 series platform of the time so had a good start in the first place. Style wise It looked great for it's time though I could never,and still can't bring myself to like, the face lifted front end of this model, namely the headlights. The Audi=esque grill of the model shown I think looked cool though and remember something or other being said about it in the media at the time as the Audi grill had just grown in size too. (If I remember correctly...!)

It was NOT based upon the BMW 5 series. Every time the 75 is mentioned someone pipes up with this urban myth. It is related tom the myth that the UK is unable to design, engineer or build cars.
Please spend just 5 minutes researching this rather than doing a Clarkson and making it up. Rant over!
http://www.aronline.co.uk/blogs/facts-and-figures/...

[fushion julz]

davea18h said:

It never ceases to amaze me the amount of people that feel they have to almost apologise or try to make an excuse for what were some very good cars, no they weren't the best but they were good. it was lack of investment, greed and bad decisions latterly that was cause of MG Rover's demise and also the reason that they got left behind. The 75/MGZT was a great car and drove beautifully as it was based on the BMW 5 series platform of the time so had a good start in the first place. Style wise It looked great for it's time though I could never,and still can't bring myself to like, the face lifted front end of this model, namely the headlights. The Audi=esque grill of the model shown I think looked cool though and remember something or other being said about it in the media at the time as the Audi grill had just grown in size too. (If I remember correctly...!)

Sorry, was never based on a BMW platform of any variety...It was designed on a bespoke platform new from the ground up!
http://www.aronline.co.uk/blogs/cars/rover/75mg-zt...

[J4CKO]

Didn't they use a variant of BMW's "Z axle" as fitted to the 3 series of the time ?

Still must be annoyign for the designers to be told that their product was only any good as it was effectively a BMW Five series.

[myhandle]

myhandle said:

There is one of these in the family, owned from new, bought for a very good price soon after the demise of MG Rover. It handles well, makes a nice noise, and is quick enough. The gearbox could maybe do with another gear, but it's not really a problem. Brakes are ok. The car gets lots of compliments, it's small by today's standards and so pretty practical for town centres and so on, and is generally quite a pleasant car. I think people get a bit preoccupied about fuel economy; it doesn't seem that bad on fuel and it still has under 30,000 miles so is hardly being used as a taxi. It's no M3, but neither is it meant to be; I think users of this site would find it a better car than they might expect.

I've taken some pics : calling it a small Bentley is not so very wide of the mark. I've always referred to it as the micro-Arnage. It even has quite similar styling to the Arnage. There are times when a big car is great, and times when a smaller one is great - but a smaller car that makes the sound of a Mustang really appeals. V8 and rear wheel drive in a small package; MG Rover's engineers did a really good job of re-engineering a FWD car to become RWD. A favourite detail is that the engine still has the Mustang logo. This could be a Q car at its best; mine is standard, but as mentioned by another post, it's easy to supercharge these cars.

[myhandle]

[loose cannon]

soad said:

Cut price Bentley?

I'd rather have the rover quite frankly

[myhandle]

[url]

[myhandle]

[myhandle]

loose cannon said:

I'd rather have the rover quite frankly

The Rover handles better.

[anonymous-user]

J4CKO said:

dme123 said:

I wanted to love these at the time and I just couldn't. There was a time when 256BHP, a four speed auto and 21MPG were acceptable and that time was 1986, maybe that fits in with the cheesy retro look. Hopeless and pointless, and at this point it does nothing that a V8 S-Type or an XJ8 can't do so very much better.

I think they are actually a very handsome car, the Jag X and S Type took the Cheesy Retro crown by shamelessly aping previous Jags, not sure why previous Rover the 75/MG actually looked like, or what else ?

SD1 - Nope
P6 - Nope
200/400/600/800 - Nope
P4 - Not really

P5 is the only one where I can see a dash of 75/ZT in the lines, in the right configuration it is a really good looking car, if of course the anti Rover blinkers are taken off, at worst it can be a bit tweedy looking in certain Rover versions.

My uncle had the V8 MG and loved it, remember the 260 was the first and intended entry level into the RWD range, other versions with 385 bhp were due but the company folded before that which is a shame.

I think decent ZT's and 75's, the V8's and the V6's particularly will eventually become collectible, the V8 already is I suppose.

remember as well, this year it is ten years since the last one was built, still see a few about so they cant have been that bad.

Don't get me wrong I think the V6 versions are fantastic cars and while the styling is very tweedy indeed it is not as outright offensive as the pre facelift S-Type Jaguar. The V8 version I do take exception to; firstly because that sort of wasteful project with zero chance of return was idiotic for a company in the position of MG Rover at that time and secondly because they produced a car with mechanical specifications that were (generously) a decade out of date when the car was launched. If they'd squandered that money on getting more out of the KV6 via forced induction, or if they hadn't used such an antiquated engine and gearbox combination then I could applaud it as a last hurrah for MGR. The KV6 was a superb and characterful engine crying out for further development with applications across the range without a massive redesign for RWD.

Even in 2004 it was miles off the mark. Let's not forget they wanted £32,000 for this thing new. I seem to remember that at the time you could buy a 530d for the same price with the same performance but over twice the economy, and I'm sure a 545i wasn't miles out of reach. Weren't the brakes and steering criticised at the time for being uncompetitive too?

Other than novelty value I contend that a 2002 onwards S-Type with the 4.2 V8 and 300BHP and a 6 speed ZF Auto was a better prospect new and remains so now if you want a naff looking olde worlde "English" car. Even the 3.0 V6 had nearly as much power as this V8 for that matter.

[PoleDriver]

Shame they couldn't even make the panels fit!

[J4CKO]

dme123 said:

J4CKO said:

dme123 said:

I wanted to love these at the time and I just couldn't. There was a time when 256BHP, a four speed auto and 21MPG were acceptable and that time was 1986, maybe that fits in with the cheesy retro look. Hopeless and pointless, and at this point it does nothing that a V8 S-Type or an XJ8 can't do so very much better.

I think they are actually a very handsome car, the Jag X and S Type took the Cheesy Retro crown by shamelessly aping previous Jags, not sure why previous Rover the 75/MG actually looked like, or what else ?

SD1 - Nope
P6 - Nope
200/400/600/800 - Nope
P4 - Not really

P5 is the only one where I can see a dash of 75/ZT in the lines, in the right configuration it is a really good looking car, if of course the anti Rover blinkers are taken off, at worst it can be a bit tweedy looking in certain Rover versions.

My uncle had the V8 MG and loved it, remember the 260 was the first and intended entry level into the RWD range, other versions with 385 bhp were due but the company folded before that which is a shame.

I think decent ZT's and 75's, the V8's and the V6's particularly will eventually become collectible, the V8 already is I suppose.

remember as well, this year it is ten years since the last one was built, still see a few about so they cant have been that bad.

Don't get me wrong I think the V6 versions are fantastic cars and while the styling is very tweedy indeed it is not as outright offensive as the pre facelift S-Type Jaguar. The V8 version I do take exception to; firstly because that sort of wasteful project with zero chance of return was idiotic for a company in the position of MG Rover at that time and secondly because they produced a car with mechanical specifications that were (generously) a decade out of date when the car was launched. If they'd squandered that money on getting more out of the KV6 via forced induction, or if they hadn't used such an antiquated engine and gearbox combination then I could applaud it as a last hurrah for MGR. The KV6 was a superb and characterful engine crying out for further development with applications across the range without a massive redesign for RWD.

Even in 2004 it was miles off the mark. Let's not forget they wanted £32,000 for this thing new. I seem to remember that at the time you could buy a 530d for the same price with the same performance but over twice the economy, and I'm sure a 545i wasn't miles out of reach. Weren't the brakes and steering criticised at the time for being uncompetitive too?

Other than novelty value I contend that a 2002 onwards S-Type with the 4.2 V8 and 300BHP and a 6 speed ZF Auto was a better prospect new and remains so now if you want a naff looking olde worlde "English" car. Even the 3.0 V6 had nearly as much power as this V8 for that matter.

Yes, it was absolute folly, totally agree but it has left a slightly richer legacy and to be honest I don't think it would have made any difference in the grand scheme of things.

I am not sure the owners were hankering after a BMW when they bought one, sometimes people buy things because of what they arent, as much as what they are.

[joncon]

[Baryonyx]

I remember being stuck behind one of these on the A69, as it dawdled up the westbound overtaking sections. Wish the git had out his foot down! The only time I can recall seeing one on the roads and it was holding up traffic.