RE: Rover 75 V8: Guilty Pleasures
Discussion
rix said:
Numeric said:
So much wasted development cash!
Probably not THAT much wasted??!Edited by Numeric on Tuesday 5th May 20:38
Edited by Numeric on Tuesday 5th May 20:38
The thing was in development for years, the first external development contractor made a complete mess of it and every bit of modelling showed it to be nothing but a vanity project for the uncouth lout in charge. Every £ spent was money diverted away from RDX60 or the use of new diesel engines like the Fiat units - that god forbid company car drivers might actually have bought. And that before we factor in the man hours spent on it that could have been better used. Oddly I've been told that at the final curtain it seemed the uncouth lout was very concerned with whether his new V8 company hack had been finished...
I liked the idea of these more than the reality. MG Rover's management of the brand was shocking - they really had no idea about what it stood for, so you got cost-cutting and nonsense about 'value' rather than any attempt to make it superior to its competition. Basically they thought Rover was Austin.
The V8 wasn't a bad idea. The engineering wasn't bad. But it should have been a Rover first, not an MG, to capitalise on the desire for a modern SD1 or P6. It shouldn't have been cost-cut. Plastic wood indeed, and that hideous facelift bumper which simply doesn't fit - literally: you could pass a sandwich through the gap between it and the bodywork.
Give me that drivetrain in an early Oxford-made 75 and it would be a perfect Q car.
(Sometimes I think that the management at the time should have shut Austin and Longbridge down back in the 60s, before it dragged the entire BL edifice down with it. It was the albatross round the neck of an otherwise viable company with otherwise decent products. The rest might have been saved then.)
The V8 wasn't a bad idea. The engineering wasn't bad. But it should have been a Rover first, not an MG, to capitalise on the desire for a modern SD1 or P6. It shouldn't have been cost-cut. Plastic wood indeed, and that hideous facelift bumper which simply doesn't fit - literally: you could pass a sandwich through the gap between it and the bodywork.
Give me that drivetrain in an early Oxford-made 75 and it would be a perfect Q car.
(Sometimes I think that the management at the time should have shut Austin and Longbridge down back in the 60s, before it dragged the entire BL edifice down with it. It was the albatross round the neck of an otherwise viable company with otherwise decent products. The rest might have been saved then.)
I had a Trophy Blue MG ZT190+ ex demonstrator in 2003,looked very nice handled very well inspiring confidence with just a tadge of under steer when pushed, but there lay a problem, the car just didn't have the power you would have expected in a V6 2.5l. In my opnion the Mondeo ST200 that i previously chopped in for the MG was an better machine, though the MG edged it on looks and reliability my ST200 having spun the bottom end shells with less that 6k on the clock. All that being said i would have another MG as i think they have matured well.
I drove one once, in an evil, bad-for-the-eyes green, and was disappointed. I wanted it to be angrier and it was too refined but not in an iron-fist-velvet-glove way like a Bentley. It was just kind of nice.
I've never tried one of these: http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Volkswagen-Passat-4-0-W8... but the comparison would be interesting.
I've never tried one of these: http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Volkswagen-Passat-4-0-W8... but the comparison would be interesting.
briang9 said:
always loved these too, but did they not have even less power, 190 bhp if my memory works. There is a nice example in the Lakeland Motor Museum
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=3&a...
That's right Brian a claimed 190hp for the single plenum Vitesse, allegedly a bit more for the twin plenum. I imagine they were a reasonably quick car back then but certainly not now. Underneath the mechanicals were never what you'd call advanced, especially after the P6 yet I've always had a soft spot for them, they look and sound fantastic.http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=3&a...
My dad was saying some executives arrived at the company where he first worked in 1976 in brand new SD1s, and everyone gathered round for a look as they were so extraordinary compared to anything else on our roads at the time.
It all started when I got a Rover 75 1.8 as a company car, the only other one in the company was the marketing director's, everyone else either had an Astra or Vectra. I liked the 75 so much I bought a new ZT 260 for myself, still got it but it is in storage just now as I'm out the country. I would love the Rover 75 V8 front on the ZT I think it looks much better than the facelifted ZT, even the pre-facelift front is better Dreadnought Garage worked their magic on my ZT and took the bhp up to 400, she will red line in top gear which is about 178mph according to the GPS, not too bad
Our local undertaker bought a custom built R75 V8 limo (long wheelbase) and he got it out the factory gates just before they closed for good, beautiful looking car it is too.
Our local undertaker bought a custom built R75 V8 limo (long wheelbase) and he got it out the factory gates just before they closed for good, beautiful looking car it is too.
I'm getting ready to duck here. I did a stretch at Rover when the 75 was in production (also years before at BL...) and was on rigs n' rollers the day the first estate came through. Liked it. In our area can often be seen an immaculate V8 estate. Lovely.
PS edited to add.
Having read over the remainder of this thread (didn't realise it was so big, as I initially commented on my mobile) I will, in view of the rarity, have a really good look at that one in our area next time I see it (the few times it has been in the Health Centre car park). I know I spotted the twin rear exhausts but I will look very closely next time and even try to have a word with the owner. I have also spotted it up at Sainsbury's at Heyford Hill.
Pete
PS edited to add.
Having read over the remainder of this thread (didn't realise it was so big, as I initially commented on my mobile) I will, in view of the rarity, have a really good look at that one in our area next time I see it (the few times it has been in the Health Centre car park). I know I spotted the twin rear exhausts but I will look very closely next time and even try to have a word with the owner. I have also spotted it up at Sainsbury's at Heyford Hill.
Pete
Edited by Petemate on Thursday 7th May 16:37
Sadly, a mere 4 came to New Zealand so, talk about RARE! Aaron Sleight, a Kiwi who achieved 87 podium finishes in the Superbike World Champs in the 1990s and then went racing Porches, loves these cars. He tested one for a TV car programme over here (NZ) and got a real surprise - 'Fit for purpose'. It got to him. In think I could be tempted even in my £50k garage.
As a former P6 3500S owner, I rather understand the appeal of a moderately quick, refined, compact Rover barge that just hints at sportiness. Could never understand why they used the Ford Modular lump rather than the vastly more compact Chev LS series (or even a proper Rover V8, like the 5-litre lump Bowler were using in the Wildcat at the time), though - limited gearbox choice and physically enormous for not much displacement or power...
i have one of the MG estate versions of the '260' (along with a host of more exotic stuff, so i can't blame you). some day i will rebuild the engine to put out some decent power. its seriously under powered as is. sounds wonderful and handles fantastically. that engine can easily put out 400hp without a supercharger if built carefully with new heads, pistons and cams. i never really drive it (it has about 50k on the clock) but I won't part with it.
Usget said:
How cheaply could one be brought to 350-400bhp, do we think?
never understood why supercharging them was so popular. the 2v modular will easily make 370hp+ for about $3000 investment in heads, cams and pistons. and still look and drive totally standard. this engine begs to be blueprinted properly - the factory tolerances are atrocious. absolutely no need to supercharge it unless you want 5-600hp - at which point you'd better do something about that T5 box too.odl21 said:
i have one of the MG estate versions of the '260' (along with a host of more exotic stuff, so i can't blame you). some day i will rebuild the engine to put out some decent power. its seriously under powered as is. sounds wonderful and handles fantastically. that engine can easily put out 400hp without a supercharger if built carefully with new heads, pistons and cams. i never really drive it (it has about 50k on the clock) but I won't part with it.
The only problem with that is that better heads (more valves) are higher than the standard ones and will not fit under the bulkhead area! That Ford engine really was shoe-horned in to the available space!Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff