Rover 75 V8 thoughts?

Author
Discussion

Paul-C

1,126 posts

226 months

Friday 24th November 2006
quotequote all
Fire99 said:
Al Rush said:
I'm surprised and pleased in a way, by the feeling that Rover still generates. Better to be looked over, than overlooked..


The 75 was a great car (or is).. And the 75 Coupé Concept..... cloud9


I was going to comment............until I looked at your profile. A biker who owns a GASP---VOLVO!!! Credibility straight out of the window matey

Fire99

9,844 posts

230 months

Friday 24th November 2006
quotequote all
Paul-C said:
Fire99 said:
Al Rush said:
I'm surprised and pleased in a way, by the feeling that Rover still generates. Better to be looked over, than overlooked..


The 75 was a great car (or is).. And the 75 Coupé Concept..... cloud9


I was going to comment............until I looked at your profile. A biker who owns a GASP---VOLVO!!! Credibility straight out of the window matey


Cheeky Bugger.. In my defence.. it is my hack for the band and my main car is a TVR..and the Volvo is a 850 T5.. which is a cool barge!!

The Defence rests its case!

And the 75 Coupé was still an oustandingly beautiful car!

Edited by Fire99 on Friday 24th November 14:47

mackie1

8,153 posts

234 months

Friday 24th November 2006
quotequote all
I love em. But I agree with the comments about the LS1, a much better choice of engine IMO. Maybe GM wasn't keen because it would have competed with the Monaro?

Paul-C

1,126 posts

226 months

Friday 24th November 2006
quotequote all
mackie1 said:
I love em. But I agree with the comments about the LS1, a much better choice of engine IMO. Maybe GM wasn't keen because it would have competed with the Monaro?



Good point. Probably correct? I describe my MG as a 'UK Holden HSV' as so similar in concept but obviously nowhere near as fast, handles as well or well built. Out of interest I have another HSV, a very late LS1 engined VT2 Club Sport (UK GTS equivalent) which also has a Kaaz diff further to earlier post about OE differentials.

Fire99

9,844 posts

230 months

Friday 24th November 2006
quotequote all
mackie1 said:
I love em. But I agree with the comments about the LS1, a much better choice of engine IMO. Maybe GM wasn't keen because it would have competed with the Monaro?



I don't doubt at the end of the day it was down to economic and political reasons..
I think by the time the V8 appeared, Rover's finances and market position was very shakey!

I recon if you could get one cheap enough and then supercharge it, it would be a cheap way to an extremely fast and comfortable exec.

Paul-C

1,126 posts

226 months

Friday 24th November 2006
quotequote all
Fire99 said:
mackie1 said:
I love em. But I agree with the comments about the LS1, a much better choice of engine IMO. Maybe GM wasn't keen because it would have competed with the Monaro?



I don't doubt at the end of the day it was down to economic and political reasons..
I think by the time the V8 appeared, Rover's finances and market position was very shakey!

I recon if you could get one cheap enough and then supercharge it, it would be a cheap way to an extremely fast and comfortable exec.


The problem is, as I mentioned before, they are limited to 155 mph and the 'main' UK tuner will not remove the limiter. I drive in Europe regularly and go to the Nurburgring at least twice a year so this has proved a pain to sort out. No problems getting my other cars derestricted even by Main Agents so have been miffed ever since.

Al Rush

4,761 posts

220 months

Friday 24th November 2006
quotequote all
Fire99 said:
mackie1 said:
I love em. But I agree with the comments about the LS1, a much better choice of engine IMO. Maybe GM wasn't keen because it would have competed with the Monaro?



I don't doubt at the end of the day it was down to economic and political reasons..
I think by the time the V8 appeared, Rover's finances and market position was very shakey!

I recon if you could get one cheap enough and then supercharge it, it would be a cheap way to an extremely fast and comfortable exec.


Like it. One supercharged 385 was built methinks, but as has been said, the options are either the Roush or the Dreadnought conversion. They're both different in nature. The Roush gives loads of bottom end grunt, tailing off higher into the rev band, whereas the Dreadnought (what a name) delivers in a more linear manner throughout the range. Horses for courses. Buy second hand from £10,500. Yum.

Kermit power

28,721 posts

214 months

Friday 24th November 2006
quotequote all
You can pick up a 260 for around £10k, and then get it supercharged for another £6k. No need to worry about upgrading the brakes and suspension first, because MGR did that for us. The 260 was always meant as a staging post on the way to the 385!

If you haven't got £6k to spare, then just find someone who has already got theirs converted, take it along to a private airfield and watch the look of bemusement on the face of an E39 M5 owner as he finds himself agreeing that these really were sensible cars to pitch head to head for a magazine article!

The article will be in next month's MG Enthusiast if anyone wants to find out more

mackie1

8,153 posts

234 months

Friday 24th November 2006
quotequote all
Does the ZT260 really have AP brakes as standard?

Al Rush

4,761 posts

220 months

Friday 24th November 2006
quotequote all
Mackie,

The ZT stops faster tham a Murcielago or an Evo V111, from 60 (@2.5 seconds). Its one of the few cars to have larger brakes at the rear than at the front too, to cope with braking under full load. The 325mm fronts have Conti Teves calipers, but the rears are AP's gripping 332mm discs in a manly fashion. Rear pads wear quite quickly as a result.

mackie1

8,153 posts

234 months

Friday 24th November 2006
quotequote all
Interesting. Doesn't that lead to interesting brake balance or is it all managed by the ABS?

iamthestig

13,107 posts

213 months

Friday 24th November 2006
quotequote all
Al Rush said:
Mackie,

Its one of the few cars to have larger brakes at the rear than at the front too, to cope with braking under full load. The 325mm fronts have Conti Teves calipers, but the rears are AP's gripping 332mm discs in a manly fashion. Rear pads wear quite quickly as a result.


Are the rears vented? only noticed cars with larger rear discs when the fronts are vented and the rears are solid, or twin pot fronts and single pot rear calipers.

red_rover

843 posts

221 months

Friday 24th November 2006
quotequote all
Paul-C said:
215cu said:


I'm sorry but that's total garbage. For a start, 75 build quality is superb, the German and Japanese didn't bestow this car with major awards for engineering and quality for nothing. The specialist dampers and suspension parts are for all four corners. As for dodgy rear-diffs, a Dana rear-diff that needs regular oil changes!!!!???? Pull the other one, it's nearly Christmas. The Dana rear-diffs are from the same Dana component group fitted to the Monaros/Holdens for Pete's sake. If they were fragile, why do they fit the same diff to the 500Bhp+ Holdens?


The manufacturer of the Dana differential state that it should have an oil change at the first 1000 miles and every 10,000 miles thereafter. There is an MG Forum somewhere which will give details but if not call Horners of Rochdale who supplied my car who will confirm on 0800 0287575 or Monkfish Performance (Holden / Monaro specialists) who will confirm service requirements for this diff if fitted to Monaros on 01280 841385. The diff on my Holden is a Kaaz. The build quality is not in the same league as the other cars. My drivers door handle jams for fun (overtravels), the wiring for the airbags under the seat is too short so the connector comes apart even if held together with plastic ties when seat is moved, the fuel pumps unscrew, the top heater hose bursts as weak..........I could go on but you get the picture. I own these cars and have first hand experience. Merry Christmas


If the 75 was such a poorly built car, how come it always did better than its direct rivals in JD power surveys?

Paul-C

1,126 posts

226 months

Friday 24th November 2006
quotequote all
red_rover said:


If the 75 was such a poorly built car, how come it always did better than its direct rivals in JD power surveys?


Because they never asked MG owners like me I guess

wee_skids

255 posts

222 months

Friday 24th November 2006
quotequote all
mackie1 said:
Interesting. Doesn't that lead to interesting brake balance or is it all managed by the ABS?


No, stability under hard braking is very good with the car sinking into the road as you slow. Very very effective and so long as you de-clucth at the very last minute you are unlikley to get the ABS working.
I would say the pads are too soft for decent power though, stanard pads are consumed very quickly on track even with the standard car.

Kermit power

28,721 posts

214 months

Saturday 25th November 2006
quotequote all
wee_skids said:
mackie1 said:
Interesting. Doesn't that lead to interesting brake balance or is it all managed by the ABS?


No, stability under hard braking is very good with the car sinking into the road as you slow. Very very effective and so long as you de-clucth at the very last minute you are unlikley to get the ABS working.
I would say the pads are too soft for decent power though, stanard pads are consumed very quickly on track even with the standard car.


I shall be trying out Dreadnought's new pads at the Brands Hatch marshals' trackday in January (which, btw, welcomes drivers willing to give worthy marshals high speed passenger laps if you fancied a little jaunt down south). If they can stop Paul in the blown beastie, I don't predict too many problems for me! Just got to remember to call back and order them!!