RE: Rover 75 V8: Spotted
Discussion
Jimmy Recard said:
Welshbeef said:
MG used the BMW 2.5TD unit which is a gem
What’s the point in making things like this up?Maybe you should check he facts before posting up eh.
Back in he day my old man nearly bought one with the diesel BMW engine unit.
It’s the engine from the 325 TDS and 525tds
Welshbeef said:
http://forums.mg-rover.org/mg-zt-rover-75-sponsore...
Maybe you should check he facts before posting up eh.
Back in he day my old man nearly bought one with the diesel BMW engine unit.
It’s the engine from the 325 TDS and 525tds
I’ll check he facts. You’re still wrong. I don’t know why you make things like this up - it seems totally pointless to me.Maybe you should check he facts before posting up eh.
Back in he day my old man nearly bought one with the diesel BMW engine unit.
It’s the engine from the 325 TDS and 525tds
Welshbeef said:
Maybe you should check he facts before posting up eh.
Back in the day my old man nearly bought one with the diesel BMW engine unit.
It’s the engine from the 325 TDS and 525tds
Not quite. Without wishing to get too beardy, the 2.0 4-cylinder M57 diesel was used in Rovers, not the older 2.5 litre M51 unit.Back in the day my old man nearly bought one with the diesel BMW engine unit.
It’s the engine from the 325 TDS and 525tds
That M51 engine was (I think) used by VX/Opel in the Omega, and a nice lazy old thing it was, too.
Happy to stand corrected.
Mr2Mike said:
dme123 said:
I had a Jaguar XJ12, one of the last ones with a 6 litre V12 with 320bhp and well over 500NM of torque from 1500RPM to not far off the redline. I think we can all agree this is a wildly superior engine to this wheezing 280bhp thing.
Another 4 cylinders and 1.4 litres for an extra 40bhp, and god knows how much extra weight and size? "Wildly superior" are not the words that immediately spring to mind. It was more their comparative need for more than four gears I was getting at though. If the 6 litre V12 could do with more than four then you can be quite assured that the 260bhp V8 does too. The 240bhp 4.0 I6 in the XJ6 is a closer comparison to this feeble eight, and that REALLY needed more gears.
Edited by dme123 on Sunday 3rd December 13:30
Jimmy Recard said:
I’ll check he facts. You’re still wrong. I don’t know why you make things like this up - it seems totally pointless to me.
Perhaps more likely to be believed than saying you're buying an imaginary Porsche. On the subject of these V8 75's, I've only seen one on the roads that I can remember, and the b
d driving it was holding up traffic on the A69, doing 60mph in one of the two overtaking lanes Eastbound from Haltwistle. My enduring memory of these is that fking elephant race!As for four speeds in a V8 auto, they're usable but hardly high tech or modern. My old XJ8 was a 4.0 V8 making something like 300bhp and 300 ft/lbs which was effectively a four speed. It was a five speed ZF transmission but it only used first in sport mode, otherwise it set off in second which was pretty pleasant - it gave the sensation of gliding away from a stop in one long gear. I couldn't really fault the transmission for cruising. I wouldn't wish it on anything with performance aspirations and I could weep that the X100 XK was lumbered with this rather than a manual.
MG Rover really messed up wasting time on a car like this and the sports car thing whatever it was called when they should have concentrated on replacing the 25 and 45. Its the same from the BMW time really. They didnt need the 75 they needed new small cars.
The interior colour scheme of that car for sale is horrendous.
The interior colour scheme of that car for sale is horrendous.
craigjm said:
MG Rover really messed up wasting time on a car like this and the sports car thing whatever it was called when they should have concentrated on replacing the 25 and 45. Its the same from the BMW time really. They didnt need the 75 they needed new small cars.
The interior colour scheme of that car for sale is horrendous.
Well, my thought had always been if you're going to spend time money and resources converting a platform from FWD to RWD, why then only sell it with the engine that nobody will buy? Why didn't they then sell the entire range as RWD? I know it wasn't actually properly productionised and bits had to be cut out and replaced by hand, but they could have spent money doing that instead of some of the pointless projects they indulged in. The interior colour scheme of that car for sale is horrendous.
kambites said:
I'd imagine the answer is: because all of their drivetrains from their other cars were engineered for FWD and they didn't have the money to develop longitudinal gearboxes, etc.
I suppose there might have also been an element of protectionism in the BMW brand heirachy.
They weren't owned by BMW by then, and I'm really talking about the MG ZT, the rights to which they owned outright so could do with what they wanted. The ZT was sold supposedly on its sporting characteristics, which might have worked better with RWD than FWD, who knows?I suppose there might have also been an element of protectionism in the BMW brand heirachy.
king arthur said:
They weren't owned by BMW by then, and I'm really talking about the MG ZT, the rights to which they owned outright so could do with what they wanted. The ZT was sold supposedly on its sporting characteristics, which might have worked better with RWD than FWD, who knows?
But the MGZT was largely just a 75 with an MG badge, a body kit and sports suspension. The 75 was very much developed under BMW ownership; by the time they were independent again there was no way they had the cash to develop a brand new platform let alone a new platform and drivetrain. Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff