RE: Rover 75 V8: Spotted

[TooMany2cvs]

kambites said:

But the MGZT was largely just a 75 with an MG badge, a body kit and sports suspension.

Not even any "largely" about it. That's EXACTLY what it was. Same as the ZS was a 45, ZR was a 25 - with the same fripperies.

Re-engineering the entire 75/ZT range to be primarily RWD would have involved completely new drivetrains. The engines were designed for transverse installation. The transmissions were FWD. Sure, they could have raided the Freelander partsbin and put a viscous 4wd setup in - a la X-type - but... why?

[Jakg]

TooMany2cvs said:

The transmissions were FWD. Sure, they could have raided the Freelander partsbin and put a viscous 4wd setup in - a la X-type - but... why?

Could have?

At least one was made as a prototype - http://www.aronline.co.uk/ar-cars/mgr10-month-uniq...

[TooMany2cvs]

Jakg said:

TooMany2cvs said:

The transmissions were FWD. Sure, they could have raided the Freelander partsbin and put a viscous 4wd setup in - a la X-type - but... why?

Could have?

At least one was made as a prototype - http://www.aronline.co.uk/ar-cars/mgr10-month-uniq...

Interesting...

But...

AROnline said:

MG Rover was precluded from developing and selling a four-wheel-drive Rover under the terms of the agreement reached between the company and BMW AG back in 2000, but that condition did not extend to MG.

[gweaver]

Barchettaman said:

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.

My father had an Omega with the BMW 2.5TD engine. Not sure if it was the M51, but it was a nice, smooth engine from the era before the advent of horribly complicated diesels. Only 130bhp though, so it cruised well, but wasn't fast.

[8V085]

ash73 said:

Front bumper looks a different colour to me.

Welcome to the world of plastic bumpers. 1950's must be fun?

[craigjm]

king arthur said:

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.

They couldnt have done that for the reasons others have said. Even a half decent 25 replacement borrowing stuff from all over the place would have made more money than this.

[jason61c]

crap when they were new. Still crap now.

Its more SOTW than a 10k car.

[J4CKO]

jason61c said:

crap when they were new. Still crap now.

Its more SOTW than a 10k car.

Driven one have you ?

[givablondabone]

This is just a rather sad, but perhaps faintly interesting (to a few) anachronism.

Nothing more for me.

[xjay1337]

Jakg said:

Could have?

At least one was made as a prototype - http://www.aronline.co.uk/ar-cars/mgr10-month-uniq...

Weren't you the bloke who drove around in your ZT with the sat nav on EVERYWHERE ?

[anonymous-user]

Supposed to be quite a relaxing thing to drive. As per usual a totally underdeveloped project by the group!

[J4CKO]

My uncle had one,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqZZfXdm7D0

It sounded quite good, and no, you dont need to mention the plate.

[jason61c]

J4CKO said:

Driven one have you ?

One of the 260 things, yes.

[skyrover]

Nice engine... shame about the car

[Jimmy Recard]

skyrover said:

Nice engine... shame about the car

I'd have put that the other way round. With a better V8 and gearbox, this would've been a really great car.

[Welshbeef]

Yo-yo Loki what ever you are called can you try to be polite - why do you have an obsession with Porsche when you have never owned any. ...


Leave it alone young man move on its fecking boring hearing about a clapped out 944 scrap or repairs on ebay for a few bags of sand. Man up and get with current topic not 5 YEARS ago you manic you

[ruhall]

They actually weren't too bad when new but the original development was obviously restricted by MGR's financial position.

I know the Rover version was auto-only, but the MG was at least available with a manual and the choice of manual V8 saloons/estates was fairly limited when they were introduced. Generally fairly simple understressed cars, with drivetrain engineered for a possible supercharged model. However one of their problems, today, which hasn't really been covered, is the availability of V8-specific parts and, if it develops a fault, the interface between the Rover and Ford electrics. Okay when working but limited knowledge around to fix if it isn't.

I reckon they were under-rated when new, although the Rover version wasn't as appealing to enthusiastic drivers as the MG but was probably more suited to the 'older' type of Rover owner, ie proper Rovers, not rebadged Austins or Hondas.

Don't forget, BL, as they were then, had previous for changing a FWD car to RWD, namely the Triumph 1500/Dolomite from the early 70s.

[joncon]

I had the mg version , lhd with chromeactive paint,list new was over 33k
Had it from new, good fun car, not that fast but really good 4 seater cruiser
Bit lairy on the limit, mainly because it was a heavy old barge
Fuel economy not good
Rear tyres lasted 3k
Loved it

[itcaptainslow]

Went to look at a ZT V8 at Elite some years ago which was described as "mint" in the advert and priced accordingly.

It was anything but. The vendor told me my expectations were too high.

Nope, it's just a car that is advertised as "mint" should be, really, rather than needing a repaint on several panels and displaying evidence of a bump.

[angelicupstarts]

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.

just what i was thinking ...6l v12 .... 320 bhp ...not so hot !