RE: Shed of the Week | MG ZT-T 160
Discussion
aestivator said:
I had it in my head that these were offered with an incredibly gutless V8, and sure enough:
https://www.pistonheads.com/buy/listing/14193637
Gentlemen drive V8 estates.
POA? F*ck off. https://www.pistonheads.com/buy/listing/14193637
Gentlemen drive V8 estates.
TREMAiNE said:
aestivator said:
I had it in my head that these were offered with an incredibly gutless V8, and sure enough:
https://www.pistonheads.com/buy/listing/14193637
Gentlemen drive V8 estates.
POA? F*ck off. https://www.pistonheads.com/buy/listing/14193637
Gentlemen drive V8 estates.
sjc said:
Bought my V6 version around 2 1/2 years ago for £1175 at 90k miles with complete FSH as my daily/work/carry anything leave anywhere hack. Now on 115,000 and other than a thermostat and two VIS motors £100) it’s needed nothing out the blue.Its actually too good for its purpose,so it’s now it’s going time be treated to some love. It recently had 4 Michelin PS4’s,now it’s having two front discs,sunroof drains unblocked,a nice stainless back box and a heater flap motor (12 quid off Ebay).
For me they are looking better with age,values for good ones are rising slightly,kit wise the top spec ones have all you need,and other than being a bit needy on fuel( mines a 180 V6 with a nannying auto), they’re pretty hard to fault.
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
I have to say that’s utterly glorious. And long before the automotive world had been taken over by tedious, soulless SUVs. Thems were the days. For me they are looking better with age,values for good ones are rising slightly,kit wise the top spec ones have all you need,and other than being a bit needy on fuel( mines a 180 V6 with a nannying auto), they’re pretty hard to fault.
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
PistonTim said:
TREMAiNE said:
aestivator said:
I had it in my head that these were offered with an incredibly gutless V8, and sure enough:
https://www.pistonheads.com/buy/listing/14193637
Gentlemen drive V8 estates.
POA? F*ck off. https://www.pistonheads.com/buy/listing/14193637
Gentlemen drive V8 estates.
Had a ZT T 190+ for several years. Put over 100,000 miles on it, practically without issue. It was a great steer, handled well, was well built and (being pre face lift) looked very much like a mini Bentley. ( OK, I'll nip to Specsavers! 
)
My only criticism was that it was a bit short geared and as a result was a bit thirsty even on a motorway run.
) My only criticism was that it was a bit short geared and as a result was a bit thirsty even on a motorway run.
aestivator said:
I had it in my head that these were offered with an incredibly gutless V8, and sure enough:
https://www.pistonheads.com/buy/listing/14193637
Gentlemen drive V8 estates.
'Fitted with Ford's superb modular 260bhp'https://www.pistonheads.com/buy/listing/14193637
Gentlemen drive V8 estates.
What does that mean - modular ?
Now that is top shedding! Definitely a contender for SOTY!
I had a green MG ZS 2.5 V6 which was a great underrated car, I'm in the market for an estate with the acquisition of a recent puppy and this would fit the bill perfectly... although Mrs HFM66 won't be too impressed though as it doesn't have 4 rings on the front grill....
I had a green MG ZS 2.5 V6 which was a great underrated car, I'm in the market for an estate with the acquisition of a recent puppy and this would fit the bill perfectly... although Mrs HFM66 won't be too impressed though as it doesn't have 4 rings on the front grill....
Rob 131 Sport said:
I find looking at these Rover 75 things quite upsetting, knowing that they substantially contributed to the ending of Rover. Moreover 22 years previously they produced the fantastic SD1.
I think I would reverse that. The SD1 looked good for its day but was a dogs dinner in terms of quality and I knew people at the time who swore at them and never got another Rover product, it could be argued that far from a great car it was borderline the vehicle that started the catastrophe. The 75 was a very good car, solidly engineered and well specced, it also had a clear definition of what it was looking to do. I still say few cars can match its long legged capability, if you want to drive 1000 miles a 75 td is a brilliant thing.
Its problem was the definition was wrong, it was harking to a time that had passed. Rather than glorious comfort and a calming cabin, people wanted audi and BMW with mediocre performance and rock hard suspension and big tyres that made a lot of road roar. Why? I have absolutely no idea.
The ZT was the correct reaction to that and produced on a shoestring budget it did well, but the demise of the company had long been in place, even before BMW, the Rover brand was dying and even MG was losing resonance. Far from being the cause of the issue, for me the 75/ZT pre facelift were the last unexpected and really decent hurrah.
Numeric said:
Rob 131 Sport said:
I find looking at these Rover 75 things quite upsetting, knowing that they substantially contributed to the ending of Rover. Moreover 22 years previously they produced the fantastic SD1.
I think I would reverse that. The SD1 looked good for its day but was a dogs dinner in terms of quality and I knew people at the time who swore at them and never got another Rover product, it could be argued that far from a great car it was borderline the vehicle that started the catastrophe. The 75 was a very good car, solidly engineered and well specced, it also had a clear definition of what it was looking to do. I still say few cars can match its long legged capability, if you want to drive 1000 miles a 75 td is a brilliant thing.
Its problem was the definition was wrong, it was harking to a time that had passed. Rather than glorious comfort and a calming cabin, people wanted audi and BMW with mediocre performance and rock hard suspension and big tyres that made a lot of road roar. Why? I have absolutely no idea.
The ZT was the correct reaction to that and produced on a shoestring budget it did well, but the demise of the company had long been in place, even before BMW, the Rover brand was dying and even MG was losing resonance. Far from being the cause of the issue, for me the 75/ZT pre facelift were the last unexpected and really decent hurrah.
Numeric said:
I think I would reverse that. The SD1 looked good for its day but was a dogs dinner in terms of quality and I knew people at the time who swore at them and never got another Rover product, it could be argued that far from a great car it was borderline the vehicle that started the catastrophe.
The 75 was a very good car, solidly engineered and well specced, it also had a clear definition of what it was looking to do. I still say few cars can match its long legged capability, if you want to drive 1000 miles a 75 td is a brilliant thing.
Its problem was the definition was wrong, it was harking to a time that had passed.
Well said. The SD1 was the right car, badly executed. The 75 was the wrong car, well-executed. As said, the 75 was developed at great expense and was very well engineered. Before the cost-cutting got its claws into it was also a very well-made car and non-K-Series ones especially have proven to be very long-lived. It was probably the best-made Rover, and quite possible the best all-round Rover, since the P5.The 75 was a very good car, solidly engineered and well specced, it also had a clear definition of what it was looking to do. I still say few cars can match its long legged capability, if you want to drive 1000 miles a 75 td is a brilliant thing.
Its problem was the definition was wrong, it was harking to a time that had passed.
But it was simply not in tune with the desires of its market or - arguably - Rover's history. Rover had already picked up a fuddy-duddy image by the late 1990s but it was not generally deserved, since the majority of Rovers (from the P4 to the SD1 inclusive) had been innovative in design and often cutting-edge in engineering. The P4, P6 and SD1 were all extremely adventurous in their styling - shockingly so in some cases.
By trying to be a sort of retro faux-National Trust evocation of a P4 in a conventional package the 75 turned that on its head.
2xChevrons said:
Numeric said:
I think I would reverse that. The SD1 looked good for its day but was a dogs dinner in terms of quality and I knew people at the time who swore at them and never got another Rover product, it could be argued that far from a great car it was borderline the vehicle that started the catastrophe.
The 75 was a very good car, solidly engineered and well specced, it also had a clear definition of what it was looking to do. I still say few cars can match its long legged capability, if you want to drive 1000 miles a 75 td is a brilliant thing.
Its problem was the definition was wrong, it was harking to a time that had passed.
It was probably the best-made Rover, and quite possible the best all-round Rover, since the P5.The 75 was a very good car, solidly engineered and well specced, it also had a clear definition of what it was looking to do. I still say few cars can match its long legged capability, if you want to drive 1000 miles a 75 td is a brilliant thing.
Its problem was the definition was wrong, it was harking to a time that had passed.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff