Rover 75, which engine?!
Discussion
Assuming all were similar bodywise, I'd opt for the V6. It was improved for the 75 from the original offering in the 800 and, in my opinion, is a better engine than the 1.8 and likely to be more reliable.
Having said that, you're talking about the newest of the three mentioned being 12 years old and the others 17 years old, so much will depend on how they've been treated/serviced etc during that time.
Having said that, you're talking about the newest of the three mentioned being 12 years old and the others 17 years old, so much will depend on how they've been treated/serviced etc during that time.
AreOut said:
I have shortlisted three cars, one is 2000 2.0 V6, second one is 2000 1.8 non-turbo and third one is 2005 1.8 turbo (restyled one), all manual gearboxes. I'd install LPG if that matters.
is 2005 worth ~1.500 EUR difference(I'm based in mainland Europe)?
Second generation KV6 engines (2.0- and 2.5-litre) use multi-layer head gaskets and don't tend to go wrong that way - VIS motors seem to be the main bugbear however.is 2005 worth ~1.500 EUR difference(I'm based in mainland Europe)?
Which one did you buy OP?
After what seems a (hugely enjoyable) lifetime of P6B's I went for a 75 9 years ago. 2.5 Auto from year 2005. Wonderful. You have to get one that has been rigorously maintained (as with anything else) and preferably low miles, but that isn't essential as the engine is good for high mileages.
In my 9 years with it there have been very few problems and no serious ones. Bags of power if you need it and all-day top speed cruising too. The 'Sport' on the auto changes the character effectively. Playing with the gear selector is great fun as you can pre-select to use the full rev range if that's your thing.
The model does have minor inconveniences but are easily overcome. As above, a rigorous maintenance history is vital on any car but especially on one this long in the tooth. There is not much difference between the 2.0 and 2.5 either in mpg or top performance but how it does it is markedly different. As you might think, the 2.0 feels busy, the 2.5 more refined. During my ownership I also had a well maintained 2.0 for a while as comparison and sold it a couple of years ago because I used the 2.5 much more. Dirt cheap at the moment.
In my 9 years with it there have been very few problems and no serious ones. Bags of power if you need it and all-day top speed cruising too. The 'Sport' on the auto changes the character effectively. Playing with the gear selector is great fun as you can pre-select to use the full rev range if that's your thing.
The model does have minor inconveniences but are easily overcome. As above, a rigorous maintenance history is vital on any car but especially on one this long in the tooth. There is not much difference between the 2.0 and 2.5 either in mpg or top performance but how it does it is markedly different. As you might think, the 2.0 feels busy, the 2.5 more refined. During my ownership I also had a well maintained 2.0 for a while as comparison and sold it a couple of years ago because I used the 2.5 much more. Dirt cheap at the moment.
Gassing Station | Rover | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff