Omg Rover 75!

[[TW]Fox]

You're partly right, The 260 was far better than the 5 series

Once I've finished rolling around on the floor in fits of laughter, I might think of a reply to this.

 

[FC1983]

The seats in the 75 don't look too nice, are they as bad as they look?

 

[Fantana]

Once I've finished rolling around on the floor in fits of laughter, I might think of a reply to this.

In what way? The chassis of the 260 was a far better design than that of the, at time of release, 8 year old E39 chassis which only received a cosmetic lift in 2000?

Sure, in terms of performance it was no M5 beater, in a straight line anway. I'm unsure as to why this is funny? An MG, not BMW, fettled chassis with input from F1 experts and 8 years worth of automotive technology improvements meant what, the chassis was worse?
I'd probably, no definately, choose a 260 ZT over the far more common and blandish looks of the E39, in all honesty

 

[Mr_Sukebe]

The seats in the 75 don't look too nice, are they as bad as they look?

Re-read my old post. The 75 IMO had seats with comfort on par with virtually anything I've come across. Used to eat long distances for breakfast.

As Fox has rightly pointed out, it was designed as a luxury cruiser and did the job as well as virtually anything available. For one thing, it didn't have "sporting" pretensions like say a Bimmer or Audi, meaning the suspension isn't as brittle and unforgiving.

 

[FC1983]

Re-read my old post. The 75 IMO had seats with comfort on par with virtually anything I've come across. Used to eat long distances for breakfast.

As Fox has rightly pointed out, it was designed as a luxury cruiser and did the job as well as virtually anything available. For one thing, it didn't have "sporting" pretensions like say a Bimmer or Audi, meaning the suspension isn't as brittle and unforgiving.

Yeah just saw that, I was just surprised they didn't look very supportive, I suppose they don't have to be for sitting on the motorway all day. Wouldn't mind a journey in them if they are that comfortable. The back ones do look nice though.

 

[[TW]Fox]

In what way? The chassis of the 260 was a far better design than that of the, at time of release, 8 year old E39 chassis which only received a cosmetic lift in 2000?

The E39 was at the time, and by many still today, regarded as one of the best chassis on any car of its type. A fettled version of an FWD platform does not come close. Take off your rose tinted specs and you'll realise this, especially when you consider the fact many people reckon the best thing about the ZT V8 was the charm you got from the fact it was pretty crude..

I'd probably, no definately, choose a 260 ZT over the far more common and blandish looks of the E39, in all honesty

Becuase looks have everything to do with chassis design

 

[Fantana]

The E39 was at the time, and by many still today, regarded as one of the best chassis on any car of its type. A fettled version of an FWD platform does not come close. Take off your rose tinted specs and you'll realise this, especially when you consider the fact many people reckon the best thing about the ZT V8 was the charm you got from the fact it was pretty crude..



Becuase looks have everything to do with chassis design

On two counts can you provide me with details as to who claimed the 5 chassis was so good with proof, and can you also show me where the FWD chassis of the ZT was fettled. It wasnt. In fact it cost tens of millions to develop the RWD chassis for the ZT 260, it was purely the fact that the FWD version had such a large transmission tunnel that the idea even became captive when BMW chucked Rover and the ZT260 idea was born.

"The geometry of the ZT's MacPherson strut front suspension has been tuned to the requirements of the new chassis platform. A new design of upright is matched to Eibach linear rate springs and a new, larger diameter anti-roll bar... The design employs a significantly revised subframe, which provides a stable operating platform for the chassis while also acting as a key loadpath in the event of a major impact." Significantly, the rear suspension was much altered, too: "A new multi-link rear suspension has been developed specifically for the ZT 260 V8. A new six-mount subframe houses the Hyrdratrak® differential, while each wheel is located by three lateral links (two steel and one light-alloy) and a light alloy trailing arm. Compound rate springs, also sourced from race specialist Eibach, work in conjunction with Bilstein monotube dampers to provide excellent wheel control. Roll behaviour is controlled by a new anti-roll bar."

Thats a far cry of chassis design that no E39 could compare to, so there are no rose tinted spectacles here, more so, perhaps you, as I see from your sig that you have one.

I'd also choose a 260ZT over a 5 because they not only look better, are rarer and have a superior chassis. All in all, a good buy. Shame they are still so expensive.

 

[Pajeh]

Quite like the 75/ZT saw this the other day, shame it wasnt released.

 

[[TW]Fox]

On two counts can you provide me with details as to who claimed the 5 chassis was so good with proof

How about.. errr virtually everything ever written about the E39? Given its you who is making the bold claims perhaps it should be up to you to prove the MG ZT is some sort of hidden BMW beating wonder chassis as you seem think it is.

I'm not doubting the merits of the V8, infact I like them, but it's no 5 Series.

and can you also show me where the FWD chassis of the ZT was fettled. It wasnt. In fact it cost tens of millions to develop the RWD chassis for the ZT 260, it was purely the fact that the FWD version had such a large transmission tunnel that the idea even became captive when BMW chucked Rover and the ZT260 idea was born.

The MG ZT V8 has a modified MG ZT chassis. They did not exactly start from scratch, did they?

I'd also choose a 260ZT over a 5 because they not only look better, are rarer and have a superior chassis. All in all, a good buy. Shame they are still so expensive.

Rarer eh - that'll be becuase they are quite crude and were sold for only a short period before the entire company went down the tube. Besides, there isnt exactly a 540i parked on every street corner, is there?

 

[v0n]

Oh you mean like this shockingly old, uber high mileage, poverty spec example which will probably only go for £5500?

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ROVER-75-CONN...ryZ18262QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

You keep pointing at ebay like it was price indicator. You do understand difference between what 104,000 mile, irregularly serviced car fetches at, yet unfinished internet auction and the actual second hand value?

 

[Fantana]

How about.. errr virtually everything ever written about the E39?

Yup, I too had trouble finding anything concrete about its wonderful chassis, so i'll give you a bit longer. I'm not trying to argue here, I just think this car is massively underrated, partly becuase there are not enough about I guess.

I'm not doubting the merits of the V8, infact I like them, but it's no 5 Series.

Why not? What areas does it not match it in?

The MG ZT V8 has a modified MG ZT chassis. They did not exactly start from scratch, did they?

As quoted earlier, this is completely inaccurate. The chassis is 100% revised and was the first mass produced car to ever have a fully digitised chassis.

Rarer eh - that'll be becuase they are quite crude and were sold for only a short period before the entire company went down the tube. Besides, there isnt exactly a 540i parked on every street corner, is there?

An interesting statement at best, considering:-

....was actually any good - infact, pretty damn good.

Real shame as it was one of the proper casualities of the MG Rover debacle. Great car, marketed by idiots. In ZT form it goes a long way towards becoming a decent Sport saloon

 

[Fantana]

You keep pointing at ebay like it was price indicator. You do understand difference between what 104,000 mile, irregularly serviced car fetches at, yet unfinished internet auction and the actual second hand value?

I've linked to ebay once in this thread and even then it was tongue in cheek. Congratulations.

 

[[TW]Fox]

Why not? What areas does it not match it in?

What areas DOES it match it in?

As quoted earlier, this is completely inaccurate. The chassis is 100% revised and was the first mass produced car to ever have a fully digitised chassis.

re vise noun

–verb (used with object) 1. to amend or alter: to revise one's opinion.
2. to alter something already written or printed, in order to make corrections, improve, or update: to revise a manuscript.

An interesting statement at best, considering:-

Yea, and? It does, it's not a bad car, its a good car. Doesn't mean it's equal to a 5!

 

[Fantana]

What areas DOES it match it in?

Equipment, handling, looks, safety. I'm not going to mention power as I mentioned its not an M5 beater, but I say that in view of its speed and power, not any other area.

re vise noun

–verb (used with object) 1. to amend or alter: to revise one's opinion.
2. to alter something already written or printed, in order to make corrections, improve, or update: to revise a manuscript.

WOW an English teacher. You're correct. It has been revised. 100% updated and improved, thanks for the clarification.

Yea, and? It does, it's not a bad car, its a good car. Doesn't mean it's equal to a 5!

So what car, if any, could match the Holy Grail of the 5 series? Oh, I see a while back you test drove a Mondeo ST220 alongside the 5 and found very little comparables between the two.

The ZT 260 is in the same class as the 5 certainly, but its not behind it. It matches it or exceeds it with relative ease.

 

[Simon]

Nothings better than a BMW on this forum so don't waste your time

 

[Fantana]

Nothings better than a BMW on this forum so don't waste your time

I've cottoned on to that pretty quickly but thanks for the headsup

 

[[TW]Fox]

Equipment, handling, looks, safety. I'm not going to mention power as I mentioned its not an M5 beater, but I say that in view of its speed and power, not any other area.

Equipment, sure. Looks, subjective, handling, err no. Safety, err, what systems are fitted to the ZT? AFAIK it has no traction control, let alone stability control. Ok, this is a good thing in a performance car but it doesn't mean it has 'better safety' than a car with DSC etc.

WOW an English teacher. You're correct. It has been revised. 100% updated and improved, thanks for the clarification.

You denied it was an improved version of the FWD platform..

So what car, if any, could match the Holy Grail of the 5 series?

In its class/of similar type? Nothing. Thats the point.

The ZT 260 is in the same class as the 5 certainly, but its not behind it. It matches it or exceeds it with relative ease.

Rubbish. It's a quick, good looking Rover 75. Don't get carried away.

I like the ZT V8, I think it's damn good. In many ways its a shame it wasn't quite the BMW beater you think it was becuase it might have helped Rover out had it been.

 

[D4VE]

In what way? The chassis of the 260 was a far better design than that of the, at time of release, 8 year old E39 chassis which only received a cosmetic lift in 2000?

Sure, in terms of performance it was no M5 beater, in a straight line anway. I'm unsure as to why this is funny? An MG, not BMW, fettled chassis with input from F1 experts and 8 years worth of automotive technology improvements meant what, the chassis was worse?
I'd probably, no definately, choose a 260 ZT over the far more common and blandish looks of the E39, in all honesty

Go and sit in a 5 series, then sit in an MGZT.
The quality difference wont even begin to compare, Im afraid the 5 series is streets ahead.

But brand new MGZT V8s can now be picked up for less than a Golf so Im not slagging off the car, its just not a 5 series in terms of quality.

 

[Jonnycoupe]

The E39 was at the time, and by many still today, regarded as one of the best chassis on any car of its type.

You can say the same about the MG ZS too. But you wont thanks to your rose tinted glasses and will simply cast them off as facelifted 1992 Honda Civics, rather than sharing the same chassis as Evos 'one of the best driving cars of all time' which goes beyond the best handling FWD car said model used to be associated with, regardless of its age.

Its type is a motorway cruiser, there no real chassis dynamics to get excited about there anyway.

 

[v0n]

You can say the same about the MG ZS too. But you wont thanks to your rose tinted glasses and will simply cast them off as facelifted 1992 Honda Civics, rather than sharing the same chassis as Evos 'one of the best driving cars of all time' which goes beyond the best handling FWD car said model used to be associated with, regardless of its age.

Well, to be perfectly honest - it took 10 years to get that Civic chassis to handle really, really well. By that time the car around it was so old people just thought it was wiser putting their £16k elsewhere.