Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[the alarming man]

Avoid like the plague.

My Directors got one.  Inherent brake pipe problem. Pipes were sourced by BMW and are prown to bad corrusion.

ALL needed to be replaced about a year ago to the tune of £900.00..personally I would have scrapped it.

Last week thermostat went...another £500.00 blown.

All at 60,000 ish miles.

Not sure I can agree with your comments;

Tis a Rover and not a BMW, Brake pipes can be quite simply made up, and I can not understand why a thermostat costs £500 even on the V6..............this is my opinion and I may be wrong......

no BMW owned the company at the time of the 75 as some engines in the range and i think it was diesels and the 6 pot petrol....

[tunnie]

Avoid like the plague.

My Directors got one.  Inherent brake pipe problem. Pipes were sourced by BMW and are prown to bad corrusion.

ALL needed to be replaced about a year ago to the tune of £900.00..personally I would have scrapped it.

Last week thermostat went...another £500.00 blown.

All at 60,000 ish miles.

Not sure I can agree with your comments;

Tis a Rover and not a BMW, Brake pipes can be quite simply made up, and I can not understand why a thermostat costs £500 even on the V6..............this is my opinion and I may be wrong......

no BMW owned the company at the time of the 75 as some engines in the range and i think it was diesels and the 6 pot petrol....

No, as TB said earlier, V6 was K series family 

[henryd]

Avoid like the plague.

My Directors got one.  Inherent brake pipe problem. Pipes were sourced by BMW and are prown to bad corrusion.

ALL needed to be replaced about a year ago to the tune of £900.00..personally I would have scrapped it.

Last week thermostat went...another £500.00 blown.

All at 60,000 ish miles.

Not sure I can agree with your comments;

Tis a Rover and not a BMW, Brake pipes can be quite simply made up, and I can not understand why a thermostat costs £500 even on the V6..............this is my opinion and I may be wrong......

no BMW owned the company at the time of the 75 as some engines in the range and i think it was diesels and the 6 pot petrol....

No, as TB said earlier, V6 was K series family 

yep only the 2.0 diesel is Bmw sourced,the rest are Rover fare

[the alarming man]

Avoid like the plague.

My Directors got one.  Inherent brake pipe problem. Pipes were sourced by BMW and are prown to bad corrusion.

ALL needed to be replaced about a year ago to the tune of £900.00..personally I would have scrapped it.

Last week thermostat went...another £500.00 blown.

All at 60,000 ish miles.

Not sure I can agree with your comments;

Tis a Rover and not a BMW, Brake pipes can be quite simply made up, and I can not understand why a thermostat costs £500 even on the V6..............this is my opinion and I may be wrong......

no BMW owned the company at the time of the 75 as some engines in the range and i think it was diesels and the 6 pot petrol....

No, as TB said earlier, V6 was K series family 

did he...that would explain why it was sooo cack then

[TheBoy]

Avoid like the plague.

My Directors got one.  Inherent brake pipe problem. Pipes were sourced by BMW and are prown to bad corrusion.

ALL needed to be replaced about a year ago to the tune of £900.00..personally I would have scrapped it.

Last week thermostat went...another £500.00 blown.

All at 60,000 ish miles.

Not sure I can agree with your comments;

Tis a Rover and not a BMW, Brake pipes can be quite simply made up, and I can not understand why a thermostat costs £500 even on the V6..............this is my opinion and I may be wrong......

no BMW owned the company at the time of the 75 as some engines in the range and i think it was diesels and the 6 pot petrol....

No, as TB said earlier, V6 was K series family 

did he...that would explain why it was sooo cack then

Not a bad engine, except the belts are a pig. As said, in 190bhp trim, has the potential to embarrass a chipped 3.0l auto. And has no real weak points.

[the alarming man]

apart from the one i had made a load of noise but did'nt really go any where fast...thankfully it was a company car....it felt so heavy....even more so than the omega

[Kevin Wood]

Can't say I've ever been inspired by a Rover 75. I think the "Hyacinth Bucket" mock retro styling is what turns me off the idea. Same with the Jag S type.

I bet the 1.8 K series model had to be ragged pretty ruthlessly to get it moving. A great engine for a small, light car, but it's a shame there was nothing better in the parts bin for the 75 (and the freelander, for that matter).

A mate of mine had the V8 model. If it had gone as well as it sounded it would have been wonderful.

[the alarming man]

mine (i think as it was a while ago...lots of cack companies cars since) was a 2.5 6 pot and i as i said it sounded good but thats where it ended the 1.8 must have been a right pig

[kully]

The nasp 1.8 is a pig, it'll get you about, but slowly. The 1.8T is much better although still slow at low speeds unless you give it beans.

[markrnorton]

Always thought these looked strange, for some reason thought they were related to s type. The number plate on rear is weird. Neighbour had one (1., that sounded quite good. Is the 1.8 a v6 also?

Saw the v8 on a top gear repeat, looks good, as someone said a sleeper. Is the v8 rwd then, how late were they made? Dare I say it? It could me an alternative of sorts for the omega?

1. Agreed, but no coincidence, given the origin of the company. 
2. Agreed, rear number plate doesn't comply with the norm does it.
3. A guy I work with has the 4.6 V8 ZT, it's the high output one according to him. Sadly for him, a modern three litre diesel will eat it on performance, allegedly. 

1. Disagree; Jaguar was owned by Ford and Rover by BMW at the time. There's a lot of BMW thinking in a 75, and a considerable number of parts. Jag S type is a re-enginered Lincoln.

2. It complies. It's just bigger. Looks odd though!

3. It's just the basic Mustang spec engine. Which is disappointing in it's original home.

Hard to see the V8 as an Omega alternative as they are very rare, and expensive when you do find one.

The V8 is a basic spec engine, i had one (see below). It can however be very very easily pumped up to 400hp with a few cheap mods. That makes it reasonabley powerful. It is quite heavy though. would be a good project for an Omega

[omega3000]

Always thought these looked strange, for some reason thought they were related to s type. The number plate on rear is weird. Neighbour had one (1., that sounded quite good. Is the 1.8 a v6 also?

Saw the v8 on a top gear repeat, looks good, as someone said a sleeper. Is the v8 rwd then, how late were they made? Dare I say it? It could me an alternative of sorts for the omega?

1. Agreed, but no coincidence, given the origin of the company. 
2. Agreed, rear number plate doesn't comply with the norm does it.
3. A guy I work with has the 4.6 V8 ZT, it's the high output one according to him. Sadly for him, a modern three litre diesel will eat it on performance, allegedly. 

1. Disagree; Jaguar was owned by Ford and Rover by BMW at the time. There's a lot of BMW thinking in a 75, and a considerable number of parts. Jag S type is a re-enginered Lincoln.

2. It complies. It's just bigger. Looks odd though!

3. It's just the basic Mustang spec engine. Which is disappointing in it's original home.

Hard to see the V8 as an Omega alternative as they are very rare, and expensive when you do find one.

The V8 is a basic spec engine, i had one (see below). It can however be very very easily pumped up to 400hp with a few cheap mods. That makes it reasonabley powerful. It is quite heavy though. would be a good project for an Omega

Aye that would be a good idea  Oh and look proper positioned bolts on the rocker's 

[YZ250]

mine (i think as it was a while ago...lots of cack companies cars since) was a 2.5 6 pot and i as i said it sounded good but thats where it ended the 1.8 must have been a right pig

That's odd.    As I said earlier, my B-I-L has the ZT 190 and that sounds and goes well. They're good for around 140mph. Omega may outrun it top wack but I doubt you'd ever get past one if you weren't already in front.

[TheBoy]

mine (i think as it was a while ago...lots of cack companies cars since) was a 2.5 6 pot and i as i said it sounded good but thats where it ended the 1.8 must have been a right pig

That's odd.    As I said earlier, my B-I-L has the ZT 190 and that sounds and goes well. They're good for around 140mph. Omega may outrun it top wack but I doubt you'd ever get past one if you weren't already in front.

I agree, I see a black ZT 190 most mornings, and if he is in a hurry, its hard work to keep up in either of my Omegas.

[jimbobmccoy]

I have a zt 190, and it's no slouch.

While I agree it's not as quick as some v6's, it is a heavy old car, and the noise just makes you smile, while it is still plenty quick enough.

Comfort wise it has a very firm ride, which is noticeable on b roads, but tolerable as the handling is on rails, and on a motorway it is a very nice cruiser.

Seats are as comfortable as any I've used before, and on elf the main things I like about the car is its "carness"

It is big and heavy and unrefined to be honest.  No traction control, heavy clutch, big steering wheel.......it's a proper man car.

I can get wheel spin on gear change in third on a dry road with bald tyres, and fourth on a damp road, and on new rubber can still get wheel spin on changing to second on a hot dry day, so it can't be that slow! (this was a private road obviously)