Andy_Bangle Posted May 1, 2013 Report Share Posted May 1, 2013 I thought it was rear wheel drive too but could be memory failing. It is/was. When Manchester hosted the Commonwealth Games all the cars (mostly black and lots of 75's) were supplied by Rover. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon magnifique Posted May 1, 2013 Report Share Posted May 1, 2013 The V8 was indeed RWD and Ford US engined. if took a fair bit of re-engineering, mostly by a group of Rover techs who stayed after work to design and build themselves. The RWD drive shaft tunnel was the reason they couldn't fit a foot rest in the auto Rover version. As an aside, I think all the Manchester 2002 Rover 75s were 2.0 V6 Connosieurs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanG Posted May 2, 2013 Report Share Posted May 2, 2013 It must have been 2005 when he bought it as I remember he bought it for about £12k, but it was practically new and the dealer was closing due to Rover going under.... It did make a great noise, but didn't really go and I think the amount of horsepower they extracted from the heavy V8 engine was pretty low. I only saw it once as I was abroad then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon magnifique Posted May 2, 2013 Report Share Posted May 2, 2013 From memory it was the standard Ford 4.6 lump putting out around 260bhp. Seen a couple of tastefully updated MG versions but dunno if they were able to do much about the power. Possibly not room for a blower. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanG Posted May 2, 2013 Report Share Posted May 2, 2013 Yes, thats the figure i was thinking too. at the time i had a V6 Touareg with the same hp... MG did that mental 1000hp car too... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patently Posted May 2, 2013 Report Share Posted May 2, 2013 From memory it was the standard Ford 4.6 lump putting out around 260bhp. Seen a couple of tastefully updated MG versions but dunno if they were able to do much about the power. Possibly not room for a blower. It was indeed 260, the MG version was sold as the ZT260. Form a 4.6l lump (I think), that is truly disappointing. Compare that with an E46 M3 with 3.2l 6-cyl and 343hp, or an even older E39 M5 with 5.0l but 400hp... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torino101 Posted May 2, 2013 Report Share Posted May 2, 2013 Yank engines have always had pathetic outputs per litre. Only now do they seem to beginning to get the hang of it, but they are still WAY behind europe and the far east. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanG Posted May 2, 2013 Report Share Posted May 2, 2013 I had it explained to me in the US. Basically they didn't need efficient engines, just simple, easy to fix ones, and the V8s they run in pick ups and large sedans do 250k lazy miles with a few oil changes and the occasional 'tune up'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patently Posted May 2, 2013 Report Share Posted May 2, 2013 Basically they didn't need efficient engines, just simple, easy to fix ones, and the V8s they run in pick ups and large sedans do 250k lazy miles with a few oil changes and the occasional 'tune up'. There's a good argument for that, if you live somewhere with cheap fuel and long distances to travel. But the Rover/MG V8 thing was meant to be a performance car... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cruiser647 Posted May 2, 2013 Report Share Posted May 2, 2013 They'd have been better off bring back the old 3.5 V8 Buick from the SD1! Not far off that power figure (which they could match with a bit of effort), and much more iconic for a typical Rover buyer. And a good marketing tool. But that is what a limited development budget does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tipex Posted May 2, 2013 Report Share Posted May 2, 2013 Oh god no, the Rover V8 is an awful engine, it's just not capable of producing those sort of figures reliably, anything over 200 horses and it's struggling. The best option would have been a GM LS series V8, compact, lightweight, and decent power figures (for yank stuff), the Ford engine isn't a bad one really, and 260 BHP in a saloon car that isn't aiming to rival the M3 is pretty decent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cruiser647 Posted May 2, 2013 Report Share Posted May 2, 2013 Fair enough, I suppose it is/was an old lump when the first bought it. Anything better and they might not have been able to get it or would be expensive? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now