Thinking of a Rover 75

return guide

Hi,
Tried a search but it threw up everything including the Moon Rover.

I am looking for opinions on a diesel 75 from the UK , the VRT seems very reasonable.

Thanks in advance.

crosstownk

Have a look on Carzone........... http://www.carzone.ie/search/results?searchsource=finder&nParam=4294910720&channel=CARS&cacheBuster=1248378419684967

Personally, I wouldn't touch one.

mike65

Unkel knows about these.

return guide

mike65 wrote: »

Unkel knows about these.

Thanks Mike, i thought there was a mod who posted about these but could not find it.

return guide

crosstownk wrote: »

Have a look on Carzone........... http://www.carzone.ie/search/results?searchsource=finder&nParam=4294910720&channel=CARS&cacheBuster=1248378419684967

Personally, I wouldn't touch one.

thanks, but can you say why ?

road_high

I'm surprised how expensive these still are, seeing as Rover have been defunct now since 2005.

Guy:Incognito

crosstownk wrote: »

Personally, I wouldn't touch one.

Cant see why. Particularly the diesel with its BMW engine.

Earlyier K series engines aside theres nothign wrong with the 75. Unless your just not taken on the looks.

return guide

mfitzy wrote: »

I'm surprised how expensive these still are, seeing as Rover have been defunct now since 2005.

I was considering taking one in from the UK, they are quite reasonable over there and the VRT is okay, the Carzone examples would not interest me.

thanks

crosstownk

It's more of a personal thing. I found them hateful to drive. Just not my thing.

That's why I started the sentence with 'personally'. But beauty is in the eye of the beholder and all that. As Stekelly pointed out, many come with a BMW power plant which is, I suppose, a good thing.

Mr Benevolent

Great luxury car for an even better price. Ok, they're not the best looking but you can just shut your eyes until you're in the driver's seat I drool over them every time I see one... auto, leather, all electric, BMW engine... lovely.

(Off to Carzone for a looksee)

return guide

crosstownk wrote: »

It's more of a personal thing. I found them hateful to drive. Just not my thing.

That's why I started the sentence with 'personally'. But beauty is in the eye of the beholder and all that. As Stekelly pointed out, many come with a BMW power plant which is, I suppose, a good thing.

I appreciate your opinion, thanks.

Can you elaborate, maybe in comparison to the previous C5 model with the 2 litre diesel plant.

Both these cars are in my target as they are relatively inexpensive

crosstownk

I found the Rover to be a bit of a barge and I never liked the look of it. The C5, depending on the year can also be hard on the eye. The C5 will handle differently due to the hydractive suspension but it will come down to your own personal preferences.

Test drive both and see what suits you best.

Nforce

The pre facelift (pre 2004) is a lot more........eh, asthetically pleasing, imho.:D
The 2.0lt diesel CDTi Connoisseur SE is the pick of the bunch....fantastically specced (full leather,full elecs,parking sensors,xenons,sat nav etc etc)and with surprising reliability ,powered by a detuned version of bmw's M47 diesel engine.
I'm seriously considering picking one up myself from the UK.

Mr Benevolent

The 2.0lt diesel CDTi Connoisseur SE is the pick of the bunch

And the VRT is only €2028... me likey! A remap will bring the M47 back up to BMW spec too. A brilliant bargain for an '04 car.

Edit: Then again, the VRT on a '99 Audi S6 4.2 Quattro is only €1127 :eek:

Owen

I bought one for my business. I got a 02 CDT Diesel Touring, Connoiseur SE + Electric Pack, with 71k miles for about 3800 cleared. My car has :

Metallic Paint
BMW 320d Engine
BMW 320d Automatic Gearbox
BMW Satnav
BMW Harman Kardon Sound System
BMW 6 Disc Changer
BMW TV
17" Alloys
Xenons
Headlamp Washers
Front Fogs
Exterior Chrome Pack
PDC
Towbar
Leather
Wood Dash
Wood Steering Wheel
Rain Sensor
Climate Control
Cruise Control
Heated Seats
Electrically Adjustable Seats with Memory
Folding & Heated Mirrors
Alarm & Immobiliser
Armrest

And about 2000 miles later, I'm delighted with it. I'd to fit new alternator and aircon belts which took a sunday afternoon, and I'd a small bit of paintwork to do too. It's been a complete pleasure to own and drive, and I've never been a Rover fan. MPG isn't the best, with the autobox I get 35 (But I'll service it completely next week, and hope to see that get close to 40), and the power isn't great either at 115Bhp. A remap will get it to 140Bhp though, and will be on my shopping list too.

Go get one, you really really won't be disappointed.

xt40

Nforce wrote: »

The pre facelift (pre 2004) is a lot more........eh, asthetically pleasing, imho.:D
The 2.0lt diesel CDTi Connoisseur SE is the pick of the bunch....fantastically specced (full leather,full elecs,parking sensors,xenons,sat nav etc etc)and with surprising reliability ,powered by a detuned version of bmw's M47 diesel engine.
I'm seriously considering picking one up myself from the UK.

ive got one of them , a metallic navy 03 conn se cdti auto its a brilliant car in every way and totally reliable.
they are quite underappreciated here where people think a golf with electric front windows and a front armrest is a high spec lux car but that might actually be changing as ive started to see quite a few more on the roads recently. as someone else mentioned, i would pass on the facelift model which ruined the car by deleting the chrome bumpers twin lights and boot keyhole

VolvoMan

I think they're a great car. You just have to bear in mind when you buy one that there was vast cost cutting on later cars under MG Rover's 'Project Drive' programme. They very much de-contented the lower spec cars compared to the higher ones, going as far even as removing the rear anti-roll bar.:eek:

Ball_of_Sex

NEVER buy a rover or MG with a K-series engine. It will break your heart! Forget about the high power/weight ratio its a piece of sh*t!

unkel

The Rover 75 was designed and built by BMW. The diesel Rover 75 actually does have the same engine as the BMW 320d.

We've had our Rover 75 with the Rover K-series petrol engine. We bought it 3 years ago (when it was 5 years old) for less than any other car in the class would have cost. And we got a better, bigger and more comfortable car in many ways. As for reliability, we've spent an enormous €88 over 3 years apart from basic oil-servicing.

If you value opinions from your mates in the pub, trust them and don't buy a Rover 75 - the engine will blow up and burn ya! If you are prepared to listen to owners experiences, you might find that you could buy a very cheap and rather good car. Please keep a secret and don't tell your mates in the pub though

marty87

Don't ever buy a Rover/MG my friend is obsessed with both and would come on here without mhesitation and promote them despite them causing him so much trouble, Dodgy K-Series aside(I'm not going to get started on that cause I do hear the diesels are reliable) , the build quality is awful.

The only people that promote Rovers are fanboys who love there "quirks". example leaking boots, stay well clear if you've any sense.

The way things are at the moment you'd get a far superior car at a relatively low price.

Nforce

The Oxford built 75's have been known to be less reliable than the Longbridge built cars. One way to distinguish between them is that the Longbridge cars have body coloured sills whilst the Oxfords have black sills.

Mr Benevolent

Nforce wrote: »

The Oxford built 75's have been known to be less reliable than the Longbridge built cars. One way to distinguish between them is that the Longbridge cars have body coloured sills whilst the Oxfords have black sills.

Good ol' Honest John. I noticed that too Seriously though, I'd seriously consider one (if I could afford the insurance on the 1.9 diesel auto). Does anyone know when Project Drive began it's slash & burn policy? From the above I'd guess '02 but I can't find much on it.

Nforce

Like I said earlier....go with the high spec CDTi Connoisseur SE. It's a hell of a lot of car for a small amount of dosh.

podge3

Some of you may recall this thread.

Well I traded in the 1.8 petrol after a year and got the last "new" Rover 75 diesel in June 2006. I can honestly say its the best car I have ever owned.

Almost 60 MPG with a light foot, oodles of torque, easily remapped, wood & leather interior etc etc etc. Its absolutely fantastic.

I really can't see why some people say it ugly but everyone to his own. I prefer the facelift model myself as it still looks modern IMHO. I have owned many cars in my driving life and the 75 is constantly getting favourable comments from others. I very occasionally get the old claptrap from some who don't know any better.

I have done lots of retro fits on it including a remote fuel burning heat. This heats up the car on a cold morning (or evening) so the car is nice and toasty before I get in. Everyone else is busy scraping their windows on a frosty morning and my car is about 22 degrees .

Look over here for the 75/ZT Club. We are having a meet in Athlone next month if you get a get one before then.

If you want the most reliable car you can buy, get a Nissan or Toyota. If you want a car that puts a smile on your face everytime you drive it and that you look back at each time you park, then buy a Rover 75. Or a ZT if you are after a sportier version.

JHMEG

PaintDoctor wrote: »

I bought one for my business. I got a 02 CDT Diesel Touring, Connoiseur SE + Electric Pack, with 71k miles for about 3800 cleared. My car has :

Holy moly that's a lot of spec for not a lot of money.

unkel wrote:

The Rover 75 was .. built by BMW.

That's stretching it a bit, and like saying the 600 was built by Honda.

unkel

JHMEG wrote: »

That's stretching it a bit

Conceded

The Rover 75 is by no means a BMW. It's FWD after all

That said, did you ever watch this documentary about Rover workers who if they wanted to keep their jobs (no longer making Rovers obviously but making MINIs in England) had to take a co-working / training course in a BMW factory in Germany? It is many years ago I saw it but the culture shock and the new working attitude these guys had to adopt to was revealing. the first thing to go was the 20 minute tea break every hour or something like that :eek:

Ball_of_Sex

Its a special breed of langer that loves that K-series engine :pac:!

Hagar

No offence but why would anybody knowingly buy a car made by a manufacturer who really no longer exists?

JHMEG

unkel wrote: »

That said, did you ever watch this documentary about Rover workers who if they wanted to keep their jobs (no longer making Rovers obviously but making MINIs in England) had to take a co-working / training course in a BMW factory in Germany?

I didn't see it, but on a similar note when Honda contracted Rover to build the Ballade/Concerto/Civic they ended up having to build a factory next door to 'fix' the cars that came off the Rover line. This eventually led to the Swindon plant being established.

bazz26

Hagar wrote: »

No offence but why would anybody knowingly buy a car made by a manufacturer who really no longer exists?

Why do people still buy Michael Jackson or Elvis albums when they know they are dead?

JHMEG

bazz26 wrote: »

Why do people still buy Michael Jackson or Elvis albums when they know they are dead?

Not really the same thing in fairness.

Gary ITR

Hagar wrote: »

No offence but why would anybody knowingly buy a car made by a manufacturer who really no longer exists?

Because you are still getting a relatively good car at a good price.

Paintdoctor here got a cracking one for a bag of beans

unkel

Onkle wrote: »

you are still getting a relatively good car at a good price.

That sums it up quite well.

Just dug up my own Mondeo vs Octavia vs Rover 75 thread from 3 years ago on deciding what to buy and going for the Rover 75.

VolvoMan

I think of all the cars developed by the Rover Group under BMW's ownership, the Rover 75 deserved most to succeed.

I can never understand why cars like the new MINI were a success when they totally contradict the virtues of the original. I mean the car itself is absolutely massive on the outside, but tiny inside, while the Rover 75 was a thoroughly engineered masterpiece of a car that was shot down immediately just because its styling was somewhat 'traditional'.:rolleyes:

Mr Benevolent

unkel wrote: »

That sums it up quite well.

Just dug up my own Mondeo vs Octavia vs Rover 75 thread from 3 years ago on deciding what to buy and going for the Rover 75.

Jebus. Them were the days. Nice car Unkel, and only €88 worth of parts spent... a great buy.

podge3

unkel wrote: »

The Rover 75 is by no means a BMW. It's FWD after all

The V8 is RWD

Hagar wrote: »

No offence but why would anybody knowingly buy a car made by a manufacturer who really no longer exists?

MG Rover was a car assembly plant i.e. they didn't manufacture the parts. All parts have been supplied by Xpart for quite a while - long before the company went broke. Xpart will continue to supply parts for the foreseeable future.

VolvoMan wrote: »

I think of all the cars developed by the Rover Group under BMW's ownership, the Rover 75 deserved most to succeed.

The 75 was the only car that was developed while the company was under BMW ownership. I can't recall the exact figures now but the car cost well in excess of £1 billion to develop and needed to sell 3 times what it actually sold to break-even

Zube

Hagar wrote: »

No offence but why would anybody knowingly buy a car made by a manufacturer who really no longer exists?

Because that puts off a lot of people like you, which drops the price.

I may need a car for a long distance commute soon, and I'm seriously considering a diesel 75 with everything. No, it's not sporty, but for hours of motorway cruising you don't need sporty, you need comfortable, relaxed and economical.

Biro

It's one of my least favourite cars I've ever driven, and it's probably the poorest built car I've ever been in. Space in the back is poor, nothing exceptionally comfortable about it, interior literally coming apart, and I know looks are subjective, so I won't judge it on that but I do think they're woeful looking, inside and out.
The diesel engine might be good, but don't ever for a second believe that these were built by anyone who even lived in Germany, let alone BMW! The one I've driven and been a passenger in was owned by a guy from brand new, his second one. (didn't have enough sense the first time around). Plently of occasions with each car where it was back in the garage sorting problems.
I wouldn't say all of this if they were good value, but looking at the carzone prices - almost 7k for a 2004 Rover 75? You'd want to be a nutjob.

Edit : Officially boards most over-rated car!

JHMEG

Biro wrote: »

I do think they're woeful looking, inside and out.

The exterior is retro-British styling which seems to be hit and miss with people. (Unkel's wine one with splashes of chrome looks good)

The interior is definitely an acquired taste, and also hit and miss. With me it's a miss (quite a big one).



I have never driven one or been in one so I can't comment on their build quality or reliability. But I've been in several 600s, driven a few, and they were notorious for falling apart (literally), even tho the car on which it was based, the Accord, was one of the most reliable and well-built cars on the market at the time.

EPM

Hagar wrote: »

No offence but why would anybody knowingly buy a car made by a manufacturer who really no longer exists?

Bugger - better sell that Duesenberg I have so then:(

unkel

podge3 wrote: »

The V8 is RWD

Touché - I forgot about those

unkel

JHMEG wrote: »

The exterior is retro-British styling which seems to be hit and miss with people. (Unkel's wine one with splashes of chrome looks good)

The interior is definitely an acquired taste, and also hit and miss. With me it's a miss (quite a big one).

Yeah retro-British is a good description of the style of the interior. I'm no fan of that myself, unless it is done properly in a suitable car (RR, Bentley, AM, Jaguar would be pushing it). It is simple and functional though, clearly under the influence of BMW.

Mr Benevolent

Biro wrote: »

Edit : Officially boards most under-rated car!

FYP

return guide

[QUOTE=Biro; You'd want to be a nutjob.

Edit : Officially boards most over-rated car![/QUOTE]

not quite sure what you are trying to say here !!

VolvoMan

podge3 wrote: »

The 75 was the only car that was developed while the company was under BMW ownership. I can't recall the exact figures now but the car cost well in excess of £1 billion to develop and needed to sell 3 times what it actually sold to break-even

When I said the 'Rover Group' I was referring to what was once the whole group before BMW split them apart. Under BMW's ownership the Rover 75, the new MINI and the Range Rover were all developed, making that three models.;)

niceirishfella

I have to say, I wound'nt be arsed with one. Like what signal are you sending out to people when they see you "wafting"round in these old british sh1tcans?

VolvoMan

unkel wrote: »

Yeah retro-British is a good description of the style of the interior. I'm no fan of that myself, unless it is done properly in a suitable car (RR, Bentley, AM, Jaguar would be pushing it). It is simple and functional though, clearly under the influence of BMW.

It really is a German's perception of a British car. The whole BMW acquisition thing of the Rover Group was the brainchild of then BMW chairman, Bernd Pischetsrieder. He was apparently a big fan of British culture and therefore probably had a big input on the overall traditional theme of the design.

podge3

VolvoMan wrote: »

When I said the 'Rover Group' I was referring to what was once the whole group before BMW split them apart. Under BMW's ownership the Rover 75, the new MINI and the Range Rover were all developed, making that three models.;)

OK. you got me on that one , although strictly speaking the MINI wasn't completed until after the breakup.

VolvoMan wrote: »

It really is a German's perception of a British car. The whole BMW acquisition thing of the Rover Group was the brainchild of then BMW chairman, Bernd Pischetsrieder. He was apparently a big fan of British culture and therefore probably had a big input on the overall traditional theme of the design.

Rover designers say that BMW had almost no input into the overall design of the car. Incidentally, Mr. Pischetsrieder shot the 75 (and the whole company) in the foot at the launch in 1998. He had some beef with the British Government over funding at the time and indicated that BMW may pull out of the Rover Group. Not a good way to launch a car :rolleyes:

niceirishfella wrote: »

Like what signal are you sending out to people when they see you "wafting"round in these old british sh1tcans?

Probably much the same signal that you are sending when you drive around in other British built cars i.e. Nissan, Ford etc etc.

niceirishfella

podge3 wrote: »

Probably much the same signal that you are sending when you drive around in other British built cars i.e. Nissan, Ford etc etc.

ehhhhhhhhh, no. Rover is an indigenous brand to the UK. Nissan and the like are not.

Mailman

Keep up the good work there knocking the Rover 75; It's helped me no end.
VRT on these cars is very low because of the negative sentiments of people who are ignorant of the model.

I've recently bought my second Rover 75 2.5 V6 Connoisseur SE Auto stuffed with extras and only 22K miles on it for just over €4K.
Bought my first one very cheaply too and it was a joy to own during the three years I owned it.

Zube

niceirishfella wrote: »

Like what signal are you sending out to people when they see you "wafting"round in these old british sh1tcans?

I will be sending the same signal as I send in my current Kangoo, or my previous Multipla or Alfa 155:

"I don't care what you think of my car".