Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Please note that it is not permitted to have referral links posted in your signature. Keep these links contained in the appropriate forum. Thank you.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2055940817/signature-rules
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Rover 75 [split thread]

  • 06-12-2009 10:44pm
    #1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,056 ✭✭✭


    Biro wrote: »
    Go for the 2.5. The 2 litre is actually almost 2.1, so that puts it a step up in tax over a 2.0, so the difference to tax isn't much. More power and a better engine too. Can't understand Boards facination with the 75, I hated them until I drove one, now I really hate them, the Jag is infinitely better than one in every single measurable way. BMW diesel included!!!
    Every single way.
    Except interior, specification, price and BMW diesel.

    Dad has a Mondeo TDCI, I have an MG ZT.

    BMW engine is a step above in every way except for sipping a teeny bit more fuel - and handling is far better on the ZT.


Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,091 ✭✭✭Biro


    Tragedy wrote: »
    Every single way.
    Except interior, specification, price and BMW diesel.

    Dad has a Mondeo TDCI, I have an MG ZT.

    BMW engine is a step above in every way except for sipping a teeny bit more fuel - and handling is far better on the ZT.

    Handling on the ZT I can't comment on, but I just don't believe you, sorry. I've only driven the 75, and that's so woeful that I can't see how anyone can make it better than a car based on the Mondeo, which has the best chassis in it's class. But somehow you seem to think otherwise. I guess I'll have to drive one, but I won't be holding my breath. The interior of the X-type isn't brilliant, but the 75 is shyte. Retro-british doesn't do it for me, and it's so poorly put together that I'm amazed the Audi-interior-loving boardsies are fooled by it. Talk about Rover tinted glasses!!
    It's not that I'm anti-Rover either. The 25 GTi is an excellent car.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,056 ✭✭✭Tragedy


    Biro wrote: »
    Handling on the ZT I can't comment on, but I just don't believe you, sorry. I've only driven the 75, and that's so woeful that I can't see how anyone can make it better than a car based on the Mondeo, which has the best chassis in it's class. But somehow you seem to think otherwise. I guess I'll have to drive one, but I won't be holding my breath. The interior of the X-type isn't brilliant, but the 75 is shyte. Retro-british doesn't do it for me, and it's so poorly put together that I'm amazed the Audi-interior-loving boardsies are fooled by it. Talk about Rover tinted glasses!!
    It's not that I'm anti-Rover either. The 25 GTi is an excellent car.

    You can't comment on it because you haven't driven one, but you refuse to believe anything other than what you believe? Awesomely insightful viewpoint there.

    The press rated the MG ZT very highly(and the 75 when it launched), do a quick google for reviews sure.

    The 75 is an exceedingly cosseting ride, it's a great mile muncher - and thats what people buying a Rover 75/x-type tend to be looking for. If they want sporty handling, they buy something else. Simples?

    The mondeo has the best chassis in its class, but the 75(and the x-type) weren't in that class. They were in the class above it.

    The interior of the 75 is a love it or hate it, and I'll admit it's quite old man-ish(another reason I went for a ZT) however to claim it's purely finished is stupid, never heard that claim before and considering how old they're becoming, any I see hold up very well.

    I also amn't a rover fan, wouldn't touch a 25/45/MG ZR, would be iffy about an MG TF(and purely because it has a sweet engine and sells for almost nothing).
    I just like the 75 and love the ZT.

    Considering I saw a 2002 80k 75 Connoisseur SE Diesel with satnav go for €3800 in a dealership, I think it's hard to argue with full leather, cruise control, satnav, parking sensors, auto dimming rearview mirror, automatic rain sensing wipers, self levelling rear suspension, split tailgate, electric and heated front seats for that.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,091 ✭✭✭Biro


    Tragedy wrote: »
    You can't comment on it because you haven't driven one, but you refuse to believe anything other than what you believe? Awesomely insightful viewpoint there.

    The press rated the MG ZT very highly(and the 75 when it launched), do a quick google for reviews sure.

    The 75 is an exceedingly cosseting ride, it's a great mile muncher - and thats what people buying a Rover 75/x-type tend to be looking for. If they want sporty handling, they buy something else. Simples?

    The mondeo has the best chassis in its class, but the 75(and the x-type) weren't in that class. They were in the class above it.

    The interior of the 75 is a love it or hate it, and I'll admit it's quite old man-ish(another reason I went for a ZT) however to claim it's purely finished is stupid, never heard that claim before and considering how old they're becoming, any I see hold up very well.

    I also amn't a rover fan, wouldn't touch a 25/45/MG ZR, would be iffy about an MG TF(and purely because it has a sweet engine and sells for almost nothing).
    I just like the 75 and love the ZT.

    Considering I saw a 2002 80k 75 Connoisseur SE Diesel with satnav go for €3800 in a dealership, I think it's hard to argue with full leather, cruise control, satnav, parking sensors, auto dimming rearview mirror, automatic rain sensing wipers, self levelling rear suspension, split tailgate, electric and heated front seats for that.
    If you'd bother to read what I said properly and actually try to understand it, you wouldn't have posted that rather silly first half of your post. How many changes have MG made to the 75 chassis? The 75 was never in the class above the Mondeo, it was half considered one because of how well it was spec'd. I've been in two, and both the panels were coming away from the doors, numerous squeaks and rattles that nearly drove me round the twist, softly sprung isn't my cup of tea anyway, so I wasn't blown away by the ride, and extras are just that, extras. Unless the car is good enough to begin with, then extras are useless. There are many cars loaded with extras you can get for €3,800 if thats your thing.
    Taking the X-type, you're right, that's in the class up, against the C-class, 3-series, IS and A4. The 3-series is the best handling of that lot, by a long way (I'm talking about last gen stuff here), except for the X-type. It's a better handling car than the X-type, but not by a long way. In fact Autocar often have compared the Mondeo with the 3-series directly and apart from steering feel and turn-in being more direct in the RWD, there was feck all between them. Likewise, there isn't much between the X-type and the 3-series.
    I'd put the 75 and the Superb in the same category. Both are ugly, both are comfortable, and both have plenty of extras. Out of those two I'd choose the better built Superb. But the x-type is in a different class.
    And stop saying simples in your condecending posts to other users. It sounds retarded.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,538 ✭✭✭niceirishfella


    Biro wrote: »
    If you'd bother to read what I said properly and actually try to understand it, you wouldn't have posted that rather silly first half of your post. How many changes have MG made to the 75 chassis? The 75 was never in the class above the Mondeo, it was half considered one because of how well it was spec'd. I've been in two, and both the panels were coming away from the doors, numerous squeaks and rattles that nearly drove me round the twist, softly sprung isn't my cup of tea anyway, so I wasn't blown away by the ride, and extras are just that, extras. Unless the car is good enough to begin with, then extras are useless. There are many cars loaded with extras you can get for €3,800 if thats your thing.

    I must agree re; the Rover 75.
    All the old smoking jacket fanboi's come out here defending their purchase of this old dreadful yoke.
    Poor build, awful presence and the message you give to people turning up in a rover 75 makes me shudder.:o
    I understand that in the Alan Partridge TV show they were going to have the weedy Alan driving a lexus or a rover 75 - they went for the lexus but the fact they considered the 75 speaks yards.....:rolleyes:
    I know a bloke with an estate model and its been pure shyte, everythings gone wrong including engine issues with the much trumpeted bmw unit.
    And they are unsellable, there's people on here who bang on about how great they are yet are desperately trying to sell theirs as they are WELDED to it. There's no sence in having or extolling the virtues of a Rover 75, no sense whatsoever and it shows what people really know about cars if they do so.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,056 ✭✭✭Tragedy


    Biro wrote: »
    If you'd bother to read what I said properly and actually try to understand it, you wouldn't have posted that rather silly first half of your post.
    I did read it. Did you read the first half of my post before you posted that rather silly start to yours? Wow, this is fun!
    How many changes have MG made to the 75 chassis?
    It's the same car with a sportier interior+exterior+suspension. It wasn't any more expensive, it was an alternative to the 75 depending on what you wanted from the car.
    The 75 was never in the class above the Mondeo, it was half considered one because of how well it was spec'd.
    Yes it was, read any of the press about it and you'll see that.

    It didn't fit well though, it was in the same kind of limbo as the Saab 9-5/Volvo S60.
    I've been in two, and both the panels were coming away from the doors
    Door cards are held on by plastic clips, these can break when the cards being removed and should be replaced(cost about 15c each) but crap/lazy/cheap mechanics don't bother. Isn't a problem with the car.
    numerous squeaks and rattles that nearly drove me round the twist
    Happens with literally any car make, depends on the individual car.
    softly sprung isn't my cup of tea anyway, so I wasn't blown away by the ride
    Not your cup of tea doesn't mean it's "woeful".

    Taking the X-type, you're right, that's in the class up, against the C-class, 3-series, IS and A4.
    The x-type never fit in well in that class either, hence why sales were about half what were expected at best(and usually far worse).
    The 3-series is the best handling of that lot, by a long way (I'm talking about last gen stuff here), except for the X-type. It's a better handling car than the X-type, but not by a long way.
    Non english press seem to disagree, universally seem to agree on "good but not amazing, sports suspension option tightens it a bit but not enough to pay off the loss in comfort".
    In fact Autocar often have compared the Mondeo with the 3-series directly and apart from steering feel and turn-in being more direct in the RWD, there was feck all between them.
    Because english press are to the Mondeo, like VAGheads are to the TredDI.
    As good a car as it is(and it really is), it's not the ambrosia that british motoring press always claim it to be.
    But the x-type is in a different class.
    Because it has a Jaguar badge? It doesn't have any better residuals than a 75/Accord/Superb.
    And stop saying simples in your condecending posts to other users. It sounds retarded.
    Stop saying simples in condescending posts to other users?
    Where else have I said it?
    Who to?
    Are you exaggerating because I upset you?
    I'm sorry.

    The way as soon as someone agreed with you you jump in and bang on about some sense in the thread, and people who disagree should be banned speaks volumes.

    Seriously, are you old enough to even drive a car?

    @Niceirishfella, you're basing your opinion on one fella you know who had one.
    So basically, you're the same type as the anti Alfa/Fiat/Whatever brigade who gets universally derided on here for forming an opinion based on one car.

    @Tred - In the topgear survey, the 75 places around the same as the x-type. Reliability is a known problem with the x-type and it's developed a bit of a bad reputation for it, and in user reviews the x-type generally does worse.

    If you dislike the car that's fine. There's plenty of cars I dislike(if don't downright hate), but if you can't have a logical argument about it - you shouldn't state an opinion. I'm passionate about my car, but I can recognise it's flaws(in ZT guise, suspension can be harsh at times and rear space+boot could be a bit better, in 75 - old man image, interior which is completely love it or hate it, low residuals among others).
    A couple of people on this thread can't do the same, it's sticking your fingers in your ears and going "I hate it, you're wrong because I hate it and that's that".

    Grow up :)

    PS: Skoda Superb
    Rover 75
    X-Type
    Yup, the x-type is definitely the paragon of style while the 75 is an ugly duckling like the Superb.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,538 ✭✭✭niceirishfella


    Tragedy wrote: »

    @Niceirishfella, you're basing your opinion on one fella you know who had one.
    So basically, you're the same type as the anti Alfa/Fiat/Whatever brigade who gets universally derided on here for forming an opinion based on one car.

    .


    No I'm not, I'm ex-trade and I've lots of experience of them, all Bad, they're Rubbish and I would'nt even spend YOUR money on one:P
    Ohhhhhh, and I don't mind Fiats, I've owned 2 - never gave me any bother - is this the best you got?? NEXT!???


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,091 ✭✭✭Biro


    Tragedy wrote: »
    I did read it. Did you read the first half of my post before you posted that rather silly start to yours? Wow, this is fun!

    It's the same car with a sportier interior+exterior+suspension. It wasn't any more expensive, it was an alternative to the 75 depending on what you wanted from the car.

    Yes it was, read any of the press about it and you'll see that.

    It didn't fit well though, it was in the same kind of limbo as the Saab 9-5/Volvo S60.

    Door cards are held on by plastic clips, these can break when the cards being removed and should be replaced(cost about 15c each) but crap/lazy/cheap mechanics don't bother. Isn't a problem with the car.

    Happens with literally any car make, depends on the individual car.

    Not your cup of tea doesn't mean it's "woeful".


    The x-type never fit in well in that class either, hence why sales were about half what were expected at best(and usually far worse).

    Non english press seem to disagree, universally seem to agree on "good but not amazing, sports suspension option tightens it a bit but not enough to pay off the loss in comfort".

    Because english press are to the Mondeo, like VAGheads are to the TredDI.
    As good a car as it is(and it really is), it's not the ambrosia that british motoring press always claim it to be.

    Because it has a Jaguar badge? It doesn't have any better residuals than a 75/Accord/Superb.

    Stop saying simples in condescending posts to other users?
    Where else have I said it?
    Who to?
    Are you exaggerating because I upset you?
    I'm sorry.

    The way as soon as someone agreed with you you jump in and bang on about some sense in the thread, and people who disagree should be banned speaks volumes.

    Seriously, are you old enough to even drive a car?

    @Niceirishfella, you're basing your opinion on one fella you know who had one.
    So basically, you're the same type as the anti Alfa/Fiat/Whatever brigade who gets universally derided on here for forming an opinion based on one car.

    @Tred - In the topgear survey, the 75 places around the same as the x-type. Reliability is a known problem with the x-type and it's developed a bit of a bad reputation for it, and in user reviews the x-type generally does worse.

    If you dislike the car that's fine. There's plenty of cars I dislike(if don't downright hate), but if you can't have a logical argument about it - you shouldn't state an opinion. I'm passionate about my car, but I can recognise it's flaws(in ZT guise, suspension can be harsh at times and rear space+boot could be a bit better, in 75 - old man image, interior which is completely love it or hate it, low residuals among others).
    A couple of people on this thread can't do the same, it's sticking your fingers in your ears and going "I hate it, you're wrong because I hate it and that's that".

    Grow up :)

    PS: Skoda Superb
    Rover 75
    X-Type
    Yup, the x-type is definitely the paragon of style while the 75 is an ugly duckling like the Superb.
    I've highlighted the points of interest. Sportier is a marketing term. Stiffer suspension does not a drivers car make. There's much more to it than that. You can throw stiffer suspension at a B5.5 Passat but while it may not pitch and roll as much, it still won't be a good handling car. Same with the 75.
    Read any review on the 75? You criticise the British press bias for the Mondeo, and I agree, it does exist, but that's nothing compared to their bais for their beloved home-grown (despite the German influence) Rover 75.
    You're saying it's not unreliable, and the x-type is, but you also say they place around the same in the Top Gear survey?
    And on style, the x-type wouldn't be what I'd call a lovely car, it's OK just. But compared to the bland-box Superb and ugly-car-made-uglier MG in those pics, it's almost pretty!
    And yes, you're right, I'm not old enough to drive, I'm only 4 and a half. But I'm very clever for a 4 and a half year old, I can use the internet all by myself!!

    As for experience with them, last company I worked for 5 people were silly enough to get them as company cars. One guy even replaced his with another one! I was in 3 of them, drove one of them on long trips. Every single one of them had problems more than once and had to come to work in something else while their cars were back. The guy who was silly enough to make the same mistake twice had problems with both of his. I don't judge cars only on reliability, but seeing as I can't see anything else going for the 75... :D


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,056 ✭✭✭Tragedy


    Biro wrote: »
    I've highlighted the points of interest. Sportier is a marketing term. Stiffer suspension does not a drivers car make. There's much more to it than that. You can throw stiffer suspension at a B5.5 Passat but while it may not pitch and roll as much, it still won't be a good handling car. Same with the 75.
    I have the workshop manual for both, differences between the cars are minimal and really do mainly come down to suspension+tyres.

    Yet again you're admitting you have no experience with it, but you're saying you're right and no-one can say differently to change your mind.
    Read any review on the 75? You criticise the British press bias for the Mondeo, and I agree, it does exist, but that's nothing compared to their bais for their beloved home-grown (despite the German influence) Rover 75.
    The 75 was never beloved - biased, yes, beloved - hardly. It's always had the love/hate thing going for it.
    You're saying it's not unreliable, and the x-type is, but you also say they place around the same in the Top Gear survey?
    It's not a reliability survey per se, it's an ownership survey where motorists rate their car based on 10 criteria.

    The X-Type's unique selling point was it's aspirational value. For not an inconceivable amount over a Mondeo, people could own a Jaguar. Hence why it'll always be rated higher than a Mondeo - because even if it isn't actually better, owners will want it to be.

    As for experience with them, last company I worked for 5 people were silly enough to get them as company cars. One guy even replaced his with another one! I was in 3 of them, drove one of them on long trips. Every single one of them had problems more than once and had to come to work in something else while their cars were back.
    What? Company Cars that do massive mileage having problems? DEAR GOD, THE WORLD HAS GONE MAD!

    Dads Mondeo company car has been off the road twice(faulty injector once, battery dying the second time and stranding him). Does that make his Mondeo a heap of crap like you imply?
    The guy who was silly enough to make the same mistake twice had problems with both of his. I don't judge cars only on reliability, but seeing as I can't see anything else going for the 75... :D
    Perhaps he just liked the car?

    Irish people hate MG-Rover, it's a given(and there isn't even a particular reason why, just like how we hate white cars).

    Hence why residuals are **** over here, and in some cases they're as cheap as in the UK/NI without even adding VRT on top of the foreign cars. I'd still never buy an irish car, as after a lot of viewings - no-one takes care of them over here.

    I can probably list every common problem with the 75, but then I can with the x-type too(because I considered that as my new car and actually researched it rather than calling it a tarted up mondeo).

    The 75 isn't a perfect car, it isn't even a great car. But for a limited cachet, it will be. Just like the X-Type.




    A surprising amount of people mistake unreliability with a car that hasn't been maintained properly. Trim being lose? A matter of tightening screws or replacing plastic clips. Windows not going down properly? Greasing the regulator or adjusting it.
    A good mechanic will do all that during a proper service, a bad one will replace filters and bulbs and give the dash a shine.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,473 ✭✭✭tred


    Tragedy wrote: »
    I have the workshop manual for both, differences between the cars are minimal and really do mainly come down to suspension+tyres.

    Yet again you're admitting you have no experience with it, but you're saying you're right and no-one can say differently to change your mind.

    The 75 was never beloved - biased, yes, beloved - hardly. It's always had the love/hate thing going for it.

    It's not a reliability survey per se, it's an ownership survey where motorists rate their car based on 10 criteria.

    The X-Type's unique selling point was it's aspirational value. For not an inconceivable amount over a Mondeo, people could own a Jaguar. Hence why it'll always be rated higher than a Mondeo - because even if it isn't actually better, owners will want it to be.


    What? Company Cars that do massive mileage having problems? DEAR GOD, THE WORLD HAS GONE MAD!

    Dads Mondeo company car has been off the road twice(faulty injector once, battery dying the second time and stranding him). Does that make his Mondeo a heap of crap like you imply?

    Perhaps he just liked the car?

    Irish people hate MG-Rover, it's a given(and there isn't even a particular reason why, just like how we hate white cars).

    Hence why residuals are **** over here, and in some cases they're as cheap as in the UK/NI without even adding VRT on top of the foreign cars. I'd still never buy an irish car, as after a lot of viewings - no-one takes care of them over here.

    I can probably list every common problem with the 75, but then I can with the x-type too(because I considered that as my new car and actually researched it rather than calling it a tarted up mondeo).

    The 75 isn't a perfect car, it isn't even a great car. But for a limited cachet, it will be. Just like the X-Type.




    A surprising amount of people mistake unreliability with a car that hasn't been maintained properly. Trim being lose? A matter of tightening screws or replacing plastic clips. Windows not going down properly? Greasing the regulator or adjusting it.
    A good mechanic will do all that during a proper service, a bad one will replace filters and bulbs and give the dash a shine.


    Sorry..cant let this go....I appreciate your opinions..and everyone elses....but
    The 75 isn't a perfect car, it isn't even a great car. But for a limited cachet, it will be. Just like the X-Type.
    the 75 is not even in the same league as the x-type..i think its an injustice to the Jag as well as people researching cars later on boards to include them in the same comparison...


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,091 ✭✭✭Biro


    Tragedy wrote: »
    I have the workshop manual for both, differences between the cars are minimal and really do mainly come down to suspension+tyres.

    Yet again you're admitting you have no experience with it, but you're saying you're right and no-one can say differently to change your mind.
    OK, now you're just being unreasonable. I have experience with the 75, and was asking the question directly to you, oh experienced one (!), about the differences between the 75 and the ZT. I did state that I can't imagine how MG could tweak a mediocre chassis into a good handling car. According to your reply, looks like I was right, they didn't.
    Tragedy wrote: »
    The 75 was never beloved - biased, yes, beloved - hardly. It's always had the love/hate thing going for it.

    It's not a reliability survey per se, it's an ownership survey where motorists rate their car based on 10 criteria.

    The X-Type's unique selling point was it's aspirational value. For not an inconceivable amount over a Mondeo, people could own a Jaguar. Hence why it'll always be rated higher than a Mondeo - because even if it isn't actually better, owners will want it to be.
    I'm not a Mondeo fan, but it's a good place to start. Is an A4 really that much better than a Passat? I know exactly where the Jag comes from and the opinions owners may have or what they might like to believe.
    Tragedy wrote: »
    What? Company Cars that do massive mileage having problems? DEAR GOD, THE WORLD HAS GONE MAD!
    Good lad. Point out where I said massive mileage anywhere. None of them did massive mileage, they were all senior managers who used them to commute all of about 4 miles to work. I don't think any of them did much more than 15k a year. But who knows, maybe that really is massive mileage for a Rover!! :D
    Tragedy wrote: »
    Dads Mondeo company car has been off the road twice(faulty injector once, battery dying the second time and stranding him). Does that make his Mondeo a heap of crap
    Nope.
    Tragedy wrote: »
    like you imply?
    Where exactly?
    Tragedy wrote: »
    Perhaps he just liked the car?
    He did, the poor eejit!
    Tragedy wrote: »
    The 75 isn't a perfect car, it isn't even a great car. But for a limited cachet, it will be.
    That's more like it! A little bit of reason goes a long way!
    Tragedy wrote: »
    A surprising amount of people mistake unreliability with a car that hasn't been maintained properly. Trim being lose? A matter of tightening screws or replacing plastic clips. Windows not going down properly? Greasing the regulator or adjusting it.
    A good mechanic will do all that during a proper service, a bad one will replace filters and bulbs and give the dash a shine.
    Maintained properly? A well built car won't need any maintenance to keep the trim in place!! :D
    Old Toyotas used rust to crap, is that because the owners didn't maintain them by drying them with a towel after a shower of rain?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 66,120 ✭✭✭✭unkel
    Chauffe, Marcel, chauffe!


    tred wrote: »
    the 75 is not even in the same league as the x-type..i think its an injustice to the Jag as well as people researching cars later on boards to include them in the same comparison...

    Jaguar had hoped the X-type was going into competition with the 3-series, A4, c-class and IS, but the people weren't fooled and sales were disappointing. The X-type and the 75 not in the same comparison? You couldn't be more wrong. They were in direct competition!

    But as the OP said - he wants a drivers car, so that's the 75 off his list.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,473 ✭✭✭tred


    unkel wrote: »
    Jaguar had hoped the X-type was going into competition with the 3-series, A4, c-class and IS, but the people weren't fooled and sales were disappointing. The X-type and the 75 not in the same comparison? You couldn't be more wrong. They were in direct competition!

    But as the OP said - he wants a drivers car, so that's the 75 off his list.

    my point is not on marques and marketing. I am saying, that from experience of many in and outside the trade. The 75 turned out to be a pile of junk. Build Quality and problems. Ignoring the demise of Rover. However i think we should leave it this now.
    OP...id consider the xtype anytime (well maintained good service history). Also..look the estate versions, if u have kids!.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 66,120 ✭✭✭✭unkel
    Chauffe, Marcel, chauffe!


    tred wrote: »
    The 75 turned out to be a pile of junk. Build Quality and problems.

    What? The 75 is a decent luxury comfortable and safe car. There are few known problems with the 75 (apart from the design fault of the K-series) and build quality is quite good. Certainly not worse than the X-type. The only thing you can't compare the 75 with the X-type on is second hand price. The X-type commands a premium over a bog standard D-class car like an Avensis or a Vectra, but you get a discount on a 75 ;)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,538 ✭✭✭niceirishfella


    The ol lad has a '05 2.0diesel.

    Case in point, it's for ol lads ............:D
    @Unkel, you state the X-type and the 75 were in direct competition?
    Like WTF are you on about? The X type was marketed towards young execs to try and lure them out of the Bm3series etc, and the Rover was Marketed for the Retired Sales manager of 50+

    You're so deluded - you're sucking on your pipe to much in your 75. Your continued defence of the Rover 75 here in laughable.:confused::)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,263 ✭✭✭✭Eoin


    Posts split from the Jag x-type thread.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,309 ✭✭✭VolvoMan


    There is some right rubbish being spouted on this thread.

    The Rover 75 interior is one of the most opulent and well put together you will ever find in a car of that class. The fact that people are saying that the finish is poor makes me wonder whether they have any experience of the car or are they just spouting sh1te.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,680 ✭✭✭mondeo


    I think the Rover 75 is quite a nice car, I drove a 1.8 club which is the base model and found it lovely, bit of old man stigma attached to it though abit like big Mercs but a lovely car all the same. Would not fancy doing big mileage on it's k series though unless it's the BMW diesal engine in her. Lovely interior, nice replacment for the Rover 600i model which was also quite a classy looking car in it's day.
    Was never certain what market it was aimed at, I use to feel it was mondeo territory middle class stuff.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,538 ✭✭✭niceirishfella


    VolvoMan wrote: »
    There is some right rubbish being spouted on this thread.

    The Rover 75 interior is one of the most opulent and well put together you will ever find in a car of that class. The fact that people are saying that the finish is poor makes me wonder whether they have any experience of the car or are they just spouting sh1te.

    Ohhhhhh the irony.:rolleyes:

    and as for the opulent statement.......FFS, nasty fake finishes poorly fitted tbh


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,686 ✭✭✭✭mickdw


    I like the 75. even the last models produced are now going to next to nothing. The petrol has the Head gasket problems and the diesel may have some of bmws problems but no other major faults that ive heard. Comfortable and depending on taste, a reasonably nice looking car.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,610 ✭✭✭Padraig Mor


    Ohhhhhh the irony.:rolleyes:

    and as for the opulent statement.......FFS, nasty fake finishes poorly fitted tbh
    VolvoMan wrote: »
    There is some right rubbish being spouted on this thread.

    The Rover 75 interior is one of the most opulent and well put together you will ever find in a car of that class. The fact that people are saying that the finish is poor makes me wonder whether they have any experience of the car or are they just spouting sh1te.

    I had a 75 (1.8 Connoisseur) for a while so speak from experience. The interior may have been 'old man' but it sure as well was opulent. Nasty fake finish? I've never seen wood veneer looking as good in any other car! Never had any problems with the interior, and have never heard it claimed that they fall to pieces etc. The leather in particular was of very high quality and more than a match for any 'premium' marque.

    The engine though - now that was a pile of crap!

    I actually miss her TBH! Would love to have a diesel one as a run around.




    (Unkel/PaintDoctor: I still have a burr walnut gear knob if you're interested).


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,456 ✭✭✭✭Mr Benevolent


    and as for the opulent statement.......FFS, nasty fake finishes poorly fitted tbh

    The finishes were changed to fake after 2002 under Rover's costing cutting project, 'Project Drive'. They were real in all 75's up to then.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,309 ✭✭✭VolvoMan


    Ohhhhhh the irony.:rolleyes:

    and as for the opulent statement.......FFS, nasty fake finishes poorly fitted tbh

    The early Rover 75's had an interior of such a high quality and ambience that it would've been good enough to befit a Bentley, particularly the Cowley assembled models.

    I don't know what everybody hates so passionately about the Rover 75's styling. I always thought it looked elegant and in some ways even beautiful, so it really must be a conservative world we live in today. It may not have driven like a Mondeo, but that wasn't the intention. It was meant to be a smooth riding car and it lived up to that brief very well, having a silky smooth ride.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,056 ✭✭✭Tragedy


    Biro wrote: »
    OK, now you're just being unreasonable. I have experience with the 75, and was asking the question directly to you, oh experienced one (!), about the differences between the 75 and the ZT. I did state that I can't imagine how MG could tweak a mediocre chassis into a good handling car. According to your reply, looks like I was right, they didn't.
    The 75 wasn't a mediocre chassis, it was a chassis aimed at ride comfort.

    The body was stiffer than competing BMW's at time(hence the ridiculously big transmission tunnel which can be irritating in the back), it had a modified BMW z-axle rear suspension(used on cars like the 8 series, M1, early Z cars and e36 3 series) and mcpherson struts at the front.
    The 75 has very soft suspension settings, bushings and springs - hence why it wallows but rides so comfortably.

    The ZT, they tuned the settings put on 18inch wheels(which was a little OTT to be fair), different bushings and stiffer springs. That's all. As I said, when you have the workshop manual and can look up part codes, it's quite easy to tell what they physically changed.

    Not a big difference.
    Happy to accept you're wrong yet?

    Maintained properly? A well built car won't need any maintenance to keep the trim in place!! :D
    It will when whenever a mechanic needs to repair or check something inside the doors, he has to replace plastic screws. When they don't, trim hangs on and one by one the rest fail.
    Old Toyotas used rust to crap, is that because the owners didn't maintain them by drying them with a towel after a shower of rain?
    How is rust comparable to squeaky windows that don't sit down quite right, and the trim panels on the doors not being held on?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,091 ✭✭✭Biro


    Tragedy wrote: »
    The 75 wasn't a mediocre chassis, it was a chassis aimed at ride comfort.

    The body was stiffer than competing BMW's at time(hence the ridiculously big transmission tunnel which can be irritating in the back), it had a modified BMW z-axle rear suspension(used on cars like the 8 series, M1, early Z cars and e36 3 series) and mcpherson struts at the front.
    The 75 has very soft suspension settings, bushings and springs - hence why it wallows but rides so comfortably.

    The ZT, they tuned the settings put on 18inch wheels(which was a little OTT to be fair), different bushings and stiffer springs. That's all. As I said, when you have the workshop manual and can look up part codes, it's quite easy to tell what they physically changed.

    Not a big difference.
    Happy to accept you're wrong yet?


    It will when whenever a mechanic needs to repair or check something inside the doors, he has to replace plastic screws. When they don't, trim hangs on and one by one the rest fail.

    How is rust comparable to squeaky windows that don't sit down quite right, and the trim panels on the doors not being held on?

    Oh, you're back! I thought you died of old age!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 88,972 ✭✭✭✭mike65


    I knew there was a reason I gave up modding this place! :pac:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,056 ✭✭✭Tragedy


    Biro wrote: »
    Oh, you're back! I thought you died of old age!
    I'm sorry I was working and busy with Christmas, I had no idea you would miss me so much?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,538 ✭✭✭niceirishfella


    mike65 wrote: »
    I knew there was a reason I gave up modding this place! :pac:

    lol..........:D........lol.....
    I could say summit but anyways........

    Re; the Rover 75, unfortunately the majority of them will not be old enough to qualify for the scrappage, mores the pity.:pac:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,538 ✭✭✭niceirishfella


    VolvoMan wrote: »
    The early Rover 75's had an interior of such a high quality and ambience that it would've been good enough to befit a Bentley, particularly the Cowley assembled models.

    VM, you usually talk sense, and not bollox so whats with this erronious statement?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 935 ✭✭✭samsemtex


    Biro wrote: »
    Oh, you're back! I thought you died of old age!

    The 75 clearly wasnt a bad chassis. The ZT 260 is supposed to be one of the most sorted performance saloons out there. I know its heavily revised but the main parts and the design are still the same.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,056 ✭✭✭Tragedy


    There's a good few supercharged ZT 260's pushing between 360-420bhp with no reported problems with the running gear(and this is after having them supercharged for years).

    Supercharger installation costs around £6,000, but when a supercharged one comes up for sale, it's generally only around £2-£2.5k more expensive.

    Not bad, now if only my hours hadn't been cut :D


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,309 ✭✭✭VolvoMan


    VM, you usually talk sense, and not bollox so whats with this erronious statement?

    I'm sorry, but I'm going to stand by what I said. You can say what you want about the 75, but its interior was definitely one of its strong points, being beautifully constructed and oozing quality from every last detail.

    Here's an example:

    membermccabe_01.jpg

    From the contrasted piped leather to the antique style clocks on the dashboard, I don't think I've seen a plusher interior in a car of that class.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 935 ✭✭✭samsemtex


    The MG ZT is after making it onto my list of cars I can realistically afford in the near future. Along with an Alfa 156 GTA and Volvo S60R.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,683 ✭✭✭✭Owen


    VolvoMan wrote: »
    I'm sorry, but I'm going to stand by what I said. You can say what you want about the 75, but its interior was definitely one of its strong points, being beautifully constructed and oozing quality from every last detail.

    Here's an example:

    And that's not even the highest spec. Mine's got the BMW Navigation/TV setup with the Harman Kardon sound system, and heated seats on top of that too.

    Bit of an idiotic thread. It's a drivers car, and it isn't at the same time. It isn't, because it's not a hot hatch/sporty saloon, I should know, I've got one of those too. But it is a drivers car if you look at it from the right perspective. I'm 31, and I needed a car I could run my business from, and out of pure luck, I think I've managed to find the highest spec 75 built. And it's an estate too, which is what I needed. For the money I paid, I could have had a bog standard Octavia/Mondeo/A4 estate, but I got a car with :

    BMW 320d Engine
    Automatic
    Xenons with Washers
    PDC
    17"s
    SatNav (With up to date maps)
    TV
    Harman Kardon Sound System
    6 Disc CD Changer
    iPod interface
    Heated Seats
    Cruise Control
    Climate Control
    Electrically Ajustable Seats with Memory
    Autodimming Interior Mirror
    Electrically Folding Mirrors
    Wood Dash
    Wood Steering Wheel
    Leather
    Armrest
    MFSW
    Front Fogs
    Exterior Chrome Pack

    So, as a place, for a driver, into cars, and gadgets to be, it's not bad. And they're complete bargains, I got mine for less than 4k. I really enjoy driving it as a luxobarge, and it never ever fails to put a smile on my face. So for that alone, I'd definitely recommend one.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,056 ✭✭✭Tragedy


    If you ever decide to change car, you'd probably make close to what you paid for it - breaking it for spares and selling to the owners club.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,538 ✭✭✭niceirishfella


    VolvoMan wrote: »
    I'm sorry, but I'm going to stand by what I said.
    membermccabe_01.jpg

    No need to apologize for being wrong:D
    And as for that pic.............Yuck, that plasticy steering wheel FFS, the state of it!:eek:


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,056 ✭✭✭Tragedy


    No need to apologize for being wrong:D
    And as for that pic.............Yuck, that plasticy steering wheel FFS, the state of it!:eek:
    It's real walnut and leather. Are you being deliberately obtuse now?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 136 ✭✭COB MGV8


    So, as a place, for a driver, into cars, and gadgets to be, it's not bad. And they're complete bargains, I got mine for less than 4k. I really enjoy driving it as a luxobarge, and it never ever fails to put a smile on my face. So for that alone, I'd definitely recommend one.

    Where did you get it from ?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,456 ✭✭✭✭Mr Benevolent


    COB MGV8 wrote: »
    Where did you get it from ?

    The UK I believe. Very few of them here, especially a lack of autos.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,056 ✭✭✭Tragedy


    COB MGV8 wrote: »
    Where did you get it from ?
    He got his up north if I recall correctly.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,538 ✭✭✭niceirishfella


    Tragedy wrote: »
    It's real walnut and leather. Are you being deliberately obtuse now?

    nope - I just feckin hate the Rover 75 interior PERIOD!
    It's an awful interior on a god awful sh8tbox car.:rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,056 ✭✭✭Tragedy


    nope - I just feckin hate the Rover 75 interior PERIOD!
    It's an awful interior on a god awful sh8tbox car.:rolleyes:
    You called it plasticky. It isn't. It's leather and wood.
    That makes you wrong.

    For like the fifth time this thread.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,571 ✭✭✭Mailman


    nope - I just feckin hate the Rover 75 interior PERIOD!
    It's an awful interior on a god awful sh8tbox car.:rolleyes:
    Is that the fragrance "eau de troll"?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,538 ✭✭✭niceirishfella


    Tragedy wrote: »
    You called it plasticky. It isn't. It's leather and wood.
    That makes you wrong.

    For like the fifth time this thread.

    nope - the whole dash is not made of leather and wood, only some facia trim.
    The Rover 75 is not worth defending here FFs, there's better cars to defend and get all emotive about, get a grip. It's all about the Pretentiousness of it all, Bargain bucket Chavisness........horrible.
    And this is my opinion, to which i'm entitled, so that does not make me wrong no matter what feeble retort you come back with.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,538 ✭✭✭niceirishfella


    Mailman wrote: »
    Is that the fragrance "eau de troll"?

    go mod your own backyard MM and smell you're own odour on some forums.;)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,263 ✭✭✭✭Eoin


    Right, this is just getting obnoxious and not going anywhere. Locking this thread, to save the inevitable bans if this stays open.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement