On HJ's page in the Sat' telegraph last week, was the advice section on what car to buy.
A punter had a '99 {?} Volvo V70 pertol {owned from new / hence worst of depreciation over} and wanted something sexier / cheaper to run, but still with lots of storage space / room for dog etc.
HJ suggested {'98} BMW and Merc estates, both of which would cost more / would be older / higher miles etc.
Both are more hatch back than estate, with v sloping rear end.
HJ even suggest a Rover 75 Tourer {2000 plate}- OK, the diesel 75 may do 10 mpg more on average than the Volvo, saving perahps £250 tops per year, but the 75 will be just about worthless at 5 years old, but be Volvo would still be worth a good few grand - the Volvo is a bigger, safer, faster, 'sexier' and more realiable than the 75. The 75 has v poor rear access / loading -and of course, its sad to say i know, Rovers still fall to bits.
Each day I walk past an S Reg Rover - the front edge of the bonnet has rotted away - I find that disgusting on such a young car - what does it say about how it will stand up in crash?
I think HJ should have said Keep the Volvo - or gone for his stock answer - A Mondeo {estate}.
Certainly - don't buy a Rover 75, new, or almost new, with your own money !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
An Aston Martin would cost less to run when the 75's depreciation is taken into account!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
Paul {Forest of Bowland}
|
On the contrary, the 75 is a well-built and engineered car which, for obvious reasons, was not conceived as a dynamic rival to the BMW 3-series and has suffered for it in the image stakes.
I'ev driven the 1.8 and V6s in the past and been very impressed. Comfortable, quiet, a quite superb ride and ideal for the very large number of drivers who don't tear around or care about progressive understeer. Admittedly, the 1.8 is a little too stately, but there's not much else to criticise.
If you buy-into the philosophy, I think they make good sense used. Depreciation is hardly as catastrophic as you seem to think, and running costs otherwise quite reasonable.
|
|
Ignorance in this case is not bliss. My MG ZT is infinitely better built than my previous VW Passat. As for depreciation, the VW lost value like a mafia informer in lead slippers.
|
Just going off the thread a little with this but I followed a Rover 75 Tourer today and it was badged a ZT-T.
I know what the ZT is but not the ZT-T.
Any ideas
|
ZT is the MG version - I know you know, someone might not...
T stands, unexcitingly, for tourer.
|
|
|
ZT is the MG saloon version of 75
ZT-T is the tourer (surprise surprise...)
ZT+ or ZT-T+ indicates full specification/top kit/lots of goodies etc.
|
>>> Each day I walk past an S Reg Rover - the front edge of the bonnet has rotted away <<<
How do you know it hasn't had a poor quality crash repair?
Over the past few years, Rover 75s and MG ZTs have become increasingly popular with colleagues, who all love them, and who have switched from A4s, Passats, 3-series (okay, and one Laguna, poor chap!). I honestly haven't heard a bad word, and word in the office from those who drive them, to others, is often "Forget your prejudice, just try it". I borrowed a ZT+ 190, and was hugely impressed. Fabulous to look at, wonderfully cultured growl from under the bonnet, top drawer fit, no squeaks or rattles, and sublime handling. Knocked the marketing trick that is an X Type, and which I drove within a day or so, in to a cocked hat, with its lumpy drive train inertia courtesy of four wheel drive, and inferior feedback.
|
|
|
|
|
|
HJ even suggest a Rover 75 Tourer {2000 plate}- OK, the diesel 75 may do 10 mpg more on average than the Volvo, saving perahps £250 tops per year, but the 75 will be just about worthless at 5 years old,
The Tourer has only been around for a couple of years - so what you're saying is, in another three years time, I will be able to buy a diesel 75 Tourer for next to nothing?
Excellent! I'll have two!
|
I'll have one aswell!
Hi Tom ;-)
|
Tom 'n' dave,
Yep, a 5 year old one may make a good buy, {the much uglier C5 may be better though,} not so a new one {75} - I rest my case, however we'll have to wait 3 years to find out.
I bought a 3 year old Rover {early 90s} once, for just over 1/4 of the new price, and only 33,000 miles.
A 'bargin' but at five years - 60,000 miles , the rear wheel arches, sills and bonnet at all rotted through.
I wait 'n' see what a 75's boby work is like after 5 years.
Paul {Forest of Bowland}
|
|
I haven't seen any rusty ones at four years old, so we'll see. Can't say I've seen that many 200s or 400s at seven or eight years old showing any rust. Metros do, as did Montegos and Maestros, but plenty of other makes from that era did too, it's not a problem specific to Rovers.
|
I've owned three Rovers. Two 600s which gave good service running them up to seven years old.
I've just bought a 75 CDTi saloon. So far in 800 miles, it's a total peach. Dynamically, more punch than the equivalent Volvo which was dull as rancid dishwater. The Passat had the most barren cab of the lot, the Audi and BMW equivalents are just too expensive.
As for the 75 bonnet, I can't see how it can unless it's a bad crash repair. It would certainly be covered under the corrosion warranty if it wasn't.
Me thinks someone just doesn't like them.
BTW: Most cars at 4 years old are only worth about 40% of their new value.
|
I had a 600 as well - a bargain and then some. Great ride, massive cabin and loads of room.
Not a drop of rust on it and not too expensive to run.
I think its great this dude slagging off Rover all the time, it means it keeps prices down for the rest of us.
|
I had a 600 as well - a bargain and then some. Great ride, massive cabin and loads of room.
Above all its a Rover,
Beneath all it is a Honda Accord
|
|
|
|
Look at the Euro NCAP results in detail, and you'll see that the Rover 75 had better results than the S70 and S80...
www.euroncap.com/results.htm
|
|
A friend of mine has an 827 that he bought new about 16 years ago. He takes it regularly to the continent, it has done an astronomical mileage and he loves it to death. No rust that I can see on it, either.
|
Just out of interest, has his 827 got the Honda v6, I've not heard good things about the K series based equivalent.
MPZ
|
|
The 827 has the Honda unit which is capable of high miles if looked after (unfortunately many aren't). The early KV6 engines were not good, suffered cylinder head problems. After a couple of years the engine was revised, it is now a different engine and does not suffer the same problem. Which is why any 800 KV6 on an N, P, or R plate is almost worthless in the trade - later ones are better, but then it's still an 800....
|
|
Also early KV6's were more or less hand-made. Neighbour across the road has a T plated 800 and he really likes it. I think with the 800 it's hit and miss.
|
I had an 827 'Sterling' about 10-12 years ago. Not too bad, but a lot of niggling faults (HRW relay, central locking switches etc. - all the 'British made' bits).
A common problem was head gasket failure (still not that unusual on Honda engines, actually). The 'rear' bank gasket went first, than the 'front' one. Head gasket was about £400 at that time!!
Another common problem was a 'lazy' reverse servo on the autobox; it 'rattled' as you took it out of reverse on a cold morning.
Other than that, not a bad car.
|
Marcos said: "I know what the ZT is but not the ZT-T. Any ideas"
You got the serious answer (that it is the tourer) and sniffpetrol.com have another spin on it:
www.sniffpetrol.com/issue003.html
"The MG name confusion has even hit top record producer Trevor Horn. "I returned from a month in the Caribbean and decided to call into the offices of my record label." said a clearly furious Mr Horn, "As soon as I arrived I knew something was up. The office was much smaller than I remembered and all the chairs were a different colour. I was about to call my assistant and demand to know where all the staff were when I realised what had happened. The cabby had got confused and instead of taking me to ZTT records, he had dropped me off at a ZT-T, the estate version of MG's new large sports saloon. I think they need to sort this stupid name thing out," the man behind Frankie Goes To Hollywood warned. "Mind you, good chassis tuning," he added."
pat
|
|
|
|
