A contact of mine is due to replace a previous cherished luxury car after more than ten years of ownership. His choice is leaning towards a new X-Type but the possibility of diesel and estate options on the Rover 75 do attract.
Have read the Car By Car breakdown and the Jaguar potentially looks the better car. I know David Lacey holds the Rover 75 in high regard, I think the diesel in particular (chipped?).
Any other thoughts on the merits of these two? He is collecting his old car after MOT/service tonight and it would be great to have some feedback for him.
Thanks,
David
|
X type is just the new generation Granada 4 x 4 with a different badge
Its been nowhere near browns lane and is about as far removed from being a Jag as its possible to be
Good marketing by Ford, and good use of the brand
Personally I prefer genuine Browns Lane cars
Rover 75 I've not driven because they just look too bad for words...
|
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, CI. I thought the Rover 75 was dull/staid/ill-proportioned etc. when it first came out. I was also put off by the awfull choice of music for the release adverts (some operatic type screeching). Consequently, I ignored the car - until recently.
Taking a subjective look at this car now, I now find it's styling very attractive. It doesn't look like the average Jappo box, and it's not trying to stuff technology in your face for technology's sake - like the Germans do. When do you ever associate a modern German car with "soul" or personality (possibly exception being the Porsche 911)?
No, I think this car's got the potential to be an ageless classic - or at least revered for being different. It's a bit like the arrival of the original Rover 2000 back in 1963. I had a 2200SC version of this car in the mid eighties, and I only wish I'd kept it.
|
|
|
|
While the 75 and its MG equivalent are quite good, very solid cars with some nice styling touches (and with much improved handling after the move to Longbridge), they are a million miles from the revolutionary 1963 Rover 2000. That was an English DS Citroen and broke nearly every rule in the book. It went head to head against the conventional Triumph 2000 and made the Triumph look very conservative.
HJ
|
|
|
David,
We have a manual 1.8 petrol Rover 75 on the fleet. I drove a round trip of 170 miles on a recent company "jolly". On a different occasion I spent a couple of hours in the back of the car. My impressions were; supremely comfortable, quiet, well built, slightly underpowered, much more roomy than the X-type and with very distinctive looks. A very enjoyable and relaxing drive and enough room in the back for a 6' 2" chap to open the laptop and deal with e-mails.
Got invited to a day out driving Jaguars recently and drove a 2.5 X type automatic, a 3.0 sport X type manual, and finally, a 3.0 S type. The X type felt cramped in the front and unwelcoming in the back, and not that well put together; bits of trim coming adrift. The 2.5 felt a better all-rounder than the sport, suprisingly. Good driving position, fantastic adhesion and more than enough performance delivered through a faultless auto box. The sport was neither one thing nor the other, didn't like the clutch or the gearbox and ride too hard for my taste, while there didn't seem to be enough performance to justify the sport badge. AND I think a mistake to give it that anonymous radiator; if it's a Jag, it should look like one.
My recommendation? A diesel 75.
|
|
|
David,
Not that an Xtype is an option for me but you will have seen elsewhere what I think of the 75.
I have spent several thousand miles travelling around in a 75 2.0 CDT manual, driving plus front and rear passenger seats. Very comfortable, quiet, oh so quiet, smooth ride, bit lardy in the corners, but its a Cowley car and they are supposed to have tightened it up a bit @ Longbridge. Screwed together well, trim fits and once you have the engine up on boost, fast enough for a cruiser, a racer it is not.
Downsides irritating squeaky/clonky suspension which is allegedly going to be subject to a recall once they have devised a solution. Its supposed to be something with to do with shocker seals, but I am not convinced. If it was my own car it would be up on a ramp and have a good proddle round.
The engine needs a Tuning box or similar definitely, it has some strange flat spots for want of a better word, very little below 2000 rpm, but it is not turbo lag like you will be used to on an XUD.
I find the gear ratios odd too, first and second are too low for my liking then there is a big jump to third. Times in urban traffic when it just won't have it in third and I know my current Vectra and previous 405 TD would not have needed the downshift.
Not as economical as the Vectra either by a long way, but then maybe that's the normal driver who is heavy on the gas.
Oh yes tell your customer to watch the options list like a hawk, there are some odd things not standard, eg folding rear seats, maybe they have altered it since the one I drive.
B rgds
Stuart
|
|
|
I heard the X-type was built on the same chassis as the Mondeo. Don't get me wrong that's not a bad thing but it's hardly a Jag is it? It looks like Two-Jags had shrunk it in the wash along with his toupee.
The 75 is different, that's why I like them, you either love it or hate it. It might be named after a Auntie P4 but the 75 interior is as good as any Jag and easily better than the S-type interior. The ride is supple and relaxing. They seem well made and have only had a minor recall and very few warranty claims and 5th in the JD power survey. The car has presence on the road which for less than 20K is quite amazing. I think it will become a future classic.
Regarding the suspension clonk, it apparently has something to do with the rubber bushes fitted in the front struts. Check out www.jerryflint.co.uk he has some good info on the 75 amongst other things.
Regarding the P6, I'm a huge fan of these. The P6 was derived from the 1958 T4. This was the gas turbine beast that Rover were experimenting with hence the transverse suspension set up at the front. The P6 had all round discs, unitary construction and a great live axle setup. It was the first ever European car of the year. Of course the big engine bay was perfect for the Rover V8 :) 0-60 in 9 seconds, no wonder the Old Bill had them.
Rover have always made cruisers, it was a shame they never built the P7 Zagato.
|
Interesting feedback. It rather supports my feeling that the Rover 75 is worth a hard look in this case. Admittedly that is something of a gut feeling without actual experience of the two.
Also interesting that, having left the conventional work groove, I don't get the chance to come into close contact with such vehicles. In my "respectable" days the lease car list was a No.1 talking point. Even if you couldn't have the particular vehicle you'd get a frequent chance to try the next step up going out with the boss. I don't mean "going out" with the boss, just "going out with the boss". With the cars two grades up they could at least be poked in the car park when the bigger bosses were visiting. Except for the biggest bosses car who would leave his chauffeur sitting in it while on a visit to prevent such activity.
Now most of the cars I come into contact with are paid for with people's own cash, and that makes a huge difference to their choices. Often it broadens out the vehicle makes/types a great deal.
And as for a company "jolly" Darcy....thing of the past really. About the best you can do here is get a sit down for five minutes with a glass of value lemonade!
And as for C I thinking the Rover 75 looks too bad to consider, well remember I have supported the PT Cruiser and Multipla in the past.
Has anyone an idea of which actual Ford parts are in this Jaguar then?
David
|
|
|
Interesting Stuart, HJ and Michael all bring in the P6 to this thread with fond memories. In the early 70s Dad was in the market for such cars, nearly new then new.
In the end the Triumph range won every time with us owning a Triumph 2000 Mk1, 2000 Mk2 and finally a new 2.5PI. Perhaps the main reason that counted the Rover out was no estate option, all the Triumphs were estates. I remember Crayford (?) doing a Rover estate conversion but the load space was poor as they carried the curving roof line too low.
Also as a family car the Triumph won every time because the Rover was cramped inside with the narrow cabin and huge transmission tunnel. The six cylinder Triumph engine was also far better than the Rover four cyl. The 2.5PI was a very fast car for its time. Also they all had overdrive that made for very relaxed cruising.
Now when the good lady and I started motoring, with space not an option, we were very keen on the P6. Betwen us over a few years in the late 70s we ran two Rover 2200SCs, three 3500 autos and the best of all....a 3500S manual.
I'll never forget buying the first of the V8s. It was a trade sale and just running with no power. The problem was a common one in that the cam lobes were badly worn with some nearly back to round. All it needed was a new camshaft/lifters and it ran like a dream. Starting it up the first time after the rebuild was really something. Gunning the engine at a standstill would make the car twist on the suspension with torque reaction. Then that burble as you drove away, very very nice.
The 3500S was wickedly quick but it went through two gearboxes in our time, another common problem in that they jumped out of reverse.
I still have the Rover rear brake piston wind back tool in the workshop, I hope never to use it again as those inboard rear discs brakes were a pig to get to.
David
|
Ah yes, David - and do you remember that errant strip speedo that seemed to have a mind of it's own? My 2200SC would run along at a constant speed but with the indicated speed varying somewhere between Kent, Sussex, and 50 mph.
Also the very clever intermittent wiper mechanism? This was a vacuum capsule that had an adjustable airbleed so that you could vary the interval between wipes.
|
Yes remember it well Ian. Could never understand why the SC had such a naff instrument set and the TC/3500 such an impressive group of dials.
Our first 2000SC was a 1966 and had a sad demise. Just pulling away from one of those minor road crosings of a busy dual carriageway and a bottom balljoint snapped causing the wheel to splay out from the wheelarch, and the floor to hit the road.
It was immovable stuck sideways across the fast lane, dark green as well in the dark. This was about 8pm on Christmas night with all our presents for the family in the back. It was a wonder no one hit it before the police traffic car arrived with cones etc.
That was the end of the car for me because the garage it was towed to quoted well over its value for the tow in plus ball joint repair, there was no other damage. In the end they gave me back about £25 after their charges and kept the car. I bet it was an easy repair for them and a quick profit.
The traffic cop took us back to Coventry police station and we got a lift home. The ride in his Ford Granada 3000GT (or Consul?) was exillarating and amusing, not telling though or it'll feed the antis!
David
|
David,
My Dad had a Triumph 2000 Mk1 estate which I did some "L" driving in; loved it for comfort and room. Later I had a Mk1 auto which went very well, although the handling was a bit suspect when I first bought it because one of the front tyres was the wrong size, and a crossply among 3 other radials. I think it had been the spare. It had a monster Webasto sunroof which allowed me to hear a nice 6 cyl exhaust note. I got it stuck in snow in Harrogate but was able to get it going by experimenting with applying the handbrake. It got traded in for a Rover P6 Mk1 but I don't remember the intermittent wipe facility. I do remeber the strip speedo, but mine was rock steady. Occasionally the fuel gauge would sink to zero and the interior light would glow; traced to water in the rear footwells and damaged wiring. Yes I lay on my back under the De Dion rear axle for nearly 3 hours replacing the rear pads. My colleague had a Mk1 3.5 auto with inspection hatches for the brakes behind the rear seat; jealous or what?
|
|
|
|
|
The suspension creaking/clonking noises heard on some 75 models up to VIN #195475 is easily curable by fitment of lubrication washers to all four shock absorber pistons - a 20 minute job, all claimable under the excellent 3yr/60K manufacturer's warranty. All is OK with models from VIN#194475 on. Modified shock absorbers with improved piston lubrication seals are fitted.
The ride does indeed seem to have been tightened up with the Longbridge cars although I have not been able to check on the parts system to see if the dampers/springs are in fact different to earlier cars.
The Tourer model seems to be attracting much attention at our dealership, with the Diesel Auto model being the biggest seller. The loadspace area is huge and the loading sill is remarkably low and unobstructed.
At first, the looks of the 75 didn't really inspire me. They have grown on me now and any chance I get to blag one for a while, I will jump at the chance.
The ride is very smooth and quiet - so much so, you can be travelling at some ridiculous speeds and it seems so slow.
The dials at night look fantastic with the illumination - very easy on the eyes.
The 1.8 models are a little underpowered and slightly thirsty - if you want petrol power (why??) then go for the excellent 2.5 litre V6. I find the 2.0 V6 just lacks the 'edge'
The best MG Rover model at the moment must be the ZS 180 (The one Tiff Needell liked, with the Subaru style rear spoiler) We have a demo model on at the moment - I took it out for a blast yesterday now it has loosened up after 1500 miles - WHAT A STORMER! It really flies and the V6 engine howl is just fantastic!
Rgds
David
|
|
...so although showroom4cars have 1.8 Classic SE models at £2500 off list do you reckon that the 1.8 is just too slow to lug the big car around?
|
Hi Stuart
I think it is a bold move by MG to have a diesel model in the line-up.
Look at what VW have with the Golf GT TDi.
The performance of the 1998cc L series diesel engine is good, more so with a TuningBox fitted ;-)
I hope it does sell - once somebody has driven it they would be converted.
I witness it everyday when we loan out our 25 Diesel courtesy car. The comments I overhear in reception when they bring the car back brings a smile to my face.
I'm all for the MG Z models, it's what Rover was capable of before but were held back by BMW.
Have you driven any Z models yet? Make sure you drive the ZS 180 - the one with the huge rear spolier aka Subaru Impreza.
Rgds
David
|
|
|
|
David L,
Interested to hear of the mod, will pass that on to my colleague as I am sure his will benefit. So I was right when I said it was shocker seals, and wrong to doubt what I had been told, hey ho thats life.
Re the MG what is the point of the MG ZR Diesel? I understand all technical stuff is the same as the standard 25 except for a few minor suspension and steering tweaks. Most of it is bodywork which just screams nick me! Maybe not as much as the ZS but still enough to question if its worthwhile.
What d'ya fink?
|
|
|
Hi David,
I think you and I are of more or less of similar mind when it comes to diesels. I realise I did not explain myself clearly enough. If MG Rover wish to put performance diesels on the market, like VAG and Peugeot with that gorge 406 coupe and so on, in my honest opinion Rover missed a trick with the ZR in that they could have chipped it so it was even more of an acknowledged flier. That is the rumour of what will happen relating to a possible ZT Diesel.
No I have not driven any Z models, as to do so I feel that I would have to waste a salesman's time somewhere, and that is not fair on him/her. I suppose that explains why I was a bit miffed when I actually wanted a go in a car I am seriously considering that I got the response I did, ref Rover 75 Demo thread, where your bruv gave you a good advert.
Rgds,
Stuart
|
|
|
