JonBowden
|
| posted on 2/6/09 at 07:32 PM |
|
|
Rover 75
My old Audi A6 has to go.
I fancy a Rover 75 estate. It seems that these have a poor reputation. Can anyone give me a bit more information on these cars.
From what I can see, the petrol endines are the only cause for concern. However, ther are three different types : 1.8 4-cyl turbo, 2.0 V6 and 2.5 V6.
Are they all bad?
Any suggestions on what to look out for?
Jon
|
|
|
|
|
*davies144*
|
| posted on 2/6/09 at 07:44 PM |
|
|
ive heard the v6's are notorious for head gasket faliures. ben
|
|
|
coozer
|
| posted on 2/6/09 at 07:48 PM |
|
|
They are great cars in TDi guise. Its a BMW diesel and trans.
Theres also a RWD version with a massive Ford V8 and trans from the Mustang!
Check
THIS!
[Edited on 2/6/09 by coozer]
1972 V8 Jago
1980 Z750
|
|
|
Steve G
|
| posted on 2/6/09 at 07:52 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by JonBowden
Any suggestions on what to look out for?
A Volvo or Saab estate?? 
|
|
|
afj
|
| posted on 2/6/09 at 08:00 PM |
|
|
mondeo safe bet imho
eerrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
|
|
|
Danozeman
|
| posted on 2/6/09 at 08:04 PM |
|
|
The 75 is a good car. Just get a diesel one. BMW engine and box. Go well and give no trouble. They are cheap as chips.
The 2.5 V6 aint that bad either IIRC. Oh and the mustang V8 one. They still have the horsey badge on the engine!!
Dan
Built the purple peril!! Let the modifications begin!!
http://www.eastangliankitcars.co.uk
|
|
|
speedyxjs
|
| posted on 2/6/09 at 08:04 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by afj
mondeo safe bet imho
NOOOOOOOO!
Horrid cars!
How long can i resist the temptation to drop a V8 in?
|
|
|
britishtrident
|
| posted on 2/6/09 at 08:28 PM |
|
|
Here we go again --- to put the record straight.
Headgasket failure are rare - in fact almost unkown on the KV6 as fitted to the 75.
The version of the KV6 fitted to the final version of Rover 825 was an awful engine -- and had truly appalling record of head gasket failures but
this was almost a completely different engine. MG-Rover ended up doing factory reworks on almost the whole 825 KV6 production run.
Getting back to the 75 with the KV6 the 2 litre and 2.5 versions have important differences. The 2.5 has a variable length inlet system operated by
stepper motors these tend to jam --- sometimes they can be freed off other times a exchange unit is required.
The 2 litre V6 dosen't have this system but the 2 litre is a pretty lack luster unit compared to the 2.5 - not much better than the 1.8 in
performance and still uses fuel at the same rate as the 2.5.
Main disadvantage of both V6 units the the cam belt chage interval is 90,000 miles and it is a fairly major job involving special tools to lock the
VVC system.
The 1.8 normally aspirated is a pretty good reliable unit -- very easy to maintain BUT it really hasn't got quite power to lug around the 75.
The head gasket reputation is mainly put about by people who don't understand these engines. The orignal K series gaskets tend to weep water
from silicone tracks on the gasket into the oil ways this was caused by head shuffle which occurs durring cold staret cycles. On engines built up to
the year 2000 there was also a fault with inlet manifold gasket which 9 times out of 10 was misdiagnosed by idiot mechanics as head gasket failure.
A head gasket repair on a 1.8 is a 3 hour job --- no hidden difficulties and can be done without special tools. Head shuffle problems don't
occur on engines with the Freelander spec gasket.
The 1.8 turbo is as fast if not faster than the 2.5v6 and returns the same fuel ecomony as the normal 1.8 however the problem with the engine is
the orginal owners tended to abuse them because of the Turbo go faster image.
I know of one owner who bought a second hand 1.8T from a non-franchise dealer got 12 miles and engine expired in a cloud of white smoke. RAC diagosed
head gasket failure, dealer fitted new head gasket.
The owner go the car back drove it carefully to Cornwall where it again expired in cloud of white smoke --- another RAC diagnosed head gasket. Car was
towed to local garage which was duly authorised to fit a new engine.
This garage were striping the old engine when on removing the exhaust manifold they found it full of oil.
The oil seals in the turbo had blown out --- nothing wrong with the head gasket only the diagnosis by 2 RAC men and 2 garages.
Now what are the real potential problems with 75s
KV6 2.5 manifolds --- as already mentioned.
KV6 thermostats crack & leak
Cost of timing belt change on KV6
Radiators --- applies to all 75/ZT models they can leak and the leaks are very hard to detect often misdiagnosed as head gasket failure.
Temperature gauges tend never to read above normal even if the car is practicall boiled dry and on fire.
Automatic gearbox. Rover used the 5 speed JATCO box also used by Ford, Toyota, Jaguar, Landrover, Nissan and many others ---- not anything like as
troublesome in the Rover as it is in the Jag or Freelander or Avensis but AVOID buy an manual.
If buying a 75 check the condition of brake pipes --- front to rear and in front and rear wheel arches.
Also check the road springs for broken coils --- however the occaisional twanging-grunching noise from the front springs when turning the steering
at parking speed is normal on these cars..
***make sure you get both keys and they both work ***
[Edited on 2/6/09 by britishtrident]
[I] “ What use our work, Bennet, if we cannot care for those we love? .”
― From BBC TV/Amazon's Ripper Street.
[/I]
|
|
|
JonBowden
|
| posted on 2/6/09 at 09:14 PM |
|
|
Wow, thanks for all that, britishtrident.
So, I take it that a '75 would be recommended.
They certainly seem to be good value, especially the leather ones.
Is programming new keys difficult, expensive or impossible?
[Edited on 2/6/09 by JonBowden]
Jon
|
|
|
smart51
|
| posted on 2/6/09 at 09:26 PM |
|
|
I happen to know that the keys / locks / immobiliser system is pure BMW and the same as fitted to later Freelanders. If you want a new key, you have
to go to the BMW database in Germany for one anyway. Parts shouldn't be a problem.
I new someone who had a V6 75 for several years and loved it. Go for the 2.5 V6 rather than the 2.0, or get the 1.8 turbo as previously stated.
Build quality actually improved after to move to Longbridge so get a later car. We heard this story on the news and didn't believe it but as we
made the test equipment, we kind of looked at the database results and it turned out to be true.
They're a bit unloved because rover no longer trade but that only makes second hand prices good. Parts shouldn't be a problem as the
Rover parts business was sold off to Unipart to raise some cash. Should be no more of a problem than any other out of production car.
|
|
|
bikenuts
|
| posted on 2/6/09 at 09:56 PM |
|
|
I'm biased as my ZT-T CDTI is for sale on e-bay at the moment but I've found it a great car. If your into driving I'd go for the MG
rather than the Rover; the handling is excellent for a car of it's size and I prefer the subdued interior to the fake wood of the Rover.
|
|
|
Danozeman
|
| posted on 3/6/09 at 06:26 AM |
|
|
quote:
I'm biased as my ZT-T CDTI is for sale on e-bay at the moment but I've found it a great car. If your into driving I'd go for the MG
rather than the Rover; the handling is excellent for a car of it's size and I prefer the subdued interior to the fake wood of the Rover.
I second that. The wood in them is cheap looking.
Have you a link to your ZT?
My mate has one that remapped etc. Goes like a beast.
Dan
Built the purple peril!! Let the modifications begin!!
http://www.eastangliankitcars.co.uk
|
|
|
britishtrident
|
| posted on 3/6/09 at 06:29 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Danozeman
quote:
I'm biased as my ZT-T CDTI is for sale on e-bay at the moment but I've found it a great car. If your into driving I'd go for the MG
rather than the Rover; the handling is excellent for a car of it's size and I prefer the subdued interior to the fake wood of the Rover.
I second that. The wood in them is cheap looking.
Have you a link to your ZT?
My mate has one that remapped etc. Goes like a beast.
Strange thing is up to 2002 the wood was real :-) --- it still didn't look good. The 75 interior didn't get the touch of Roy Axe who
had previously been in charge of Rover styling.
As to re-mapping the BMW engine also responds well to black box tunning --- a guy called Rover Ron is the man to buy from.
[Edited on 3/6/09 by britishtrident]
[I] “ What use our work, Bennet, if we cannot care for those we love? .”
― From BBC TV/Amazon's Ripper Street.
[/I]
|
|
|
britishtrident
|
| posted on 3/6/09 at 06:41 AM |
|
|
Actually the only real difference between the 75 and the ZT to drive is the ammount of roll, basically the ZT is just lower and stiffer. Also when
Rover were free of BMW and production switched to Longbridge they made changes to the spring rates and ride height on the 75 and fitted bigger
wheels & tyre,, however in the process the rear anti-roll bar was deleted.
[I] “ What use our work, Bennet, if we cannot care for those we love? .”
― From BBC TV/Amazon's Ripper Street.
[/I]
|
|
|
bikenuts
|
| posted on 3/6/09 at 06:43 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Danozeman
quote:
I'm biased as my ZT-T CDTI is for sale on e-bay at the moment but I've found it a great car. If your into driving I'd go for the MG
rather than the Rover; the handling is excellent for a car of it's size and I prefer the subdued interior to the fake wood of the Rover.
I second that. The wood in them is cheap looking.
Have you a link to your ZT?
My mate has one that remapped etc. Goes like a beast.
Seeing as you asked it's;
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/2003-MG-ZT-T-CDTI-BLUE-No-Reserve_W0QQitemZ150349077733QQcmdZViewItemQQptZAutomobiles_UK?hash=item230180dce5&_trksid=p3286.c
0.m14&_trkparms=66%3A2%7C65%3A1%7C39%3A1%7C240%3A1318%7C301%3A1%7C293%3A1%7C294%3A50
|
|
|
v8kid
|
| posted on 3/6/09 at 07:42 AM |
|
|
"2.5 has a variable length inlet system operated by stepper motors these tend to jam"
That sounds interesting! are the bits amenable to butchery do you think BT?
I've been looking for just such a system on my v8 to boost low speed torque do you have any pics?
|
|
|
JonBowden
|
| posted on 3/6/09 at 08:02 AM |
|
|
bikenuts, I like your car but am a bit put off by the mileage.
Does anyone know how long the turbo in the 1.8 is likely to last and how much to fix / replace?
Are there any other non engine things to look out for in a '75?
Jon
|
|
|
bikenuts
|
| posted on 3/6/09 at 08:45 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by JonBowden
bikenuts, I like your car but am a bit put off by the mileage.
Does anyone know how long the turbo in the 1.8 is likely to last and how much to fix / replace?
Are there any other non engine things to look out for in a '75?
I don’t think it’s really appropriate to put my salesman’s hat on here; but I will say it wares it’s miles well and I expect the high mileage to be
reflected in the sale price.
|
|
|
britishtrident
|
| posted on 3/6/09 at 12:03 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by JonBowden
bikenuts, I like your car but am a bit put off by the mileage.
Does anyone know how long the turbo in the 1.8 is likely to last and how much to fix / replace?
Are there any other non engine things to look out for in a '75?
They are generally pretty free of the niggling electrical faults you tend to find some other cars in the same end of the market, cooling fans have
given trouble but the fan speed system was simplfied on later cars each engine type has a completely different cooling fan setup.
Some times fan failure is a fairly easy fix (burned out ressistor) if not it is usually easier to fit a kenlowe fan as sold by Rimmer Brother.
The in tank fuel filter also was badly assembled on some pre-2004 cars causing roadside breakdowns (this wasn't Rover's fault the tanks
were bought pre-assembled in from Valeo) easy and zero cost to fix but in any case most cars will have had it sorted by now.
On petrol engines the plug change interval is 60,000 miles but only if Rover spec Xpart Platinum plugs are used. This extended service interval can
cause with misfires and damaged coil packs. Best to replace the plugs bi-annually if Platinum or yearly if using normal plugs.
Only plugs to use are official Xpart/Rover or NGK.
Early diesels had problems with premature the MAF sensors, Rover introduced a modification in the form of a deflector plate to stop water and road
filth going directly into the engine air intake. This simple mod tripled the longevity of the MAF. You may still find a few cars without the deflector
fitted but it easy to make one up from a scrap of alloy plate.
Some early cars had problems with door locks but this seems to have been fixed fairly qickly -- almost unkown on later cars.
Both the front and rear suspension are clearly BMW in origin but don't share parts with any BMW model.
At 70,000 miles or over the rear lower wishbone bush starts to become suspect, this is a fairly large bush in a cast housing pattern parts are easily
available but most people also change the lower wishbone and ball joint at the same time.
A large bush in the rear suspension is also known to wear at higher mileages-- but not every car is affected.
For Rover parts I normally deal with my local motor factors (the long established Andrew Watt's in Glasgow) or Rimmer Brothers or Online
Automotive or SMC Trading.
Hand brakes aren't great typical BMW shoes inside brake disc arangement but if adjusted by the WSM procedure tend to be "OK".
Don't be put off if the steering wheel looks worn -- not a sign of clocked car as the models with fake leather wheels the colour wears thin
from about 50,000 miles on.
Same goes for the pedal pads they get pretty worn by the same mileage.
If you buy one without reversing sensors I would advise you consider fitting an aftermarket parking radar.
|
|
|
Vindi_andy
|
| posted on 3/6/09 at 02:16 PM |
|
|
My dad had the V6 2.5 and loved it. Used it for towing his caravan plenty of torque and grunt.
Only sold it cos he got rid of the 'van and didnt need the power anymore and wanted something more econimical. typically he was getting 25 mpg
|
|
|
dinosaurjuice
|
| posted on 3/6/09 at 02:38 PM |
|
|
theres an intersting story behind the 75.
BMW originally designed it as a fwd equivalent to the 3 series after they had some issues with traction control or something similar. the
floorpan/suspension/running gear etc was almost fully designed and then bmw decided to put it on 'the shelf' after the original RWD issues
were sorted out.
when they bought rover and had creamed off some 4wd technology they wanted to make something which might just make a profit, the '75' was
fast tracked into production and after some good reviews was a reasonable success.
i think there fab. never driven one but know of a few (diesels) that have gone past 120k with nothing more than servicing etc.
|
|
|
bikenuts
|
| posted on 3/6/09 at 03:27 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by dinosaurjuice
theres an intersting story behind the 75.
BMW originally designed it as a fwd equivalent to the 3 series after they had some issues with traction control or something similar. the
floorpan/suspension/running gear etc was almost fully designed and then bmw decided to put it on 'the shelf' after the original RWD issues
were sorted out.
when they bought rover and had creamed off some 4wd technology they wanted to make something which might just make a profit, the '75' was
fast tracked into production and after some good reviews was a reasonable success.
i think there fab. never driven one but know of a few (diesels) that have gone past 120k with nothing more than servicing etc.
I’m not sure where the idea that the 75 was a BMW cast off comes from – from talking to some of the designers that worked on it I can tell you it was
almost entirely designed at Rover with BMW only sticking there oar in over the choice of diesel engine and rear suspension; otherwise it was close to
a clean sheet of paper design – almost unique in this day and age.
|
|
|
britishtrident
|
| posted on 3/6/09 at 04:03 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by bikenuts
quote:
Originally posted by dinosaurjuice
theres an intersting story behind the 75.
BMW originally designed it as a fwd equivalent to the 3 series after they had some issues with traction control or something similar. the
floorpan/suspension/running gear etc was almost fully designed and then bmw decided to put it on 'the shelf' after the original RWD issues
were sorted out.
when they bought rover and had creamed off some 4wd technology they wanted to make something which might just make a profit, the '75' was
fast tracked into production and after some good reviews was a reasonable success.
i think there fab. never driven one but know of a few (diesels) that have gone past 120k with nothing more than servicing etc.
I’m not sure where the idea that the 75 was a BMW cast off comes from – from talking to some of the designers that worked on it I can tell you it was
almost entirely designed at Rover with BMW only sticking there oar in over the choice of diesel engine and rear suspension; otherwise it was close to
a clean sheet of paper design – almost unique in this day and age.
Anyone who has worked on one will tell you below the outer skin it is almost 99% BMW apart from the power train. The main changes are partly due to
the use of some of Rovers existing parts suppliers who were also contracted to do individual component design.
So for example the front wishbones and its bushes are very similar to BMW 3 series parts but they are manufactured using different methods and
materials.
Another example is the body shell, remove the outer panels and what is exposed is pure BMW.
|
|
|
JonBowden
|
| posted on 3/6/09 at 06:35 PM |
|
|
any idea how long the turbo in the 1.8T will last and how much it costs to fix / repair?
[Edited on 3/6/09 by JonBowden]
Jon
|
|
|
smart51
|
| posted on 3/6/09 at 07:31 PM |
|
|
My understanding was that BMW did much of the engineering design work and Rover did the styling plus ride and handling (simplified a lot). I
didn't work on the 75 tooling but colleagues of mine did, and that's what they reported. The rear suspension was based on the 3 series.
I went to the factory a couple of times. They had laminate floors and "nice" decor (for a car factory). It was almost pleasant. BMW
kept the line speed down in the beginning for longer than they wanted because they were determined to maintain quality. Unusual for a British car
factory. Many had the mentality that you couldn't stop the line no matter what. Refreshing really.
|
|
|
