[Ahrle]

Originally Posted by kaiser

Slow on paper. ??


The car is slow on anything!

Really though?

Engine-wise, it should be a normal performer for a late 90's 2.5 n/a. Same output as A4 2.8, BMW 2.5/2.8's, MB C280 (all had 190-193PS and 245 or 280Nm). I'm more curious why the ZTT appears slower than all of these, when it really shouldn't be. Third gear seems like a major achilles heel, compared to BMW's.

The problem I experience (with bad VISes) is that it's completely gutless under 4000 rpm. Almost dangerous to drive nicely. Tried out the daily '92, 130hp Accord after five days with the ZTT. It literally made me screech in joy. The low gearing and bottom-end torque made it feel like an Evo in comparison.

An inspirational ride later, however, I do get the impression the ZTT's engine lives on the revs. Keep it over 4000 rpm all the time, on a twistier road, and it's hard not to smile. Ol' Honda would not stand a chance. It seems, again with bad VIS'es, what matters is to continously keep it at the power band (it's an all or nothing scenario really).

Originally Posted by kaiser

i am not talking speed. I am talking being slow to respond unless you flatten the pedal to the metal!

Oh yeah, ol' sleepy automatics...

Have you checked the spec difference between auto and manual? It can be huuuuge! Used to have an A4 2.8, clocking 0-60 in about 7 seconds with the manual, and 9.5 as automatic (which in my case weighed in at an unbelievable 1.73 tons!).

But let's forget about speed and hand over that Morris

Originally Posted by Kearton

I recall reading before I bought my ZT-T that BMW had insisted that MGR used the same wheelbase as the equivalent 5 series (E39?) of the time (possibly to help the comparison below), and that MGR had wanted it to be slightly bigger, to provide better rear leg room.

I also read that they wanted to see whether a front wheel drive car could be made to handle like a rear wheel drive car. They didn't quite achive it, but the 75/ZT is closer to that ideal than any other car of the period that I've driven, and also quite a few later FWD cars.

I think that the size comparison they stated was that the 75's size would be between the 600/Montego and the 800.

That is interesting! Watched several reviews prior to purchase. Some claim it was built off the E36, others the E46, and had troubles competing because it couldn't compare in size with neither 3 nor 5 series.

From my understandings (I never looked myself), R75 got a propshaft tunnel already from the start. Curious why it ended up FWD to begin with.

Originally Posted by bl52krz

I imagine that people do not buy a tourer for ‘best’ speed, but for its carrying capacity? I don’t know how the ZT-T compares on that score. Never really fancied one. Plus, how often are you after the ultimate top speed on a motor vehicle? It’s all academic really. You pays your money, and take your pick.

For me personally:

- Preferred it over the Oldsmobile-length butt of the saloon (unsure if that's just an illusion from pictures)
- Needed space for an amp and 15" woofer sitting in the garage, which was the initial reason of purchasing another car... which turned out not to fit anyway
- Had an elderly owner obviously loving the car, which had to make room for a convertible.
- It was £800 cheaper than a saloon 2.5 V6, in worse shape; £1100 cheaper than a facelift 1.8t, that I would consider if it had a 2.5; and even £300 cheaper than a 75 tourer... this with new timing belts, tires, wheel alignment, and £300 yearly tax just paid


I do miss optional extras, like rear power windows, trip computer and cargo net. Weight savings though