Rover 75 Countryman concept - Page 2

clf · 30th August 2020, 10:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blastpipe

I suspect that it was something different..if only because MGR were forbidden from having a 4wd Rover (hence why the AWD is an MG).

Who forbade them of this? They would have both been R41s (albeit different trim designations, I cannot remember what these are, X10, 11, 12, 13, 14? ). The ZT is just a 75 with a different badge, and a variation on trim.

Blastpipe · 30th August 2020, 20:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by clf

Who forbade them of this? They would have both been R41s (albeit different trim designations, I cannot remember what these are, X10, 11, 12, 13, 14? ). The ZT is just a 75 with a different badge, and a variation on trim.

If memory serves me right....BMW/Ford. At the time BMW sold to Phoenix...the Rover name was only on licence unlike MG which was transferred to Phoenix. The licence required that Rover was not to use it on AWD/4WD vehicles to avoid confusion with Land Rover (sold to Ford)... due particularly to the USA where Land Rovers were often known as Rovers.

That's why I believe there is only an MG AWD concept in existence (with John N) and not a Rover.

Robson Rover Repair · 31st August 2020, 03:03

I firmly believe the concept was a massively missed opportunity, more so than the v8.

Imagine a 4x4 75 /zt saloon or tourer, in diesel and v6.

Jaguar knew it mattered to the European market when they launched the v6 x type with 4x4 drive train globally.

It would have been massively popular with people in remote areas, the freelander was already accepted for being a highly capable soft roader (my old one put a few defenders to shame in the mud and grass trails).

100% this should have been the option looked at going forward over the v8 to boost sales, discounts to police, ambulance services and then look towards the G series and the Kv8.

Spending the money sorting out the super charger issues also would have given way to a whole new range of cars, imagine the 2.0 super charged replacing the 1.8 with better emissions, I'd say it would likely throw out same power as a 190 setup right.

Then your looking at a range of engines, supercharged 2.0 kv6, the next gen 2.5, super charged next gen 2.5 and then onwards to kv8 and g series.

The proof of the kv6 being euro 4 2005 compliant was already solved, which would have given them a chance.

A ztt with a supercharged v6 and passive 4x4 drive train? A budget rs4 if I ever heard of it, and even if it didn't have massive preformance it would tick all the right boxes.

As much as I like the v8s, the Rover v8 should have been the engine put in. And they should have made use of the T series 2.0 turbo.

Imagine modern versions of those, 3.0, 3.5, 4.0 and so on, and the modern catalytic converters and injection setup on a 2.0 turbo would have been legendary.

I guarantee you, throwing a rover v8 or a 2.0 turbo into our cars would have sold bulk numbers.

31st August 2020, 03:03	#13
Robson Rover Repair NI/ROI RS ZT-T 190 / 75 Diesel x3 / 6 door limo / 216 Cabby / Rover 25 van Join Date: May 2009 Location: Antrim Posts: 8,101 Thanks: 299 Thanked 1,046 Times in 568 Posts	I firmly believe the concept was a massively missed opportunity, more so than the v8. Imagine a 4x4 75 /zt saloon or tourer, in diesel and v6. Jaguar knew it mattered to the European market when they launched the v6 x type with 4x4 drive train globally. It would have been massively popular with people in remote areas, the freelander was already accepted for being a highly capable soft roader (my old one put a few defenders to shame in the mud and grass trails). 100% this should have been the option looked at going forward over the v8 to boost sales, discounts to police, ambulance services and then look towards the G series and the Kv8. Spending the money sorting out the super charger issues also would have given way to a whole new range of cars, imagine the 2.0 super charged replacing the 1.8 with better emissions, I'd say it would likely throw out same power as a 190 setup right. Then your looking at a range of engines, supercharged 2.0 kv6, the next gen 2.5, super charged next gen 2.5 and then onwards to kv8 and g series. The proof of the kv6 being euro 4 2005 compliant was already solved, which would have given them a chance. A ztt with a supercharged v6 and passive 4x4 drive train? A budget rs4 if I ever heard of it, and even if it didn't have massive preformance it would tick all the right boxes. As much as I like the v8s, the Rover v8 should have been the engine put in. And they should have made use of the T series 2.0 turbo. Imagine modern versions of those, 3.0, 3.5, 4.0 and so on, and the modern catalytic converters and injection setup on a 2.0 turbo would have been legendary. I guarantee you, throwing a rover v8 or a 2.0 turbo into our cars would have sold bulk numbers. __________________ Cheers, Colin Robson Rover Repair on Youtube DISCOUNTED MTEC BRAKES FOR ALL MG ROVER'S Braided hoses, more coating and pad options for 2024 Last edited by Robson Rover Repair; 31st August 2020 at 03:11..