Prospective Owner with ride quality doubts.

[Enkie]

I have always been a secret admirer of the Rover 75, but to my shame I never ventured beyond furtive admiring glances rather than a serious consideration. Well, now I find myself of ‘pipe and slippers’ age and living in an area where the roads are little more than dirt tracks. We’re not talking full blown ‘off-roading’ here, in fact I’ve never needed to use four-wheel drive, there are just loads and loads of potholes, especially in the winter. I’ve been driving an ‘04 Nissan Pathfinder for the last 10 years which is great - reliable, capable, but thirsty which is why it’s on LPG now. The biggest problem though is that it’s very uncomfortable, you really feel every bump. The suspension is a compromise between off-road capability and on-road driveability, like all 4x4s I suppose unless you can afford something with air suspension and the repair bills that come with it.

During my search for a comfortable replacement for the Nissan I have flirted with the idea of an older Citroen with hydropneumatic suspension, but they’re sooo ugly, not to mention complicated and the automatic gearboxes are apparently unreliable much before 2009 models, which are over my budget and have other issues. My wife can only drive autos I should mention. However, the Rover 75 kept cropping up whenever I searched for ‘best ride quality’. In fact in April 2011 AutoExpress declared it to be the “Best for ride quality” according to a survey based upon the criteria of “cars that glide over pot holes and speed bumps”. It came top and the Citroen C5 was a lowly 5th. (https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/best-c...t-ride-quality).

I should explain that we live in Spain and the used car market here is very different to the UK one. In general prices here are akin to highway robbery and the government gets a tax handout from every secondhand car sale (usually paid by the buyer). The big advantage however, is that rust is rarely a problem when buying a secondhand car over here due to the climate and the fact that they don’t put salt on the roads. There are quite a lot of 75s for sale over here. Many have starship mileages up in the 300,00kms range and even most of the petrol ones are on their original cambelts, (any that have been changed are advertised as such). I see lots of black painted sills, so maybe LHD production was at Longbridge (or do I mean Cowley?)

So anyway, I joined this forum and spent quite a while eagerly devouring all the information I could find. The ‘Buyer’s Guide’ is magnificent by the way, probably the best I’ve ever seen for any single marque. I decided on a 75 rather than a ZT due to the suspension differences. I surprised myself by preferring the Mk2 facelift, which I had never seen before (...I don’t get out much). I was happy that the auto option has advantages over the manual. I had even decided that I could probably manage changing the cambelts on a KV6 if push came to shove, but would prefer a diesel with timing chain.

The problem arose when I was searching for posts on ride quality. There seems to be an awful lot of contradictory opinions on here with the most vocal being in the negative, which is to be expected, of course. This has well and truly put a spanner in the works and has prevented me from pursuing the 75 as an option, which I am very disappointed about.

So, I would be very grateful for any opinions on ride quality in relation to potholes. Do you feel every bump, as some have claimed or is the 75 really worthy of the AutoExpress accolade?

Thanking you in anticipation.

[Best_of_British]

My Tourer is over 200K, has rear pans on their last legs, original shocks, sits on 17inch serpent wheels and has a similar ride quality to a serries 1 land rover.

My saloon which is off the road has rebuilt rear suspension, only done 130k, sits on 15inch crown wheels and drives like a magic carpet.


The Answer is when they came out of show room they where smooth, very few are now. Even low mileage cars will suffer from tin worm on badly protected rear suspension parts. If you find one on smaller wheels, new shocks and springs and rear arms that have not collapsed, you may get the ride you are after, beware as very few are like that now.

Sent from my Redmi 4A using Tapatalk

[Best_of_British]

I should read your post, hopefully a Spanish one will have less corroded arms, the rest still stands, many are on snapped rear springs and sit wrong at the back.

Sent from my Redmi 4A using Tapatalk

[macafee2]

Enkie, welcome.
The Rover 75 is a comfortable car, I regularly do 200 mile trips in it and no back or bum ach.
You say your roads are "little more than dirt tracks. ... there are just loads and loads of potholes"

I'm not sure a Rover 75 would be the best car to deal with pot holes. When I use tracks as you describe I'm driving at no more then walking pace as the ground clearance is not exactly 4X4 standards. In fact I'm not sure what family car you would need but it sounds as if a "4x4" would deal with the roads better


macafee2

[MSS]

Firstly, I would ignore the order of the top-5 cars in the Autoexpress survey. All of the top 5 cars will be very similar, certainly the C5 and the 75.

Also, as stated above, at their current age, ride quality of the 75 will be determined by how many suspension components have been replaced and hoe many are now rather tired. My CDT has all new suspension components and rides like new.

For a comfortable ride, the best car I have experienced is the Vauxhall Omega. It really does provide a magic carpet ride and the suspension is generally more robust than the 75. But it is also a heavier car. Try out a 2.6/2.6 or 3.0/3.2 V6 and you will be pleasantly surprised. It does not have the interior ambience of the 75 but has it's own character.

Why not try test driving a few of candidate cars?

[SideValve]

If you were to buy a banger then clearly it might have all sorts of problems, including the ride quality. If you get a decent one, and there are still plenty about, the ride will be great.
They were still winning awards even after production ended, including Auto Express Drive Power ‘Best Ride Quality’ 2006.

However, if the roads are as bad as you say, it sounds like you need something with better ground clearance - Land Rover Freelander 2 are nice

[KLM]

I suggest you look for a Renault 4. Ideal for your requirements.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renault_4

The R3 and R4 were targeted at the Citroen 2CV that employed soft springs and long wheel travel to absorb bumps on poorly maintained roads. The Renault 3 & 4 applied the same approach and two models appeared at the Paris Motor Show in 1961 on a specialized demonstration display that incorporated an irregular rolling road. Visitors could sit inside a car, which remained undisturbed while the suspension absorbed the erratic bumps of the rolling road.[4] In 1962 Renault employed the same display at the Turin Motor Show.[4]

Kev.

[Comfortably Numb]

Originally Posted by KLM

I suggest you look for a Renault 4. Ideal for your requirements.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renault_4

The R3 and R4 were targeted at the Citroen 2CV that employed soft springs and long wheel travel to absorb bumps on poorly maintained roads. The Renault 3 & 4 applied the same approach and two models appeared at the Paris Motor Show in 1961 on a specialized demonstration display that incorporated an irregular rolling road. Visitors could sit inside a car, which remained undisturbed while the suspension absorbed the erratic bumps of the rolling road.[4] In 1962 Renault employed the same display at the Turin Motor Show.[4]

Kev.

Renault 4s do have amazing suspension, but older Renault auto boxes were famously unreliable. My vote would be Freelander for a comfortable and economical 4x4, or Peugeot 405/406 for a robust and comfortable automatic. 1.9XUD engine was one of the most reliable diesels, simple technology, still loads of spares all over Europe, won Car of the Year and many other awards. I've had 3, - 2 non- turbos, 1 turbo. 2 were sold on with MoT and over 200K miles, still running really well. The other, sadly I wrote off. Really comfortable - thick padded seats like armchairs, and long travel suspension. Brilliant on the country lanes around Cumbria.

[Enkie]

Many thanks for all the opinions so far. From what has been said it seems that suspension condition is the key to the 75's ride quality, particularly at the rear. I read somewhere on here that Mk2s were fitted with the same suspension as the ZT. Is that correct?

Thanks also for the suggestions for alternative vehicles. I have considered all of them previously, bar the Renault 4 which was never available with an auto box. As for 4x4s, well I already have one (that's only done 80k kilometres) and it's most uncomfortable over potholes even at a walking pace. 4x4s tend to have very hard suspension in order to give them acceptable road manners... in fact most modern cars are the same I find.

I have seen a Mk2 2.5 auto for sale here with 42K kilometres (26k miles) and a Mk2 diesel auto with 137k (85k of your British miles). Both of them are a very long way away from where I live, so test drives would be a major undertaking, therefore I would rather be sure first.

[LeRich]

Originally Posted by Enkie

I read somewhere on here that Mk2s were fitted with the same suspension as the ZT. Is that correct?

No. The mk2 has the ZT's sharper steering rack but not its suspension. Sports suspension was an option on 75 Contemporary/SE models but it's rare.

I think tyre size seems to make the biggest difference to ride quality. My Contemporary SE rides on standard 17" alloys with 215/50 tyres and rides better than my Mazda6 but is far from like riding on a magic carpet.