R75 turbo v MGZT turbo?

Unomatt · 29th June 2017, 11:16

Sorry if this has been asked before, is there any noticeable performance difference between the R75 1.8T and the MG 1.8T? I know its possible to map the R75 to MG spec but is it worth it?

T-Cut · 29th June 2017, 11:37

The ZT has 10bhp extra over the 75's 150bhp, stiffer suspension, harder ride. The suspension is designed according to performance, so a 160bhp 75 won't 'perform' like a ZT. It all depends on what you expect/demand from it.

TC

TomRS · 29th June 2017, 11:58

Exactly what T-Cut has said...

Personally i prefer the styling and overall drive the ZT offers but if you want comfort then the 75 is your better bet.
Its the same engine/turbo etc so both can be tuned to around 200bhp with a remap.

Unomatt · 29th June 2017, 12:04

I have a R75 tourer already, wanted the ZT but couldn't find what I wanted. I know dynamically the R75 is 'softer' but I'm just wondering if the map to 160 would be noticeable day to day. Parkers says it would be 0.9 seconds quicker to 60 (can't see it myself!) and quicker through the gears so it seems a no brainer to me! I know a bigger map is possible but I couldn't justify the cash.

sewerman · 29th June 2017, 12:11

The 75 and zt also have different gear ratios for that sports feel

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

Unomatt · 29th June 2017, 12:19

So is it mainly down to the gear ratio that the acceleration is so much better?

sewerman · 29th June 2017, 13:38

Possibly my zt gears are a lot closer than the 75s

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

maxi_crawf · 29th June 2017, 15:16

I thought it was just the 190 that had different ratios.

The Incredible 'ULK' · 29th June 2017, 15:25

Based on the way the 2 75 turbos of mine have performed, I wouldn't worry about the 10ps power difference, they've easily been a match for 160 remapped diesels. As for handling, you'll find a 75 a bit softer, with less direct steering than a ZT, unless you can find one like mine presently, with the sports handling back, which I understand in essence is just the ZT set up.

JeffD · 29th June 2017, 15:42

I've got a 1.8T which I had Brian remap so it thinks its a ZT and it is so much nicer to drive - acceleration is a lot smoother throughout the powerband. Thoroughly recommend it.

Costs me £50 a year extra for insurance and not noticed any difference in fuel economy :-)

29th June 2017, 11:16	#1
Unomatt Regular poster Rover 75 tourer Join Date: Mar 2017 Location: Spilsby Posts: 54 Thanks: 4 Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post	R75 turbo v MGZT turbo? Sorry if this has been asked before, is there any noticeable performance difference between the R75 1.8T and the MG 1.8T? I know its possible to map the R75 to MG spec but is it worth it?

29th June 2017, 11:58	#3
TomRS Posted a thing or two Mk1 ZT 190 - Mk2 ZS 180 - Mercedes E63 AMG S - Ford Ranger Hawk Join Date: Mar 2016 Location: Middlesbrough Posts: 1,456 Thanks: 123 Thanked 409 Times in 281 Posts	Exactly what T-Cut has said... Personally i prefer the styling and overall drive the ZT offers but if you want comfort then the 75 is your better bet. Its the same engine/turbo etc so both can be tuned to around 200bhp with a remap. __________________ http://i66.tinypic.com/5cd6xj.jpg

29th June 2017, 15:25	#9
The Incredible 'ULK' Loves to post Rover 75 Saloon Join Date: Aug 2014 Location: Withernsea Posts: 399 Thanks: 131 Thanked 127 Times in 78 Posts	Based on the way the 2 75 turbos of mine have performed, I wouldn't worry about the 10ps power difference, they've easily been a match for 160 remapped diesels. As for handling, you'll find a 75 a bit softer, with less direct steering than a ZT, unless you can find one like mine presently, with the sports handling back, which I understand in essence is just the ZT set up. __________________ [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

29th June 2017, 11:37	#2
T-Cut This is my second home Rover75 and Mreg Corsa. Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Sumweer onat mote o'dust (Sagin) Posts: 21,752 Thanks: 341 Thanked 3,660 Times in 2,924 Posts	The ZT has 10bhp extra over the 75's 150bhp, stiffer suspension, harder ride. The suspension is designed according to performance, so a 160bhp 75 won't 'perform' like a ZT. It all depends on what you expect/demand from it. TC

29th June 2017, 12:04	#4
Unomatt Regular poster Rover 75 tourer Join Date: Mar 2017 Location: Spilsby Posts: 54 Thanks: 4 Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post	I have a R75 tourer already, wanted the ZT but couldn't find what I wanted. I know dynamically the R75 is 'softer' but I'm just wondering if the map to 160 would be noticeable day to day. Parkers says it would be 0.9 seconds quicker to 60 (can't see it myself!) and quicker through the gears so it seems a no brainer to me! I know a bigger map is possible but I couldn't justify the cash.

29th June 2017, 12:11	#5
sewerman Gets stuck in MG ZT+ CDTi Join Date: Feb 2014 Location: Wolverhampton Posts: 632 Thanks: 166 Thanked 264 Times in 154 Posts	The 75 and zt also have different gear ratios for that sports feel Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

29th June 2017, 12:19	#6
Unomatt Regular poster Rover 75 tourer Join Date: Mar 2017 Location: Spilsby Posts: 54 Thanks: 4 Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post	So is it mainly down to the gear ratio that the acceleration is so much better?

29th June 2017, 13:38	#7
sewerman Gets stuck in MG ZT+ CDTi Join Date: Feb 2014 Location: Wolverhampton Posts: 632 Thanks: 166 Thanked 264 Times in 154 Posts	Possibly my zt gears are a lot closer than the 75s Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

29th June 2017, 15:16	#8
maxi_crawf Posted a thing or two R75 Saloon Conn CDT SE, MG ZT190+ Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Kingston-upon-Hull Posts: 1,960 Thanks: 823 Thanked 426 Times in 274 Posts	I thought it was just the 190 that had different ratios.

29th June 2017, 15:42	#10
JeffD Loves to post Rover 75 1.8T SE Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: Southport Posts: 402 Thanks: 1 Thanked 72 Times in 37 Posts	I've got a 1.8T which I had Brian remap so it thinks its a ZT and it is so much nicer to drive - acceleration is a lot smoother throughout the powerband. Thoroughly recommend it. Costs me £50 a year extra for insurance and not noticed any difference in fuel economy :-)