|
||
|
13th July 2021, 02:21 | #11 | ||
Newbie
Morris ZT-T 190+ Join Date: Jun 2021
Location: Åre
Posts: 18
Thanks: 5
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
|
Quote:
Haha, that's a good one Not without point though; ZS 180 seems to be a ZS 174, making me curious if ZT really delivers those +16bhp from that same motor. Quote:
1.8t may sure have been the best alternative, roadlegal tuning should be easier too The sound of that KV6 though... Just noticed how close the ZT is to the E39 in size. Hm... Thought the 75 was meant to fit between the 3 and 5 series? Correct My car is slower as well, but at least it looks fast standing still |
||
13th July 2021, 07:41 | #12 |
Posted a thing or two
Jaguar Xe diseasal Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Little Stanion, Corby
Posts: 1,922
Thanks: 363
Thanked 390 Times in 241 Posts
|
I may be wrong but I was under the impression that the 190, 180, 160 etc was actually PS, rather than BHP, which is essentially imperial horsepower being slightly less than PS, which is a german equivalent (I think).
|
13th July 2021, 11:57 | #13 | |
Gets stuck in
MG ZT-T CDTi Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Sunny Suffolk
Posts: 607
Thanks: 1
Thanked 16 Times in 13 Posts
|
Quote:
The later 75/ZT diesel engine is 132 PS = 129 bhp. The 135 part of its name is from rounding up of the PS value. also, values do vary with production tolerances and settings. On a dyno before its upgrade, mine was measured at 132.5 bhp (= 134.3 PS). |
|
13th July 2021, 12:02 | #14 |
This is my second home
75 Tourer 2.5 Auto, 1.8T, 75V8ZT Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Johannesburg ZA
Posts: 6,200
Thanks: 1
Thanked 859 Times in 613 Posts
|
Slow on paper. ??
The car is slow on anything!
__________________
Worth his V8 in gold |
13th July 2021, 12:07 | #15 | |
Newbie
Morris ZT-T 190+ Join Date: Jun 2021
Location: Åre
Posts: 18
Thanks: 5
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
|
Quote:
ZS 2.5: 174 bhp/177 PS ZT 2.5: 188 bhp/190 PS |
|
13th July 2021, 12:09 | #16 | |
Gets stuck in
MG ZT-T CDTi Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Sunny Suffolk
Posts: 607
Thanks: 1
Thanked 16 Times in 13 Posts
|
Quote:
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. Last edited by Kearton; 13th July 2021 at 12:13.. |
|
13th July 2021, 12:13 | #17 |
This is my second home
Rover 75 cdt club + Rover 2.5 KV6 Conni SE Join Date: May 2008
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 11,356
Thanks: 6,587
Thanked 2,262 Times in 1,729 Posts
|
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.
__________________
Great Barr, Birmingham. |
13th July 2021, 15:55 | #18 |
This is my second home
75 Tourer 2.5 Auto, 1.8T, 75V8ZT Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Johannesburg ZA
Posts: 6,200
Thanks: 1
Thanked 859 Times in 613 Posts
|
i am not talking speed. I am talking being slow to respond unless you flatten the pedal to the metal!
It is quite annoying at times, with the automatic. If you want to nip in a gap, it is either annoyingly slow, causing the chap behind inconvenience, or it is two gears down and a growl. The most important thing for a street car is amble torque, and this car has simply not got it! without letting all the horses out the stable at once. My wife was driving the 1.8T and I the V6 once, and I booted the V6 just to follow the 1.8T! And my wife is not normally a fast driver! Using the speed control, and hitting a hill, the car goes out of lock up then into fourth and then into 3rd, just to maintain 100kph. And then slips into 4th again almost immediately. It is just so overblown and dramatic. My 3.5 just plods along, hill or no hill. It stays in 3rd, almost without exception, unless the hill is really really steep. And buying an estate for me was simply a matter of practicability and good looks. I think, that the 75 in estate form is about the smartest estate I have ever seen. The others I liked was the Sierra, the Volvo 240 (?) and the Chrysler 300. So for me it was a choice of a good looking car! And no, I don't expect my estate to be any slower than a sedan, why on earth should I?? My bags of cement and engine assemblies, prams, clocks, tape recorders and tools deserve to go 120mph, if I choose. Otherwise I would have bought the other estate I like. This one!
__________________
Worth his V8 in gold |
13th July 2021, 17:04 | #19 | |||
Newbie
Morris ZT-T 190+ Join Date: Jun 2021
Location: Åre
Posts: 18
Thanks: 5
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
|
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). Quote:
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 Quote:
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. Quote:
- 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 Last edited by Ahrle; 13th July 2021 at 17:16.. |
|||
13th July 2021, 17:17 | #20 |
This is my second home
75 Tourer 2.5 Auto, 1.8T, 75V8ZT Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Johannesburg ZA
Posts: 6,200
Thanks: 1
Thanked 859 Times in 613 Posts
|
Compare torque, not power
Torque is Alfa and Omega in a road car. The Rover V6 simply has not got it!. Compare to a straight six BMW or anything!! else. Bottom last!
__________________
Worth his V8 in gold |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|