Interms of reliability and overall performance which is the best engine

Ross R75 · 11th February 2019, 22:35

Lots of perfectly valid opinions here. I own a couple of Volvo 850 T5s, a manual and an auto. Well maintained, the 5 cylinder 2.3 Turbo petrol engine is super refined and blisteringly fast, even in standard form. They are also far better designed and built than any 75 or ZT.

But....... I still love my 75. It's a truly great car with a character all of it's own.

In my opinion:

V6: Wouldn't have it in a gift. I've owned 3 and it is possibly one of the worst designed V6 engines ever made. The 2.0 KV6 is totally pointless, the 2.5 KV6 is equally pointless but thirstier. A genuinely horrible piece of design, it does nothing well, apart from make a nice noise, and that's purely by accident. This is also subjective, because we're all used to hearing buzzy little 4 cylinder engines in this country.

K4 1.8: Underpowered in NA form, and not reliable enough in any form. The 1.8T at 160bhp standard has enough performance to haul such a heavy car. Remapped it could be mildly entertaining but still nothing to write home about. More developed engines of the same vintage from other manufacturers are far better, more powerful, and more reliable. Whoever designed the cooling system and the pressure release thermostat probably spent a great deal of their youth taking illicit substances, and this is the result. Don't take drugs kids!

M47R 2.0 CDT: Horribly unrefined compared to any modern petrol engine. Suffers from poor clutch design and from the above-mentioned connoisseur of hallucinogenic substances who was likely also responsible for putting the ECU in a swimming pool, opening the roof and then sealing the bottom up. Mental PCV system a'la BMW, but at least they saw fit to modify the filter, and then not tell Rover about it. Remapped, they are torquey, quite nippy, and still very frugal. In fact they are insanely frugal for such a large car, unless coupled with an automatic gearbox; In this case, see KV6.

The long and short of it is that they all have their problems. The KV6 is the only engine I would absolutely rule out. I'd have a 1.8 or a diesel, but in my experience the diesel is cheaper to run, more flexible, and more reliable.

11th February 2019, 22:35	#26
Ross R75 Posted a thing or two Rover 75 Saloon Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Edinburgh Posts: 1,535 Thanks: 137 Thanked 229 Times in 156 Posts	Lots of perfectly valid opinions here. I own a couple of Volvo 850 T5s, a manual and an auto. Well maintained, the 5 cylinder 2.3 Turbo petrol engine is super refined and blisteringly fast, even in standard form. They are also far better designed and built than any 75 or ZT. But....... I still love my 75. It's a truly great car with a character all of it's own. In my opinion: V6: Wouldn't have it in a gift. I've owned 3 and it is possibly one of the worst designed V6 engines ever made. The 2.0 KV6 is totally pointless, the 2.5 KV6 is equally pointless but thirstier. A genuinely horrible piece of design, it does nothing well, apart from make a nice noise, and that's purely by accident. This is also subjective, because we're all used to hearing buzzy little 4 cylinder engines in this country. K4 1.8: Underpowered in NA form, and not reliable enough in any form. The 1.8T at 160bhp standard has enough performance to haul such a heavy car. Remapped it could be mildly entertaining but still nothing to write home about. More developed engines of the same vintage from other manufacturers are far better, more powerful, and more reliable. Whoever designed the cooling system and the pressure release thermostat probably spent a great deal of their youth taking illicit substances, and this is the result. Don't take drugs kids! M47R 2.0 CDT: Horribly unrefined compared to any modern petrol engine. Suffers from poor clutch design and from the above-mentioned connoisseur of hallucinogenic substances who was likely also responsible for putting the ECU in a swimming pool, opening the roof and then sealing the bottom up. Mental PCV system a'la BMW, but at least they saw fit to modify the filter, and then not tell Rover about it. Remapped, they are torquey, quite nippy, and still very frugal. In fact they are insanely frugal for such a large car, unless coupled with an automatic gearbox; In this case, see KV6. The long and short of it is that they all have their problems. The KV6 is the only engine I would absolutely rule out. I'd have a 1.8 or a diesel, but in my experience the diesel is cheaper to run, more flexible, and more reliable. __________________ Copperleaf R75 CDT 160