They don't make 'em like they used to

[wadgebeast]

Managed to spin my B roadster at 70 this morning by hitting a HUMONGOUS puddle in the outside lane of the dual carriageway. Straight up the embankment and round to face the wrong way, but off the side of the DC.

Got out. Had a look. Pulled out the remains of a bramble patch from between the exhaust and the rear valance. The bottom of the car is covered in clart. Everything that should be there is still there. Car starts fine. Drive down the road 200yds to the layby, no shuddering, steering wheel pointing the right way, exhaust is still firmly in place. Gauges look ok. No gaps where there shouldn't be any.

Get out again in the layby. Have a proper look. Nothing wrong with it at all. Had I done this in my missus' fwd hatch a) I would have bounced off/through the central reservation b) ripped the bottom of the car out. I knew they over engineered the B's shell to make it stiff, but can't believe how solid this car is.

[wildoliver]

Good solid cars B's, had many a "moment" in mine and always looked after me!

[Kermit power]

Not always true to say they don't make them like they used to... One of the 260 owners put his 2 year old car sideways into a ditch. Pulled out by recovery trucks with just a bit of paintwork to touch up.

They don't make them like MGs anymore would be a better line!

[edagroup]

Ahhhh, metal cars ay. They were not made of tin and plastic in those days.

[wildoliver]

Kermit power said:

Not always true to say they don't make them like they used to... One of the 260 owners put his 2 year old car sideways into a ditch. Pulled out by recovery trucks with just a bit of paintwork to touch up.

They don't make them like ROVERS anymore would be a better line!

Corrected for accuracy.

[Kermit power]

wildoliver said:

Kermit power said:

Not always true to say they don't make them like they used to... One of the 260 owners put his 2 year old car sideways into a ditch. Pulled out by recovery trucks with just a bit of paintwork to touch up.

They don't make them like ROVERS anymore would be a better line!

Corrected for accuracy.

Nope! In the case of the V8s, the MG came first, and the Rover 75 V8 came later

[bikemonster]

Er, no.

The V8 was around as a Rover lump before it was dropped into the B GT.

[wadgebeast]

<Anorak on>

Actually it's a different V8 than the old 3.5 litre Buick / Rover version.

<Anorak off>

[Kermit power]

bikemonster said:

Er, no.

The V8 was around as a Rover lump before it was dropped into the B GT.

The MG ZT 260 and later the Rover 75 V8 (which are the cars in discussion) both use a Ford Mustang 4.6l V8.

[wildoliver]

I'm sorry while I agree whole heartedly having had one sliding round a series of roundabluts in full on opposite lock that the zt 260 is a fine car it is still a rover 75, as the mg zr is a rover 25 which is a rover 200 and so on and so on.

Mg saloons have always had a strong following which is good, what is annoying is the obsession that the owners have with trying to make out they are finely honesd sports cars.

[aquarama]

Wildoliver you have a point but MG and badge engineering go way back. The real shame is BMW did not pick up on the mg brand the 75 is a good car but looked to retro and was called an old mans car from the off.

[Kermit power]

wildoliver said:

I'm sorry while I agree whole heartedly having had one sliding round a series of roundabluts in full on opposite lock that the zt 260 is a fine car it is still a rover 75, as the mg zr is a rover 25 which is a rover 200 and so on and so on.

Mg saloons have always had a strong following which is good, what is annoying is the obsession that the owners have with trying to make out they are finely honesd sports cars.

I've never heard anyone claiming that the 260 is a finely honed sports car! It's a great old fashioned muscle car which, unlike most old fashioned muscle cars, really can handle. It also seats 5, and in my case is perfectly capable of carrying a fridge freezer with the seats down, so by no stretch of the imagination is it a sports car.

However, whilst the 260 and the 75 look pretty much the same on the surface, the changes underneath the skin are vast. Different engine, gearbox, suspension, exhaust system, the fact that it is rear rather than front wheel drive, different transmission tunnel, different (and admittedly inferior) aircon system, different brake calipers & discs, they've even got the battery in the boot, a different washer bottle and no ashtray in the front! The list goes on and on.

In other words, they produced pretty much a completely new car, and then clothed it in Rover 75 body panels. After that, they made the Rover 75 V8. Slightly different from the badge engineering of some of the other models, but if it makes you happy to call it a Rover 75, then I am very pleased for you.

[wildoliver]

Kermit if you had got the meaning of my thread you would have realised it wasn't the car I was pulling down, I actually like all the 75 series, and would like a diesel as a towcar, the v8 I love and it is a great laugh, the problem isn't badge engineered cars which as previously mentioned are integral to the MG brand, (considering old no1 was exactly that) but the owners perception of them, you sound like you maybe have a balanced view of what your car is. Rover 75, lots of mods, big engine, RWD, fun, mg badge.

An example of what I mean is shown by the classic MG picture thread.

[Kermit power]

wildoliver said:

Kermit if you had got the meaning of my thread you would have realised it wasn't the car I was pulling down, I actually like all the 75 series, and would like a diesel as a towcar, the v8 I love and it is a great laugh, the problem isn't badge engineered cars which as previously mentioned are integral to the MG brand, (considering old no1 was exactly that) but the owners perception of them, you sound like you maybe have a balanced view of what your car is. Rover 75, lots of mods, big engine, RWD, fun, mg badge.

An example of what I mean is shown by the classic MG picture thread.

I do get your point, and in the case of the ZR, ZS and ZTs from the 190 downwards, I would agree with you. Whilst very competently done, they remain nevertheless badge engineered MG versions of the Rovers on which they are based.

The 260 on the other hand was in effect completely redesigned from the ground up. About the only moving components on the whole car which had been used on any previous 75 or ZT are the front discs, and even then the calipers have been swung round 180 degrees. This is why it doesn't figure in the 75/ZT Haynes manual. It's completely different under the skin.

I really don't have any hangups about the Rover 75 at all. I think it's a wonderful car, and if I did a lot of motorway miles, I reckon it would be pretty much perfect, but in the case of the 260, I think it is selling short the guys who put such a huge effort into developing the car and changing so much on such a minute budget just to lump it in with the others as a badge engineered Rover.

[Roman]

I don't have any hang ups about my ZT being basically a more driver focussed 75 or obsessed that it is a finely honed sports car.

I'm not that bothered about the badge either to be honest, I bought it because I liked it, it's nice to drive, solid & composed for fast cross country travel.

The badge engineering thing seems to be a cause for a bit of snobbery from some people who dont actually own one. Ironic given the brands long standing history in badge engineering & manufacturing 'sporty' saloons - MG SA & WA anyone?

In truth I gather the ZT is much closer to how Rover engineers wanted the 75 to be in the first place as opposed to the BMW boards insistance that it be so retro & softly sprung so as not to steal any sales from the 318, 320 & 323.