rover 75

Well for a start it's a petrol one that your two experts said to forget. It's a 2002 with 86K miles on it. Spark plugs and oil changes is all she's gotten, I fitted an oil catch tank myself (you probably don't know what that does, google would be your friend for that) and replaced a little motor to activate a balance valve on the induction system. That is all, hardly bad for a car your mechanic buddies reckon are not to be touched.

manatoo

RoverJames wrote: »

Well for a start it's a petrol one that your two experts said to forget. It's a 2002 with 86K miles on it. Spark plugs and oil changes is all she's gotten, I fitted an oil catch tank myself (you probably don't know what that does, google would be your friend for that) and replaced a little motor to activate a balance valve on the induction system. That is all, hardly bad for a car your mechanic buddies reckon are not to be touched.

Jesus I take your point about my lack of maintenance but I'd be sickened if I was replacing any "little motors" at 86k! Fair play on the oil catch tank tho. Must be a rocket

manatoo

manatoo wrote: »

Jesus I take your point about my lack of maintenance but I'd be sickened if I was replacing any "little motors" at 86k! Fair play on the oil catch tank tho. Must be a rocket

Sickened at replacing a little motor yoke after eight years ? Well considering you drive around on 16 year old brake discs that have done 140K miles that doesn't surprise me. Oil catch tank and rocket ?? Dunno what you are on about, the catch tank just stops oil getting into the inlet manifold

Did you get your brakes sorted yet btw ?

manatoo

RoverJames wrote: »

Sickened at replacing a little motor yoke after eight years ? Well considering you drive around on 16 year old brake discs that have done 140K miles that doesn't surprise me. Oil catch tank and rocket ?? Dunno what you are on about, the catch tank just stops oil getting into the inlet manifold

Did you get your brakes sorted yet btw ?

Wait, why do you need the catch tank then? How was oil gettin into the manifold?

Nah, too cold to be bothered. Have the NCT on Friday which it's deffo gonna fail. I know I don't that E on one of the tryes and I'm pretty sure at least one is below minimum thread. I'll get the list of things and worry about it then. It's not that I'm against fixing things, as you said yourself, 16 years old, worthless, theres no point in spending anything on it!

manatoo

manatoo wrote: »

Wait, why do you need the catch tank then? How was oil gettin into the manifold?

Nah, too cold to be bothered. Have the NCT on Friday which it's deffo gonna fail. I know I don't that E on one of the tryes and I'm pretty sure at least one is below minimum thread. I'll get the list of things and worry about it then. It's not that I'm against fixing things, as you said yourself, 16 years old, worthless, theres no point in spending anything on it!

Oil vapour gets into the manifolds of loads and loads of cars Catch tank is to hopefully stop this oil ruining my new little motor, it also looks quite well in the engine bay if you go looking for it.

manatoo

RoverJames wrote: »

Oil vapour gets into the manifolds of loads and loads of cars Catch tank is to hopefully stop this oil ruining my new little motor, it also looks quite well in the engine bay if you go looking for it.

hmm...fair enough...but you know as well as I do that you shouldnt have had to replace anything, no matter how small by 86k...

Owen

It's not the mileage, it's the age! I had to replace my crankshaft pulley at 84 k because the rubber had perished due to age. I also had to replace the alternator and aircon belts becaue ... the rubber had perished due too age.

Conor_M1990

manatoo wrote: »

Wait, why do you need the catch tank then? How was oil gettin into the manifold?

Nah, too cold to be bothered. Have the NCT on Friday which it's deffo gonna fail. I know I don't that E on one of the tryes and I'm pretty sure at least one is below minimum thread. I'll get the list of things and worry about it then. It's not that I'm against fixing things, as you said yourself, 16 years old, worthless, theres no point in spending anything on it!

manatoo

PaintDoctor wrote: »

It's not the mileage, it's the age! I had to replace my crankshaft pulley at 84 k because the rubber had perished due to age. I also had to replace the alternator and aircon belts becaue ... the rubber had perished due too age.

How old is your car? Did the belts actually snap?

manatoo

manatoo wrote: »

hmm...fair enough...but you know as well as I do that you shouldnt have had to replace anything, no matter how small by 86k...

Nothing should be replaced by 86K miles :eek:
Well, if you drive about on illegal tyres with poor brakes maybe you can see the sense in that but personally I can't.

Owen

manatoo wrote: »

How old is your car? Did the belts actually snap?

02, one belt did snap, and on investigation, the other was about to go. TBH, this is basic stuff. If you think a car can be ran without problems close to 100k miles, you're in for a rude awakening

manatoo

PaintDoctor wrote: »

02, one belt did snap, and on investigation, the other was about to go. TBH, this is basic stuff. If you think a car can be ran without problems close to 100k miles, you're in for a rude awakening

But...thats just not true! I wouldn't bother makin it up, I bought my car with 63k on it, 10 years old, put 80k on it and in that time i got the timing belt done!! Thats it! No sensors, no belts, no pulleys, no water pump, no alernator, no electrics, no anything else! I do the pads and shoes myself, air and oil filters and oil every so often! Either I've been insanely lucky or I'm going to have a rude awakening when I finally do have to change cars...

manatoo

manatoo wrote: »

Either I've been insanely lucky or I'm going to have a rude awakening when I finally do have to change cars...

Or you are driving a death trap that needs lots done to it, brakes and tyres for a start

manatoo

RoverJames wrote: »

Or you are driving a death trap that needs lots done to it, brakes and tyres for a start

Well the last nct saw no problem with the brakes and I think I'll leave it up to them to decide whats a death trap and whats not on Friday!

manatoo

manatoo wrote: »

Well the last nct saw no problem with the brakes and I think I'll leave it up to them to decide whats a death trap and whats not on Friday!

manatoo wrote: »

Nah, too cold to be bothered. Have the NCT on Friday which it's deffo gonna fail. I know I don't that E on one of the tryes and I'm pretty sure at least one is below minimum thread. I'll get the list of things and worry about it then. It's not that I'm against fixing things, as you said yourself, 16 years old, worthless, theres no point in spending anything on it!

Well you already siad it will defo fail due to tyres, and you have also said months ago that your brakes were noticably worse than they were at time of last NCT, yet you still drive it around. You are making this so easy

manatoo

RoverJames wrote: »

Well you already siad it will defo fail due to tyres, and you have also said months ago that your brakes were noticably worse than they were at time of last NCT, yet you still drive it around. You are making this so easy

Ok, Im not sure we can blame tyres on the car ?!??! :rolleyes: As for the brakes, yeah maybe they'll fail maybe they won't, it was 5% above the passing limit so I have that margin to work with... As long as I don't have to start shelling out on "little motors" I'm still doing better than a 75 for the moment!

manatoo

manatoo wrote: »

Ok, Im not sure we can blame tyres on the car ?!??! :rolleyes: As for the brakes, yeah maybe they'll fail maybe they won't, it was 5% above the passing limit so I have that margin to work with... As long as I don't have to start shelling out on "little motors" I'm still doing better than a 75 for the moment!

lol

Defo not the cars fault re the tyres. That's the irresponsible and law flouting chap who drives about on them risking an accident You're not doing better though really are you

manatoo

RoverJames wrote: »

lol

Defo not the cars fault re the tyres. That's the irresponsible and law flouting chap who drives about on them risking an accident You're not doing better though really are you

Maybe, maybe not but I guess at least I still have my "little motor" money in my pocket and my intake manifold clean...maybe I should spend that money on new tyres?? :rolleyes:

Anyway, the tyre I have that doesn't have the E is actually less than a year old and bought from a regular tyre shop. BS that I have to replace it frankly. A girl who lives nearby got all 4 tyres for her MGF replaced about 2 weeks before the requirement came in. They didn't have the E. Now thats not right

Owen

Sorry, you think a Carina - which is a cheap Japanese motor built down to a price is 'doing better than a 75'? You obviously know very little about cars, and your quite frankly dangerous attitude to maintenance and tires is reinforcing that impression.

EPM

manatoo

PaintDoctor wrote: »

Sorry, you think a Carina - which is a cheap Japanese motor built down to a price is 'doing better than a 75'? You obviously know very little about cars, and your quite frankly dangerous attitude to maintenance and tires is reinforcing that impression.

Ah ok, you must have missed the fact I was referring to FINANCIAL and BUILD QUALITY differences as borne out by the failures other posters such as yourself have described with their cars compared to what I have experienced with mine when I said 'doing better than a 75'... no problem, just read back thru the last few posts and you'll be back on track

Listen, where is this 'maintenance attitude' coming from?? I'm going to get the NCT done, I always have had it NCT'd and I always respect it's decision! It's going to tell me if its in fit condition or not, if its not, I'll either scrap it or bring it up to road fit condition and if it is found to be fit then the national car safety standards have been met! What more do you want?!?!? Are we all supposed to voluntarily build roll cages into our cars?!?!

Owen

Oh dear. I'm not sure you understand what 'build quality' means. You seem to be confusing it with lack of maintenance.

And yes, you've a horrible attitude towards cars. One simple example ... you don't care about driving around on dangerous tires ... QED.

manatoo

PaintDoctor wrote: »

Oh dear. I'm not sure you understand what 'build quality' means. You seem to be confusing it with lack of maintenance.

Is it reliability I meant then? Sorry, I'm just not clear, if in one car things break and need to be fixed and in another car they don't break and don't need to be fixed, what is that called???

Owen

*Sigh* I give up. I'm going to make a cup of coffee before whatever it is you have comes down the intertubes and infects me too :pac:

manatoo

PaintDoctor wrote: »

*Sigh* I give up. I'm going to make a cup of coffee before whatever it is you have comes down the intertubes and infects me too :pac:

Sorry mate, buy a Toyota next time

Owen

Eh, I'm alright thanks. I don't drive a Toyota for the same reason I don't watch Pat Kenny. I own several cars, and I'm delighted to say, none have ever been, are, or ever will be Toyotas. Life's too short to drive a Toyota.

manatoo

PaintDoctor wrote: »

Eh, I'm alright thanks. I don't drive a Toyota for the same reason I don't watch Pat Kenny. I own several cars, and I'm delighted to say, none have ever been, are, or ever will be Toyotas. Life's too short to drive a Toyota.

Are many of them Rovers? A fool and his money.....

thewintermute

____________________________________________I can p!ss this high............Seriously chaps, can we get back to talking about W124s soon?

Stevie Dakota

Roverjames is the most feisty 75 owner I've ever come across!

manatoo

True! What have you Stevie?

Stevie Dakota

Stevie Dakota wrote: »

Roverjames is the most feisty 75 owner I've ever come across!

:pac: :pac:

Stevie Dakota

manatoo wrote: »

True! What have you Stevie?

A 2 year old Focus, you'll be disgusted to hear that two minor pieces of trim have broken since I got it!

manatoo

Stevie Dakota wrote: »

A 2 year old Focus, you'll be disgusted to hear that two minor pieces of trim have broken since I got it!

Well Fords aren't top of the build list though very nearly there...but in every other list they kick the @ss of the competition. They now have the best car to drive in each class - Fiesta, Focus and Mondeo. Look great too. Great choice

manatoo

manatoo wrote: »

Well Fords aren't top of the build list though very nearly there...but in every other list they kick the @ss of the competition. They now have the best car to drive in each class - Fiesta, Focus and Mondeo. Look great too. Great choice

Straight from TopGear and HonestJohn, no doubt you've never driven a new Fiesta, Focus or Mondeo

manatoo

RoverJames wrote: »

Straight from TopGear and HonestJohn, no doubt you've never driven a new Fiesta, Focus or Mondeo

Wrong again I'm afraid! Mother has a 2008 Focus Zetec 1.6, mate has an 07 Mondeo diesel and recently rented an 09 Fiesta in Spain....Dang you just can't catch a break today RJ!!

manatoo

manatoo wrote: »

Wrong again I'm afraid! Mother has a 2008 Focus Zetec 1.6, mate has an 07 Mondeo diesel and recently rented an 09 Fiesta in Spain....Dang you just can't catch a break today RJ!!

Well unless you've driven every other new car in their class you're still talking through your arse, dang :eek:

manatoo

RoverJames wrote: »

Well unless you've driven every other new car in their class you're still talking through your arse, dang :eek:

Yeah sure what would any of the magazines/pundits/experts/reviewers/press/owners/dealers know

RoverJames

RoverJames wrote: »

Straight from TopGear and HonestJohn

manatoo wrote: »

Yeah sure what would any of the magazines/pundits/experts/reviewers/press/owners/dealers know

So I was right, dang, I'm on fire today

Tragedy

manatoo wrote: »

Yeah sure what would any of the magazines/pundits/experts/reviewers/press/owners/dealers know

You mean the British Press that always gives Fords a free ride no matter what, and has been known to for years?

manatoo

RoverJames wrote: »

So I was right, dang, I'm on fire today

Sheeeesh....weak response man...you better come back strong after that one!

Tragedy

RoverJames wrote: »

True, but for most folks when their clutch goes they need it fixed fairly lively and won't know where to go, especially over here.

I haven't heard of an owners who clutch packed in overnight. Even with leaky slave cylinder, they had some warning of clutch going!
Besides, my local indy will do the clutch for a lot less than a grand, and he hates BMC cars with a passion. I'd still go up north or UK though.

Also if you need a balance or power motor it's onto the Rimmers site, repairing the old ones is all well and good but it's a non runner if you need your car and are not handy with a soldering iron etc.

The car runs with with both vis motors not working(all it needs is the vacuum to be maintained), and to take the balance out is a 2minute job, with the power taking a bit longer.
Mine just needed a good clean, soaked in oil but no soldering needed thank god!
Tbh, at any owners club meets, the majority of KV6 engined cars have had duff vis motors and the owner didn't know. You lose about 10-15hp, but there's no change in consumption or any risk of long term damage from it.

For somone who just throws the car in the garage they are potentially not cheap at all to maintain. Loads of garages won't even attempt a timing belt change on one. You love them and know loads about them, most folks don't

I wouldn't touch a timing belt or clutch though, even wishbone bushings would be pushing it for me. Shocks, springs, minor engine bits(like the inlet manifold) no problem, anything more complex and it's local indy or up north.
Not shopping around as a car owner is no excuse, just like it isn't if you're buying a tv or whatever.

Mine was an ex-company car so had no expense spared in the servicing, thankfully!

E39MSport

PaintDoctor wrote: »

Eh, I'm alright thanks. I don't drive a Toyota for the same reason I don't watch Pat Kenny. I own several cars, and I'm delighted to say, none have ever been, are, or ever will be Toyotas. Life's too short to drive a Toyota.

Booo.

The PaintDoctor windmills at the general audience knocking popcorn all over the place...

... I'll be back after I clean the popcorn off me Amazon

hinault

mossfort wrote: »

i was looking at a few rover 75 cars 01 - 04 and they look a nice car for the money. i know the 2.0 diesel has a bmw engine and is reliable but what about the petrol models? i know the 1.8 gives head gasket problems but is the engine ok if this work has already been done. i thinking about importing one from the uk as they are cheap and the vrt is very low. is the 1.8 engine fairly economical , any advice appreciated.

I bought a 2004 Rover 75 1.8 petrol two years ago.

I've regretted it ever since : it literally eats petrol.

manatoo

hinault wrote: »

I bought a 2004 Rover 75 1.8 petrol two years ago.

I've regretted it ever since : it literally eats petrol.

What kind of MPG are you getting? What mileage did you get it at? How many miles have you put onto it? Any other problems than MPG?

hinault

manatoo wrote: »

What kind of MPG are you getting? What mileage did you get it at? How many miles have you put onto it? Any other problems than MPG?

It's a nice car, very comfortable and it is a pleasure to drive.

However saying all that MPG is a disaster.

Here's an example which I actually measured. : I drove 180 miles recently, using 20 litres of petrol.
20 litres = 4.3 gallons.

41 miles to the gallon.

manatoo

hinault wrote: »

It's a nice car, very comfortable and it is a pleasure to drive.

However saying all that MPG is a disaster.

Here's an example which I actually measured. : I drove 180 miles recently, using 20 litres of petrol.
20 litres = 4.3 gallons.

41 miles to the gallon.

41 MPG doesn't seem too bad to me!? Unless it was all megalong distance motorway driving?

Tragedy

41mpg is very good for a 1.8. I got 45-48 in my Diesel, and get 28 in my 2.5.

What in gods name makes you think 41mpg is bad for a large, heavy petrol car?

hinault

hinault wrote: »

It's a nice car, very comfortable and it is a pleasure to drive.

.............41 miles to the gallon.

That's excellent mpg from a car the size of a 75 with a 1.8 engine.

Stevie Dakota

hinault wrote: »

41 miles to the gallon.

That's not bad at all for a heavy enough car with a 1.8 petrol engine!

hinault

manatoo wrote: »

41 MPG doesn't seem too bad to me!? Unless it was all megalong distance motorway driving?

41mpg isn't great in my opinion.

In every other regard, Rover 75 is a pleasure to drive. Low maintenance cost
(thus far!).

Diesel option might be better