rover 75

hinault

hinault wrote: »

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

What mpg would you be happy with ?

Tragedy

Over 18,000 miles I average I think 45mpg in the diesel, with about 12,000 of that motorway. I serviced it every 6,000 miles, changed the PCV filter, put in a replacement EGR valve and had it tuned, but I still only got a little bit more than you. Max I could achieve was 50.

Admittedly, she had an awful lot more poke than the 1.8, but still. 41mpg from an old 1.8 petrol in a car that weighs over 1,500kg is fantastic

E39MSport

41 mpg and you regret it ever since despite "nice car, very comfortable and it is a pleasure to drive" ?

You are very hard to please.

Some of us here get a snot over 10mpg.

hinault

Folks - correction.
My Rover 75 petrol car engine size is 1,695.

Tragedy

Tragedy wrote: »

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.

Yeah, replaced my balance valve last night, wouldn't chance pr1cking about with the old one unless I had a replacement though as I need a car every day

cjt156

manatoo wrote: »

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:

yeah, d'ya fcuking think?

This is exactly what's wrong with so many people in this country. "I'll squeeze through the NCT on barely legal tyres and brakes so I can keep driving for another two years - sure its Japanese"
And then mock people who actually spend time and money maintaining a car.
Stupidity.

Tragedy

hinault wrote: »

Folks - correction.
My Rover 75 petrol car engine size is 1,695.

I can assure you, it's 1,795. There's no 1.7l Rover 75(or Rover K4 full stop!)

EPM

hinault wrote: »

Folks - correction.
My Rover 75 petrol car engine size is 1,695.

Huh?!?

41 mpg is great for that engine/car combo.

manatoo

Tragedy wrote: »

I serviced it every 6,000 miles, changed the PCV filter, put in a replacement EGR valve and had it tuned

OOOOuch.....

Tragedy

manatoo wrote: »

OOOOuch.....

Ouch what? The PCV filter was fine, the EGR valve was relatively coke free, but I replaced both as I was remapping it.

Ouch i wanted more power?
Ok.

Troll.

Tragedy

Tragedy wrote: »

Troll, weirdo or just an idiot?

Or all three ?

manatoo

Tragedy wrote: »

Ouch what? The PCV filter was fine, the EGR valve was relatively coke free, but I replaced both as I was remapping it.

Ouch i wanted more power?
Ok.

Troll, weirdo or just an idiot?

Ok, Just looked like you got all that done to get more MPG!!!


Retardation, neurotic psychosis or wait....oh yeah....Rover owner :cool:

E39MSport

Tragedy wrote: »

Ouch what? The PCV filter was fine, the EGR valve was relatively coke free, but I replaced both as I was remapping it.

Ouch i wanted more power?
Ok.

Troll, weirdo or just an idiot?

Unfair. I thought the idea was to comment on the posts and not the author?

manatoo

E39MSport wrote: »

Unfair. I thought the idea was to comment on the posts and not the author?

So did I but hey fight fire with fire!

Tragedy

E39MSport wrote: »

Unfair. I thought the idea was to comment on the posts and not the author?

When someone replies with "OOOOuch....." because I serviced my car and changed a few bits to remap her, what exactly am I meant to comment on? Do tell, cuz I can't find anything to comment or reply to, which makes me see troll.

manatoo

Tragedy wrote: »

When someone replies with "OOOOuch....." because I serviced my car and changed a few bits to remap her, what exactly am I meant to comment on? Do tell, cuz I can't find anything to comment or reply to, which makes me see troll.

Is the response then not

"OOOOOuch what????"

END OF POST

E39MSport

Tragedy wrote: »

When someone replies with "OOOOuch....." because I serviced my car and changed a few bits to remap her, what exactly am I meant to comment on? Do tell, cuz I can't find anything to comment or reply to, which makes me see troll.

I didn't highlight 'troll'. Just commenting.

Tragedy

manatoo wrote: »

Ok, Just looked like you got all that done to get more MPG!!!

How does it look like I got all that done to get more MPG? The PCV filter is a BMW design(surprise, as is front suspension, rear suspension and the engine itself) which can get gunked up with oil. I replaced it as most garages don't bother and they can be pretty bad - mine wasn't, but I had the filter which cost €6 so replaced it anyway.

The EGR valve is a known problem on many cars, including your precious fords. Become coked up looking like this http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3451/3749299739_9c26d798a8.jpg providing less airflow to engine.
Bought a bypass valve, took out my old one, and again, it looked absolutely fine with no trace of anything.

So again, OOOOuch..... what? Ouch I did some preventative maintenance that turned out to be unncessary? Ouch my car needed less servicing than I thought? Ouch I increased the power of my car by 60%, lost 2mpg and had zero mechanical trouble for 10,000 miles?

You think it's ridiculous that an 8year old car with 80something k miles needs a sensor replaced. You think it's normal not to replace anything(including tyres?) for 80k miles at a time. You think comparing an ancient car that didn't even come with airbags or ABS to a car that's technology heavy with a fairly advanced engine design(at the time) and find it strange that the maintenance might be different?
That is weird, plain and simple.

hinault

Speak of the devil : passenger seat front, seatbelt has developed a problem.

Can't get the seatbelt to won't pull out to allow me to click the belt securely.

manatoo

Tragedy wrote: »

How does it look like I got all that done to get more MPG? The PCV filter is a BMW design(surprise, as is front suspension, rear suspension and the engine itself) which can get gunked up with oil. I replaced it as most garages don't bother and they can be pretty bad - mine wasn't, but I had the filter which cost €6 so replaced it anyway.

The EGR valve is a known problem on many cars, including your precious fords. Become coked up looking like this http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3451/3749299739_9c26d798a8.jpg providing less airflow to engine.
Bought a bypass valve, took out my old one, and again, it looked absolutely fine with no trace of anything.

So again, OOOOuch..... what? Ouch I did some preventative maintenance that turned out to be unncessary? Ouch my car needed less servicing than I thought? Ouch I increased the power of my car by 60%, lost 2mpg and had zero mechanical trouble for 10,000 miles?

WHHAAAATTTT?????? 10,000 MILES TROUBLE FREE ARE YOU SERIOUS??!?!??! THIS CAR NEEDS TO REPLACE THE STARSHIP ENTERPRISE WITH TROUBLE FREE MILEAGE!!!!!!! SOMEONE CALL STARFLEET, SPOCK, SCOTTY, ANYONE QUICK!!!!!!!!!!! HOW HAS THE MOTORING WORLD NEVER HEARD ABOUT THIS 10,000 MILE TROUBLE FREE ROVER!!!!

Read your post again dude...

Over 18,000 miles I average I think 45mpg in the diesel, with about 12,000 of that motorway. I serviced it every 6,000 miles, changed the PCV filter, put in a replacement EGR valve and had it tuned, but I still only got a little bit more than you. Max I could achieve was 50.

Now if you can't figure out how that looks like you did the work to get more MPG then it's the English writing lessons thread you need to get in on...

manatoo

manatoo wrote: »

Now if you can't figure out how that looks like you did the work to get more MPG then it's the English writing lessons thread you need to get in on...

If you can't interpret that as him reckoning that a well maintained diesel returns x and y mpg then 'tis yourself needs educating. Although, common sense isn't taught anywhere so you'll have to struggle on as you are.

Tragedy

manatoo wrote: »

WHHAAAATTTT?????? 10,000 MILES TROUBLE FREE ARE YOU SERIOUS??!?!??! THIS CAR NEEDS TO REPLACE THE STARSHIP ENTERPRISE WITH TROUBLE FREE MILEAGE!!!!!!! SOMEONE CALL STARFLEET, SPOCK, SCOTTY, ANYONE QUICK!!!!!!!!!!! HOW HAS THE MOTORING WORLD NEVER HEARD ABOUT THIS 10,000 MILE TROUBLE FREE ROVER!!!!

Why don't you get 60% more power from your carina and see how well you do after 10,000 miles?

Read your post again dude...

Why don't you read it too, as I pointed out 10,000 miles in relation to seriously upping the power and having zero mechanical problems as a result(new owner has had zero either).

Over 18,000 miles I average I think 45mpg in the diesel, with about 12,000 of that motorway. I serviced it every 6,000 miles, changed the PCV filter, put in a replacement EGR valve and had it tuned, but I still only got a little bit more than you. Max I could achieve was 50.

Now if you can't figure out how that looks like you did the work to get more MPG then it's the English writing lessons thread you need to get in on...

I need english writing lessons? You need comprehension lessons.

Firstly, you said "OOOOuch" to me servicing it every 6,000miles(which is recommended for all cars even your beloved carina that can go 80,000 with nary an oil change), changing PCV filter(€6) and EGR(which I replaced instead of cleaning)€40 and on getting it remapped. Read your post if you don't believe me.
So.
What's ouch about me spending €46 on extra maintenance?
What's ouch about me spending €46 on extra maintenance that didn't need to be done just in case?
What's ouch about me getting the car remapped for more power?

manatoo

RoverJames wrote: »

If you can't interpret that as him reckoning that a well maintained diesel returns x and y mpg then 'tis yourself needs educating. Although, common sense isn't taught anywhere so you'll have to struggle on as you are.

Hold on a sec, "well maintained"???? Didn't you lecture earlier about maintenance???? Now you're telling me that replacing PCV filters and EGR valves are maintenance and not repairs??!?!? Can I actually set up a thread for you and the aptly named Tragedy and give you some English lessons??? I won't even charge!! Improving your dismal command of the language would be more than sufficient in itself!!!

Tragedy

manatoo wrote: »

Hold on a sec, "well maintained"???? Didn't you lecture earlier about maintenance???? Now you're telling me that replacing PCV filters and EGR valves are maintenance and not repairs??!?!? Can I actually set up a thread for you and the aptly named Tragedy and give you some English lessons??? I won't even charge!! Improving your dismal command of the language would be more than sufficient in itself!!!

PCV Filter is maintenance, unless changing oil filter is repairs too?
Cleaning out the EGR Valve is maintenance, unless you think changing the oil is repairs too?

Maintenance is something that is expected to wear out or need to be replaced, repairs is something that isn't.

Suspensions parts wearing out: maintenance
Spring snapping at 20k: repair

Seriously, what aren't you getting?

manatoo

Tragedy wrote: »

PCV Filter is maintenance, unless changing oil filter is repairs too?
Cleaning out the EGR Valve is maintenance, unless you think changing the oil is repairs too?

Maintenance is something that is expected to wear out or need to be replaced, repairs is something that isn't.

Suspensions parts wearing out: maintenance
Spring snapping at 20k: repair

Seriously, what aren't you getting?

Sorry, thought you said you replaced the EGR valve. My bad....:rolleyes:

Just out of interest, whats the Rover recommended service interval for cleaning the EGR valve and the PCV valve?

Tragedy

manatoo wrote: »

Sorry, thought you said you replaced the EGR valve. My bad....:rolleyes:

Just out of interest, whats the Rover recommended service interval for cleaning the EGR valve and the PCV valve?

Your bad, I said I replaced it with an EGR bypass valve which never needs to be cleaned out as it doesnt recirculate waste gases to burn off nox etc. I also said, when I removed both the PCV filter and EGR neither had needed to be changed, but as I had the parts I changed them anyway.

There is no service interval for them, just like auto boxes in most cars don't have a servicing schedule for ATF changes and then fail. Likewise for manual boxes with MTF.

Are you going to argue that if it isn't on the service schedule, it's a repair? Because I hope you do. I really do

manatoo

manatoo wrote: »

Hold on a sec, "well maintained"???? Didn't you lecture earlier about maintenance???? Now you're telling me that replacing PCV filters and EGR valves are maintenance and not repairs??!?!? Can I actually set up a thread for you and the aptly named Tragedy and give you some English lessons??? I won't even charge!! Improving your dismal command of the language would be more than sufficient in itself!!!

manatoo wrote: »

Sorry, thought you said you replaced the EGR valve. My bad....:rolleyes:

lol, I'm surprised you can see the screen with all the egg on your face

manatoo

Tragedy wrote: »

Your bad, I said I replaced it with an EGR bypass valve which never needs to be cleaned out as it doesnt recirculate waste gases to burn off nox etc. I also said, when I removed both the PCV filter and EGR neither had needed to be changed, but as I had the parts I changed them anyway.

There is no service interval for them, just like auto boxes in most cars don't have a servicing schedule for ATF changes and then fail. Likewise for manual boxes with MTF.

Are you going to argue that if it isn't on the service schedule, it's a repair? Because I hope you do. I really do

Oh no not at all sure this is great education....let me just see..... so you gave 2 examples above....1 was the replacing with a PCV bypass valve which you described as maintenance and likened to an oil filter I think. The second was the EGR valve which which you described cleaning thereof as maintenance and likened to putting oil in a car....now, please just another moment of your time while you clear this up for me....both the oil and the oil filter are in the service schedule and routinely need changing on every car....now I see that you're saying they didnt need replacing, just a possible cleaning, now can you just enlighten me on what category the cleaning of these two items falls under? Are they maintenance or repairs??

manatoo

RoverJames wrote: »

lol, I'm surprised you can see the screen with all the egg on your face

It was sarcastic bud, he did replace the EGR valve. Oh god Im embarrassed for you right now :eek:

manatoo

Tragedy wrote: »

There is no service interval for them, just like auto boxes in most cars don't have a servicing schedule for ATF changes and then fail. Likewise for manual boxes with MTF.

Are you going to argue that if it isn't on the service schedule, it's a repair? Because I hope you do. I really do

Oh and just so you're clear here, my car most certainly has an interval for MTF changes so yyyeahh I guess that's maintenance....

Tragedy

manatoo wrote: »

Oh no not at all sure this is great education....let me just see..... so you gave 2 examples above....1 was the replacing with a PCV bypass valve which you described as maintenance and likened to an oil filter I think.

I never mentioned a PCV bypass valve. I mentioned a PCV filter which is a small washable filter that filters unburnt oil being recirculated from the crankcase.
So yes, it actually is a small foam oil filter. Exactly, you have it!

The second was the EGR valve which which you described cleaning thereof as maintenance and likened to putting oil in a car....now, please just another moment of your time while you clear this up for me....both the oil and the oil filter are in the service schedule and routinely need changing on every car....now I see that you're saying they didnt need replacing, just a possible cleaning, now can you just enlighten me on what category the cleaning of these two items falls under? Are they maintenance or repairs??

I already told you, stop digging yourself even deeper in your lovely foxhole of complete mechanical ignorance and bliss. Any decent mechanic will service your car better than an apprentice in a dealer reading off a service schedule. Thats why people to go indys, they know what they're doing and service EVERYTHING that needs to be serviced and not just what the manufacturer dictated.

Not that you'd know that as you happily drive around in a deathtrap because it's cheap.

manatoo

Tragedy wrote: »

I already told you, stop digging yourself even deeper in your lovely foxhole of complete mechanical ignorance and bliss.

Whats this??? Surrender??? Please do answer my question or admit known design faults of your car!!!! :pac:

Owen

We've got this arseways guys. Manatoo is right, and everyone else is wrong. We should all be driving on non-e marked tyres, and only doing the bare minimum to pass the NCT.

Either that, or ConlonBMW is back again. Oh to still be a mod and be able to do an IP check.

Tragedy

manatoo wrote: »

Whats this??? Surrender??? Please do answer my question or admit known design faults of your car!!!! :pac:

I did answer you, if you're not arsed reading or acknowledging it, it isn't my problem.

A filter needing to be replaced is a design fault? Do you know of any car that doesn't have at least one consumable filter?
Do tell.

manatoo

PaintDoctor wrote: »

We've got this arseways guys. Manatoo is right, and everyone else is wrong. We should all be driving on non-e marked tyres, and only doing the bare minimum to pass the NCT.

Either that, or ConlonBMW is back again. Oh to still be a mod and be able to do an IP check.

Ah thats just class....Im right and you're all wrong??? Try the Department of Transport's approved safety standards and testing and Rover, the designer and manufacturer of your car and the only entity to which the vested interest of reliable service from their product would be detrimental to it's financial health. But you all know better....ah I think we're done here....

manatoo

Tragedy wrote: »

I did answer you, if you're not arsed reading or acknowledging it, it isn't my problem.

A filter needing to be replaced is a design fault? Do you know of any car that doesn't have at least one consumable filter?
Do tell.

So the PCV filter is a consumable part but the manufacturer thinks it isn't....come on you can do better than that

Tragedy

manatoo wrote: »

vested interest of reliable service from their product would be detrimental to it's financial health..

Oh my, you just showed how clueless you are.
History is littered with examples of car manufacturers who costed how much fixing a design flaw(even a potentially deadly one) versus compensation payments, and decided to leave the design flaw.

Educate yourself, don't embarrass yourself.

manatoo wrote: »

So the PCV filter is a consumable part but the manufacturer thinks it isn't....come on you can do better than that

Strange, it's not a consumable but BMW still make spare filters even though the car has been out of production for 5 years.

manatoo

Tragedy wrote: »

Oh my, you just showed how clueless you are.
History is littered with examples of car manufacturers who costed how much fixing a design flaw(even a potentially deadly one) versus compensation payments, and decided to leave the design flaw.

Educate yourself, don't embarrass yourself.

So you're saying Rover did decide to ignore it's design flaw because to acknowledge it would have damaged it financially?

Owen

manatoo wrote: »

Try the Department of Transport's approved safety standards and testing

You think the NCT is a test of a car's safety? Oh deary me. You do realise that the NCT test is woefully inadequate in comparison the the British MOT, or the German tests? And not only that, but in my time in the motor trade, I've seen cars fail in one centre, be sent back down with nothing done, and pass the second time?

Rover, the designer and manufacturer of your car and the only entity to which the vested interest of reliable service from their product would be detrimental to it's financial health. But you all know better....ah I think we're done here....

We certainly are, as once again, you prove you're talking out of your rectum. How many stars does your wonderful car have in the NCAP test? Or Airbags? Or Traction Control?

Rover incidentally when they launched the 75, had a 4 star rating. Which is still beating cars on the road today in terms of safety.

Rover weren't actually the overseeing manufacturer of the car either, BMW who owner Rover were. Which is why the car is loaded with BMW technology and parts, such as the engine in our diesels, the entertainment systems, and on and on and on. So, are you going to try to claim now that BMW is a shoddy manufacturer?

manatoo

PaintDoctor wrote: »

You think the NCT is a test of a car's safety? Oh deary me. You do realise that the NCT test is woefully inadequate in comparison the the British MOT, or the German tests? And not only that, but in my time in the motor trade, I've seen cars fail in one centre, be sent back down with nothing done, and pass the second time?



We certainly are, as once again, you prove you're talking out of your rectum. How many stars does your wonderful car have in the NCAP test? Or Airbags? Or Traction Control?

Rover incidentally when they launched the 75, had a 4 star rating. Which is still beating cars on the road today in terms of safety.

Rover weren't actually the overseeing manufacturer of the car either, BMW who owner Rover were. Which is why the car is loaded with BMW technology and parts, such as the engine in our diesels, the entertainment systems, and on and on and on. So, are you going to try to claim now that BMW is a shoddy manufacturer?

Comparing the safety features of cars from different generations is retarded. As you know, not even the French manufacturers would dare a release with anything less that 5 stars now....In fact the Carina was a 4 star in it's generation so equally crap in the safety stakes for it's time as the 75 was in it's time.

I'm well aware of the ownership moves of Rover. The 75 was an in-house design produced mostly under BMW ownership. BMW have had a patchy history over the last 15-20 years of quality and reliability....You've got no point there mate, sorry.

Tragedy

manatoo wrote: »

So you're saying Rover did decide to ignore it's design flaw because to acknowledge it would have damaged it financially?

No, I was pointing out your general ignorance.

Which you just did for me by again assuming something to make your point valid when there was nothing in the post to make you assume such.

EPM

manatoo wrote: »

In fact the Carina was a 4 star in it's generation so equally crap in the safety stakes for it's time as the 75 was in it's time.

Carina E was euro ncap tested?

Really? Got a link to that one?

robtri

PaintDoctor wrote: »

You think the NCT is a test of a car's safety? Oh deary me. You do realise that the NCT test is woefully inadequate in comparison the the British MOT, or the German tests? And not only that, but in my time in the motor trade, I've seen cars fail in one centre, be sent back down with nothing done, and pass the second time?



We certainly are, as once again, you prove you're talking out of your rectum. How many stars does your wonderful car have in the NCAP test? Or Airbags? Or Traction Control?

Rover incidentally when they launched the 75, had a 4 star rating. Which is still beating cars on the road today in terms of safety.

Rover weren't actually the overseeing manufacturer of the car either, BMW who owner Rover were. Which is why the car is loaded with BMW technology and parts, such as the engine in our diesels, the entertainment systems, and on and on and on. So, are you going to try to claim now that BMW is a shoddy manufacturer?

while i agree with the sentiment.. I would say the MOT is worse than here, too unregulated... too many dodgy MOT's

wouldnt call BMW shoddy, but wouldnt call them good either....

Tragedy

EPM wrote: »

Carina E was euro ncap tested?

Really? Got a link to that one?

Same. NCAP launched in 1997.
Hah.

Also, Rover 75 would have been 5 stars if the optional airbags were standard, not bad!

Owen

ROFL, you just get better. So to summarise your points so far :

Your very old Toyota is great.
Cheap Non E Marked Tyres are great, especially when near the legal limit.
The NCT is a test of cars safety.
Everything you've posted about the 75 so far has been wrong.

The hilarious thing is your defense though. You're arguing with Tragedy - who's quite possibly the best authority on the 75 I've come across online in several 75 forums. You're arguing with RJ who could strip a 75, bolt it back together and chat away in the meantime - who has a wealth of mechanical experience, and you're arguing with me, again someone from the Motor Trade who knows what he's talking about. And there's the little fact that all of us have this car, drive it, and have paid money for it - so our posts are based on genuine real world experience, where as yours quite clearly are a whole load of spoofing and hole digging.

You're like someone going into a Hospital and telling the Doctors that no, Chemo won't help cancer, you know better, and it's time to break out the Voodoo.

What's your background? As you're being so authoritative and speaking with such experience, it's fair that we ask. Otherwise someone looking in at this conversation might thing you're a troll.

EPM

Tragedy wrote: »

Same. NCAP launched in 1997.
Hah!

Just said I'd help out a little;)

manatoo

Tragedy wrote: »

No, I was pointing out your general ignorance.

Which you just did for me by again assuming something to make your point valid when there was nothing in the post to make you assume such.

So then explain to me how they don't list something which you say routinely needs maintaining and parts which you describe as consumable as a maintenance point in the service schedule. Come on, getting away from the digs, just answer that question for me please?

Owen

EPM wrote: »

Just said I'd help out a little;)

There are times I could kiss posters in this forum. Mwah!

manatoo

PaintDoctor wrote: »

There are times I could kiss posters in this forum. Mwah!

Carina E European launch 1992, replaced by Avensis 1997....sheeeeshh....sorry guys!!

EPM

manatoo wrote: »

Carina E European launch 1992, replaced by Avensis 1997....sheeeeshh....sorry guys!!

Well in fairness if you arguing a point about a car it might be an idea to refer to the actual car...

@PD - You're not my type:P