Hello there!

[The Blue Lumiere!]

'Cook Pass Babtridge'. So it's slightly less rude.No, you see Alan's car is a Sterling. Mine is a Vitesse. Maybe it's still 'uncool', I dunno. All I know is £900 can buy an absolute minter and from a dead start it can spank the pants off most of the 'cool' cars, and hammer on to nearly 150mph.I don't get much time to properly appreciate how 'cool' BMW 320 Ci's etc are, as I just pass them too quickly.Quite happy for now in my 'old man's motor', miles ahead of the 'in crowd'...

[Mr_Bo11ox]

Yours loks pretty swish! Has the dashboard lifted up like they all do?I had a Vitesse for a while a couple of years ago, excellent for dollying shite from A to B!

[Milford Cubicle]

'Cook Pass Babtridge'. So it's slightly less rude.No, you see Alan's car is a Sterling. Mine is a Vitesse. Maybe it's still 'uncool', I dunno. All I know is £900 can buy an absolute minter and from a dead start it can spank the pants off most of the 'cool' cars, and hammer on to nearly 150mph.I don't get much time to properly appreciate how 'cool' BMW 320 Ci's etc are, as I just pass them too quickly.Quite happy for now in my 'old man's motor', miles ahead of the 'in crowd'...

Heey, I like them too. I had an early Mk2 825D which was pretty quick for something with a boat engine.Wouldn't mind trying out a Vitesse, are they better sorted handling/steering wise than the normal 800s Bo11ox?

[Mr_Bo11ox]

Mine wasnt! Handling was a bit avreage TBH. I thik the very late models were sharpened up a bit though. Mine was an L reg.

[The Blue Lumiere!]

The handling on all post 96 Vitesses was a huge improvement on previous models. They got stiffer springs, thicker ARB's etc. All post 96's are called 'Vitesse Sport', whereas pre 96 the 'Sport' spec was an extra cost option. It entails a power increase from 180 to 200hp (by upping the boost limit, IIRC) and the suspension tweaking already mentioned. The late cars handle brilliantly. By the time Cowley stopped turning them out in 1999, they were really very good performance saloon cars. They got so good because Rover (being Rover) had expected it's successor, the 75, to be in production by 1992! (only 7 years out! So close...) When it wasn't, they had no choice but to keep tweaking and refining the 800, even though it was hopelessly outclassed in it's market by Audi, BMW and even Ford and Vauxhall by this time, despite not being behind these rivals by much, if at all, in terms of quality and durability. The Vitesse & the Sterling in particular (and especially the absolutely fantastic Coupes) ended up every bit as good a prospect as the common as dog muck BMW 520. And of course, in the case of the Vitesse Sport, every bit as fast as (or usually faster than) the 525 or even the Sierra Sapphire Cosworth and the original Subaru Impreza.The Vitesse was touted by Rover as 'the fastest car we've ever built', and this is undoubtedly true; it's passing left a hole in their line up they never filled, even with the MG 'Z' range, none of which were anything like as quick as the Vitesse. By then though, of course, Rover was being left in the dust by every car company in Europe in terms of 'bread and butter' (ie family hatchbacks and small saloons) motors, so they couldn't even consider a big, 140mph+, 20 odd mpg sporting tourer.....No one would touch their tarted-up-a-bit (again) Honda Civic-a-like, the 'Streetwise'. Which was probably 'Verywise'.In 2005 the rest became history.Ps: Mr B: Mine had a tiny bit of 'dash lift', but I fixed it.

[Pete-M]

Mine wasnt! Handling was a bit avreage TBH. I thik the very late models were sharpened up a bit though. Mine was an L reg.

I had an L reg 827 SLi. Awful, just awful.

[Milford Cubicle]

No one would touch their tarted-up-a-bit (again) Honda Civic-a-like, the 'Streetwise'. Which was probably 'Verywise'.

I would touch it! They have nothing to do with the Civic though, that's the 400/45/ZS, the 200/25/ZR was Rover's own.

[wuvvum]

No one would touch their tarted-up-a-bit (again) Honda Civic-a-like, the 'Streetwise'. Which was probably 'Verywise'.

I would touch it! They have nothing to do with the Civic though, that's the 400/45/ZS, the 200/25/ZR was Rover's own.

True, but the 200/25/ZR borrowed a lot of its underpinnings, especially the front end, from the old shape 200. And that was basically a Honda Concerto (in fact the later Concertos were a rebadged facelift Mk1 200 without the grille - don't know if we ever got those here though, only ever seen them on the continent).

[Milford Cubicle]

The MacPherson strut front-end of the Euro Concerto and the Mk2 200 was engineered and insisted upon by Rover. Japanese Concertos got a double wishbone setup instead.The re-badged 200s you've seen on the continent might be Honda Concerto TDs

[The Blue Lumiere!]

Mine wasnt! Handling was a bit avreage TBH. I thik the very late models were sharpened up a bit though. Mine was an L reg.

I had an L reg 827 SLi. Awful, just awful.

I can imagine. World beaters they weren't. The 2.7V6 was known as the 'KV6', and was Rover's own version of the previous 2.5 Honda unit. Both engines were very similar. Rover obviously reckoned on saving a lot of R&D time by just copying the Honda blueprint. The Honda one was never renowned for it's durability. Rover's KV6 subsequently came to be nicknamed 'the kettle', on account of it's willingness to pop it's head gaskets and merrily boil it's coolant without too much prompting.The V6 engine which powers the 2.5 Rover 75's is still, essentially the same unit, but with an improved cooling system and sturdier CHG's.

[Mike D]

Those Rover 2.5 / 2.7 V6's are featured on the rear of bottles of radweld as the only thing not to use it on!Quality

[The Blue Lumiere!]

Those Rover 2.5 / 2.7 V6's are featured on the rear of bottles of radweld as the only thing not to use it on!Quality

It's not advisable to put Radweld in most Rover engines, Mike! (I'd actually not recommend putting it in ANY engine, but needs must sometimes, spoze)The reason it was advised against using it on Rover V6's was that the waterways were all so slim (everything in the cyl. heads was scaled down to keep it light) that Radweld would just close them up completely.All academic, though, of course. If a little stone or whatever pierced a rad fin on a 2.7 800, the loss of coolant would have totally roasted the engine within about 100 yards!I put Radweld in my previous 820 Vitesse and drove the 15 miles home. Although the head gasket survived, the increase in pressure split the expansion tank like a bleedin watermelon....

[Milford Cubicle]

Mine wasnt! Handling was a bit avreage TBH. I thik the very late models were sharpened up a bit though. Mine was an L reg.

I had an L reg 827 SLi. Awful, just awful.

I can imagine. World beaters they weren't. The 2.7V6 was known as the 'KV6', and was Rover's own version of the previous 2.5 Honda unit. Both engines were very similar. Rover obviously reckoned on saving a lot of R&D time by just copying the Honda blueprint. The Honda one was never renowned for it's durability. Rover's KV6 subsequently came to be nicknamed 'the kettle', on account of it's willingness to pop it's head gaskets and merrily boil it's coolant without too much prompting.The V6 engine which powers the 2.5 Rover 75's is still, essentially the same unit, but with an improved cooling system and sturdier CHG's.

The early 2.5 and 2.7 V6s were actually Honda lumps.The 2.5 KV6 came about after 1996 or so - early KV6s were prretty much hand-built apparently, and quality was a bit variable. They have nout to do with the old Honda V6s.They do sound a lot nicer than the Honda V6 - well worth suffering the dire earlly reliability for.

[Mr_Bo11ox]

The 2.7V6 was known as the 'KV6', and was Rover's own version of the previous 2.5 Honda unit. Both engines were very similar.

This is not true at all! The KV6 is a 2.5 V6 and is 100% rovers own work, it is a quad cam effort and has nothing in common with the early 2.5 and later 2.7 honda engines which are single ohc. The KV6 fitted to rover 800's is woefully unreliable, but the later KV6 as fitted to 75's etc is much better. The two are not interchangeable either as the block castings are substantially different. Also the sohc honda V6 and the KV6 are not interchangeable.

[Torsten2001]

No one would touch their tarted-up-a-bit (again) Honda Civic-a-like, the 'Streetwise'. Which was probably 'Verywise'.

I really liked it, in fact I almost bought one and I still think they look smashing!

[The Blue Lumiere!]

The 2.7V6 was known as the 'KV6', and was Rover's own version of the previous 2.5 Honda unit. Both engines were very similar.

This is not true at all! The KV6 is a 2.5 V6 and is 100% rovers own work, it is a quad cam effort and has nothing in common with the early 2.5 and later 2.7 honda engines which are single ohc. The KV6 fitted to rover 800's is woefully unreliable, but the later KV6 as fitted to 75's etc is much better. The two are not interchangeable either as the block castings are substantially different. Also the sohc honda V6 and the KV6 are not interchangeable.

I'm sure you're totally spot on there, Mr B. I was winging it a bit, as I've never had much to do with the V6 800's & I was just recounting what I kind of half remembered reading sometime, without being 100% sure of what I was talking about. That's the first time I've ever done that in my entire life.So, a bit of a first there.

[andrew e]

Our friend Kias input....

http://www.aronline.co.uk/powertrain_02f.htm

 

[Rocket88]

Had a couple of 827's, saloon and hatch, never had a moments trouble with either. I feel badly let down............................

[Albert Ross]

KV6 in the Freelander is dreadfully prone to oil leaks from the corners of the head gaskets...............Weigh in time!

[mk2_craig]

The 800 series lasted amazingly well, lost count of how many Honda Legend generations came and went before the final Rover came off the line.

[Milford Cubicle]

3.