Jump to content

eBay tat volume 3.


Recommended Posts

Posted
1 hour ago, Sir Snipes said:

Hey that's nice. I do wonder if the 1.8T suits a Rover though. No doubt better than the NA, and probably better numbers than the 2.0, but maybe the 2.0 "feels" more Rover?

90527139_1087100831654167_24201462967120

Go V6 or go home, I say.

Other opinions are available of course: I’ve not actually tried a 1.8T or — shudder — one of those Diesel things.

Posted

The 1.8t was just there as a tax dodge really Understandable at the time but not really desirable now. A 2.0 v6 is a bit of an oddity as I can’t think of many low capacity v6 since then .

Its probably like the bmw 520i straight sixes though they have the power of a 4 cylinder but  fuel consumption of a v8

Posted
9 minutes ago, cort16 said:

Its probably like the bmw 520i straight sixes though they have the power of a 4 cylinder but  fuel consumption of a v8

Ah, but they make the sound of a six.  Plus smooth trumps fast in my book.

Having owned both a Rover 75 2.0 and an M20B20-engined BMW, the consumption isn’t quite at V8 levels but you’re on the right lines.

 

Posted
25 minutes ago, Skizzer said:

Go V6 or go home, I say.

Other opinions are available of course: I’ve not actually tried a 1.8T or — shudder — one of those Diesel things.

I’d love to try a V6 75. The diesel left a lot to be desired!

Posted
2 minutes ago, Skizzer said:

Ah, but they make the sound of a six.  Plus smooth trumps fast in my book.

Having owned both a Rover 75 2.0 and an M20B20-engined BMW, the consumption isn’t quite at V8 levels but you’re on the right lines.

 

I found all 6 cylinder BMW’s seem to pretty much use the same amount of fuel from a 520i to 530i

Posted
1 hour ago, Skizzer said:

Go V6 or go home, I say.

Other opinions are available of course: I’ve not actually tried a 1.8T or — shudder — one of those Diesel things.

I think a revvy turbo would work well in a ZT. Or even better a ZS or ZR.

I can't think of any 2.0 six that wasn't basically pointless. Mazda, Ford/Jaguar, Toyota/Lexus, BMW.....

Posted
2 hours ago, Skizzer said:

Go V6 or go home, I say.

Other opinions are available of course: I’ve not actually tried a 1.8T or — shudder — one of those Diesel things.

This, This and This.

I did go in a 1.8T once, very quick car.    I'd rather leave slightly earlier and enjoy the V6 waft.

Posted
4 hours ago, Sir Snipes said:

 I do wonder if the 1.8T suits a Rover though. No doubt better than the NA, and probably better numbers than the 2.0, but maybe the 2.0 "feels" more Rover?

Personally I thought the 1.8T suited the 75 surprisingly well.  The 2.0 V6 sounds nicer, but you have to rev the knackers off it to get it to move, which is very uncouth.  The Turbokettle is a lot torquier.

Edit:  The obvious answer is to go for the 2.5 V6 - all the advantages of the 2.0 (and similar fuel consumption) but avoids the underpowered feel.

Posted

gallery

FORD-CORTINA-2-0-GHIA-AUTO
 
 
Phwaaar!  Just right, brown Chatsworth interior, mismatched door, very solid and original, not too perfect, I would just sort the minor rust issues and use as is, looks good with the brake dust on the front wheels, like it’s been up and down the motorway all day    ,like they used to ?
Posted
23 minutes ago, Shite Ron said:

gallery

FORD-CORTINA-2-0-GHIA-AUTO
 
 
Phwaaar!  Just right, brown Chatsworth interior, mismatched door, very solid and original, not too perfect, I would just sort the minor rust issues and use as is, looks good with the brake dust on the front wheels, like it’s been up and down the motorway all day    ,like they used to ?

That's lovely but I'd be worried what's under the wob surrounding the windscreen!

Posted
15 minutes ago, Tenmil Socket said:

That's lovely but I'd be worried what's under the wob surrounding the windscreen!

I can answer that: it’ll be rust.

?

Just like George at Soup Classic Motoring found in his Cortina 80: 

https://youtu.be/5kj_LOVZE7Y

  • Like 4
Posted
1 hour ago, wuvvum said:

Personally I thought the 1.8T suited the 75 surprisingly well.  The 2.0 V6 sounds nicer, but you have to rev the knackers off it to get it to move, which is very uncouth.  The Turbokettle is a lot torquier.

Edit:  The obvious answer is to go for the 2.5 V6 - all the advantages of the 2.0 (and similar fuel consumption) but avoids the underpowered feel.

I assumed the Turbo was the "busier" of the two!

Posted
1 hour ago, Hertz said:

I bet there are not many of these kicking around.

spacer.png

https://www.carandclassic.co.uk/car/C1224359

Yea, my neighbor had one. It's the only one I'd ever seen, I'd assumed it was a jap import. 

I'd suspect like most Suzuki's of that age you'd want to be careful about rot. 

 

 

Posted

No, that was the Xedos 9.  I wouldn't mind trying a Xedos 6, but can't take on any more non-MOT'd cars at the moment.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...