MG-Rover.org Forums banner
1 - 20 of 38 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
346 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Hi All

I am seriously considering getting a 75 as I've always wanted one and they are now affordable to me since Rover collapsed.

However I can't work out whether I like the pre or post facelift version more!

I have noticed a number of differences besides the obvious when looking at the pics on Autotrader.

1. The new style does not have any chrome bumper strips
2. The new style has no Rover badge on the back
3. The interior wood finish doesn't look as convincing on the newer models

I suspect these are cost cutting measures, but does anyone know what other changes were made (good or bad) when they facelifted it?

I think I prefer the older model more.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,970 Posts
Get a pre facelift then.....

I would avoid the 2.0V6 as they are sluggish. Go for the 2.5 V6 or the diesel. Or if you get a 1.8 get a turbocharged version.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
346 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Yeh I think I'm gonna go for a Diesel and then speak to Rover_ron :) They are harder to find than the petrols but if I look long enough I guess I'll find a good one.

Were there any mechanical changes made do you know or where they all cosmetic?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
341 Posts
I went for the MK I 2001 (51 plate) Diesel for economy,longevity and (from what I have read on this site) reliability, I think the twin headlight arrangement looks very classy on the car, as does the whole car, fortunatley for me Rover went belly up,its the only way I would have been able to afford one (conn se) unfortunatley for Rover, they went belly up, if you see what I mean, go for the one you like the best, and the best you can afford, I intend to keep mine going for as long as I can, the other thing is you always get a lot of car for your money with a Rover.

It does seem to make the neighbours think you have come into money:jealous:
I smile everytime I get in.

maxi-crawf
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
150 Posts
That's stunning Alex (car's not bad looking either).

The premium grille is very imposing but overall I prefer the Mk1.

There's a nice Moonstone Conn SE diesel auto, nr Bolton or Wigan I think. I found it on the What Car? site, using their search. Low mileage, lots of spec.

Near me there's a superb low mileage BRG Club SE 2.5V6 auto. Only £6999. Would have bought it if I hadn't been worried about fuel costs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
150 Posts
chan chee hoe said:
The later cars,2003 onwards not using the real wood,older cars uses the real thing.!
True, but the later Mk 1s with imitation 'burr walnut' looked just like the original real wood. The problem for some was with the Mk2, where Light Oak look or Black Oak look was fitted (Burr Walnut style remained an option).
 

·
Registered
other_manufacturer
Joined
·
1,164 Posts
timhaigh said:
True, but the later Mk 1s with imitation 'burr walnut' looked just like the original real wood. The problem for some was with the Mk2, where Light Oak look or Black Oak look was fitted (Burr Walnut style remained an option).
Far cry.!The "Plastic wood" looks like from a cheap Japanese car,while the "Real Wood" ones look exactly like those used in Jaguar,BMW & Mercedes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
346 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
Ok, so I'm gonna look for the most recent mk1 I can I think. What is the difference between the CDT and the CDTI? Does the CDTI have the higher output (136bhp). If that's the case then it narrows the search further...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,472 Posts
andrewuk said:
Ok, so I'm gonna look for the most recent mk1 I can I think. What is the difference between the CDT and the CDTI? Does the CDTI have the higher output (136bhp). If that's the case then it narrows the search further...
You really are asking these questions in the wrong forum.

If you are going to go for a Mk1 the next thing you need to consider is do you want a pre or post project "drive" one

I.e one like mine with all the bits still intact or a post drive one that looks sad by comparison

search the 75 & ZT forum for "drive" and posts form Ian Robertson who seems to know the cars specs down to the thickness of each washer

Also to make things more complicated Alexs car is a 1999 model with a facelift bumper so you can effectivley have anything you like!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,488 Posts
I Prefer the facelift editions but if you do decide on MK.1 - get a 2001 version built at longbridge. They are said to be the best built 75s of all. Facelifts are nicer to look at, have better wheel designs and more equipment, but just beware of project drive on a lot of post 02/03 versions.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,119 Posts
I'd say get pre-facelift between 2000 and mid 2002 spec.

The facelift for the 75 always comes across as a bit of a mis-match of contemporary styling on a retro body, and the new bumpers just don't match up IMO.

If we were talking about ZTs though, I would say facelift.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,488 Posts
and the new bumpers just don't match up IMO.
Its worse at the rear in my opinion, it seems a bit 'unfinished.' or rover got the measurements wrong.
I actually think some of the Mk.1s in classic or club spec look slightly boring unless they had nicer wheels on them,
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
295 Posts
Liam Olf said:
I'd say get pre-facelift between 2000 and mid 2002 spec.

The facelift for the 75 always comes across as a bit of a mis-match of contemporary styling on a retro body, and the new bumpers just don't match up IMO.

If we were talking about ZTs though, I would say facelift.
Alex has an original 75 looking like a V8....

Unlike Alex, You could if you wanted is have a facelift model and afix the pre-facelift bumpers on it if you like the chrome and twin headlamps that much!! Hey a retro looking 75 V8 coool.....
Food for thought
Chris
 
1 - 20 of 38 Posts
Top