Out of interest, since I'm not any help regarding the matter, whats the benefit of the ZRs shorter steering rack. I mean a larger turning circle isn't beneficial right?

Excuse my ignorance if its something obvious, I have no idea.

 

Faster, more responsive steering :broon:.

 

Remember if you change to a ZR steering rack, you'll have a turning circle alike to the QE2!!

That 0.2 makes hell of a difference.

Cheers
Dave

 

is it so the tyres dont scrub?
as they are lower
i put straights with 45 tyres and they scrub
not even lowered
alex

 

ZR's have 45 profile tyres, due to the smaller lock to lock, whereas R25/R200 etc need 40 profile tyres (on 17" wheels) due to the slightly longer lock to lock.

Cheers
Dave

 

hairpins on 45 profile dont scrub

straights need a 40 profile to not scrub iirc

 

there we go, problem solved

 

i dont get how its faster/ more responsive... it takes the same turn of the wheel to get the same effect, yet at full lock it needs a woman driver to excuse a 7 point turn instead of the 25's 3 point turn.....

 

The ratio of the teeth inside I think.

 

the 25 actually does have a tighter turning circle......so by that logic they are the same except the zr one doesnt go as far because of the wider tyres as standard

 

The ZR steering rack is actually faster. The lock is not quite as extreme so you do get the rubbish turning circle, but you need a smaller turn of the wheel to obtain the same turning effect.

 

So I'd need 16 inch alloys on a 40 profile not to scrub or could I keep my 14inch steeliness?

 

If you fitted a ZR rack, surely you could just use the ZR tyre + wheel combo? Unless i'm missing something.

 

that is the idea, but If I get the mechanics of it done first, (such as a rear anti roll bar aswell) then I can tart it up later =D

 

Under normal circumstances, is the shorter rack really needed???

I can understand a track car needing it, but driving through town on a saturday morning, is it really needed in comparison to the R25's steering rack??

Cheers
Dave

 

That's a fair point, but then why did MG-rover put it in the ZR if the 25 rack was good enough? (thats not meant to sound snardy)

Looking at my Haynes (don't know why I didn't do this in the first place) apart from having to disconnect te gear linkages and a lower engine mount, it seems pretty straight forward.

If a jobs worth doing, it's worth doing right, right?

 

Dont waste your time, ive had a 25 and a ZR and the steering difference wasnt noticable, save your money and time

 

You think? I found the difference really quite noticable. When doing a bit of "spirited driving" i found the ZR rack far nicer.

 

Hmmmmm....I'll put it on the back burner for now then.....for now =D

 

16 inch youd need 45 profile

 

That's a fair point, but then why did MG-rover put it in the ZR if the 25 rack was good enough? (thats not meant to sound snardy)

Probably just so they could justify significant 'changes' over the 25 other than a sporty body kit to warrant a change of model in the 'ZR'..
The F/TF has exactly the same thing, the TF with this supposedly 'faster' rack over the F which a few harp on about, i have never noticed the difference between the two TBH and think its a bit of an overkill upgrade. Unless you want/need to make a speedy quick 3 point turn in the middle of the road, (0.3 turns?! wow!) or you needed to replace with a new rack anyway i really cant see point. :dunno: If you want more feel from the steering, pull the pas fuse, i would save the money and spend it on something more worthwhile doing.

:2c:

 

I would say the faster rack of the ZR was designed to work in tandem with the retuned suspension and bigger wheels rather then be an individual highlight.

 

That's a very good point! Me thinks I'll get everything else done before I upgrade the old girl's rack! (giggidy)

 

I thought they just locked off the standard rack to prevent the 50 profile 16s from rubbing...