Rover 75, V8 lumpy after 50 miles

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold. I remember "Dave Plowman (News)" saying something like:

It was followed by a nearly-new Anglia. What a let-down that was. Mind you, I wasn't paying for the petrol :)

It doesn't make a ha'porth of difference Adrian. The point is: "Do owners of a particular car like it?". If they think the ride is too hard - then they will say so. If they think it is not particularly comfortable - then they will say so. Whether or not another car they have never driven is better or worse in those respects is immaterial. That is what they think of their cars - and all the cars in the survey are judged in the same way.

It really really doesn't matter! If an owner is happy with their car - then they are happy with it. If they are unhappy with it - then they are unhappy with it. What someone else thinks about their car doesn't matter a tinker's cuss.

I think my responses, particularly in relation to your final query, are perfectly apposite.

A lot of people who have never even sat in a 75 will slam it simply because it is a Rover.

French cars *are* notable for poor owner satisfaction and reliability. They

*always* come near the bottom when those factors are considered.

Kev

I certainly agree with you there. Some roads around my way have been patched so many times that they are terrible to drive over. Our cheapskate practice of 'tarring and chipping' results in dreadful road noise - and in hot weather whole chunks of it get ripped up by heavy trucks when it sticks to their tyres.

Kev

"Ret." gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:

So you keep saying. Then you go on to prove that even you realise that's actually a load of bollocks in the context of this whole debate.

If you really believed it, there'd be no point whatsoever in you starting a thread (let alone five) pointing me towards the AutoExpress survey in the first place.

Do you, indeed? Even though they don't even come close to answering the questions?

I've sat in them. I've driven them. I slam them as thoroughly mediocre cars which just don't do what they're lauded for. IME, they're claustrophobic and the ride is poor.

And, just so's there's no risk of you trying that "But you only say that because it's a Rover", I'd like to remind you that I really liked the Origami 2/400s and the 45-shape 400s that I had as CoCars back in the day.

Do you really not notice the total and utter contradiction in your answers?

First, you say "Why does it matter? It doesn't, as long as the owners are happy" - then you try to turn it round to "But you drive a bag of shit that does really badly..."

It sells cars , the fact most British drivers never drive thier vehicles to anywhere near its limits makes little difference

Same with airbags , antilock brakes , collision aviodance , skid control , emergency braking , hill start traction control .

fitted to most vehicles but few are rarely if ever used

LOL! Well, the five threads were all because of problems at Pipex's newserver - but even though it doesn't matter to me what you think of my car, there is still an irresistable urge to attempt to prove that your opinions are wrong. Your views of the 75, and Filth's views of the 75, wont make me change my opinion that it is an extremely good car. That doesn't mean that comments that the car is rubbish are not irritating and worthy of countering.

As I have commented before - my wife and I both thought the 'C' class Merc we had on hire for two weeks was dreadful - but that was our personal opinion of the ride quality, noise levels, seat comfort, etc. I most certainly did not like the car because it did not provide what I want from a car - ie a smooth compliant ride and comfortable seats. What I am *not* doing, however, is trying to argue that the 'C' class is a rubbish car - because clearly it is not. I can accept that some drivers will prefer a harsh ride and hard seats (although why I do not know...).

This is the issue with the 75. It is far from being a 'sporty' car - but then it was never designed to be a sporty car - it was designed to be a comfortable long distance cruiser. That may be a reason for some drivers to say that they don't like the car. It is not, however, a reason to claim that it is rubbish.

Despite the fact that every single professional tester who has reviewed the car argues that the ride is 'sublime' and if there is one outstanding feature the 75 is renowned for, it is its ride quality? It seems to me that this is proof positive that your opinions on any car are seriously flawed! If you think the ride quality of the 75 is poor - then you must consider the ride quality of 99% of today's cars to be absolutely appalling...

And yet those Rovers never received the critical acclaim that the 75 did? Again this suggests that your opinions on cars are seriously out of sync with everyone else's!

Not at all. If the owner of a Xantia is happy with his car then that is all that matters. The fact that other Xantia owners may not be quite so happy is irrelevant. What is indisputable is that French cars are always marked down for ownership satisfaction and reliablity - both in surveys such as JD Power - and in surveys such as Driver Power which relies on the opinions of owners. You cannot get away from the fact that when the owners of cars are asked their opinions of how satisfied they are with their cars - the owners of French cars are less satisfied than the owners of others. Peugeot, for example, consistently do very badly - and this cannot just be a coincidence can it? This does not alter the fact that many Peugeot owners will be perfectly happy with their cars - and if they are, then that is all that matters.

Kev

"Ret." gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:

Riiiiight.

Because, of course, my opinion _might_ change...?

Like I've said before - it's all about calibration. I'm used to hydraulic Citroens. I found the 75's ride really nothing very special at all.

Yes, I do.

Perhaps I just ought to go out and buy a Hyundai i30, then? After all, it must be good, because the owners like it.

So when you say "Not at all", what you _actually_ mean is "bugger, I've been caught bang-to-rights there, an' no mistake..."

Perhaps they're just less easily pleased by mediocrity?

I can only go by my mother's 306 estate. Bought new on a 51-plate, written off last year - and never once had anything but routine servicing. The 207 estate she's replaced it with seems to be fine so far, too.

Actually, that's not true. The HUGE wodge of bills for the 205 we bought last year - one owner from new - seem to have nothing much above and beyond routine servicing, too. In 20yrs and 130k miles. We bought it from an elderly couple round the corner. Who now drive a 308.

I wouldn't touch a Renault with yours, though.

TBH, I don't think it matter what you buy as there are duff examples of everything out there..

Having said that, I find the Toyota Avensis comfier than a Rover 75 ;)

I doubt, of course, that it will - but there is an overwhelming mass of evidence to demonstrate that your opinion is wrong...

I have already accepted previously that I was very impressed with the ride quality of the current C5. It is the only car at the moment that I would be happy to exchange my 75 for - but, then again, there is the problem of French car reliability... The new C5 may be an improvement. It certainly appears to be more solid and better built than previous Citroens.

Well at least there is one thing we are in agreement about!

Not just the owners. This is what Auto Express says about the car:

Driving The i30 shares its platform with the Kia Cee?d, but has slightly revised suspension settings. It feels composed and reassuring, and while it?s far from inspiring to drive, it is comfortable and refined enough. Long journeys won?t be a chore. The same range of 1.6-litre and 2.0-litre petrol and diesel engines are used, too ? but Hyundai has made a few changes which improve refinement. There?s also a 1.4-litre petrol entry-level car, and we found little difference in performance between this and the 1.6; however, if you can afford it, go for the excellent 1.6-litre diesel. It has impressive punch, particularly when pulling out of junctions.

The well-constructed interior offers a comfortable seating position and plenty of rear space. The i30 actually has more rear legroom than the already-spacious Cee?d. The boot is practical, and as the rear seatbases flip, you can create a virtually flat load area. The trouble is, lower-end models don?t look as robust as they actually are, due to a large expanse of dull plastic. More upmarket variants get a leather steering wheel and metal-effect centre console. All models are very well equipped though, with even entry-level versions offering ESP, alloys, electric windows, air con and a USB auxiliary port. What?s more, the i30 offers a five-year warranty, though this is still two years less than the Cee?d. Retained values are better than the Kia though, with the Hyundai holding on to just under 39 per cent after three years.

Read more:

Even Top Gear is complimentary:

Sharing its underpinnings with the already highly lauded Kia Cee'd, Hyundai goes one better with the i-30 by adding surprisingly tidy styling to this mechanically sorted package.

Comfort The i-30 and Cee'd both ride remarkably well, given that they also handle ? a very tricky balance to strike. It may lack that certain Germanic something that makes cars like the VW Golf feel so cosseting, but it?s really not that far off.

Performance The i-30?s small petrol engines don?t do much for it in the performance stakes. In fact the only option that can muster halfway respectable figures is the larger of the two diesels.

Cool It?s a bit of a leap of faith, but the i-30 is quite cool right now, turning heads and sparking debate as it passes. Who knows if that?ll last, but at the very least it?s got people talking.

Quality Nothing to worry about here ? Hyundai have been building decent, reliable cars for a while and besides, there?s a monster warranty as back-up if anything does go wrong.

Handling While the i-30 may not handle quite like the BMW 1-Series it?s so clearly trying to resemble, there?s still a composed and entertaining chassis to exploit, supported by direct and informative steering.

Practicality As family hatchbacks go, the i-30 ticks the required boxes. It?s got five-doors and a boot, is relatively spacious in the back and has folding rear seats. No strokes of genius, but none required.

Running costs Expect the i-30 to hold its value fairly well. Couple that with its relatively cheap initial purchase price and you?re on to a winner. Hyundai also offers a five year warranty with this, so you?ve nothing to worry about should something go pop.

---------------

So, whilst no-one would try and suggest that it is the best medium car on the road - it ticks most of the boxes at a very competitive price and has a superb warranty. Owners appear to be highly satisfied with their i30s - and reading the above, there appears to be no reason why they shouldn't.

There seems to be still a lot of car snobbery going on here...

I don't accept that at all- and I've explained why.

So why should the buyers of French cars be more critical of their purchases than the buyer of, say, a Hyundai i30? Are you suggesting that the buyers of French cars are likely to be more knowledgeable about cars and hence less accepting of poor reliability than owners of other cars?

As you know, I had a 309 from new. It took a bit of sorting by the dealer to iron out poor running initially, and also needed the rear offside panel re-spraying immediately because of problems with the original spray, but after that I was quite happy with it until I traded it in.

LOL!

Kev

I haven't driven the latest reincarnation - but I did test drive the previous one. I thought the ride quality was poor, interior space poor - and road noise abysmal.

Kev

You seem to be suggesting that buyers are selecting cars *because* they have a hard ride. Bearing in mind that the Driver Power survey shows that people with such cars are highly critical of the ride quality - and yet praise the ride quality of the 75, appears to show that if given the choice, most drivers would opt for a more comfortable ride. The problem is that they really have no choice these days. Even French cars that used to be renowned for ride quality and comfy seats now seem to want to emulate BMW. I test drove the new Laguna a few months ago. The seats were appallingly hard - and the ride was harsh. I wouldn't even consider one.

Slightly different thing though. None of these features affect the driving comfort - and yet all of them give reassurance.

Kev

I think you've hit the nail on the head. Manufacturers want their cars to get good reviews - and those reviews are written by petrol heads who have no real interest in ordinary family cars. If a car they test does not handle like a sports car, then it is a bad car as far as they are concerned.

Consequently, manufacturers produce cars to please the reviewers - and not to please the buyers who then have to put with a hard ride in order to obtain a handling prowess that they neither need nor will use.

It irritates me also that a lot of manufacturers are now insisting on fitting their higher trim models with bigger wheels and lower profile tyres. Why? Why do they think that someone who wants leather seats and more gadgets in their car will also want bigger wheels which have no real advantage but will give an even harder ride - and extra costs when the tyres need replacing?

Kev

All are selling points though a typical sales driod will throw at you

The public *want* the wheels - they think low profile alloys look much

*cooler* than steel wheels.

Well, in general, the next trim down will still have alloys - albeit smaller alloys. But do they actually realise that bigger wheels and lower profile tyres will inevitably mean a harsher ride quality - and that the bigger low profile tyres will cost an arm and a leg when they come to replace them? Somehow I don't think so...

Kev

"Ret." gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:

Yet most Citroen people think it far too firm, and biased far too much towards feeling like the generic German rivals.

Odd. I was thoroughly underwhelmed with damn near every aspect of the MkV Golf I had as rental a while back.

Hahahahahahahahahahah

Complete bollocks. In three years time, the used market will be FLOODED with low-milers that people have bought through scrappage.

There's a lot of things I can be accused of, but... really...?

An explanation which actually proved the point.

Because the buyers of Hyundai i30s know nothing about what makes a car a good car, and only expect bland reliability.

You just don't understand it, do you? It's like trying to explain quantum physics to the cat.

It's very simple - I want a car that's not terminally dull to drive.

I don't give a f*ck if it's not mind-bendingly fast. I don't give a f*ck if it's not "cool". I want to enjoy driving it.

Pete M gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:

Oh, sure. But having had a good look over several Renaults on the workshop ramp... I just couldn't believe how agricultural the old-shape Scenic was underneath.

Heheh, my direct family and I have done about a quarter of a million miles in a 205 and 4 306s.

1 clutch, a couple of radiators and a few CV joints plus the serviceable items. I've also had a BX and my current 106. I have been very satisfied.

Kev or anyone else couldn't tempt me with a Diesel Rover 75 or a Hyundai. No matter where they came in a user expectation survey.

We've also had a Savanna and an original Espace. Full of good ideas. Sadly large piles of crap once past about 3 or 4 years old.

I note you missed out the ability to stop reliably from high speed :-)