75 Engine Difference's, KV6??

slash79 · 20th August 2013, 10:29

Good morning folks.
I'm new to this forum, so be gentle

I'm currently saving for a 75 Connie Tourer as the wife I are going to need another 'bigger' car soon. My little MGF just won't cut it. I'm keeping that though

I'm not new to the bigger MG/Rovers. Had a ZT190 a while back and loved it.
I'm lusting after that KV6 engine again and I'm wondering what the differences are between the 2.0 V6 and 2.5 V6 apart from displacement and 30 ish bhp?? Does the 2.0 not have VIS motors etc??
The car is not gonna be for thrashing around etc. Just a cruiser.
Can anyone tell me which ones best to go for?
Thanks a lot.

lovema75 · 20th August 2013, 10:42

Just the same I believe, the 2.0 has all the bits the 2.5 does except some cc's!

smallheathlad · 20th August 2013, 10:48

Hi First welcome to the club, I have 2Lt Connoisseur, great car.
Other than what you have already stated there is no real differance between them. They both have VIS motors etc. Rover stopped production of the 2Lt about 2002ish so I guess you would find more 2.5 available. The only real point I would make is what ever you purchase factor in the cost of timing belt, water pump and thermostat. The belts need to be changed at 90Kmiles or 6 year whichever comes first.
Oh I think the later 2.5 cars were hit by a change in Car Tax and are in the higher tax band.

Grumpy1 · 20th August 2013, 10:51

to this great club Alex. You'll get all the help and advice you'll ever need from some very knowledgeable people. As regards the difference between 2.0 and 2.5, I think the main difference will be the extra 'grunt' from the 2.5! MPG isn't much different between the two I don't think. I'm sure more knowledgeable members will be along shortly to explain all the technical differences between them. I'm not one of them I'm afraid. Just your average Joe Bloggs who loves his 75.

Chad.

slash79 · 20th August 2013, 11:03

Thanks for the quick responses and welcome guys.
Yes I'm all too aware if the cambelts etc on the KV6. Had them done on my 190 at Lates600. Also had leaky thermostat housing on it!
I'm gonna try and find one that's already had the belts etc done as its not ****** cheap

I also fancy an auto. Is this a serviceable item or a sealed for life jobby?

mh007 · 20th August 2013, 11:32

The Jatco autobox is on the whole fantastic & very smooth through the gear changes.
There were some issues on the earlier boxes with a weak Reverse Piston causing loss of drive & also some suffer Solenoid faults, all of which can be changed without box removal.
It is recommended that the oil be changed at 60k & it uses specific oil & a specific procedure (all info can be found on here)
I know of owners who have never changed the oil & have no problems even with over 160k on the clock.
Their opinion seems to be that if there are no gearbox issues, why interfere !
This of course is down to personal choice.
With regards to the 2.0 & 2.5, I have one of each in the 75 model, both automatics, and apart from the power difference which is only slight, they're the same.
Some would say the 2.0 is smoother in running than the 2.5.
I hope you find a nice one.

Rob Bell · 20th August 2013, 12:15

As an MGF owner, we've had a 75 or ZT to complement it for the last 10 years! They are great cars as you know - particularly as you've owned an example already

I had a 2.0 KV6 in a previous manual 75 - and it sounded absolutely brilliant. But I'd probably go for a 2.5 if buying another - the extra cc's mean a bit more grunt and the fuel economy I gather doesn't suffer. I also think the KV6s handle better than the diesel version (the latter we currently have).

I wouldn't discount the 1.8T. It's a good, strong engine, and with Mark's help (at Z&F tuning), will reliably put out 200bhp all day long. Head gasket issues of course - but you'll be more than familiar with that story from your F!

Of course, a 1.8T four-pot isn't going to be as sonorous as a V6 - a tough choice I think!

Tim_Burgess · 20th August 2013, 12:22

I'd definitely go for the 2.5. There's no difference in VED band, minimal difference in insurance and, in my experience, the 2.5 has more torque and is a bit more economical.

The 190 motor has some substantial differences with regard to cylinder heads and camshafts over the standard 177 unit I believe.

slash79 · 20th August 2013, 13:46

Great news about the gearbox. I was hoping it would be a good 'un.
I am leaning towards a 2.5 for the extra bit of grunt, but if a fantastic 2.0 came up, I'd go for it.
Alas I know all about the K series head gasket woes! I had an external head gasket leak on my MGF, which has now been replaced with a super fandango triple layer job!
Anything else I need to look for on the 75 Connie Tourer apart from KV6 stuff??

Tim_Burgess · 20th August 2013, 14:39

Make sure the load cover is still there, they are eye-wateringly expensive to replace. Also, make sure the opening tailgate glass still works and check the tailgate for leaks in to the load space.

Other than that it's just the usual 75 checks really.

20th August 2013, 10:29	#1
slash79 Newbie Rover MGF VVC in Nightfire Red 2. Join Date: Aug 2013 Location: Millow, Bedfordshire Posts: 4 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	75 Engine Difference's, KV6?? Good morning folks. I'm new to this forum, so be gentle I'm currently saving for a 75 Connie Tourer as the wife I are going to need another 'bigger' car soon. My little MGF just won't cut it. I'm keeping that though I'm not new to the bigger MG/Rovers. Had a ZT190 a while back and loved it. I'm lusting after that KV6 engine again and I'm wondering what the differences are between the 2.0 V6 and 2.5 V6 apart from displacement and 30 ish bhp?? Does the 2.0 not have VIS motors etc?? The car is not gonna be for thrashing around etc. Just a cruiser. Can anyone tell me which ones best to go for? Thanks a lot.

20th August 2013, 10:51	#4
Grumpy1 I really should get out more....... Rover 75 2.5 2001 Royal Blue Connoissuer Auto Saloon Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Sutton-in-Ashfield Posts: 2,466 Thanks: 447 Thanked 254 Times in 202 Posts	to this great club Alex. You'll get all the help and advice you'll ever need from some very knowledgeable people. As regards the difference between 2.0 and 2.5, I think the main difference will be the extra 'grunt' from the 2.5! MPG isn't much different between the two I don't think. I'm sure more knowledgeable members will be along shortly to explain all the technical differences between them. I'm not one of them I'm afraid. Just your average Joe Bloggs who loves his 75. Chad. __________________ [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC] *Oh no! Not DRLs! Yes, I can* open the bonnet.**

20th August 2013, 11:32	#6
mh007 This is my second home MG ZT260 SE, MG ZT190+, MG ZTT 160, R75 Conn SE 2.0, R75 Conn SE 2.5 X 3, R75 Club SE 1.8, P5B Coupe Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Keynsham, Bristol Posts: 4,211 Thanks: 65 Thanked 635 Times in 499 Posts	The Jatco autobox is on the whole fantastic & very smooth through the gear changes. There were some issues on the earlier boxes with a weak Reverse Piston causing loss of drive & also some suffer Solenoid faults, all of which can be changed without box removal. It is recommended that the oil be changed at 60k & it uses specific oil & a specific procedure (all info can be found on here) I know of owners who have never changed the oil & have no problems even with over 160k on the clock. Their opinion seems to be that if there are no gearbox issues, why interfere ! This of course is down to personal choice. With regards to the 2.0 & 2.5, I have one of each in the 75 model, both automatics, and apart from the power difference which is only slight, they're the same. Some would say the 2.0 is smoother in running than the 2.5. I hope you find a nice one. Last edited by mh007; 20th August 2013 at 11:35..

20th August 2013, 12:22	#8
Tim_Burgess This is my second home 1999 75 Connoisseur SE 2.5, 2000 75 Classic SE 2.0, 2012 Lancia Delta 3, 2016 Dacia Sandero Ambiance Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Kilcreggan Posts: 3,191 Thanks: 334 Thanked 334 Times in 162 Posts	I'd definitely go for the 2.5. There's no difference in VED band, minimal difference in insurance and, in my experience, the 2.5 has more torque and is a bit more economical. The 190 motor has some substantial differences with regard to cylinder heads and camshafts over the standard 177 unit I believe. __________________ *The fact there's a highway to hell and only a stairway to heaven says a lot about anticipated traffic numbers.*.

20th August 2013, 14:39	#10
Tim_Burgess This is my second home 1999 75 Connoisseur SE 2.5, 2000 75 Classic SE 2.0, 2012 Lancia Delta 3, 2016 Dacia Sandero Ambiance Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Kilcreggan Posts: 3,191 Thanks: 334 Thanked 334 Times in 162 Posts	Make sure the load cover is still there, they are eye-wateringly expensive to replace. Also, make sure the opening tailgate glass still works and check the tailgate for leaks in to the load space. Other than that it's just the usual 75 checks really. __________________ *The fact there's a highway to hell and only a stairway to heaven says a lot about anticipated traffic numbers.*.

20th August 2013, 10:42	#2
lovema75 This is my second home 75 Tourer CDT Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: Enfield Posts: 3,925 Thanks: 63 Thanked 431 Times in 237 Posts	Just the same I believe, the 2.0 has all the bits the 2.5 does except some cc's!

20th August 2013, 10:48	#3
smallheathlad Loves to post No more aRover 75 Saloon Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: Widnes Posts: 252 Thanks: 81 Thanked 39 Times in 35 Posts	Hi First welcome to the club, I have 2Lt Connoisseur, great car. Other than what you have already stated there is no real differance between them. They both have VIS motors etc. Rover stopped production of the 2Lt about 2002ish so I guess you would find more 2.5 available. The only real point I would make is what ever you purchase factor in the cost of timing belt, water pump and thermostat. The belts need to be changed at 90Kmiles or 6 year whichever comes first. Oh I think the later 2.5 cars were hit by a change in Car Tax and are in the higher tax band.

20th August 2013, 11:03	#5
slash79 Newbie Rover MGF VVC in Nightfire Red 2. Join Date: Aug 2013 Location: Millow, Bedfordshire Posts: 4 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Thanks for the quick responses and welcome guys. Yes I'm all too aware if the cambelts etc on the KV6. Had them done on my 190 at Lates600. Also had leaky thermostat housing on it! I'm gonna try and find one that's already had the belts etc done as its not ****** cheap I also fancy an auto. Is this a serviceable item or a sealed for life jobby?

20th August 2013, 12:15	#7
Rob Bell Gets stuck in ZT-T CDTi + Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: London Posts: 561 Thanks: 7 Thanked 10 Times in 7 Posts	As an MGF owner, we've had a 75 or ZT to complement it for the last 10 years! They are great cars as you know - particularly as you've owned an example already I had a 2.0 KV6 in a previous manual 75 - and it sounded absolutely brilliant. But I'd probably go for a 2.5 if buying another - the extra cc's mean a bit more grunt and the fuel economy I gather doesn't suffer. I also think the KV6s handle better than the diesel version (the latter we currently have). I wouldn't discount the 1.8T. It's a good, strong engine, and with Mark's help (at Z&F tuning), will reliably put out 200bhp all day long. Head gasket issues of course - but you'll be more than familiar with that story from your F! Of course, a 1.8T four-pot isn't going to be as sonorous as a V6 - a tough choice I think!

20th August 2013, 13:46	#9
slash79 Newbie Rover MGF VVC in Nightfire Red 2. Join Date: Aug 2013 Location: Millow, Bedfordshire Posts: 4 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Great news about the gearbox. I was hoping it would be a good 'un. I am leaning towards a 2.5 for the extra bit of grunt, but if a fantastic 2.0 came up, I'd go for it. Alas I know all about the K series head gasket woes! I had an external head gasket leak on my MGF, which has now been replaced with a super fandango triple layer job! Anything else I need to look for on the 75 Connie Tourer apart from KV6 stuff??