Sorry Looking 54 Plate V8 Tourer in Mid Wales

[trikey]

And a green mk1

[Les4048]

Originally Posted by Ravinder

Did all the 260s only ever come in facelift?

Do you mean the Rover or MG ? there's plenty MG pre-facelift but I think all Rover V8 had the Premium grille

[mh007]

Originally Posted by T16

unlikely.

it was more than likely the rod bolts after being over-revved at some point in its life.

They are a weak point on ALL the engines, supercharged or not.

You're probably correct in saying the conrod bolts give way due to over revving but fitting a supercharger on a 'standard' engine is likely to cause more stress because it'll be driven harder surely ?
I'm aware that big ends are potentially a weak point on an engine amongst other things.
I've seen plenty of the results during my years in the trade.
As I said, the owner of the 260 admitted to gunning it (or "giving it some beans" as he said).

[MrDoodles]

As the standard 4.6 Modular V8, left the factory with a cast, rather than forged bottom end, when fitted with a Supercharger, revving them over 6,000 rpm, will only spell disaster!

[marinabrian]

Originally Posted by Nich

Don't know where you got that from, it is generally accepted that there were 217 Mk1's and 666 Mk2's. There were a number of cars with a mixture of different parts including one or two early cars with facelift front ends. The differences between Mk1 and Mk2 went deeper than just cosmetic with the addition of things like cruise and traction control to SE models and typical of the MG brand at that time there was a lot of blurring between the lines of SE and non SE. But 0183, 0206, 0207, 0208, 0211 and 0215 all have facelift front ends.

And right up until the bitter end the electronics in the V8 were stamped "Prototype not for production use"

So what does that say about the cars, I mean they really are unfinished prototypes which should have been killed at birth.

Only Rover could have proposed such a ludicrous vehicle, it ranks alongside the Tata Indica "City Rover" for electronic quality

Brian

[ND23]

Originally Posted by marinabrian

And right up until the bitter end the electronics in the V8 were stamped "Prototype not for production use"

So what does that say about the cars, I mean they really are unfinished prototypes which should have been killed at birth.

Only Rover could have proposed such a ludicrous vehicle, it ranks alongside the Tata Indica "City Rover" for electronic quality

Brian

Pity you can't keep your own sad, vitriolic ramblings to yourself. It does get really tedious having to put up with your constant whinging about this range of cars dotted in amongst some interesting comments.

[trikey]

Originally Posted by Nich

Pity you can't keep your own sad, vitriolic ramblings to yourself. It does get really tedious having to put up with your constant whinging about this range of cars dotted in amongst some interesting comments.

Brian may have his own opinions on the V8, but its not without justification, I have seen him using T4 on them and to talk to the system(s) used in the cars, it is a nightmare!

[marinabrian]

Originally Posted by Nich

Pity you can't keep your own sad, vitriolic ramblings to yourself. It does get really tedious having to put up with your constant whinging about this range of cars dotted in amongst some interesting comments.

Fortunately enough, despite me being sad and vitriolic I also have the good sense not to own one of these unfinished kit cars.

Not only do they drive atrociously, the fit and finish, even by MGR standards is poor.

If you find this offensive, sorry.......however you do have your own elite forum dedicated to these half baked wonders.

You may find it as www.thetwo-sixties.com

Brian

[ND23]

Originally Posted by trikey

Brian may have his own opinions on the V8, but its not without justification, I have seen him using T4 on them and to talk to the system(s) used in the cars, it is a nightmare!

We all have our own opinions with or without justification but comments like

"unfinished prototypes which should have been killed at birth."

and

"a ludicrous vehicle, it ranks alongside the Tata Indica "City Rover" for electronic quality"

are just insulting. I have owned my car, as have many others, since 2004 and have never had any problems which could justify those sort of comments. His limited (how many has he worked on? 1? 5? 10? 20?) experiences do not in any way justify his comments. Just because he has had problems with his T4 communicating it doesn't mean to say that the whole range is faulty or worthy of his vitriol.
I am all for free speech and every persons right to express an opinion but the constant spiteful, negative comments are tedious in the extreme when they are interspersed in useful discussion threads.

[marinabrian]

Originally Posted by Nich

We all have our own opinions with or without justification but comments like

"unfinished prototypes which should have been killed at birth."

and

"a ludicrous vehicle, it ranks alongside the Tata Indica "City Rover" for electronic quality"

are just insulting. I have owned my car, as have many others, since 2004 and have never had any problems which could justify those sort of comments. His limited (how many has he worked on? 1? 5? 10? 20?) experiences do not in any way justify his comments. Just because he has had problems with his T4 communicating it doesn't mean to say that the whole range is faulty or worthy of his vitriol.
I am all for free speech and every persons right to express an opinion but the constant spiteful, negative comments are tedious in the extreme when they are interspersed in useful discussion threads.

They are garbage, and should never have been produced......ever.

How about this for a quality decision, bleed nipple on the clutch master cylinder is in the lowest position of the hydraulic system.

Make no bones about it, if these were cars produced by a group of enthusiasts I would applaud the effort, but no they were produced by a mass production car company who should have known better

Brian