differences between rover 75 and mg ztt engines - Page 8

rovexCDTi · 5th August 2013, 19:08

I had the synergy for 30 months, so im well aware that its rougher, as is almost everyone who has switched.
The 160 remap is quieter and the power delivery is smoother and more consistent. It doesn't always feel as fast, because of the smoothness, but push the car and you will find yourself arriving into corners faster than you expected, if you are still expecting it to act like the synergy. Its a far better solution than the synergy.

I sold mine for the cost of the 160 remap, so it was effectively free.

Godfer · 5th August 2013, 19:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by rovexCDTi

I had the synergy for 30 months, so im well aware that its rougher, as is almost everyone who has switched.
The 160 remap is quieter and the power delivery is smoother and more consistent. It doesn't always feel as fast, because of the smoothness, but push the car and you will find yourself arriving into corners faster than you expected, if you are still expecting it to act like the synergy. Its a far better solution than the synergy.

I sold mine for the cost of the 160 remap, so it was effectively free.

I have had the remap (marinabrian)...and I noticed this weekend how 'fast' it is! I'm no boy racer, but I had to affect an overtaking manoeuvre at motorways speeds on Saturday, and when I 'asked' at 80mph...it delivered, in spades!!!! I was very pleasantly surprised and had to back off very quickly indeed!

James.uk · 6th August 2013, 02:44

I agree with Harry, my car has always been very very smooth to drive, both with Synergy only, and with Synergy and remap...

Personally I think you would be hard pressed to find a smoother car..

...

BaroqueMoon · 6th August 2013, 03:18

I like the delivery from my 2.5. Couldn't be happier. As far as testing it against a remap well...if I lost I could put it down to the extra weight of all the walnut I've added.

5th August 2013, 19:08	#71
rovexCDTi This is my second home MG ZT+ 135 Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Exeter Posts: 3,626 Thanks: 9 Thanked 42 Times in 26 Posts	I had the synergy for 30 months, so im well aware that its rougher, as is almost everyone who has switched. The 160 remap is quieter and the power delivery is smoother and more consistent. It doesn't always feel as fast, because of the smoothness, but push the car and you will find yourself arriving into corners faster than you expected, if you are still expecting it to act like the synergy. Its a far better solution than the synergy. I sold mine for the cost of the 160 remap, so it was effectively free. __________________ [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

6th August 2013, 03:18	#74
BaroqueMoon Gets stuck in Rover 75 Saloon Join Date: Jul 2012 Location: Ballarat Posts: 937 Thanks: 576 Thanked 114 Times in 99 Posts	I like the delivery from my 2.5. Couldn't be happier. As far as testing it against a remap well...if I lost I could put it down to the extra weight of all the walnut I've added. __________________ Love my 75 and it loves me Membership Number 1703 This vehicle was the 82,624th 75 to run off the production line, out of 112,381 This vehicle was the 6,161st 75 2.5 V6 Contemporary to be made out of 8,214 This vehicle was the 9,755th 75 in White Gold Metallic (code: GMN) to be made out of 12,251 White Gold Metallic 75s

6th August 2013, 02:44	#73
James.uk Passed Away 2002 Pale Blue. Rover 75 CDTi Connoisseur auto. 170K miles Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Near the M67. Posts: 14,509 Thanks: 199 Thanked 585 Times in 397 Posts	I agree with Harry, my car has always been very very smooth to drive, both with Synergy only, and with Synergy and remap... Personally I think you would be hard pressed to find a smoother car.. ...