Talk:Rover 75

Split

This article may be split the content into articles Rover 75 and Roewe 750. -- Love Krittaya (talk) 06:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

INSURANCE

"Based on the combination of safety, performance and maintainability, the Rover 75 was found in 2011 to be the cheapest car to insure in the United Kingdom across all age groups.[10" THE CONFUSED.COM ARTICLE MAKES NO MENTION OF THIS WHATSOEVER. CITATION NEEDED — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.169.60.203 (talk) 23:59, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• I checked out the citation attached to the statement and it works for me. It really does list the Rover 75 as the cheapest car to insure. :-) CyanIsland (talk) 22:15, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Emissions

I wonder why the emissions are such big role in this article, in those years most European car manufacturers did not take car of such things. The c02 hype came much later. -->Typ932 ^T·C 12:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd argue that emissions are a huge deal, especially in Europe, since the European emission standards started in 1992, and have only been getting more important since then. Most governments even set tax rates on emissions, so buyers are very aware that a high-polluting car will cost more to run than an efficient model - and the engine specification section highlights this clearly. The 75 stacks up well against the competition, too, which is interesting, so it's worthy of a little article space. It's certainly not doing any harm! CyanIsland (talk) 19:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

MG ZT badge engineering

The MG ZT is claimed to be badge engineered in this Wiki article, however Classic & Sports Car mag is of different opinion:

"The MGs were not badge-engineered – they had revised styling and interiors, re-engineered engines, gearchanges, suspension and brakes. Autocar’s verdict on testing the ZT 190 was: ‘The MG ZT rewrites the Rover 75’s clubby look and manners, delivering a leaner sports saloon that is as sharp on the road as it looks… The MG ZT is a formidable contender and a tribute to Rover’s engineering.’"

https://www.classicandsportscar.com/features/buyers-guide-mg-ztzt-t-rover-75

Perhaps someone with better insight can verify, and if true, update the Wiki? (I'm rather new to these cars) Ahrle (talk) 01:21, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Easy, just read Badge-engineered and you'll see WP is correct, and your mag is not. Please put contributions at the foot of the page instead of the top. Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 01:31, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Date confusion

The article claims that "deliveries commenc[ed] in February 1999" and that it "went on sale until 17 June 1999". This needs to be clarified. I also don't see any sourcing given for the claim that production started in 1998, which would seem to contradict both the claim that deliveries commenced in February 1999 and the claim that it went on sale in July 1999. It's clear that pre-production models which were very-nearly production ready were around in 1998, but it's unclear if there was a delay between the beginning of production and the commencement of deliveries. This could be a case of some editor getting confused and thinking the dates being referred to in the article somehow referred to North American model years and changing various instances of "1999" to say "1998", or it could just be confusion regarding the car being unveiled in October 1998 and the time when the car actually entered production. Regardless, better sourcing and further clarification is needed here. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 15:56, 18 October 2025 (UTC) HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 23:15, 18 October 2025 (UTC)