To this day, the spec sheet for the MG ZT 260 saloon of 2003 to 2005, engineered by Prodrive, still quickens the pulse.
Engine: a 2004-model-year Ford Mustang GT 4.6-litre V8 producing 252bhp and 410lb ft, driving the rear wheels through a Dana Hydratrak limited-slip differential and exhausting through quad pipes.
Suspension: all independent, lowered (1.5in compared with standard models) and stiffened. Rear brakes: AP Racing twin-pot alloy calipers with 332mm vented discs. Tyres: Continental Sport Contact M3s developed for the BMW of the same name. Performance: 0-62mph in 6.2sec and a top speed of 155mph.
Only around 400 of this sportiest ZT variant survive. As this was written, one website was listing five of them, ranging in price from £7950 to £11,995 for an immaculate 2004- reg with 42,000 miles. Strong money but then the ZT 260 is a true Q-car; an under-the-radar special derived from the pipe-and-slippers Rover 75 and with loads more charisma.
There are plenty of lesser-powered ZTs, spanning the model’s run from its launch in 2001 to its demise in 2005. First up are the 2.5-litre V6 petrol models, badged 160 (156bhp), 190 (184bhp) and 180 automatic (176bhp). Prices are no higher than £4995 but best you know the engine requires fresh timing belts (three of them) every six years or 90,000 miles. It’s an expensive, six-hour job.
Join the debate
Add your comment
Is it me?
Electric lifts are one of the accoutrements I really wouldn't mind sacrificing in the interest s of light weight and simplicity. Seats, boot lids and steering columns are other things I have no difficulty in operating manually. I do like electric door mirrors, though.
Other things I can happily do without? Automatic headlights and rain-sensing windscreen wipers.
beechie wrote:
With you on that, electric mirrors are fantastic but the rest i can do without.
I had a ZT 120+ that I bought new, a fantastic car in trophy blue, I've never had a car before or since that people ask about at petrol.stations etc but the ZT they did, and all were surprised that it was cheaper than a vectra or mondeo of equivalent spec. Change in circumstances meant it had to go but it is one car I really miss owning. Always fancied a 260, they mounted the v8 as close to the passenger compartment as they could to aid handling whereas the 75 v8 had it pushed as far away as possiple for better nvh refinement.
@ xxxx, the ZTs ride was very good but the 75s ride was fantastic, my dad had a 75 v6, and it was a lovely car to ride in, I'm sure you're right in saying better than any audi.
beechie wrote:
Honda retained electric windows in the NSX Type-R as the motors were lighter than manual winding mechanisms.
Alternative
I see Rover 75 V6's with 60k going for £1,500 (have a look) true bargin motoring. Probably rides better than Audi!
Rover 75 v8
Personally I’ve always hankered after a Rover 75 V8 there is something about the way it looks and it’s stance that I like.
The world was indeed very cruel to the Rover 75, it deserved a much better reception than it had. My dad has a 75 with all the kit on. It was a lovely car and his favourite of all the ones he’s ever owned. He never had a problem on it, the car was cheap to maintain and own. Indeed I almost bought it off him but the wife vetoed me from doing it.