Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Paul M]

Agreed -- it's pretty well known that most manufacturer's performance figures are conservative, so if the ZT is quoted at 7.6 then a flat 7 seconds is very possible. Especially if it's in manual form, which I assume it is being the ZT rather than the "old man" 75. To be honest I don't think there'd be much in it between a ZT 190 and mine in dry acceleration, and mine has 30 BHP more than a 2.6 plus a manual gearbox.

Saying that, IMO the only ZT worth even looking at is the V8. It's not particularly powerful (260 BHP) considering the engine size, but more importantly it's  rear-wheel drive and has a 6-speed manual gearbox. Never driven one but apparently it's great fun, and is probably one of the cheapest ways of getting behind the wheel of a RWD V8 -- depreciation is absolutely horrendous since the demise of Rover. Great fun until it breaks down that is .

[Martin_1962]

ZT         2.5 + (190ps) 4d  2497 / 6 187 140 7.5 28 15

Omega   2.6 V6 24V CDX 4d  2597 / 6 176 142 8.2 26 16

I can get a repeatable 7.8 0-60, mine is an ex hire car and is a bit loose.

I reckon I could beat that if I changed manually move at 6000 change at a bit higher than sport mode

And you think the ZT's time couldn't be improved upon?

As said, in the dry, the ZT would leave your 2.6 up to most speeds. Whether or not it is a nicer car or ride is a subjective matter (personally, I prefer Omega).

Weight transfer is a funny thing, watch hot hatch drivers trying hard!

[Martin_1962]

Agreed -- it's pretty well known that most manufacturer's performance figures are conservative, so if the ZT is quoted at 7.6 then a flat 7 seconds is very possible. Especially if it's in manual form, which I assume it is being the ZT rather than the "old man" 75. To be honest I don't think there'd be much in it between a ZT 190 and mine in dry acceleration, and mine has 30 BHP more than a 2.6 plus a manual gearbox.

Saying that, IMO the only ZT worth even looking at is the V8. It's not particularly powerful (260 BHP) considering the engine size, but more importantly it's  rear-wheel drive and has a 6-speed manual gearbox. Never driven one but apparently it's great fun, and is probably one of the cheapest ways of getting behind the wheel of a RWD V8 -- depreciation is absolutely horrendous since the demise of Rover. Great fun until it breaks down that is .

I fully agree about the V8, as to RWD traction, it is amazing what you can take off the line with better traction, lets say my Sunbeam never lost a TLGP to a front drive car (come to think of it, I don't think it lost any!) My dad driving my mums then Reliant 3 wheeler (she was on bike licence) beat an XR3i at lights.

[TheBoy]

ZT         2.5 + (190ps) 4d  2497 / 6 187 140 7.5 28 15

Omega   2.6 V6 24V CDX 4d  2597 / 6 176 142 8.2 26 16

I can get a repeatable 7.8 0-60, mine is an ex hire car and is a bit loose.

I reckon I could beat that if I changed manually move at 6000 change at a bit higher than sport mode

And you think the ZT's time couldn't be improved upon?

As said, in the dry, the ZT would leave your 2.6 up to most speeds. Whether or not it is a nicer car or ride is a subjective matter (personally, I prefer Omega).

Weight transfer is a funny thing, watch hot hatch drivers trying hard!

You are forgetting that Chav'd up hot hatches are engine with no power or torque, so although they may beat you to 20mph, they are hopeless after that. The Rover is a similar engine to Omega, slightly more powerful, similar torque, lighter car, and reasonable front traction in the dry....

[Martin_1962]

FWD hot hatches - no I mean they are not quick off the line - weight transfer stuffs them at first.

[TheBoy]

FWD hot hatches - no I mean they are not quick off the line - weight transfer stuffs them at first.

Proper ones are...   ...try jumping in an (older) Civic Type R, rev it to about 3.5k (just below the power band) and drop the clutch, and tell me that ain't quick for a 2.0l....

[Kevin Wood]

That reminds me. I must try my AP22 in my brother's (older) Civic Type R  [smiley=evil.gif]

It is a very quick car. It may have relatively little torque at low revs but when it's got a red line at 8k and a 6 speed box the power still feels like it's in a very wide band! (once you get used to the sound of it revving its' gonads off) I'd never stay with it in the Omega. To be honest my Westfield would have its' work cut out staying with it too!

At the end of the day there are a lot of cars that are much lighter than the Omega, and lightness is king off the lights. That and not being geared for 160MPH at the top end.

As long as you have enough traction for the weight you are trying to pull and you don't make the normal boy racer mistake of lighting up the fronts and standing still...

Kevin

[Martin_1962]

As long as you have enough traction for the weight you are trying to pull and you don't make the normal boy racer mistake of lighting up the fronts and standing still...

Kevin

Seen this a lot, great fun when you are running a tuned RWD hatch

[amigov6]

ZT         2.5 + (190ps) 4d  2497 / 6 187 140 7.5 28 15

Omega   2.6 V6 24V CDX 4d  2597 / 6 176 142 8.2 26 16

 >:(Grow up!!! >:(We love our Migs cos they're Migs. There's plenty of blandmobiles that are faster but they've got no character so which would you rather drive? :-?

If you'de bothered to read the thread instead of diving in at the end I think you'd realise I said that

:-[Apologies STMO, was meant for all in a play nicely children humorous context, but when i read it back it did seem a little gobby.
         Please ignore. [smiley=cry.gif]

[STMO123]

ZT         2.5 + (190ps) 4d  2497 / 6 187 140 7.5 28 15

Omega   2.6 V6 24V CDX 4d  2597 / 6 176 142 8.2 26 16

 >:(Grow up!!! >:(We love our Migs cos they're Migs. There's plenty of blandmobiles that are faster but they've got no character so which would you rather drive? :-?

If you'de bothered to read the thread instead of diving in at the end I think you'd realise I said that

:-[Apologies STMO, was meant for all in a play nicely children humorous context, but when i read it back it did seem a little gobby.
         Please ignore. [smiley=cry.gif]

 

[geoff]

why does everybody seem to be talking about rovers,i thought this was a vauxhall omega forum :-/

[Danny]

why does everybody seem to be talking about rovers,i thought this was a vauxhall omega forum :-/

did you read the title of this particular thread?  

[geoff]

did read it but further down the general chat page ,talking about rover bits,and the other night showing rover pictures on the forum,i wish rovers would just die and go away,aarrrgghhh i hate bloody rovers,had my rant , alright now

[TheBoy]

did read it but further down the general chat page ,talking about rover bits,and the other night showing rover pictures on the forum,i wish rovers would just die and go away,aarrrgghhh i hate bloody rovers,had my rant , alright now

Rovers ain't that bad - decent cars when partnered with Honda. Obviously, BMW mismanaged it, and killed it off.