One for Dan

M17TT180 · 21-04-14, 12:36 PM

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...type=1&theater

talkingcars · 21-04-14, 01:59 PM

Interesting looking motor, the 1.8T would have been a nice factory option.

petet16 · 21-04-14, 02:05 PM

I have a feeling that a 1.8t was never offered in the zs because it would have been quicker than the v6.

talkingcars · 21-04-14, 02:20 PM

It'd be quicker at lower speeds once the turbo spools but at higher speeds there wouldn't be much in it.

The humble 160 VVC is quicker in the ZR than the KV6 in the ZS off the line (but the 143VVC in the F is quicker still).

The 1.9T was introduced in the ZT as it beat the 2.0L car tax bracket, same as people like Audi did with the A4 and A6. I suspect they would have sold more ZS 1.9T as company cars than they did 2.5 KV6.

The 2.0L KV6 Rover 45 was introduced to fight the Jag 2.0 V6 - a target too far maybe.

daytona365 · 21-04-14, 04:10 PM

One thing the turbo cant touch the KV6 on......NOISE mmmmmmmmmmmm

R8NMG · 21-04-14, 07:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by talkingcars

The humble 160 VVC is quicker in the ZR than the KV6 in the ZS off the line (but the 143VVC in the F is quicker still).

This could also be down to weight too? The book figure to 60mph, the KV6 ZS very narrowly beat the ZR160 with not much in it at all. The TF is much lighter and the TF160 is rapid at under 7 secs to 60.