Rover 75 260

[David]

Rover 75-260/MG ZT-260 Same car (more or less) but the rover is much cheaper to insure!

And they feel (and sound!) very different too. Depends what you want of the car; neither is intrinsically better than the other, just quite 'different', at least as I perceive it. Partly enforced by the auto-box and how you drive it as a result, maybe. Even Nick said that you could tell the engine was clearly more attuned to an auto-box.
Maybe you'd rather push red-hot needles into your eyeballs than drive an auto, but I like the overall R75V8 package better!

Insurance on an agreed valuation basis is cheaper for the Rover here in Holland too. 1.75% instead of 2.00% of value for a ZT, but the same basic 3rd party legal requirement part of the premium, for some reason (100 quid). Illogical. No regional Post-Code weightings. Don't know how that compares with the UK ?

David

[SteveTD]

I've had both. As a daily driver the Rover is much nicer. Interior is nicer too. So is the bumper. And the Vortex alloys.....!

[David]

I've had both. As a daily driver the Rover is much nicer. Interior is nicer too. So is the bumper. And the Vortex alloys.....!

You forgot the nice plastic 'oak', Steve .
In an ideal world, one of each would be the answer
... by which I mean R75V8, ZT 260, ZT 385/400 plus Tourer variants of 'em all of course, and on the seventh day the Lord said "useth My SV-RS".

David

[Black_Betty]

£250.00/yr for fully comprehensive for me here in the UK, but I'm a 60yr old dinosaur with a million years NCB.
I haven't (never will) have a 'black box' fitted, as I'd probably have my insurance revoked within the week the way I drive Black Betty (sideways)