PDA

View Full Version : What's best, BRM or 25GTi?

rovamota
10-19-2007, 08:47 PM
Saw this post on the mg-rover.org forums and the question was whether a BRM was better than a 25 GTi. This was one of the replies from an engineer who worked on the cars a Rover...

"200Vi suspension is different to BRM, which is different to 25 GTi which is different to MG ZR. Architecture is similar but springs and dampers all vary significantly

Having been part of the team that did the chassis on the 25, and having been around when the BRM was done, and having been in on ride and drives during development with all of them (except ZR which came later) I'd go for the 25 GTI

The BRM was "cobbled together" as a special project by the forerunner of MG S'n'R and wasn't anything really to do with Rover Chassis Development, whereas the 25 was part of a major model update programme

The 25's and ZR's benefitted from the newer valve over steering gear which was a sigificant improvement over the honda style rack on the 200 and BRM.

I'd have a 25 GTi every time, the BRM was just way too badly set up to be enjoyed on brilliant welsh roads on the test events. The 25 was much happier (and ultimately faster). For me the ZR is just too harsh (although in pure handling terms probably more "hardcore"!!!)"

So, there you go, the 25 GTi has the best set up..

Kev.
brmatty
10-19-2007, 09:03 PM
BRM anyday...ive owned 2 vi's and a mg zs to name but a few..brm does it everytime...gti is to much of a plain jane!!
**Warren**R200
10-19-2007, 09:05 PM
i saw that. i couldnt believe it when i read that. the words cobbled together really didnt sound too good to me. i thought when the brm only had good reviews about the handling, is this not the case?
rovamota
10-19-2007, 09:14 PM
That's what I thought, but I think it's an opinion more than anything.

Kev.
Jon_A
10-20-2007, 08:00 AM
I doubt the brm could be that bad lol as its just a VI underneath. I have driven two 25 GTIs and both felt similar to the BRM, I had a choice BRM or GTI and there was no contest as the engines felt similar, gearbox in BRM is much better and the interior is much more solid on the BRM.

Saying this I am sure the GTI had revisions of the suspension and steering rack, as did all 25s over the 200s.
spankyban
10-20-2007, 11:20 AM
I doubt the brm could be that bad lol as its just a VI underneath. I have driven two 25 GTIs and both felt similar to the BRM, I had a choice BRM or GTI and there was no contest as the engines felt similar, gearbox in BRM is much better and the interior is much more solid on the BRM.

Saying this I am sure the GTI had revisions of the suspension and steering rack, as did all 25s over the 200s.


Jon hate to pull you up, but instead of driving - get underneath one - BRM substansially lower with more progressivly wound springs and bigger/stiffer anti roll bars - coupled to the ToRsen diff makes for a far better handling car. After being underneath mine and my dad's ZR 160 the BRM has much more to it - not forgetting it was part of the development for the 160.
Jon_A
10-20-2007, 11:34 AM
A ZR 160 rear beam is thicker I believe than the brm hence no rear roll bar. It would be obvious thought that any later developments to the 200/25 would have been made, whether they make a large difference is debatable but the addition of the LSD is a huge improvement in my eyes and effects the handling the most.
Adam
10-21-2007, 05:00 PM
Its funny when people say that the TorSen diff has no effect, they should try pushing a BRM into a corner and feel the way you can keep applying power when people have to back off in other cars.
Nightfire
10-21-2007, 11:03 PM
A ZR 160 rear beam is thicker I believe than the brm hence no rear roll bar.

A stiffer rear bar may help the car handle better but can carry out the same task when the beam support 2 independent arms which will move independently without that link.