Rover 25 bad idea?

Guy

Guy

Guy

Associate
Joined
5 Mar 2007
Posts
751
Location
Rochdale
Hey guys, I'm out for a 'new' car as someone went into the side of mine ('95 106) and it's a bit knackered. I don't want to spend more than £1000 on a car to replace it, but I don't want to be waiting for the perfect bargain to come up. So I've been looking at some Rover 25s.

I'm hearing different things about them now, some people think they are fine and not had any major issues with them. Were as Which? (survey) absolutely slated it in the used car review.

So I was wondering what peoples opinions are of them? Looking at getting the 1.4 103bhp engine. It'll be used for short daily commutes and long distance motorway journeys occasionally.

I can't really see another car coming near to it really for what you get for £1000.

Cheers in advance!
 
I've got some experience of these as I taught my brother to drive in a 2002 1.4 16v. It's quite a charming little car for a limited budget and/or if you don't drive much.

Good points - 16v version goes well, very cheap to buy, looks reasonably fresh, more space than a Fiesta/Corsa/french equivalents
Bad points - Build quality, HGF risk is not overstated in my experience

* Plenty of specialists will guarantee their repair for xx,000 miles or however many years.

You could do worse :).
 
Bad idea? No. Horrible one. Cramped, unreliable, not outstandingly fuel efficient....My grandmother had one that cost a frappin' fortune in repairs over it's life. She eventually got a garage to give her a decent part-ex value and got rid.

Better than getting the bus. That's about the best I can say for them.
 
For £1000 you really don't want to be limiting yourself to any particular make/model as it's a sure fire way to end up with a shed. Just look out for a bargain - something in good condition with a decent service record and with as few owners as possible.
 
Bah, looks like it's back to auto trader then. Didn't think it would get slated that badly for some reason...
 
Terrible terrible cars. I bought one when I was 18 because I was sick to death of being pulled over in my Escort. It worked, not the car but I wasn't pulled over ever again.

Ended up being so un reliable that it was cheaper to take out finance on a new car than trying to keep that thing running.
 
My mum had one with exactly the same engine and it was without a doubt the worst car she has ever owned.
It was unreliable, sluggish and cramped.
 
Bought a rover 200 1.4 off a forum member here with a blown engine (hgf), replaced the lump and rad for a quick sale, still see it pottering around town.
The missus bought one too, HGF within 6 months that I spotted early and fixed myself, 4 years since of absolutely trouble free motoring.
I think the k-series is a peach of an engine, free reving with plenty of power for it's displacement, and they handle quite well to boot. ( i've thraped the absolute hell out of this one) never missed a beat.

Why did Catherham use the k-series lumps for so many years in their cars if it wasn't a good choice?
 
Last edited:
Hmm didn't consider the Mondeo as it didn't come into less then 60k milage check, but I think I might have a look at them. The MX-5 is right out I think, I've only got 2 NCB and 4 nearly 5 years of driving.

I was aware of the HGF on these cars, but I seam to be pretty lucky in car terms. AX and 106 gave me no issues what so ever over the years :D
 
Dogbreath said:
Comment is invalid, you own a Seicento ;) (or was it a Cinq?).
Click to expand...

Which actually has more room in than a Rover 25 (I've driven with four fairly large passengers before, and I'm not exactly slim), is much more fuel efficient than a Rover 25 (56.2mpg on my last tank according to the receipt in front of me), and doesn't dine on it's own headgasket every 20 thousand miles like a Rover 25 (think Gran's 25 actually ate them quicker than that).

;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom