Poll: The BIG Rover debate

[energy]

That is all well and good but the problem is pretty obvious: you have a rover. They are right up there with the worst when it comes down to reliability. It appears to people who had the sense not to buy one that they are held together by mayonnaise, cigarette papers and a lot of prayers.

Mayonaise? No wonder, so thats what the white stuff that regularly appears under the filler cap is!

FWIW, I dont think Rovers were that bad. Not really my cup of tea but some were quite reasonable cars. As for the K-series HGFs, though a known issue, many were triggered by a lack of preventive maintenance, to which the K-series was sensitive to. I know two guys, both with 214s, who had HGFs but neither of them was inclined to ever lift the bonnet and check the fluid levels.

 

[ShakenNstirred]

my last 3 cars have been rovers(214mk2/216gti/600sdi and they have all been great
no complaints here.
also im getting a 75 sometime this year

 

[Adz]

I voted 'they're ok'. There was nothing inherently wrong with any of their cars, they just couldn't cut the mustard any more against more modern, more refined, more reliable competition.

I'm quite a fan of the 75 though and could quite happily own a used one, a nice CDT connoisseur .

 

[MrSix]

I've not read the entire thread, purely because of how much I value my Saturday afternoons

Anyway, i'll get some photos and videos of a friend's dad's rover 200 with a 1.8 K series under the bonnet.
215bhp from a NASP engine which cost him a little over £600 (the same price that he got for the original engine which was in it) - once you've seen it perform, then you'll realise not all rovers are old mens cars...just like I did.

His most recent mini-win, was when he beat a new Z4 in a dual carriageway, island, dual carriageway sprint. The Z4 couldn't match the accelleration, nor the handling.

Await photos....

 

[Trickle]

The only Rovers I trust are the ones with Honda designed engines.

My old 216 (AGW shape) with Honda engine was 10 years old when it developed an electrical problem the dealer couldnt fix. Honda engine was good but still had British electricals.

And the problem with it being 'great' value is their dire image. The constant joakes. It didnt matter that is was as good/better than other cars for the money. It takes a strong man to weather such sustained ego bashing. Perhaps AGW is the one.

Me? I ditched it when I started to take an interest in cars (from having to fix the 216?).

 

[Duke]

Voted for dyson. Rover should have gone bust over 10 years ago

 

[Gaijin]

I somehow doubt the sort of person prepared to spend £6k on a V6 powered luxury saloon would be swayed by an Integra Type R.

Easy Peasy. Accord Type R. 200bhp 2.2VTEC Comfortable cruiser with a nasty bite. I know where my money would go.

Seeing as Skywalker's tasty bargain went for £4k ish and there are two on Honda Revs for around £5.5k ish. £6k would get a nice one.

 

[agw_01]

I know of a few Rovers, a couple of them are "J" registration like my 3 is without exception, not one looks a patch on mine.

My dad's J-reg Mk1 820 has been sat on the driveway for the past 4 years. The cambelt snapped and he hasn't got it back on the road since. It's still rust free, and after a wash looks like new. We will get it back on the road one day!

compare a Mondeo to a Rover 400!

The Rover 400 is basically a Honda Civic. Compare the 420 GSi to the Mondeo Ghia X. Very similar spec, and I doubt the build quality on the Rover/Honda is bad at all.

Also, compare a Rover 200 Mk2 to an Astra. (1993/94)

 

[gib786]

rover 214/6's are decent solid cars, bro has had 4 now, all of em have worked perfectly, only had so many as 2 got nicked and he crashed one, the current one is running well, cheaply price as well and dont seem to break down that easily

 

[agw_01]

It takes a strong man to weather such sustained ego bashing. Perhaps AGW is the one.

TBH Trickle, the badge doesn't bother me. I love the car and my dad has had no trouble with any of his Rovers. I'm glad I went for the Rover as a first car, it's good to be different.

I'll agree when people say that Rover weren't putting out new ideas in their final few years. That's what brought them to the ground, but when they were still in the mainstream market they were producing some cars well ahead of their time.

Anyone who says the K-series is crap probably hasn't ever owned a Rover. The K was well ahead of its time!

He does run completely uprated turbo, and its very rapid WHEN its working...

Could you find out what boost and turbo he's running? It'd be interesting to know.

 

[Tesla]

I have a Rover 214i at the moment. A very early Mk3.

I have only ever driven a few cars and this is the second I have owned.

My Rover is approaching 111k and AFAIK hasn't had HGF in the past.

There are some things I like about it, it's dead easy to work on and things are bolted together and with normal nuts and bolts. No fancy torx bits or stupid clips that snap.
I wanted to change the wing, so I unbolted it and bolted on the new one, same with the headlight. Mechanically most of the car is like this and make maintenance a doddle. Ideal for a first car if someone wants to get there hands dirty.

The build quality is also ok. The car is N reg so is old and crusty now. Although its on 110k it isn't very worn at all inside. The dash is really rattly and the window winders are a bit stiff but other than that it's not actually worn at all. The seats look fresh and are comfortable.

Parts are dead easy and cheap to come by.

The engine is impressive for a 1.4i 8v. About 75bhp I think and 0-60 in 12seconds. Most of the power is high up the rev range.

The gearbox is really quite bad, I thought it was maybe a one off but Jez assures me Rovers are a bit crap with reverse gear in general. Reverse gear doesnt sound healthy and it had a habbit of popping out a fair bit (this has stopped now and maybe because I use the car a lot and it wasnt used for months this issue arose?).

My Rover has no modern refinements, everything is manual (except the PAS). It does have an alarm and immobiliser though which is very good insurance wise.

If we went back in time to 1996 then this car was a great competitor. It was probably better than most of the competition.

But they they rehashed it over and over untill they went bust.

I don't think the quality of the cars, materials or craftsmanship was the reason of the demise of Rover.

I think the total lack of intelligence with regards to being a top manufacturer with great NEW cars being released every few months was. The design department sort of went to sleep.

If I was after a smaller car (the 200/25 IS much bigger than a Fiesta and is Focus sized!) then I would definately get one of these. Only the 8v engine though as the 16v IS real bad with HGF issues, again design problems.

My friend has just passed his test so this car will be going to him as soon as I can find a replacement.

 

[PMKeates]

For a while I owned a 95N Rover 214 SEi, and absolutely loved it.

I've been in a huge number of different new cars (Probably more than anyone else on here) from Protons to Porsches, and from Saab to Skoda. Even today cars in its price bracket never seem quite as nice, and in some cases (A lot of the VW engineered cars) seem uncomparably awful.

Next on my list of acquisitions will hopefully be another Rover - a 220 Turbo Coupe. And I bet I'll love that too.

 

[Paul Spiteri]

My first car was a 214 (1997) and I owned it from 2001 to 2005, over 4 years

it had a head gasket failure within the first 3 months of ownership but after that I didn't have any mechanical failures. I think it was quite excellent and i'm comparing it to a civic type-r

 

[Pigeon]

I miss my Metro, it was at the end of it's life really (15 years) so it was getting crusty and rough but it never once let me down!

 

[s0ck]

<3 Rover

 

[Lostkat]

Their products WERE poor. They were also badly and inefficiently made using outdated work practices and a highly dysfunctional workforce unwilling to accept the change needed to save the company.

Many other manufacturers have changed their image pretty well. But it takes decent products to do that.

Very true. I go to the Longbridge factory regularly for meetings with the new owners (Nanjing), and the place is falling to bits. It's no wonder that they went down the drain when you look at it.

 

[wesley]

my second car was 405 1.6L e regs, 170k miles, didnt had any HGF, around that time my uncle had Rover 214SI g regs (same as OP), HGF @ 48k miles, brakes failed, rust, electric problems, he didnt had the car for long. rubbish car

at the end, he begged to buy my 405 which i agreed and sold it to him for £700! he kept it for 3 years, didnt had any problem with it.

so newer rover had more problem older 405. that'll tell you something!

 

[Dublove]

Rover were not crap. They had good cars and a good plant. The reason it went wrong is because of those crafty bosses. Just look at what whey got out of Rovers demise. There was property that Rover owned (something castle i'm sure) that they have locked away for themselves.

 

[Mr_Sukebe]

Rover were not crap. They had good cars and a good plant. The reason it went wrong is because of those crafty bosses.

Unfortunately I can't agree with you ref the mgt.
IMO it was the Unions who screwed Rover. Just which company would be interested in taking on a workforce who were likely to strike at any time and had previously refused a re-organisation which was required to prevent the company going out of business.
What I find amusing is that the mainstream media never covered the damage that the unions did to the company and it's reputation.

 

[mrthingyx]

Wasn't the Rover V8 designed by some American chap? And then Rover bought the design...?

Anyway, a few things from my perspective:

1) Rover were completely outdated in terms of their workforce and applied engineering (not saying their designers were rubbish, but they were only allowed to be very conservative). I can remember a news article when BMW took over Rover where a line worker was shipped over to Bavaria to learn how to work properly... he was completely dumstruck by the workers at BMW and simply couldn't comprehend how they worked so hard in the time they did.

2) Their cars - I've been in numerous Rovers and not really been impressed by any of them. A Rover 75 I was recently sat it had some even worse plastics than my VW Polo... which cost a helluva load less. And the 75 was engineered by BMW.

3) Desperation: their MG-Z or whatever that uber, Mustang-engined coupe was called could have been awesome... had it been designed and engineered by somebody else. As numerous journalists have explained, neither it's performance nor its quality matched other coupes in the same price range. Rover needed money quickly.

4) Their owners: inbred inefficiency cripple the company. You see it in the NHS, the various national transport networks, the civil services, etc. Funnily enough, all of them are or were nationalised at some point and then been run by people who really didn't know what they were doing. As such, workers could get away with pretty much anything on the production line.

5) The ****ty Rover. Please. Anybody that imports a car from India, slaps a Rover badge on it and expects it to sell is desperate beyond imagination.


I would say that Rover has never built decent cars because I know they have. I won't say that all Rovers are rubbish because I'm sure they aren't. But will I ever buy one? Hell, no.