Which Rover 25?
Discussion
Hi all
I am new to this forum, having been searching for forums covering the Rover 25 and found this one.
I have been reading MGJohn's expert opinion on the overhaul of the K series engine, especially the detailed article about replacing the Cylinder Head Gasket.
I have in times past had a couple of Rover 200s from new, one petrol and one diesel.
Since I have been retired some years, I am looking at a low cost vehicle for low annual mileage <3K.
I am interested in a Rover 25 and there are a couple for sale locally:
2004 Rover 25 1.6 SXi Automatic 30k
2005 Rover 26 1.4 GSi Manual 30k
Which car would be the better of the two and what should I look out for when viewing the vehicles?
I have been driving automatics for many years but the 'Stepmatic' is a unknown to me.
As regards the head gasket problem, can this happen with either engine?
I know the cars are both low mileage, but is this a fault that can develop at any time?
Many thanks for taking the time to read this message.
Mac
I am new to this forum, having been searching for forums covering the Rover 25 and found this one.
I have been reading MGJohn's expert opinion on the overhaul of the K series engine, especially the detailed article about replacing the Cylinder Head Gasket.
I have in times past had a couple of Rover 200s from new, one petrol and one diesel.
Since I have been retired some years, I am looking at a low cost vehicle for low annual mileage <3K.
I am interested in a Rover 25 and there are a couple for sale locally:
2004 Rover 25 1.6 SXi Automatic 30k
2005 Rover 26 1.4 GSi Manual 30k
Which car would be the better of the two and what should I look out for when viewing the vehicles?
I have been driving automatics for many years but the 'Stepmatic' is a unknown to me.
As regards the head gasket problem, can this happen with either engine?
I know the cars are both low mileage, but is this a fault that can develop at any time?
Many thanks for taking the time to read this message.
Mac
The head gasket issue is with K series engines, and as far as I am aware that covers both the 1.4 and 1.6 variants.
From what I can gather the problem can be prevented through preventative maintenance (I.e not neglecting it and generally looking after the car) which there is lots of information on here and other Rover specific forums. If it does go bang, it seems to be fairly straightforward to fix.
If you are buying an older car and have the choice I personally would steer clear of automatic gearboxes, they can give all sorts of trouble as they get older, but I dot know specifically about the Rover one.
Hopefully one of the Rover guys will be along in a bit!
From what I can gather the problem can be prevented through preventative maintenance (I.e not neglecting it and generally looking after the car) which there is lots of information on here and other Rover specific forums. If it does go bang, it seems to be fairly straightforward to fix.
If you are buying an older car and have the choice I personally would steer clear of automatic gearboxes, they can give all sorts of trouble as they get older, but I dot know specifically about the Rover one.
Hopefully one of the Rover guys will be along in a bit!
IIRC the auto uses a CVT style 'box which isn't famous for its longevity. Personally I'd go for the manual unless you really must have an auto.
Both engines are essentially the same and both prone to headgaskets but it's not as if they explode every 5 minutes so just check crefully it hasn't gone when you buy it and keep an eye on it.
Rover 25's are dirt cheap and, providing you buy them cheap, aren't bad little cars for the money.
Both engines are essentially the same and both prone to headgaskets but it's not as if they explode every 5 minutes so just check crefully it hasn't gone when you buy it and keep an eye on it.
Rover 25's are dirt cheap and, providing you buy them cheap, aren't bad little cars for the money.
buy a honda civic instead, its based on the same chassis but doesn't have a woeful engine.
http://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/2013...
They are cheap as chips and far less likely to break down.
http://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/2013...
They are cheap as chips and far less likely to break down.
Studio117 said:
buy a honda civic instead, its based on the same chassis but doesn't have a woeful engine.
http://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/2013...
cheap as chips and far less likely to break down.
Here we go. It's not based on a Honda you know.http://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/2013...
cheap as chips and far less likely to break down.
In my experience, the rover 200 seems far better built than the later 25 and mg zr range.
But don't let that put you off. They' were all pretty good in their day, we've had a 200brm from new in 1998 and its been a belter. We have had to do the head gasket at 4 years old and 60 k miles and no doubt it'll be needed agin as its on 130k now, but even the air on has worked from new without fault, and it's original shocks and bushes and still drives great.
Great engines when they are running right, too. Quicker than any of the competition in their day.
But don't let that put you off. They' were all pretty good in their day, we've had a 200brm from new in 1998 and its been a belter. We have had to do the head gasket at 4 years old and 60 k miles and no doubt it'll be needed agin as its on 130k now, but even the air on has worked from new without fault, and it's original shocks and bushes and still drives great.
Great engines when they are running right, too. Quicker than any of the competition in their day.
Any 8 year old secondhand car could go bang an hour, a day or a week after you buy it. 99% of the time people get rid of cars like that because there's something wrong with them they can't afford/don't want to get fixed.
I would however, stack the odds as far in my favour as possible by not buying a Rover 25/MGZR in the first place, they're really crap cars even without the HGF problems, and I'd give the autos a body swerve as well unless you need one for legal or physical reasons. I'd have the Civic because they tend to be owned by older more mature types as opposed to the usual Rover/MG demographic.
I would however, stack the odds as far in my favour as possible by not buying a Rover 25/MGZR in the first place, they're really crap cars even without the HGF problems, and I'd give the autos a body swerve as well unless you need one for legal or physical reasons. I'd have the Civic because they tend to be owned by older more mature types as opposed to the usual Rover/MG demographic.
fat freddie said:
Any 8 year old secondhand car could go bang an hour, a day or a week after you buy it. 99% of the time people get rid of cars like that because there's something wrong with them they can't afford/don't want to get fixed.
I would however, stack the odds as far in my favour as possible by not buying a Rover 25/MGZR in the first place, they're really crap cars even without the HGF problems. I'd have the Civic because they tend to be owned by older more mature types as opposed to the usual MG demographic.
The only reason that the Honda demographic is the Honda demographic is because there weren't Rovers to buy. It makes no difference anyway, any car that old could have fallen into the hands of a careless owner. Buying on condition is vital.I would however, stack the odds as far in my favour as possible by not buying a Rover 25/MGZR in the first place, they're really crap cars even without the HGF problems. I'd have the Civic because they tend to be owned by older more mature types as opposed to the usual MG demographic.
The smaller K-series engines are a bit better than the 1.8 for head gaskets, but it isn't actually the head gasket that is the cause of the the problem that often - coolant loss from various niggly leaks is usually the reason for overheating which then results in a head gasket failure.
The 25 was extremely long in the tooth by 2003, other cars around the period would feel a lot more modern. They're good cars, and drive very nicely, but they do feel old.
25's are not Civics. An EK Civic especially has nothing to do with Rover.
The Rover 600 was based off the 5th gen Accord, and the 400/45 was based off the Civic MB chassis. The term "based" should be used loosely, as MG-Rovers quality control was much more leniant to errors or defect when compared to Honda, and lets not go into how superior Hondas engine offerings were.
The Rovers were very dire.
The Rover 600 was based off the 5th gen Accord, and the 400/45 was based off the Civic MB chassis. The term "based" should be used loosely, as MG-Rovers quality control was much more leniant to errors or defect when compared to Honda, and lets not go into how superior Hondas engine offerings were.
The Rovers were very dire.
confused_buyer said:
Technically speaking the 200/25 shares bits with the Honda Concerto, as the 200/25 was a re-body of the 89-95 Rover 200/400 with different rear suspension which was a joint development with Honda.
Technically speaking the Concerto shares nothing with EK/MB Civics, apart from using earlier D-Series engines.Many thanks to all who took the time and trouble to reply to my many questions.
The mention of automatic came about as a result of me having driven automatics for some years.
I had been driving manual gearboxes and in the course of my work would have covered 1100 miles per week and had been suffering from sciatica in my left leg for some 2 years+.
This may have contributed to the medical condition, but I cannot be sure.
However one day my wife said to me jokingly "Why don't you try an automatic car?"
I did; end of the sciatica! My first automatic was a Seat Altea TDi 140 Sport DSG and I loved it, apart from rear tyre wear which was apparently caused by misalingment of the rear suspension tracking at factory level.
I have since run other automatics, but have not found anything as good as the DSG and probably never will.
I am now retired and doing less than 3k per year, so time to look for a cheap runabout and the reason for mentioning automatic variants.
I have taken all your comments on board and will not rush into a purchase just yet.
If I do go down the '25' road I will check the vehicles carefully as suggested.
The automatic 25 (2004) is priced at £1500 and the manual 25 (2005) at £2k (one owner) both with approximately 30K on the clock.
I am looking at the VW Polo/Golf and the Ford Fiesta/Focus as well, but prices are much higher for the same age, even with high mileage.
I'll keep an eye on the topic, just in case anyone wants to contribute further.
Again many thanks for all your comments.
Mac
The mention of automatic came about as a result of me having driven automatics for some years.
I had been driving manual gearboxes and in the course of my work would have covered 1100 miles per week and had been suffering from sciatica in my left leg for some 2 years+.
This may have contributed to the medical condition, but I cannot be sure.
However one day my wife said to me jokingly "Why don't you try an automatic car?"
I did; end of the sciatica! My first automatic was a Seat Altea TDi 140 Sport DSG and I loved it, apart from rear tyre wear which was apparently caused by misalingment of the rear suspension tracking at factory level.
I have since run other automatics, but have not found anything as good as the DSG and probably never will.
I am now retired and doing less than 3k per year, so time to look for a cheap runabout and the reason for mentioning automatic variants.
I have taken all your comments on board and will not rush into a purchase just yet.
If I do go down the '25' road I will check the vehicles carefully as suggested.
The automatic 25 (2004) is priced at £1500 and the manual 25 (2005) at £2k (one owner) both with approximately 30K on the clock.
I am looking at the VW Polo/Golf and the Ford Fiesta/Focus as well, but prices are much higher for the same age, even with high mileage.
I'll keep an eye on the topic, just in case anyone wants to contribute further.
Again many thanks for all your comments.
Mac
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff