Rovers - were they really that bad?

Rovers - were they really that bad?

Author
Discussion

liner33

10,642 posts

201 months

Thursday 26th March 2015
quotequote all
A mate of mine recently had a 827 with nitrous, total hoot it was running around 340hp and even though it weighed 1700kgs it could do the 1/4 mile in 14 seconds at 100mph

I had a couple of Sd1's back in the day , they were awful

Jeepv6

73 posts

108 months

Thursday 26th March 2015
quotequote all
I had a rover220 tomcat turbo was only 5 years old when I bought it wish I still had it was never a problem my wife had a rover brm only thing in 3 years was head gasket....as ever

T0MMY

1,558 posts

175 months

Thursday 26th March 2015
quotequote all
My first car was one of the Honda Concerto clone Rover 400s with the Honda 1.6 16v engines. It got a real thrashing but was very reliable and actually quite good fun, lift off oversteer and everything which is more than I can say for many of the modern repmobile equivalents I get as company cars these days. I even did trackdays in it which must have amused some of the other attendees laugh

V8 Fettler

7,019 posts

131 months

Thursday 26th March 2015
quotequote all
RoverP6B said:
Old thread, I know, but I wanted to chip in anyway.

I ran a P6 3500S daily for eight years. Apart from the rust, and the manual gearbox not being up to the V8's torque (I ended up breaking a layshaft on reverse), it was a genuinely lovely, brilliantly-engineered car, endlessly reliable, easy to work on, went like you-know-what off a shovel (184bhp and 210ftlb in 1270kg isn't to be sniffed at!), and even at a steady 120mph, the engine was so refined... it was a bit under-geared (70mph was 3000rpm in 4th), it could really have done with a 5-speed 'box and/or overdrive. The clutch was very heavy, which was a pain in traffic. The body roll was comically awful, but oddly it didn't seem to affect the handling, which was exceedingly good, thanks to the very unorthodox suspension (the front springs and dampers were mounted horizontally on the bulkhead, and the de Dion rear end was very advanced for its time, actually better than that on the Astons of the time) - loads of grip even on period 185-section rubber, although it would snap into oversteer quite quickly if provoked. The cabin was very well-designed, a strict four-seater with lovely sculpted bucket seats and excellent ergonomics (such as the principal rotary switches all being differently shaped, so you could still find them even if the lighting failed). It was also notable for the siting of the fuel tank, on top of the rear axle, sandwiched in between two heavy-gauge steel firewalls - it would be damn near (if not completely) impossible for the fuel tank to be damaged in a rear impact. The whole car was designed with crash safety in mind - crumple zones front and rear, a steering column designed to pull the wheel away from the driver, energy-absorbing honeycomb plastics used throughout the dash structure... a really astonishingly clever, advanced piece of kit for the time, and very competitively priced. V8 luxury for BMW 2002 money - and arguably a better car than said icon (and better than a 105-series Alfa Romeo coupé, not to mention the in-house rival from Triumph). In many respects, I and a lot of others felt that it was actually better than a Jaguar XJ6 - similar power-to-weight to the 4.2 (more power than the 2.8), vastly less weight, and possibly better handling. The variable-ratio steering was just lovely - effortlessly light and finger-twirly at parking speeds, but pretty heavy at higher speeds, giving both motorway stability and B-road feel. It was huge fun to chuck around.

In the end, the tinworm got my P6 and most of the rest, but I understand the mechanical bits and at least some of the interior live on. If I had dry storage, I'd happily have another now. I think it's a real shame that, whereas you can build a new MGB or Spridget or Triumph Spitfire from scratch using Heritage bits, nobody's doing that for the P6. It is, as far as I'm concerned, an overlooked (if not outright forgotten) masterpiece. You'd have thought that such excellence, combined with rarity, would have driven prices up, but no, sadly not - it remains near enough scrap money. The much inferior SD1 is actually eclipsing it in value now.
My dreary daily diesel VAG is dismal, so I have occasionally looked at the concept of a P6 with a modern diesel engine as a daily car, can't make it work financially and the minimal crash protection from M25 tailgaters probably means it won't happen. I'll have another look later this year, just in case.

Ali_T

3,379 posts

256 months

Thursday 26th March 2015
quotequote all
RoverP6B said:
Does anyone remember how shockingly awful the build quality of 70s Datsuns and Mitsubishis was? Those things were rusting before they even left the showroom.
It always amazes me that this is completely forgotten, yet Alfa and Lancia are still the butt of rust jokes to this day, even though the worst cars for rust in recent times have been Mercs, Mazdas and VWs.

LittleEnus

3,218 posts

173 months

Thursday 26th March 2015
quotequote all
mikal83 said:
The montego was an overweight tank whose head gasket exploded/leaked/cracked.
Wow you are quite the voice of doom aren't you.

The P6 was a cutting edge car. I have a perverse hankering for an SD1. So not all bad and I believe The Sterling was quite a hot rod too.

Fattyfat

3,301 posts

195 months

Thursday 26th March 2015
quotequote all
Underfunded, underdeveloped and aged products, woefully mismanaged. Never stood a chance.

TVRJAS

2,391 posts

128 months

Thursday 26th March 2015
quotequote all
I purchased a new 220 turbo in 96(P reg) after a friend who was working at Rover came round in one. The other car on my list prior to this was the Fiat coupe 20v turbo but settled on the Rover.

Was loving every minute of driving it for 8 months until I left the house to go to work and it had gone from my drive,the only car of mine that has been stolen.

I needed a car quickly as I was up and down the motorway Birmingham/London on average two times a week so whilst waiting for the insurance settlement I stumbled across an auto Rover 820si 95 (M reg) for £6,995.

I thought what a lot of car for the money and after a test drive the deal was done. I got paid from the insurance £16,800 so could of replaced it but the 820 was fulfilling exactly what I needed doing 70% of my miles on a motorway.

I decided to keep it and in 31 months I can't recall anything going wrong... I really enjoyed my ownership of it.

Edited by TVRJAS on Thursday 26th March 19:09

BGarside

1,564 posts

136 months

Thursday 26th March 2015
quotequote all
Had a '94 Rover 214SLi for a few years, and thought it was pretty good. The interior quality and body panel fit and finish were really high for the time and made a mockery of Fords, Vauxhalls etc. even the engine bay was well finished and tidy.

Then again, the car had a lot of shared engineering with the contemporary Honda Concerto so it cannot be said to be all Rover engineering.

The K series engine was responsive and revvy, if a bit torque-light in the 200, and the car was easy to work on with loads of underbonnet space. The only real downsides were excessive engine noise, weak brakes and rather indifferent ride quality.


Oilchange

8,421 posts

259 months

Thursday 26th March 2015
quotequote all
Wife has a 75 CDTi on 136,000 miles or so and rides like a Rolls, very comfy and economical. Also had 2 Rovers (216s) before which were ok.
Remember we are comparing them against cars of the same era and largely they were all pretty average really, just the companies were managed differently. It's easy to slag Rover off but a lot of problems came firstly from the unions of the day in the 70's and secondly because they were sold off to anyone that would have them and then asset stripped (mini etc) and sold again.

They were certainly no worse than the OMG-awful Escort with that wheezing CVH lump I had that broke down regularly. The Rovers, strangely, never did. They rusted of course, they weren't the best but they were ok.

myvision

1,931 posts

135 months

Thursday 26th March 2015
quotequote all
I had one of these on a D reg back in 1998 it was 12 years old with 110,000 miles on it when I got it. I ran it for another 40,000 without doing a thing to it and it never let me down.
I had some damn good times in that old Rover. It went on to be used in a bank robbery after I got rid.
Not my car I got the pictures from Google.



Troubleatmill

10,210 posts

158 months

Thursday 26th March 2015
quotequote all
Rover + Honda partnership = Rather good cars.

Metro, Maestro, Montego ... erm an acquired taste.

zcar

106 posts

267 months

Thursday 26th March 2015
quotequote all
Im down to only three 827s at the moment and yes they can rust bad, but sort the handling and they are great cars. 2.7 Honda lump with two sports modes means it goes like stink too, just ask the BMW 840 driver I followed home tonight! Manager at work couldnt believe all the toys I had in my car thats 20 years old. He'd only just got some of those toys in his new Evoque!
"Its never over in a Rover!"

kambites

67,461 posts

220 months

Thursday 26th March 2015
quotequote all
They were mostly decent enough until they became hopeless outclassed because they didn't bother to develop replacements for things which had been on the market for 10 years. Even the much maligned Maestro was no worse than the contemporary Escort, Astra, etc. The 75 was a genuinely good car when it was released; it won all sorts of awards and not just in the UK.

The K-series obviously had its issues but whilst it was never perfect, it wouldn't have been the joke that it became if it wasn't for the decision to largely stop development and cut every penny they could off the production costs. Perhaps the K-series should never have been expanded to 1.8 litres but by that point I don't think they had the money to develop a brand new engine.

MG had some genuinely talented chassis engineers right to the end, too. It's a shame they went under.

Edited by kambites on Thursday 26th March 19:44

InitialDave

11,856 posts

118 months

Thursday 26th March 2015
quotequote all
I always thought that the R8 ('89-'95) 200/400 was a really good car. My dad had one new, and I had one myself a while back. Particularly with the Honda engine, sidestepping the potential headgasket maladies of the K-series. They may not have been utterly amazing, but easily better than, say, the Mk5 Escort that came out about the same time.

Same opinion of most of the stuff Rover made, if I'm honest. When they were a bit rubbish, a lot of their contemporaries were also rubbish. You can certainly level a charge of "would've been a million times better if built by people who gave a st" against them, but I'd say that's a problem with the UK motor industry of the period than Rover specifically.

Also:
Chris1255 said:
Strangely the rule of thumb is the people who say they're nice are the ones who have driven or owned one, the ones who say they're crap haven't....

anonymous-user

53 months

Thursday 26th March 2015
quotequote all
Headgaskets always go on Rovers.

lee_erm

1,091 posts

192 months

Thursday 26th March 2015
quotequote all
I had a ZR last year for about 6 months. The K-Series engine in it was an absolute peach, I can't stress enough how good it was! IMO a nicer engine than any 4 pot VTEC, less reliable yes.

I'd love an Elise with one in smile

Edited by lee_erm on Thursday 26th March 20:27

HorneyMX5

5,308 posts

149 months

Thursday 26th March 2015
quotequote all





nickofh

603 posts

117 months

Thursday 26th March 2015
quotequote all
I enjoyed my ZS120 some 10 years ago when I was 19, to this day one of the best handling fwd cars I have driven or been in. It also never broke , although I did treat the car with extra care regarding servicing , coolant and warm / cool down.

My dad also had an 827si ( Honda engine ) it was bought ex police on around 80 / 90 k miles and ran until 130k then rover serviced it and it never started from warm ( if I remember correctly ).


Fun Bus

17,911 posts

217 months

Thursday 26th March 2015
quotequote all
Fattyfat said:
Underfunded, underdeveloped and aged products, woefully mismanaged. Never stood a chance.
And yet, when the 75 was launched they were being sold in large numbers with no discount and 3 month lead times.

How times change.