Rovers - were they really that bad?
Discussion
Fox- said:
We should be thankful BMW did, Rover would have run Mini into the ground with a succession of low quality products. BMW saved MINI from Rover.
The Rover 75 was probably the only project with any decent funding (like the mini would have been) and it was certainly not low quality. He ran a 75 + ZT for 3 years and 100k miles with issues at all on both and inside they were a lovely place to be for the money and certainly didn't feel cheap. I remember after the first 75 he was promoted and could have had a 5 series or A6 but went for the ZT as he loved his 75 so much. They were nice places to sit good looking and well built + reliable. He then switched company ended up with a A6 which he didn't like as much and then a Passat which was despite the reputation extremely unreliable. I feel the MINI could have been just as successful with Rover and they also would have not f
ked up the brand like they have now with monstrosities like the Paceman... Edited by greggy50 on Sunday 8th December 00:44
Over the years I 've had a few MG/Rovers:-
P5
Montego Countryman
416
MG Metro
75 Touring
ZT-T 260
200 BRM
MG/Rover were always sold as 'classy' cars, and in the old days they really were. Later cars like the 75 were certainly well presented and looked really good inside.
However...
From my experience, and from talking to many other MGR owners, I believe that their biggest problem was the lackadaisical attitude of the assembly staff. If you get a car which has been assembled and tested correctly you would have yourself a really good, comfortable, impressive and reliable car. If, unfortunately, you got a 'Friday afternoon' car you were in for numerous calls to the AA and endless periods of time with a loan car. I've had both types of car but finally vowed never to get anything with their badges on them ever again!
P5
Montego Countryman
416
MG Metro
75 Touring
ZT-T 260
200 BRM
MG/Rover were always sold as 'classy' cars, and in the old days they really were. Later cars like the 75 were certainly well presented and looked really good inside.
However...
From my experience, and from talking to many other MGR owners, I believe that their biggest problem was the lackadaisical attitude of the assembly staff. If you get a car which has been assembled and tested correctly you would have yourself a really good, comfortable, impressive and reliable car. If, unfortunately, you got a 'Friday afternoon' car you were in for numerous calls to the AA and endless periods of time with a loan car. I've had both types of car but finally vowed never to get anything with their badges on them ever again!
Fox- said:
greggy50 said:
The Rover 75 was probably the only project with any decent funding (like the mini would have been) and it was certainly not low quality.
I'd be inclined to agree there, the 75 was the only decent product in the Rover portfolio at the turn of the last decade. Ive got a Rover 200 and an MG ZR on my drive right now.
Both are absolutely cracking to drive and have been nothing but reliable - in fact, the 200 has 140,000 miles on it and has been in the family since 1999.
yes both have suffered head gasket failure but that only costs a couple of hundred quid to fix properly including cambelt and waterpump etc anyway.
It saddens me to read some of the negative opinions of these cars and shows how very sad the British mindset has become.
Both are absolutely cracking to drive and have been nothing but reliable - in fact, the 200 has 140,000 miles on it and has been in the family since 1999.
yes both have suffered head gasket failure but that only costs a couple of hundred quid to fix properly including cambelt and waterpump etc anyway.
It saddens me to read some of the negative opinions of these cars and shows how very sad the British mindset has become.
But the fact you have had to replace the headgasket means it hasn't been totally reliable. In my book, having to take an engine apart means it's been unreliable. Batteries, shock absorbers etc are consumables but taking part an engine is pretty involved and at such low mileages in the case of K series is unacceptable in this modern age
MH82 said:
But the fact you have had to replace the headgasket means it hasn't been totally reliable. In my book, having to take an engine apart means it's been unreliable. Batteries, shock absorbers etc are consumables but taking part an engine is pretty involved and at such low mileages in the case of K series is unacceptable in this modern age
HG replacement on the K-series is remarkably cheap (£4-500) so it isn't the end of the world. I agree that the level of failures was never acceptable but the fix for it was reasonably simple and if the money had been there (from BMW) it would have been done much earlier. It was cheaper to do a head gasket on a ZR/25/200 than to replace a cambelt on my old Golf so it doesnt really matter. There are plenty of specialists that offer a full head gasket upgrade, cambelt, service, waterpump etc for £300.
I may also add that I used to be a full on VW fanboi and experienced more head gasket failures on VWs than I ever have on MG-R cars.
Luckily I realised that VWs are dull, soulless and overrated machines and will be sticking with Rover and MG from now on.
We are lucky that the Chinese recognised the quality of British design and engineering and that we still have the MG marque today.
I may also add that I used to be a full on VW fanboi and experienced more head gasket failures on VWs than I ever have on MG-R cars.
Luckily I realised that VWs are dull, soulless and overrated machines and will be sticking with Rover and MG from now on.
We are lucky that the Chinese recognised the quality of British design and engineering and that we still have the MG marque today.
There were a lot of good ideas behind the later Rovers. You can see the lack of development budget in their execution, but the concepts were often pretty good.
I'm not a Rover fan particularly, but for practical reasons I've ended up owning three of them! An old school square shape 216 GTi (a banger rally car bought for £75 - drove surprisingly well until the head gasket went), a ZS 180 saloon (offered to me at an asburdly low price when they were still quite new - went well, handled respectably) and a Rover 75 estate (bought for a long motorway commute - handles like a canal boat, but offers good levels of comfort and refinement).
The 75 in particular is full of neat touches. Behind them, though, the build quality is a tad flaky, but not as bad as the detractors make out.
I'm not a Rover fan particularly, but for practical reasons I've ended up owning three of them! An old school square shape 216 GTi (a banger rally car bought for £75 - drove surprisingly well until the head gasket went), a ZS 180 saloon (offered to me at an asburdly low price when they were still quite new - went well, handled respectably) and a Rover 75 estate (bought for a long motorway commute - handles like a canal boat, but offers good levels of comfort and refinement).
The 75 in particular is full of neat touches. Behind them, though, the build quality is a tad flaky, but not as bad as the detractors make out.
Fun Bus said:
Build quality on the 75 slipped over the years it was in production. The early cars were very well put together.
Mine is an early 2001,deemed a "pre Project Drive",and the build and quality of materials is excellent.First signs of cost cutting in later 2001 was silly bits like deleting the caps for the seat belt anchor screws, the handbook wallet not being leather, the removal of the rear 3/4 badges and no logo's on the headrests etc. Seemed to gather pace much more from the faclift 2004 onwards cars, where even the thickness of the leather on the seats and door cards seem much inferior.sjc said:
Fun Bus said:
Build quality on the 75 slipped over the years it was in production. The early cars were very well put together.
Mine is an early 2001,deemed a "pre Project Drive",and the build and quality of materials is excellent.First signs of cost cutting in later 2001 was silly bits like deleting the caps for the seat belt anchor screws, the handbook wallet not being leather, the removal of the rear 3/4 badges and no logo's on the headrests etc. Seemed to gather pace much more from the faclift 2004 onwards cars, where even the thickness of the leather on the seats and door cards seem much inferior.I have to admit, in 2000/2001 is was great seeing MG doing so well, with lots of their new cars seemingly everywhere you looked.
We also had a ZT-T 190 I bought for £3k in 2010, when we came back to the UK and sold the left hooker Nissan Note We part exed it this year, but it only cost us basic servicing and a new back box in the three years of ownership - and this was meant to be an interim car, to be part exed ASAP - but it was so good we kept it for three years.
greggy50 said:
I feel the MINI could have been just as successful with Rover and they also would have not fked up the brand like they have now with monstrosities like the Paceman...
Disagree. The very association with BMW was one of the main drawing points for many customers. The perception that they were buying a 'mini-BMW' was I suspect a strong influence in their purchasing decision. The fact that it looked great, had a fun funky interior and more importantly drove very well meant it was actually very regarded by magazines/enthusiasts demonstrating it wasn't simply an exercise in tartiness, there was a substance behind the styling.ked up the brand like they have now with monstrosities like the Paceman... With secondhand Rovers I do think it is critical to examine the cars carefully before buying. A secondhand VW is likely to be reasonably reliable and very unlikely to rot severely. A secondhand Rover is very likely to be unreliable and very likely to rot severely. I have no experience of the new MG's but given that the Chinese commitment to long term production I would expect better quality control. Time will tell.
I dont want to get into an argument here but I have found the complete opposite to that - particularly with mk3 golf gtis, several have required welding and 3 have had head gasket failures.
Also 2 head gasket failures on mk4 golfs and a polo 16v.
Although I did buy a ZR 1.4 for £600 and drive through 8 countries in it!
Also 2 head gasket failures on mk4 golfs and a polo 16v.
Although I did buy a ZR 1.4 for £600 and drive through 8 countries in it!
I have never thought of myself as a big Rover/MG fan, but over the years I have had a 820 saloon, a 220GTi, a VVC Coupe, a Coupe 220 Turbo, a VVC MGF, a Trophy 160 MGF & a MG ZT 1.8T.
The first 3 were company cars & did around 30k a year, the others not as much, but hand on heart I haven't had a HGF on any of them. I have found that build quality did vary from car to car but I ended up with them because they drove better than the competition. Out of all of them the only issue I had was the gearbox on the 220 Coupe turbo, but that was my fault really as the engine was modified & put out just under 260BHP, which put strain on the box.
The first 3 were company cars & did around 30k a year, the others not as much, but hand on heart I haven't had a HGF on any of them. I have found that build quality did vary from car to car but I ended up with them because they drove better than the competition. Out of all of them the only issue I had was the gearbox on the 220 Coupe turbo, but that was my fault really as the engine was modified & put out just under 260BHP, which put strain on the box.
chris watton said:
Funny, I had an MGF Trophy 160 from new (2001) and that too was very well put together. I part exchanged for a TF160 (2002), and the quality wasn't the same, the car I replaced my Trophy 160 for was inferior in a lot of ways. We bought another trophy 160 in 2005, and still have it, not a hint of rust anywhere, whereas the TF variants seem a lot more rust-prone.
I have to admit, in 2000/2001 is was great seeing MG doing so well, with lots of their new cars seemingly everywhere you looked.
We also had a ZT-T 190 I bought for £3k in 2010, when we came back to the UK and sold the left hooker Nissan Note We part exed it this year, but it only cost us basic servicing and a new back box in the three years of ownership - and this was meant to be an interim car, to be part exed ASAP - but it was so good we kept it for three years.
Totally agree. I had a 2001 F which was much better made that my 03 TF 160.I have to admit, in 2000/2001 is was great seeing MG doing so well, with lots of their new cars seemingly everywhere you looked.
We also had a ZT-T 190 I bought for £3k in 2010, when we came back to the UK and sold the left hooker Nissan Note We part exed it this year, but it only cost us basic servicing and a new back box in the three years of ownership - and this was meant to be an interim car, to be part exed ASAP - but it was so good we kept it for three years.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff