Rovers - were they really that bad?

Rovers - were they really that bad?

Author
Discussion

white_goodman

Original Poster:

4,042 posts

190 months

Saturday 7th December 2013
quotequote all
I never read much about Rovers on PH, which suggests that either no-one owns them or they're not very good. The collapse of the company would tend to support this but were they really that bad?

I've never actually owned an MG or Rover but most of my experiences with them have been positive.

My uncle owned a series of Metros, Maestros and Montegos in the late 80s/early 90s. I remember the MG Metro he had was pretty nice and the Montego estates were quite a classy carriage in their day. I don't remember him having many problems with any of them and I always remember preferring the Montegos to my dad's POS Renault 21 that always had problems. My friend's dad also had a grey 1989 820 Saloon that I envied at the time.

I also remember the Rover 200 and Rover Metro being very highly rated for the driving experience and quality when they were launched in the early 90s.

During 6th form, me and my best friend aspired to owning a classy Rover 400 or 600 rather than the racy Fords and Vauxhalls that our classmates aspired to own.

So what went wrong? I sold new MGs and Rovers towards the end in 2003/2004 and the cars were actually really good value, nice to drive and economical (I'll conveniently forget the CityRover). It was also good that you could get an MG saloon that looked quite racy but with a more wallet-friendly engine. When MG Rover facelifted all the models, they invited us to a race track to test them and even the most mundane cars (Rover 45 diesel) presented themselves very well.

There were some issues though. I think Rover still saw themselves as a cut above Ford and Vauxhall and as a result didn't really compete head to head with them i.e. the 25 was bigger than the Fiesta/Corsa but not as big as the Escort/Astra, likewise the 45 and whereas the 75/ZT was a much nicer car than the Mondeo/Vectra IMHO, it wasn't really a 5-Series/E-Class competitor. In fact, I would still secretly like to own a 75 diesel or a ZT V6 one day, I just never really felt mature enough to drive one!

Other issues were:
1) Limited and dated model range i.e. no 4x4s, no competitive city car or no small estate (I guess at one time Land Rover had the 4x4 thing covered);
2) Patchy build quality - nothing major but things like poorly fitting trim, inoperative steering wheel-mounted audio controls and digital clocks;
3) Poor reputation of the K-Series engine (worse in certain applications MGF/TF), not sure how prolific HG failures were compared to the number of cars actually out there;
4) A slightly fuddy duddy image.

So, does anyone have any good experiences of MG and Rover cars or were they as terrible as their reputation suggests?

RikST

677 posts

148 months

Saturday 7th December 2013
quotequote all
I had two MG Rovers, An MG ZR and an MG ZS, and to be honest they were cracking little cars and couldn't really fault them! Apart from the K Series Head Gasket rearing it's ugly head on both cars!

Apart from that, well built, nice looking and were actually really nice to drive! Parts nice and cheap if needs be and a big online forum and meets all up and down the country that are run by the members! II will own another MG ZS again one day, hopefully a low mileage face lifted 180 V6 model as a weekend toy! biggrin

Butter Face

30,192 posts

159 months

Saturday 7th December 2013
quotequote all
Had 3 MGF/TF's and ZR and only had one HG on the very first TF.

They've all been brilliant and actually good fun to drive too.

Tbh Rover/MG just got left behind in the style/image and reliability stakes. It's a shame as they weren't bad cars.

XJ Flyer

5,526 posts

129 months

Saturday 7th December 2013
quotequote all
www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKzCRXdG0yQ

www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSRZ_aExeAc

Putting the Rover badge on Austin Morris and Japanese cars didn't make them Rovers.

ferrariF50lover

1,834 posts

225 months

Saturday 7th December 2013
quotequote all
I think what really did for Rover was their insistence that they were a premium brand, when, in the face of BMW et al, they were made to look extremely low budget.

Add to that the image problem as old people transport, the Top Gear effect (or, at very least, the Jeremy Clarkson effect) and the fact that, while they were certainly adequate A to B boxes, they were very rarely anything more than that. In a world full of genuinely excellent Fords and Vauxhalls and some perfectly decent Japanese metal, Rover didn't really keep pace with the strides being made by those aforementioned.

Simon.

greggy50

6,161 posts

190 months

Saturday 7th December 2013
quotequote all
Decent cars from my experience

They would still be about today if BMW had not stolen the MINI and then sold them...

RWD cossie wil

4,295 posts

172 months

Saturday 7th December 2013
quotequote all
Yes, utter ste, under invested below par crap that relied on being British to sell. Sorry but they were dire.

Pistom

4,916 posts

158 months

Saturday 7th December 2013
quotequote all
RWD cossie wil said:
Yes, utter ste, under invested below par crap that relied on being British to sell. Sorry but they were dire.
Yes, except the SD1, the P6, and anything that came before it.

Oh, and the 75.

The early 200 and 400s were good but weren't really Rovers.

What have the Romans ever given us hey?

Had the brand been better handled in the 60s then our roads today would be full of Rovers not Audis and BMW. Instead, the belief was that being British was enough, in the 50s it was.

We are towards the end of the period where being German was enough. It will be interesting to see if German manufacturers will repeat the mistakes of the once great British.

Jaguar almost went the same way as Rover but we can be thankful to some smart Americans (there are some) and then some shrewd Indians.

BL tried to use the brand value of a quality product to increase the product value of some dire BL cars. It would be like branding some no name crap tablet Apple when the no name tablet was neither designed or manufactured to Apple standards or principles.

DJP

1,198 posts

178 months

Saturday 7th December 2013
quotequote all
I had a number of them as company cars in the early 90s (including several K series models) and never had any issues with them.

The 200 series were certainly a cut above the equivalent Escort at the time – both in spec and driving experience.

They weren't bad cars per se, but as a brand they suffered with poor management and failure to move with the times.

Dave Hedgehog

14,541 posts

203 months

Saturday 7th December 2013
quotequote all
They where terrible compared to the rest of the market, in fact they where so bad they where able to go bankrupt during an economic boom

At least they had the sense to withdraw the rover 100 when it got one of the worst NCAP ratings ever

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0eN98IS_WY




Edited by Dave Hedgehog on Saturday 7th December 06:26

williamp

19,217 posts

272 months

Saturday 7th December 2013
quotequote all
If you see here there are loads of contemporary road tests

http://www.flickr.com/photos/triggerscarstuff/sets...

You can see the cars the rover made were as good/better then their competition. They had chosen to focus on luxury rather then sporty, which did seem out of touch with Ford, Vauxhall, BMW, Audi etc who did BTCC and other sporting marketing activities.

The "invented here" also hurt them as we don't like buying British. And if we don't buy our own products, why should anyone else? We were happy to buy the British built 206, but not the better MG Rover products

I do remember that when they revitalised the MG brand in the late 90s, every advert they did had complants against them. I cant prove anything, but I bet these compliants came from Dagenham and Ellesmere Port

4lf4-155

700 posts

242 months

Saturday 7th December 2013
quotequote all
greggy50 said:
Decent cars from my experience

They would still be about today if BMW had not stolen the MINI and then sold them...
I genuinely do not think the mini would have been the success it was if wasn't for the association with BMW. This is Britain -badge snobbery matters.

Rover never got a chance in the years running up to the end there was no money for investment so they were left with cars which were adequate but no more than that.

I really liked the 75 for what it was and enjoyed the experience of the estate work ran for a bit. It was comfortable road well and the v6 added to the experience but it was always behind the competition.

Had use of an mg zr for a few months - while i was running a clio 182 in 04/05 the mg was light years behind the renault yet very much in the same price bracket.



Maracus

4,230 posts

167 months

Saturday 7th December 2013
quotequote all
My old man had an 820si, 214si and a Montego Turbo.

All were utterly ste. Unreliable, rusting and poorly built rubbish.


sjc

13,884 posts

269 months

Saturday 7th December 2013
quotequote all
You'd be a fool to say that stuff like the Cityrover/Rover 100 and the like were good cars,and some of the others were old designs that fell further behind year by year,and some simply weren't Rovers at all. However,when the 75 was launched in 1998 there's no doubt it was a bloody good car with NVH levels to rival stuff twice the price. The styling though was marmite and that didn't help,( it actually won "most beautiful car in the world" in er....Japan I think!) but it was a very decent, well built attempt to get back to the luxury image. The ZT version is a really decent stab at a sports saloon. There's no doubt that image was a problem, and now we live in an era where people are prepared to spend time in new cars that rides on concrete springs as as long as it's got the biggest rims in the street,the Rover image is even further away from the modern car buyer.
My car was driven by Tiff recently for the Fifth Gear program,there's a two minute clip below which might dispel some myths. Off camera, but on my phone amongst other things he states.... "it's lovely isn't? Makes you wonder why people bother with modern rubbish".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhUEK6Vaes8&fea...

Edited by sjc on Saturday 7th December 07:27

98elise

26,380 posts

160 months

Saturday 7th December 2013
quotequote all
In the 90's I got a new ford escort company car with an 8v carb engine. The trim was horrible, with things like vents molded into the dash rather than trimed in any way. It was a totaly meh car.

My mother got a rover 214, the whole 2 series range got 16v fuel injected engines, and a nice level of trim. It seemed streets ahead of my escort.

Urban Sports

11,321 posts

202 months

Saturday 7th December 2013
quotequote all
Poorly built junk.

Dave G fsi

988 posts

129 months

Saturday 7th December 2013
quotequote all
Friend recently bought a V6 rover 75, and subsequently had to do the clutch (it was only on 40k and had already been done once). When doing it, you have to do the master cylinder and flywheel at the same time, cost him £800.....

Tickle

4,881 posts

203 months

Saturday 7th December 2013
quotequote all
Had a metro GTA as my first car. Very much like the one in the picture except with more rust around the roof water catcher/gutter and sills.
Went through engine mounts at an alarming rate and I probably lost count how many times it went in the garage. But it let me learn basic car maintenance and how to drive so I can let it off. Oh it also introduced me to the scrap yard and digging around for parts.... there were plenty of other metros in there rusting in piece. RIP little metro!


Hub

6,413 posts

197 months

Saturday 7th December 2013
quotequote all
The 90s Honda based 200/400 with K series engines was a good car, good performance and sold well. The 800 was a bit rubbish though, with a reputation for poor reliability. The 75 was an improvement but looked too old fashioned.

Underinvestment led to a very dated model range by the end.

wildcat45

8,056 posts

188 months

Saturday 7th December 2013
quotequote all

I have ownedOne Rover and 4 MGs. The Rover was the only new one and I have to say back in 1994 it was a cracking car. Decent quality, good design - it was a 200 series R8 and a nice place to be in. A dectne drive too.

The MGs I owned were mostly F and TFs. Never once did one let me down in a big way. One of my MGFs did appear better built than the others.

My present MG - A ZTT is a 168K V6 bought as a car to lug things to the dump in when we moved house. I still have it, it is old but it is a lovely thing. I imagine when it was new it was a stunning car.

Having said that, maybe I have just been lucky. Touching wood, I have never had a K series head go pop, and Rovers don't seem to rust.

The car I regret selling most of all is an MGF. I kick myself abotu that every time I see one.