RE: Shed Of The Week: Rover 820Si
Discussion
I actually quite like the styling of the 800, but I just cannot find any way of justifying it over a pre-fish-mouth Granada Scorpio, especially the 2.9 Cosworth, which I understand could be quite a hoot, with a decent rear-drive chassis. The 3-litre 24V Vauxhall Senator would also be more tempting, even though Rover had the more prestigious badge by far. If I wanted a big Rover hatchback, there is no way that I'd choose an 800 over an SD1.
And you know what, I'm not going to get into all this Britain-vs-Germany argy-bargy. I've had some dreadful experiences in British-built cars, and a mostly wonderful eight years in a P6 3500S. I've had four BMWs, all of which have been frustrating at times, but which were/are mostly dependable and a joy to punt down a B-road. Even 1.8 tons of E39 V8 can be properly thrashed. People go on about the supposedly crap recirculating-ball steering in those compared to the six-pots' rack'n'pinion, but I have both and prefer the R/B in the V8. The P6's "Adwest Varamatic" variable-ratio steering was also superb - light and twirly at parking speeds, meaty and feelsome on a decent B-road thrash, rock-solid at a hundred and... ahem... hello, Officer... by God could that thing shift by 70s standards! Somehow the same steering in Triumph 2000s was horrible, far too light and devoid of feel at all speeds. Must have been how Canley set it up. The only problems I had with that Rover were rust, the weak gearbox, rust, broke a layshaft on reverse, rust, got a new old-stock box to replace it, rust, only had 11k miles on it when I took the car off the road because it didn't have rear seatbelts and I had a baby son, oh, and did I mention rust? By the time I sold it 16 years later, the steel panels and base unit were beyond any hope of salvation, but it had a good interior and drivetrain, which were reused in a restoration project.
J4CKO said:
hellish puritan spec E39 518i
No such thing. Smallest/weediest petrol engine in the E39 was the M52B20 150bhp 2-litre straight six, replaced at the facelift with the 2171cc, 171bhp M54B22. The M47D20 2-litre 4-cylinder diesel was also offered, but not in the UK. E39s were generally pretty well-equipped by the standards of their time too. Dual-zone climate control seems to have been standard, or at least so commonly specced that I've never seen one without. However, the E39 really arrived at the tail end of the 800's life - do you mean E34? They could be a bit poverty-spec, and the old 4-pot in the 518i was gutless, but it reputedly handles better than its bigger-engined stablemates.canucklehead said:
the replacement for the 200/400 (a platform which by 1998 was so old it had received its telegram from the Queen) was actually shelved
Weren't the 200 (later 25) and 400 (rebadged Civic, later 45) new in about 1997? They certainly carried them on right to the bitter end. A 45 replacement was said to be at an advanced stage of development when the axe fell.daytona365 said:
Just because they're old fashioned & boring/badly made, doesn't make them Rovers. Well, maybe to the tea bagger set. No sir, the real Rovers ended with the P5B & P6's.
SD1 was the last real Rover for me - at least until the rear-drive 75 V8. That I thought was a proper Rover. Even the lowlier front-drive 75s were OK, sufficiently different not to have a whiff of badge-engineering.And you know what, I'm not going to get into all this Britain-vs-Germany argy-bargy. I've had some dreadful experiences in British-built cars, and a mostly wonderful eight years in a P6 3500S. I've had four BMWs, all of which have been frustrating at times, but which were/are mostly dependable and a joy to punt down a B-road. Even 1.8 tons of E39 V8 can be properly thrashed. People go on about the supposedly crap recirculating-ball steering in those compared to the six-pots' rack'n'pinion, but I have both and prefer the R/B in the V8. The P6's "Adwest Varamatic" variable-ratio steering was also superb - light and twirly at parking speeds, meaty and feelsome on a decent B-road thrash, rock-solid at a hundred and... ahem... hello, Officer... by God could that thing shift by 70s standards! Somehow the same steering in Triumph 2000s was horrible, far too light and devoid of feel at all speeds. Must have been how Canley set it up. The only problems I had with that Rover were rust, the weak gearbox, rust, broke a layshaft on reverse, rust, got a new old-stock box to replace it, rust, only had 11k miles on it when I took the car off the road because it didn't have rear seatbelts and I had a baby son, oh, and did I mention rust? By the time I sold it 16 years later, the steel panels and base unit were beyond any hope of salvation, but it had a good interior and drivetrain, which were reused in a restoration project.
I've always had a soft spot for Rovers for no logical reason, I've never owned one, however, I did learn to drive in my mothers J-plate 214sli (surprisingly good car, I wanted to hate it but actually really liked it!) so maybe that's why? Anyway, there was an 820 Vitesse on ebay locally that I nearly put a bid on a while back, it had no t&t but only went for £430 but I managed to convince myself that A; I couldn't afford to run another car, B; I have no need for another car and my e39 had a few niggles that needed sorting so the money got spent on that instead.
RoverP6B said:
I actually quite like the styling of the 800, but I just cannot find any way of justifying it over a pre-fish-mouth Granada Scorpio, especially the 2.9 Cosworth, which I understand could be quite a hoot, with a decent rear-drive chassis. The 3-litre 24V Vauxhall Senator would also be more tempting, even though Rover had the more prestigious badge by far. If I wanted a big Rover hatchback, there is no way that I'd choose an 800 over an SD1.
And you know what, I'm not going to get into all this Britain-vs-Germany argy-bargy. I've had some dreadful experiences in British-built cars, and a mostly wonderful eight years in a P6 3500S. I've had four BMWs, all of which have been frustrating at times, but which were/are mostly dependable and a joy to punt down a B-road. Even 1.8 tons of E39 V8 can be properly thrashed. People go on about the supposedly crap recirculating-ball steering in those compared to the six-pots' rack'n'pinion, but I have both and prefer the R/B in the V8. The P6's "Adwest Varamatic" variable-ratio steering was also superb - light and twirly at parking speeds, meaty and feelsome on a decent B-road thrash, rock-solid at a hundred and... ahem... hello, Officer... by God could that thing shift by 70s standards! Somehow the same steering in Triumph 2000s was horrible, far too light and devoid of feel at all speeds. Must have been how Canley set it up. The only problems I had with that Rover were rust, the weak gearbox, rust, broke a layshaft on reverse, rust, got a new old-stock box to replace it, rust, only had 11k miles on it when I took the car off the road because it didn't have rear seatbelts and I had a baby son, oh, and did I mention rust? By the time I sold it 16 years later, the steel panels and base unit were beyond any hope of salvation, but it had a good interior and drivetrain, which were reused in a restoration project.
We already covered my unforgivable E39/E34 518i Faux Pas some pages back J4CKO said:
hellish puritan spec E39 518i
No such thing. Smallest/weediest petrol engine in the E39 was the M52B20 150bhp 2-litre straight six, replaced at the facelift with the 2171cc, 171bhp M54B22. The M47D20 2-litre 4-cylinder diesel was also offered, but not in the UK. E39s were generally pretty well-equipped by the standards of their time too. Dual-zone climate control seems to have been standard, or at least so commonly specced that I've never seen one without. However, the E39 really arrived at the tail end of the 800's life - do you mean E34? They could be a bit poverty-spec, and the old 4-pot in the 518i was gutless, but it reputedly handles better than its bigger-engined stablemates.canucklehead said:
the replacement for the 200/400 (a platform which by 1998 was so old it had received its telegram from the Queen) was actually shelved
Weren't the 200 (later 25) and 400 (rebadged Civic, later 45) new in about 1997? They certainly carried them on right to the bitter end. A 45 replacement was said to be at an advanced stage of development when the axe fell.daytona365 said:
Just because they're old fashioned & boring/badly made, doesn't make them Rovers. Well, maybe to the tea bagger set. No sir, the real Rovers ended with the P5B & P6's.
SD1 was the last real Rover for me - at least until the rear-drive 75 V8. That I thought was a proper Rover. Even the lowlier front-drive 75s were OK, sufficiently different not to have a whiff of badge-engineering.And you know what, I'm not going to get into all this Britain-vs-Germany argy-bargy. I've had some dreadful experiences in British-built cars, and a mostly wonderful eight years in a P6 3500S. I've had four BMWs, all of which have been frustrating at times, but which were/are mostly dependable and a joy to punt down a B-road. Even 1.8 tons of E39 V8 can be properly thrashed. People go on about the supposedly crap recirculating-ball steering in those compared to the six-pots' rack'n'pinion, but I have both and prefer the R/B in the V8. The P6's "Adwest Varamatic" variable-ratio steering was also superb - light and twirly at parking speeds, meaty and feelsome on a decent B-road thrash, rock-solid at a hundred and... ahem... hello, Officer... by God could that thing shift by 70s standards! Somehow the same steering in Triumph 2000s was horrible, far too light and devoid of feel at all speeds. Must have been how Canley set it up. The only problems I had with that Rover were rust, the weak gearbox, rust, broke a layshaft on reverse, rust, got a new old-stock box to replace it, rust, only had 11k miles on it when I took the car off the road because it didn't have rear seatbelts and I had a baby son, oh, and did I mention rust? By the time I sold it 16 years later, the steel panels and base unit were beyond any hope of salvation, but it had a good interior and drivetrain, which were reused in a restoration project.
RoverP6B said:
They could be a bit poverty-spec, and the old 4-pot in the 518i was gutless, but it reputedly handles better than its bigger-engined stablemates.
If you listen to anyone who owns one, they are also supposed to be faster than a 520i...Shorter gearing though I suppose. On the subject of the 800, I really fancy one as a cheapy cheap cheap snotter barge, and should my E34 fail in such a way that is uneconomical to repair and I am left without a car, I shall look out an 800.
Triumph Man said:
If you listen to anyone who owns one, they are also supposed to be faster than a 520i...
Shorter gearing though I suppose. On the subject of the 800, I really fancy one as a cheapy cheap cheap snotter barge, and should my E34 fail in such a way that is uneconomical to repair and I am left without a car, I shall look out an 800.
Depends which year 520i though. The earlier E34 520i - I can believe would be comparable performance to a 518i, but the later 150bhp 24V 520i then no, a 518i would not be similar and would be noticeably slower.Shorter gearing though I suppose. On the subject of the 800, I really fancy one as a cheapy cheap cheap snotter barge, and should my E34 fail in such a way that is uneconomical to repair and I am left without a car, I shall look out an 800.
The M40 4 cylinder engine does look lost in the E34 engine bay and whilst an earlier SOHC 520i might be less well balanced, slightly worse fuel economy it would have an interesting and tuneful power plant rather than a very ordinary 4 pot. And that's being charitable to that engine.
MadDog1962 said:
W124Bob said:
Anyone interested in an 825 Sterling coupe for £3k? http://www.vip-carsales.co.uk/search_page.php?loca...
Although I'm not a Rover fan, I thought these 800 coupes looked great. I don't remember seeing many in Britain and none at all anywhere else. Shame really.I had a hatchback 820 turbo for about a month before it blew up (huge split in the coolant expansion tank = no coolant = HGF) - it was pretty awful.
However I also had a 820 turbo Coupe, and it was a lovely thing. Beautiful interior, good looking (imo), and a nice tourer-style drive. I only got rid because the clutch had gone and it was going to cost more to replace than the car was worth.
I wonder if the coupes were made better than the standard hatchback/saloons?
However I also had a 820 turbo Coupe, and it was a lovely thing. Beautiful interior, good looking (imo), and a nice tourer-style drive. I only got rid because the clutch had gone and it was going to cost more to replace than the car was worth.
I wonder if the coupes were made better than the standard hatchback/saloons?
BL Fanboy said:
Triumph Man said:
If you listen to anyone who owns one, they are also supposed to be faster than a 520i...
Shorter gearing though I suppose. On the subject of the 800, I really fancy one as a cheapy cheap cheap snotter barge, and should my E34 fail in such a way that is uneconomical to repair and I am left without a car, I shall look out an 800.
Depends which year 520i though. The earlier E34 520i - I can believe would be comparable performance to a 518i, but the later 150bhp 24V 520i then no, a 518i would not be similar and would be noticeably slower.Shorter gearing though I suppose. On the subject of the 800, I really fancy one as a cheapy cheap cheap snotter barge, and should my E34 fail in such a way that is uneconomical to repair and I am left without a car, I shall look out an 800.
The M40 4 cylinder engine does look lost in the E34 engine bay and whilst an earlier SOHC 520i might be less well balanced, slightly worse fuel economy it would have an interesting and tuneful power plant rather than a very ordinary 4 pot. And that's being charitable to that engine.
As you say though, I'd rather have the more interesting and tuneful engine.BL Fanboy said:
An E34 518i would make this weeks shed seem like a rocket powered sled. Plate tectonics are faster than a 518i. In fact as I remember it, the only thing fast about a 518i is the rate at which its M40 engines camshaft wore out. Sounded like a knackered old Cortina.
Well, I had the same engine in a late E30 Touring and the camshaft was fine when the car was taken off the road with terminal electrical problems. It did get quite rattly if it didn't get much use, which I think was down to tappets, but a good long run usually quietened it right down for a fair few weeks at least. It was decently quick for what it was, too, with relatively little weight to lug around - barely over a ton if memory serves. Certainly much quicker than the E46 318i Touring which joined/replaced it (there was an overlap of a few years). The E34 had quite short gearing on the 4-pots, if I recall correctly - didn't make them the nicest of motorway companions, and meant they were no more economical than the 6-pots in reality (I think it was all about avoiding a tax on engines of 2 litres and above), but they'd accelerate quite well for what they were.Re 518i, yes its horse for courses I suppose - didn't mean to be mean about them. I had one many moons ago when it was about 6 years old and I was caught out a little by it.
I had a test drive on the flat and it went "okay". Got it home where its a bit more hilly and I was forever having to drop gears and was just very aware at how overwhelmed the power plant was.
I also was a little disappointed - it was my first BMW and I felt the engine was characterless and that was coming from my previous cars a Vauxhall family 2 2.0i 8V and a Ford 2.0 I4 DOHC.
Always though I should've got a six cylinder. Hmm, a dolphin grey 525i se manual yummy.
The T16 in this weeks shed is quite decent lump. Plenty of low down torque, quite refined for what it is but perhaps a little thirsty.
The 820's don't seem to struggle particularly except maybe for the early 8V 820e version.
which was basically a Montego efi engine.
I had a test drive on the flat and it went "okay". Got it home where its a bit more hilly and I was forever having to drop gears and was just very aware at how overwhelmed the power plant was.
I also was a little disappointed - it was my first BMW and I felt the engine was characterless and that was coming from my previous cars a Vauxhall family 2 2.0i 8V and a Ford 2.0 I4 DOHC.
Always though I should've got a six cylinder. Hmm, a dolphin grey 525i se manual yummy.
The T16 in this weeks shed is quite decent lump. Plenty of low down torque, quite refined for what it is but perhaps a little thirsty.
The 820's don't seem to struggle particularly except maybe for the early 8V 820e version.
Edited by BL Fanboy on Tuesday 21st April 16:49
which was basically a Montego efi engine.
Edited by BL Fanboy on Tuesday 21st April 16:52
AlexC1981 said:
A few photos of my Vitesse Coupe turbo from about 10 years ago. It was one of the last to be made. The only problem it had in the couple of years I owned it was the beam incline adjustment on one of the headlamps got stuck.
I really liked this car and I only changed it because I changed job and I needed a newer car to get the car allowance. I bought an Astra Turbo Coupe - the Bertone one, and I felt like a right peasant
That picture solves the where was it built question then. I really liked this car and I only changed it because I changed job and I needed a newer car to get the car allowance. I bought an Astra Turbo Coupe - the Bertone one, and I felt like a right peasant
Long bridge for the most part and the OSR 1/4 was painted somewhere else....
It does look like it in that photo, but I don't recall it looking different. Odd that it only looks a different tone below the rubbing strip, so I guess it might be the angle the light has caught it as it looks the same on the straight on side photo.
I doubt this pair were built at Longbridge
I doubt this pair were built at Longbridge
Late to this thread and if this has already been covered apologies (I haven't read all 7 pages 
) but I can assure Tony and all PH'ers that the Legend and 800 were indeed both built down the same line at Cowley North.
How do I know? Back in the day I worked as an engineer for Rover and represented Canley on the 800 Launch Team. We were trying to sort out the unique Rover bits and the Honda engineers were just standing by, horrified at how their well-sorted car was being thrown together. Just don't talk to me about fuel filler flap release cables
) but I can assure Tony and all PH'ers that the Legend and 800 were indeed both built down the same line at Cowley North. How do I know? Back in the day I worked as an engineer for Rover and represented Canley on the 800 Launch Team. We were trying to sort out the unique Rover bits and the Honda engineers were just standing by, horrified at how their well-sorted car was being thrown together. Just don't talk to me about fuel filler flap release cables
RoverP6B said:
I actually quite like the styling of the 800, but I just cannot find any way of justifying it over a pre-fish-mouth Granada Scorpio, especially the 2.9 Cosworth, which I understand could be quite a hoot, with a decent rear-drive chassis. The 3-litre 24V Vauxhall Senator would also be more tempting, even though Rover had the more prestigious badge by far. If I wanted a big Rover hatchback, there is no way that I'd choose an 800 over an SD1.
I had an '88 820Si and an '89 Granada 2.9 (or was it a 2.8?) Scorpio.The Granny had more space and a better rider but the 800 beat it for everything else. Certainly looks, interior, steering, handling, performance and economy. Frankly the RWD wasn't really noticeable on the Ford in normal or even fairly spirited driving. The automatic transmission probably didn't help much. A very comfortable way of traveling but the Rover was the better car.
The Granada MK2 was quite a handsome car, it's a shame Ford never built on it.
I never get the hate for Rover on PH. If this was German, or a Ford/Vauxhall or even a Peugeot, as evidenced by the fawning over the 406 V6 this week (no offence Simon, a very tidy car at a decent price but at the end of the day, it's still a 17 year old Peugeot FFS and not worth 10 times what he was asking like some people suggested).
This looks like another well-looked after and crucially a rare car these days. Why so rare? Because they quickly depreciated into the hands of those that wanted a large car but definitely couldn't afford to buy them new or run them, so they soon fell into disrepair and like a lot of cars of this age that haven't been looked after, rust would have killed off any that had survived. I refuse to believe that this was inferior to its mass-market competition of the time (Granada/Scorpio, Carlton/Omega etc). Yes, no question, a contemporary 5-Series/E-Class/A6 would be a better car but then the gulf in price when new was considerable. I have fond memories of being picked up from school in a friend's dad's grey F-reg (1989?) 820e saloon. A lovely, elegant, spacious car back in the day with real presence. There's a good reason why you saw so many of these pulling up in front of 10 Downing Street in the 80s/90s! I think the automatic gearbox eventually let go on that one sometime in the mid-90s but I still remember it fondly.
Yes, this one's an 820 and personally, I would rather an 827 or Vitesse (or even a 75 V6/diesel in this budget) but of course, someone brought up the HGF issue on a Rover thread, despite this not being a K-Series engine (although I understand that later 800s had the KV6 rather than the Honda V6 engine and this was problematic initially).
For the record, I'm still a bit sad about the demise of MG Rover. I sold them near the end and they were pretty decent cars and not as outdated as one might be led to think. Clearly, some bad management and marketing decisions were made along the way (i.e pitching and pricing the 200/25 and 400/45 as Escort and Mondeo rivals initially, when in actual fact they compared more favourably as Fiesta and Escort/Focus rivals) and BMW screwed them over too. When we were selling new mid-spec Rover 25s for 9k, Rover 45s for 10k and Rover 75s/ZTs for 13k, I would definitely have taken a 25 over a Fiesta/Corsa, the 45 was probably better than the contemporary Escort and Astra and even had some advantages over the arguably better Focus/Golf (like being more comfortable and spacious and conservative in appearance if you didn't like the edgy looks of the Focus) and the 75/ZT certainly felt quite special, especially compared to a Mondeo/Vectra. Yes, there were a few niggly quality problems. Cars coming through from the factory with clocks that didn't work and non-operating steering-wheel mounted audio controls. The MGF/TF was a fantastic concept, very poorly executed. They leaked, the interiors were shoddily put together and head gaskets were a regular service item. This is why I bought an MX5!
One thing, that I did notice that was a bit strange was that the plastics in the original 2000-2002 25s/45s and later facelifted MGFs appeared to be of nicer quality than in the later 2003-2004 cars. The final 2004 facelift largely addressed that issue but the changes made to the exterior styling were rather heavy-handed! The Rover 75/MG ZT was a bit too much car for the 1.8 K-Series, so we did have a few HGFs with these but with the lighter cars (MGF/TF excepted), I hardly remember any at all and never on the 1.4 engines. Unfortunately, HGF is a leave you stranded by the side of the road problem, so if it does happen, people tend to remember rather than being plagued regularly by problems on genuinely bad cars like original Freelanders and Renault Laguna IIs!
Being the junior salesman, I mainly had 25s/ZRs and they went well, were economical and comfortable and spacious for the money. I must have had at least 6 of these, didn't drive them with much mechanical sympathy (I was 24) or check the coolant level religiously and never had any problems. The only niggles being a leaky power steering pump on one car (probably not a Rover part) and a failed interior passenger door handle mechanism. Not great perhaps but relatively minor compared to the problems we had between us when I moved to VW. A broken gearbox on my Polo, another broken gearbox on one of the first DSG Golfs and a broken engine on one of the first mk5 1.4 TSI Golfs.They didn't exactly always come through right from the factory either. I remember in particular, two massive panics because my dad's new Golf didn't appear to have auto lights (wrong light switch fitted) and delivering a diesel Jetta and not being able to get it into 6th gear (it was a 5-speed car that had been fitted with a 6-speed gearknob)!
Everyone's desire to be a sheep and have something with a posh (German) badge has ruined the rest of the industry. Modern Vauxhalls are crap, French cars are crap, no decent Fiats/Alfas (apart from the 500), no MGs/Rovers (not counting the Chinese ones) and Fords are pretty decent but not as cheap as they once were. I have had terrible reliability with Volkswagens. They seem to have built an undeserved reputation for quality and reliability on the legendary mk2 Golf but the reality is slightly different. My mk4 Golf was the most unreliable POS that I have had the misfortune to own and although I was quite fond of the W202 C-Class shed that I ran as a stopgap it was not exactly trouble free (rear wiper motor broken, CD player broken, heated screen interfered with the radio signal, door mirror casings kept falling off), oh and every panel was rusty!
I have for the moment defected to Japanese cars. I don't think the Japanese manufacturers are at the top of their game at the moment and don't make the most exciting cars but they do offer what they have always offered: quality, reliability, affordability, unpretentious motoring with better rust-proofing than before! I may even buy a Hyundai or Kia as my next car!
Sorry. Rant over. Nice shed!
This looks like another well-looked after and crucially a rare car these days. Why so rare? Because they quickly depreciated into the hands of those that wanted a large car but definitely couldn't afford to buy them new or run them, so they soon fell into disrepair and like a lot of cars of this age that haven't been looked after, rust would have killed off any that had survived. I refuse to believe that this was inferior to its mass-market competition of the time (Granada/Scorpio, Carlton/Omega etc). Yes, no question, a contemporary 5-Series/E-Class/A6 would be a better car but then the gulf in price when new was considerable. I have fond memories of being picked up from school in a friend's dad's grey F-reg (1989?) 820e saloon. A lovely, elegant, spacious car back in the day with real presence. There's a good reason why you saw so many of these pulling up in front of 10 Downing Street in the 80s/90s! I think the automatic gearbox eventually let go on that one sometime in the mid-90s but I still remember it fondly.
Yes, this one's an 820 and personally, I would rather an 827 or Vitesse (or even a 75 V6/diesel in this budget) but of course, someone brought up the HGF issue on a Rover thread, despite this not being a K-Series engine (although I understand that later 800s had the KV6 rather than the Honda V6 engine and this was problematic initially).
For the record, I'm still a bit sad about the demise of MG Rover. I sold them near the end and they were pretty decent cars and not as outdated as one might be led to think. Clearly, some bad management and marketing decisions were made along the way (i.e pitching and pricing the 200/25 and 400/45 as Escort and Mondeo rivals initially, when in actual fact they compared more favourably as Fiesta and Escort/Focus rivals) and BMW screwed them over too. When we were selling new mid-spec Rover 25s for 9k, Rover 45s for 10k and Rover 75s/ZTs for 13k, I would definitely have taken a 25 over a Fiesta/Corsa, the 45 was probably better than the contemporary Escort and Astra and even had some advantages over the arguably better Focus/Golf (like being more comfortable and spacious and conservative in appearance if you didn't like the edgy looks of the Focus) and the 75/ZT certainly felt quite special, especially compared to a Mondeo/Vectra. Yes, there were a few niggly quality problems. Cars coming through from the factory with clocks that didn't work and non-operating steering-wheel mounted audio controls. The MGF/TF was a fantastic concept, very poorly executed. They leaked, the interiors were shoddily put together and head gaskets were a regular service item. This is why I bought an MX5!
One thing, that I did notice that was a bit strange was that the plastics in the original 2000-2002 25s/45s and later facelifted MGFs appeared to be of nicer quality than in the later 2003-2004 cars. The final 2004 facelift largely addressed that issue but the changes made to the exterior styling were rather heavy-handed! The Rover 75/MG ZT was a bit too much car for the 1.8 K-Series, so we did have a few HGFs with these but with the lighter cars (MGF/TF excepted), I hardly remember any at all and never on the 1.4 engines. Unfortunately, HGF is a leave you stranded by the side of the road problem, so if it does happen, people tend to remember rather than being plagued regularly by problems on genuinely bad cars like original Freelanders and Renault Laguna IIs!
Being the junior salesman, I mainly had 25s/ZRs and they went well, were economical and comfortable and spacious for the money. I must have had at least 6 of these, didn't drive them with much mechanical sympathy (I was 24) or check the coolant level religiously and never had any problems. The only niggles being a leaky power steering pump on one car (probably not a Rover part) and a failed interior passenger door handle mechanism. Not great perhaps but relatively minor compared to the problems we had between us when I moved to VW. A broken gearbox on my Polo, another broken gearbox on one of the first DSG Golfs and a broken engine on one of the first mk5 1.4 TSI Golfs.They didn't exactly always come through right from the factory either. I remember in particular, two massive panics because my dad's new Golf didn't appear to have auto lights (wrong light switch fitted) and delivering a diesel Jetta and not being able to get it into 6th gear (it was a 5-speed car that had been fitted with a 6-speed gearknob)!
Everyone's desire to be a sheep and have something with a posh (German) badge has ruined the rest of the industry. Modern Vauxhalls are crap, French cars are crap, no decent Fiats/Alfas (apart from the 500), no MGs/Rovers (not counting the Chinese ones) and Fords are pretty decent but not as cheap as they once were. I have had terrible reliability with Volkswagens. They seem to have built an undeserved reputation for quality and reliability on the legendary mk2 Golf but the reality is slightly different. My mk4 Golf was the most unreliable POS that I have had the misfortune to own and although I was quite fond of the W202 C-Class shed that I ran as a stopgap it was not exactly trouble free (rear wiper motor broken, CD player broken, heated screen interfered with the radio signal, door mirror casings kept falling off), oh and every panel was rusty!
I have for the moment defected to Japanese cars. I don't think the Japanese manufacturers are at the top of their game at the moment and don't make the most exciting cars but they do offer what they have always offered: quality, reliability, affordability, unpretentious motoring with better rust-proofing than before! I may even buy a Hyundai or Kia as my next car!
Sorry. Rant over. Nice shed!
Edited by white_goodman on Monday 25th May 20:39
Edited by white_goodman on Monday 25th May 20:39
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff