RE: Shed of the Week

[BlueRover]

I know Rovers have had bad press, mostly from people who've never had one and also from people who have been unlucky.
My 1996, 820i has 277,000 on the clock, on its' original head gasket and still looks pretty good for its' age.

[red_rover]

Ahh you have to love the people whose 'neighbours' or a 'mechanic' friend saying they are the worst cars ever.

Well...with regards to the flexing....anyone heard of Honda? Honda didn't believe in rigidity. However when we've seen Rovers efforts with out Honda influence we see the 2.0 Vitesse turbo which both handled well and rode very well.

Initial poor build quality was sorted out.

And people stop going on about ALLEGROS! Jesus wept!

[long_guts]

stigcv8 said:

apache said:

stigcv8 said:

austinpowers said:

Narrow minded idiot's spring to mind

pretty much sums up rover owners nicely

do you have a stupid opinion of other types of car owner?

It pretty much starts with rover and ends with volvo

just out of curiosity what is it you drive currently ?

[egomeister]

red_rover said:

we see the 2.0 Vitesse turbo which both handled well

No it didn't!! My dad owned one of these and although it was fairly swift and comfortable it exhibited body roll akin to that of the dying moments of the maiden voyage of the Titanic...

[calibrax]

long_guts said:

stigcv8 said:

apache said:

stigcv8 said:

austinpowers said:

Narrow minded idiot's spring to mind

pretty much sums up rover owners nicely

do you have a stupid opinion of other types of car owner?

It pretty much starts with rover and ends with volvo

just out of curiosity what is it you drive currently ?

He drives a Vauxhall Monaro and a Smart car...

Now the Monaro is a nice car, but I'm sure he wouldn't want to be classified in the same category as all Vauxhall owners? So maybe he should think twice before making sweeping statements about other car owners.

As for the Smart... no comment, I'm too busy laughing!

Edited by calibrax on Saturday 6th January 20:12

[nicecupoftea]

skodaku said:

austinpowers said:

Nowt wrong with a good Rover, i unlike other's who have commented have actually owned a few, they handle and go ok (the vitesse).

Managed a 9.17 BTG in my standard power, but with uprated suspension of the 'Ring, so no they're not crap.

Narrow minded idiot's spring to mind

Amen. Mainly usual crowd of "It's a Rover/British it must be crap". Have three friends who drive 800-series; 2 x 820's and a Vitesse. Granted his first Vitesse went on fire within 5 miles of picking it up new. (must have been pretty exciting), but it was replaced pdq and none of them have ever given anything but the usual very minor troubles and all now have big mileages. Great ride, acres of space but not for badge snobs or knuckleheads. BMW, Merc et al are not exactly perfect either, methinks. Used to know a Met Police lady who drove these things and thought they were great, (although one, it seems, did like to lock you out if you left the engine running and slammed driver's door. But I thought that was illegal - at least for mere mortals - anyway).

Par for the course on here I'm afraid, always people queueing up to have a pop at Rover. Funny, if a TVR has electrical faults it's "character", if it pisses oil, it's "patina"

Yep, there's always going to be some dogs, 800 wasn't renowned for its build quality, and the electricals weren't always the best, but as a budget banger it's a lot of car and makes a lot more sense.

Having said that it is way overpriced; I would have a more modern/better looking Rover 600 I think

[cptsideways]

red_rover said:

And people stop going on about ALLEGROS! Jesus wept!

So are you saying these were good cars or something? Don't tell me your a secret Allegro lover, I see the occasional ones about, usually with the henious white BL mudflaps & a naff roofrack, driven by blokes with beirds. Not you by any chance?

[Richard Moss]

off_again said:

Yes, its the T-series, but they suffered major head gasket issues which lead to overheating.

To be honest, I would stay well clear of 820's as much as possible. Thrown-together is probably the best explanation! I used to work for a company many years ago who had a fleet of them. Windscreens cracked as the chassis flexed. Head gaskets went every 10k-15k miles. Wipers were another major issue as were electrics and dodgy interior fittings. Never had any major issues such as gearboxes and FWD, but constant issues and problems meant that everyone hated them and were desperate to ditch them.....

Nightmare cars.... even for £1000!

You're making the usual mistake of confusing the T series (which is an amazingly robust engone) with the chocolate gasketed K series (4 and 6 cylinder).

I hvae NEVER heard of chassis cracks or broken windscereens due to body flex, although you may have subjected the cars to some sort of extreme treatment that caused that.

[love machine]

cptsideways said:

red_rover said:

And people stop going on about ALLEGROS! Jesus wept!

So are you saying these were good cars or something? Don't tell me your a secret Allegro lover, I see the occasional ones about, usually with the henious white BL mudflaps & a naff roofrack, driven by blokes with beirds. Not you by any chance?

You may laugh but Downton performance conversions did their take on the Leggy and it was a fire breathing machine which would wheelspin in 4th and beat things like Escorts on the track.

[Richard Moss]

scoobiewrx said:

I had an 1991 820Si, it had the 150bhp Honda Engine.

I doubt that - every single 2 litre 800 ever built had a Rover engine. The only Honda unit used in 1991 models was the 177 bhp 2.7 V6. No 150 bhp engine was fitted to the 800.

Edited by Richard Moss on Saturday 6th January 21:23

[that daddy]

yep the rover 800 was never fitted with any 4 cylinder Honda gem,the car was not that bad for a big barge, but the four cylinder rover twin cam unit was a lump of unrefined sh*t fact.just as an example the aliminium head was a terrible casting the finish inside was crap(casting flash eveywhere).

Edited by that daddy on Sunday 7th January 16:59

[Richard Moss]

136bhp from 2 litres actually gives the naturally aspirated T series a better bhp/litre figure (68 bhp/litre) than the supposedly advanced K series (66.7) or the Honda V6 (65.5).

Not bad for a crap engine.

PS - it has torque at low revs, too, unlike many more "sophisticated" engines

Edited by Richard Moss on Saturday 6th January 22:33

[scoobiewrx]

My mistake then. I genuinely thought it had a Honda engine and that they were rated at 150bhp. Well...in which case if it was a 136bhp Rover engine then it went pretty well and for such a heavy car i am now even more impressed.

[cdp]

I had an F reg 820Si about ten years ago. Bought it with 100K sold with 130K. It needed a new (Bosch) alternator, the wiper linkage (seems like a design issue) and a clutch at 130K.

But apart from that it was excellent. It would comfortably bowl along at 120+, handled fairly well (considering comfort, size, fwd and steel springs) and had the best front seats of any car I've ever driven or been driven it.

At 130K the interior still looked new. If I was careful it could even do 50mpg.

It was replaced with a Toyota. I only wish the Toyota was half as reliable as the Rover.

[Graham]

the old chap had a late 820 vitesse, with the 2ltr turbo motor and that was a cracking car. much better built than his earlier 820 si. It didnt hang about for a big girl either with 200bhp. I also found it a surprisingly easy car to place on the road considering it was quite wide..

I think the few coupes that are about will be somthing of a collectors car in years to come, especially as they were virtually hand built including the shell!!!

Its a pity they never built the 75 coupe as that looked like a cracking car,

[kieran2006]

that daddy said:

yep the rover 800 was never fitted with any Honda gem,the car was not that bad for a big barge, but the four cylinder rover twin cam unit was a lump of unrefined sh*t fact.just as an example the aliminium head was a terrible casting the finish inside was crap(casting flash eveywhere).

I have a Rover 220 with this engine which may be somewhat unrefined, by it ain't 'sh*t', pulls nicely across the rev range and makes a very driveable car.

[stigcv8]

calibrax said:

long_guts said:

stigcv8 said:

apache said:

stigcv8 said:

austinpowers said:

Narrow minded idiot's spring to mind

pretty much sums up rover owners nicely

do you have a stupid opinion of other types of car owner?

It pretty much starts with rover and ends with volvo

just out of curiosity what is it you drive currently ?

He drives a Vauxhall Monaro and a Smart car...

Now the Monaro is a nice car, but I'm sure he wouldn't want to be classified in the same category as all Vauxhall owners? So maybe he should think twice before making sweeping statements about other car owners.

As for the Smart... no comment, I'm too busy laughing!

Edited by calibrax on Saturday 6th January 20:12

I never think twice about sweeping statements especially when the facts bare out the truth If you laugh at the smart its because you cannot fully embrace your masculinity as these things are, lets be honest on a slagging off thread for a second, THE sexiest car money can buy

[calibrax]

stigcv8 said:

I never think twice about sweeping statements especially when the facts bare out the truth

There aren't a lot of facts going on in this thread - it's mostly opinion. And an opinion is of no value unless it's based on first hand knowledge. So often people say "oh a Rover, head gasket problems blah blah"... they are picking up on something they've heard about certain Rover engines and then applying it to all Rover engines. It's like me knowing about a Cavalier being a car with poor handling, and then saying that ALL Vauxhalls handle badly. I'm sure as a Monaro owner, you would disagree with that sweeping statement!

stigcv8 said:

If you laugh at the smart its because you cannot fully embrace your masculinity as these things are, lets be honest on a slagging off thread for a second, THE sexiest car money can buy

And Ronnie Corbett is the new George Clooney

Don't get me wrong, the Smart is a decent enough car for what it does. I just found it hilarious that you own a masculine muscle car like a Monaro and also its exact genetic opposite!

[stigcv8]

its my contribution to the carbon balance, most people buy a tree for their big car I bought a smart car eta that also the smart is quite rapid, its funny away from the lights!

Had first hand experience with rovers myself, not owned one but first hand nonetheless. Like the shockingly awful BRM200 that we had at work. It was built out of papier mache for a start. Before the engine did blow up it had the misfortune of every button on the dash coming out of its sockets, the seats failed - in fact, the whole thing disintrigated around my eyes. Not to mention the shocking blood orange leather.

Interestingly though one of my fondest car memories was our first montego (autsin, yes redrover rover did do a branded montego too!) but then that was our first modern car so I was impressed with a radio that automatically found stations

Edited by stigcv8 on Sunday 7th January 14:40

[Richard Moss]

stigcv8 said:

its my contribution to the carbon balance, most people buy a tree for their big car I bought a smart car eta that also the smart is quite rapid, its funny away from the lights!

Never mind the fact that during its production cycle more pollution was created than your car (or mine) is capable of producing through its tailpipe in a whole lifetime! The amount of energy, pollution and resource useage that is involved in the production of even a small car is staggering - way, way short of the "cost" of running it.

If you TRULY believed in environmental conservation you would drive an old car.