Discussion
I don't recall seeing much on here regarding Rover 600. Or more specifically the 620 Turbo.
I loved mine apart from the glow-worm headlights and the front tyre wear.
It was such a smart looking car without all the huge swoops and curves etc that designers think is the thing to do these days. I always thought it looked like a smaller Vauxhall Omega.
Not regarded as a Yesterday Hero?
I loved mine apart from the glow-worm headlights and the front tyre wear.
It was such a smart looking car without all the huge swoops and curves etc that designers think is the thing to do these days. I always thought it looked like a smaller Vauxhall Omega.
Not regarded as a Yesterday Hero?
Shared platform with the Honda Accord - so a very good car.
I had a 618 - it was my first decent / expensive car, drove lovely, really liked that car. The only reason I got rid of it was because I moved on to an XJ6.
Very rare sight on the road now - but due to the Honda connection I think they are seen in a similar vein to the Triumph Acclaim - as in not a "proper" Rover (Triumph obvs in the case of the Acclaim). Even though things like the 400/45 is shared with the Civic, they are seen more as Rovers.
I will always have a soft spot for the 600.
I had a 618 - it was my first decent / expensive car, drove lovely, really liked that car. The only reason I got rid of it was because I moved on to an XJ6.
Very rare sight on the road now - but due to the Honda connection I think they are seen in a similar vein to the Triumph Acclaim - as in not a "proper" Rover (Triumph obvs in the case of the Acclaim). Even though things like the 400/45 is shared with the Civic, they are seen more as Rovers.
I will always have a soft spot for the 600.
I drove a 620 Turbo in the mid noughties for a few hundred miles and thought it a decently competent car. I also had a 620i as a company car which was OK in a fairly bland and unsporting way, and certainly reliable enough.
I suppose they just don't stand out for any particular reason and therefore get forgotten.
I suppose they just don't stand out for any particular reason and therefore get forgotten.
I think you'll find it has the wrong shape badge to be popular on here. Normally PH-ers only go for saloon cars with badges based on circles, not inverted, rounded triangles.
FWIW I drove a couple of 2.0 litre ones as part exchanges many years ago and thought they were rather good - a turbo must have been great fun.
FWIW I drove a couple of 2.0 litre ones as part exchanges many years ago and thought they were rather good - a turbo must have been great fun.
LadyB8 had an Accord back in 94 which we thoroughly enjoyed. It was a company car and when the lease was up my father wanted it and they offered us a sensible price. He had it for years.We were expecting to replace it with another but found that the updated version seemed to have been given a retune my the marketing dept. So instead of changing anything meaningful they just changed the profile of the throttle response so in place it the previous nice linear behaviour it gave you most of the action in the first part of the peddle travel and then had no more to give you over the rest. I guess it makes the car seem quicker on a short test drive but spoilt things for us.
Never drove the turbo version, which was a Rover engine.
Never drove the turbo version, which was a Rover engine.
I worked for Rover in the mid 90's and drove many of these. The 620Ti was a great car, because as it had just the right amount of tinsel - good looking alloys, sensibly lowered, lovely part leather Recaro interior - Rover were on form then before everything became so hideously frumpy and Hyacinth Bouquet a few years later. The driving experience was a bit one dimensional as with all the Rover 2.0T cars - the 4/6/800 and the Tomcat Coupe - blistering straight line speed but a bit "wey-hey!!" in the corners. On any uneven or even slightly damp back road, the steering wheel only had a bit part to play in which direction you went under acceleration. Still, very handsome and more special than a Mondeo or Cav of the day.
Try finding a good Ti now though - there is a non runner on eBay for £750, and that's it.
Try finding a good Ti now though - there is a non runner on eBay for £750, and that's it.
I had a 620ti as my first 'fast' car. It was fairly cheap to insure and a bit of a Q car.
My memories of it were surprising quite a few cars with it's acceleration (would out drag a E30 328i) if you could keep the thing in straight line
Appalling torque steer, chocolate gearboxes and the drivers window fell down and needed two hands to push back up while I was paying at the Dartford tunnel which was fun
Good times though!
My memories of it were surprising quite a few cars with it's acceleration (would out drag a E30 328i) if you could keep the thing in straight line
Appalling torque steer, chocolate gearboxes and the drivers window fell down and needed two hands to push back up while I was paying at the Dartford tunnel which was fun
Good times though!
Riley Blue said:
The Rover 75 has been well regarded here hasn't it?
A good car but so wrong from the outset IMO with it's warm beer and village cricket aesthetic right down to oval dials with tobacco pipe staining. Exactly what Rover did not need at the time but what BMW management probably thought was quintissentially British styling. Really misjudged the mood I thought, but gained a following with retired farmers and Alan Partridge typesI had a 620ti from new in about 98. I could get cars on the employees scheme through family so having had a metro gta as a lad I went in for a 200vi. I then realised that the discounts were much larger on the 600 and 800 than the 200. The TI cost me only fractionally more than the vi.
I though 200bhp was mental. I'm not sure what my younger self would make of the e55 at nearly 500!
It took us up and down the motoway to and from Scotland for a few years, a nice car to drive like that. Generally I have pretty good memories of it.
I though 200bhp was mental. I'm not sure what my younger self would make of the e55 at nearly 500!
It took us up and down the motoway to and from Scotland for a few years, a nice car to drive like that. Generally I have pretty good memories of it.
Lotobear said:
300bhp/ton said:
The Turbo was a Rover engine. And a very good one.
.....it was essentially the old O series with a TC head ISTR?It's easy to make too much of this sort of thing. Loads of car companies turn out 'new' engines the development of which can be correctly-but-a-bit-unfairly summed up as 'the old engine with a different head' or 'the old head on a new block'.
2xChevrons said:
The original M-Series in the first Rover 800s was, to over-simplify, an O-Series with a twin-cam head. The T-Series used basically the same head and had the same basic internal dimensions (bore, stroke, bore centres, bearing positions etc.) but had an entirely new block and crankshaft so - dimensions aside - it had nothing physically in common with the O-Series and not much direct compatibility with the M-Series. However the 89mm/3.5in stroke which originated on the 1200cc A40 engine back in 1947 remained a constant through the B-, O-, L-, M- and T-Series designs, with only the bore and bore spacing being changed.
It's easy to make too much of this sort of thing. Loads of car companies turn out 'new' engines the development of which can be correctly-but-a-bit-unfairly summed up as 'the old engine with a different head' or 'the old head on a new block'.
So a bit of a case of Hillman Imp engine = Coventry Climax then!It's easy to make too much of this sort of thing. Loads of car companies turn out 'new' engines the development of which can be correctly-but-a-bit-unfairly summed up as 'the old engine with a different head' or 'the old head on a new block'.
Gassing Station | Classic Cars and Yesterday's Heroes | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff