RE: SOTW: Rover 420 GSi Turbo

[s m]

phib said:

My happiest motoring memories were in a k plate 220 turbo coupe in 1993, went to France twice a month loved that car would do an honest 145mph as stated on my speeding ticket in burgundy !! Had one of the first 10 or so.

Went surfing in it, slept in it in fact went everywhere in it my first proper sports ish car, drove one two years ago still loved it 19 years on, happier memories in this than any of my 9 911's, or 2 ferraris similar memories to one of my 4 tvr's .

The 220 was great new

Phib

The big shame about those was that they put the Hummer diff in them rather than the later B type - made a big difference to the handling ( as seen in the BRM )
You're right about the performance - they were ( and are! ) rapid - genuine 150 car

[AndySpecD]

mrtwisty said:

300bhp/ton said:

Why and how??

Did you look at the price £690 for a 4 door family car in tidy condition and with some poke. It'll go better than a 2.0 litre Focus, ok handling a bit squishier, but probably more comfy for it. The dent in the bumper looks superficial and it's £690 quid!

Come on 300, explain to the ladies and gentlemen why this utter heap (sorry Riggers) represents a better buy, in any way, than this:

http://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/2012...

The Focus will be a vastly better drive, better place to sit, almost certainly more reliable, more economical, more practical... I could go on, but there really is no need.

As for it not 'going' as well as the Rover - I very much doubt it would outperform the Focus in any objective test.

Show of hands people?

Don't think you quite understand this SOTW thing, it's not about objective tests or which car is more reliable. If you wanted a reliable car that's fairly good to drive you could buy a Focus everyday of the week. The Rover is something a little different from the norm, and great cars they were as others have pointed out. The usual pub talk and Clarkson-copy-cats can slag them off as much as they like, they were better at the time than the Ford or Vauxhall alternatives.

[OllieC]

AndySpecD said:

mrtwisty said:

300bhp/ton said:

Why and how??

Did you look at the price £690 for a 4 door family car in tidy condition and with some poke. It'll go better than a 2.0 litre Focus, ok handling a bit squishier, but probably more comfy for it. The dent in the bumper looks superficial and it's £690 quid!

Come on 300, explain to the ladies and gentlemen why this utter heap (sorry Riggers) represents a better buy, in any way, than this:

http://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/2012...

The Focus will be a vastly better drive, better place to sit, almost certainly more reliable, more economical, more practical... I could go on, but there really is no need.

As for it not 'going' as well as the Rover - I very much doubt it would outperform the Focus in any objective test.

Show of hands people?

Don't think you quite understand this SOTW thing, it's not about objective tests or which car is more reliable. If you wanted a reliable car that's fairly good to drive you could buy a Focus everyday of the week. The Rover is something a little different from the norm, and great cars they were as others have pointed out. The usual pub talk and Clarkson-copy-cats can slag them off as much as they like, they were better at the time than the Ford or Vauxhall alternatives.

this is stretching it rather ?

[300bhp/ton]

mrtwisty said:

Come on 300, explain to the ladies and gentlemen why this utter heap (sorry Riggers) represents a better buy, in any way, than this:

http://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/2012...

Having not seen either car in person it's pretty hard to tell.

However I will admit that Focus looks nice and good value. But only 3 pics in the ad and ones blurred and none of the interior.

As for the Rover, well it's 4 door not 3. So much better if you are getting people in and out of the back.

I also personally prefer saloons over hatches.

mrtwisty said:

The Focus will be a vastly better drive

I'm not so sure. Ok they have their fancy blade suspension and they are a good steer. So I accept they are good. But I know the Rover isn't terrible, although I'm sure more squishy. But lets face it, you'd buy neither of these if the drive was the most important thing.

mrtwisty said:

better place to sit

The Rover is grey inside I admit. But I like the interiors on this gen of Rover. They still feel quite modern, although far more open and airy than many cars today. They where also well put together and I genuinely like wood trim.

The Focus is ok too with it's painted silver plastic and funky triangles. But I wouldn't say one is vastly better than the other.

mrtwisty said:

almost certainly more reliable

How do you figure that??

mrtwisty said:

more economical

Suspect very very similar.

mrtwisty said:

more practical...

How the fk to you make that up?

mrtwisty said:

I could go on, but there really is no need.

What making up stuff? Ok

mrtwisty said:

As for it not 'going' as well as the Rover - I very much doubt it would outperform the Focus in any objective test.

Show of hands people?

Carfolio list the Focus at 9.2 0-62mph. No idea what the Rover does, but I thought it was in the 8's.


I'm certainly happy to retract that the Focus would be a heap, I honestly quite like them too and have owned Ford's previously as well. But for the money I don't think the Rover is bad bet and it certainly wasn't a bad car in it's day either.

Edited by 300bhp/ton on Friday 6th July 20:55

[300bhp/ton]

OllieC said:

It is a 1.8 not a 2 litre, but my £450 quid focus was/is one of the best value cars I can think of.

I like the Rover though, dont get me wrong. As long as the bent bumper isnt hiding anything sinister (and I wouldnt have thought it would be ?)

you can get a lot of car for £700 ish though, and the 420 wouldnt be my choice.

It's amazing what you can buy for the money these days. And I agree I too probably wouldn't punt for the 400 either. But not because it isn't any good, just I'd rather something else.

[Tahiti]

Oh, and the comments about 145 mph in the 220 turbo - I've certainly been a passenger in a lightly modified one where it was off the 150mph clock.

The BRM box/diff was cracking - short shift, and seriously grippy. The BRM is not a Vi with lipstick

[J4CKO]

Tahiti said:

Oh, and the comments about 145 mph in the 220 turbo - I've certainly been a passenger in a lightly modified one where it was off the 150mph clock.

The BRM box/diff was cracking - short shift, and seriously grippy. The BRM is not a Vi with lipstick

Yes, I had a BRM, the gear change was sublime.

[JonnyVTEC]

Gosh. I paid £800 for a 60k 1994 220GSI turbo back in 2001! Incredible VFM for the kit and pace back then but now? (ignoring the fact this isn't a turbo)

[anonymous-user]

mrtwisty said:

yonex said:

300bhp/ton said:

Arguable a nicer car than a similar priced Focus or Astra.

A 1993 420 a nicer car than a Mk1 Focus, an arguement only an idiot would make.

Hahaha, my thoughts exactly.

You do talk some bloody tosh sometimes 300!

'sometimes'

You're half right

[Fun Bus]

Riggers may have dropped a bk on his selection for SOTW this week but it's drummed up some great debate.

As you were chaps.

[KM666]

vit4 said:

Keep looking Riggers, keep looking

Having said all of that...

lankyarcher said:

Or this on eBay??!! At least it's a turbo.....
1996 ROVER 620 TI WHITE TURBO 200bhp
http://bit.ly/LZBfKj

That is a hell of a lot of car for the money, wonder what it'll go for? Checked insurance and it isn't doable which is a damn shame, I really want that

Nice pair of old school cars you've got! Reminds me of growing up in Burton on Trent, in 2002 most of the cars on the street were this vintage, a neighbour had a new focus which was the only new car there, ahh to be oop north again.

[MGJohn]

Back around 1992-3, my firm had a change of Policy and withdrew the travel allowance to use our own cars for work related trips and provided a hire car for this purpose. Thus a nice little earner was no longer available.

So, next business trip the hire company delivered the car to my house about 6am for my early start. It was a dark, dull, rainy early November morning when I saw the little grey Rover on my drive. Got in it and turned the key and headed for the Motorway. Nicely warmed up on reaching the Motorway for my long trip up north. As I drove down the slip road about to slot into the lane, a 3 litre Capri for some reason decided to make that process a little difficult for me by speeding up. I put my foot down and the little Rover picked up her skirts and flew. I was not ready for that and the Capri soon became a smaller image in the rear view mirror.

Began to enjoy the drive more and decided to take a break at some services hundred miles later and the first thing I did there was lift the bonnet of that little Rover. That was my first sighting of Rover's Turbocharged T-Series engine. Been a fan of these Rover turbos with one or more about the place ever since. These included the 220 Turbo coupe and currently three 620ti in the family.

I gave it a nine. Should have made it a ten... Good little cars and great engine.

[MGJohn]

JonnyVTEC said:

Gosh. I paid £800 for a 60k 1994 220GSI turbo back in 2001! Incredible VFM for the kit and pace back then but now? (ignoring the fact this isn't a turbo)

£800 ... hard to believe. For a turbo T-Series car, that is indeed exceptional VFM eleven years ago.

[405dogvan]

Just going back to the original ad, I cannot believe they're advertising this car and not mentioning the massive whack it's clearly taken!

I assumed they'd have said "bumper damaged but rads etc. OK" - for all you know from the ad, it's pissing water and oil!?

[Escort Si-130]

PMSL

seawise said:

it's not the turbo though is it?, looks like the standard 136 hp normally aspirated model.

god how sad is that, which i hadn't noticed now.

[annodomini2]

MGJohn said:

JonnyVTEC said:

Gosh. I paid £800 for a 60k 1994 220GSI turbo back in 2001! Incredible VFM for the kit and pace back then but now? (ignoring the fact this isn't a turbo)

£800 ... hard to believe. For a turbo T-Series car, that is indeed exceptional VFM eleven years ago.

Agree, typical price wasn't £800 at that time, how much of the car was intact?

[Fun Bus]

TomM said:

Fun Bus said:

Useless Fun Bus fact for you. The only 420GSi turbo I ever came across was at the first dealer I worked at. At the time a Nightfire Red example was for sale and sold - the PX was a J-plate BMW 325i.

I know. Cool story and all that.

What year was that? The BM cant have been that old, and they part exd it for a Rover? Wtf?

This was in 1996/7. The Rover was on an L-plate I think and I remember being very tidy. The Sales Manager wouldn't let me anywhere near it as it was so quick - I was about 18 at the time.

[Fun Bus]

JonnyVTEC said:

Gosh. I paid £800 for a 60k 1994 220GSI turbo back in 2001! Incredible VFM for the kit and pace back then but now? (ignoring the fact this isn't a turbo)

£800? Why so cheap? They were worth more than that back then, and main dealers would have retailed stuff like that.

[marcng]

I had a 220 gsi years ago and loved it. The 130something bhp turned out to be 158bhp when I had it dyno'ed

[anything fast]

I quite like the BRM one, and the loud trim..