RE: Shed of the Week

[215cu]

stigcv8 said:

215cu said:

everyone is entitled to an opinion I guess, no matter how misinformed.

how do you define misinformed? Where are rover? What is their history? What is their reputation?

do you think poupular opinion is just a figment of the imagination?

Ford, Vauxhall, Skoda all got rid of their reputations yet Rover failed, why?

Is it reputation based on fact or hearsay?

I'd wager that Rover's reliability based on real fact on a whole was no worse than any of the manufacturer you've listed above. On product specifically, Rover was let down by the MGF (largely handmade) which nearly always finished bottom of any warranty survey. 75s, 45s and 25s compared very well against any of the above listed contemporaries in any warranty/reliability survey.

Why Rover never shifted its 'poor' reputation? I have no idea, it wasn't as if the company didn't really try hard over the last few years to do something about it.

What really gets my goat is the whole HGF trouble.

The early 2.5KV6's were made by hand before going to full plant. The early 1.8's really were pushing the limit of the 4-pot K and it was BMW (shock!) bean counting that did silly things like replace metal locator dowels for plastic on the head to cylinder block and downgrade the gasket component. These were fixed many, many years ago.

Admittedly Powertrain did have a fix for the thermal shocking that seemed to plague MGF owners (and also Discovery owners) with a pressure sensitive thermostat and Rover management were guilty of not implementing that fix. Also Lotus messed around with the K too creating imbalances in the engine creating pressure on the 'sandwich' assembly, again, creating the potential for HGF problems on Elise and Exige models.

Oddly, of the 3 MILLION K-series engines made from 1982 to 2006, they suffered a failure rate of 0.03% Most of those 1.8 normally aspirated. That means the 1.1, 1.4, 1.6, 1.8T, 2.0 KV6 and 2.5KV6 are very reliable indeed.

Compare that to the 3 MILLION car recall by VAG group for coil pack problems across most of the range.

You have to remember the Rover and its Powertrain engineers had over 60 years of working with aluminium engines (not just heads). Even comparing a K now to brand new engines, it's still hard to beat for power to weight or economy.

As for Rover's being unreliable, I'll leave you with this.

The Rover 75 only ever had two recalls, both minor. The BMW 3 Series (E46) had six. Renault Laguna (Mk2) has had nine. VW Passat (Mk4) had three. Mercedes C-Class (W203) had six.

Honda Accord only one.

Incidentally, the Rover 800 only had two recalls as well.

Rover's car on the whole came out on a par (slightly better) than Nissan.

Not bad company, keeping up with the Japanese.

Edited by 215cu on Tuesday 9th January 16:11

Edited by 215cu on Tuesday 9th January 16:18

[ohopkins]

From Relibility index :

For the 800 =

Reliability Index 157.57 ( very poor )
Average Age 5.126325088

Average Mileage 54251.41343
Time off the Road 3.505381382

Average Repair Cost £336.44
Air Conditioning 3.03%

Axle & Suspension 17.27%
Braking System 8.48%

Cooling and Heating System 10.00%
Electrical 25.76%

Engine 21.21%
Fuel System 1.52%

Transmission 12.73%

Compared to the Honda engined 600 :


Reliability Index 93.21 ( ok )
Average Age 4.756624826

Average Mileage 50749.93249
Time off the Road 2.16240052

Average Repair Cost £284.64
Air Conditioning 0.90%

Axle & Suspension 14.86%
Braking System 11.71%

Cooling and Heating System 13.51%
Electrical 31.53%

Engine 10.36%
Fuel System -

Transmission 17.12%


so the Honda engined 600 is about 2-3 times more reliable engine wise. And the Rober 800 is no paragon of virtue, the commments about comparisons to jap cars have me rolling around on the floor.

Faults with T - Series engine :

Overflow cooling pipe badly placed above manifold, could spilt and then alloy head block would warp on the steel block.

Head gasket *still* an issue with T-series. Not confused with K series.

Gearbox was Honda PG1 and not suited to torque of T series, nylon bearing cage would fail causing gearbox to self destruct if not attended too. Replacement with steel cage bearings solves.

Oil would weep from front gasket face due to poor design.

Alternator prone to failure and fry electics.

MEMS engine managemnt system a total pain to diagnose and fix, not OBD compliant. Don't think I have seen a MEMS car with a proper idle after 100,000 miles yet.

Distributer prone to cracking and water ingress.

[10 Pence Short]

I'd say the main problem was the fact that the product line up, with a bit of an exception for the 75, was far too aged. People aren't prepared to pay fairly high prices for 15 year old car designs with a new dashboard and a few spoilers tacked on.

Granted Rover did very well in 'MGing' some of the models, but without the cash to develop a new model, the writing was on the wall.

Constant rumours of meltdown in the final years only accelerated people's movements away from Rover, with the thought of missing warranties in peoples minds.

[cyberface]

I've got a MG ZT saloon, with 390 bhp and 430 lb ft torque, feels nice and solid, drives well, handles brilliantly, cost me £22k all in brand new.

I'd honestly say this is a Pistonhead type of car.

All the idiots who can *only* see the obvious failures in Rover's long and tortured history need to realise that Rover had a lot of Britain's most talented engineers, hobbled by incompetent management and further ed up by government / trade union / nationalisation interference. Most of Rover's problems were political.

As a result a lot of shite cars got out - it's difficult to maintain a motivated assembly force if government / unions are ing up the company - but British engineers ARE damn good engineers on the whole and some pretty damn good cars did pop up now and then.

When I was at Oxford one of my mates (engineering student) was doing a secondment at Rover and helping with the VVC system. He brought back a demo camshaft and showed me how the cam timing was changed just by oil pressure on the end of the assembly - a pretty clever design that looked uncomplicated and reliable. I don't know the history as to who got the best VVC system first - all major manufacturers do now, but this was around 12 years ago. There were definitely bright, passionate engineers working there.

I think all the Rover 75s are good cars actually, and given the bust status of Rover, they are incredibly good value for money now. The V8 is bloody good fun, but has appalling fuel consumption, so not really recommended for reps

[BlueRover]

My 800i has 303,000 miles on the original engine and never has had a headgasket changed.
She idles perfectly at 800rpm and will still do 120mph.
Unfortunately, bad cars do damage a reputation so I can understand why the comments are made.
For a large car she handles ok.

[rockinatmidnight]

I've just read this last page, but why are we arguing about rovers on a gold SOTW. Handbags out chaps....
And that serves me right, its a nice old SOTW, sorry chaps!

Edited by rockinatmidnight on Saturday 30th May 11:28