Shall I buy this Rover?

Do any manufacturers make any truly fault free engines ? From my experience they all have weaknesses, it's just that some are better at covering it up than others !

I think if it wasn't for the K series and their inability to sort the problem in timely fashion, rover's reputation would be no worse than any other.
 
webmaster said:
Do any manufacturers make any truly fault free engines ? From my experience they all have weaknesses, it's just that some are better at covering it up than others !

I think if it wasn't for the K series and their inability to sort the problem in timely fashion, rover's reputation would be no worse than any other.
Click to expand...

Yep, even my parents' BMW, with its sublime twin-cam inline six, suffers from a slightly leaky head gasket, which is about to be fixed, along with a slight whine from the belts (they're going to be replaced very soon too) and a rattly exhaust heat shield. All well-known problems with an otherwise wonderful car - the number of other E39 owners I've spoken to who've had all three problems over the years...

Mind you, as for Rover's reputation, even the 75 was sub-standard in many ways - it was wrong-wheel-drive, for a start (no surprise given that it was designed when Rover were under the ownership of the greatest maker of RWD saloons of all time), and the quality of materials used in the cabin was woeful. Nasty fake wood, nasty switchgear... not to mention the very divisive retro design. The 45 was even worse - and cost Rover a lot in royalties to Honda - and the 25 (and the MGF/TF which borrowed its dashboard), well, let's not even go there.

The SD1 was the last real Rover IMO. Flawed and badly-built it may have been, but it was at least stylish and innovative (despite that live axle!) - not to mention RWD! All the rest were, at best, reasonably competent Austins and MGs that should never have worn the Viking longship.
 
When the SD1 came out everyone said the P6 was the last true Rover,
and that the SD1 was cheaply built with macpherson struts and a beam
axle. The self leveling rear suspension had been in use on Range Rover
for 7 years and the gearboxes had problems with not very high mileages.
I knew a traffic copper at the time and they use to complain about the
lack of headroom. I am not saying the SD1 was a bad car just different
from the P6. Passage of time and all that. Nostalgia is not what is was!!
 
i think the 75 is a lovely car. I love the wood effect and the style of the thing and the KV6 is incredibly smooth. I'd love the V8 version... In a few years maybe(assuming they dont cost thousands to tax...). I think the 75 and 800 are definitely 'Rovers'. They certainly arent 'triumph' or 'BMC' - the feel is definitely Rover. To me that is... i.e. it's all in the eye of the beholder. I cant think of any car in production which i think is as nice as the 75, and it's definitely the 75 and not the blinged up MGs that look a bit cheap to me...

Rich.
 
Maybe I'm just old fashioned, but I love the rover dashboards / interiors, they're what made the Rover version of the Honda/Rover era so much better then the tacky Hondas. I also liked the fact that the entire range was similar, so inside a 200 was just like a baby 800.

I'd rather have the lovely cream leather 75 interior over any of the "Aiwa Stereo" black and silver tat that you see in BMW/Audi/Ford etc these days.

I also prefer the early 75 styling much better than the facelift, same with the 800.

Mind you,I love the TR7 and XJS, and don't rate the E-Type :|
 
webmaster said:
I'd rather have the lovely cream leather 75 interior over any of the "Aiwa Stereo" black and silver tat that you see in BMW/Audi/Ford etc these days.
Click to expand...
:LOL: Well said!
 
colnerov said:
When the SD1 came out everyone said the P6 was the last true Rover,
and that the SD1 was cheaply built with macpherson struts and a beam
axle. The self leveling rear suspension had been in use on Range Rover
for 7 years and the gearboxes had problems with not very high mileages.
I knew a traffic copper at the time and they use to complain about the
lack of headroom. I am not saying the SD1 was a bad car just different
from the P6. Passage of time and all that. Nostalgia is not what is was!!
Click to expand...
The same was said by P4 and P5 owners when the 6 came out. Not from a technical standpoint, but from the feel of quality and less coach built kit form approach. None of us like change, I still don't :wink:
SD1 is as modern as I go :)
 
GrimV8 said:
colnerov said:
When the SD1 came out everyone said the P6 was the last true Rover,
and that the SD1 was cheaply built with macpherson struts and a beam
axle. The self leveling rear suspension had been in use on Range Rover
for 7 years and the gearboxes had problems with not very high mileages.
I knew a traffic copper at the time and they use to complain about the
lack of headroom. I am not saying the SD1 was a bad car just different
from the P6. Passage of time and all that. Nostalgia is not what is was!!
Click to expand...
The same was said by P4 and P5 owners when the 6 came out. Not from a technical standpoint, but from the feel of quality and less coach built kit form approach. None of us like change, I still don't :wink:
SD1 is as modern as I go :)
Click to expand...

I am not that old but I could never own or drive an SD1, to me they worse than Avengers and Marinas, at least they were a simple unpretensious car unlike the SD1 which had all the appointments of an expensive car but delivered in such a tacky and poor quality materials that soon looked poor, maybe it's just a 70's look bellbottoms and all that just to fadish and now that the trend is over you just dont want to go back!

Graeme
 
There is nothing wrong with change/progress, if we didn't have it we would all
be living in Iron age roundhouses and driving a horse and cart. It is just that we
have chosen one of the steps along the way and have stayed with it, plus we have
benefited from technology since (electronic ignition to name one)

I used to borrow a friends 827, a lovely car to drive ( not so much to work on ) it
was powerful, smooth, comfortable, I had to stop borrowing it because it was a
real 'licence loser'.

During th 70s every thing leyland was considered old fashioned, especially as I
and my mates were into Ford's. Until one of said mates bought a 69 P6b and used
to leave us all standing. I used borrow it as often as I could, until I bought one of my
own, a crashed damaged S2 P6b and repaired it. I never looked back!!
 
colnerov said:
There is nothing wrong with change/progress, if we didn't have it we would all
be living in Iron age roundhouses and driving a horse and cart. It is just that we
have chosen one of the steps along the way and have stayed with it, plus we have
benefited from technology since (electronic ignition to name one)

I used to borrow a friends 827, a lovely car to drive ( not so much to work on ) it
was powerful, smooth, comfortable, I had to stop borrowing it because it was a
real 'licence loser'.

During th 70s every thing leyland was considered old fashioned, especially as I
and my mates were into Ford's. Until one of said mates bought a 69 P6b and used
to leave us all standing. I used borrow it as often as I could, until I bought one of my
own, a crashed damaged S2 P6b and repaired it. I never looked back!!
Click to expand...

Do Round Houses come with a garage for my P6 :LOL: could be the go! Dont know what a standing quater in a horse and cart will be compared to the Rover but it does sound quite an attractive proposition :mrgreen:

Graeme
 
ghce said:
GrimV8 said:
colnerov said:
When the SD1 came out everyone said the P6 was the last true Rover,
and that the SD1 was cheaply built with macpherson struts and a beam
axle. The self leveling rear suspension had been in use on Range Rover
for 7 years and the gearboxes had problems with not very high mileages.
I knew a traffic copper at the time and they use to complain about the
lack of headroom. I am not saying the SD1 was a bad car just different
from the P6. Passage of time and all that. Nostalgia is not what is was!!
Click to expand...
The same was said by P4 and P5 owners when the 6 came out. Not from a technical standpoint, but from the feel of quality and less coach built kit form approach. None of us like change, I still don't :wink:
SD1 is as modern as I go :)
Click to expand...

I am not that old but I could never own or drive an SD1, to me they worse than Avengers and Marinas, at least they were a simple unpretensious car unlike the SD1 which had all the appointments of an expensive car but delivered in such a tacky and poor quality materials that soon looked poor, maybe it's just a 70's look bellbottoms and all that just to fadish and now that the trend is over you just dont want to go back!

Graeme
Click to expand...

Thing is I hate modern cars :oops: I can't think of anything else that would tick all the boxes the SD1 does for me. Large boot or almost estate space, comfy five seater, quick enough, handle pretty good, fairly economic tows my car trailer to move customers cars around and houses that great V8 engine :) Hardly dear to buy and suits the working on Rovers image too :wink: Unfortunately the P6 won't do all my chores :(
 
rockdemon said:
i think the 75 is a lovely car. I love the wood effect and the style of the thing and the KV6 is incredibly smooth. I'd love the V8 version... In a few years maybe(assuming they dont cost thousands to tax...). I think the 75 and 800 are definitely 'Rovers'. They certainly arent 'triumph' or 'BMC' - the feel is definitely Rover. To me that is... i.e. it's all in the eye of the beholder. I cant think of any car in production which i think is as nice as the 75, and it's definitely the 75 and not the blinged up MGs that look a bit cheap to me...

Rich.
Click to expand...

The wood effect is cheap, nasty and tacky. The six-cylinder is in the wrong configuration (unbalanced vee, not balanced inline) and sends its power to the wrong wheels. Sorry, but if it's FWD and/or tacky, it ain't a Rover. The 800 was just a Honda, and the 75 was, well, I don't know... nearest thing I can think of is the Wolseley cheese-wedge
 
webmaster said:
Maybe I'm just old fashioned, but I love the rover dashboards / interiors, they're what made the Rover version of the Honda/Rover era so much better then the tacky Hondas. I also liked the fact that the entire range was similar, so inside a 200 was just like a baby 800.

I'd rather have the lovely cream leather 75 interior over any of the "Aiwa Stereo" black and silver tat that you see in BMW/Audi/Ford etc these days.

I also prefer the early 75 styling much better than the facelift, same with the 800.

Mind you,I love the TR7 and XJS, and don't rate the E-Type :|
Click to expand...

"inside a 200 was just like a baby 800" - that's pretty damning. For a car in the 800's class to have an interior comparable to that of the 200 is unforgivable. Also, to compare BMW to Audi to Ford shows how little you know... Audis are bland but very well screwed-together inside, quite nice places to be (except once you're on the move, the ride is bloody awful). BMWs are pretty good, too - the 1995-2005 era was best, when you could order pretty much any colour of cloth or leather for the seats, and the nice-quality plastic on top of the dash and in a few other places could be colour co-ordinated (so you could have a sort of mustardy cream leather interior with real wood trim and a beige dash top, or you could have dark green cloth with dark green plastic). They're really nice places to be - much nicer than any FWD "Rover".

As for styling, of course that's all subjective... I definitely prefer the Mk2 800 to the Mk1, but I prefer the Mk1 75 to the facelift Mk2, which was quite clearly trying too hard to ape Audi.

I too love the XJS, so underrated, but I cannot understand your liking for the hopeless POS TR7, nor your dislike for the E-type...
 
Cant say i think the BMW is nicer than a rover 75 or 800 to be in. They're extremely claustrophobic, and just arent comfortable (to me that is... i'm obviously in the minority otherwise rover would still be in business...)

I think the point about the 200 is that it was better than it's contemporaries because of some of the detailing being like the 800. I always thought the 200s were nice interiors for a car that was meant to be an escort equivalent. We have a focus and i hate the look of the interior. A bit of wood and leather is nicer than black plastic and fake aluminium plastic ( although the focus is much bigger than any rover 200 inside...)

Rich.
 
EccentricRichard said:
[quote= The 800 was just a Honda,

You make me laugh sometimes Richard, on anther thread you enthuse about the
Honda S2000 and Civic R1. Then on this thread you dismiss the 800 as just a
Honda. Which I think are the best of the Japanese brands.

Colin
Click to expand...
 
It would be very boring if we all liked the same things , each to their own etc etc and people shouldn't insult those of us that don't share their views

I do wonder whether some people speak from experience or just spout Jeremy Clarkson's bigoted views...........
 
rockdemon said:
Cant say i think the BMW is nicer than a rover 75 or 800 to be in. They're extremely claustrophobic, and just arent comfortable (to me that is... i'm obviously in the minority otherwise rover would still be in business...)

I think the point about the 200 is that it was better than it's contemporaries because of some of the detailing being like the 800. I always thought the 200s were nice interiors for a car that was meant to be an escort equivalent. We have a focus and i hate the look of the interior. A bit of wood and leather is nicer than black plastic and fake aluminium plastic ( although the focus is much bigger than any rover 200 inside...)

Rich.
Click to expand...

The 200's interior quality and ergonomics were hopelessly uncompetitive. OK, so the Ford Scrote and Voxpox Astra weren't much better, but still... I know the Focus is hardly the best example of modern interior quality, but a modern-day Golf, for example, is much better than a Focus, let alone a 200. Also, you've clearly never been in a modern BMW. A mid-to-top of the range E46 3-series, an E39 5-series, E38 7-series... all very nice places to be, not at all claustophobic, very comfortable. I'm not so keen on the more edgy style of more recent BMW interiors, but they still work ergonomically, they're still comfortable, and they're still beyond reproach quality-wise. Mind you, I'll give you this - they need to be specced carefully. Go for an all-black interior and you're asking for trouble - and the high window-lines of recent models, meaning very poor rear 3/4 visibility, can add to a feeling of claustrophobia. However, those mid-to-late 90s designed models, with plentiful glazing and light interiors, are lovely places to be.
 
colnerov said:
EccentricRichard said:

Can't remember enthusing about the R1, but the S2000 I like for being a really good sports car.

However, I have a big problem about dull, unexciting Japanese (albeit British-built) barges being rebadged and given a bit more leather, wood and chrome to pretend they're terribly-British Rovers. The 800 was unworthy of the Rover name, simple as.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
DaveHerns said:
It would be very boring if we all liked the same things , each to their own etc etc and people shouldn't insult those of us that don't share their views

I do wonder whether some people speak from experience or just spout Jeremy Clarkson's bigoted views...........
Click to expand...

I'm not just spouting Clarkson's views. I may share many of them, but I do have some degree of experience on which to base my own views. I've been in enough Honda/BMW/Phoenix era Rovers to know that they were never going to cut the mustard against the best the Germans could throw at them, and I've been in enough modern German cars to know that the views being spouted here about their interiors are pretty inaccurate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top