Hillman Hunter Review from South Africa

1972 Hillman Hunter 1.5

Model year1972
Year of manufacture1972
Engine and transmission 1.5 Manual
Performance marks 4 / 10
Reliability marks 2 / 10
Comfort marks 2 / 10
Dealer Service marks 6 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 8 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
4.4 / 10
Distance when acquired130000 kilometres
Most recent distance150000 kilometres
Previous carFiat Palio

Summary:

An absolute waste of money

Faults:

You'll find a couple more of my reviews on this site, eg. 1995 Mercedes Benz E220 Elegance, 1994 Mazda MX6 2.5 V6, 2009 Nissan Tiida 1.6, 1999 Daewoo Matiz 800cc, 2002 Fiat Palio 1.6 16V.

Feel free to read them all.

Alright, the issues I experienced:

1. The driver windows slid into the door.

2. The wood trim was lifting and worn

3. The gearbox was DEAD

4. Steering was HORRIBLE

5. Lots of rust

6. Poor performance

7. Hell trying to get parts

8. Very few workshops are willing to work on it

9. Ladies don't fancy it too much.

General Comments:

I bought it as temporary transport, and I'm sorry I did. It was bought for US$2000 and I got practically nothing for it.

I hated it, and will NEVER recommend it to anyone.

Given, it was about 40 years old and MIGHT have been good back then, today, I'd rather drive a bicycle than that 'thing'.

Buy at own risk!

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? No

Review Date: 31st July, 2010

22nd Oct 2012, 22:18

That's right they are 40 years old now LOL.

Realistically you can't expect anything but a classic Chrysler Valiant to still be reliable without restoration after decades. Once the Hunters are restored/reconditioned, they are fine. :)

24th Oct 2012, 01:10

The gearbox was DEAD? Why on earth did you buy it then??

Average review marks: 4.4 / 10, based on 1 review