1994 Rover - Austin 400 Reviews from UK and Ireland

1994 Rover - Austin 400 SLD Tourer 1.8 turbo diesel

Model year1994
Year of manufacture1994
First year of ownership2007
Most recent year of ownership2011
Engine and transmission 1.8 turbo diesel Manual
Performance marks 10 / 10
Reliability marks 10 / 10
Comfort marks 9 / 10
Dealer Service marks 8 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 10 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
9.4 / 10
Distance when acquired69000 miles
Most recent distance100000 miles
Previous carFord Fiesta

Summary:

The best Rover made

Faults:

Brakes replaced at 75,000 miles.

Wiper motor replaced.

Tyres replaced.

General Comments:

This is the best diesel estate car of its time. It returns 50 mpg on a run, and it's still very powerful for a car that's 16 years old. The bodywork is still like new.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 6th January, 2011

1994 Rover - Austin 400 418 SLD Turbo Tourer 1.8 turbo diesel intercooled

Model year1994
Year of manufacture1994
First year of ownership2007
Most recent year of ownership2008
Engine and transmission 1.8 turbo diesel intercooled Manual
Performance marks 8 / 10
Reliability marks 10 / 10
Comfort marks 9 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 8 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
8.8 / 10
Distance when acquired131000 miles
Most recent distance141500 miles
Previous carFord Escort

Summary:

Quick, luxurious, sporty, and very economical for an estate!

Faults:

When I first got the 418, within 48 hours, the water pump gave up (had been standing over a year, with little use).

'Lift Pump' (fuel) died after 5,000 miles of me owning it.

General Comments:

I brought this car for £500, with 11 months MOT & 5 months tax. Because my 16 year Ford Escort did a 1000 mile round trip to Cornwall, & water got in electrics & died.

Needed a new car quickly, & a bloke in the village only had this in my price range.

Has a few dents, etc. But runs like a dream, around 47 mpg on a average run (starting, traffic light, hills etc). Even with low profile alloys.

Inside: Very nice, usual electric pack, alarm. immobiliser, front electric windows, power steering, airbag, electric wing mirrors etc.

Engine: 1.8 diesel turbo intercooled. Quick for its age, and economical. Goes up hills like a breeze.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Don't Know

Review Date: 29th January, 2008

4th Feb 2008, 13:47

As Quentin Wilson once said ' My hero is the bloke who drives the nail'; good luck mate- I have driven old cars for years, and saved thousands of pounds.People who drive new and/or expensive cars are either rich or foolish, or both.

1994 Rover - Austin 400 GSI Turbo 2.0 turbo petrol

Model year1994
Year of manufacture1994
First year of ownership2006
Most recent year of ownership2007
Engine and transmission 2.0 turbo petrol Manual
Performance marks 9 / 10
Reliability marks 8 / 10
Comfort marks 8 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 7 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
8.0 / 10
Distance when acquired105000 miles
Most recent distance120000 miles
Previous carRover - Austin 400

Summary:

Cheap fast sleeper, ideal for frightening the natives

Faults:

Slight oil leaks, common on this car. Not serious.

Slight gearbox input bearing noise, again common from the Honda gearbox.

Drivers window mechanism broke, easily replaced.

Nothing else has gone wrong. Not bad on a 13 year old car.

General Comments:

These are great sleeper cars. Faster than many other cars, especially the GTI brigade. Same power as a new Golf GTI turbo, but much lighter, makes it a match for an R32. Has a Torsen diff, a form of LSD, something few modern price equivalents have (only the Megan F1 to my knowledge, which is the fastest around a track). Doesn't have the finesse of newer cars in fast sweeps, but is a match or better in the tight twists as a result of the diff.

Generally quite reliable, most problems are only annoyances, such as oil leaks. Engines are tough, bodywork is good, interiors are of higher quality than the likes of Ford, Peugeot or Vauxhall.

Parts are cheap and are shared with other lower models making replacements easy to find.

They are easy to work on to, no bizarre design, unlike some french cars.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 4th September, 2007

5th Sep 2007, 08:31

Is that right? The Rover has 200bhp, the same as the new Golf GTi?

24th Sep 2007, 09:24

Yes, it is correct. You can also get this engine in the 200 (known as the tomcat) and the 600.

24th Sep 2007, 10:20

Same power as the new Golf GTI and about 200kg lighter as well. Imagine the Golf GTI engine in a Polo...

25th Sep 2007, 09:37

It's entirely possible! The new Polo GTI has the old Golf GTI engine (and I've seen Polo's with 2.8 VR6's in).

The polo could be awesome, but since the G40, VW seem to have neglected the idea.

1994 Rover - Austin 400 414 SLi 1.4 petrol

Year of manufacture1994
First year of ownership1999
Most recent year of ownership2002
Engine and transmission 1.4 petrol Manual
Performance marks 8 / 10
Reliability marks 8 / 10
Comfort marks 8 / 10
Dealer Service marks 7 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 7 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
7.6 / 10
Distance when acquired50000 miles
Most recent distance84000 miles
Previous carPeugeot 405

Summary:

Very good

Faults:

Front passenger side window motor failed at 65,000 miles.

Brake pads needed replacing at 70,000 miles and again at 81,000 miles.

Engine blew head gasket at 79,000 miles.

Engine became difficult to start after 80,000 miles.

General Comments:

The 414 SLi was a generally reliable and swift family saloon which also gave good economy.

The interior was upmarket and comfortable.

Good value at £3,250 for a mid range five year old family saloon.

Retailed at £1,500 three years later.

Hope MG Rover will soon make cars again.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 15th April, 2006

1994 Rover - Austin 400 216 SLi 1.6 petrol

Year of manufacture1994
First year of ownership1995
Most recent year of ownership1998
Engine and transmission 1.6 petrol Manual
Performance marks 9 / 10
Reliability marks 9 / 10
Comfort marks 9 / 10
Dealer Service marks 8 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 7 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
8.4 / 10
Distance when acquired2100 miles
Most recent distance44000 miles
Previous carVauxhall Astra

Summary:

Better than its contemporaries from Ford, Renault or Vauxhall

Faults:

At around 20,000 miles, the engine cut out suddenly with no warning and wouldn't restart. Fault traced to a tiny module on the ignition (called an igniter if I recall correctly). Fixed the problem and it never reoccurred.

Other than that, as reliable as clockwork.

General Comments:

This car replaced a 1992 Astra (mk3), and in turn was replaced by a 1997 Renault Megane. With hindsight, I think it was a better car than either of them.

Good quality trim with light, airy colours and half convincing wood bits, good seats, reasonable equipment, solid build quality, (then) classy looks, low noise levels, and excellent performance from a gutsy, sweet 1.6 litre Honda engine.

Other things I remember distinctly:

Motorway cruising ability ruined by a stupidly low 5th gear - 70 mph = 3,500 RPM.

Economy not great, particularly on the motorway due to above.

One of the most dreadful standard fit stereos I've ever heard in any car.

Reliability flawless apart from a failed igniter unit (common fault apparently) which did in fairness cause a breakdown.

Helpful dealer.

Hard to believe Rover is now dead and buried when a decade ago it was making cars that stood comparison to any mainstream competition. On the basis of comparing this car to others I have owned, Rover would not have been at the top of my list for likely bankruptcy.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 22nd December, 2005

15th Sep 2012, 11:19

"Hard to believe Rover is now dead and buried when a decade ago it was making cars that stood comparison to any mainstream competition".

Quite easy to believe really, as this was a badge engineered Honda. Then Honda pulled out, BMW came and and didn't invest enough in R&D of new models, so by the time they pulled out, Rover had nothing modern or competitive to sell. It was as simple as that!

Average review marks: 7.3 / 10, based on 18 reviews