1995 Rover - Austin 100 Reviews - Page 4 of 7

1995 Rover - Austin 100 1.1i 1.1 petrol from UK and Ireland

Year of manufacture1995
First year of ownership2003
Most recent year of ownership2003
Engine and transmission 1.1 petrol Manual
Performance marks 7 / 10
Reliability marks 1 / 10
Comfort marks 6 / 10
Dealer Service marks 6 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 4 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
4.8 / 10
Distance when acquired52000 miles
Most recent distance58000 miles
Previous carFord Fiesta

Summary:

Is there a bigger let down possible than life with a tarted up metro?

Faults:

Just about everything.

In the six months I have had this car, it has been to the garage at least once a month, to the point where I got to first name terms with the mechanic.

Overall has cost me £800 on repairs alone, all mechanical.

Rear arches very rusty, the mere mention of water seems to dissolve this car. Same with an elderly relative who also owns a 100, having garaged it from new, and washed it very regularly, and leaving it outside to dry if it got a bit wet at any point in the day.

Alarm key-fobs are ludicrously expensive, £90 for a replacement.

The interior trim has started rattling, even though the car has quite a low mileage.

General Comments:

This car's is a complete and utter waste of money.

It handles tidily enough, although this is no doubt helped by the lack of body roll induced by the awkward hydra gas suspension.

The interior, though comfy up front is too cramped for carrying passengers in the back. Not that you'd want to anyway for fear of killing them in the event of an accident (1 star is not good, even Fiat's minuscule Seicento did better, and that's even smaller)

Engine wise, its not too bad. Until you need to travel over 200 miles with people in the back. A combination of stupidly small fuel tank plus stunted performance means that such a journey would be both painfully slow (through lack of speed), and peppered with stops to service stations (to brim the fuel tank with less than twenty quid's worth of fuel)

Overall, this car has failed to live up to low expectations, and my money would have been better spent on train fares, (which would surely have been a far more enjoyable way of getting about than in this abomination)

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? No

Review Date: 26th October, 2003

1995 Rover - Austin 100 Kensington 1.1 from UK and Ireland

Year of manufacture1995
First year of ownership2001
Most recent year of ownership2003
Engine and transmission 1.1 Manual
Performance marks 8 / 10
Reliability marks 5 / 10
Comfort marks 9 / 10
Dealer Service marks 9 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 10 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
8.2 / 10

Summary:

Economical

Faults:

Needed two new batteries in the two years that I have owned the car.

Needed a new starter motor and alternator.

The push in button on the car boot got jammed in and prevented me from closing and locking the car boot.

The sun roof sealant wore away and was leaking water into the car.

Had to have the central locking fixed when I bought the car, but the passenger side door still does not lock and has to be locked manually.

General Comments:

As the first car that I have owned since passing my driving test I found this a very easy car to drive.

The visibility is excellent.

I do sometimes have problems getting the car into reverse gear.

The car does not have power steering, but this is only noticeable when turning around very sharp corners.

The seats are comfortable and there is plenty of leg room, as well as in the back seats.

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

Review Date: 25th May, 2003

1995 Rover - Austin 100 i 1.1 petrol from UK and Ireland

Year of manufacture1995
First year of ownership2003
Most recent year of ownership2003
Engine and transmission 1.1 petrol Manual
Performance marks 8 / 10
Reliability marks 7 / 10
Comfort marks 8 / 10
Dealer Service marks 8 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 8 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
7.8 / 10
Distance when acquired52000 miles
Most recent distance56000 miles
Previous carFord Fiesta

Summary:

One of the better supermini's

Faults:

Water pump blew, caused by overheating.

Overheating caused by dodgy radiator; replaced for £100.

Difficult to fit aftermarket wheel trims due to odd shape of wheels.

Expensive replacement remotes.

Nasty flat spot at low revs in second gear, not sure what this is yet.

Brake disks were warped; cost £200 to replace.

Sagging suspension.

Iffy handbrake; the warning light is a bit temperamental.

Someone snapped off my wing mirror :- (

General Comments:

This car is much better than the more modern MK3 Fiesta. My 1990 1.0 Fiesta was so unrefined after driving the Rover that I didn't want to drive it home. The engine is very quiet and responsive, surprisingly so considering its size. My Fiesta cost me £300, the Rover £500, yet the Rover is much, much better.

Considering the Rover is effectively a 1970's design, it puts the 80's Fiesta to shame. The engine is smooth, it has 5 gears, and it has a cigarette lighter! The handling is also a lot better than the Fiesta. The Fiesta lost grip too easily, this loses it a lot later, which gives a bit more confidence.

It's a little on the small side, but small cars have grown a lot since the original mini metro!

The crash test results are a bit of a worry, but in a car this size you'd be stupid to think it was going to be as safe as something bigger. Anyway, the Corsa, Clio, Fiesta and Micra only got one more star. If you crashed at 70mph in any car, you stand a good chance of being killed.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 18th May, 2003

Average review marks: 6.7 / 10, based on 27 reviews