1995 Rover - Austin 100 Reviews - Page 5 of 7

1995 Rover - Austin 100 Kensington 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 6 / 10
Reliability marks 8 / 10
Comfort marks 8 / 10
Dealer Service marks 7 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 9 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
7.6 / 10
Distance when acquired85000 miles
Most recent distance86000 miles
Previous carVauxhall Nova

Summary:

Easy to drive, no frills bargain!

Faults:

The rear box of the exhaust was very rusty when we bought the car, and fell off on the way home! Had a new one fitted for £35.

As with most Rover cars I've owned, the steering wheel has been fitted at a slightly wrong angle - nothing serious though.

Wheel arches have started to rust, but this seems to be a common problem.

General Comments:

The Rover 100 is a lovely car to drive.

It is very economical, cheap to insure, quite comfortable, and doesn't look too bad!

I've had a few of the Rover Metros, and have always found them to be very good. The K-series engines are excellent, although I've noticed they do sometimes get a bit of a flat spot when accelerating if not regularly serviced.

Compared to other cars of its age, its quite basic. But in some ways that's part of its charm! It's very easy to drive & park, and is a lot better on the motorways than the older Metros.

Overall I've found it a very nice car to drive, and you can pick them up quite cheap. Me and other members of my family have all owned a few Rovers, and I can certainly justify buying another one.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 1st March, 2003

1995 Rover - Austin 100 Kensington SE 1.1 from UK and Ireland

Year of manufacture1995
First year of ownership1999
Most recent year of ownership2003
Engine and transmission 1.1 Manual
Performance marks 10 / 10
Reliability marks 10 / 10
Comfort marks 8 / 10
Dealer Service marks 8 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 1 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
7.4 / 10
Distance when acquired45168 miles
Most recent distance71165 miles
Previous carNissan Sunny

Summary:

A £3500 maintenance bill

Faults:

All 4 hydra-gas units have had to be replaced twice.

Hydragas untis have to be pumped up every 3 weeks.

Starter motor has been replaced twice in 3 years.

New radiator fitted, due to the old one falling apart with rust.

2 new cam-belts fitted in the last 20000 miles.

Left side suspension collapsed the day after I bought the car.

New headlamp fitted, due to old one filling up with rain water.

New fuel tank fitted, due to the old one having 20 centimeters of rust holes.

General Comments:

The car is very quick and responsive.

However the braking is very questionable.

The interior is made up of ex Austin Metro parts.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 26th January, 2003

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

Year of manufacture1995
First year of ownership2001
Most recent year of ownership2002
Engine and transmission 1.1i Manual
Performance marks 9 / 10
Reliability marks 9 / 10
Comfort marks 5 / 10
Dealer Service marks 8 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 9 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
8.0 / 10
Distance when acquired22000 miles
Most recent distance27000 miles
Previous carFord Ford Escort

Summary:

A nippy stylish little cutie

Faults:

In heavy rain water comes through the sun roof.

And the seats started to wear badly.

General Comments:

I think the Rover 100 is underrated a lot it has everything I want. Its quick I've shocked a few 1.4's in it. And its so cheap to run you can fill it up for 15 pound. but it can be very scary to drive when there is heavy rain. but all round I'm very happy with it.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 13th October, 2002

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

Year of manufacture1995
First year of ownership2002
Most recent year of ownership2002
Engine and transmission 1.1i petrol Manual
Performance marks 8 / 10
Reliability marks 10 / 10
Comfort marks 8 / 10
Dealer Service marks 2 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 9 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
7.4 / 10
Distance when acquired68700 miles
Most recent distance69500 miles
Previous carVauxhall Astra

Summary:

An excellent and underrated car which will provide stirling service

Faults:

When the car was purchased it had been left standing outside for just over a year, which has taken it's toll on the car. Much of the work I have had done on it was because of this. So far, I have had:

4 new tyres

New front brake pads

New radiator and top radiator pipe

New exhaust

New cam/timing belt

New alternator belt

4 lines in the rear window demister had to be repaired with silver conductive paint.

I also had the oil changed, but this was a 'just in case' measure.

Apart from that little lot, nothing has gone wrong with the car in the 800 miles of heavy driving that it has got so far, and nothing looks likely to either.

General Comments:

People often slag the revamped Metro/100 off and, really, it's unfair. The body looks similar to the old Austin Metro, and the interior is even more similar to the old Metro, but looks are only skin deep.

Inside, this is a totally different car. It has had numerous improvements and refinements, the most significant of which is the new K-series engine.

My car will comfortably cruise along for hours and hours at 85, can be easily pushed up to 90, and if you really rag her hard she will go all the way up to 96 - which isn't half bad for an 1120cc 8 valve single point fuel injection engine. 96 is also it's published top speed - so it's nice to know that she can still get up there after 7 years.

She's very responsive and can get you out of trouble just as well as some more powerful cars (so long as it's under 90MPH trouble).

You wouldn't usually think of a Metro as a motorway car, but so long as you are comfortable with driving at sub-100 speeds, this one is fine for 1 or 2 people.

It's very economical to run, which when cruising on a long journey will give you over 200 miles in exchange for £10 of petrol. When making short journeys locally, this does of course drop, but you still get about 150 miles for £10.

The front seats are big and comfortable, and with the rear seats folded down you can fit a huge amount of stuff in the back.

There may be no air conditioning, but the ventilation is fine and with the sunroof open you can still get a nice cool draught going through the car.

About the only problem you will have on the motorway is the fact that the fuel tank isn't terribly big and will only hold around £25 worth of petrol, so if your trip is particularly long you will need to refill at some stage.

There is, admittedly, not a lot of room for rear seat passengers, but this is hardly a family car is it?

The remote control central locking gives the car a nice bit of respectable style, as does it's metallic kingfisher blue paintwork.

About the only gripe I have with the car is the crappy factory fitted sound system. A bog standard radio cassette (the bottom of the range one in the 1995 Rover range - no Dolby on the cassette or RDS on the radio) connected to 2 low powered door mounted speakers is not what I'd call high performance. They could at least have installed cabling for the rear speakers (there are rear speaker grills provided) to make adding them easier, but they haven't. But as I rarely like to have the radio loud in the car, this is only a minor problem.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 31st August, 2002

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