1997 Rover - Austin 100 Reviews

1997 Rover - Austin 100 Knightsbridge SE 1.1 from UK and Ireland

Year of manufacture1997
First year of ownership2001
Most recent year of ownership2004
Engine and transmission 1.1 Manual
Performance marks 8 / 10
Reliability marks 10 / 10
Comfort marks 8 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 8 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
8.5 / 10
Distance when acquired64000 miles
Most recent distance69000 miles
Previous carRover - Austin 100

Summary:

Under Rate (often laughed at) Gem of a car

Faults:

Since purchasing the car I haven't had any major problems with it.

The only real concern is the back bumper which seems to hang a little bit lower on the right hand rear side.

The front passenger seat also doesn't fold forward, but this was a fault that occurred at the dealer from which I purchased the car.

General Comments:

People often make fun of the Rover 100 'Metro', but this really is a cheeky little runner with plenty of bite if driven properly.

The 1.1 Liter engine performs much better than previous 'Metro' engines. It's fairly quick of the mark and really cruises well in 5th on long drives.

The interior is comfortable with very attractive velor seat covers and trim.

The Steering wheel is also much more comfortable than my previous H Reg Metro 1.1L.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 9th February, 2004

1997 Rover - Austin 100 Knightsbridge 1.1 litre from UK and Ireland

Year of manufacture1997
First year of ownership2003
Engine and transmission 1.1 litre Manual
Performance marks 7 / 10
Reliability marks 7 / 10
Comfort marks 6 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 8 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
7.0 / 10
Distance when acquired31000 miles
Most recent distance35000 miles
Previous carPeugeot 106

Summary:

An under-rated little gem

Faults:

Nothing - other than a good wash after purchase the car has needed no work done on it whatsoever.

General Comments:

We owned an R plate Peugeot 106. When the baby came along we traded it in for a nearly new Mondeo. I then bought a P plate Rover 100 Knightsbridge in a private deal. The car had only covered 31,900 miles and came with a new MOT and a full main dealer service history. The car was very clean inside and only required a good wash & polish outside. I've now done 4,000 miles in the car and it has been very pleasant with no faults other than the cassette player which didn't work. It turned out the previous lady owner who owned the car from new had never played it!! Replacing the original Rover unit with a radio/CD player took 2 minutes as the Rover wiring was first class. The car is only 1.1 litre, but will do 95mph and yet driven sensibly can achieve 52mpg on a drive into central London. I have been well pleased with my bargain buy which is also cheap to insure, tax and run.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 9th October, 2003

1997 Rover - Austin 100 114GSi 1.4 petrol from UK and Ireland

Year of manufacture1997
First year of ownership2000
Most recent year of ownership2003
Engine and transmission 1.4 petrol Manual
Performance marks 3 / 10
Reliability marks 0 / 10
Comfort marks 3 / 10
Dealer Service marks 0 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 5 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
2.2 / 10
Distance when acquired12000 miles
Most recent distance48000 miles
Previous carMG Rover Mini Cooper 1.3MPI

Summary:

Abysmal

Faults:

Gearbox failed at 20,000 miles

Head Gasket went at 32,000 miles

Floor pan now rotten at 48,000 miles.

General Comments:

Rover products are seriously poor. This car was bought as a Rover approved used vehicle with minimal mileage on it. Then the problems started, first with the gearbox failure, then the head gasket and now finally with the rotten floor pan despite regular servicing by Rover and a Waxoyled shell every year.

The car has never been abused nor has it ever been in an accident. Our Rover Mini exhibited rusted floor pans at 3 years old and that too had numerous problems including a duff synchromesh on second. My fifteen year old Honda however still preforms like a new vehicle and looks like new.

Do yourself a favour and do not touch BMC/Rover. 2 cars, both abysmal experiences. Dealerships are poor too and parts availability is a joke.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? No

Review Date: 2nd July, 2003

10th Aug 2006, 08:52

Interesting, I have had both a Rover 100 and a MPi Mini Cooper, The 100 ran to 114,000 miles without a fault and was still going strong when we part exchanged it for the MG ZTT. The Mini Cooper MPi was in fact the John Cooper S Works version and was a blast. It covered 60,000 faultless miles before selling (girlfriend wanted me to have something larger, guess she meant the car!!!).

1997 Rover - Austin 100 Knightsbridge SE 1.1 from UK and Ireland

Year of manufacture1997
First year of ownership2002
Most recent year of ownership2003
Engine and transmission 1.1 Manual
Performance marks 6 / 10
Reliability marks 8 / 10
Comfort marks 7 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 6 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
6.8 / 10
Distance when acquired3000 miles
Most recent distance15000 miles
Previous carHyundai Scoupe

Summary:

An underrated British Classic!

Faults:

Nothing major has gone wrong with the car so far.

General Comments:

I bought this car because of its low mileage - 3000 on a 5 year old car! Was previously owned by an elderly gent who took it to the shops once a week. Now that the car is properly run in it is much smoother to drive and has perked up in the acceleration department.

I get stick from work mates about my "metro" but I am the one who is laughing - an almost "new" car which cost me next to nothing to buy. With it having such low mileage I expect nothing major to go wrong with it.

I would urge anyone not to dismiss this little car until they have driven it. Yes its not the fastest car on the roads, but it is nippy enough to keep up with the flow of traffic. It is also very comfortable to drive and the hydra-gas suspension soaks up the bumps.

The only thing that I miss is power steering, but hey that saves me on gym fees! Once the car is on the move the steering is fine, it is just at parking speeds that you notice the lack of power steering.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 21st May, 2003

Average review marks: 6.3 / 10, based on 6 reviews