1989 Rover - Austin 200 Reviews

1989 Rover - Austin 200 216sx 1.6 petrol from UK and Ireland

Year of manufacture1989
First year of ownership2003
Most recent year of ownership2004
Engine and transmission 1.6 petrol Manual
Performance marks 8 / 10
Reliability marks 9 / 10
Comfort marks 7 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 5 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
7.3 / 10
Distance when acquired47000 miles
Most recent distance52000 miles
Previous carVolkswagen Golf

Summary:

A big surprise in every part

Faults:

My head gasket is about to go, due to 52000 miles.

The interior roof is all torn at the back, due to damp.

The sunroof is leaking, hence the roof.

The rust is taking over the car.

General Comments:

The car body over all is interesting in design, with a unique style of its own.

The security isn't that good, but nothing a good alarm system couldn't solve. Which stopped someone leaving with my car by bending the door back. I still have two little dents, but the door is stronger than people think.

The car handles perfect and the driver has control of the car.

When I bought the car all I saw was a bargain runaround for a few months, but I just fell in love with the performance.

The car has never broken down on me apart from a sluggish drive once, which a good rev of the engine solved.

My only problem with the car is the rust, it is taking over the car. I have it on two doors, on both my rear wheel arches, two big holes the size of a fifty pence behind one back door, a hole under body the size of a one pence and my boot is starting to give way at the back due to someone using it as an emergency stop and then leaving.

My one confusion is that I have wind down windows, but I also have an electric sunroof.

The interior, apart from the roof is in brilliant condition, due to seat covers always being used and good house keeping.

I have a little oil leak due to my head gasket due to go, but that is expected. At least it isn't leaking in water.

It is hard to insure it at my age due to the size of the engine hence why I am trading it in for a Ford KA.

Over all I am pleased with my car and if it wasn't for the insurance and rust I would keep this car for a few more years.

When I bought this car I bought it for £300 in a standard condition, with a years tax and mot. Since then I have made it look more sporty. it is surprising how good a car like this can look. Who ever called it a granddad car obviously had no ambition in exploring.

If you get offered one of these cars try it out, you will be surprised.

The one main problem I had was that the car is a mix of so many different types, it is hard to find good modification ideas. So I came up with one of my own.

If you want to see a picture of it, or you want information on it, all you have to do is ask.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 7th March, 2004

24th Mar 2004, 12:27

Hi.

I own the same car and I would love to hear your ideas for modifications. You have not left any contact details, so if you are reading this please drop me an email at: mr_delorean (at) yahoo.com.

Thanks a lot.

Alex.

1989 Rover - Austin 200 214si 1.4 from UK and Ireland

Year of manufacture1989
First year of ownership1997
Most recent year of ownership2003
Engine and transmission 1.4 Manual
Performance marks 9 / 10
Reliability marks 9 / 10
Comfort marks 9 / 10
Dealer Service marks 9 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 9 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
9.0 / 10
Distance when acquired56000 miles
Most recent distance68000 miles
Previous carRover - Austin maxi

Summary:

I enjoy driving it!

Faults:

Very few problems. It has a rusty sub frame and comments are made every year at the MOT, but it always passes.

Parcel shelf has always rattled!

General Comments:

Drives well. Good handling, excellent acceleration, loves speed, exiting to drive.

Brakes are excellent.

Heavy on steering. Needs the right tires and slightly over pressure on front.

Comfortable, very practical.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 19th April, 2003

1989 Rover - Austin 200 213 S 1.3 petrol from UK and Ireland

Year of manufacture1989
First year of ownership2002
Most recent year of ownership2002
Engine and transmission 1.3 petrol Manual
Performance marks 6 / 10
Reliability marks 9 / 10
Comfort marks 7 / 10
Dealer Service marks 3 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 7 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
6.4 / 10
Distance when acquired110000 miles
Most recent distance119000 miles
Previous carPeugeot 205

Summary:

Not at all bad considering it's a Grandad-Mobile

Faults:

Front brake calipers both seized and stuck regularly. This causes the pads to wear out at an alarming rate.

One caliper actually burst a seal, made a lovely mess.

The rear in-drum handbrake adjustment bar snapped, made the shoes come loose, which burst a rear wheel cylinder.

Rover main dealers are a bunch of incompetent idiots. I had the wrong part sent up four times before they eventually managed to get the right handbrake adjuster.

The carb got blocked and the car stuttered badly for a few hours. Carb cleaner had it sorted in seconds.

Oh, I smacked it backwards into a wall, which crushed the boot area slightly and left a rust hole, so now my boot leaks too.

General Comments:

For a thirteen hundred cc car, this thing does not go half bad. The 12 valve Honda unit will happily rev to over 8,000 with zero trace of valve bounce.

The brakes are good when well serviced, though a little over-servo-ed (grandad-friendly) for my liking.

It's a comfy, nicely furnished thing inside, and the exterior was probably considered pretty stylish when new. Outside wears far quicker than the inside, it has rusty areas in the strangest of places... like in the middle of a door for example.

You can fling it about with some gusto, considering it's basically a re-hashed Triumph Acclaim (yuk)

The front shocks on mine aren't really up to country lanes and back roads, resulting in the two front towing eyes now being flat :D.

But for £150 with a years' tax and test, who am I to complain?

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? No

Review Date: 5th June, 2002

16th Jul 2002, 15:00

Very young? All relative I suppose...I'm 23.

Just popped outside to have a gander at the underneath of said Rover.

Lowest point of the entire car was (still is, even though both are badly flattened) the twin towing eyes at the front of the car.

Next point up is the downpipe (also lightly scored), then a small steel undertray (below the radiator).

The sump is actually higher than all these points, which isn't the case on my 205 GTi, where it protrudes even lower than the downpipe.

Towing eye damage aside, the car is still running well, although the downpipe is beginning to blow slightly. The towing eyes still catch under seriously enthusiastic driving - I must say I'm impressed at the performance of what is after all, only a 1300cc car.

Thanks for your comment, please feel free to ask any more questions :)

1989 Rover - Austin 200 216 SE EFI 1.6 from UK and Ireland

Year of manufacture1989
First year of ownership2000
Most recent year of ownership2000
Engine and transmission 1.6 Automatic
Performance marks 4 / 10
Reliability marks 3 / 10
Comfort marks 7 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 5 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
4.8 / 10
Distance when acquired79000 miles
Most recent distance82000 miles
Previous carVauxhall Astra

Summary:

A liability

Faults:

I have owned this car for 2 months and it is an accident waiting to happen. It is fine and runs well when warm other than significant power loss on hills. Cold however is a different kettle of fish, she regularly stalls and takes upwards of 30 seconds to restart.

The bodywork is deteriorating fast and it leaks like a sieve. But I know somebody with the newer 200 model and I would consider buying one of those, however I would not recommend buying a booted 200!!

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 14th November, 2000

1989 Rover - Austin 200 216 EFI Vanden Plas 1.6 petrol from UK and Ireland

Year of manufacture1989
First year of ownership1993
Most recent year of ownership2000
Engine and transmission 1.6 petrol Automatic
Performance marks 7 / 10
Reliability marks 9 / 10
Comfort marks 9 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 6 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
7.8 / 10
Distance when acquired40000 miles
Most recent distance110000 miles

Faults:

Auto transmission failed at 60,000 miles. Cost £700 to replace - annoying but these things happen! Otherwise no major faults to report with this car. The salt they put on UK roads in winter has finally taken its toll on the bodywork. Bad corrosion after 13 years forces me to scrap the car even though engine is still OK - otherwise I'd still be running it.

General Comments:

Great little car - shame about the road salt corrosion.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 7th March, 2000

Average review marks: 7.0 / 10, based on 5 reviews