1992 Rover - Austin 200 Reviews

1992 Rover - Austin 200 SLi 1.6 16v from UK and Ireland

Year of manufacture1992
Most recent year of ownership2006
Engine and transmission 1.6 16v 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 acquired112000 miles
Most recent distance124000 miles

Summary:

Cheap small family car with a powerful engine. 8/10

Faults:

Exhaust was blowing. fixed for £45.

Driver side wing mirror broke. The actual mirror cost £25!

Electric windows don't work and the manual ones in the back have seized up.

Steering pulls to one side. I think the balancing is out.

Sometimes hesitates to start after a harsh night.

Rust is getting worse, but it is a 15 year old car.

When the cars sat there on the drive (engine turned off) it sometimes makes a strange whining noise for a few seconds and then stops. Does your Rover 200 do this? Please comment.

3 flat tyres!

General Comments:

This is my first car. It was given to me by my mum and I drive it as a named driver under her insurance.

Its very vast for what it is and can embarrass a lot of newer, smarter, more sporty looking cars.

It doesn't handle to well though which is a shame because the fun factor is taken away to a degree.

This car has suffered a lot of abuse from me and still runs like new. The Honda engine is bullet proof.

They look dated these days and lack street cred, but they were once quite smart cars.

Excellent driving position, comfy and quite spacious in the back.

Surprisingly economical for a 1.6. I once drove from Hull to Bridlington and about half way home on a fiver of petrol!

These cars are very cheap to buy and if you find a tidy example you shouldn't be disappointed. My cars in a bit of a bad way now, but still does what I ask of it without any real problems.

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

Review Date: 20th February, 2007

14th Mar 2007, 09:42

I have actually just recently sold the Rover and now drive a Saxo which is a better car in most areas.

6th Apr 2007, 10:12

Yeah right mate

Roever really are rubbish, you need to ditch the saxo too as that is right chavvy.

17th Apr 2007, 12:10

Aw come on mate you can do better than a saxo. which one do you have?

29th Apr 2007, 10:41

Right on dude, rovers suck. but saxo are brilliant, no problems there.

12th Oct 2007, 17:34

Saxo's are a girlies car mate.

1992 Rover - Austin 200 SLI 1.4/4 petrol from UK and Ireland

Year of manufacture1992
First year of ownership1997
Most recent year of ownership2005
Engine and transmission 1.4/4 petrol Manual
Performance marks 7 / 10
Reliability marks 9 / 10
Comfort marks 6 / 10
Dealer Service marks 7 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 7 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
7.2 / 10
Distance when acquired80000 miles
Most recent distance1600000 miles
Previous carTriumph Dolomite

Summary:

Economical though lacking in wow factor and it's build quality could be better

Faults:

The first thing to go wrong was that the windscreen wipers mysteriously stopped working after six months. Though was quick and easy to fix it was just a case of minor re-wiring.

The starter motor became quite tired in 1999 and was replaced.

In 2000 I noticed the car was running hot, so I took the car to the garage to find out whether in their view the governor for the colling system needed replacement or the radiator. This took some time initially they felt it was the governer so that was replaced, however this problem soon occured again when I went to work therefore it was in fact the radiator which required replacement. It proved to be a slightly costly exercide costing altogether somewhere in the region of 400-450 pounds.

The clutch was replaced at 130,000 miles.

The bumpers also faded in the light into a light grey looking colour and I repainted the bumpers several times.

The body-shell did seem to not be a durable as hoped as there was many small dents around the doors.

The sunroof also began to leak in 2002, though by this time the seals were not worth replacing.

Also the interior did not wear age well and the plastics were flimsy and of a poor quality feel.

Other than one or two other small electrical niggles towards the end of it's life it has been reliable.

General Comments:

The car is very reliable causing so few problems in general that I have ended up keeping the car until it finally failed it's M.O.T.

The seats could be more comfortable however, and the cheap plastics devalue what is otherwise a very good car.

The fuel economy is good and can return over 35mpg on a reasonably long-run, and the performance of the engine is also adequate and not weedy like some reasonably economical engines.

The driving experience is underwhelming often feeling a little remote, limiting the exitement to be had.

Generally the materials used could be better, as if the materials used in the interior and exterior matched the quality and reliability of the engine then this car really would last a considerable period of time.

It also can be a little expensive to maintain in comparison to other cars in it's class.

The dealership service was always good, but not fantastic as with the cooling problem it took a while for the problem to be fixed and at a fair expense too which may of been unnecessary.

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

Review Date: 18th April, 2006

Average review marks: 7.5 / 10, based on 34 reviews