1992 Rover - Austin 200 Reviews - Page 3 of 8

1992 Rover - Austin 200 216 Cabriolet 1.6 16v DOHC from UK and Ireland

Year of manufacture1992
First year of ownership2001
Most recent year of ownership2003
Engine and transmission 1.6 16v DOHC Manual
Performance marks 8 / 10
Reliability marks 9 / 10
Comfort marks 6 / 10
Dealer Service marks 5 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 7 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
7.0 / 10
Distance when acquired27000 miles
Most recent distance42000 miles
Previous carVauxhall Cavalier

Summary:

Fast, reliable, open top fun

Faults:

The clutch needed replacing and the flywheel skimming at 35,000 miles.

General Comments:

The performance of the 1.6 twin cam Honda built engine is outstanding, however it has to be worked to get the most out of it with the power only really coming in after 3,500 rpm.

Considering that it's a cabriolet, it's remarkably rattle free, but is somewhat noisy at motorway speeds.

The stiff suspension gives a bumpy ride, but it does corner well with the hood up, with the hood down it suffers quite a lot from the chassis flexing.

It's very well specified with 15" alloys, factory fitted alarm, electric windows and mirrors, power hood, central locking and sports seats as original equipment.

It starts first time every time and has never let me down.

For reliable, fast and fun open top motoring at a sensible price, I think that it's very difficult to beat and when I replace it later in the year I am going to get another one, just newer.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 3rd January, 2003

8th Jun 2013, 22:49

"With the hood down it suffers quite a lot from chassis flexing"

The roof of your car is made of fabric. It adds no rigidity to the chassis of the vehicle, up or down.

1992 Rover - Austin 200 216 gsi 1.6 from UK and Ireland

Year of manufacture1992
First year of ownership2000
Most recent year of ownership2002
Engine and transmission 1.6 Manual
Performance marks 8 / 10
Reliability marks 10 / 10
Comfort marks 8 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 5 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
7.8 / 10
Distance when acquired95000 miles
Most recent distance130000 miles
Previous carFord Fiesta

Summary:

Most powerful 1.6 I have every driven

Faults:

Clutch cable broke.

Electrical fault, £80 replacement.

Rusty wheel arches.

Bonnet dull and badly flaking.

Electric sunroof needs a push to pop up.

Why is the sunroof shade fixed over? No point in having a sunroof!

Steering wobbles at 65mph, not tracking.

Radiator replaced at 100k.

General Comments:

Most nippy car I have ever driven.

Needs a 6th gear, far too high revs.

Noisy on motorway.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 1st November, 2002

1992 Rover - Austin 200 Si 1.4 from UK and Ireland

Year of manufacture1992
First year of ownership2001
Engine and transmission 1.4 Manual
Performance marks 8 / 10
Reliability marks 8 / 10
Comfort marks 10 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 8 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
8.5 / 10
Distance when acquired96000 miles
Most recent distance112000 miles

Summary:

Service history doesn't guarantee a bargain

Faults:

The gearbox main shaft seal into the clutch generally fails, resulting in gearbox oil leaking onto the clutch, resulting in the clutch slipping. Many a 1992 Rover has gone in for clutch repair only, to learn that they need new gearbox.

General Comments:

The car is very responsive.

You feel very in control, no oversteer.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 22nd April, 2002

1992 Rover - Austin 200 216 GSi 1.6 (Honda unit) from UK and Ireland

Year of manufacture1992
Engine and transmission 1.6 (Honda unit) Automatic
Performance marks 7 / 10
Reliability marks 8 / 10
Comfort marks 7 / 10
Dealer Service marks 7 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 7 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
7.2 / 10
Distance when acquired0 miles
Most recent distance0 miles
Previous carPeugeot 205

Summary:

Looks nice all over, great value for the money. Pick a good one and check for rust

Faults:

Radiator needs replacing soon.

Small electrical problems.

Some rust around the arches and screen.

Interior door handle loose.

Poor paint quality in some areas.

Interior/dashboard creaks and squeeks.

General Comments:

For the money this car is very nicely spec`d and has a lot of equipment.

The interior is tasteful, stylish and airy and comfortable.

The 1.6 Honda unit is very smooth quiet and reasonably powerful (Alternatives are the 1.4 Rover engine and the 1.8 Peugept diesel, AVOID THESE! Make sure it's a Honda engine!)

I think the exterior is very understated, but it's a compact design that is pleasant to look at.

The only downside to this car is the handling that does not give that much feedback and isn't all that responsive. Suspension and steering are vague.

I have the feeling these cars will rust once they age any more!

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 28th February, 2002

2nd Mar 2002, 06:06

The 216 engine is great, but there isn't a bad engine in the 200 range, so long as they are serviced dilingently.

Get some rustproofer on the body before it's too late, although I have never seen a rotten '89 on 200.

Good driving!

25th Jul 2004, 06:33

Hi, how do you tell if it's a Honda engine?, i'm interested in buying a 216SLi Lreg Auto

Many Thanks.

Dave.

13th Aug 2004, 08:06

All the Rover 216 have Honda Engines. The differences are in whether it is a twin or single cam and I know that some of the older Concertos had carbs rather than injectors. There are also some models that don't have the cat which are more powerful.

I have a twin cam 1.6 in a Concerto SE and am very pleased with it. Although I don't know how some people seem to get 40 mpg out of this engine in the Rovers. I only seem to get the book 33 mpg.

Now at 64000 miles the input shaft bearing is going to need replacing and may as well get the clutch done at the same time. Other than that, a binding rear caliper has been the only problem.

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