1993 Rover - Austin 200 Reviews - Page 3 of 6

1993 Rover - Austin 200 216 GSi 1.6 from UK and Ireland

Year of manufacture1993
First year of ownership1994
Most recent year of ownership2003
Engine and transmission 1.6 Automatic
Performance marks 8 / 10
Reliability marks 9 / 10
Comfort marks 8 / 10
Dealer Service marks 5 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
7.5 / 10
Distance when acquired9000 miles
Most recent distance135000 miles
Previous carFord Orion

Summary:

Small agile fast and reliable - perfect ladies car

Faults:

Radiator needed recoring at 120k

Head needed welding up to seal a minor leak into a cylinder. Reason being my wife had a hose leak and the man from the AA filled it up with tap water - Don't DO THIS! An alloy engine needs the anti corrosion ingredients in anti freeze - even though its summer.

Slight corrosion now around the rear wheel arches.

General Comments:

Had this car since one year old. It was used as company bus towing double axle trailers as well as a family car for eight years. In the end I bought it off the company for a couple of hundred quid as a second car- and it still goes, each time every time. 135k on the clock now and it runs sweet as nut. Think I shall keep it until it dies!!

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 8th April, 2003

1993 Rover - Austin 200 214 Si K-Series 1.4 16v DOHC from UK and Ireland

Year of manufacture1993
First year of ownership2000
Most recent year of ownership2002
Engine and transmission K-Series 1.4 16v DOHC Manual
Performance marks 9 / 10
Reliability marks 8 / 10
Comfort marks 8 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 8 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
8.3 / 10
Distance when acquired113000 miles
Most recent distance149500 miles
Previous carFord Fiesta

Summary:

Excellent power for a 1.4, great fun to drive

Faults:

Head gasket went at about 125K miles - fairly common for this engine apparently. Repair was done badly and went again 5 months later; had it re-done at a better garage and no further problems.

Valve seats needed re-grinding recently, after I noticed lack of power.

Thermostat also replaced recently because it failed and caused overheating in traffic.

Minor electrical problems: loose connection to alternator, ditto throttle position sensor - easily rectified.

Occasional clutch judder.

Finally, not something that went wrong wrong as such, but the coil is placed in a position where it seems to collect moisture and splashes from puddles, so is prone to corrosion and can briefly lose power if you drive through big puddles.

General Comments:

Love it! The engine is ace for a 1.4 - out-performs many cars with much bigger engines, and (assuming the speedo is accurate, which it probably isn't) I had 124mph out of it once :-)

Handling sometimes prone to under-steer, but feedback from the wheels is excellent so it's easy to catch and correct. Mine doesn't have power steering (most models do I gather), and my girlfriend sometimes struggles with parking.

Average about 40mpg commuting York-Leeds daily.

Loads of boot space, and generally practical as well as great fun.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 28th October, 2002

1993 Rover - Austin 200 220 GTi 2.0 16v petrol from UK and Ireland

Year of manufacture1993
First year of ownership2000
Most recent year of ownership2002
Engine and transmission 2.0 16v petrol Manual
Performance marks 9 / 10
Reliability marks 8 / 10
Comfort marks 9 / 10
Dealer Service marks 8 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 7 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
8.2 / 10
Distance when acquired67500 miles
Most recent distance89000 miles
Previous carFord Escort

Summary:

Seriously capable and underrated hot hatch

Faults:

Oil leak from cam cover

Clutch release bearing started to break up.

Rear wash/wipe stopped working.

General Comments:

Very surprising car. 140 brake 2.0 engine gives excellent performance, with good torque from low revs. Much quicker than a Golf GTI 16v, which surprises a few people. Handling is okay - overassisted steering robs feel, but the chassis itself is actually very capable.

Lovely interior with decent (half leather) seats, good quality plastics and clear instruments. The exterior styling has dated well, and the car still looks good when cleaned up. There are few squeaks and rattles too, despite 89,000 miles.

A fast, reliable and sadly underrated car, which attracts very little attention from thieves or from the police. It's also a total bargain at todays prices - a good one could be yours for less than a grand.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 6th October, 2002

3rd Sep 2004, 14:35

The 220 is good, but the 216 GTi Twin-Cam is way better as it is far more reliable and slightly more free revving than the 220. The 216 has a Honda engine which is derived from the CRX, hence the reliability and it gives 130bhp, so is not much different to the 2.0. The only reason it was ditched in favour of the 220 is because Rover knew the 216 was better, and would overshadow their 2.0 home grown engine.

1993 Rover - Austin 200 Si 1.4 petrol from UK and Ireland

Year of manufacture1993
First year of ownership2002
Most recent year of ownership2002
Engine and transmission 1.4 petrol Manual
Performance marks 8 / 10
Reliability marks 7 / 10
Comfort marks 3 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 5 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
5.8 / 10
Distance when acquired82000 miles
Most recent distance82000 miles
Previous carToyota Corolla

Summary:

Very quick, but poor seating quality and driving position.

Faults:

Just had the car a week. She was running exceptionally hot in traffic so I took a look at the water levels - completely dry. There was an air lock in the system which also caused the heater not to work.

General Comments:

Just had the car a week now. The car looks good, but again, it's not really a young person's car is it?

It's startlingly quick. Very zippy indeed.

Also, it gets around 41mpg on the motorway.

My biggest complaint are the poor quality of the seating - materials and driving position. The driver cannot adjust the seat and it doesn't give sufficient back support.

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

Review Date: 3rd September, 2002

Average review marks: 7.2 / 10, based on 30 reviews