1995 Rover - Austin 200 Reviews - Page 6 of 9

1995 Rover - Austin 200 220 Coupe 2.0 16v from UK and Ireland

Year of manufacture	1995
First year of ownership	1999
Most recent year of ownership	2001
Engine and transmission	2.0 16v Manual
Performance marks	8 / 10
Reliability marks	9 / 10
Comfort marks	8 / 10
Dealer Service marks	4 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper)	7 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)	7.2 / 10
Distance when acquired	19000 miles
Most recent distance	32000 miles
Previous car	Peugeot 309 GTi

Summary:

Underrated

Faults:

Dodgy courtesy light switch.

Oil leak (I've learnt to live with it).

General Comments:

Prone to power understeer which can be quite entertaining, especially in the wet. Average handling, could do with more grip, which explains the high tyre wear.

Nice interior, really comes alive above 4000 rpm. I still think that they are one of the best looking coupes on the road.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 17th January, 2001

1995 Rover - Austin 200 220 GSI Turbo 2.0 16v turbo petrol from UK and Ireland

Year of manufacture	1995
First year of ownership	1995
Most recent year of ownership	2001
Engine and transmission	2.0 16v turbo petrol Manual
Performance marks	10 / 10
Reliability marks	8 / 10
Comfort marks	6 / 10
Dealer Service marks	5 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper)	8 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)	7.4 / 10
Distance when acquired	7 miles
Most recent distance	46000 miles
Previous car	Rover - Austin 220 GTI Turbo

Summary:

Overall a great car

Faults:

Transmission failed at 44,000 miles, very expensive to replace.

Head gasket leaks (messy, not a serious problem).

The usual suspension bushes.

General Comments:

My fifth Rover and the best one of all until the diff bearings broke up and wrecked the transmission. I suppose though that as the engine has been chipped to 260 BHP that something eventually would break!

It goes like a rocket - 0-60 in 5.8 sec. Top speed (on a private track) 156 mph and returns a steady 32 MPG in everyday driving.

The ride is very hard and the handling just about adequate.

Overall it has been great fun and in performance terms, nothing else could touch it for the price.

I ought to change it now but what do I buy to replace it!

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 6th January, 2001

30th Mar 2001, 15:28

260 bhp. What have you done to the engine? I find this figure very hard to believe.

4th Jun 2001, 16:12

Not really, just chip it. My mate's was 255 and that was a 620 TI. Immense fun.

19th Jan 2003, 12:38

This is not totally unbelievable! It is possible to get 250bhp out of the 1.8 k-series engine, without major engine mods, so it cannot be that unbelievable to get it out of a two litre engine that also has a turbo. They push out 200+ as standard!!!

25th Apr 2003, 12:19

If your running 260bhp then stop straight away and turn the boost down, the standard pistons and bottom end will only take 250 max. if you carry on then you'll probably end up with piston melt down or a cracked crankshaft. You need forged pistons and a billet steel crank to run over 250 safely, these bits are available from Moto build or rover specialists.

1995 Rover - Austin 200 216 SLi 1.6i from UK and Ireland

Year of manufacture	1995
First year of ownership	2000
Most recent year of ownership	2001
Engine and transmission	1.6i Automatic
Performance marks	8 / 10
Reliability marks	8 / 10
Comfort marks	8 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper)	8 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)	8.0 / 10
Distance when acquired	43000 miles
Most recent distance	45000 miles
Previous car	Nissan Sunny

Summary:

Excellent. A dream car for the money

Faults:

Clock (but fixed under warranty).

General Comments:

An excellent car. I love it. It's stylish and has great performance from only a 1.6i engine. The Honda influence certainly shines through.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 4th January, 2001

1995 Rover - Austin 200 214 SEi 1.4 16v from UK and Ireland

Year of manufacture	1995
First year of ownership	2000
Most recent year of ownership	2000
Engine and transmission	1.4 16v Manual
Performance marks	9 / 10
Reliability marks	8 / 10
Comfort marks	10 / 10
Dealer Service marks	10 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper)	7 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)	8.8 / 10
Distance when acquired	67200 miles
Most recent distance	70000 miles
Previous car	Rover - Austin Montego

Summary:

Perky, comfortable refined bargain

General Comments:

Quick car that has a deceivingly perky 1.4 t/c engine. It encouages you to drive quickly!

Alloys, spoiler and half leather Recaro sports seats make the car really look the part.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 10th December, 2000

9th Jan 2001, 07:16

I am 17 and I was bought a Rover 214 Si 1995 'M' for Christmas. I think it's nice as it has got this really nice shaped steering wheel. I was wondering what could I do to make the car look any better? i.e a kit or something but not too tacky like big exhausts etc because they look crap!!

I have had 2 XR2's and currently own 3 Ford Capris, but the Rover is much nicer car overall!!

1995 Rover - Austin 200 216 Coupe Tomcat 1.6 petrol from UK and Ireland

Year of manufacture	1995
First year of ownership	1998
Most recent year of ownership	2000
Engine and transmission	1.6 petrol Manual
Performance marks	7 / 10
Reliability marks	9 / 10
Comfort marks	8 / 10
Dealer Service marks	6 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper)	9 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)	7.8 / 10
Distance when acquired	42000 miles
Most recent distance	60100 miles
Previous car	Peugeot 205 GTI 1.9

Summary:

Coupe fun without losing your license

Faults:

New front discs (2 sets in 3 years).

Exhaust cat heat shield mount broken.

General Comments:

The best fun per pound I know of. Enormous fun to throw around and an engine which begs to be revved.

Comfy, fairly commodious for a coupe and with a half-decent boot it is an engaging companion anywhere but on the motorway where its revviness and wind around the great T-bar roof make it tiresome.

Could use more power but the chassis is so well matched to the engine it's not really important.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 30th November, 2000

19th May 2001, 14:03

I agree - I've had a 216 coupe for 18 months and its great. A bit noisy on the motorway but great fun and faster than you think.

Rover should still make them and call them mgbgts!!!

9th Sep 2001, 04:31

Original poster here -

We just had to sell the Tomcat (BooHoo!) as the kids need more space.

We covered 27k miles in 3.4 years. The car never broke down, and passed every MOT without any work.

It cost us 4 tyres, 2 front disc rotors and an exhaust back box in all that time.

The car still looked stunning when we sold it and the new owner seemed delighted with this car!

It was almost as much fun to throw around as my Integra type-R , and I don't say that lightly.

Advice to anyone considering selling their Tomcat is to keep it as standard as possible, that was the main selling point and let me get top book money for it.

Get a clean one with a full service history and they're wonderful, reliable fun bargains.

20th Jan 2002, 14:59

Bought an ex company VVC in met purple.

Brilliant car for under 6 grand. More fun than the 306 XSi I had before.

Recommended to anyone who values fun over posing.

30th Jul 2002, 03:58

Bought a 216 Coupe in 2001 - a silver "L" reg. It's now covered 67,000 miles, has never failed to start, has never broken down, has never failed an MOT and still gets admiring glances when being driven around town (usually Stratford-Upon-Avon) with the roof off, windows down and stereo up. I love it - and have zero complaints at all. Recently had it valued by a dealer mate of mine, and it seems to be depreciating really slowly now, too...

2nd Nov 2002, 05:07

I bought a 220 turbo after 2 years with a 216 coupe and it was all over the road, torque steering and understeering every time you touched the accelerator. We're looking for a vvc 1.8 model coupe now as a good compromise. The lower powered Tomcats are really the ones to have as the power doesn't overwhelm the chassis.