11th Mar 2005, 12:58
I Have an L reg 220 GTI and love it. Bought for the wife to commute, but too hairy for her! I seem to have replaced most stuff under the bonnet plus exhaust etc and it goes like a bomb and I love it. The rear parcel shelf rattles a bit as does the exhaust since the bracket is missing at the front, but I won't replace it until the exhaust itself goes as they come together. 102000 miles so far (bought at 90) and really quick - glad to hear that it's quicker than the Golf GTI 16v, but I don't know the figures.
25th Mar 2005, 17:09
I've just bought a 220gti, and----I LIKE IT. Doesn't feel quite as quick as my old Pug 405 MI16 though, although the official stats say it is. Definitely drives better though. As to the 2l engine being overshadowed by the Honda 1.6l unit, NO WAY, I know, I've also got a CRX Del Sol SiR. The reason Rover dropped the Honda unit I think is MPG, or rather lack of them. Apparently, the 220gti will give almost 40mpg at 65mph, the Honda unit (whether 1.6l or 1.6 vtec only gives around 32mpg). My experience with the DelSol bears this out. The CRX drives like a Go-cart though. Both very good to drive.
27th Jul 2005, 08:14
I take your point on reliability, although I disagree the Honda engine is better to drive.
I have driven a 216 GTI Twin Cam and although the performance is quite similar, you have to rev the knackers off the engine to access it. It's a typical Honda engine - very sweet and very powerful for its size, but totally gutless unless you're thrashing the living daylights out of it, with virtually nothing worth mentioning happening until about 4,500 RPM. Contrast this with the 220 which feels punchy in pretty much any gear at any speed. As you would expect from an extra 400cc and a lower state of tune. In my opinion, the 220 feels far quicker in day to day use (it isn't, but feel is an important consideration).
From an engineering viewpoint, there's also not actually much wrong with the 2.0 M16 Rover engine. It's very refined, very torquey (enough so to make the big 800 quicker than any of its 2.0 rivals at the time) and very reliable if it's looked after. It's not tolerant of bad maintenance like a Japanese engine, but if owned by someone with half a clue, it's fine.
The 220 has recently clicked over 100,000 and is still smooth, punchy and oil-tight. It's still happy to be pushed to its redline, still responds crisply to the throttle, and will idle smoothly and evenly for as long as you want it to.
7th Feb 2006, 17:28
Hello people. I am a 21 year old student from New Zealand and these rovers may be cheap to buy, but if you're not in the UK it costs a fortune to maintain. I recently purchased a 220GTi Turbo and was reading in the net that these engines are 183kilowatts, so naturally started doing some drags. these cars are awesome, I beat a 2L turbo Nissan Skyline and just beat a Nissan Sylvia 2L turbo. I was wondering why it was so quick for a front wheel drive car. so I got it weighed. it only weighs around 1200kg.
I was quite pleased with it until the head got too soft and the engine died on me. I've done some research and found out that the rover engines are known for loosing there heads because they run at a hotter temperature then other models. So if you love your 220 GTi whether its turbo or not pump as much anti-freeze and anti-boil as you can into the radiator to cool it down.
Random fact, my 1993 220 GTi turbo can do 0-100kph in 6.54seconds and it is standard. can't wait till I soup it up. and that guy saying that Honda engines need to be thrashed before the power is released is right. v-tec's kick in around 3250rpm and 4500rpm. it has its +'s and its -'s.