2000 Rover - Austin 25 Reviews

2000 Rover - Austin 25 il 1.6i from UK and Ireland

Year of manufacture2000
First year of ownership2004
Most recent year of ownership2008
Engine and transmission 1.6i Manual
Performance marks 9 / 10
Reliability marks 9 / 10
Comfort marks 7 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 8 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
8.3 / 10
Distance when acquired38000 miles
Most recent distance48000 miles
Previous carFord Escort

Summary:

I loved owning this car until the known gasket issue caught up with me

Faults:

Rear bulbs went a few times in the 4 years, but easy to change at £2 per bulb.

Head gasket at 48,000 miles = £500.

Front tyres wore quicker than rear; probably quite normal.

Driver's electric window went at 47,000 miles = £70 parts.

Boot would not open easy with key.

Lost acceleration power temporarily when I after changing down at high revs once, but after taking it slow, it righted itself.

General Comments:

Same BHP as the more expensive MG version.

Drove well through lanes and motorways.

Braking good.

Good style design was first reason why car appealed to me.

Love the cockpit layout / design was why I bought this over a Renault Megane.

Nearly slid when cornering on roundabout in first week, but have cornered great since, so put that down to learning the car.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? No

Review Date: 15th May, 2008

2000 Rover - Austin 25 iL 2.0 turbo diesel from UK and Ireland

Year of manufacture2000
First year of ownership2006
Most recent year of ownership2007
Engine and transmission 2.0 turbo diesel Manual
Performance marks 8 / 10
Reliability marks 9 / 10
Comfort marks 6 / 10
Dealer Service marks 4 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 9 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
7.2 / 10
Distance when acquired86000 miles
Most recent distance97000 miles
Previous carVauxhall Corsa

Summary:

A fast, reliable, bargain that puts newer cars to shame in its practicality

Faults:

- The rear wiper jet wash has stopped working

- Had to replace the contacts on the solenoid

- Replace brake master cylinder (my fault during brake fluid change)

- Boot stopped shutting (turned out to just be seized wire/catch, so spray with WD40 has solved that)

General Comments:

This car, and any Rover with the L-series is fantastic. The engine is about as reliable as engines get, not for a Rover, but for any car. I would put this alongside any VAG diesel engine in terms of reliability.

The car is very quick for a diesel, 0-60 in 9.7 seconds, which is faster than a Citroen Saxo VTR and a Fiesta Zetec S (both 10 seconds or just over), and it has mid range pull of an 8 second car due to the 178ft lbs of torque.

Fuel consumption is ALWAYS above 45mpg, even when I drive her hard. Parts are plentiful and cheap, but generally these engines require very little attention. Insurance group 7 for a car this fast is pretty low; as a 19 year old man it is very reasonable.

The interior is dated and the seats aren't anything special, if you are after appearance just opt for the MG ZR version with an L series engine and that problem is solved.

Possibly the strongest point for the car is the price; a used example with low miles can be found easily for under £3000, and an early model (W reg) with under a 100,000 miles should cost no more than £1500. These cars are perfect for a low cost low hassle option, and depreciation isn't a problem as they are so cheap to find and easy to get rid of due to well known reliability in these engines.

They are not the refined cars, the engine is noisy at idle (quiet on the move) and the car does feel heavy (clutch, gears etc) and jerky when moving about town. It is suited perfectly to motorway driving, where the mpg is very high and the car picks up well in 5th gear, from 50/60mph to whatever speed you need to do.

All in all, the car is not going to turn heads, but it does offer one of the best cars in terms of value for money about.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 13th November, 2007

25th Nov 2007, 03:10

All well and good, but you'd better pray you don't prang it, or need certain parts. Engine bits are still available, but body panels and trim parts often are not.

A friend has an MG ZR which had a small front end collision 6 months ago, and it's still in the bodyshop awaiting a couple of bodywork parts. Apparently if the suppliers get a reasonable order quantity, they'll make a batch. But no promises. He won't accept secondhand parts (not that you can find them at sensible prices anyway), so the car is off the road for the foreseeable future.

Rovers are cheap for a reason, and £3k is still a lot of money for something with no official backup whatsoever. I'd put £3k into a Ford or Vauxhall, and take my chance on getting less car. At least I know I can get it fixed when it breaks.

25th Nov 2007, 12:20

If you are going to wait for new body parts then you may well have trouble finding them, but I know of several Rover specific breakers in my area alone that would have the panels should I need them.

As for spending £3000 on a vauxhall or ford, the Rover I bought only cost me £1600 and it has an engine which is capable of a lot higher mileage than the equivalent ford (body rusts very quickly, my brothers 2 fiesta zetec S's were nothing special and had more reliability issues than my car has) or vauxhall which, lets face it for £3000 will be the same as every other cap wearing Kev out there.

The ZR is more expensive than the 25, but in terms of car for the money they are both far better than their rivals.

Average review marks: 7.4 / 10, based on 17 reviews