2000 Rover - Austin 25 Reviews - Page 4 of 5

2000 Rover - Austin 25 iS 1.4 petrol from UK and Ireland

Year of manufacture2000
First year of ownership2000
Most recent year of ownership2004
Engine and transmission 1.4 petrol Manual
Performance marks 7 / 10
Reliability marks 6 / 10
Comfort marks 7 / 10
Dealer Service marks 8 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 8 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
7.2 / 10
Distance when acquired200 miles
Most recent distance45000 miles
Previous carVolkswagen Polo

Summary:

A classy small car with good performance.

Faults:

The rear screen washer failed within a couple of months of buying the car.

The drivers door lock mechanism failed after 2 years preventing entry or exit through it.

Both problems were quickly rectified under warranty by my local dealer.

A small patch of rust has developed on one of the rear hatch hinges, but the dealer says because it has not actually gone all the way through the body it is not covered by the perforation warranty!

General Comments:

For a relatively small engine the performance is more than adequate and it handles well on the country roads in my part of the world.

It feels like a big car inside and I find it comfortable for long journeys.

Fuel economy is good. It returns 35+ mpg.

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

Review Date: 9th October, 2004

2000 Rover - Austin 25 iS 1.6 from UK and Ireland

Year of manufacture2000
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 7 / 10
Dealer Service marks 7 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 9 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
8.2 / 10
Distance when acquired10 miles
Most recent distance22000 miles
Previous carRover - Austin 400

Summary:

A Great British car!

Faults:

Absolutely nothing!

General Comments:

Another great Rover, the 25 was my third new Rover and I am pleased to report that it was yet another great offering from the British car manufacturer.

Rival cars such as the Ford Fiesta, VW Polo and GM Corsa are simply not worth considering when for the same cash you can have the Rover 25 which just seems to be from a class above.

The Rover was loaded with standard kit including electric windows, electric sunroof, remote locking, and a high quality cd stereo.

Plus as it's a Rover you get the usual quality features such as thick carpets, thicker window glass, wood trim, chrome trim, leather steering wheel and gearknob.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 21st March, 2004

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

Year of manufacture2000
First year of ownership2003
Most recent year of ownership2003
Engine and transmission 2.0 turbo diesel Manual
Performance marks 7 / 10
Reliability marks 8 / 10
Comfort marks 4 / 10
Dealer Service marks 2 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 8 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
5.8 / 10
Distance when acquired17500 miles
Most recent distance29000 miles
Previous carMazda 323

Summary:

A pile of rubbish which I wish I had never been pressured into buying

Faults:

Not had any major problems with the car as of yet..

General Comments:

Really hideous build quality.

The car is full of annoying knocks and creaks which I cannot rectify.

Had a really bad knocking from the hatch which I cannot fix and is really getting me down.

Constant rattles from inside the doors and sunroof sliding cover.

Creaks from dashboard when cornering.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? No

Review Date: 15th December, 2003

14th Oct 2004, 08:59

Yes well what do you expect when you've come from a Mazda to a Rover 25. One has 1st class build quality, the other had appalling build quality. Enough said!

5th Jul 2011, 16:28

It's a shame such comments are made... R.I.P the British car industry.

15th Jan 2013, 03:15

You say a car with no faults apart from a few squeaks and rattles is rubbish?

You must be very hard to please!

2000 Rover - Austin 25 IS 1.4 from UK and Ireland

Year of manufacture2000
First year of ownership2003
Most recent year of ownership2003
Engine and transmission 1.4 Automatic
Performance marks 8 / 10
Reliability marks 5 / 10
Comfort marks 7 / 10
Dealer Service marks 5 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 5 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
6.0 / 10
Distance when acquired9000 miles
Most recent distance9500 miles

Summary:

Great car

Faults:

Two weeks after we bought the car, it just wouldn't start. The engine/starter motor just wouldn't turn over. Dealership claimed someone had changed the HT leads. No problems since.

Seal on passenger window not fitted properly.

General Comments:

The car handles great.

It looks good when clean and polished. Alloys are fantastic.

Respectable mpg.

However the dash rattles and squeaks when car is driven at higher speeds.

The polished wood effect on parts of dash is very dated.

Overall has been a fantastic car so far.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 29th August, 2003

2000 Rover - Austin 25 iL 1.4 petrol from UK and Ireland

Year of manufacture2000
First year of ownership2002
Most recent year of ownership2003
Engine and transmission 1.4 petrol Manual
Performance marks 6 / 10
Reliability marks 9 / 10
Comfort marks 4 / 10
Dealer Service marks 5 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 9 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
6.6 / 10
Distance when acquired23000 miles
Most recent distance33500 miles
Previous carVauxhall Tigra

Faults:

Nothing.

General Comments:

Generally a very well built car, with good fuel economy and a fair performance for engine size.

Slightly aged by the wooden effect interior trim. (newer versions have Grey/carbon effect).

Found the seats uncomfortable. As if the seats, steering wheel and pedals are mis-aligned. Caused severe back ache on long journeys, as I found myself angled toward the passenger.

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

Review Date: 26th January, 2003

2000 Rover - Austin 25 i 1.4 from UK and Ireland

Year of manufacture2000
First year of ownership2000
Most recent year of ownership2002
Engine and transmission 1.4 Manual
Performance marks 9 / 10
Reliability marks 7 / 10
Comfort marks 7 / 10
Dealer Service marks 5 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 7 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
7.0 / 10
Distance when acquired0 miles
Most recent distance17000 miles

Summary:

Great performance and looks

Faults:

The valves and the cylinder head went after two years (all fixed under warranty)

General Comments:

This car is brilliant. I'm 19 and have been driving it since I was 17. As a first car I couldn't wish for anything better.

It handles really well (Rover 200vi suspension set-up as standard)

The engine is gr8 for a 1.4, and for those of you who do not know this; The k-series is a hi-revving car, so therefor you need to rev it to get that proper performance. Also the standard 1.4 is restricted to provide Rover with a mid engine car (this is done with a restricted throttle) A 1.4 which isn't restricted puts out 105bhp, now tell me another super-mini that has that output from its 1.4?!

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 6th July, 2002

7th Jul 2002, 03:12

I wouldn't be as pleased with this car as you are if the valves needed replacing after 2 years! Rovers are not the most mechanically robust cars, and as its your first car you haven't anything to compare it too! Compared to Japanese and German offerings, Rovers are way off in terms of quality and reliability.

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