2000 Rover - Austin 25 Reviews - Page 5 of 5

2000 Rover - Austin 25 iS 1.6 from UK and Ireland

Year of manufacture2000
First year of ownership2002
Most recent year of ownership2002
Engine and transmission 1.6 Manual
Performance marks 8 / 10
Reliability marks 8 / 10
Comfort marks 7 / 10
Dealer Service marks 4 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 9 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
7.2 / 10
Distance when acquired31000 miles
Most recent distance39000 miles
Previous carRover - Austin 200

Summary:

Great warm hatch with good handling, looks and practicality, rounded off with a great little engine!

Faults:

Squeak from rear suspension fixed under warranty (new bushes) - standard modification apparently, although it took two dealers to "do" the mod until it made any difference...

That's it really, there were some other issues down to the previous owner (crushed passenger seat due to vigorous tightening of child seat, edge of passenger door bent and rusted where repeatedly slammed against brick wall!)

General Comments:

Generally, very good.

Handles nicely, turns in well, and great performance from the 1.6 K series, an underrated warm hatch (0-60 in 9.5 seconds).

Still gets 37-8mpg around town too!

The 3 door looks nice in platinum silver with the standard 15" alloys and the iS fog-lights and body-coloured spoiler too...

Cabin is nice - don't pay any attention to the press saying the interior is dated and the e/w switches are in the wrong place - the interior is modern and comfortable, although a cup holder would be nice!

Blot on the copybook is the dealer service I have had, ranging from barely competent to criminal. In fairness, as with any manufacturer, there are good dealers out there, but choose carefully...

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 1st July, 2002

2000 Rover - Austin 25 Li 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 6 / 10
Reliability marks 10 / 10
Comfort marks 7 / 10
Dealer Service marks 9 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 9 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
8.2 / 10
Distance when acquired0 miles
Most recent distance27000 miles
Previous carPeugeot 605

Summary:

A very good car which belies the past reputation of Rover cars

Faults:

Driver's door pull broke.

General Comments:

The car is excellent in virtually every respect.

It handles well, though the suspension is a touch on the firm side.

Performance is adequate rather than exciting.

Economy is excellent and I normally achieve 46 miles per gallon in (mainly) town driving.

Reliability is first class as is my wife's identical car.

The car has a good, solid feel to it and one feels safe at all times.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 17th January, 2002

11th Jul 2005, 08:10

Down to earth good common writing well done.

2000 Rover - Austin 25 iL 1.6 petrol from UK and Ireland

Year of manufacture2000
First year of ownership2001
Most recent year of ownership2001
Engine and transmission 1.6 petrol Manual
Performance marks 9 / 10
Reliability marks 9 / 10
Comfort marks 7 / 10
Dealer Service marks 9 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 9 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
8.6 / 10
Distance when acquired13500 miles
Most recent distance23000 miles
Previous carRover - Austin 400

Summary:

Cheap to run with good dynamics

Faults:

When I test drove the car the warning light for the anti-lock brakes was on all the time. Caused by a faulty sensor and fixed by the dealer before I bought the car.

Rear seat back release lever seized after 2 months. Replaced under warranty.

General Comments:

Performance is very good for a 1.6 engine. Economy is excellent too.

Seats are a bit too firm and don't hold you very well.

Handling is very sharp, way ahead of the 200.

The brakes are OK, but could be a bit more powerful.

Cabin is nice with better soundproofing than my previous Rover 400.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 17th December, 2001

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