1991 Rover - Austin 400 Reviews - Page 4 of 4

1991 Rover - Austin 400 414 SLi 1.4 from UK and Ireland

Year of manufacture1991
First year of ownership1998
Most recent year of ownership2000
Engine and transmission 1.4 Manual
Performance marks 9 / 10
Reliability marks 8 / 10
Comfort marks 8 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 9 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
8.5 / 10
Distance when acquired160000 miles
Most recent distance191000 miles
Previous carCitroen BX diesel

Summary:

I would have another

Faults:

General day to day running costs + a water pump. The gearbox was rebuilt a few weeks before I got it, this was the second time apparently.

A bit finnicky in the damp and the front windows are seized.

General Comments:

Just keeps going, my dad had it before at 125,000. Burns no oil, 40+ mpg. Quite nippy as well, although a bit loud when pushed.

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

Review Date: 29th March, 2000

1991 Rover - Austin 400 416 GTi 1.6 petrol from UK and Ireland

Year of manufacture1991
Engine and transmission 1.6 petrol
Performance marks 7 / 10
Reliability marks 7 / 10
Comfort marks 8 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 8 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
7.5 / 10

Faults:

Wing mirrors liable to fall out.

Ignition chip failed.

Central locking intermittent failure.

General Comments:

A good car for a sensible price, with performance far beyond that expected (Japanese Engine). However depreciation is quite high due to a poor image. Power steering is also light, making handling at speed unnerving.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 9th June, 1999

6th Mar 2001, 14:23

I bought a 'G' Reg 1990 Rover 416 GTi 6 months ago, for banger money (£800), having driven a 216 GSi, several years ago, when it was my fathers company car.

Being well over 6 feet tall, I already knew about the very poor headroom, but I also knew the Honda engine to be nothing short of superb. In DOHC guise, the power and torque peaks seem to be too high in the rev range, giving little in the way of low range poke. However, rev it up like you hate it, and it suddenly changes into another animal, as if a turbo has kicked in. It will rev up to the 7K limiter, without sounding harsh, and you feel like it could go even further, but electronics spoil the fun. 8000 RPM really does seem to be within the engine`s capability, because it sounds so sweet at silly revs. When the power kicks in fully at 5000 RPM, acceleration is rapid, and the subsequent gearchanges are slick, despite a clutch that bites too sharply at slower speeds.

Relatively soft suspension gives a comfortable ride, but it never feels sloppy.

Leather seats that last well, and undoubtably good build quality make this car excellent value in the sub £1000 market, making the XR3i and 205 GTi seem like nasty wrecks in comparison.

I never get less than 30mpg, even when tearing about.

14th Mar 2001, 07:00

I traded an MG Montego for an ex-company 416 GTi in 1994. I found it an excellent bargain, even at the dealer price I paid - handling and acceleration were great, so was comfort, and most mechanicals were good or better. However, for a top-of-range car I don't understand why ABS was an option, why tool storage was so limited compared to the Montego, why the rear seat-backs were fixed, or why the towing indicator wasn't wired up when it was voted Towcar Of The Year by the Caravan Club.

Average review marks: 7.6 / 10, based on 11 reviews