1991 Rover - Austin Maestro Reviews - Page 2 of 3

1991 Rover - Austin Maestro MG Turbo 2.0 turbo from UK and Ireland

Year of manufacture1991
First year of ownership1996
Most recent year of ownership1997
Engine and transmission 2.0 turbo Manual
Performance marks 10 / 10
Reliability marks 8 / 10
Comfort marks 5 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 8 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
7.8 / 10
Distance when acquired100000 miles
Most recent distance115000 miles
Previous carRover - Austin 216

Summary:

An underrated high performance bargain

Faults:

Exhaust rattled.

Shocks replaced at 110,000 miles!

General Comments:

Very quick, 0-60 in 6.9 secs standard and slightly quicker with a few simple mods :-)

Underrated! It's was almost comical having XR3i's trying to keep up at the lights.

Fantastic turbo noise!!!

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 12th February, 2001

15th Sep 2001, 08:28

Damn good car I say!!!

astonben@hotmail.com

14th Nov 2002, 04:52

Oh come on it's a maestro, I have driven two of them and they were both awful when it came to corners. You may have the straight line speed, but I'm afraid when it comes to the twisties, the maestro just doesn't cut it, oh and whats with the gear box, the worst I have driven.

16th Jun 2003, 09:55

Hey! Chill-Out fella, the Maestro is not pretending to be anything other than a fast little hatch, it may not have Ferrari style handling, but it is more fun to drive than my '03 Audi RS6, the maestro feels like its on rails.

12th Apr 2004, 09:56

MG Maestros were vastly better in terms of handling than the more sedate versions and even those were OK if they had power steering. A note on the gear change also 1.3 & 1.6 models used the VW box from the Golf and 2.0 MG cars had Honda gearboxes both were very good in my experience.

25th May 2006, 02:35

The Maestro Turbo was actually developed by Tickford so there was a heck of a lot of expertise and knowledge went into it.

My mate had one and it would wipe the floor with the Golf VR6 I had at the time. Better handling, more feel, less body roll, crisper turn in and the torque when it came on boost made laugh out loud.

Golf was better built, but since when did build quality make a hot hatch worth owning? Peugeot ruled for the best part of two decades without it.

1991 Rover - Austin Maestro LX 1.3 from UK and Ireland

Year of manufacture1991
First year of ownership1999
Most recent year of ownership2001
Engine and transmission 1.3 Manual
Performance marks 7 / 10
Reliability marks 10 / 10
Comfort marks 10 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 6 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
8.3 / 10
Distance when acquired58000 miles
Most recent distance71616 miles

Faults:

Ruct mainly, both rear arches, and all door bottoms, although it was only an eyesore.

Gear linkage would pop off at the most inconvenient times e.g traffic lights, leaving you to pull away in 3rd, 4th or 5th, or put the bonnet up and push it back on. A replacement and it's been fine (under £5)!!

General Comments:

It starts first time every time, even though its 1.3 it does keep up with traffic, benefits from E/F/W, S/R, and C/L.

The seats are great, big and almost bucket like, with grey velvet covers that wear well with age and are very comfy!

It's one of few cars that you can lift the bonnet on and identify the parts under there. Its not covered in sheets of plastic, nor is full of complicated electrionics.

I would have another, it's 6" wider than an Escort (or so I am told), it's a great piece of British engineering.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 1st January, 2001

5th Apr 2001, 11:54

A great piece of british engineering?

Mine had more rust on it than the Titanic and cost a fortune to run, I could have kissed the bloke who did me a favour and ran into the back of it and killed it! (See my review 1985 Vanden Plas).

1991 Rover - Austin Maestro LX 1.6 petrol from UK and Ireland

Year of manufacture1991
First year of ownership1998
Most recent year of ownership2000
Engine and transmission 1.6 petrol Automatic
Performance marks 10 / 10
Reliability marks 10 / 10
Comfort marks 10 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 5 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
8.8 / 10
Distance when acquired30000 miles
Most recent distance37000 miles
Previous carRover - Austin Maestro 1.6 Automati

Summary:

Stunning!

Faults:

Very little.

The auto choke has just been consigned to the bin.

The central locking is a bit hit and miss.

The driver's door has a broken handle.

The exhaust back box is deteriorating.

General Comments:

Nice car! Wood panelling, digital dash, trip computer, PAS, E/S, E/F/W, pokey engine - not much to dislike. Not for £1000 with £1200 worth of disability mods certainly! Give me another!!!

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 28th November, 2000

1991 Rover - Austin Maestro LX 1.6 petrol from UK and Ireland

Year of manufacture1991
First year of ownership1999
Most recent year of ownership2000
Engine and transmission 1.6 petrol Manual
Performance marks 8 / 10
Reliability marks 9 / 10
Comfort marks 8 / 10
Dealer Service marks 5 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 7 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
7.4 / 10
Distance when acquired62000 miles
Most recent distance85000 miles
Previous carRover - Austin 216

Summary:

Very practical cheap motoring

Faults:

Rust on arches/doors.

Exhaust fell off.

Leak from the roof.

General Comments:

Comfortable motoring. Very practical.

LX benefits from the power steering.

Economical for a 1.6 yet still pokey.

Butt of lots of jokes, but my J reg cost just £495 and I traveled all around Cornwall and Devon problem free.

Still worth about £400 after a year of motoring.

Lots of cheap spares available.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 1st September, 2000

Average review marks: 7.5 / 10, based on 9 reviews