1997 Rover - Austin 200 Vi 3-dr from UK and Ireland - Comments

Rubber surround around sunroof detached.

Rear screen wash inoperable.

Interior fan fuse blew.

Rear brake light bulb blew.

Stereo display/clock not legible as fragmented.

Very poor cold starting, leading to the battery totally draining at least once.

Brakes judder on light applications from speed.

Nearside electric mirror inoperable.

I bought this car in a hurry after my last one was written off, despite all the bad things I'd heard and knew about Rover reliability and the K-series engine.

It had a full service history, had a recent cambelt change and recent head gasket, so I thought it'd be OK.

It was the most unreliable car I've owned, excepting an Alfa 33! This car just didn't like starting from cold, and it was a lottery as to how long I'd spend in the morning trying to get it going. It would just turn and turn, nearly catching, but not quite until, eventually it would fire up.

If I hadn't kept a jump box with me, it would've stranded me at least once. I had a service done, and they replace the (platinum tipped?) spark plugs as it may have helped, but did it? Er, no!

Apart from this it was OK.

These things do go like a rocket provided you rev the nuts off them, and feel pretty normal on performance if you don't; my wife drives a Saab 9-5 2.0t Linear and it could blow that out of the weeds no problem. In fact it was nearly as quick as my Nissan 300ZX Turbo, and regularly returned 32-34mpg. The gearchange is a bit like stirring soup though.

Handling was of the "lets make the ride hard as hell and then it might corner" variety; speed bumps were quite painful, especially after my last car, a Renault Laguna. Despite the ride, the handling was OK, ish, but the 200Vi is no Ford Focus or Pug 306, that's for sure.

Wet weather handling was quite fun, as long as you only used about 50% power; above that, it was hairy!

Didn't traction control exist when these things were built? Oh yeah, and the brakes were crap, my 20 year old Nissan 300's were far better.

Interior wise, the seat trim, in half leather and sort of suede/alcantara?, was nice, it had the obligatory bit of Rover wood stuck on the dash, and I think it still looked half modern. The driving position was comfortable, and it had very good all round visibility, with lots of glass area. However, Rover don't exactly build these things to last do they? It had as many squeaks and rattles as an old Lada (perhaps more!), and it strangely managed to feel solid and flimsy at the same time! Bonuses were a decent sounding stereo, not a bad sized boot, and decent rear passenger space for its size.

One more thing, why the hell are these cars so noisy at anything over about 75? I know they've got a cd factor of 0.35, which is crap for a modern car, meaning plenty of wind noise, but couldn't Rover have put some sort of sound insulation in so I didn't feel like the tappety VVC engine was in the cabin with me! Strangely, I never took it on a long journey.

Overall, I think these things probably suit someone who doesn't mind if their car is as unreliable as hell, who want something bloody quick and good fun, and don't mind the shame of wearing ear defenders whilst driving!

P.S : My neighbour has a 214 on an R-reg and the engine seized recently, and my mates wife had a 214 on a P-reg up til about 18 months ago and the head gasket went on it, what a surprise!! I'm not surprised Rover went bust; they sold these things new up til '05 as the 25 and the MG ZR.

No company with decent products every goes bust. At worst it gets bought out and its products integrated into the line of a bigger manufacturer. Even the Chinese weren't interested in these cars.

Fed up with people bad mouthing rover in general, if you didn't like your car that is fair enough, but that is one engine type and one body shell. I have one of the diesel rovers (a ZR 115) and can honestly say that the engine is bulletproof, equally or more reliable than BMW + VAG diesels. It's a real shame they went bust, if not just for the pride of having british cars, then for the very promising G-series engine which never got into production. Share your experience, but do not try to generalise about an entire company.

I'm sorry, but why do you think Rover had such a dodgy rep for reliability anyway and people "bad mouth" them??

It's because it's true!!

Having worked in the motor trade for 10 years, I can confirm that Rovers have more than their fair share of engine probs and electrical gremlins, the Rover 75 being by far the best of the last Rovers produced (this was the one developed with BMW strangely enough).

If anyone watched Top Gear's thing on BL last Sunday, then it should all be clear.

Don't turn this into another Rover debate. This site is meant to be for reviewing car models, not the entire company. There have been a lot of good cars made by rover, and a lot of people have had good experiences with them and are very disapointed they have gone out of business. I agree that the 75's were well made and good cars, but so were a lot of the other models, like mine and my cousins rover 25 or my other cousins 200 sdi, or my brothers zr 160 he used to own (he only got a different car for more speed). As for working in the motor trade, my uncle is a mechanic and he loves rover, and says they are far far better than Renault which he worked on. Electrics go on most cars, I had a nissan and even that had electrical problems.

Working in the motor trade doesn't mean you can generalise about an entire company. Maybe the reason rover went bust was the cost of production over here and not the cars themselves? or am I using too much common sense?

With all due respect lots of car companies make cars in the uk, such as Honda, Toyota, Nissan, Vauxhall etc, so the UK argument is pretty thin.

The Rover 200 was a good car when launched, however, by the time it got facelifted to the 25 it was well over the hill, and there were far better cars in the class to choose from.

Incidentally, I've owned x2 Renault Lagunas and x2 Citroen BX's, and all were far more reliable than my above 200 Vi, and as indicated on the write up, I know of more people who've suffered at the hands of Rover 200's and their "reliability".

Personally, I think when Rover did the dirty on Honda and sold out to BMW that's when all their troubles started.

They went bust because the car market is no place for small companies any more. That and a product range that consisted of a Honda Civic from a decade ago, a tarted up Indian cheapie, and an engine that was most notable for head gasket problems.

Last Commenter, Please clarify which recent Rover was based on a Honda Civic and to what end, for example does it have a Honda Engine/Gearbox also?

This isn't the last commenter, but the Rover 400/45 was a collaboration between Honda and Rover and was launched in '95 as the Rover 400 (and as the Civic with Honda). Apart from the auto version, I think Honda and Rover used differant engines.

The Rover 200/25 used some parts from the previous Rover 200 which was also the Honda Concerto. Maybe that's why they struggled to sell many in its later years!

The later Rover 400 (which became the 45) is the same as the 1997 era Civic 5dr.

http://stoke.gumtree.com/posting_images/72/14673272__1192389247__1__1-a7ee56745585a55a4703baadfbd9f5c1.__big__.jpg

http://www.virtual-showroom.co.uk/images/vehicles/9920_902_01.jpg

Spot the difference?

Did 15,000 miles in a 214 SEi with no problems at all. The only money I spent on it was for petrol.

I have done 5,000 miles so far in a Rover 214 iS and have only had to buy four new spark plugs, and of course petrol.

I'll buy another Rover when I decide to change my car.

The rovers couldn't have been that bad, the sheer amount of them I see on the roads everyday, and not even newer ones, there are quite a few older ones as well, more old rovers than old Peugeots/Citroens, which have all fallen apart by now. Boils down to bad marketing by Rover and a lack of funds due to being a small company; pity they didn't stop with Honda and develop that diesel engine some more (the L-series) as I had heard promising things about the G series which was being developed when they went bust.

It's a shame they chose to waste valuable R&D funds on a 30k overpriced supercar that nobody was ever going to buy, and a rebadged Indian supermini that was 3k overpriced.

I can't imagine what kind of idiotic planning came up with such nonsense while they were too cash strapped to do any development on their aging mainstream products apart from change the interior vents and move the boot lid badges around.

We British couldn't manage our way out of wet paper bag.

Need help. I'm looking to buy a Rover 200 R reg. Has it got a Honda engine or a Rover one? Many thanks.

All the bubble shaped rovers had the k-series rover engine if they were petrol. Buy the diesel version (sdi with intercooler is best) and you will have a much better car, they are bulletproof. It would only cost between £50 and £100 to make the diesel faster than the petrol and it would give better mpg and much better reliability. If you are interested search 'TU1 rover 200' on google or something.