1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Poll: The BIG Rover debate

Discussion in 'Motors' started by agw_01, 3 Feb 2006.

?

Are Rovers any good?

  1. Yes,they are great

    30 vote(s)
    11.2%
  2. They are ok

    106 vote(s)
    39.6%
  3. No, they suck harder than a dyson

    132 vote(s)
    49.3%
  1. agw_01

    Capodecina

    Joined: 11 Apr 2004

    Posts: 19,681

    I've just heard from a little birdie that Fox has been slating Rovers... saying that headgaskets go on the 214 constantly... and that my car might well have cost £500, but look how much I've spent on it.

    I for one, am absolutely fed up of people slating Rovers when they don't know the facts... so come on Fox :p

    How come I've done just under 22,000 miles overall and not suffered a HG failure? How come I know a LOT of people who've owned 214's from new and NEVER had a HG failure?

    You say I've spent an awful lot on my car... let's see... belt change/waterpump/spark plugs/HT leads/oil changes/coolant flush... they're things I wanted to do to the car. They require changing anyway so it's not like I wasted money on having them done.

    Ok, so the gearbox went and cost me £180 but so what? I broke it. If I hadn't been so hard on it, then it wouldn't have died.

    Simple as that.

    So come on, let's hear it... I want to hear how much you guys can slate Rovers. ;)
     
  2. Creature

    Mobster

    Joined: 30 Nov 2004

    Posts: 3,755

    Location: Oop North

    Rover's are ******* **** and ******* *** ** ****** with ********* ****. :p

    Have to say, i'm unaware of a headgasket failure on my Rover, but I didn't really pay much attention until about a year ago when I got hold of it. 71,000 miles and unaware of a headgasket failure, pretty good i'd say.
     
  3. [TW]Fox

    Man of Honour

    Joined: 17 Oct 2002

    Posts: 157,129

    So I have a discussion on an IRC channel and you start some sort of huge OMG ITS UNFAIR thread?

    Yea, niiice. You want to join in IRC discussions, come on IRC :p
     
  4. Jokester

    Don

    Joined: 7 Aug 2003

    Posts: 41,539

    Location: Aberdeenshire

    Their product was so poor the company went bust. Nuff said.

    Jokester
     
  5. agw_01

    Capodecina

    Joined: 11 Apr 2004

    Posts: 19,681

    Damn right Fox :p

    I can't be bothered installing IRC. Too much hassle.
     
  6. austinpowers

    Wise Guy

    Joined: 29 Sep 2003

    Posts: 2,435

    I had a 214sli company car in 1995, ragged it everywhere for 6 months, the headgasket was fine, shame the gearbox died.

    Not bad cars, good spec and cheap to run if the cooling system is in top notch order, yes they do blow head gaskets, the head bolts are very long and thin, they go right down to the bottom end, so can't be tightened up as hard as most other head bolts, plus wet liners.

    But pick a good'un and you'll be fine, all cars have problems as they get older some more than others.
     
  7. agw_01

    Capodecina

    Joined: 11 Apr 2004

    Posts: 19,681

    Jokester, their products weren't poor. It was the image associated with Rover... old men with their checkered jackets and flat caps.

    I can think of a lot worse cars that are still in production.

    P.S. Fox, good guess ;)
     
  8. Dolph

    Man of Honour

    Joined: 17 Oct 2002

    Posts: 49,171

    Location: Plymouth

    My Rover was a shed. At least by the time it had finished disintergrating as the mileage went up (as those who saw it would testify)

    I can't complain that much, doing about 45k in 2.5 years in it, but it did cost a lot to keep on the road and seemed to go wrong on a regular basis, and never small things (and yes, I did have the headgasket go on mine, along with the brakes which was very scary)

    I wouldn't buy another one. There are much better cars on the market.
     
  9. Dolph

    Man of Honour

    Joined: 17 Oct 2002

    Posts: 49,171

    Location: Plymouth

    Their products WERE poor. They were also badly and inefficiently made using outdated work practices and a highly dysfunctional workforce unwilling to accept the change needed to save the company.

    Many other manufacturers have changed their image pretty well. But it takes decent products to do that.
     
  10. agw_01

    Capodecina

    Joined: 11 Apr 2004

    Posts: 19,681

    Ok, that's what we want... more opinions from people who've owned them :)

    Any chance this thread could be turned into a poll, as I know there's a lot of members out there and want to see what they think.

    Basically just a "rover were good/bad" poll. Maybe an option, "I'd consider one for my grandad" as well.
     
  11. agw_01

    Capodecina

    Joined: 11 Apr 2004

    Posts: 19,681

    Dolph, care to explain what you mean? I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.
     
  12. [TW]Fox

    Man of Honour

    Joined: 17 Oct 2002

    Posts: 157,129

    Rover were good and bad.

    They made some good products - for example the 600 and the 75.

    They also made some utter dross that the continually rehashed and never properly replaced yet expected people to buy them, like the 200/25.

    They also made some good products which went very stale over time becuase they didn't develop replacements, just continually rehashed them, like the 400/45/ZS.
     
  13. Dolph

    Man of Honour

    Joined: 17 Oct 2002

    Posts: 49,171

    Location: Plymouth

    About which parts, the car or the company?

    Poll added :)
     
  14. agw_01

    Capodecina

    Joined: 11 Apr 2004

    Posts: 19,681

    For the time, the 200 Mk2 was IMO a great car. Definitely one of the best in its class. If you put the logo aside, almost all of the 200 range were better spec'd than most of its competitors.

    Ok, so you say it's based on a Honda Concerto... what do you see more of on the roads, Honda Concerto's or Rover 200's?

    I'd also disagree about the 25 being 'utter dross' (love the words you use). Again, it's a popular car and it's no doubt screwed together better than the Mk2 200.
     
  15. agw_01

    Capodecina

    Joined: 11 Apr 2004

    Posts: 19,681

    Thanks for the poll Dolph :) Oh look, I wonder who that kind person was who voted them as being good.

    Hmm, could you comment on both the cars and the company?
     
  16. [TW]Fox

    Man of Honour

    Joined: 17 Oct 2002

    Posts: 157,129

    Really? It was YEARS behind the cars it was trying to compete with in the latter stages of its life - the Clio, the Mk5 Fiesta, the Yaris.
     
  17. agw_01

    Capodecina

    Joined: 11 Apr 2004

    Posts: 19,681

    Why?

    You can't make points like that and then not give a reason :)
     
  18. atpbx

    Capodecina

    Joined: 21 Oct 2002

    Posts: 21,452

    I used to like the old vitesse with the 2.7 engine in it.
    I think thats *** one my old man used to have when i was little ( i was about 11, it was a fast back).

    Mind you, the brakes failed and it nearly killed him so it wasnt all that great i suppose.
     
  19. agw_01

    Capodecina

    Joined: 11 Apr 2004

    Posts: 19,681

    :o I'm not liking all the comments about brake failure.

    What caused them to fail atpbx?
     
  20. poosemon

    Wise Guy

    Joined: 16 May 2004

    Posts: 1,635

    Location: Near Chester

    yes, some rovers are complete turds (25 in particuler), but others arn't (i.e coupe!), i might be slightly biased as i have just bought a 1.8vvc coupe and love it!