We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Rover 420, 83,000 miles, £550, good deal?
Options
Comments
-
114 GTa, sweet! as long as you avoid puddles! 220 Tomcat Coupe, lovely! 115SD cool! they did do SOME nice ones!!
I'd a Rover 220 GSi Turbo. It was cracking 0-60 in 6 seconds out of the box when RS Turbos were around the 8 second mark.
I'd also a Rover 620 Ti Turbo in black with black leather. Massively fast and looked superb in its time.
Rover 75 2.5 v6, MG ZT 190, MG ZS 180....
MG Maestro Tickford Turbo....
Brilliant brilliant cars.0 -
the maestro turbo was a really bad handling dog had understeer as bad as a cat with broken back legs
the 75 could have been geat but was built to a very low budget
as for the metro peugeot 205 anyone
rover failed because it thought we british people would buy any old crap they made0 -
I owned an SD1, V8 it was an excellent car, it lasted a lot longer than the mazda's and toyota's from the 70's.
My daughter's just bought a classic mini to learn to drive in.
Rover failed with a lot of help from the unions, they didn't let them make half of the cars they had orders for.0 -
the maestro turbo was a really bad handling dog had understeer as bad as a cat with broken back legs
the 75 could have been geat but was built to a very low budget
as for the metro peugeot 205 anyone
rover failed because it thought we british people would buy any old crap they made
I drove the standard 2.0 Turbo Montego MG and whilst it had torque steer it was a driveable fun car. The Maestro Turbo was from memory handbuilt, or partially handbuilt by Tickford, and would have been better handling and better balanced.
For the record a friend of mine had a Series 1 RS Turbo professionally modded to 200BHP and from a standing start you had to fight with the car to hold it straight on the road. I remember it only easing off with the torque steer at around 120MPH. I could do a standing start in the 200BHP GSi holding one finger on the steering wheel.
The Rover 75 was a very good car - an exceptional car when you think of the budget they had to build it.
Early 205s were utilitarian boxes. Granted they were very good particularly the diesels, but i wouldnt write off the metro just because of it. Again, where was the 205 when the Rover Metro was winning car of the year awards?
Each to their own. There are many many people with very fond memories of rovers and for very good reasons. Its easy to jump on the bandwagon and kick them, but there were some exceptional cars there.0 -
the maestro turbo was a really bad handling dog had understeer as bad as a cat with broken back legs
You might want to have a read at this then.
http://www.reviewcentre.com/reviews3544.html0 -
0
-
was'nt the 200 and 600 based on hondas (albeit with rover engines)
can't really compare with an escort as these were designed to run 130bhp
i owned an old twin carb maestro for a few months and found the understeer dreadful.
moved on to 205s and 405s and found them a revalation handling wise.
how on earth the metro won car of the year escapes me
the pedals were offset the engine dates back to the fiftys and the steering wheel was from a truck.
is all personal choice rover could have got it right but they stagnated whilst everyone else moved on imo0 -
was'nt the 200 and 600 based on hondas (albeit with rover engines)
can't really compare with an escort as these were designed to run 130bhp
Yes, they were, so you were getting a lot of honda technology at rover prices. I bet no one can remember what a 1990's Accord looks like, but the 600 was a very distinct beautiful car. My point RE: the RS Turbo was that whilst people may have objected to the torque steer of the 200BHP Rover / MG, when you applied the same power to its 'rival', the RS Turbo, it became barely driveable.
i owned an old twin carb maestro for a few months and found the understeer dreadful.
moved on to 205s and 405s and found them a revalation handling wise.
Yes, yours would have been an 83 or 84 car then. The 2.0 EFI came out in 1985, which was probably the one to go for.
how on earth the metro won car of the year escapes me
the pedals were offset the engine dates back to the fiftys and the steering wheel was from a truck.
The Rover 100 introduced in 1991 was a completely revised car with the new 1.1 / 1.4 K Series engine which has won many awards then and since. That would have been a brand new state of the art engine, when similar fords (ka and fiesta) were using the 1100cc pushrod from the 1950's Ford Anglia.
is all personal choice rover could have got it right but they stagnated whilst everyone else moved on imo
Yes, it was sad to see. Ran out of money eventually i guess.0 -
114 GTa, sweet! as long as you avoid puddles! 220 Tomcat Coupe, lovely! 115SD cool! they did do SOME nice ones!!
Why? It has no leaks! Its a little belteris that grin or grimace inducing:)
Dont know why that was thanked? its DEFINATLY GRIN inducing
:D:D:D:D:D Prob the only car I've driven that was more fun was the '72 911 (3.5 Turbo I think, but might be wrong) Proud of who, and what, I am. :female::male::cool:0 -
TBH I wouldn't discount Rovers as runarounds at shed money - there's a 620 near me for £500 with 10 months MOT.
The trim level etc you can get for banger money is unbelievable and they can't be THAT bad.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.7K Spending & Discounts
- 244.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.2K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177K Life & Family
- 257.6K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards