Rover 25 Il 16v (5 Door Hatchback)

Sgt_Pepper_2

masonn wrote: »

If the head gasket was done properly then it should be fine. One of the major contributing factors in head gasket failure was Rover's use of plastic/nylon dowels to position the head. These failed causing HGF.

The replacement head gasket kit would have come with replacement metal dowels so it should be fine.

The OP could search for something different but if you know this car's history then that counts for a lot.

My family have a 1996 Rover 25 that is used as a workhorse and spare car. The whole family use it to fetch and carry stuff and make trips to the dump in. It was kept because there's absolutely nothing wrong with it and the trade in offered was a joke. It's handy to have.

The so called piece of cr*p starts first time every time and is the car used when so called better cars break down. Every year it goes through another MOT, this year it passed without any work, last year it had a couple of suspension bushes.

In the winter two of the girls fight over it as they both have a BMW Z4 that is rubbish in the snow.

I use it too when I can as my Merc SLK 32 AMG is also rubbish in the snow.

you speak highly of the rover. But then you do drive a Mercedes. Not a car known for its build quality.

Mr_Toad

Sgt_Pepper wrote: »

you speak highly of the rover. But then you do drive a Mercedes. Not a car known for its build quality.

I used to drive an MGF - the head gasket lasted 74k before failing. It was the only breakdown in 87k miles and 4 years. That was replaced by the SLK which I've had ever since, a car that hasn't had a single breakdown in 11 years.

The generalised stupidity of your trolling comes as no surprise.

verityboo

Well the OP asked for info on these cars and I think they have got the full range. Everything from people labouring under the misapprehension that it is BMW's finest design achievement to those who wouldn't touch one with a barge pole. I'm in the latter camp but then I'm not a gambling man. The car would have been worth banger money when the HG was replaced. Only the OP knows how trustworthy their friend is and can ultimately decide

atrixblue.-MFR-.

the 25's have a bit more BMW to them than the pre BMW 200 series rover, lotus went to town on the VVTI BRM 1.8 just wish rover had taken some pointers with that engine build at that point and started rectifying the HG problem from there not years later down the line and ending up in the cosh when the new engine was almost complete but one can only speculate that BMW had a part to play in this delay also.

a looked after rover 25/45/75 and mg equivelants is worth some money to the MG/Rover enthusiasts out there.

at less than £500, is a cheap car that will last a good while and worth a stop gap in looking out for a newer car when you have the cash.
and probably be able to sell it on at about the same if not a little more than the price you gave for it.

richard734

Well, not getting sidetracked into an argument with someone determined to overlook inconveniant facts in order to push their own bias.
As an owner of 2 Rover 25's at different times, I say this is a good suitable runaround for the money, I would buy one for my eldest as a first car - luckily we have another year to wait for that though.
Good luck OP, bowing out of this discussion to save it getting overrun by arguments

verityboo

richard734 wrote: »

Well, not getting sidetracked into an argument with someone determined to overlook inconveniant facts in order to push their own bias.

What facts?
I am not biased against Rover. The 2 MG ZTT's I had (one petrol, one diesel) were brilliant but then BMW genuinely were involved in the design from the start and, perhaps more importantly, they had enough money to do a decent job. I never have and still wouldn't buy a K-series engined one and warn anyone else not to.

mikey72

verityboo wrote: »

What facts?
I am not biased against Rover. The 2 MG ZTT's I had (one petrol, one diesel) were brilliant but then BMW genuinely were involved in the design from the start and, perhaps more importantly, they had enough money to do a decent job. I still wouldn't but a K-series engined one and warn anyone else not to.

You'll find they re-engineered the 200 into the 25 at the same time, and it heavily leans on the 75 design.

verityboo

mikey72 wrote: »

You'll find they re-engineered the 200 into the 25 at the same time, and it heavily leans on the 75 design.

Yes but only visually. The only engineering change made when the 200 was transformed into the 25 was that the suspension was changed, all cars were fitted with the suspension fitted on the old 200vi.

The revamp was carried out during a period of panic due to low sales and the 25 was priced lower than the previous 200, hence the revamp was done with a very small budget and the changes were virtually all cosmetic

colino

OP sadly the little Rover, while going well drives and feels like a much bigger car, has an innovative engine - for its time, but on an X, even with a HG replacement it is just another banger gamble.
From new the engines had too small a water and oil capacity, had an accountant paring down the costs and this led to tens of thousands of HGF. Available at that age and that money I'd seriously doubt even a home mechanic replaced all the necessary parts and if the HG goes again, and that could be tomorrow, its an expensive paperweight.
Ignore all the google gropers trying to link it to BMW, it never was. It was design tweaked later in its life to look more corporate and had stiffer suspension, but had not one bit of BMW craftsmanship ever attached to it.
Ask your garage mate to keep an eye out for other trade-in shrapnel by all means, but an old Rover is just a problem waiting to happen.

malkyh

masonn wrote: »

In the winter two of the girls fight over it as they both have a BMW Z4 that is rubbish in the snow.

I use it too when I can as my Merc SLK 32 AMG is also rubbish in the snow.

This is the worst 'we are rich' post ever :beer: