Turned down for finance and no spare money for a car :(

James_Lahey

worried_jim wrote: »

Nothing could be further from the truth! The reason it was so (big pile of poo) is that Honda had nothing to do with it. Consider your self contradicted.

Thanks for that, I know a lot of the "rover" engines get a lot of bad rep - could have sworn we had a 414 many years ago that had a honda engine in? It certainly did us well, ranting up and down the country many times!

worried_jim

James_Lahey wrote: »

Thanks for that, I know a lot of the "rover" engines get a lot of bad rep - could have sworn we had a 414 many years ago that had a honda engine in? It certainly did us well, ranting up and down the country many times!

The 416 was the Honda engine. I know, I had the misfortune of buying a 414- and yes the HG did break.

Herzlos

bigmaz wrote: »

I quite fancy a rover 75 some cheap ones going on autotrader

You'll really struggle to find a better car for the money. I've got one and haven't found any reason to replace it at all

bigmaz

Herzlos wrote: »

You'll really struggle to find a better car for the money. I've got one and haven't found any reason to replace it at all

Great, thanks what engine and year do you have? Have you had to spend much on it in the time you have owned it?

Herzlos

jaydeeuk1 wrote: »

Nowt wrong with the 75 - superb value for money imo, either go diesel or for the 2.5 petrol only - not 1.8 or 2.0 v6. In fact I think there is a v8 version, but might be just for MG

I'd echo that; diesel if doing lots of mileage, 2.5 petrol otherwise. There are someV8 Rovers as well, but they are pretty rare (something like 8 V8 Tourers were made, no idea how many saloons). The other petrols should be alright, but it is a big car.

As for the K series HGF nonsense, they have a bad rep but aren't that bad if looked after properly, as with anything else, and easy enough to keep an eye on coolant. Spare parts are still cheap and plentiful on all but the facelift (2004 onwards) body panels.