Rover 620 Si auto - "worth" buying

colino

Apologies, must have been the flashbacks of being forced to drive a procession of 820se auto saloons! The 620 was a great Honda collaboration, but at that age it will have the rusty back wheel arches, the drivers side electric window will have been on its umpteenth replacement and it really isn't a step up from what you already have.

mad_rich

Better the devil you know.

Why get rid of a car that you know is running well in exchange for something that will cost you more to run (petrol/ insurance) all other things being equal?

And which may conk out in a week.

If you really do want to replace it, the chances are there are better cars out there.

Joe_Horner

Why change for the sake of it? If he was parting with it for a couple of hundred it might be "too good to miss" but, at 5, it's just another old car.

One point from your first post, though:

- 11.6 seconds to 60mph so overtaking will be risky

Regardless of what Jez Clarkson and Co suggest, that's a perfectly adequate time for a road car.

Overtaking is also not about 0 - 60 times because you're usually starting overtakes somewhere around 40mph anyway, so the 0 - 40 part of the time (where a lot of new cars "score" well) has no effect on overtaking.

That's especially true with automatics, which tend to be a little slower away from a standing start than manuals but, if used properly, will beat the crepe suzette out of the vast majority of drivers with a manual

mattyprice4004

They're a great car, but a couple of things to be aware of for the bangernomics buyer and 600s...

What's good:
- Cheap parts
- Chassis is solid and strong against rust (except rear arches)
- Engines are solid, 2.0 Turbo is a bit more expensive to run as you'd imagine but still pretty reliable
- Best engine is the 2.0 diesel. Rock solid, no known issues and runs for 500,000 miles +

What's bad:
- Front brake discs mounted behind the hub and as such expensive in labour to change
- Lower ball joints need doing every 60-80k
- Rust around rear arches
- Dated interior

I had the cheapest days of my motoring in my 600 diesel.

Jamie_Carter

The Rover 600 had a terrible reputation for reliability. Stay well away.

mattyprice4004

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

The Rover 600 had a terrible reputation for reliability. Stay well away.

Incorrect. Where's your proof? All (or most) reviews praised reliability.
Solid Honda petrol engines (save the 2.0T which was Rover) and the rock-solid Rover L Series diesel, good transmissions and solid chassis.
Yeah, really unreliable...

Jack_Regan

mattyprice4004 wrote: »

Incorrect. Where's your proof? All (or most) reviews praised reliability.
Solid Honda petrol engines (save the 2.0T which was Rover) and the rock-solid Rover L Series diesel, good transmissions and solid chassis.
Yeah, really unreliable...

The 620Ti was a very fast car in it's day.

When it was running that is.:D

mattyprice4004

Jack_Regan wrote: »

The 620Ti was a very fast car in it's day.

When it was running that is.:D

I had pretty good luck, and I had 2 of them. One was a 1999 with 112k, needed a clutch and new brake calipers on the back in my ownership. It went to the 'Ring and had a damn good stab against Golf GTIs and suchlike. Cue a lot of surprised faces and Germans asking me what it was.

I bought the second for £200 knowing it needed a clutch and ABS sensor, it was on 201k. Still going strong today, no rust even on the arches. Should have kept it!

Jamie_Carter

mattyprice4004 wrote: »

Incorrect. Where's your proof? All (or most) reviews praised reliability.
Solid Honda petrol engines (save the 2.0T which was Rover) and the rock-solid Rover L Series diesel, good transmissions and solid chassis.
Yeah, really unreliable...

I wouldn't call 2.5 out of 5 reliable: http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/reviews/rover/600/saloon-1993/safety-reliability/

Jamie_Carter

Jack_Regan wrote: »

The 620Ti was a very fast car in it's day.

When it was running that is.:D

So I presume yours wasn't the most reliable car then?