Rover 620 Si auto - "worth" buying

Michtaylor09

colino wrote: »

Hang on to the Mondeo. The Rover 800s were old-fashioned when they came out new, were slow, heavy, unreliable and about as nimble as a barge. Just about everything on them can and will go wrong, the saving grace is their weight as you will get more from the scrappy for them.

Rubbish!

I had the Rover827 with the V6 Honda engine. It was a fantastic car, never once let me down and could never be described as slow. I could steer it with one finger (not that I did on a public road).
When it was time to say goodbye, a local stock car racer bought it off me to use the engine.

colino

The 827 was hardly the benchmark of the 800 series was it? Have a search for Tony Pond caning one round the Isle of Man. The rest were absolutely garbage.

Paradigm

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

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

I wouldn't call it "unreliable" though, just average but things improved....

Proven Honda technology and improved build quality ensured above-average reliability on newer cars

alastairq

http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/carbycar/rover/600-1993/

forgotmyname

I had the V6 Honda engined Rover 800. It was great. But it was easy to do the wrong side of 130mph with plenty more to go...

I also had a 2.5 diesel version which was fairly quick but drank the fuel like a petrol car.

Jamie_Carter

Michtaylor09 wrote: »

Rubbish!

I had the Rover827 with the V6 Honda engine. It was a fantastic car, never once let me down and could never be described as slow. I could steer it with one finger (not that I did on a public road).
When it was time to say goodbye, a local stock car racer bought it off me to use the engine.

Reliability is about far more than just the engine stopping.

Jamie_Carter

Paradigm wrote: »

I wouldn't call it "unreliable" though, just average but things improved....

They improved on newer cars yes. But they couldn't have got much worse.

Jack_Regan

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

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

It was ok, I can't recall any real issues.

spacey2012

Reliability is an easy test, just count how many you see still on the road still going.

Joe_Horner

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...

Save your breath.

It wore a Rover badge (even though it was essentially a Honda) and so, in case you hadn't noticed, was temperamental / unreliable / expensive to run with disappointing performance and handling regardless of any evidence to the contrary. The same car with a Honda badge would have been a "great car".

You can replace "Rover" with any other marque associated with BL, with the possible exception of Mini (although that wasn't a standalone brand util BMW got it) and get exactly the same learned opinions from some people.

Which is (part of) why we no longer have a car industry. No matter what was produced, the locals would slag it off and buy foreign instead.