Rover 45 query

tc20

Hi all,
a workmate has just bought (privately) a 00 model of the above. Very clean, well maintained with good service history. 64k miles on the clock, 1.6 engine. I had a shufty earlier today, and noticed that the clutch pedal seems in an inordinately position in relation to the footrest. Now the pedal box is small, not to the point of being cramped or anything, just it feels that you are lifting your left foot quite a bit to get on the clutch pedal.

Has anyone here have any experience of Rover 45s? And are there any other mech issues to look for on these models such as head gaskets etc?

Cheers

Cosmo K

And are there any other mech issues to look for on these models

....just one, its a Rover. They went bust for a reason......

High&Low

I drove a Rover 45 for a while, horrible car, can't think of any redeeming features and you are right about the clutch, seems to be about 2 ft higher than the other pedals...

louie

Rover will always be a Rover...

Guy:Incognito

louie wrote: »

Rover will always be a Rover...

Apart from the ones that are Honda's, and the other ones that are BMW's.

tc20

Hmmm,
methinks there be not too many friends of Rover 45s round these parts....

colm_mcm

It's easy to slag them, but I'd have more confidence in the reliability of a 45 than most 6/7 year old European cars, be they Spanish, German, French or Italian.
They have very few common faults, they head gasket problem being the one that everyone knows about. There were many reasons for Rover going bust. Reliability of the cars wasn't really a factor.

Fact is, many 45's were bought by old folks who maintained the cars well and drove them carefully. combine this with the low prices and they're a bargain. They're also a decent drive. (in a 90's Japanese car kinda way)

Anan1

colm_mcm wrote: »

It's easy to slag them, but I'd have more confidence in the reliability of a 45 than most 6/7 year old European cars, be they Spanish, German, French or Italian.
They have very few common faults, they head gasket problem being the one that everyone knows about. There were many reasons for Rover going bust. Reliability of the cars wasn't really a factor.

Fact is, many 45's were bought by old folks who maintained the cars well and drove them carefully. combine this with the low prices and they're a bargain. They're also a decent drive. (in a 90's Japanese car kinda way)

Quite true.

unkel

Fair points, Colm. That said, the car's handling is absolutely horrible. I'm struggling here trying to prove myself wrong, but I can't think of any car I've driven that handles worse than the 400 series. Not even bottom of the range 70s and 80s cars that spring to mind are quite as bad

colm_mcm

Are you referring to the first or second generation 400 model. as in the one that started in 1990, or the one that became the 45? I don't think it was that bad. for mid 90's cars there were certiainly worse out there.

bazz26

Switchgear in the 45 is very retro 1980s/1990s even if that wasn't the intention by Rover.

Like having a Commadore 64 all over again.

colm_mcm

my favourite being the passenger window switch between the seats, and the drivers switch on the drivers door. very thrifty. Thinking on unkels comments on handling, the more I think of it the more I disagree. I remember enjoying a back road in a 1.6 45 saloon a few years ago. nothing wrong with it at all.

JohnCleary

Ah brings me back to when I had a 214 (99 model) ... only sold it this year. I realy loved that little jammer, but wouldn't buy one again.

Nothing major ever went wrong, never had HG trouble etc... Just a few little niggidys that used to wreck my head. I learned a lot about cars/engines from that car

unkel

colm_mcm wrote: »

Thinking on unkels comments on handling, the more I think of it the more I disagree. I remember enjoying a back road in a 1.6 45 saloon a few years ago. nothing wrong with it at all.

It was a '99 400 (1.6). I put it through the NCT myself recently and it failed on emissions, but on nothing else. So there wasn't anything wrong with the suspension, etc. It was awful to drive though

tc20

colm_mcm wrote: »

my favourite being the passenger window switch between the seats, and the drivers switch on the drivers door. very thrifty.

Yeah i noticed that! almost Italian-like in its "oh, we forgot about that, where will we put it" kinda way

The 45 my workmate bought is the model with the very slabby ass of a boot. I had a look on carzone last night for similar, and there seems to be a different boot on some 00s and 01s makeover?

RobAMerc

the 45 was designed years ago and was basically warmed over every few years to keep it modern looking, but in reality it was an ancient platform thats why they ride and handle so horribly.

I though the 1.6 was less troublesome than the 1.4 though?

bazz26

The Rover 45 started out in life as the Rover 400 which was a design shared with the 5 door UK built Honda Civic from 1995.

The Rover 400 was available in both hatchback and saloon form from 1995 onwards. It received a facelift in 2000 when it was rebadged the 45 and MG versions were introduced, most noticeable difference was the twin round headlamps and new bumpers similar to the 75. The 45 got another facelift in 2004 when the twin front headlights were replaced with a double integrated headlamp. The boot and rear bumper were changed also where the Rover name was spread across the back and the number plate moved to the bumper. Interior dashboard also got new centre console.

Also I think the 1.6 litre was a Honda unit rather than Rover. The 1.4 and 1.8 litre were Rover K-Series engines.

unkel

That explains a lot. Thanks, bazz

bazz26 wrote: »

I think the 1.6 litre was a Honda unit rather than Rover. The 1.4 and 1.8 litre were Rover K-Series engines.

Interesting. The 1.6 I'm talking about blew its HG at about 40k miles. Typical for a K-series, but for a Honda? :eek:

bazz26

unkel wrote: »

That explains a lot. Thanks, bazz



Interesting. The 1.6 I'm talking about blew its HG at about 40k miles. Typical for a K-series, but for a Honda? :eek:

Maybe the Honda engine had a software upgrade to the ECU making it think it was a Rover engine and hey presto, head gasket failure.

tc20

bazz26 wrote: »

Also I think the 1.6 litre was a Honda unit rather than Rover. The 1.4 and 1.8 litre were Rover K-Series engines.

Fair play to ya bazz, how do you keep all this stuff in your head dude?

Interesting about the Honda engine tho..i havent looked under the bonnet of my workmates car. Would there be any Honda badging anywhere on the block or would it be serial number designation to find out whether its a Honda or Rover lump?

Cheers

Guy:Incognito

tc20 wrote: »

Fair play to ya bazz, how do you keep all this stuff in your head dude?

Interesting about the Honda engine tho..i havent looked under the bonnet of my workmates car. Would there be any Honda badging anywhere on the block or would it be serial number designation to find out whether its a Honda or Rover lump?

Cheers

Depends on the engine. AFAIR the 2.0 honda engine in the ROver 620 I had didnt have a Honda emboss. Think it was a plastic cover on the accord I had (same engine).

The Volvo engine that was in my safrane didnt have a volvo badge and Renault had their own engine cover over it.

BrianD3

AFAIK, both Rover and Honda 1.6 units were used in the 400. I think the early cars had Honda 1.6s with later ones having Rover K series 1.6s

colm_mcm

I think manual 1.6 400's had a K Series engine which was based on the infamous 1.4
Automatics were a Honda engine.

bazz26

colm_mcm wrote: »

I think manual 1.6 400's had a K Series engine which was based on the infamous 1.4
Automatics were a Honda engine.

I think your right Colm. The Honda engine was mated to the Honda Auto box. It made sense to use both together.

I think the Honda 1.6 litre was dropped when Rover and Honda's partnership died in the late 1990s.

It is possible that they used a 1.6 litre later on which was a bored out version of the 1.4 K-Series. Problem with the K-Series engines was that the coolant system was poorly designed so if there was any leak at all, the head gasket would go.

I reckon to be sure which engine it is the OP really needs to go to a Rover forum. The K-Series engines probably all had the same starting seriel numbers to identify them. The diesel was known as the L-Series.

JHMEG

Honda supplied a 1.6, 2.0 and 2.3 to Rover. None had "Honda" on the rocker cover, but they all had "PGM-FI" (which is a Honda trademark) in large letters on the throttle body.

No PGM-FI means not Honda. Honda stopped supplying engines when BMW took over, and AFAIK all engines from there on were in-house Rover designs. Not a Rover expert but all Rover engines are DOHC (I think), while the 2.0, 2.3 and most 1.6 Honda engines are SOHC. They also supplied a DOHC 1.6 in the early 90s.

For what it's worth, aside from the OHC thing, the Honda D-series and Rover K-series engines look completely different.

Guy:Incognito

JHMEG wrote: »

Honda supplied a 1.6, 2.0 and 2.3 to Rover. None had "Honda" on the rocker cover, but they all had "PGM-FI" (which is a Honda trademark) in large letters on the throttle body.

No PGM-FI means not Honda. Honda stopped supplying engines when BMW took over, and AFAIK all engines from there on were in-house Rover designs. Not a Rover expert but all Rover engines are DOHC (I think), while the 2.0, 2.3 and most 1.6 Honda engines are SOHC. They also supplied a DOHC 1.6 in the early 90s.

For what it's worth, aside from the OHC thing, the Honda D-series and Rover K-series engines look completely different.

Was the 2.0 diesel in the 75 not a BMW engine from the 3 series?

alteregoZR

bazz26 wrote: »

Also I think the 1.6 litre was a Honda unit rather than Rover. The 1.4 and 1.8 litre were Rover K-Series engines.

The MG Rover K Series came in 1.4, 1.6 and 1.8... All share a common block and head apart from the VVC version. The 1.6 uses the same crank and rods as the 1.4 but with the 1.8 pistons and liners to up capacity to 1.6

unkel

alteregoZR wrote: »

The MG Rover K Series came in 1.4, 1.6 and 1.8... All share a common block and head apart from the VVC version. The 1.6 uses the same crank and rods as the 1.4 but with the 1.8 pistons and liners to up capacity to 1.6

That would explain things. It also gives us yet another interesting view of car marketing. Rover K-Series engine in the late 90s. 1.4 = 103BHP / 1.6 = 112BHP / 1.8 = 116BHP. Pathetically small difference between 1.4 and 1.8 version of the same engine

IrishRover

The 1.6 in question is a Rover engine, unless it is an automatic.
Easy way to tell is if gearbox is on the right (as you stand in front of engine bay) it's a Rover engine, and if on the left it's a Honda engine.
Different cam covers were used on the Honda engines that were put in Rover cars.

unkel

IrishRover wrote: »

The 1.6 in question is a Rover engine, unless it is an automatic

Thanks for confirming that, IrishRover.

IrishRover

Hehe, no worries. Re the clutch pedal height, if there is a lot of slack before the pedal engages the mechanism, just use the adjuster on the pedal to bring it down until the slack is taken up.

Regarding HGs, the Landrover HG is now pretty much accepted as a definitive fix for the issue.

Dave Andrews at http://www.dvapower.co.uk/ is a respected authority on K series engine tuning.