Opinions on choice of car

faceman

One of guys in the office is looking to get a car on limited budget. Any opinions please? Please dont reply with "get something else" or "X cars are shoite" (Unless you have something constructive to say! ) The chap is limited to these 2 choices. (Bloody foreigners! )

02 Seat Cordova - 60k (Miles)
01 Rover 75 connoisseur - 80k (Miles)

Which would you go for?

peasant

assuming that both cars are equally well sorted and have no issues, I'd go for the Rover ...it's just more "bang for your buck" .

faceman

He also has a choice of an alfa romeo (156) but i told him he was wasting his time asking about it here!

mickdw

faceman wrote: »

He also has a choice of an alfa romeo (156) but i told him he was wasting his time asking about it here!

Go for the alfa.

Hal1

The Seat looks alright, I'd feel like a git in the Rover. Alfa you say, Alfa it is!

Esel

Autobox in the R75 (Jatco) has given major problems.

S.I.R

neither.... if shoot myself before owning a rover/mg and seats arent much better either.... just because they have a german engine dont mean there as relyable as a golf.... a pleasant drive though.....

-Chris-

Alfa!!

Eoin

S.I.R wrote: »

neither.... if shoot myself before owning a rover/mg and seats arent much better either.... just because they have a german engine dont mean there as relyable as a golf.... a pleasant drive though.....

I wouldn't hold Golfs up as a shining beacon of reliability anyway.

Definitely the Alfa for me, the Rover 75 is just too pipe and slippers for me. I would have thought the the Cordoba was a class smaller than the other two. They look very dull.

colm_mcm

the Cordoba would be 2 classes smaller than the other 2. if you take Focus size stuff in the middle

abitdazed

Alfa 1st, then Seat. Just say no to the Rover. I bought a Rover 820 Vitesse 2.0L Turbo a month ago. Damn thing blew the head gasket before I could even pick it up. Got my €50 back though!

colm_mcm

abitdazed wrote: »

Alfa 1st, then Seat. Just say no to the Rover. I bought a Rover 820 Vitesse 2.0L Turbo a month ago. Damn thing blew the head gasket before I could even pick it up. Got my €50 back though!

How does a blown head gasket on a €50 Rover 820 make a Rover 75 a bad buy?

zero19

I'd go for the Alfa myself

Mailman

esel wrote: »

Autobox in the R75 (Jatco) has given major problems.

I disagree stongly! Autobox is not a major issue on this car. HGF failure on 1.8, radiator fans and clutch plates on manuals are items to watch for.

Mailman

abitdazed wrote: »

Alfa 1st, then Seat. Just say no to the Rover. I bought a Rover 820 Vitesse 2.0L Turbo a month ago. Damn thing blew the head gasket before I could even pick it up. Got my €50 back though!

That engine was never sold in the 75 so it's not relevant.

Bluefoam

Alfa

Mailman

Bluefoam wrote: »

Alfa

I've owned both Alfa 156 and Rover 75. The Rover 75 is the better car by a long stretch.

Bluefoam

Mailman wrote: »

I've owned both Alfa 156 and Rover 75. The Rover 75 is the better car by a long stretch.

ha ha

Mailman

Bluefoam wrote: »

Alfa

Bluefoam wrote: »

ha ha

two responses, 8 letters and a smiley!
That settles it. The OP need look no further for a answer. You've given him sound reasons to purchase one car over another.

colm_mcm

surely if it's down to a 156 or a 75, there are certain aspects of each car that will appeal to your friend. Personally, I think the 156 looks better, seems roomier, and will be nicer to drive than the Rover, on the other hand, the 75 is less likely to be ragged and may be more reliable. Unusual choice to have to make.

Mailman

colm_mcm wrote: »

surely if it's down to a 156 or a 75, there are certain aspects of each car that will appeal to your friend. Personally, I think the 156 looks better, seems roomier, and will be nicer to drive than the Rover, on the other hand, the 75 is less likely to be ragged and may be more reliable. Unusual choice to have to make.

Most 156s are abused because of the customer they attract. Most Rover 75s aren't. The rover 75 is much larger and wider inside. The boot in the 75 is absolutely huge. When polished up a Rover 75 is very attractive and is a much classier looking car than my Red 156 which was a pretty car.
Add in dual zone Automatic climate control, heated electric seats, heated mirrors, steering wheel controls, deep pile carpet, high quality leather and excellent construction there is absolutely no way a 156 can be compared to it.

Bluefoam

dual zone Automatic climate control, heated electric seats, heated mirrors, steering wheel controls, deep pile carpet, high quality leather

All all the above are available in the 156, except maybe the deep pile carpet, which I'm sure is not very suitable to a car... I think you are either drawn to the alfa or you're not. I think that if you are confused over which to get between those cars, then you are probably better off not going for the alfa.

Mailman

Bluefoam wrote: »

dual zone Automatic climate control, heated electric seats, heated mirrors, steering wheel controls, deep pile carpet, high quality leather

All all the above are available in the 156, except maybe the deep pile carpet, which I'm sure is not very suitable to a car... I think you are either drawn to the alfa or you're not. I think that if you are confused over which to get between those cars, then you are probably better off not going for the alfa.

You just don't know these cars. All the features I mentioned come as standard on a Rover 75 Connisseur. I had a 156 SP3 and the air con wasn't dual zone, the seats were manual and clad in a very poor quality leather, it had no steering wheel radio controls and the carpet was the same quality as you would find in a Punto.
The materials in use throughout the cabin were very poor too.

colm_mcm

Mailman wrote: »

Add in dual zone Automatic climate control, heated electric seats, heated mirrors, steering wheel controls, deep pile carpet, high quality leather and excellent construction there is absolutely no way a 156 can be compared to it.

This isn't standard equipment though.

By "Ragged" I meant the past tense of to "Rag" as in some one had ragged it around, as opposed to being unkempt. If he's looking for a comfy cruiser, then the Rover will obviously appeal. I didn't think the 75 was bigger inside than the 156, you'll know better than most though.

Mailman

colm_mcm wrote: »

This isn't standard equipment though.

It is standard equipment. Get a Conn. Se and you get even more toys thrown in. These cars were very well specified.

colm_mcm

but a Classic model has hardly any equipment

Mailman

colm_mcm wrote: »

but a Classic model has hardly any equipment

OP mentions connoisseur

colm_mcm

Mailman wrote: »

OP mentions connoisseur

so he does. I quite like the blue leather in them, we took in a connisseur diesel with it last year. 156 unlikely to match it spec wise.

Bluefoam

Mailman wrote: »

You just don't know these cars. All the features I mentioned come as standard on a Rover 75 Connisseur. I had a 156 SP3 and the air con wasn't dual zone, the seats were manual and clad in a very poor quality leather, it had no steering wheel radio controls and the carpet was the same quality as you would find in a Punto.
The materials in use throughout the cabin were very poor too.

I know the Alfa very well, its a fantastic interior, and the build quality on those I have driven have been no worse than most other cars. What is a Rover 75 Connisseur - sounds like a particular model with an upgraded spec...???

The Alfa is a drivers car, the Rover is not. I'm not sure those two cars are aimed at a similar demographic.

I don't know much about the Rover because it just doesn't do anything for me & I find it disinteresting. Thats not to say that it shouldn't appeal to others...
The usual stereo types apply, Alfas can be a bit more expensive to run, when buying make sure timing belts have been done at correct service intervals, spark plug changes are more expensive due to the twin spark engine etc...
Rovers have a bad reputation for build quality and dated engineering.

You may find the Rover more comfortable because it was designed to be a loungey car, the Alfa is more dynamic & the interior is designed to be more supportive and sports orientated, I certainly wouldn't say the Alfa leather is poor - quite the opposite.

Sounds like you judge your cars on a different set of criteria than me.

You just don't know these cars.

& BTW, enough with the patronising comments

Mailman

Bluefoam wrote: »

I know the Alfa very well, its a fantastic interior, and the build quality on those I have driven have been no worse than most other cars. What is a Rover 75 Connisseur - sounds like a particular model with an upgraded spec...???

The Alfa is a drivers car, the Rover is not. I'm not sure those two cars are aimed at a similar demographic.

I don't know much about the Rover because it just doesn't do anything for me & I find it disinteresting. Thats not to say that it shouldn't appeal to others...
The usual stereo types apply, Alfas can be a bit more expensive to run, when buying make sure timing belts have been done at correct service intervals, spark plug changes are more expensive due to the twin spark engine etc...
Rovers have a bad reputation for build quality and dated engineering.

You may find the Rover more comfortable because it was designed to be a loungey car, the Alfa is more dynamic & the interior is designed to be more supportive and sports orientated, I certainly wouldn't say the Alfa leather is poor - quite the opposite.

Sounds like you judge your cars on a different set of criteria than me.

You just don't know these cars.

& BTW, enough with the patronising comments

sorry you don't know these cars. I ran both for 2 years. The Alfa is a sportier car but you end up paying for it in increased running costs, repair and suspension rebuilds.
The leather on any moderate milage Alfa 156 I'd seen including my own was dull and flaking especially around the seat bolsters and seat base.
The Rover 75 is still current technology and because it was designed to sell at the same price point as a 3-series BMW from it takes suspension design and switchgear it is a superior car to the Alfa 156 which was built as a high end competitor to the Mondeo and Vectra. The interior on the Alfa 156 is very low rent in comparission to the Rover 75.

Bluefoam

Zube

Mailman wrote: »

sorry you don't know these cars.

Rover did indeed kit these cars out well, with a pipe rack, hatstand, and a clever holder for your walking stick in the drivers door. It's a pity the cruise control only works up to 40 mph, but few of them are ever driven that fast anyhow. Another drawback is that the radio only picks up Terry Wogan, for some reason.

Mailman

Zube wrote: »

Rover did indeed kit these cars out well, with a pipe rack, hatstand, and a clever holder for your walking stick in the drivers door. It's a pity the cruise control only works up to 40 mph, but few of them are ever driven that fast anyhow. Another drawback is that the radio only picks up Terry Wogan, for some reason.

It's a pity that Rover closed down. Now the only cars in the market are ones that aspire to be VW Passat clones or Toyota Avensis knock-offs. Hell, some of them even advertise themselves as more German than the Germans.
The day MG-Rover shut down was a bad day for the motor industry.

Zube

I don't agree, I think MG-Rover, Rover, BL, British Leyland or whatever are no loss. What was the last good car they made? The original Mini?

The Rover 75 seemed to be some sort of confused effort to put out a small executive car which would be guaranteed not to compete with BMWs 3 series, since BMW owned Rover at the time. So it couldn't be sporty, or handle well, or be modern. Instead it is comfy and loaded with kit. It's the car equivalent of those fluffy zip-on slipper things you see old folks wearing.

Mailman

Zube wrote: »

I don't agree, I think MG-Rover, Rover, BL, British Leyland or whatever are no loss. What was the last good car they made? The original Mini?

The Rover 75 seemed to be some sort of confused effort to put out a small executive car which would be guaranteed not to compete with BMWs 3 series, since BMW owned Rover at the time. So it couldn't be sporty, or handle well, or be modern. Instead it is comfy and loaded with kit. It's the car equivalent of those fluffy zip-on slipper things you see old folks wearing.

I love comments like this. This sort of view allowed me to purchase a stacked luxury car for less than super-mini money.

Eoin

Zube wrote: »

The Rover 75 seemed to be some sort of confused effort to put out a small executive car which would be guaranteed not to compete with BMWs 3 series, since BMW owned Rover at the time.

Is it that different to VAG having lots of cars in the same class?

Zube wrote: »

So it couldn't be sporty, or handle well, or be modern. Instead it is comfy and loaded with kit.

Some people want a comfy car and don't care if it's sporty or not.

I can completely understand why someone would want this interior ahead of a 3 series one:

tw0nk

Ive never driven a 75 but Ive been a passenger in one from Dublin to Cork and I have to say its a gorgeous comfortable car. Im changing car next month and I looked at the 75 more than once as an option but theres this niggling doubt in the back of my mind not to get one for reliability/parts reasons. My thoughts could be completely unfounded but I cant stop thinking it. For that reason Im leaning towards the new model s40 now, the 1.8 petrol version.

Dirty_Diesel

faceman wrote: »

The chap is limited to these 2 choices. (Bloody foreigners! )

02 Seat Cordova - 60k (Miles)
01 Rover 75 connoisseur - 80k (Miles)

Which would you go for?

Definately the Seat, due to VAG build quality. I couldn't think of a worse comparison tbh

colm_mcm wrote: »

How does a blown head gasket on a €50 Rover 820 make a Rover 75 a bad buy?

Because Rover still used plastic dowels to locate the head in the block, and also had a water pump that consisted on a plastic impellor in a steel shaft that expanded and stopped spinning!

Although for piece of mind all you need to do is buy a spurious pump from a motor factors (one-piece impellor & shaft) and steel dowels for the head and you will have a trouble free Rover

Mailman

plastic dowels were only used on 1.8K block and upgrading the HG to a LandRover one with metal dowels is the fix for this issue.
Water Pump is not really a major problem on this engnine either; Water leaks are the big big issue due to low coolant capacity and wet liner design.
If you want to avoid these problems buy a V6.

Eoin

Dirty_Diesel wrote: »

Definately the Seat, due to VAG build quality. I couldn't think of a worse comparison tbh

VAG build quality is greatly over-rated.

thats_life

just buy a toyota!

if ya cant...flip a coin on the seat/rover. but you'll probably get a buyer quciker for the seat if you ever decide to sell it in the future....

Esel

Mailman wrote: »

I disagree stongly! Autobox is not a major issue on this car. HGF failure on 1.8, radiator fans and clutch plates on manuals are items to watch for.

Just going by what Honest John says:

"On automatics, a piston cracks and a 3rd to 4th gear problem shows up, then gradually spreads as the bits from the damaged piston spread. Reverse goes next. and soon there is no drive at all."

Mailman

esel wrote: »

Just going by what Honest John says:

"On automatics, a piston cracks and a 3rd to 4th gear problem shows up, then gradually spreads as the bits from the damaged piston spread. Reverse goes next. and soon there is no drive at all."

And in the line before he says "some reports" not these Jatco boxes are very troublesome.
The Automatics are not a big issue on the Rover 75.
Look at all the reports of problems in his record for the Ford Focus which is considered a reliable car; if it is a common car that has been on the market for the last few years HonestJohn will have added in anything he has found in the intervening period.
And the autobox is not something you'd worry about anyhow, if an autobox is shifting smoothly up and down during the test drive then it will be OK. If it isn't you walk away there an then. It isn't something that the previous owner can disguise and will suddenly blow 1000 miles down the line.

Esel

Mailman wrote: »

... if an autobox is shifting smoothly up and down during the test drive then it will be OK....It isn't something that ....will suddenly blow 1000 miles down the line.

Don't know how you can say that with confidence. Any problem can happen with any car '1000 miles down the line'. I like autos, btw.

Mailman

esel wrote: »

Don't know how you can say that with confidence. Any problem can happen with any car '1000 miles down the line'. I like autos, btw.

It's a fairer comment than saying the autoboxes in Rover 75s are troublesome.

Esel

Mailman wrote: »

It's a fairer comment than saying the autoboxes in Rover 75s are troublesome.

Jeez. Heres the relevant section from Honest John. There are two separate statements.

Honest John wrote:

Some problems emerging with 5-speed autobox on diesels: clutch packs breaking up after 3-4 years.

On automatics, a piston cracks and a 3rd to 4th gear problem shows up, then gradually spreads as the bits from the damaged piston spread. Reverse goes next. and soon there is no drive at all.

So, he says that the clutch pack on the diesel autobox breaks up after 3-4 years. He then goes on to make a separate statement about the Jatco automatics developing a cracked piston.

Mailman

esel wrote: »

Jeez. Heres the relevant section from Honest John. There are two separate statements.



So, he says that the clutch pack on the diesel autobox breaks up after 3-4 years. He then goes on to make a separate statement about the Jatco automatics developing a cracked piston.

And I direct you back to my post about his comments on the Ford Focus. If anyone read them they'd be afraid to buy a Focus which is acknowledged to be a reliable car. I'm not going to post all the reports he has made of problems with the Focus because it is just not fair to the car. I certainly wouldn't respond to a thread about somebody considering purchasing a Ford Focus listing all the reported problems and say that on the Ford Focus X,Y or Z has given "major problems" as it is not a fair comment on the car.

Your comment was unfair and I'm calling you on it!

Eoin

I may be wrong, but Honest John seems to list every single problem that has ever happened with a car, but not give an idea to the frequency or likelihood of the problem.