Rover Prices

EpiphoneSpecial

hi all,

i was shopping around to look for a used car for myself. i noticed this and was wondering if any1 knew why Rovers are so cheap??

i noticed this even before the whole business end of them went belly up. are they crap?? unreliable?? dodgy??

i like the shape of them and they look nice but wanted to get some feedback before i committed to one.

i saw a few 2000/2001 bout 20k on the clock for around 5 - 6 k, this seems very cheap considering my brother paid 8,500k for a 01 polo with 10k on it.

any suggestions, would be great.

cheers

kermit_ie

EpiphoneSpecial wrote:

are they crap?? unreliable?? dodgy??

Yes, Yes, and Yes

JohnCleary

kermit_ie wrote:

Yes, Yes, and Yes

Total bull. They just have a bad 2nd hand price.
I bought a Rover (mk3 214) as a run about for a few hundred quid, I was expecting the head gasket to pop at any time. Ive put up 30,000 miles in the last 10 months and its still going like a Rocket! I just check the oil and coolant every weekend.

zAbbo

Which model of Rover were you looking at,

My gf has a '98 214 16v with 40k on the clock, and it runs perfect

commuterised

I've got a 97 414 with 180k on the clock.
I have to agree with JohnCleary, the oil and water gets checked every weekend and I'm constantly on the lookout for mayonaisse, but so far so good!!

Bought the thing nearly 3 years ago with 160 on the clock for about 1700.

End up soldering the immobiliser zapper every year or so as it stops making contact but other than that it's been grand. Does smell a bit though.

EpiphoneSpecial

i've been looking at a
Rover 200 1.1 I 8V '00
or
Rover 25 1.1 i '00/'01

i'd be buying through a dealer not private so the car would be passed as decent.

the signs say i should go for it, from what i'm hearing.....

JohnCleary

Get the 16v version, theres an extra 20BHP there on the 1.4
If your going for a Rover 25 check whether its the 83PS or 103PS version... The dealer will know.

I love my mk3 214, its brilliant, parts are very readily available and cheap (I alwayus buy from the UK...rover gear goes for peanuts over there)

As said above, my immoboliser plip stopped making contact with the battery but a quick solder fixed that. The only other problem I had was the fuel pump went, but I think that was my fathers fault for running it dry :rolleyes:

Go for it, I love my Rover... I dont think you can go wrong with them

EpiphoneSpecial

i have to stick to a 1.1 or 1.2 for insurance prices....

http://www.carzone.ie/usedcars/index.cfm?fuseaction=car&carID=157561

this is one i was looking at..

RicardoSmith

My mechanic is always putting me off them. I dunno though, you can get some good deals on them. Epecially older ones.

Victor

Quite a few of the European manufacturers are under price pressure from imports (because the yen and yuan are more closely tied to the weak dollar, than the euro) and are offering discounts.

bazz26

A more important question I think is what kind of warrenty are you getting with it from the dealer?

Just in case you didn't know Rover are now out of business. The dealer's warranty would have to be very good for me to buy one.

If you do buy one expect to keep it for a long time as it will be hard to sell on afterwards.

EpiphoneSpecial

i'd be running it into the ground...
dont understand the changing car every 3 years thing.

samo

I had an accident where I reversed at about 2-3 Mph (eg VERY slowly) and hit the front of a rover 214 (97 model I think) the whole front of their car caved in and it was a write off. The bumper of my car was slightly damaged.

Would hate to have seen that car in a head on collision considering the damage done at such a low impact so from the point of view of build quality, I would be a bit concerned!

RicardoSmith

samo wrote:

I had an accident where I reversed at about 2-3 Mph (eg VERY slowly) and hit the front of a rover 214 (97 model I think) the whole front of their car caved in and it was a write off. The bumper of my car was slightly damaged.

Would hate to have seen that car in a head on collision considering the damage done at such a low impact so from the point of view of build quality, I would be a bit concerned!

What did you hit it with. A car that crumples/deforms in a crash can be safer in an accident than a one thats too rigid. It disperses the force of impact much better. Of course it depends on the accident, and it has the disadvantge of damaging more of the car more easily.

JohnCleary

EpiphoneSpecial wrote:

i have to stick to a 1.1 or 1.2 for insurance prices....

http://www.carzone.ie/usedcars/index.cfm?fuseaction=car&carID=157561

this is one i was looking at..

That price is WAY OTT *unless* theres at least a 1 year warranty with it... You could buy the same spec one for 3k privately

commited

600's are great cars, as are the 75's. They are the only two that I've driven.
When I hit 25, I'll be looking to get a 620Gsi

EpiphoneSpecial

the buyandsell seems to be more expensive than the carzone prices...
i would have thought that a car from a dealership would always have some warranty with it

samo

RicardoSmith wrote:

What did you hit it with. A car that crumples/deforms in a crash can be safer in an accident than a one thats too rigid. It disperses the force of impact much better. Of course it depends on the accident, and it has the disadvantge of damaging more of the car more easily.

It was hit with a new style mondeo (fair enough that has a huge bumper!) but for the impact involved, I really thought the level of damage was very excessive especially if you actually saw the rover - it wasnt very encouraging. I've seen similar accidents (thankfully not been involved in them :eek: ) even the likes of a punto/corsa that have come off better.

The motor assessor from my insurance company did mention that had it been a larger Rover then the damage probably would have been alot less....(suppose that stands to reason!! )

prospect

As stated by RicardoSmith,
Cars are designed with crumple zones, the more force the car absorbes, the less is passed on to the occupant.
Example:
If you jump of a wall and land on a pile of empty cardboard boxes, they crumple up and absorb the force, leaving you okay.
But if the boxes arn't there, and you hit the concrete pavement, then you absorb the force, and sustain injuries.
Same principle.

RicardoSmith

Consider cars with rear or mid mounted engines. They still have to pass the same safety tests. Generally in head on safety they do better than cars with engines in the front, in terms of protecting the occupants. Since there isn't a big hunk of metal to come back into your lap and kill you.

The problem is that if they have any sort of a tap it tends to do more damage. You usually find that some part of the front is misaligned. Though that could also because they are tricker to drive and tend to stuffed in hedges more often.

You could be right about the rovers being less well built, but the fact that a car crumbles easily is not automatically a less safe car. Ditto a car that is very strong and stiff at the front is not automatically a safer car.

Well thats the theory as far as I know it.

samo wrote:

...
The motor assessor from my insurance company did mention that had it been a larger Rover then the damage probably would have been alot less....(suppose that stands to reason!! )

Why would that make a difference?

samo

I see the point your making alright and while I'm no expert on the laws of physics can certainly grasp the concept and advantages of a good crumple zone in a head on! Maybe the motor assessor was making the point about a larger rover makes a safer rover in this type of crash just to be nice...I really dont know!!

I still feel that given the exceptionally low impact that the car really did sustain an awful lot of damage, a similar incident occured some years back to a family member's Volvo 340, they were on the receiving end and there was absolutely minimal damage to either 2 cars involved. I've also known people where the same type of thing happened in a Yaris/Punto and there wasnt nearly the level of damage sustained as to the Rover.....


I know a Volvo 340 is a bit of a tank though so probably an unfair comparison and perhaps the general lack of enthusiasm about the 214 doesnt help its case either for me

RicardoSmith

Well the 340 is scud proof so hardly fair. The rover are quite and old design now. Though they've been facelifted a few times. whereas the Punto and Yaris are newer better designs. Who knows?

JohnCleary

RicardoSmith wrote:

Well the 340 is scud proof so hardly fair. The rover are quite and old design now. Though they've been facelifted a few times. whereas the Punto and Yaris are newer better designs. Who knows?

Aye, the 05 MG ZR/Rover 25 is still based on the 1996 Rover 200

unkel

JohnCleary wrote:

Aye, the 05 MG ZR/Rover 25 is still based on the 1996 Rover 200

You're hitting the nail on the head. The main reason the 25/200 and 45/400 are so cheap second hand (and were so long before the collapse of MG/Rover) is that they are ancient models

No western car manufacturer in their right mind would buy these production lines

BrianD3

The damage caused to the Rover in that minor accident is not a surprise and doesn't say anything bad about Rovers. Generally the back bumpers on modern cars are higher than the front bumpers. The back of a Mondeo is going to be higher than the front of a 25 or the front of a Mondeo for that matter. The height difference is exaggerated if the Rover driver brakes just before impact causing the nose to dip down even more. The shape of the bumpers also comes into it - fronts are generally more "faired in" whereas backs are usually bigger and chunkier. The result of all this is that strong, high, chunky rear bumpers make contact with vulnerable grilles, bonnets and lights.

The Rover 25 does seem to have a particularly low and vulnerable front compared to say a Yaris and especially a Volvo 340 (big high front and huge bumpers on that yoke) however this has little effect on its safety in a serious collision

Also, the insurance assessor is talking through his hat. The size of a car has little or no effect on how much cosmetic damage it sustains in a low speed rear end collision. I've seen Mondeos, Merc 190s, Citroen XMs, Rover 600s etc. badly damaged after rear ending smaller cars which sustained little or no damage.

bazz26

JohnCleary wrote:

Aye, the 05 MG ZR/Rover 25 is still based on the 1996 Rover 200

Are the 200 and 400 based on now 11 or 12 year old Honda designs?

samo

BrianD3 wrote:

Also, the insurance assessor is talking through his hat. The size of a car has little or no effect on how much cosmetic damage it sustains in a low speed rear end collision. I've seen Mondeos, Merc 190s, Citroen XMs, Rover 600s etc. badly damaged after rear ending smaller cars which sustained little or no damage.

So perhaps the motor assessor should have given an opinion that newer 'chunky' bumpered vehicles cause more damage, rather than small Rovers sustain more damage

Maxwell

Every Mechanic I know tells me not to go near a Rover due to their engines being crap.......and this information before they went belly up.

Tuppence worth

gaizka71

anyone saw TOP GEAR last sunday?
they talked about thousands of new Rovers waiting to be sold really cheap in the next few months, anyone has any idea as to where to get one of those great deals?
I would be looking for a 75....

ds20prefecture

Anybody know who's Diesel engine is used in the 75? If it was BMW's 2.0, it would be a great buy, in a chintzy kind of way. Particularly in estate form.

bmoferrall

ds20prefecture wrote:

Anybody know who's Diesel engine is used in the 75? If it was BMW's 2.0, it would be a great buy, in a chintzy kind of way. Particularly in estate form.

http://www.tridentgarages.co.uk/r75_diesel.html