Rover 420 SDi - a modern turbodiesel for pocket money (Rover 400)

Member Name: failme

Product:	Rover 400
Date:	20/01/06 (8947 review reads)
Rating:

Advantages: Economy, value, styling (4-dr), spec, reliability

Disadvantages: Cramped & dated cabin, image (for those who care...)

What would you rather have, a dodgy old non-turbo diesel Volkswagen or Peugeot with a spec-list only Spartans would be happy with, or a newish 104bhp turbodiesel Rover 400 with 12mths MOT and lots of features for similar money? I know which I chose...

Reliability:
The only disabling problem I had with this car was some corroded wiring in the starter circuit, an easy fix. Despite incredibly hard use (driving through fields, rivers, up dirt tracks, thrashing it mercilessly) it never faltered. It shrugs off 1000-mile road trips with no fuss at all. Modern Rovers have a fragile reputation, but with the L-series turbodiesel and Honda underpinnings this beast is indestructible!

Performance/engine:
Rover's L-series turbodiesel is noisy at idle or when accelerating but once on the move it's quieter than the petrol K-series motor. I'm surprised at how quick this engine is though, despite being a pretty old design (the basis of this engine, the O-series petrol was launched in 1978) - I was keeping up with 6-cylinder BMWs and Mercedes on the motorway. There isn't much turbo-lag compared to some modern turbodiesels and economy is superb, with 50MPG+ when cruising. The engine is even tough enough to run unmodified on vegetable oil. It has some novel features compared to contemporary diesels, such as drive by wire (no mechanical link from the throttle pedal to the throttle assembly) and direct injection, but it's a pretty simple motor really. If you can, go for the intercooled versions of this engine (not "SD" or "Turbo D" versions) as they're faster and more economical, but the intercooled versions may have more to go wrong with the complex Electronic Diesel Control and drive by wire.

Interior/practicality:
Not the 400's best attribute - it's cramped inside, especially in the back. If you're tall (6ft+) try to buy one without a sunroof as it really impedes headroom. The dashboard looks very dated, as it's basically a Honda design from 16 years ago (the '94 Euro Civic and Rover 400 are based on the 1990 Japan-only Honda Domani). If you like hard plastics and fake wood you'll love it, though. Oh and the boot is cavernous on saloon models, but the hatchback would probably work out more practical.

Specification:
My car was the second up from the base model and came with ABS, electric windows all-round, electric mirrors, air-conditioning, remote stereo controls, driver's airbag, etc. Not at all bad for £700!

Driving:
The controls are light and easy to use, and the pedals are well-spaced. Handling is fool-proof and it's a surprisingly nimble car to chuck around - only issue is, as with most cars really is the tail is apt to kick out if you push it hard enough. For a decently powerful fwd car it doesn't understeer much. Lower-profile tyres help, I put a set of Rover 25 alloys with 55-profile tyres on and it felt a lot more chuckable. Visibility is adequate, with deep windows apart from the rear screen on saloon models. Only major issue is the rear pillars are quite thick and they create a big blindspot.

Image/styling:
The styling job done on the 400 saloon by Richard Woolley (now at Land Rover and responsible for the Rover 75 and Range Rover) is very good given the constraints of the basic car - it has elements of the E34 BMW 3-series and the (later) Volkswagen Bora in side profile and Rover 75 from the rear - the hatchback is bland in comparison, because it shares everything style-wise but the front-end with the Civic.
Image, not that I care, is poor - these are seen as old age pensioner's cars. I liked the subversiveness of a teenager driving an OAP-mobile though, which is one of the reasons I went the Rover way...

Summary: For £700 there's no better car

Processing/Quality:
Reliability:
Driving comfort: