Rover 416GSi - a mixed bag... (Rover 400)

Member Name: 137699

Product:	Rover 400
Date:	11/12/02 (1629 review reads)
Rating:

Advantages: Supreme Performance, Good Spec, Fantastic Reliability

Disadvantages: No ABS or PAS, Rusting bodywork, Boxy design

I owned a 1990 version of this car from 1995-96 and it was used predominently as our 2nd car, however as a result of a catalogue of problems with our other car (Ford Orion - see other review) the Rover proved to be much the better car.

We bought the car for £2500 as replacement for my girlfriend's old Fiesta. It was red in colour, had covered 76,000 miles, and comfort-wise was very well equipped, with electric mirrors, windows & sunroof, and central locking. There was extremely comfortable seats, and nice wood trim on the dashboard, which was very logically laid out.

Sadly, there were a couple of glaring ommisions on the spec side - it had no power steering, and in a car as heavy as this Rover, that was a huge problem - it was later added to newer cars, but in my opinion, a high-range car like this even in 1990 should have had that as standard equipment. Also there was no ABS, and it was not difficult to lock the wheels up!

To drive the car was beyond belief. The 1.6i 16v engine just produced so much torque that it would simply go the minute you pressed the accelerator. The power it delivered was quite something, and would easily beat my 1.8i Orion in a race. Its cornering & handling was ok for what it was, nothing special, but the suspsension cossetted you beautifully over imperfect road surfaces. To say that they produced even more poweful 400's in the high output 1.6GTi, 2.0GSi, and high output 2.0GTi, not to mention the fact that they also did all those engines plus a turbo version of the lighter 200 series, these cars must have had serious performance. I did drive a 216GTi and that was seriously quick - again, the 220GTi Turbo must have been some motor...

In it's day, comparing the 200/400 with the comparable Escort/Orion, Astra/Belmont, Peugeot and Renault 19, it was far and away the class leader in terms of quality and refinement.

The boot was quite simply huge, but the hatchback configuration of the 20
0 is perhaps a little more practical. The 200 has also proved to be a better looking car, as the 400's rather square boot has dated a little quicker.

The car proved to be a fantastically reliable motor. Started every morning first time, and sailed through it's MOT with only a bulb needing replacing. In the 2 years we owned this car, we added 25000 miles, and the only money we spent bar servicing, was to replace a lost wheel trim, and to repair the mechanism on the sunroof, which failed on us. Considering the pain we were going through with the almost new Orion, it was a joy that we could always rely on the Rover not to let us down!

The bodywork seems to be the weakest point on these cars. The mechanics are excellent, and the Honda engineering really shows through. The bodywork did start to show signs of wear, and rust was evident on the roof, and the wheel arches when we sold it on.

Mind you, the car fetched £2550 when we sold it, meaning we had actually made a profit of £50, and had 2 years motoring into the bargain!

You still see plenty of these 200/400 motors on the road, and the condition seems to be generally very good. As a first car, the 200 makes a sound choice, and the 400 is a great economy family motoring car, which will also put a smile on the face of the driver!

Sadly, the newer Rover's aren't built to the same standard as these older one's - BMW saw to that by asset stripping the company, and leaving it on it's knees to fester away. It is enevitable in this situation that companies have to cut costs to make them viable, and this seems to have had a knock-on effect on the quality and reliability of the cars, which is a shame.

Summary: