Added: 4 years ago
From: ChinaCarForums
Views: 97,074
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:

All Comments (122)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • I've got 2 216 gti's a tomcat coupe,an sd1 an austin metro and a rover 114, I collect them as they're soon gonna be a thing of the past. I've never had any problems with them don't forget they had a Honda collaboration before BMW buggered it all up and they made good carsAustinrovercollection.co.u­k

  • I know ppl hate rovers. but i like my rover 75, nice and comfy!

  • @untensil I had a 216 and I loved it until the automatic gearbox died and no mechanic in this country dares to repair it (it's toooo complicated they say). So I sold it and bought a Mazda and haven't looked back.

    Still miss the old 216 though.

  • OMG

  • As a mechanic with 17 years MG Rover experience I can assure you that Head gasket failure of K-series engine was a major problem affecting alot of cars. Porous heads, oil gallery in wrong place, poor quality control...these were poor cars, hence MG Rovers demise. If any ex-rover franchise mechanic with long experince of these cars doubts my claim, they are lying and they know it. Build and design quality was poor for the money asked.

  • I've owned Austin, MG and Rover's all my life and never had a problem with them, which is why I kept buying them. My current car is a 2005 MG ZS 2.0 and touch wood, I've not had to replace a thing yet - it has passed each MOT - though I do keep it regularly serviced. The only thing I can find that I might have to replace for the next MOT is one of the front tyres - AFTER 6 YFEARS AND 37,00 MILES!!

    It's brilliant, but then again it's an MG Rover. It's why I'm getting a new MG6 this Spring...

  • That's fair enough, but by whom? You?

  • every part of it even the tacho needles are english

  • poor hubcap

  • MG is MG...Nanjing MG is another thing

  • @MgZrClubItalia no its not its the same tink mg ang rover and land rover its the same company

  • @pedrocid25 yea many many years ago but not recently

  • Rover 25's are good cars, just because the press give them bad reviews about headroom and back seat room, dosen't mean there bad, I like my Rover 25, and in fact I remeber a Daewoo we where unfortunate enouth to own several years back and that had even less space in the back than my Rover

  • @LightningT5 The press are bullshitting, my sister has a 200 SDi and I have a Seat Leon FR and we do regular car swaps between us. The Rover 200 is fine for headroom and legroom at the rear for a small car, I'd say the passenger cabin room is the same as my Seat Leon. Its just that my Seat obviously has a bigger boot but the initial passenger room is the same. My dads 1995/N Audi A4 is worse for passenger room then the Rover 200 is and I know this for a fact because I drive all 3 cars.

  • @1ns4ne1d10t I feel perfectly inclined to agree with you, I mean my dad has a little trouble in the front driving but thats because his quite a tall guy, mind you they are pretty damn decent cars for a 1995 design as you point out

  • @LightningT5 I'm tall but its not a really problem for me, I have found a way to carefully position the seat so there is good enough legroom for people at the rear and there is enough room for me to drive. The only thing I hate is the lack of height adjustment, it feels like I am always jacked up high in the sky instead of down inside the car. But it is a cheap cheerful car and a 1995 design so I can't moan. Not bad, its still bags roomier than Fiestas and Corsas of that same year.

  • @LightningT5 Come to think of it my sisters Rover 200 might be a little bit lower in headroom at the rear compared to my Leon but it isn't noticable unless you are wearing a baseball cap or you have your hair spiked up high. But then the Rover has a much smaller boot with a chopped off back end so you can expect it toi be lower. Apart from that, the main seating area for the passengers is pretty much the same with the same legroom. Damn good for a 1995 design, Better than Fiestas and Corsas!

  • omg FAIL!!! Quadripalegic for sure

  • not bad for a car designed with old honda parts in 1994. why are people saying these cars are chinese?? giving us brits an undeserved bad name. the mg/rover cars up here crash quite well, especially considering their age.

  • @binary1001011

    they are chinese. rover is now roewe. the company was sold to the chinese, because the british managers failed. then bmw took it and failed to.

  • @CAESARbonds i wouldn't say they failed, they made great cars up until their last days when the company wen't bad. but they're not chinese cars as they wern't destined for use or designed in china.

  • @CAESARbonds Shame, us Brits were good at making cars in the 50s and 60s.

    Then it all went downhill, it wasn't just the management's fault.

    Strikes mean fewer cars made, fewer cars made means no profits, no profits means you go out of business.

  • @CAESARbonds Actually, Rover still exists I believe the brand name is owned by an Indian Company. Roewe is a similar named company that started producing the 75 after buying the creative licence and design. Roewe has since expanded its range on the values of Rover, at least in part, of cutting edge and luxury. The Rover name could be re used but different rights and conditions went all over in the break up and it could be a potential mine field.

  • SO FUCKING UGLY

  • @stonee206 …what is ugly about the Rover 25/200? They, to my mind still look good compared to the Ford Fiesta, along with the Vauxhall/Opel Corsa, all the models of both cars up untill the latest model which is a pair lovely looking cars, Seat Leon, VW Polo Mark 2 and 3, the Saxo, 106/205/206, Clio, the list could go on. Just that people were blinded by what the press said about the car! For the record I have driven most of aforementioned those cars!

  • @NCW250 i don't like it, ok? it was also rated the ugliest car in 2003

  • i bet u my smart car is better than the chinese

  • Yeah, and you will have more G's put on you to break your neck.

  • would this be the same as the MG ZR?

  • yep it would they are one and the same

  • i got one, drove 26000 miles without even changing the oil, no brake or engine problems. so all the crap about reliability is shite. its on 80000 miles now, nothing spent on it, drives like a dream. the only thing about them is a clunky gearbox, but that can be forgiven, the original design is 1989

  • Hmmmmmm well working in the motor trade its not the cars that have the crash just the idiots that drive em!

  • not to safe

  • These cars were bad enough when they were British. Now they're made in China I wouldn't even sit in one without a crash helmet and fireproof overalls.

  • Wow all the names from the car models are taken from other cars... MG Rover...the fuck?

  • Sa doit pouvoir se faire, ils refabriquent la Rover Streetwise, qui reprenait bon nombre d'éléments mécanique de la 25 alors...

  • Glad the companies have ditched those shitty little euro bags.

  • That was a reasonable performance for a car design that is now 15 years old.

    3 stars - more if they add strength to the A pillars and cross members at the front.

  • Pour une voiture née en 1996, elle a pas trop mal résisté. Juste que si Nanjing l'a reprit, j'espère qu'ils ont modifiés la structure...

  • Mais maintenant on peut toujours commander des pieces chez Nanjing? ou pas?

  • DO NOT BUY SOMETING WHAT IS BUILD IN CHIN

    as u can see this sux... an GOLD VOLKSWAGEN GOLF 3 IS MUCH BETTER THEN THIS NEW CAR

  • RnBciO

    i didn;t buy something that is made in China one night,,, nine month later, you were born.

    guess what is it...

  • Lmao. XD

  • you get owned right in the ass, HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  • Hi u wana buy a safe car? i know good one ;)

  • This isn't a new car & it isn't technically a chink car either, it was a Rover 25 made in Longbridge Birmingham UK until 2005... im not going to take up for it because Nanjing or Rover doesn't matter... they were all a pile of English built crap anyway. Their H/Gaskets blew every 30-40 thousand miles & the car stopped like the brakes were made of tissue paper! If anything its probably a better car now that its Chinese

  • This is the Euroncap test from 2000, and bugger all to do with the Chinese... The 25/200 wasn't entirely outclassed at that time in crash tests (this merited 3 stars, the 1999 Escort got 2, and the 2000 Corsa got 3 too).

  • rover - crap when it was british, worse now its chinese.

  • You're a complete twerp. I be you never owned one since you believe everything you read in the press!

    TW@T !!

  • my mum had 3 rover 800s and then never broke did 100,000 miles in europe going on holidays and now shes got a mg zr nothings gone wrong yet

  • Hes not a twerp, I have borrowed enough Rovers & MGs off my close friends & family to know that they are crap. The 200/25 & 400/45 are just as horrible to drive as any Fiat Brava except they get more of the headgasket failures. I have borrowed a 25 1.4 impression a 416 SLi & a 214 bubble. They were no better to drive than my old poorly built shit-box Fiat Bravo. Id trust the Fiats more because the gearboxes are slick & 16v engines are just as nippy as Rovers but much better with reliability!

  • In all of the cars you have driven (most likely on the 25 also) the gearboxes are made by Peugeot. Idiot.

  • Thats why they are shit. Idiot

  • @deancarr10 No wonder thats the worst aspect of the rover 25 then, its french.

  • @mynameisleeyesitis I thought 200's had Peugeot gearboxes and 25's Ford lB5 gearboxes in them with the high ratio!?

  • @1ns4ne1d10t Your probably right to be honest, I'm not a mechanic and I havent really researched them much. I never have driven a 200 (though my dad had a 214 brand new back in like 95)

    I would have expected a Ford gearbox to be better than the one in my 25, as all the fords I've driven (mondeo mk3, focus mk1 & 2, Ka) had pretty nice gearboxes (and drove nicely, especially the Ka compared to what I expected)

  • @bobbystar101 Ford gearboxes were never the best Tbh. I used to have a Transit Connect 1.8 TDi with the endura diesel when I worked for RAC. and I drove Fords at enterprise rent a car. My connect had a Focus/Fusion transmission and gearstick unlike the others and it was a hard fight to get to reverse sometimes and it would pop out of gear occasionally. It started biting and crunching in 4th but then most Ford vans started to do that. It happened to the last of enterprises Mk1 Ford Ka's too.

  • @1ns4ne1d10t Actually 2003 and newer rovers didn't suffer headgasket problems, and they only really affect 1.8's anyway unless you happen to be personally too dumb to check oil and coolant levels regularly like every car manufacturer recommends.

    Also I have driven 25's that drive nicely.

  • @mynameisleeyesitis I left that comment over a year ago. My sister has a Rover 200SDi and I don't mind them now. I would have a Rover and I would definately have one over Ford but I wouldn't have a k-series Rover as I don't trust them. I don't like petrol anyway

    My sisters Rover is fine to drive apart from the biting points, the accelerators very stiff to push down and the clutch creaks and doesn't come up smoothly. Mind you, I've driven Fiestas which are worse.

  • not too bad far a car designed 12 or whatever years ago.

    but poor by modern standards.

  • rover 200 released 14 years ago rover 25 is same chassis

  • LOL...THE HUBCAP IS STILL STANDING!

  • needs a headgasket now

  • it's british car

  • Not anymore.

    Chinese "Nanjing Automotive" owns MG Rover now.

  • Doesn't matter much. NAC/SAIC maintain an assembly plant in longbridge england. Not to mention the british identity of the brand. If the national identity of a company depends upon who owns the brand current, then jaguar is an indian company that used to be american, lotus is a malasian company, TVR is russian, mazda was american, Chrysler was germain etc. Doesn't qute work that way.

  • MADE IN CHINA = -5★ = Chinese national flag = death

  • looks like you have to drive it from the back seat.

    hahaha

  • lol honestly some of these maybe dressed up actual imported cars crashed to pass inspection. Trust me not bias, im chinese myself. hahahaha these cars are just death traps.

  • Quite bad! The A pillar is deformed

  • mg and rover back ;)))

  • i was in a rover 25 wen we crashed it looked exactly the same as tht did after, i just had whiplash so i think there pretty safe cars :)

  • you JUST had WHIPLASH?! Whiplash can be fatal! Or at least cause serious brain damage. Whiplash possibilities would make a car fail in an American crash test, or at least it should.

  • Dude were is your head it? the Roof blend man... Not save at all.

  • rover is over:)

  • Bullshit

  • Actually the Rover 75 is a German design, years ago Rover was bought by BMW but they sold it cause it was not bringing up enough money.

  • The Rover 75 was developed by Rover. Rover was bought by BMW in 1994, at this time the design of de 75 was nearly finished.

  • @derwilli87 Only the look of the car was designed in 1994. The 75 and ZT had BMW suspension, K-Bus electrics, brakes, had one of their engines, BMW robots were used to build it. Its a long list. The 75 is as much BMW as the new Mini. Both the 75 and the mini were designed by Rover using BMW technical assistance and access to the parts bin.

  • @rovex32 The 75/ZT is indeed a BMW under the skin, that's why it's the most troublesome of all the MGR range of cars!!

  • @discocreator76 Yeah, but nothing major, mostly BMWs common faults. Still better than the over rated VW gang. They are troubleseome cars!!

  • @derwilli87 but now they're under chinee ownership

  • @jason123456789210 yeah, sadly..

  • Rover was owned by BMW but it wasn't DESIGNED by BMW. It was developed and designed by Rover group designers Richard Woolley, Geoff Upex and Wyn Thomas at Gaydon (once Rover Groups research and development centre). The only BMW bits in it are some electrical bits and bobs, the diesel engine and the rear z-axel (although slightly redesigned for the 75).

  • Lets not forget this car was designed in 1996, It's old. Compare to a German car from 1996 & there's hardly a difference.

    Mini's not British, otherwise it would be popular here. It's too heavy & expensive & uses too much fuel.

    And the new Mini estate is he uglyest thing on the road.

    And TATA is Indian.

    Phaeton is perfection on wheels, how many do you see around??

    The French have style, chic & are not over engineered like German cars. I'd rather have a Citroen C4 than a Golf Mk6

  • this car is an old design (based on the old 1990 R8 Rover, so thats not a bad showing considering the rest of the cars designed at that time!

  • i just got cut up by a fat cow driving one of these whilst she was on the mobile she'll end up crashing just like this the dopey pranet!

  • the same video is also posted on youtube as a 2001 crash test video of the rover 25. What is correct?

  • It's the same car either way.

  • No it isn't. They just bought the design, the choice of materials is different.

  • Nicce! how fast was it acualy going?

  • that was probably survivable BUT the car was on its limits.

  • it is a british car

  • the car sucks

  • 3stars

  • lol death man alive !

  • lol lame 4 stars with 1 star cut in half

  • bad....for a british car

  • actually i am right...mgs were never very safe no jokes so dnt go being so arrygmentive and stop being a jerk....and i have seen plenty of chinese car crash tests.

  • Then your a prat as the Rovers and MG's had a good test results.... you have no idea what your talking about....

  • Depends what MG you're talking about. If you drove a 1936 MG PB into a brick wall at 40mph, yes, you would probably end up with your brains splattered all over the scuttle and the steering column through your spleen. The MG ZT, though, is a very safe car indeed. And even the ZR (the MG version of this Rover 25) wasn't half bad for such a small car - you'd get out of that crash alive, which is the main thing.

  • actually a chinese company bought MG and nwo mg's are built in china...and mg's were never very safe at all anyway.

  • What crap you talk they were far better than the tripe that comes out of Chine, thats why they bought the company, to improve the image, and i suggest you look up real crash test results from Chinese cars, they are lethal....

    AND that crash test is so OLD, and is nothing to do with NAC at all... get your facts correct

  • british cars were safer than the shit the chinkys make with there $25 design budgets and their recycled tin cans to make them out of!!

  • Our "poor island country" managed to hold you clowns off pretty much single-handed for two years until the Americans pulled their fingers out and waded in to help. Plus we beat you in a world cup final - I know it was only once, but that's once more than you've beaten us. And anyway, if it wasn't for the British much of your car industry would not have survived the War - does the name Major Ivan Hirst mean anything to you? You Krauts think you're so superior, it really does get irritating.

  • What you talking abhout you tiny minded little Kraut? I ought to give you a good beating for talking such crap...

  • Thats British, Not Chineess!!!

  • not bad for a small car

  • This is not a chinese car.

  • population control FTW!

  • Mmmmmmmm

  • It ain't workin. They still have the largest pop in the world.

  • nice car :|

  • 2001 Rover25 test. Still...Ouch..that's not good. I hope NAC has already improved it as MG3. No more oops allow for MG.

  • That crash test result all those years ago was a good one, and far better than the rubbish thats produced by the majority of chinese companies

    look at Brilliance, and the crash test results from that

  • looks like edge

Loading...
Alert icon
0 / 00Unsaved Playlist Return to active list
    1. Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
      or sign in to load a different list.
    Loading...Loading...Saving...
    • Clear all videos from this list
    • Learn more