Rover 800 Coupe roadtest

1991 Rover 800 Coupe roadtest.

Category:

Autos & Vehicles

Tags:

• Rover
• SD1
• 800
• Coupe
• Yorkshire
• Longbridge
• Cowley
• Oxford
• Birmingham
• Brummie

[andycarr75]

While I'm glad he gave the 800 a great review, I'm a bit annoyed by his stance that Rover didn't do radical.

Radical?! Rover - the creators of the Jet car, the Rover P6 and the Rover SD1. Possibly three of the most radical cars in history!

[andycarr75]

Wow - I've wanted to see this review for so long now :D Thanks!!

[turricaned]

@kernals12 Actually the R8 version of the 200/400 series (1989-1995) was a major success in the UK and went a long way to banish the ghost of BL - the introduction of Japanese production-line techniques (courtesy of Honda) was clearly starting to pay off. The late '90s decline in fortune was entirely down to BMW's internal politics - only one director wanted Rover for Rover - he fell out of favour. The rest only wanted the Land Rover tech for what became the X Series SUV.

[kernals12]

@turricaned the products changed but the rep stayed, and about the Taurus, development started around the same time as the Sierra, the American car just spent more time in development

[turricaned]

@frumzion The Freelander problems were with the straight-4 1.8L K-series, not the KV6. Proof that Ford didn't understand the design was that they spent lord knows how much replacing engines under warranty and publicly rubbishing them, when all they had to do was move the thermostat switch from the it's position after the radiator to before it - thus reducing the thermal shock the engine received due to "Chelsea Tractor" duty (i.e lots of short runs).

[turricaned]

@frumzion Ford wouldn't know engineering if it bit them in the behind. The Focus handles well, but the ride is positively agricultural compared to the 400/45. K-series "issues" are and have always been a result of not appreciating what the original specifications were and altering the design approach accordingly when enlarging the displacement. Rover were as guilty of this as anyone for a while, but there was nothing wrong with the fundamentals.

[turricaned]

@frumzion My bum has spent a considerable amount of time on those seats and, with all due respect, is of the opinion that you're talking out of yours. Comfier than any Beamer or Merc I've ever sat in and/or driven - they even give Jags of that era a run for their money.

[frumzion]

@turricaned Ford said it was rubbish because it was and is. Rover dealers had the same problems, but dealt with the issues dishonourably! The KV6's problems are not as readily resolvable as others. And no company can survive blaming its customers for poor engineering and manufacture, or expecting customers to pay out big money to resolve manufacturing cheapness. The KV6 was a poor design that was somewhat improved over time, but was always made poorly and cheaply.

[turricaned]

@frumzion Documented where? I know it was rushed into production because the Honda lump from the 827 was about to fall foul of emissions regulations, but to call it a "parts bin" effort is a major stretch. The 75 KV6 was one of the more reliable units - it was the 1.8 K4s that were problematic. Rover went bust for money reasons, but the cars that came out of Longbridge between 1989 and 2000 were better than any Dagenham Dustbin or Luton Lemon that ever saw the light of day!

[frumzion]

@turricaned I am NOT off-base. The KV6 was a parts bin design. That is a well-documented fact. The KV6 was terrible in the 825 and very bad in the 75. Rover never learned from it's cheap-jack approach, which is why the company is assigned to the parts bin of history.