joke rover

[paul23870]

a joke..............someone told me that rover once made a decent car...........i knew he was a lier

[sean5302]

==

[Richard_K]

Originally Posted by paul23870

a joke..............someone told me that rover once made a decent car...........i knew he was a lier

But Rover were at least literate

Anyway - Rover have made many decent cars. The 75 is a good car. The SD1 - V8 (and four and six cylinder) hatcback from the 70s - was a very good car. The P6 series, especially the P6B, was fantastic. The P4 and P5 (Auntie) Rovers were very highly regarded.

Even post British Leyland, the Rover 213/216s were a very competent reworking of the Honda they were based on; the Maestro was actually a very competent car, the Metro went from 1980 to 1997 and remained a capable and useful small car - which they were unable to adequately replace. The MG F handles and rides exceptionally well, the Streetwise is remarkably well suited to urban driving yet hangs on on a quick B-road like a hot hatch...

Still. Don't let that spoil your impressions of Rover.

Lets not make fun of users on here, it doesnt help the OP.

Did you have a specific query about Rover Paul?

[MARTIN3030]

Yes the late 60s and early 70s were good.
Like a lot of cars the metal was thicker the paintwork better and the engines were good.
They were quite competitive then too.
The rover 2000 was a classic and the same engines fitted in the Triumphs.

Of course cars then had lots of character (not all looking the same as today)

Todays cars are all designed on computer and thats why they all look similar as computers will inevitably come up with the same shapes when considering efficiency economy drag factors etc.


Its nice to see some of the old rovers on the road

British engineering at its best.

[Richard_K]

Originally Posted by Lueeze

Lets not make fun of users on here, it doesnt help the OP.

Did you have a specific query about Rover Paul?

Fair point, but I don't think that this is an appropriate place for people to troll for reactions by slagging off any car maker they don't like. Hence my extended discussion elsewhere with someone who may have a valid reason for their campaign against the Freelander, but seemed to be utterly unwilling to actually back it up with facts, only hearsay and 'bloke down the pub' expertise.

The OP didn't have a point, clearly, and was merely posting that they thought Rovers were rubbish without any actual purpose. I think many French cars are a bit crap, but I wouldn't choose to start a thread about something so generic in a consumer forum

[Richard_K]

Originally Posted by MARTIN3030

Yes the late 60s and early 70s were good.
Like a lot of cars the metal was thicker the paintwork better and the engines were good.
They were quite competitive then too.
The rover 2000 was a classic and the same engines fitted in the Triumphs.

Of course cars then had lots of character (not all looking the same as today)

Todays cars are all designed on computer and thats why they all look similar as computers will inevitably come up with the same shapes when considering efficiency economy drag factors etc.

One of the reasons I chose my RX8 - it's pretty anonymous really, but the technology is different at least!

Wasn't the same engine in the Triumph and Rover, though - the Triumph 2000 engine was a straight six, the Rover 2000 P6 was a four cylinder, and the SD1 2300/2600 was only related to the Triumph 2.5, it was altered quite a lot. The Rover SD1 2000 offered in some markets used an O-series (Princess/Ambassador etc.) engine.

[sequenci]

well i'm looking to buy a rover for my first car as they are cheap, so are spare parts. also living in birmingham means i know a fair few people who know these cars inside and out!

[Richard_K]

Originally Posted by sequenci

well i'm looking to buy a rover for my first car as they are cheap, so are spare parts. also living in birmingham means i know a fair few people who know these cars inside and out!

I reckon the Streetwise diesel would be a fantastic first car, and they're insanely cheap for what you get.

[MARTIN3030]

Originally Posted by Richard_K

One of the reasons I chose my RX8 - it's pretty anonymous really, but the technology is different at least!

Wasn't the same engine in the Triumph and Rover, though - the Triumph 2000 engine was a straight six, the Rover 2000 P6 was a four cylinder, and the SD1 2300/2600 was only related to the Triumph 2.5, it was altered quite a lot. The Rover SD1 2000 offered in some markets used an O-series (Princess/Ambassador etc.) engine.

Thanks for correcting me Richard

Must be getting mixed up...I knew a guy who had both Im sure he swapped engines between the 2.

On the subject he also had a dolomite sprint (think that was an 1800 twin carb)

At the time he reckoned it to be the fastest thing he ever bought.

Personally I always fancied a BMW 3.0 si at that time was reportedly the fastest 4 door production car in the world.
Could never afford 1 tho.

I recently saw 1 for sale for a couple of hundred quid.........as I drooled over it the missus came up behind me and said "noooooo way "she said it was looking old fashioned and its chrome bumpers were flaking !!!

Oh well..................... ..........

[Richard_K]

Originally Posted by MARTIN3030

Thanks for correcting me Richard

Must be getting mixed up...I knew a guy who had both Im sure he swapped engines between the 2.

On the subject he also had a dolomite sprint (think that was an 1800 twin carb)

At the time he reckoned it to be the fastest thing he ever bought.

Personally I always fancied a BMW 3.0 si at that time was reportedly the fastest 4 door production car in the world.
Could never afford 1 tho.

Well, he could have had V8 engined Rovers, and done a V8 transplant into the Innsbruck/Triumph 2000; lots of Triumph Stags have Rover V8s in place of the Triumph unit, and the Stag/2000 are closely related (especially in looks - imagine if they'd made a V8 powered Triumph estate!).

The Sprint was a great car; I think they're 2.0 but the engine is related to the 1850 and Saab units. TR7s with a Sprint engine are the car BL should have been selling in the very late 70s.

Those BMWs are a rarity. You should stand up for your right to own a silly car once in a while; I've got the RX8 partly because I knew I had to own a rotary car at some point, and figured one with a warranty would be best - as it happens, they're fantastic cars anyway.

[MARTIN3030]

Interesting Richard.

My brother worked for VAG and owned an NSU RO80 in fact he still has 1.

I remember this car was amazing and the shape for 1973 was years ahead of its time.

Only problem was the rotors which NSU could not seem to sort out.
Average engine life for a RO was 17000 miles.

A few people put the V6 FORD into them but it was not the same.

Mazda however seemed to get it right.

If I could get my hands on a RO80 I think I would probably buy one.

Theres lots sitting around in garages but like my brother..........people simply wont part with them !!

[JonCris]

Originally Posted by Richard_K

Fair point, but I don't think that this is an appropriate place for people to troll for reactions by slagging off any car maker they don't like. Hence my extended discussion elsewhere with someone who may have a valid reason for their campaign against the Freelander, but seemed to be utterly unwilling to actually back it up with facts, only hearsay and 'bloke down the pub' expertise.

The OP didn't have a point, clearly, and was merely posting that they thought Rovers were rubbish without any actual purpose. I think many French cars are a bit crap, but I wouldn't choose to start a thread about something so generic in a consumer forum

Its not the bloke down the pub nor is it heresay as you suggest but based on considerable data supplied from a few hundred owners from around the world who know about us such as UK, USA, EUROPE, ASIA M/EAST, S/Africa OZ, NZ who have joined together to bring LR to book. There is legal taking action already taking place both here & abroad

Also the tech data is supplied by highly qualified engineers some of whom have worked for Power Train who supplied the K series engine &the research.

If you own a Freelander & would like to be privy to our data then feel free to join us it costs nowt membership is free.

The evidence of what I say is scattered all over the web so I suggest you take the time & look before trying to be superior. This might be a good place to start. Mind you it'll you take a bit its over 1,300 posts long & its all about one subject the LandRover Freelander. Never mind though if you can't be bothered there are plenty of other sites for you to look at.

http://forums.preloved.co.uk/fuseact.../4cf87374.html

& here's a couple more

http://home.austarnet.com.au/edwards...derheadgasket/

http://www.complaints.com/march2003/...march10.11.htm

[Richard_K]

Originally Posted by JonCris

Its not the bloke down the pub nor is it heresay as you suggest but based on considerable data supplied from a few hundred owners from around the world

I'm sorry, I thought it was 1/3rd of Freelanders that you claimed had this issue. I don't think 'a few hundred' or even 1,300 (not individuals, merely the number of posts) would constitute 1/3rd of even the K-series powered Freelanders sold in a year.

This is a consumer forum, to help consumers. If you have facts, post them here and actually help some people, instead of trying to spread FUD.

[Richard_K]

Originally Posted by JonCris

Never mind though if you can't be bothered there are plenty of other sites for you to look at.

http://forums.preloved.co.uk/fuseact.../4cf87374.html

Argh. There's nothing so infuriating as a forum of 'experts'.

Here's a good example:

"I purchased a Year 2000 V Reg 1.8 Xei 5 door Freelander 8 weeks ago with 34700 miles on the clock from a approved RAC dealer with a so called 5 star Rac waranty. I have driven the car a total of 800 miles and on Wednesday I was on the motorway, doing 70 mph. I heard some knocking, so pulled over (no warning lights or temperature increases noted) and there was oil all down the side of the car - head gasket failure."

The response, from DavidBristol, is "Get rid of it".

8 weeks. That's two months. That's pure and simple Trading Standards territory. Return car to dealer as unfit for purpose. It doesn't matter what LR are doing or anyone else (it's a six-year old car that it looks like they paid well over the odds for - impressive, since traders aren't touching Freelanders).

And the number of people who have managed to ignore things like temperature gauges and drive until the car's engine has boiled every liquid available to it is astounding.

Elsewhere, the same idiocy. A man taking his reconditioned engine back to LandRover and expecting them to do something about it. Another saying they're going to have to scrap the car and lose £4,500 (in which case, surely it would make sense to replace the engine with a recon unit for £2,000 and lose £2,000, instead). Irwin Mitchell's dropped group action (wonder why they dropped it...).