Joined
·
424 Posts
Anyone happen to know if they are quick??????? Had a race with one thurs....Blew him on acceleration, but could'nt seem to pull a gap on mid range..He was runnin noisey dv, hugh exchaust...
ROVER 220 TURBO??
1 - 20 of 36 Posts
Joined
·
666 Posts
Very quick but also very cr*p.
Serious Barry car.[
]
Serious Barry car.[
]
Joined
·
627 Posts
Yeah, they are very quick.
With a chip if you drive well, you should be even-ish, but they are pretty rapid. However, your Golf is better NUFF SAID []
With a chip if you drive well, you should be even-ish, but they are pretty rapid. However, your Golf is better NUFF SAID [
]Dont knock the Rovers! My GF has a BRM LE 200, from new in 1999, now 67k. It has had 3 std dealer services, and two done by me. it has had one warranty claim at 9 months for a faulty temp sensor. That is it!
I doubt there are many golfs out there at 5 yrs old that have only seen the dealer 3 times in their life!! Oh nad it goes like stink too, it will do 75 in second, and is serious fun to drive! It really does still drive like the day we bought it, and seems very well screwed together, still no rattles etc.
Bad side is depreciation, but its so good it will be driven into the ground now, so who cares! It was cheap to start with and has been a brilliant car overall, no question.
I definately spend more time and money on my Golfs than the Rover. Mind you, they are worth more!
As for the Coupes, yep, pretty quick, can get them to about 220bhp I think. Top speed is good as they are very aerodynamic.
Horrid dash and interior though, and a very Barry rep now, but mess with one at your peril, some of em will dust ya!
I doubt there are many golfs out there at 5 yrs old that have only seen the dealer 3 times in their life!! Oh nad it goes like stink too, it will do 75 in second, and is serious fun to drive! It really does still drive like the day we bought it, and seems very well screwed together, still no rattles etc.
Bad side is depreciation, but its so good it will be driven into the ground now, so who cares! It was cheap to start with and has been a brilliant car overall, no question.
I definately spend more time and money on my Golfs than the Rover. Mind you, they are worth more!
As for the Coupes, yep, pretty quick, can get them to about 220bhp I think. Top speed is good as they are very aerodynamic.
Horrid dash and interior though, and a very Barry rep now, but mess with one at your peril, some of em will dust ya!
Joined
·
666 Posts
There's a good reason they are so cheap.
What do you think that reason is? [][]
What do you think that reason is? [
][]What like Skodas?? er I mean VAG cars?? Its a lot to do with their financial situation at present.
Depreciation is due to very many factors not just relaibility. How did the MK4 used to do in the JD Power surveys?? And yet they are pretty bullet proof on depreciation which is party why I have one.
But my GF's Rover will anhaialate a 1.8T out the box! And my personal experience of it has been (up to now, touching wood oooer!) extremely good. I have had more things go wrong on the Mk4 in 8 months that 5 years with the Rov!
Depreciation is due to very many factors not just relaibility. How did the MK4 used to do in the JD Power surveys?? And yet they are pretty bullet proof on depreciation which is party why I have one.
But my GF's Rover will anhaialate a 1.8T out the box! And my personal experience of it has been (up to now, touching wood oooer!) extremely good. I have had more things go wrong on the Mk4 in 8 months that 5 years with the Rov!
Joined
·
666 Posts
A mates Dad works for BAe so get's "nice" Rovers as compnay cars.
Driven most of them - 220s, 216GTis, 620s, etc.
They're okay but don't feel properly put together.
The "Tomcat" was fast but pretty dire in the chassis department. And brakes.
Driven most of them - 220s, 216GTis, 620s, etc.
They're okay but don't feel properly put together.
The "Tomcat" was fast but pretty dire in the chassis department. And brakes.
The 220 Turbo Coupes are 197 bhp in standard form. Handling tended to be a bit dodgy though - suffered badly from torque steer (can't comment too much, as I've never actually driven one!)
Don't knock Rovers! My first car was a mkIII Rover 214. Had a couple of problems with it in the two years that I owned it, but was generally very pleased with it. PX'd it about a month ago and got my GTI T. Granted they depreciate quite a lot, but this also means you pay little for em in the first place!
200 Vi's and BRM's are also quite quick (147 bhp in standard form IIRC)
Don't knock Rovers! My first car was a mkIII Rover 214. Had a couple of problems with it in the two years that I owned it, but was generally very pleased with it. PX'd it about a month ago and got my GTI T. Granted they depreciate quite a lot, but this also means you pay little for em in the first place!
200 Vi's and BRM's are also quite quick (147 bhp in standard form IIRC)
Joined
·
185 Posts
I used to have a 220 turbo coupe, and they are quick cars, however the build quality and handling are poor, got rid of mine after a ?1600 gearbox rebuild.
Quote: posted by Jonny C on 12/12/2004 22:12:06
I remember you, I recall you were having a bit of trouble selling your BRM???
Yep! No problem selling it once someone came to see it! It just took 6 months for someone to turn up!
Simch, a couple of posts up, has a BRM! []
I remember you, I recall you were having a bit of trouble selling your BRM???
Yep! No problem selling it once someone came to see it! It just took 6 months for someone to turn up!
Simch, a couple of posts up, has a BRM! [
]Out the box though the Civic 1.6 VTi would whoop the 200Vi Rover though. Difference between them however is that the VTi was no longer sold after 2000. Rover are still flogging a their 200 which is effectively a 10 year old car with a new badge now (25/MG).
1 - 20 of 36 Posts
Join the discussion
Join now to ask and comment!