Rover 200 & 400 Owners Club

The Rover Tomcat 220 Turbo has been included in a nineties wedge shaped coupe group test by John Simister and comes out quite well. The Alfa got quite a hammering.

They have also responded to my question regarding antifreeze for the 214/414, or in other words the Rover 1400 K Series upto 1995. They advocate using IAT coolants and thoroughly flushing the system out first.

I was wondering when our cars would attract a article as the nasty MK111 Ford Escort was featured couple of months ago and eighties wedges last month.

Really interesting thanks for posting.

The comment about the wings being shared with the original hatch is incorrect. The wings were unique to the Coupe at launch. Although of course the rest of the range adopted them later on. I had a 220 Turbo Coupe and over five years and 30,000 miles I only changed the front tyres once. They've also used data from the 220 Turbo hatch as the official figures for the Coupe were 150mph and 6.2 secs.

Still good to see it featured and getting a fairly positive write-up.

What's practical about any of them cars, the fiat coupe looks very nice mind

John Simester picked the Corrado as the best of the test!

I had a Corrado 2.0 16V which is probably the worst variant of the Corrado line up. It was the worse car I have ever owned!

Mine had an awful gear change, when you booted it, wouldn't go into second gear, it's spring loaded into the 3rd/4th gear plane and away from reverse over on the left. No ground clearance and rock hard suspension. Good track day car because of the ground effect. For some reason the electric spoiler seem's to antagonise other drivers, either that or they're just vandalised for being a German brand.

With all the fault's it developed, it had to be the worst car I have ever owned.

Numptey wrote:What's practical about any of them cars?

You can carry a long/high load in a Rover Coupe:

Mr Teddy Bear wrote:With all the faults it developed, it had to be the worst car I have ever owned.

My friend had three Corrados: 1.8 16v, 2.0 16v and the VR6 (which bizarrely is not 4 valves per cylinder so only had 12 valves). The VR6 is a 2.9 litre but had less power than a Rover Coupe Turbo because they are NASP but it used more fuel. All three were terrible and suffered from a litany of mechanical and electrical issues, too numerous to list.

Yep, not suitable for the roads around Bristol that still have the cobbles showing in the gutters, because the air dam at the front get's ripped off.

My experience:
horn failed
drivers door lock broke, couldn't be opened from outside
heater/fresh air distribution flaps packed up
sunroof broke and jammed in the tilt open position, costing £300 plus to fix over ten years ago!
exhaust fell apart

The rear is wider than the front resulting in parking reversing dings and scrapes

At my height 6' it was impossible to adjust the seat and steering wheel to give a clear view of the dials, the top quarter being hidden by the steering wheel.
Headlights like candles
Horrible interiors
horrible rattles
horrible gear change
biggest panel gap's you have ever seen between door's and front wings

People hate them and vandalise them.

In all honesty and hand on heart mine had to be the worst waste of money and worst ownership experience of my life!

Where as my 216 Gsi over 12 year's and 100,000 miles of motoring was in retrospect the most pleasant and trouble free car I have ever owned. She was run on a shoe string budget, always had a problem with the rear disk's and the handbrake, had a new clutch and new subframe. But the cost per mile worked out around 14p per mile!

Now who say's Rovers are no good?

Normally people who don't drive them

Octobers issue of PC has a short piece on the K Series engine and provides an interesting insight into it's development. Although I suspect it's aimed more at preserving MGF's than our car's. Thus doesn't talk about the change of design to the block and liners during the development of the 16-1800 cc engine variant's for the MG and Freelander.