Rover 620

The two use completely different engines; the Si uses a Honda single-cam 2.0 whereas the Ti uses Rover's own twin-cam turbocharged version. I've been pleased with my 620 diesel I bought at Christmas (though the laid-back front seats took some getting used to) and everything seems to work other than the eclectic mirror heaters. This car is almost totally Honda apart from the boot and bonnet styling, the dashboard (I think), and Rover's own engines on the 2.0 turbo and diesel variants.

Darren

from honestjohn.co.uk:

What's Good The most reliable mid 1990s Rover (really a Honda Accord). Nice-looking car. Wood, leather and stainless steel kickplate image. 156 bhp 2.3 litre Honda engine by far the best. Chassis also greatly improved on 2.3s. All manuals have good gearchanges and 129 bhp Honda 2.0 litre engines are smooth and economical. 113 bhp 1.8 is an 1,850cc multipoint injected Honda engine, not a Rover 'K'. Automatics by Honda. Good metallic paint colours, such as Nightfire Red, Caribbean Blue. Generally quite a good, cheap second-hand buy. Timing belts of L Series diesels apparently do last the scheduled 5 years or 84,000 miles. Very Low 2 out of 9 point death rate from accidents in this model. Rovers generally had slightly below average warranty repair costs in 2003 Warranty Direct Reliability index (index 93.69 v/s lowest

31.93), just beating Nissan. Link:- 1995-1997 had fewest breakdowns, avaeage for problems and faults; 1997-1998 average for breakdowns, problems and faults in 2003 Which survey.

What's Bad Understeery handling, over-light steering on all but 2.3. Ride quality not up to luxurious image. Body mods over Honda Accord were difficult to assemble and can lead to premature rust, especially in rear inner wings.

620Ti Turbo with Rover 'T' Series engines apt to blow gaskets. Average performance in NCAP crash tests. Production ended in 1999, but still on 'Glass's Guide's' new car price lists in Summer 2000 so watch out for late registrations. THOUGH SITUATION NOW IMPROVING, SOME PARTS FOR ROVERS ARE NOT IMMEDIATELY OBTAINABLE, CAN RESULT IN LONG PERIODS OFF THE ROAD. What to Watch Out For Check everything electrical (windows, roof, mirrors, seats, etc.). Rear wings rot out along bottom edge above bumper. And replacements are hard to obtain. This is a big panel in short supply, so the problem is very expensive to remedy. Will run to high mileages (150k plus) so might be clocked. A 50,000-miler should not have excessive paint and windscreen chips, front number plate should be original. Avoid the 'ti' petrol turbo model (in the photo) as was plagued with oil seal problems. Ignition igniter on Honda engines can fail and is expensive to replace. Rover direct-injected 'T' Series diesels okay, but only gain about 7 mpg on the petrol 2.0 litre. Exhaust rear boxes blow on low-mileage 'short-run' cars. A 'V' or 'W' reg will have been sitting around for months before it was registered. Check for emulsified oil under the oil filler caps of 2.3i engines as this could indicate a cracked cylinder head which is £2k to replace. SOME PARTS FOR ROVERS ARE NOT IMMEDIATELY OBTAINABLE, CAN RESULT IN LONG PERIODS OFF THE ROAD. Recalls 1996 (built between 12/94 and 12/95): check to ensure steering rack mounting bolts are secure-symptom of problem: stiff steering.

Look for bubbled paint on the rear arches near the bumper as thats where they start to go. Check the electric windows. Wind ALL of them fully up and down several times each as the plastic rollers on the winder mechanism snap and you can end up with the glass dropping.

"Rover direct-injected 'T' Series diesels okay, but only gain about 7 mpg on the petrol 2.0 litre."

What!!! Where did you get those figures from....I have owned 2 Rover 600's, one a 2.0SLI and the other a 2.0 diesel, and I can tell you that I average around 48 mpg with the diesel (I get 56 mpg on a long motorway run), I used to average about 33mpg on the petrol.

To answer the origional post, I have been very pleased with both my 600's

Most of the rust problems mentioned are only a problem on pre 1996 cars. Rover improved rust proofing after '96. Do watch for electric window probelms, especially the drivers one.....the mechanism can wear, causing all sorts of nasty problems. Make sure the electric arial works too....that'll cost you about £60 and an hours worth of fiddly work to get it in.

They take high mileage very well, but if you're going for a Ti, go for the lowest mileage example you can find. (not many low miler Ti's about these days).

In my experience, the 600 has above average reliability.....Certianly better than Peugeot's, Renault's, Vauxhall's, Fiat's and Seat's I've owned, I had a Mazda 626, which was probably as reliable as the 600.

I've done 30,000 miles in mine in 16 months, and I have'nt had to take a spanner anywhere near it....Apart from an oil change or two. When I have put mega miles on it, I shall flog it, and go out and buy my 3rd 600.

Make sure the electric arial works too....that'll

Provided the ariel motor itself still works then you can buy a new genuine mast (replaceable separately and not too difficult either) for about £13+VAT from your local Rover parts dealer. I replaced mine about a month ago because the one fitted didn't extend fully. Procedure is in the Haynes manual.

Darren

Thanks has give us some food for thought..

Chris

Get yourself a 620 ti. Preferably a 1997/98 model or onwards. In fact; why not subscribe to uk.rec.cars.modifications ? There are a number of people who own and swear by these cars (including me.) that post in there.

Don't bother wasting your time on a pissy little Si. Get some REAL power at your fingertips.

Yeah, but only get yourself a Ti if you can get a fairly low milage non bastardised version.....otherwise you'll soon be shelling out the price you paid for the car again on a new turbo, head gasket etc....

Besides, the "pissy little si" is still over 130bhp, and will get you to 60 in 9.5 seconds........This is quicker than alot of smaller hot hatch gti's.....it's quick enough to piss over all golf gti's (except the turbo and V5 versions)

No it's not.

I'd suggest you go look up the performance figures of the MkI and MkII GTIs.

My Ti has 74k on it and it runs just fine, thankyou. The head gasket is the post 97 upgraded one, so it's not going to brake. Turbo is fine too and good for many, many more miles.

The only rule really is to keep the hell away from pre 97 ti's. Mind, the majority are on their last legs now and almost ready for Mr Scrappy.

Golly, a whole 130bhp, eh? .. and 9.5 too! Impressive.

Shit figures by shit Honda engines. Sure, they'll run and run and run. But with stats like that. No thanks.

You mean it's quick enough to leave the standard Mk IV GTI's on the straight. Mind, that's probably debatable. Alas I couldn't find the stats to clarify my point. Anyway, it would be a moot point, as the GTI's would leave the underpowered Si behind on any bendy stretch of road.

">

It's not debalable at all....The figures are all on the parkers website.....As I said, the only Golf GTI's that are quicker than the Si are the V5's and 1.8 turbos..............I've looked up the eldery golfs, and the Mk II 16 valve is quoted as getting to 60 in 9.8....so even that's slower......the Mk I GTI can get there quicker, but they're mostly on the scrap pile these days.

Standard 2.0 Mk IV Gti gets to 60 in 10.2 seconds (how shit is that)......My wifes Rover 200 DIESEL (yes diesel) would piss over that (gets to 60 in 9.8 sec)......as for being slower on bendy roads......maybe, but who races on them....It's the drag race at the lights, that most people partake in.

Heh.

Right, figures:

MkII 16v: 0-60mph 8.1 secs MkII 8v: as above

I'm not saying these figures are 100% accurate, but they sound pretty damned close to me.

The MkIII Golf was a bit lardy, but, in 16v form could do the 0-60 dash in little over 9 secs dead.

I don't know where you've got your figures from, but they're _way_ off the mark.

FWIW, the 0-60 for your 620 is listed as 10.1 secs, so it's one hell of a lot slower than a MkII Golf, or even a MkIII 16v.

We're talking about the 600 Si (2.0 16v) the 10.1 seconds you are quoting above is for the 2.0 8v.....it is 9.5 sec for the 16v .

I'm just trying to highlight the hidden performance of what alot of people regard as a grandads car......personally, I'd be a bit miffed if, after spending £15k on my brand new Golf Gti, I got taken at the first set of lights I came to by a P reg Rover 200 Diesel.

I'd be even more pissed off if, after parting with £20k of my notes on a brand new Golf 2.8 V6 , I got taken at the first set of lights I came to by an M reg 620 Ti.

You'd be very miffed about my Passat, then.

Even though it's bog-standard with no alloys etc, it hits 60 in 8.5 secs.

0-60 in 9.5 secs is hardly 'hidden performance' - it's just about right for a relatively high powered version of a standard family car.

The fact is that modern cars are a lot heavier and slower than they used to be - highlighted by the fact that 137bhp of old Alfa 33 could hit 60 in under 8 secs.

Had I just spent my dosh on a new Golf, then yes, I would be miffed at your passat.......I'm not sure what year your passat is, but the only passats I can find that'll go that quick are the 1.8 Turbo, and the 2.8 and 2.3 V6's..........so I would'nt be that pissed off :-)

If you look down there...... you'll see it's a 1.8 Turbo. Which is only one step above the base model.

Boy's/Girls there was I thinking it would make a nice family car for the little woman,did not think or the boy-racer side of thing :) That a be one more thing to look out for if we go down that road (no pun intended).

Chris