Not many 800s were fitted with Honda engines - you may be thinking of other Rover models. The early V6 was a Honda but wasn't very reliable and had pitiful midrange, ironically the later Rover V6 engine was much better. Oil leaks aside, the T series (Rover 4 pot) fitted to the 800 was pretty robust and quite torquey. I don't think rot was any worse than most other cars of the day.

No I don't think so, that is probably a gutter-press myth from the days when scurrilous stories knocking British Leyland were used to sell newspapers.

One story was that there was a bloke on night shift who could put two sheets of metal into the press at once. Get the job done in half the time then go to bed. Not possible really as it would not be possible to separate the two wings (one which was allegedly slightly larger than the other so the body panels would never quite fit) AFAIK the press-work was outsourced to a factory at Bargoed in Wales so claiming that this two-at-once pressing was being done by workers in Birmingham gives the lie to the story. Of course 99% of Joe Public (and politicians) would swallow this fishy tale hook, line and sinker.

What is a fact is that the old Mercedes 300TD has different sized wing mirrors! You may surmise that some penniless owner has bought an odd wing mirror from a knackers yard but you would be wrong! They were made like that!

If my memory serves me right, the Montego 2.0 had a VAG gearbox which was sweet compared with the BL one; the Maestro 2.0 derv was a perkins engine; the 800 was a collaboration with Honda as were the suburb 213s (Honda engines & gearboxes).

The other way round, the VAG boxes had the nasty gear-change. I think the (early) 1.6 had the VAG box, the 2.0 litre and later 1.6s were fitted with Rover's own 5 speed which was a far better box, it was a bought-in design (Peugeot?) redesigned by Rover, indeed this box lasted for years being fitted to the 1st generation BMW MINI, although the torque limits were being rather pushed in that application!

The Perkins engine was a joint collaboration, Rover did a lot of work, it turned out to be a very efficient if noisy lump which could rack up mega mileages when looked after.
The 213/216 (Civic/Triumph Acclaim/213) was indeed all Honda. Of the replacement 200, only the 1.6 had a Honda engine, very few were sold because the 1.4 Rover-engined model matched it for performance, was more refined and beat it hands-down for economy. The Rover version of the new Civic platform had simpler suspension on paper, but had longer travel to give a far more supple ride and yet still out-handled the equivalent Civic – pretty impressive work by the Rover engineers. The smoking of the glass-edge area to hide the car's construction was leading-edge, all modern cars have this.

Unthrottled,

'Old cars tend to be cheaper to run overall. I've had, hitherto, good fortune with an old banger.'

I agree. Generally, although not always, I find the cheaper the car the more reliable it is. I like them because they are more basic than today's fayre. The only downside I can see is they tend to be less safe in an accident.

Yesterday a friend was talking about his highly specced Megane, with auto wipers/headlights/dipping etc. I really can't see the point of some of these items. I have a feeling, just a feeling, some people don't bother to turn on headlights because they're auto. Therefore they end up driving with no lights when they should be on! What is the world coming to when manufacturers think drivers can't turn on a switch?

I had several copmay Rover 600s mark 2 incl . a VM diesel.

I can confidently say I have never driven such unrelaible badly made rubbish ever.

Failed electric windows x lots, HG gasket on petrol, HG on diesel, overheating, exgaust rusted through after two years, brake pipes ditto, squeaks and lot more, etc etc etc..

POC.

I presume that's a typeo, you meant 800s. All the 600s were Honda powered except the Turbo and the (L Series) Diesel, the 600 was also very reliable as it was little more than a restyled Honda Accord!

It's not exactly clear why you have resurrected this old thread to post a load of rubbish which has nothing whatsoever to do with the original topic, the Rover 800...

Very model specific issue that, most likely related to the BSI module. I guess that Rovers were not nearly sophisticated enough to even have one fitted. So IMO a total red herring in this thread.

Incidentally OEM surely means Original Equipment Manufacturer or in the X Pic's case 'Grundig' I believe. I replaced my XPic radio with a Sony with Zero BSI issues.

Edited by Ethan Edwards on 19/04/2013 at 15:00

Well, I know a lady with a C4 Picasso and she had the original radio swapped-out to an aftermarket type because the original Citroen one apparently didn’t support working with a mobile-phone via Bluetooth and using a microphone and the existing stereo’s speakers. (?)

Maybe it was a case of: Citroen did have an upgrade stereo that would do the job, but it was going to cost 4 times as much as an aftermarket Sony?

Anyway, not long afterwards, the electric handbrake on her car refused to release. The RAC managed to manually crank it off, and the car then went to the Citroen dealer’s, where they knew immediately that it would be the aftermarket stereo that would be the root of the problem: To prevent the issue recurring, he dealers had to fit an additional small electronic device which apparently is required if you don’t use the OEM stereo.

Now I know that all sounds a bit apocryphal, but I heard it straight from the owner’s mouth, and indeed the issue hasn’t recurred. So there may be something in it.

ECU updates cannot be made to Citroen or Peugeot unless the original radio is fitted and I assume the electronic handbrake needed a software update.