The Rover 400 was almost identical to the Honda Civic from the outside - does anybody know if they both used K-series engines?
If they did then was the Honda one prone to HGF as well?
If not then what did Honda do right or Rover do wrong?
|
Different engines. Honda used a Honda engine except for the diesel.
--
Espada III - well if you have a family and need a Lamborghini, what else do you drive?
|
|
What did Honda do right? Had/have a healthy R&D budget and built a good engine!
|
From what I have read in this forum, it seems like the head gasket failure was due to the small header tank for the coolant. That is nothing to do with engine design really and doesn't make the K series a bad engine per se.
Has the engine got other failings?
|
>>it seems like the head gasket failure was due to the small header tank for the coolant. That is nothing to do with engine design really and doesn't make the K series a bad engine per se.
Header tank had nothing to do with hgf,thermostat and poor cooling system design main cause
--
Steve
|
>>it seems like the head gasket failure was due to the small header tank for the coolant. That is nothing to do with engine design really and doesn't make the K series a bad engine per se. Header tank had nothing to do with hgf,thermostat and poor cooling system design main cause -- Steve
The header tank is not part of the cooling system? The thermostat may have been faulty too but I have seen comment on the header tank being too small in this forum many times. Again, the thermostat fault doesn't make the K series a bad engine.
|
>>The header tank is not part of the cooling system?
I didnt say that,what I did say was, it had nothing to do with HGF failure.
It doesnt have to be that big anyway as its an expansion tank and usuall problems with these(few and far between)cap failure or split in tank,very rare-unlike thermostat failure,engine in itself fine I`ve had enough to know- had rovers since 1985
--
Steve
|
|
|
|
There are many differences and many similarities
Petrol Engine & gearbox are Honda.
The Rover 400 & the Civic shared many items dashboard, switches, exhausts,suspension, ignition, central locking etc etc
BUT
The Honda car is screwed together better and the Honda dealers after-sales were much better in my experience.
My Honda has required very little apart from routine servicing in 80K miles - total repairs £160 (excluding tyres/exhaust, brakes etc)
My local independent garage buys Rover parts for other customers.
I still get genuine Honda filters, brake pads etc fitted but they cost a little more. Although my exhaust had UNIPART on it but it came from Honda dealer.
Rover sourced parts are generally less expensive than Honda parts.
|
|
|
What did Honda do right? Had/have a healthy R&D budget and built a good engine!
WHAT?????
R&D was a joint venture between Rover and Honda, so individual R&D budgets are totally irrelevant as it was a joint effort where both parties shared the results.
What is it with Rover kickers? (ill-informed rover kickers, at that!)
------------
MoneyMart
Current car: 55-reg Audi A4 2.5 V6TDi Quattro flappy-paddle
|
|
How can the Honda be screwed together better. They were built on exactly the same production line!
|
"If not then what did Honda do right or Rover do wrong?"
The Rover was absurdly overpriced, pitched against much bigger cars. Same mistake was made with the bulbous 200/25 which was actually a good car.
|
|
|
How can the Honda be screwed together better. They were built on exactly the same production line!
Not so. The Honda was built at Honda's own plant at Swindon, using Honda's production system.
Honda got wise to Rover's build 'standards' back in the 1980s when they did a joint Honda Legend/Rover 800 design. The first generation Legend was built by Austin Rover alongside the 800, but Honda took all the cars back to Swindon for quality control work (and there was plenty of it). The result was that the bonnet strike plates of all Legends carried a plate that said 'manufactured by Austin Rover' and a large, noticeable stickr alongside reading 'Quality controlled by Honda'.
|
I'm intrigued. I'm absolutely certain my 1988 Legend, a coupe, had a plate under the bonnet that said 'made in Japan', although I always thought all European market Legends were built in the UK. Certainly the bodywork was well down to UK-build standards, but the engine was the best I've ever had.
BTW - I thought the HGF problem with the Rover K-series engine was something to do with the basic design, using 'stretch bolts' to hold the cylinder head on and the rest of the engine together.
Surely the idea of a bigger header tank is only to try and keep the whole plot a bit cooler and prevent the deadly heat distortion?
I remember during my days as a muttering rotter being sent, in the early 90s, a hugely impressive-looking folder from AR on the K series engine and thinking, 'that looks a bit short-term to me...'
|
|
And you are absolutely right. It was the early Legend four doors that suffered from Rover's attentions. The coupé was built in Japan and much the better for it. However, its inbuilt design fault - apparent on one of mine - showed up when the action of the window wiper motor mounted on the right side of the bulkhead flexed then cracked the paintwork and metal underneath just where water ran down off the windscreen and started the rusting process.
|
|
And I thought it was only mine!
|
|
|
|
How can the Honda be screwed together better. They were built on exactly the same production line!
No thats wrong, the Honda concerto was produced on the same production line, not the Civic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Had a Honda Civic 1.4 from new as company car (96 P). What a load of rubbish - engine sluggish, poor handling. When I bought a 96 - N Rover 414 I was surprised how nippy it was and it handles better.
|
>.From what I have read in this forum, it seems like the head gasket failure was due to the small header tank for the coolant. That is nothing to do with engine design really and doesn't make the K series a bad engine per se.
Has the engine got other failings?<<
Machika,
Even if this were true (which according to Steve, isn't), of course it makes it a bad car. The fact that even "current" Rovers still suffer this problem is somewhat ridiculous do you not think?
The very fact it was first produced being susceptible to this failure makes it a bad car. The fact they were allowed to continue makes Rover bad as a company.
|
does this then mean that a common fault, which is found on every car, applies to every car manufacturer??
Lots of HGF is down to poor owner servicing regardless of make and model. The PSA XUD engine is also prone to HGF if not looked after so assume that applies to Peugeot and Citroen as well.
The list is endless of common faults on cars that should be sorted before car enters production but they are not and that applies to anything from preitege to cheap run about - just check the car-by-car breakdown - dont think ANY model is exempt from common failures and a lot are more costly that a £400 head gasket change
|
I was under the impression (perhaps wrongly) that the K series was prone to HGF regardless of how well it was looked after.
I know some XUD engines had a habit of throwing their con rods out of the block at the most inopportune time too. Difference is, Peugeot sorted it.
|
Depends how you mean 'sorted' it - the theory is that non turbo conrods were fitted to turbo engines. Peugeot, when approached by disgruntled owners, never want to know.
So I would assume they didn't so much sort it as use the existing batch of wrong conrods (For a whole engine production run!) and hope for the best.
|
Damn you and your counter arguments!
My response?
Peugeot haven't gone bust have they? ;-)
|
Damn you and your counter arguments! My response? Peugeot haven't gone bust have they? ;-)
Touche!
|
|
|
|
Machika, Even if this were true (which according to Steve, isn't), of course it makes it a bad car. The fact that even "current" Rovers still suffer this problem is somewhat ridiculous do you not think? The very fact it was first produced being susceptible to this failure makes it a bad car. The fact they were allowed to continue makes Rover bad as a company.
I am only repeating what has been mentioned in this forum a lot in the past. It has been stated many times that low coolant level is a common cause of HGF with this engine. In fact, in a recent thread, there was mention of a kit produced by some company or other that provides a bigger header tank to replace the original plus, I think, the addition of a low coolant warning light.
A design fault like that, doesn't make the engine a bad engine.
|
|
Of course, it is crass that they allowed it to be like that in the first place and even worse that they allowed it to continue for so long.
|
I see where you're coming from and do agree with your last post certainly.
I don't think it's so much that it was designed wrong, I think it's as you say, they let it continue to be put in cars for years knowing it could go pop at any minute.
|
In reply to original post, this old thread might help:
www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?t=29111&...f
Ed.
|
|
I don't understand why all cars are not fitted with low coolant warnings these days, it is hardly advanced engineering after all. It is far more important than having a low screen wash warning, for example.
|
|
Even my old 306 had a coolant warning light. Problem was I didnt know what it was, and it wasn't in the manual. One burst head gasket later.....
|
Even my old 306 had a coolant warning light. Problem was I didnt know what it was, and it wasn't in the manual. One burst head gasket later.....
a 86 Diesel golf works van i had had one too
|
|
|
|
|
|
