Rover 45 MK2 - Is it really that bad?

I look at my Rover 45 MK2 with a view point from an owners experience, are these really that bad?
Like and subscribe if you enjoyed this video :)
#rover #rover45

[@MHerbert1993]

I think it looks great the MK2. Its such a shame Rovers are no longer made.

[@usuallyfixingtinkering]

Very much! The brand is very much missed by those who remember what the name means. Sadly that knowledge is slowly disappearing as the years go by. Most young people under 25 don't know what they are sadly.

[@dazlad1972]

I've only drove 2 rovers in my life. 1st was a sd1 3500 sdi in the mid 90s and it was awesome. 2nd was a 89 plate 214 si. Interior was still the nicest one I've ever seen. Was the hatch version in mallard green and drove like a dream

[@usuallyfixingtinkering]

I can just picture that interior! Cracking choice of cars :)

[@willswheels283]

Good review Andrew, I’m with you on what you said, it does look more modern, and to some extent I prefer the mk2’s dashboard, the front end has grown on me, I prefer the mk1 front end. With the finances they had they did a good job but the quality leaves a lot to be desired.

[@usuallyfixingtinkering]

I think the quality was brilliant considering they had no money at all for a restyle. It's definetly aged better as the years have gone.

[@lordbrennanofsealand5772]

Blue rinser 😂. Great video, I certainly appreciate the MK2 more now through your videos.

[@usuallyfixingtinkering]

I am really glad it has because apart from some bad build quality in areas there's no difference and in fact it looks possible how it should have looked 9 years previous... controversial I know.

[@Mondeoman]

I think rover did a remarkable job whilst been in a financial choke hold by bmw etc. I've had countless rovers 200's 25's, i had a 400 diesel with the trusty L Series but haven't owned a 45 all have been fantastic cars The 45 looked nice dressed in the MG styling with the wing fins and big spoiler. As I've always said when rover designed the new 25 now the BMW 1 series they would of been on the a winner that could of bought rover back into the big game but BMW needed a new small platform and the rest is history.

[@usuallyfixingtinkering]

Which is why I hold the theory that all BMW wanted was the Mini, got Rover to design it under their watching eyes and then when it was all-ready, "we're off". Cynical but that's what they did, they've wrecked that brand well and truly!

[@alexandreb.1101]

​@@usuallyfixingtinkering they wanted LR as well, to pretty much design the X5 for them. Funny how a company who had no clue of how to make anything but sports cars and RWD saloons, by the time they sold their "money losing operation" (aka Rover), knew how to make SUVs and had a turn-key FWD small car platform

[@usuallyfixingtinkering]

@@alexandreb.1101 nail on the head!

[@gray41]

Had the 1.4 k series engine and yes as expected the head gasket went. Was not a big deal mechanic fixed it not too big a job but fitted the reinforced modified one on repair and the car went another 80k miles without a fault the car was very reliable apart from the original gasket blowing. Was nice to drive cheap to stay on top of .

[@usuallyfixingtinkering]

The 1.4 is still very suited to the 45 as it gives a lot of punch for its size! That's good to know it went on another 80K!

[@theheaterguyryan5052]

I had a 1995 1.4 Rover 400 had her for 4 years never had ny bother with it was red with split spoke alloy wheels very eye catching looking car even l had boy racer eyeing it up.

[@usuallyfixingtinkering]

When well equipped they look really nice!

[@RobsonRoverRepair]

The mk2 is brilliant styling wise I adore them much more than the mk1, the issue was the sound deadening which makes everything else sound worse.

[@glenmason1876]

I have a mk1 from new, excellent car, better than the mk2, only had an exhaust on it from new, drives lovely, they cut down on the mk2 drastically

[@usuallyfixingtinkering]

Very clunky and just very not in-keeping with Rover's level of quality from the R8 days, adding sound deafening from earlier cars sorts this issue.

[@usuallyfixingtinkering]

I depends on whether it's a pre-2003 MK1. The 2003-2004 MK1's are very much the worst spec 45's ever, then the MK2 came out and added items back onto the spec sheet!

[@RobsonRoverRepair]

@@usuallyfixingtinkering I say same about the 75s, the 03 to 04 examples are terrible, spotted by the green underseal, they got it right again with the mk2 75. Must have been dire cost cutting.

[@usuallyfixingtinkering]

They must have realised the effects was having on sales at this point

[@harveyharrison2839]

Looks a bit like an mg zr or zs. To me it looks very good unlike cars today where they look like a box on wheels

[@usuallyfixingtinkering]

100%

[@neilwalsh4058]

Here's another take on the back end debate , in which I agree that it's not the easiest to live with..... Is it not more the fact that the pre facelift model back was just so good looking , that any changes would always be worse? A lot of car designers are guilty of running out of ideas when it gets to the rear and it not being as pretty as the front. Maybe they should have gone down the Boxster road as Porsche did, simply don't bother , just copy the front and end up with a truly horrendous thing 😮

[@usuallyfixingtinkering]

I think this is a really good point! It's certainly an excercise in how not to do something, don't get me wrong the back end looks okay but not as good as the pre-facelift. It really depends on the circumstance and MG Rver had little money at all then so in hindsight they did okay, which was about as good as it got during this time :)

[@alexandreb.1101]

My issue with the back end isn't even the flush boot. But the "45" where the brand logo should be. Why couldnt they just put a big longship badge with "45" below it? The MGs had their logos with this arrangement Or a longship badge with no text and "R O V E R" below it. With "45" in a small badge on the right side.

[@usuallyfixingtinkering]

Great point and it would have looked way better with the flagship arrangement in some form!

[@Captain_Scarlet_SIG]

The Pro-Drive cars stripped out the nice finishes and poor quality issues including the less reliable Pectron electrics pointed to the downward direction the company was heading, I personally was not a fan of the 45 and much prefer the 25 & 75 but I do own 2x Mk1 25’s and an MGF.😊

[@usuallyfixingtinkering]

They pretty much did but with the MK2 - they tried added things back but the execution was so poor, you wondered why they bothered trying, so half-hearted. Out of interest what do you like about the 25/75 that you don't in a 45? I'm curious :)

[@Captain_Scarlet_SIG]

I think the top spec 75’s were quality and better than the comparable S Type Jag, the 25’s are quite a refined ride and handle well with the Vi suspension carried over to all models except the Gti which has the BRM’s but again the early ones are screwed together better.

[@adamjow8405]

Looks great in general (except back end) but shit build quality can summarise the Rover 45 Mk2. Better cars than given credit for though.

[@usuallyfixingtinkering]

Definitely a very underrated car in general but not without avoiding some criticism for the build quality!

[@jamieclayton9]

Product Drive ruined the Rovers. I have had two hatch mk1 45's, one diesel (2001) and one 1.4 petrol (2000) and both were well built and comfortable. The MK1 had Rover 75 style front seats.

[@jamieclayton9]

I also owned two Rover 25's. One Diesel (2002) and one 103ps 1.4 Petrol (2003). The difference project drive made between 2002 and 2003 was quite drastic but I still loved them both. Basic engineering and easy to maintain.

[@usuallyfixingtinkering]

I've sat in them seats and they are slightly more comfortable!

[@mfitzy100]

Always loved the look of them. But the quality was awful. Cheap Asian level with poorer build

[@usuallyfixingtinkering]

Quality was poor in these areas but the rest of the car is as well built as any earlier 45!