Milford Cubicle Posted January 27, 2008 Share Posted January 27, 2008 Bought this just over a month ago as an emergency/stop-gap car, but it's running so well we might just keep it, apart from a recent knackered radiator and warped rear brakes it's been trouble free and it's lovely to drive if a little front-heavy/understeery for my tastes. The gearing is a bit low which is at odds with its image - 3500rpm at 80MPH doesn't really suit it, apart from that it's a good cruiser.The slightly obscure 2.3 DOHC engine (which sounds lovely for a 4-cyl - really 'snarly' when accelerating) makes it a little more shite I think, and the fact that it's a manual base-spec one (most 623s seem to be slushmatic and in luxurious 'GSi' trim). Only £215 off eBay with lowish mileage, and MOT until September. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
r.welfare Posted January 27, 2008 Share Posted January 27, 2008 2.3 eh? Nice As you say unusual to see a boggo one with the 'big mill'. Shame it's not to Accord SR spec which pumps out another 20bhp over the Rover I think - I quite fancy one of those. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milford Cubicle Posted January 27, 2008 Author Share Posted January 27, 2008 Didn't realise there was a more powerful version of the H23 engine in the UK, ooer!It goes quite well with a mere 156bhp though, usefully faster than the 2.0 litre Accords I've driven. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
r.welfare Posted January 27, 2008 Share Posted January 27, 2008 Think you might be right - Parkers confirm a similar BHP fig for the Accord 2.3; I was lead to believe they had more like 180!Nice car nonetheless, is it juicy on fuel? The 2-litre Accord I ran (a '99 model) was pretty diabolical, I'd be lucky to get more than 30mpg (slushmatic though). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torsten2001 Posted January 27, 2008 Share Posted January 27, 2008 Absolutely nothing wrong with that, total VFM! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milford Cubicle Posted January 27, 2008 Author Share Posted January 27, 2008 It does alright on fuel, 30-35mpg which is much the same as the 2.0 petrol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spottedlaurel Posted January 27, 2008 Share Posted January 27, 2008 I reckon the engine might have a similar feel to the slightly-bigger-than-normal capacity 4-pot 16-valver in my Camry, good that you seem to get a bit more torque than some multi-valve engines but it'll still rev nicely. Whatever, good buy MC. As good as a 1985 Accord though? ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milford Cubicle Posted January 27, 2008 Author Share Posted January 27, 2008 If only I could afford both at the moment. Does the Camry have a 2.4 DOHC 16v like the Previa? My family had an early Previa and it hustled that heavy machine along quite well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnthonyG Posted January 28, 2008 Share Posted January 28, 2008 I always rated the Rover 600. 620Ti for ultimate wood and leather Q-car!These were much nicer than the relevant Accord, I felt, and were considered quite 'posh' compared to a Vectra or Mondeo in 1995. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wuvvum Posted January 28, 2008 Share Posted January 28, 2008 I always liked the Rover 600s. Comfortable, quite refined and superb value for money. Only drawback I found was the pants turning circle. 620ti is great until it goes wrong (usual Rover engine problems plus it eats gearboxes and diffs) - 623 is probably the best power/reliability compromise. 618 is not nice. That one looks a good buy for what you gave for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wuvvum Posted January 28, 2008 Share Posted January 28, 2008 Does the Camry have a 2.4 DOHC 16v like the Previa?Pretty sure the 4-pot Camry is a 2.2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milford Cubicle Posted January 28, 2008 Author Share Posted January 28, 2008 Oh yes, the turning circle is dreadful! They feel like big cars to drive in a bad way. Hustling it around the tight, steep streets of Edinburgh the other weekend wasn't such a chore though due to the light PAS and slick gearbox - but, as in other Rondas, the clutch has a hell of a lot of travel.I wouldn't mind a 600 Ti or 800 Vitesse despite the woes - aren't the engines basically strong apart from the head gaskets? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
r.welfare Posted January 28, 2008 Share Posted January 28, 2008 I was under the impression that the T-series HG issue is more oil-leak-related, rather than K-series type detonation. Check the coolant pipe that runs across the front of the engine (where the dipstick is), that can corrode.Gearbox destruction is more the issue, it certainly was with my lo-po 820i - it whined like a Moulinex Magimix in 1st and 2nd!Find one that's had proof of a recently-rebuilt 'box and treat it gently, and there shouldn't be any problems. The 800 Vitesse in good order is an awful lot of car for the money, although the standard one (180BHP) is down on power compared to the 620Ti and 800 Vitesse Sport (200BHP). Probably doesn't make that much different in practice though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KruJoe Posted January 29, 2008 Share Posted January 29, 2008 Were the BMW-derived (?) diesels in these (and the newer shape 400s) any good?? Mrs KJ and I are discussing our options for our first daily when we arrive back in GB... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ashmicro Posted January 29, 2008 Share Posted January 29, 2008 The T series has issues relating to oil feed to the top end, rather than oil leak. The old O Series on which it is loosely based suffered similar issues. Regular servicing and the use of good quality engine oil makes this pretty much a non-issue.Re: the K series, I've had a bucket load of K engined cars, and have never had HGF. Don't rag it when cold and service it correctly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ashmicro Posted January 29, 2008 Share Posted January 29, 2008 Were the BMW-derived (?) diesels in these (and the newer shape 400s) any good?? Mrs KJ and I are discussing our options for our first daily when we arrive back in GB...The diesels in the 600 and bubble shape 400 series were Rover L series. Earlier ones in the wedge 200/400 were PSA 1905cc oil-burners. XUD9A for the atmo, and 1769cc turbo XUD7TE.The Rover L series is a 1994cc 20 T2N in the 600, packing 105BHP.The "mark 2" 400 comes with the same engine, in 84 and 105BHP flavours.The BMW engine to which you refer is only in the 75, coded M47R. A 6 pot version is found in the P38 shape Range Rover, and is a 2.5. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChinaTom Posted January 29, 2008 Share Posted January 29, 2008 R75 2.0 diesel is a cracker - even with an autobox like the one I drive when I'm in the UK - no matter how you drive it it'll return 46mpg. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ashmicro Posted January 29, 2008 Share Posted January 29, 2008 R75 2.0 diesel is a cracker - even with an autobox like the one I drive when I'm in the UK - no matter how you drive it it'll return 46mpg.Bang on! My Uncle has a 75 Con. SE. with the slushbox and CDTi lump. He drives it like he stole it, gets places before me and still gets 40 plus.In contrast, I recently averaged 9 MPG in my CLK500. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChinaTom Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 Glad to know I don't have the biggest carbon footprint then 46mpg from this: and an average of 17 mpg from this, although I'll get 6-8 around town on a cold start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milford Cubicle Posted January 30, 2008 Author Share Posted January 30, 2008 The Rover L-series is a brilliant engine, not exactly BMW-derived though - it's an updated version of the Perkins Prima engine found in Montegos and Maestros, which was derived from the old 1994cc BL/AR O-series lump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marinast Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 The 75 engine can be uprated to BMW power outputs with a small tweak of the ECU, an extra 20bhp I believe, plus it runs just as sweetly and returns around 40mpg.That 623 is a nice car, not as many around as one would imagine, almost as scarce as a Ti, but for me that car would look much better with a nice set of standard Ti alloys and perhaps a leather upgrade.After all, Rovers were made for leather. Love those wheels on your 75 ChinaTom, the best ever fitted to a 75 in my humble opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr_Bo11ox Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 Hey MarinaST, any chance of narrowing your sig a bit? I cant fit all the text on the screen when you post! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torsten2001 Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 In contrast, I recently averaged 9 MPG in my CLK500.The work Supercharged Range Rover Vogue seems to average under 5mpg in town, comfy and quick though! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChinaTom Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 I think the problem is not Marinast's - it is my fault with that ridiculously large pic of the V12 engine in the Jag. I'll get it smaller and edit the post. Sorry guys.CT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 It's a ridiculously large engine so it's only right that it should have a ridiculously large picture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now