Random Road Tests: Rover 25

The 2004 Mk2 Rover 25 5 door

As my ZS has an appointment with the MOT tester today, I’ve been relieved of my beloved MG, and very kindly been lent a Rover 25 from 2004.

It’s a bit of a disappointment. I’ve got a genuine affection for the cars MG Rover built, but on the evidence of this 25, from around the time the company was on it’s death-bed, the company just didn’t deserve to survive.

Finished in Firefrost red, the 25 looks good, with 15″ alloy wheels, the paintwork is great, it’s a stunning colour, and one of my favourites. The 25′s 2004 facelift is less successful than those of the 45 and 75 in my opinion, though the revised rear with it’s retro styled ‘ROVER’ boot script looks good.

Stepping into the 25, things don’t look good. While the car I’m driving features a full leather interior, it looks cheap, and feels cheap. The seats are adjustable forward and back, but not in height, meaning my head is touching the headlining.

Cheap Leather + Harsh plastics = Bad interior

The revised cream clocks look awful, compared to the black ones found in older Rovers, and they seem to be smaller (although that might be my imagination). The new (well, for 2004, at least) dash is made from very hard, shiny plastic and in my opinion, is another step backwards in quality. The ‘wood’ centre console doesn’t do the car any favours, either. The glove box, reworked to mimic the interior of the bigger 75, is missing any form of a lining, another part of ‘Project Drive’ meaning it’s very cheap looking, the plastic itself is reminiscent of an ice-cream tub.

So, enough about the inside, what’s it like to drive? Again, not great sadly. The car is very loud on start-up (the mark two cars lost most of their sound-deadening, again, as part of Project Drive) and the 1100 K-series makes itself known immediately. Oddly, the horn sounds as if it’s inside the car-it can’t be, but it sounds like it. On the twisty roads from Budleigh back to Exeter, the 25 gives considerable body-roll, underlining that Rovers are for comfort, not for speed. It’s not a car I would use with any exuberance, in short, it inspires little confidence when pushed towards it’s limits. The gear change is notchy too, with significant play when in gear. Compared to the ZS, I seem to be sat up in a very high position.

Now, having read all that, you’ll probably think I don’t like the 200/25/ZR. Well, my other experience of the range is from my Sister-in-law’s ’99 200, and that has none of the faults from the 25, despite having done almost three times the mileage. The car is quiet, handles well and doesn’t seem to suffer the same notchy gear-change. The dash is soft to the touch, the clocks are clear and easily readable. Comparing the ’99 car to the ’04 car it just seems to underline how much quality had been stripped out of MG R’s products.