Raise a glass to : 20 years of the Rover 200 (R3)

The R3 generation Rover 200 Series and its more recent Rover 25, MG ZR and Streetwise incarnations were collectively the best-selling models for Rover Cars and MG Rover Group for almost ten years, despite being developed on a modest budget. David Morgan explains why.


Okay, I will admit it, I have a soft spot for the R3 generation Rover 200 Series. Aside from its ability to deliver an eager driving experience, the R3 in its more recent Rover 25, MG ZR and Streetwise guises was also one of the key models that kept Longbridge active in its final chapter as a volume car assembly plant.

Some observers will remember the third-generation (R3) Rover 200 Series as a sign of creative product engineering. On the other hand, others might view it as a sign of misreading the market and being over confident in the premium pricing abilities of the Rover brand. However, there’s no denying that, with 796,399 examples built in nine and a half years, it was far from being an also-ran.

Cast your mind back to the 1990s and Rover Cars was on the road to success. ‘Up Where You Belong‘ even, to coin the advertising strapline for the R8 generation 200 Series which highlighted that Rover models were once again being positioned as premium-priced propositions against mainstream rivals. Together with a committed workforce and a product range that was winning media praise and industry awards in equal measures, Graham Day’s strategy for both the company and the Rover brand was working.

Against this wave of optimism Rover Group was facing yet another battle for funding new models, this time from owner British Aerospace (BAe). The defence and aviation company had experienced a massive fall in profits attributed to a reduction in the number of Government defence contracts being issued and a collapse in sales of BAe’s regional aircraft operations. Other commercial interests were either under-performing or making a loss. In addition, Land Rover was also investing heavily in a new, second-generation Range Rover to the tune of £300 million – the largest amount the company had invested in a new model. Small wonder, then, that the Rover Group had to rely on further licensing arrangements with collaborative partner Honda or resort to exploring alternative resourceful re-engineering strategies to replace its models.

With a modest budget of just £200 million to work with for replacing the Metro, there was no opportunity to design a new platform and offer a variety of different bodystyles. Instead, the plan was to utilise the existing R8 200/400 Series platform and frontal structure, although the rear overhang and wheelbase would be shortened to enable the new model to sit at the top end of the supermini market. Today, platform reusing strategies that enable a company to produce models sitting in different market sectors is fairly common. However, in the 1990s it was widely considered by the motor industry to be an unattractive route as it meant there would be inherent compromises in packaging and the flexibility of what major components could be used. Despite this, Rover Cars felt it was a worthwhile avenue to pursue.

Developed under the codename of R3 – often informally referred to as the ‘bubble shape’ by today’s enthusiasts – this would be the first new Rover car to be developed entirely in house for more than 20 years. The R3 would also be the last of the planned three ‘Portfolio’ models to be unveiled in 1995: the MGF and HHR-generation Rover 400 Series would be unveiled in March of that year.



Rover designer David Saddington led a team of five young designers who quickly settled on a common hatchback design where the sheet metal changes between three and five-door were mainly limited to the B and C pillar pressings and the length of the rear wings and doors. Rather than follow the Metro’s trend for clean, angular lines David opted for something more youthful and curvaceous with a low, almost coupe-esque stance so as to appeal to a younger buyer.

Even when the project brief for R3 was changed during the gestation period, whereby it became part of an ambitious two-model coverage strategy alongside the HHR to cover the entire medium market sector, its overall design theme remained unchanged.

Fifty millimetres shorter in the wheelbase than the R8 and 292mm shorter in overall length, the R3 exuded a more youthful interpretation of Rover’s design language. This extended to the cabin where the new dashboard design, which now featured provision for a passenger’s airbag, looked curvaceous with a more stylised form to the wood inserts. Even the seats sported contemporary fabric designs.

The R3 would also offer spirited and engaging driving dynamics for the keen driver, thanks to an updated version of the torsion beam rear suspension with coil springs and anti-roll bar from the Maestro. However, for the R3, it was honed to deliver a more sporting ride and even passive rear steer.

Rover Cars’ Marketing Department wasted little time in devising plans to enter the R3 into its own one-make race series. This would not only inject some spirit into the R3 range generally but also build on what had already been achieved with its predecessor, the R8, through the Dunlop Rover GTi Championship and more recent Dunlop Rover Turbo Cup. Tony Pond Racing (TPR) continued to be the favoured choice for helping to develop the race series cars and provide support to the teams.

TPR’s team of five engineers based in a small workshop within Rover Group’s Gaydon site had already developed a ‘go-faster’ handling kit comprising of chassis and suspension enhancements, to support the intended ambitions of Marketing. An actual R3 race car was fitted with this handling kit, together with a body graphics treatment created by Rover’s Engineering Department and a 197bhp Janspeed-developed version of the K-Series engine. Despite receiving favourable feedback when appraised, Marketing decided to cancel the planned one-make race series and switch attention to one-make race series programmes for the MGF, to be run by Rover Japan and Rover France.


Unveiled on Tuesday, 17th October 1995 at the London Motor Show, there were two examples of the new R3 200 Series on display on Stand E2 – a luxury-clad 216 SLi 5-door finished in Nightfire Red pearlescent and a 200 Vi 3-door finished in Kingfisher Blue metallic. As with the HHR-generation 400 Series, the R3 would be offered with a choice of three 16-valve versions of the K-Series ranging from 1.4-litres to the new 1.6 and 1.8-litre. Sitting below them would an 8-valve 1.4-litre version producing 75bhp. There would also be a choice of two versions of the home-grown 2-litre L-Series diesel engine – the 86bhp TCie-M with mechanical injection and the 105PS TCie with electronic fuel injection.

Sitting at the top of the line-up was a sporting flagship 200 Vi model featuring the new 1.8-litre K-Series engine with variable valve control (VVC) as offered in the MGF. The high performance Vi model was originally shortlisted to be badged as the VVC although someone in Marketing soon realised that due to the adopted close-script used for all trim level badging, from a distance it could potentially be mistakenly read as ‘WC’. It was quickly changed to ‘Vi’ rather than use one of Rover’s other established high performance monikers.


However, Rover Cars’ marketing forecasters had clearly underestimated the level of demand for the VVC version of the new 1.8-litre K-Series engine in the MGF – as a consequence, production versions of the 200 Vi did not arrive in showrooms until January 1997. That was a shame as this variant that had been chosen to appear in the aptly-themed ‘Englishman in New York’ television advert to launch sales of the R3.

Produced by Rover’s appointed advertising agency APL, which handled their above- and below-the-line account, this 50-second advert had cost approximately £1.3 million to make. Its storyline focused on an Englishman who did not feel aggravated or stressed when experiencing various strains of urban life during his drive through the streets of New York City.

The first R3 production version built was a 214 Si 3-door finished in British Racing Green metallic which, maintaining the tradition relating to first and last built cars, was handed over to the British Motor Heritage Trust. Volume production commenced from mid-November 1995 in time to meet the December on-sale date.

At launch the model line-up comprised of the 214i featuring the 8-valve version of the 1.4-litre K-Series engine. It was priced from £9995 in three-door form, with the five-door version costing £500 more. The slightly more power 103bhp 16-valve version in Si spec, which was expected to be the volume seller, was priced at £11,195 in three-door form. For £1000 more you could have the Si trim specified with the new 111bhp 1.6-litre engine, with this engine also being the sole engine offered in the high spec 216 SLi variant. Rover Cars had recognised the growing appeal for a diesel engine option across different trim levels and in different bodystyles. The 2-litre L-Series was therefore offered in base and mid-spec trim levels and in both three- and five-door form.


The R3 would also be offered in ten exterior colour options shared with Longbridge-built models such as the ‘young-at-heart’ Mini and Rover 100 Series (nee Metro) and the new MGF sports car, to further reinforce its youthful appeal. These comprised of Amaranth metallic, British Racing Green metallic, Charcoal metallic, Electric Blue, Flame Red, Kingfisher Blue metallic, Nightfire Red pearlescent, Platinum Silver metallic, Tahiti Blue pearlescent and White Diamond.

The press launch took place in Southern Italy a month after the unveiling and it used a fleet of consecutively registered press demo cars wearing the N7** SVC registration series. The R3 attracted some favourable comments from road-testers who liked its mix of modern styling, well-appointed interiors and responsive handling.


Top Gear co-presenter Quentin Willson went one stage further in his review transmitted on 7 December 1995 and commented favourably on the R3’s feeling of quality, right down to ‘interior switches that click satisfyingly’. He concluded that it ‘handles like a go-kart’ and ‘is a small car you can actually feel proud to own.’ Praise indeed… The only drawbacks reported in early road tests were a lack of rear legroom and a higher on-the-road price in relation to those for rivals such as the Peugeot 306 and Vauxhall Astra.

Indeed, the growing confidence in the premium potential of the Rover brand saw the majority of models in the R3 line-up being priced up to £500 more than the equivalent spec model in the outgoing R8 range. Although total production of the R3 had exceeded 113,000 examples by December 1996, Marketing decided to bring out special edition variants in March 1997 to reinforce its’ value-for-money appeal. These were marketed as the 214, 214 S and 220 DS Turbo and were priced to sit below the i and Si trim levels.

By June 1997 the regular model line-up had been expanded to include the availability of a sporting iS derivative to sit below the Vi. Sharing the same colour-keyed roof spoiler, 15-inch alloy wheels and front fog lamps features as found on the 200 Vi, the new iS would be offered with the existing 1.4-litre 16-valve and 2-litre SDi engines. In 218 iS form it would also signal the availability of the 120Ps non-VVC K-Series engine in an R3 model.

The 1997 Frankfurt Motor Show saw an interesting twist in diversifying the sporting appeal of the R3 in the form of the 200 BRM (British Racing Motors). The arrival of Tom Purves from BMW (GB) as Rover Group’s new Sales and Marketing Director in June 1996 saw a greater drive to promote Rover’s traditional elements from its history. This also extended to delivering a meaningful heritage-based performance model to aid export marketing opportunities for the range in general.

110907_101_rov 110907_043_rov

As a keen historic motor racing fan, Tom suggested rekindling a link with British Racing Motors which had been involved with the Rover Company during the early 1960s to co-develop and build the Rover-BRM Le Mans race car. The Rover-BRM became an official works entry in the 1965 Le Mans 24-hour race and it finished in tenth position overall ahead of every other British team.

Tom put the idea to Nick Stephenson, Engineering Director, and Geoff Upex, Design Director, with the idea quickly gaining their support and that of the Design organisation. Two prototypes were built as static display examples to be displayed at the Frankfurt, London and Tokyo Motor Shows in 1997, with the production approved 200 BRM LE (limited edition) entering production from September 1998 and going on sale in March 1999.

What was actually quite an involved project which had resulted in a number of enhancements to the driving dynamics and power delivery was sadly marginalised by road-testers. As one former senior design manager on the 200 BRM project recalled: ‘The concept was lost on journalists who did not like the historic context and they struggled to see past this and enjoy the car as a whole, despite its excellent ride and handling mix. Moreover, the fact that a specialist, almost hand-made interior came at a volume price was also overlooked.”

Instead, there was a preference to writing about the like-it-or-loathe-it orange surround to the front bumper’s main air intake and the liberal use of quilted red leather and turned aluminium detailing for the interior. Autocar’s road test dated 18 November 1998 even devoted an entire paragraph to deprecating the heating control knobs as being ‘fiddly to use and an aesthetic aberration.’ As a result of this and the BRM’s on-the-road price of £18,000 being criticised for being expensive, it never gained the success it deserved.

The production records confirm that, after the six Special Designation Vehicles (i.e. press demo cars) had been completed, there were 1109 production cars built between September 1998 and early July 1999. This comprised of 797 examples for the home market, 50 for Belgium, 77 (Holland), 30 (Portugal), 125 (Spain) and 30 (Switzerland). Despite its relatively rare status and mixed views from the motoring press, the 200 BRM LE would serve as a useful dress rehearsal for what was to follow in 2001 when the Rover Cars division was under different ownership…

By the end of 1998 the 400,000th R3 had left the Longbridge assembly line. Enhancements such as the availability of the 60bhp 1.1-litre 8-valve engine appealed to those mourning the passing of the recently discontinued Rover 100 Series. Special edition models such as the 211i SE and 214i SE continued to reinforce value-for-money in the home market. This was aided by a new television advertising campaign by APL which portrayed a more contemporary image for the Rover brand based on a ‘Cool Britannia” theme featuring carnival scenes and Pearly Queens.

In contrast, in export markets such as Germany the importers were emphasising wellbeing and luxury through special feature content. This was notable through derivatives such as the ‘Young”, ‘British Open” and ‘Silverstone” unveiled in April 1999 which featured bold seat fabrics or embossed special leather seat facings, a full-length canvas sunroof or wood-rimmed steering wheel and different alloy wheel designs to those found on regular models.

In the UK, the emphasis was on adjusting the line-up in preparation for the introduction of a heavily updated model in the autumn of 1999. A two-pronged strategy started in April 1999 with the introduction of special edition models. These comprised of the SEi offering a low-cost route to owning a highly-specified Rover 200, the sporting iS package (now offered in 1.6-litre form in place of the 1.8-litre engine) and the comfort and luxury focused iL. This was followed two months later by regular trim levels being repackaged and renamed, to smooth the transition to the replacement model and its respective trim level identities, due be unveiled at the 1999 London Motor Show.

In production for less than four years the R3 Rover 200 Series was considered a success story, with 470,449 examples having been built. Even in its final year in 200 Series form, the R3 had maintained strong sales form despite a collapse in sales in Japan that year due to the introduction of consumption tax. There was also parent company BMW’s public discontent over poor productivity at the Longbridge assembly plant to deal with. Sadly, this latter factor would continue to overshadow the launch of the new model unveiled at Earls Court Exhibition Centre on 19 October 1999.


Known internally as Project ‘Jewel’, the heavily updated 200 Series was renamed as the Rover 25, to fit in with the new two-figure nomenclature strategy started by the Rover 75. The new model echoed the distinctive four headlamp style and deeper, more rounded grille design introduced on the 75 as part of ‘the new face of Rover” design philosophy. Along with featuring new front wings, bonnet and bumper mouldings, the Rover 25 also benefited from a redeveloped chassis, enhanced interiors and a greater personalising potential through a wider choice of alloy wheel designs and trim levels. So significant were the changes that it was claimed around 40 per cent of the components used were new.

With the design and engineering enhancements also came a change in the market sector it was being pitched in, namely as a premium supermini contender aimed at younger buyers wanting a distinctive and sporting hatchback. This was clearly evident by the sports chassis which had adopted the uprated springs and damper characteristics of the previous 200 Vi variant.

For those buyers looking for something even more sporty there would be a GTi derivative identified by its 16-inch multi-spoke wheels, colour-coded bumper inserts and black-finish to the radiator grille vanes. Powered by the 145PS 1.8-litre VVC engine, the GTi featured the shorter final drive and sports suspension lowered by 20mm that had been introduced on the 200 BRM LE.

The 25 range officially went on sale from 1 December supported by a multi-million European launch campaign handled by WCRS. The advertising campaign centred on the new ‘Extraordinary Drive” slogan that had been introduced for the 75’s sale’s launch. In the print adverts the Rover 25 boasted about offering ‘more power, more control and more response.” Collectively this was a far cry from the ‘Relax, it’s a Rover” strapline the R3 had been uncomfortably saddled with since late 1996 given that its driving dynamics were noted for being aimed at an eager driver.

Aiding the print adverts was a new television advert produced by M&C Saatchi based around a Roulette wheel and featuring ‘Life in Mono’ as its soundtrack by the group Mono, taken from their ‘Formica Blues’ album.

Sadly, it was too little, too late for Rover Group’s owner BMW, which in March 2000 decided to rid itself of its interests in the ‘English Patient.” As a consequence, Land Rover was sold to Ford while the Rover Cars operation eventually found a confirmed buyer in Phoenix Venture Holdings (PVH), which officially acquired the company and its product range in May 2000. Leading the PVH bid was former Rover Group Chief Executive John Towers, who had left the Rover Group in May 1996, having worked for them for eight years.


In those six weeks of uncertainty before the deal was formalised the Rover 25 had actually taken the top spot in the month of April as the best-selling car in the UK. However, PVH knew this success was a brief reprieve for a model they would have to work hard with in order to prolong its sales life – particularly as the motoring press were already judging the car to be ageing based on the platform design being able to trace its origins back to when the R8 was unveiled. There was also the issue of the Rover brand being commercially damaged, not helped by the press referring to the company as merely ‘Rover” when describing events relating to the Rover Group, Rover Cars, Land Rover and even the pre-1986 period of the former state-owned car manufacturer.

Interestingly, the Chairman of PVH, John Towers, had previously said in an interview featured in the BBC documentary ‘When BMW met Rover”, broadcast in 1996, that he considered the R8 Rover 200 Series to be the most successful model to come out of the Rover Group. No doubt he was referring to the ability to utilise a common body structure as the basis to spawn no less than six different body styles. Clearly, the ambition was there within the renamed MG Rover Group to utilise the Rover 25 in a similarly flexible way, albeit through a more low-cost approach where differentiated product themes could be delivered through making changes to primary and secondary trim, rather than undertaking major re-engineering to the body itself.


The first confirmation of this came in November 2000 when MG Rover Group announced that it would be using the MG brand for a range of sporting saloon variants. These would supplement the Rover models and also aid in expanding the presence of MG as a global brand beyond the MGF sports car. The Rover 25-based variant, codenamed X30, would utilise some of the engine choices already offered in the Rover 25, but feature more assertive sports styling. This was derived from bolder colour and trim changes, the availability of a bigger size alloy wheel design and body styling enhancement components such as sill extensions, a larger roof spoiler and a front bumper bib spoiler. The dynamic enhancements included a lowered and stiffened suspension, faster gearing to the steering and a more involving exhaust note.

A week before the 2001 Geneva Motor Show threw open its doors MG Rover Group announced that X30 would officially be known as the MG ZR and would go on sale from July 2001, priced from £9995 for the entry level 1.4-litre ZR 105.


The arrival of the MG ZR, particularly the flagship ZR 160, saw the discontinuation of the high performance Rover 25 GTi after just eighteen months. According to the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT) data, 1984 examples had been built for sale in a number of markets and it would ultimately become the last sporting performance model to wear a Rover badge.

In the meantime, the Rover 25’s showroom price had been realigned and a new entry level 1.1-litre 16-valve engine introduced priced at just under £8000. Meanwhile, a new luxurious 1.6-litre iXL model now headed the range. To maintain sales momentum special edition models under the ‘Olympic’, ‘Impression’, ‘Spirit’ and ‘Olympic Impression’ monikers would be unleashed between 2000 and 2003. These would major on enhanced standard equipment to promote greater value for money in the lower to middle part of the range. Some of these variants would also offer new SE-specific exterior colours such as Paprika metallic and Oxygen Blue metallic.

In 2003, MG Rover Group diversified the Rover 25’s coverage further, with new car-derived vans marketed as the Rover Commerce and MG ZR Express. These were based on the three-door bodyshell but with solid panels fitted in place of the rear quarter-light glass and the rear seats removed.


The car-derived vans were followed in July by a new model described by MG Rover Group as an ‘urban on-roader”. Marketed as the Streetwise by Rover, the new model featured raised suspension and styling cues inspired by small off-road vehicles such as the Land Rover Freelander, but without four-wheel drive. Instead, it was intended to be an affordable on-road lifestyle alternative to a genuine off-road vehicle, but with lower running costs. As with genuine off-roaders, the Streetwise could be specified with a range of add-on accessories. A popular seller in Russia, the Streetwise would actually create a new crossover market sector that would soon be joined by the Volkswagen Polo Dune and Citroen C3 XTR.

The final major update to the R3-based model was announced in April 2004 when both the Rover 25 and MG ZR now featured an all-new tailgate outer skin design, with the number plate relocated to the rear bumper. The front bumper and headlamps were also redesigned while the original R3 dashboard was replaced by a new fascia design and centre console. This offered new soft-touch switchgear, a satin finish to the column stalks and new circular air vents.


The Streetwise also received the new interior fascia design and shared the same remote tailgate release feature, although it retained its original tailgate outer skin with lift handle and number plate illumination. By November of that year the programme of revisions seen on the Rover 25 and MG ZR had reached the car-derived van versions.

While it was obvious these revised models could trace their origins back to the 1995 R3, MG Rover Group’s designers had undoubtedly completed a thorough and convincing update to prolong the model’s shelf life. It seemed to work for a while as, by the end of 2004, the MG ZR had become the company’s best-selling model, even outselling the Rover 75.

Sadly, this success was short-lived as MG Rover Group went into administration on 7 April 2005 and production did not resume once it became clear that there were no buyers looking to acquire the company as a going concern. According to the website www.mg-rover.info, the final pre-administration MG ZR to be completed was a 105 Trophy SE 3-door finished in Ignition Blue pearlescent, which was built on 6 April 2005. A total of 82,049 MG ZRs had been built.

Production data from the SMMT suggests that Longbridge had also built 228,694 Rover 25s, 14,227 Streetwises and a combined output of 930 examples of the Rover Commerce and MG ZR Express.

Production of the Streetwise did recommence, albeit in 2008 in China under Shanghai Automotive Industry Corporation which had bought the rights to the Rover 25 from MG Rover Group in the autumn of 2004. The model was renamed as the MG 3 SW and it remained in production for approximately two years for sale in China only. It was replaced by an all-new model featuring a new body structure and platform in 2011.


Few can doubt that those final years under MG Rover Group were undeniably the most demanding for a model that had a heightened role to play in fighting an erosion of sales and declining customer confidence in a company with no parent or collaborative partner. Along the way the R3 and its more recent incarnations had also endured criticisms ranging from being over-priced, positioned in the wrong sector of the market, to the all too familiar reference to design deficiencies of the K-Series petrol engine.

Despite this, the R3-based models are continuing to attract an enthusiastic following in both standard and modified forms, thus ensuring that some of the reminders of the final chapter of volume car production at Longbridge are still a common sight in daily motoring.

So, whether you are a fan of the Rover or MG variants, or even both, join me in raising a glass in honour of the R3’s milestone…

Thanks to Stephen Laing, British Motor Industry Heritage Trust, Stephen Fussell and Wynn Mitchell for their assistance with some of the information used in this article.

Keith Adams


  1. Owned an original mini from nearly new, partly because of the poor fit and finish on that and partly because I was underwhelmed by experiences of the Metro and Maestro I swore I’d never buy a Rover.

    Fast forward a few years and I was looking for a cheap run around to last a few months. They’re so cheap it seemed a sensible choice but I was still cynical when I went to test drive it. Over two years later I’ve still got my little 25.

    Almost mini like handling but with proper suspension, build quality that is far better than other super minis of the same age and pretty rust resistant. It’s a shame but just like me I think most people never realised how good the later Rovers were.

  2. Great article

    “Indeed, the growing confidence in the premium potential of the Rover brand saw the majority of models in the R3 line-up being priced up to £500 more than the equivalent spec model in the outgoing R8 range.”

    This was the main issue with the car, Rover trying to sell it as a Golf/Astra/Escort rival when it clearly wasn’t.

    I wonder if Rover might have been better off making R3 larger and a true replacement for R8, and instead of HH-R, working with Honda on a true replacement for the Metro?

  3. They might have sold nearly 800,000 of these agreeable little cars, but probably not at a profit. A former boss (ex-Rover) told me they cost as much as a 400 to build, because they were UK-designed, and the UK engineers weren’t as good at costing as their Japanese oppo’s.
    That passive steer rear axle was wonderful – power oversteer in an FWD car! But the R3’s were always too small to be my only car, so I never bought one.
    There is a BRM with a 2-litre turbo engine in Nuneaton. Goes well, apparently.

  4. What an incredibly well-informed article. Well done!

    As for the R3. I always struggled with them. I was quite often given one as a loan car when my 75 was in for something. Always a low spec model without a height adjustable seat and I could never get comfortable.

    Still plenty around however, so the basics were right.

  5. Maybe I must congrats R3‘s 20th anniversary, too. Being interested by their historical meaning of “the last British mass produced car created by British(since the Metro and Montego)“ and attractive style of 200vi. Thanks AROnline! I‘ve learned so much…

  6. Perhaps the success of the R3 was due to its upmarket image compared to the equivalents from other competitors. I’ve never driven an R3 (all my Rovers have been HHR based), but there used to be lots around and I know someone who still owns a 53 plate R25.

    The ZR was a great sporty version that looked the part and at least spread the MG name too.

  7. I’ve had a p reg turquoise (kingfisher blue?) 214Si for about a year now. Parts are cheap reliability OK. It’s such a comfy relaxing car (my main comparators are my ’93 defender and a 54 k12 Micra). It even goes round corners properly with good tyres on every corner.

  8. If you replaced the head gasket with a better one from a Land Rover, these were quite good cars and are still seen on a regular basis. My sister bought a ten year old example in 2006, which had a new head gasket fitted, and it provided her with two years of reliable motoring. Bet the same wouldn’t have been said of 1.4 Escort of the same era, one nasty, cheap and noisy car that wasn’t much cop when it was new.

  9. I’ve always liked the R3. One of Rover’s best designs and the best looking small car of it’s era by a country mile IMHO.

    I had 51 plate 25 and it was fun to drive, comfortable, efficient and reliable.

  10. Good review of a remarkably good car, the engineering of which was delivered for £106m, if my memory serves me correct. The remainder of the £200m would probably be changes to the line in CAB1.

    The rear suspension changed to the twist beam design to allow the packaging of both a spare wheel and a fuel tank but also was over £100/car cheaper. The rear-steer characteristics were achieved with a very clever design of mounting bushes.

    The Press Launch took place in the northern Italian seaside resort of Rapallo and was covered in one episode of “When Rover met BMW” but unfortunately the first night with the ‘UK majors’ was largely overshadowed by Lady Di’s revelations on the BBC…

  11. I own a gti R8 model and an MG zr 160 R3 model, both fantastic Rover products, even now years later
    They both have character, driving appeal and great handling characteristics
    Ok so the head gasket on the k was a gremlin, but if you upgrade them to the 3 layer one, you ve got a great motor
    On launch the R3 looked just right and even now, 20 years on that bubble shape still looks modern and fresh

    Give it time prices will start rising for good ones, guaranteed

  12. A very interesting, informative article which I’m about to read again.

    Having driven an R3 (a ZR 105) for over three years my comments are very positive indeed. Great to look at, great to drive, and extremely reliable.

    Faults, criticisms? I’ll have to think hard. Nothing of any significance, nothing I found an issue. 66,700 miles and no signs of HGF or any other failings really. Well, if you look after them…..

    My ZR may well go down in history as my favourite ever car.

  13. To my eyes the R3 is a very attractive looking car in all of its incarnations. There is something “just right” about its visual proportions which is hard to explain. We owned a low spec 214i 8V for several years primarily for my daughters to learn to drive with. It was a great drive; excellent handling, good performance and economy from the more basic engine and a comfortable well assembled interior. Ours did suffer HGF but I would suspect that this was associated with the obvious lack of care afforded by its first owner.

    When Rover got something right, it was very right!

    Even today, a nicely cared for R3 still looks good on the road and it is pleasing to see that there are many still on the roads.

    Happy 20th to the R3 🙂

  14. We had the Rover 25 1.8 litre automatic version, with the Van Doorne transmission. The car was a delight to drive and very fast, but sadly we did have a lot of trouble with it. Head gasket, of course, (the first major problem), then a reluctor ring on one of the front CVJs cracked and got loose, thus causing the anti-lock to act up. Then a stuck rear caliper needed replacing. After that, a bit more happy motoring until my wife thought she had a scooter rider riding close behind. This turned out to be a bearing in the transmission, Fortunately we caught it in time so just the bearing needed replacing. At this point we decided to call it a day, and bought a 2001 VW New Beetle, which has not been the most reliable car in our fleet.

    Sadly, the quality of various parts on what was, really, an excellent car let it down badly. After a while you get into the state of wondering what else is going to go next.

    Why did MG Rover ignore the head gasket problems for so long. The K-series was it’s major engine, being fitted on all cars of the range, so it needed to be bulletproof, surely ? They must have put their hands over their ears when their engineers told them “you have to do something about this, boss”

  15. Sorry, an error, the Beetle has been the most reliable car so far. I don’t know how that “not” crept in, and there is not edit function on this website

  16. Sad thing is, if Rover had cured the head gasket problem and had the funds to offer a genuine 200 replacement in 1999, the company could have still been around as the MG variants in particular had a strong, youthful following and plenty of motorists liked the classy interiors on the Rovers. Yet the last few years of the company’s life were painful: an ageing range of cars that were becoming irrelevant, problems with the K series engine, and the introduction of the vile City Rover. It’s a shame as in the early nineties Rover were taking 14 per cent of the market and probably could have been achieving that in the noughties if they found the right partner and had the funds to develop new models.

    • When we started the project, we knew that the technology in the car was getting a bit long in the tooth and the car would only have about a 4 year-life where it could be competitive. That would have meant a replacement in around 1999…

  17. A very popular car in all its incarnations and still loads around. The major issue with R3 was the identity crisis. It was never sure what it was supposed to be – a Metro replacement perhaps, or maybe the R8 . Too big for one and too small for the other and yet another Rover car that wasn’t sure which market sector it was supposed to be in.

    Not as good as the car it replaced (where have we seen that before) and a compromise in so many ways. A better looking car than the HH-R though. A bit bigger and it would have been a better challenger to the cars it aspired to, such as the Astra and Focus.

    • Yes, I think the wider public perception of “oh, it’s a Rover, they blow their head gaskets” only happened post 2005. I did first hear of the issue not long after 1989 when the engine (and Rover) was receiving critical acclaim. (no pun intended!).

      I know it was a big problem, but I think a bit of BL bashing still exists in press coverage and public view of the issue.

      I have driven both a 1.8k, which had most likely suffered periods of neglect, and an always maintained 1.4k. The Rover 75 1.8 twice blew its head in my two years of ownership and then seemed to be having issues again. On the other hand, my always looked after MG ZR with 1.4k has been faultless. Draw your own conclusions……

  18. @ jonathan carling, I do know a few people with 25s and 45s when the cars were in production whose head gasket would fail around 30,000 miles. It was a well known fault with the engine and if it happened outside of warranty time, then it was a £ 400 job.
    However, the diesels seemed free of the problem and were some of the best in their class, offering 110 mph performance and 55 mpg.

  19. Great article and a thouroughly enjoyable read. I must own one of these at some point , hopefully a BRM!

  20. I think the 25 was a better looking car than the 200, the four headlamp front and freshened up styling made it look more upmarket. Oddly enough, for all it was a fairly basic car otherwise and 1600 versions were sluggish, the FD Victor with its four headlamp front end and coke bottle styling, always looked classier than its predecessor and more substantial. It’s amazing what some styling tweaks can do to make a car look better.

  21. “…this would be the first new Rover car to be developed entirely in house for more than 20 years.”

    Shouldn’t this read “for more than 10 years”. Maestro, Montego mid-eighties; R3 mid-nineties ? Or, are we talking Rover, as opposed to Austin Rover?

    Don’t mean to nit pick – a great read!

    • A good point although the R3 was designed from the outset to wear a Rover badge. Maestro and Montego were very much products from the latter era of British Leyland, which of course was renamed as Austin Rover Group in 1982, and were intended to wear an Austin identity (and MG too).

      The description relating to “Rover car” is relating to the intended badge-on-the-bonnet/grille identity rather than the manufacturing company’s trading identity (i.e. Austin Rover Group or Rover Cars).

  22. Or the first small Rover, prior to 1984 these were all large cars, not to have any input from Honda mechanically. On paper, an all new, all British Rover which was supposed to build on the strengths of its well liked predecessor and expectations were high as Rover had shaken off any lingering doubts about its quality in the last five years. Sad thing is, it was too big and too expensive to take on the top of the range superminis it was aimed at and too small to compete in the Escort category, where it was hoping to take sales as well. Not a bad car in any way, it was a nice place to sit in, it went well and was a refined cruiser, just marketed badly and didn’t look as good as its predecessor. Also until 1997 it had the 100 snapping at its heels and taking sales for people who wanted a genuine supermini.

  23. it’s rare for a face lifted car to look better than the original incarnation. The 25 looked fab and was a much better drive than the 200. Still miss my 1.6 CVT

  24. Such a pity that Rover never offered the 200/25/ZR for what really was, a pretty cool supermini. Same goes for HHR and 75, while the 600 looked much modern than 75.

    If these cars were offered in their real class market, it wouldn’t matter that they were too pricey, as far as they could offer quality and britishness. Mind you, what is more pricey than the Mini II and the current one, yet there is a queue for buy them ( and they are not really perfect)

    • Yes, the current 5 door MINI is the same length as R3!

      R3 is a curiously sized car for the time, clearly shorter than the Escort/Astra, but clearly longer than the Fiesta/Polo of the time. Subsequently superminis have grown, so that the Clio 4 is enormous, making R3 now look like a supermini when originally it never was!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.