Just the other day I was talking to a ancient Rover specialist over here, because I was/am (?) interested in a 2200 tc ('75) model I was offered... He told me **not** to invest any money in a 4-cylinder P6, but to point to a V8 model... He said there are serious problems with the 4-cylinder engines and their parts supply. Engines and gearboxes were *very* problematic. His company would scrap any 4-cylinder P6 they got (!!)
He offered me on the spot a very sound 3500, at a very steep price (I can and will not pay)..
The 2200 tc would go for about UKP 1200, which fits in my budget.
What is the group's opinion about this (and his thinking/doing)?
snipped-for-privacy@verwijderdit.nl was seen penning the following ode to ... whatever:
I don't like the sound of the word "invest" there, tbh.
I vaguely remember that 4-cylinder parts aren't that easy to get hold of as the V8's been made so much longer but it appears that at least pistons are reasonably plentiful on ebay. AFAIR the big problem with these engines is that the sideplates can rust through and I don't think they're that easy to get hold of. Should be possible to get decent used ones from somewhere, though.
Eh? The only time the 4-speed boxes cause problems are when they're bolted to the back of a V8 (aka 3500S) - they're not *quite* up to that kind of power. AFAIK the engines certainly aren't any worse than the majority of 1960s-designed engines. Probably a lot better, the engineering on P6s is amazing.
They need their head examined.
Funny that.
Most importantly, find an alternative source of vehicles. To me it sounds like the guy's a tosser that you don't want to do business with. Four cylinder P6s aren't that hard to find in the UK (yes, I know that you're at least posting from an address in the Netherlands) so you should be able to pick up a very reasonable P6 TC for that kind of money. Mind you, you probably have to keep looking for a while and reject several of them; these cars aren't *that* valuable anyway so there quite a lot of semi-rough ones out there. But also some nice low-mileage ones in need of a bit of tidying up.
In news: snipped-for-privacy@nermal.unix-consult.com, Timo Geusch decided to enlighten our sheltered souls with a rant as follows
Timo speaketh sense...
but to be frank (whoever he is), the 4 cylinder ones are nowhere near as nice and wafty as the V8, and not that much better on fuel either.
The 3500S box was beefed up somewhat as well.
I'd scrap most 4-cylinder P6s as well. Every time I see a 4-cyl P6 on the road I'm slightly disheartened that it's not a V8 one.
Aye, but then again, I agree with him that 4-cyls are a waste of time, money, and effort.
Just buy a V8. They're *much* nicer to own, drive, and listen to. Can be a pig in hot weather, but people have had 35 years to sort that little foible.
I disagree. Compared with the V8 they may come off a poor second, but they're gorgeous compared with most other similarly specced cars of the period (but equal to the Triumph 2000, IMO).
If he means as an *investment*, he might be right. These things depend on local conditions.
However, most buy a car like this for the fun of owning and driving it. It's hardly a Ferrari. At the prices they go for even if it was worth zero in a few years time (unlikely) it's still a cheap hobby.
Well, compared to the V-8 which was still in production up until recently, there will more of a problem with parts supply. You'd need a specialist rather than your local garage.
But the engine itself is a pretty long lasting device for its day - and will easily exceed 100,000 miles between overhauls. It has one weak spot - a bolted on steel side plate which is part of the water jacket and can rust through, but can be repaired or replaced.
Err, the one model of the range that *really* had gearbox problems is the manual V-8. Which uses a 'strengthened' version of the four cylinder box. The four cylinder box is long lived - although the actual gearchange mechanism/selector forks can wear. Usually due to clutch problems.
Since many body and trim parts are common to the V-8s, that might make economic sense to him if he's dealing in the things, but most would be horrified. Like many old common cars, you can make more money out of breaking them for spares than selling them as a whole.
They always cost more than the four cylinders.
If you like it, buy it. What a dealer thinks is neither here nor there. Unless you need him to service it and do any repairs. But there's no need
- they are pretty straightforward cars to work on, so any competent mechanic should be able to. But get a genuine *factory* workshop manual - they are very, very good even for a rookie doing the most basic of jobs.
Check the side plate for leaks. Check the gearbox feels fine in operation with a positive gearchange. But it won't feel as light in operation as the best, but should be pleasant enough to use. Check the clutch frees properly by selecting reverse at idle - it shouldn't crunch.
Yes. I used to drive a very early 2000, and that positively thrived on revs. The original high compression TC was actually slightly more lively than a later low compresssion auto 3500 too. Although a harsher engine. But again liked being thrashed.
I've not much experience of the 2200 - the only one I ever drove was an auto, and a dog, like all auto 2000s. I certainly would never buy one of those - unless intending to convert it to manual.
I don't like the word 'invest' ('investment" , 'putting money in') either, because I don't intend to ever 'make money' or 'gain wealthyness' with old cars ever. I would like a car that I like, and enjoy and drive it... Maybe the specialist was intending to say 'a drum without a bottom' or 'a bunch full of upcoming problems'...
The engine topics: over here I have an issue of Practical Classics (1999) with a theme: 'buying a Rover 2000 now': the article is not negative of all about any of these Rovers (V8's too) and their engines. The 'rusting sideplate theme' is shown too, but not mentioned being a big problem to repair. (5 years ago).
The problems with the gearbox weren;'t talked about more specifically; that the manual box from the 4 cylinder gave problems when applicated to the early V8's I knew (solution was to change to automatic boxes, wasn't it?); I have some literature here about old Rovers as I have a '61 P4, which I must restore extensively soon (so from that point on cannot drive for years :-(
I think you guys were right, as the specialist is breaking 4-cylinders to gain spares for 8-cylinders. Over here in NL most P6's you meet are V8's, so their main job will be to trade and repair V8's... I never drove any P4, so I cannot compare how these models differentiale in their feeling and impact.. I'm not te type to combat Golf GTI cars at traffic lights though, so the sheer power of a V8 may be a bit of overkill for me.. A nice-t-drive car is good for me, I want to smile when I get behind the wheel... (same as in the P4).
The 'choosing problem': 4 cylinders aren't frequent over here and not mainy available for sale. Getting the car from the UK would be an option, but multiple travels across the Channel would not pleasure my bankmanager ;-(
Nice you mentioned the positive repairability of the P6 in diy.
About joining the P6 club: there is a general roverclub over here only (ROCH) but this is heavily dominated by the V8 (P6, P5) section, so their support can be 'throw it away and buy a decent V8'...
The first V-8 installation was in the P5 which then became auto only - earlier models with the 3 litre Rover 6 cylinder were available with manuals. Whether this was because the box wasn't strong enough, or that they reckoned few would want a manual so not worth engineering one, I don't know.
Same applied to the P6 The first V-8 in '67 was again auto only, but the manual box in the 2000 certainly wasn't up to the considerably greater torque. So the manual V-8 didn't arrive for several years - probably because the auto sold so well initially.
The 3500S box is a beefed up version of the 2000 one - different bearings and stronger gears, and a force fed lubrication system. But isn't really beefed up enough...
I oft wondered why they didn't just use the then new all synchro Jaguar box - they were, after all, the same company. I know Jaguar were very iffy about letting the Rover V-8 anywhere near their cars ;-) so perhaps were protective about sharing the gearbox. Such was the state of BL in those days - fierce internal competition which meant what little research/development money they had was often spent unwisely.
It's possible the Stag engine was under development before the Buick unit was bought in - or the amalgamation of Triumph and Rover. And the majority of the tooling costs already committed. Could be too that SAAB were interested in it.
Like hell they were ! Rover would co-operate with Honda more happily than they might with Jaguar - although that was probably more from Jaguar's side than Rover's.
"BL" was a shared logo, and little more. I've rarely seen a company so badly riven by in-fighting between sites.
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.