Re: Jeremy Clarkson: Goodbye, Rover. Sorry, I won’t be shedding a tear

I had an MGB-GT once, then it fell to bits with rust, that was enough for me. Jeremy Clarkson is not silly IMO, he just goes a bit over the top! Regards Mike.

Not sure of the numbers but when BMW sold the company to pheonix they left X amount of cars that were already made. These cars were *free* to the new management and so if sold would of made a 100% profit (as BMW used their money to make them not Pheonix). What did they do? No-one knows, the cars just dissapeared.

We cant blame Clarkson at all, the only people to blame are the management for squandering any money that they had and not investing anything. They probably sat back thinking that whatever happend to Rover the government would bale them out. Well, thank-goodness that thay havent other than giving some money to the workforce for redundancy.

At least there is some limited good news that Network Rail will be interested in some of the engineering based work-force for work on the rail ways.

Steve

BMW left about £150m in cars a £400m dowry and £800m loan to Phoenix according to figures published the week Rover went belly up.

Its sad that they had married a turbo a class engine management system and clothed it in tinfoil then stuck on an MG badge I had the misfortune to drive the car named after a chocolate bar shortly after its release (more like escape) and after minutes realised just how bad it was fortunate for Cadburys they must have also test drove the car and scrapped the choc bar as a result Derek

add in also the cash recieved for intellectual rights to the engines and designs sold off, the cash for sale of the Longbridge to developers, the cash for the lease company, the cash for the finance company and the bung from Tony the Liar thats a lot of cash. Oh and the pension scam er scheme which in 5 years of "contributions" will yield around £120k p a most people have to contribute for 40 years to make a half decent pension not that you need that if you own a finance company of course. hope the Tories get in so we can see somebody hung out to dry in the wind not disappear like WMD

Derek

"Mike Cawood, HND BIT" wrote

Actually this is nonsense.

The Stag engine was the first of several intended powerplants based around essentially the same main components and potentially ranging from 1.3 (smallest possible 4-cylinder) to 4.0 litres (largest feasible V8). It was not made up of "two Dolomite engines". The Dolomite came later and used one bank of cylinders where the Stag used two.

This approach was thoroughly sensible. It was also necessary, because despite popular rumour, there was *not* an inexhaustible supply of Buick engines available to BL. Those they had were needed for Rover 3500s, for Landrovers, for MGB GTs, and of course for everybody who ever had a bright idea for a car but didn't have a powerplant for it. Given that Triumph had a V8 which looked like being the basis of every new engine - inline 4, V4, V6, and V8 - in the BL range for the next n years, it would have been incoherent to ditch it even if there had been an unlimited supply of Rover engines.

Fitting a Rover engine into a Stag also required either a different carb setup to lower its height, or a bonnet redesign on the Stag to accommodate it. That, plus the weight change which required a suspension rethink, were not trivial objections. It has been done since, and the consensus is that the Rover V8 in a Stag is inferior to the Stag engine in a Stag. In the fettle of the day, the Rover produced less torque and it was not exactly immune from overheating itself.

The only grain of truth in Clarkson's statement is that the Triumph V8 as initially sold was unreliable. This is beyond argument; however, it has subsequently been fixed, and derivatives did OK in the Saab 99 and TR7. In fact the TR8 I would have loved to see would be the one they never made, with a 32-valve Stag engine in it.

The problem with BL and its predecessors is that they *thought up* great cars well into the 70s, but the last really well *executed* one was probably the TR4 of early 60s vintage. Up until then Triumphs had a reputation for being mechanically very robust and well-built. Since then, there has been so much shoddy shit that the whole range and brand have been thoroughly and irremediably compromised.

Now if someone were to propose putting the TR6 back into production, with a Toyota engine and a price tag of say £9,000...that could be interesting.

John Redman ( snipped-for-privacy@hotmailREMOVETHEBLEEDINOBVIOUS.com) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :

Well it was very old wasn't it? Most 30 years old cards have rusted to nothing, it is a rare one that hasn't.

It's not actually a Rover either. :-)

I dunno so much , a large part of the attraction was the six pot engine it sounded superb in the Vitesse and GT6, bored out and injected in the 6 to give the extra grunt (142 bhp) sadly you lose that in a 4 cyl. A pity it was never developed further and alloy head and dohc would have been a good start maybe even 18 or24 valve?? and a proper extractor exhaust instead of the cast iron abortion?? are we looking 200bhp+ Derek

A large part of the drawback was the dodgy fuel injection and the fact that the back axle couldn't handle 150bhp, so that the later 130bhp examples were not actually slower off the line IIRC. So putting in a reliable 120bhp engine is going to deal with both.

Of course it's a pipe dream because, although original TR6 bodyshells are available again, I don't think a lot else is.

In the early '90s I bought a 3 year old 1.6 Montego Estate with minor accident damage at auction for a song. It was filthy inside having been used to carry dogs. Cleaned it up and fixed the damage - just a secondhand door which I even got in the correct colour.

Used it for a year - including quite a bit of TV work where it was just the right size for a two man crew and kit - and it was great. Very pleasant to drive apart from heavy parking due to not having PAS. Fast enough and economical too. Never gave any problems either once I'd fixed a front wheel bearing which was mentioned on the auction description. Even the automated SU carb worked a treat.

Sold it at no loss to a neighbour who had further good service out of it for a couple of years before he moved - and dunno after that.

It - and the Maestro - had just about the ideal size interior for most people. By brother loved Maestros as a bargain banger - again because of the ideal interior size. Although he's moved on to Escorts now for this purpose, he still reckons the Maestro was better.

It was further developed. The OHC SD1 six was based on it, and some say that engine could be easily tuned to give a lot more power.

My Dad had four Montegos - 2 1.6s, a 2 litre diesel and a Countryman. No problems with any of them, and even lived to tell the tale when a d*****ad in a Granada/Scorpio t-boned him hoping to beat him out of a junction.

I myself had a Maestro which both gave sterling service for many years. The Maestro even survived a cam-belt breakage with no damage to the engine.

Austin/BMC/Rover/whatever don't deserve the laughter that's often aimed at them. They were always more of an innovator than Ford or Vauxhall, their cars were roomier and less 'tinny' and lasted longer than their rivals.

Halmyre

I remember hiring an early Montego and it left the equivalent Ford or Vauxhall for dead in a straight line, and just a spec in the mirror round the twisty bits. ;-)

I traded a Mk1 Golf GTi 1.8 for my MG Montego and much preferred Monty as a daily drive. Unfortunately it was touch and go whether it would ever complete a journey without incident, or even if it would complete the journey. It was by far the least reliable car I've ever owned, and I've owned a few.

Huw

Err, you're talking bollocks here, the SAAB AFAIK was never shipped with a V8 and the V8 in the TR7 (8) was a Rover.

Clarkson's reference to the V8 being two Dolomite engines nailed together isn't far off the truth and you seem to have the bizarre view that an engine is designed to fit a car rather than the car being designed around the engine, at least that is the only way I can interpret your comment about the Rover/Triumph engine debacle.

Only to a few bearded men who smoke pipes, ear tweed jackets and drink beer with twigs in. If you want a better car than a TR6 there's the Honda S2000. If you want a vague feel of British sports car in a reliable car there's the MX5.

There are already replica Healeys in production, it was always a better car than any TR yet the sales figures are hardly going to set the world alight. We've moved on, and being honest modern cars are better than the tat of old.

I'd love it if ford was to bring the old style granada back into=20 production & stuff like this probably isnt as daft as it sounds .

The teenagers at the time could now be anything from middle management=20 to the top men in whatever field they are in and the nostalgia part of=20 their youth shouldnt be just written off as its the oldies who=20 appreciate style and class ..... and a car that doesnt look like a jelly=20 mould .

Will never happen of course .

--=20

The V8 was never two Dolomite engines nailed together. It was originally=20 an aluminium block 3530cc engine designed by Buick in the early 60s. At=20 the time America was wary of Aluminium engines and wasn't ready for such=20 a small, by US standards, engine and the design languished somewhat=20 until Rover persuaded GM to sell them the rights to manufacture it in=20 the UK, the rest is history.

This engine was light, compact and under stressed meaning the tuning=20 potential was almost infinite.

Now this I do agree with! :O)

Indeed they are.

--=20 Regards

Nick