Rover P6 Design Review on Auto-didakt website

mrtask

Well-Known Member
#4
Nice article, excellent photos, very tidy car that.
@chrisw, having heard that remark quite often I had assumed that it was true! Is that not in fact the case? I thought that was the reason for the peculiar bell crank front suspension?
 

chrisw

Well-Known Member
#5
Nice article, excellent photos, very tidy car that.
@chrisw, having heard that remark quite often I had assumed that it was true! Is that not in fact the case? I thought that was the reason for the peculiar bell crank front suspension?
The front suspension was designed with Spen King's need to keep the engine bay as wide as possible, but the turbine was only ever considered an option, and in reality, was never a serious contender for a powerplant.
 

GRTV8

Well-Known Member
#6
Nice article, excellent photos, very tidy car that.
@chrisw, having heard that remark quite often I had assumed that it was true! Is that not in fact the case? I thought that was the reason for the peculiar bell crank front suspension?
My thoughts too. Always was under the impression a turbine was the reason for the suspension. They couldn't get the fuel consumption sorted and dropped the idea.
 

sdibbers

Well-Known Member
#7
Nicely considered article. Thanks for sharing. I like how he had a theory that advanced models of cars came along with certain points in the country's history.
 

redrover

Well-Known Member
#10
How many other S1 P6 TCs have the rev conter in a binnacle while the clock remains separate? All mine had them combined.

https://auto-didakt.com/files/cto_layout/img/Bilder_web/Auto-Photos/Rover P6/rover-p6-2000tc-interior00007.jpg
My understanding is it was either only the first model year, or only for a period at the beginning of the first model year. Either the integrated 2-dial pod hadn't been thought of, or wasn't yet ready for production when TC production began. I believe the separate dials were more common on Federal cars owing to the early production of TCs being exported there.

To speculate wildly for a moment, the case for the integrated pod not existing when TC production began might be borne out by the cancellation of the 2000S model, which seems to have come very close to production. Photographs of the prototypes show them with the round dial instrument pack fitted to S2 TC models, which did not appear in production until the 1967 NADA 3500S models. If the round dials instrumentation was dropped last minute, it would figure that there would be no immediately available alternative pod for the rev counter, hence the lash job in the first year.
Of course, this rests on the hypothesis that TC cars were intended to have the same dashboard as the SC, with only the 'S' models having a rev counter in the round dials instruments.

I don't have documentary evidence to support, so shall await correction.

Michael
 
Last edited:
#12
My understanding is it was either only the first model year, or only for a period at the beginning of the first model year. Either the integrated 2-dial pod hadn't been thought of, or wasn't yet ready for production when TC production began. I believe the separate dials were more common on Federal cars owing to the early production of TCs being exported there.

To speculate wildly for a moment, the case for the integrated pod not existing when TC production began might be borne out by the cancellation of the 2000S model, which seems to have come very close to production. Photographs of the prototypes show them with the round dial instrument pack fitted to S2 TC models, which did not appear in production until the 1967 NADA 3500S models. If the round dials instrumentation was dropped last minute, it would figure that there would be no immediately available alternative pod for the rev counter, hence the lash job in the first year.
Of course, this rests on the hypothesis that TC cars were intended to have the same dashboard as the SC, with only the 'S' models having a rev counter in the round dials instruments.

I don't have documentary evidence to support, so shall await correction.

Michael
Thanks Michael, that makes sense. The 2000S is starting to seem like the ideal 2000 P6. How many were made? And are any left?
 

chrisw

Well-Known Member
#13
To speculate wildly for a moment, the case for the integrated pod not existing when TC production began might be borne out by the cancellation of the 2000S model, which seems to have come very close to production. Photographs of the prototypes show them with the round dial instrument pack fitted to S2 TC models, which did not appear in production until the 1967 NADA 3500S models. If the round dials instrumentation was dropped last minute, it would figure that there would be no immediately available alternative pod for the rev counter, hence the lash job in the first year.
Of course, this rests on the hypothesis that TC cars were intended to have the same dashboard as the SC, with only the 'S' models having a rev counter in the round dials instruments.

I don't have documentary evidence to support, so shall await correction.

Michael
The round dials were never fitted to the 2000S prototypes, only to the mockups - clay and repurposed 169JWD.
 

redrover

Well-Known Member
#14
The round dials were never fitted to the 2000S prototypes, only to the mockups - clay and repurposed 169JWD.
Correction received! Evidence desired...
The photo of 169 JWD in JT's book is dated July '65 and shows the round dials. Is this date now known to be wrong? Or were the round dials omitted from the production spec at the last minute?
 

redrover

Well-Known Member
#15
Thanks Michael, that makes sense. The 2000S is starting to seem like the ideal 2000 P6. How many were made? And are any left?
I believe* that 3 survive, but two are in a very different state. I'm nearly certain that the Zagato car and the 'Gladys' prototype coupe are both 2000S (ie 410xx) base units. I was also given to understand that a third existed 'in the East of England', but is either squirrelled away or forgotten about, as I've heard nothing of it in 10 years, whereas quite a number of the other one-offs / curiosities have come out of the woodwork in that time.

15 were made according to the collective wisdom of various books and online articles*.

* awaiting correction
 
#16
I believe* that 3 survive, but two are in a very different state. I'm nearly certain that the Zagato car and the 'Gladys' prototype coupe are both 2000S (ie 410xx) base units. I was also given to understand that a third existed 'in the East of England', but is either squirrelled away or forgotten about, as I've heard nothing of it in 10 years, whereas quite a number of the other one-offs / curiosities have come out of the woodwork in that time.

15 were made according to the collective wisdom of various books and online articles.

* awaiting correction

What were the other 2000S differences? I heard they had stiffer suspension. Were there any other interior or gearbox or engine differences?
 

redrover

Well-Known Member
#17
What were the other 2000S differences? I heard they had stiffer suspension. Were there any other interior or gearbox or engine differences?
A detailed spec may be known to some who have taken the time to research it thoroughly at BMIHT and by interviewing retired engineers, but as of a few years ago there was no consensus over whether the car was a higher performance version of the TC, or simply a higher trim level (similar to how Ford used the 'Ghia' badge in the 70s).

In terms of trim, I have read various reports of thin side strips (similar/same? as Federal TCs), a painted coachline, rear quarter panel in a contrasting colour, and wire wheels. Interior spec was generally understood to include leather-covered centre console (in same colour as the seats), perforated leather seats (as per contemporary Mercedes practice), wooden gearknob with 'wood effect' steering wheel, and a round dials instrument pack as per the later NADA / Series 2 cars. The instrumentation is possibly now debunked, but I haven't seen evidence to the contrary, whereas the James Taylor book explicitly records this instrumentation as 2000S spec and reproduced a photograph showing the instrumentation with a stylised 'S' logo on the dash end cover plate to the right of the Fuel/Temp gauge.

Theories abound over the mechanical spec, including power steering as standard, stiffer ARB, different spring rates and high-compression TC engine (with the 'standard TC' getting a lower CR instead). I remain unconvinced on the ARB, but PAS as standard would give weight to the theory that it was just a spec that had more options as standard. Alternative gearbox and final drive ratios may have been mooted, as the gearbox spec took a few years to settle down, and various hack cars were built around this time with alternative ratios... but I think the complexity of producing multiple variants en masse would have put the tin hat on this in production.

Given that most of the theorised trim items subsequently ended up available either on various export market cars (notably NADA), or as optional extras, I'm inclined to believe 2000S was just a 'fully loaded' trim level. If so, why not put it in to production? Well, they had enough on their hands meeting demand for the standard cars, and James Taylor suggests that the existing production complexities of producing all of the different export market variants may have made the 2000S spec an unwelcome additional headache on the production lines. But of course, that does mean you could easily build one today...

That's all I have...
 
Last edited:

chrisw

Well-Known Member
#18
You can easily build one today.. if you do your research, and speak to certain people who were there at the time, as well as past owners of 2000S's.
 
#19
I was never aware that four cylinder P6s had power steering, or different gear ratios, and I could never understand why overdrive was never offered. But the P6 was a victim of it's own success wasn't it? Why bring in changes when you're selling all you can make? What would have happened if it had been a success in the USA, how could they have increased production?
 

PeterZRH

Well-Known Member
#20
I was never aware that four cylinder P6s had power steering, or different gear ratios, and I could never understand why overdrive was never offered. But the P6 was a victim of it's own success wasn't it? Why bring in changes when you're selling all you can make? What would have happened if it had been a success in the USA, how could they have increased production?
If the export dollars came in, then anything would have been possible.
 
Top