What is a 'Classic Rover'

Talago

Member
Maybe this has been asked before, but what is defined now as being a "Classic Rover"?

The first edition of James Taylor's Book 'The Classic Rovers' covered the years 1934 - 1977. So that was up to end of P6 production.

The second edition (1996) covered up to 1986 - The end of SD1 production. But that edition was 17 years ago.

So what is defined as a "Classic Rover" now?

Is it every Rover ever made as they have been out of production for over 8 years now, or does it stop at SD1 or at 800?

What do you think?
 
800 series is an amalgamation of Honda and Rover - not my ideal classic .I cant feel the love . Robotic joinery , plastics . Computers , fuel efficient .on and on
Yeah Nah .
Not yet anyway.
 
Mmm. Well strictly, the last vehicle introduced by the Rover Company Ltd was the Range Rover Classic. (or possibly the coil sprung Landy?)

The SD1 was a Rover rolling shell (P10) with unintended engines and a cheapened interior.

Actually you could also argue that the Leyland P76 is also nearly a Rover Co product....

Everything after this was an Austin/Morris rebadged as a Rover and mainly in conjunction with Honda. Although you could argue that the M16/T16 family has major Rover Co input care of the P10 four cylinder engine.

Not that I don't like and appreciate BMC Rovers - just that for me they aren't "real" Rovers.

Chris
 
The 800 has the shape of an sd1 but is mechanically more similar to an ambassador i think...

I like them though. For me the 90s rover products have more about them than their competitors in looks and interior finish if nothing else. To me, a classic is a car which has dropped out of circulation with the general public. This makes the pre 95 200s classics, the 800s are classics. The 75 isnt quite yet, but the v8 models especially are rare and the rest are well loved.... So it will be once people stop using them generally I guess?
 
I would say the SD1..

As for Mr York's comment about the P76; I'd class that as a Rover, and have always wanted to get one and re-trim it with an SD1 interior. :)
 
SD1 definitely, to drop the V8 & still call it a Rover? I don't think so. I know the earlier Rovers didn't have a V8, but during my formative years, the only Rovers I was aware of were the P5, P6 & SD1, all of which did have the old burbler & without which they would have lost much of their appeal.
 
They all are. If we take our rose tinted glass of for a minute and look at them as a car the 75 is by far the best for a long long time. And it also had an American V8,although rare. They were also the last true all British volume production car, which is history in its self. There's no doubt that all Rover branded cars should now be classic. For me the P6 is the best. I have owned and worked on nearly all rovers and thats why at my house the I have a P6 and 75.
 
Brabus said:
They all are. If we take our rose tinted glass of for a minute and look at them as a car the 75 is by far the best for a long long time. And it also had an American V8,although rare. They were also the last true all British volume production car, which is history in its self. There's no doubt that all Rover branded cars should now be classic. For me the P6 is the best. I have owned and worked on nearly all rovers and thats why at my house the I have a P6 and 75.

So you're seriously suggesting that the ghastly Rover 213/216's are classics because they've got a Rover badge on them? The only reason Rover were one of the last British volume production cars, was because Austin Rover killed off all the other brands, leaving them no option but to slap a Rover badge on them.

The Rover 75 is the same as an MG whatever it is, there wasn't any identity crisis for any Rover up to and including the SD1, no confusion as to what they were.
Anything after the SD1 is a not a Rover, they are just representative of what our motor industry became in the eyes of the world, a laughing stock.
 
that's a personal opinion - I disagree but then the SD1 is really a car from when i was too young to notice for the most part. I like them now of course. I've had most of the modern rovers and liked them all. The early rover 200s that you mention may have had a lot of honda in them but they werent bad cars in my eyes apart from the rust problem.The later 200s that followed were a really good car.

The 'Rover' you're referring to ended in 1967. So anything after that point is BL/Austin Rover/Rover/MGRover. There is some Rover DNA in there. Sure it's diluted, and you dont have to like the result but there is nothing wrong with any of their products certainly from the mid80s onwards from how competitive they were in the market.

Rich.
 
It's a difficult one but having owned a p5, several p6s, 5 sd1s, 2 800s and 2 75s, this is my take on it.
It Depends how you define a real rover. If the pre war, p4, p5 and p6 are definitely all classic real rovers (i think we are all agreed on that) then i find it difficult to bracket any sd1 or 800 in the same league in terms of quality, engineering and design.
I suppose that one should admire rover for moving away effectively from their classic design values and addressing the needs of the market to which they were forced to appeal. I think that gets to the heart of the issue and was the first if many nails in the coffin. During the BL years, the decision to move rover down market (as BL favoured the prestige and poshness value of the jaguar brand as the premium product) effectively marked the end of the real quality rovers and their classic design values. I like the term neo classic - well on the way but not quite there yet - this is where I place the 800. The sd1 is definitely a classic but not quite a real rover in the traditional sense. As for the 75, many would argue that it's still too familiar to be a classic. I kinda agree but interestingly i find them to be far closer to the true classic rovers than sd1s or 800 in terms of market appeal, quality, refinement and understated tastefulness! By the way, for anyone who hasn't tried a 75, you are missing out on what I consider to be the motoring worlds best kept secret! They really are an astonishingly good car and unbelievably good value. I'm sure that 35 years ago, people may have passed similar comments about the p5. I'm not so sure that the same could be said for the 800 and sd1. Maybe that makes the 75 a sure fire future classic and a true classic rover? Sorry to go on but I thought I'd share my humble thoughts and my passion for all big rovers!
 
The Rover 75 is bound to be good, it was built under German ownership and supervision. I just don't think it could ever be considered a 'classic' Rover because of this, the same reasoning applies to a lot of Rovers produced from the latter half of the eighties onwards, too much Japanese influence and technology in them.

At least with the SD1 it was the last of the proper old school Rover designed and engineered cars without foreign influence. Yes it had it's faults, but the original SD1 still remains an iconic design classic no matter what.
 
RedBarchetta said:
Brabus said:
They all are. If we take our rose tinted glass of for a minute and look at them as a car the 75 is by far the best for a long long time. And it also had an American V8,although rare. They were also the last true all British volume production car, which is history in its self. There's no doubt that all Rover branded cars should now be classic. For me the P6 is the best. I have owned and worked on nearly all rovers and thats why at my house the I have a P6 and 75.

So you're seriously suggesting that the ghastly Rover 213/216's are classics because they've got a Rover badge on them? The only reason Rover were one of the last British volume production cars, was because Austin Rover killed off all the other brands, leaving them no option but to slap a Rover badge on them.

The Rover 75 is the same as an MG whatever it is, there wasn't any identity crisis for any Rover up to and including the SD1, no confusion as to what they were.
Anything after the SD1 is a not a Rover, they are just representative of what our motor industry became in the eyes of the world, a laughing stock.
Yes I'm saying they are all classics. All cars will be whether we like it or not. I love the SD1but if we are honest the build quality was rubbish. The interior quality was awful. The 75 is excellent. As the post above says anyone who hasn't experienced one dosent know what there missing. I owned a few 216's the very first of them and loved them. Also have had lots of R8's great we cars. Still have a 216 coupe.I recently sold my we 216 covertible which was one of yhe most reliable we cars in the world.
I think one of the worst things to happen to Rover was to break its ties with Honda. I know people wont agree but in the real world all the manufacturers share platforms and mechanics.
 
I think the word 'classic', gets in the way because it implies something is great or stands out, like the way people talk about that classic cup final of 197x. In Europe classics are referred to as 'old timers' which I think is a better term because all old cars qualify regardless of merit. I think a classic car, and therefore presumably a classic rover, just means old or non contemporary. So I suppose all the rovers mentioned qualify to some extent.

What I suspect the thread originator actually meant was which of the cars were designed, engineered and built in the best traditions of the rover marque and have earned the right to wear the rover badge.This obviously is very subjective, indeed cars which came after the p6 weren't even designed, engineered or produced by the original rover company.

Over the years as a family we have owned quite a few cars with the rover badge.

1966 Rover 2000
1971 Rover 2000 TC
1974 Rover 2200 TC
1977 Rover SD1 3500SE
1993 Rover 214
1996 Rover 111

Looking at that list I see a clear line which divides it in two. The SD1 and later cars in my view had no Rover DNA. The p6's although a marked change from the earlier cars shared their DNA. They were quality well engineered cars with advanced features. The SD1 was a striking design but the car felt cheap and was badly made; clearly a Leyland product. Later cars like the 800 were just re-badged Hondas. I remember thinking why not just by a honda?

The rover 75 is a little different I think it was a well engineered product. I well remember at the launch at the nec they were stressing that the 75 was the spiritual successor to the p6. In other words they were keen to re-establish the link with what might be termed the last of the 'real rovers'. I suspect, to their very great credit, this was BMW's influence.
 
To me there is a very clear delineation of what is a classic Rover and that point ends with the last of the p6's off the production line.
The P5 embodied all that was good about Rover and the P6 was Rovers earnest well designed and honest effort to make a car that still retained Rovers core values yet meet the changed market that resulted from the social upheaval that followed the 2nd world war with its redistribution of wealth to the working and middle classes and in that it was a raging success.
Cars that came after that were different, they were different from the top down, no longer did Rover have a true separate identity but were merely part of the corporate world, dominated by accountants, shareholders and base market forces resulting in a bland colourless "also" car though to be fair the SD1 did still have some Roverishness in it due to it being part of a pipe line of previous development and it did have some true character though to me that character was not a strictly Rover character.
I don't consider any of the cars after to be classic, some were interesting as were some of the Honda's of the day but classic.... no not to me. I beleive the 75 will also be a widely acclaimed classic and that it is now indeed a classic and oddly enough I think it is one of the few cars that can still be in production and be a called a classic car!! but is it a Rover classic ? I really don't know..... probably it isn't but I would like to think it was, certainly the design directive was to reflect the days of glory of Rover and those style wizards didn't pick an SD1 to model on or a P5 so much as the P6.
A complicating factor in the 75 is the current Chinese production and how this will reflect on the classic status..... can any Chinese produced item be described as classic ? very unlikely in this era or decade however time WILL paint a different picture of how the late 1990's to the 2020 period of that I am absolutely certain.


Graeme
 
ghce said:
certainly the design directive was to reflect the days of glory of Rover and those style wizards didn't pick an SD1 to model on or a P5 so much as the P6.

ISTR, the designer Richard Wooley owned a P5B & this was displayed in the design studio as a first port of call for styling cues. And to me at any rate, the 75 owes more bodily (sleekness aside) to the P5 with the high waistline, narrow glass area, sill-strips & front-end treatment, not to mention the interior.
 
The Rovering Member said:
ghce said:
certainly the design directive was to reflect the days of glory of Rover and those style wizards didn't pick an SD1 to model on or a P5 so much as the P6.

ISTR, the designer Richard Wooley owned a P5B & this was displayed in the design studio as a first port of call for styling cues. And to me at any rate, the 75 owes more bodily (sleekness aside) to the P5 with the high waistline, narrow glass area, sill-strips & front-end treatment, not to mention the interior.


Yes it certainly is high waisted like the P5 and many elements are shared in the design including the boot line but I am just showing my natural inclination to the P6 :mrgreen: In younger days we had a P5 and I often think on whether I would want another and the answer would always be a qualified yes, yes if I had the cash, the room and a more relaxed lifestyle.

Graeme
 
I work on the principle that any old car is a classic if it encourages people to spend more money on restoring it than it is worth afterwards!

ghce said:
To me there is a very clear delineation of what is a classic Rover and that point ends with the last of the p6's off the production line.
That strikes me as a very snobby atitude. Just like MGA owners who say that the B is not a proper MG because it doesn't have a separate chassis. I could just as easily say that the P5B and P6B aren't real Rovers because of their American engine! Their are always plenty of people who own a specific model to say that the ones that came after their car were not "proper examples of XXXXXXXXXX" (insert relevant marque instead of XXXXXXXXXXX)

Mind you, I'm sure that lots of P5 owners looked down their (upturned?) noses at that nasty, brash overly modern P6 - in fact, we all know that this WAS the reaction of many traditionalists. Spivs car, don't you know? :) Likewise some P4 owners will have sneered at the P5 and so on back to the days of the first Rover bicycle - which raises the point that surely any Rover with more than 2 wheels is not a proper Rover because it's "different from what came before".
 
Back
Top