2200TC Autobox
- Thread starter craig r
- Start date
You can make a 2200SC auto into a TC, but I don't think the tunnel in a manual car will be big enough to squeeze the autobox in. If it was the factory wouldn't have bothered with different tunnels. The only chance you might have would be if you could get a BW65 to fit as it's a lot narrower than the 35. Failing that if you're really keen then it's a case of welding in an auto transmission tunnel, and I don't think that's quite as easy as it sounds.
Doesn't seem like a particularly great idea to me even if you could do it. Why not buy an automatic SC as these are pretty numerous and the least valuable? If you can find 2200 these are apparently a lot better.
I'm assuming Rover never made a TC auto because it simply didn't match the engine very well and probably used a lot more fuel to not much effect.
Given the 2000TC originally it had huge carbs and basically a racing cyclinder head this would mean any advantage was top end and not really usable. Low down torque is what you want for an auto. Cue V8 engine.
Ford I know made an automatic Lotus Cortina as a prototype and it was useless as well as doing about 16mpg.
I'm assuming Rover never made a TC auto because it simply didn't match the engine very well and probably used a lot more fuel to not much effect.
Given the 2000TC originally it had huge carbs and basically a racing cyclinder head this would mean any advantage was top end and not really usable. Low down torque is what you want for an auto. Cue V8 engine.
Ford I know made an automatic Lotus Cortina as a prototype and it was useless as well as doing about 16mpg.
craig r
Member
PeterZRH said:
Ive already got a 2200TC. I bought it because I knew it was a good solid example. But I prefer auto to manual. Not really concerned with performance, prefer the effortless cruising an auto offers. but If its not practical or affects the performance to a high degree then im not too bothered about doing it. just wanted to find out what the thoughts were and if anyone had done it before.
If I were to make a guess, I'd suspect a TC auto would be more "frenzied" than "effortless" cruising-wise with the torque peak coming too high for the box. That's speculation though, but I do know that it's not uncommon to fit different cams and have different engine mapping for just that reason in automatic cars.
You want a V8 with a 3.9 cam. Which would be a better car in every way, probably fuel consumption included.
I know you don't feel much originality wise for your 2200TC, but that's a pretty rare beast and many would argue one of the best P6s.
You want a V8 with a 3.9 cam. Which would be a better car in every way, probably fuel consumption included.
I know you don't feel much originality wise for your 2200TC, but that's a pretty rare beast and many would argue one of the best P6s.
Demetris
Well-Known Member
There is at least one forum member with a 2000 auto (originaly) converted with a 2000 TC engine. As far as i know he is happy with the outcome, but he may as well stand up and speak for himself. The twin carb 4 cylinder engines may have the reputation for being rev happy, but this doesn't mean that they don't have enough torque in a reasonably low rev range. Mine is just a 2000 TC with HIF 6 carbs and since i have fitted the V8 final drive i constantly drive around "on the torque" rather than reving the guts out of it. Pulling on the flat the top gear from 1000 rpm is not a problem at all. Yes, on very steep hills with 4 persons and the A/C on it will only do 60 mph in 3rd gear, but i wouldn't really want more. The "frenzied" nature of the 4 cyls in my opinion is a result of the originaly low final drive, with a suitably higher one they can be "effortless" too.
Now back to the suggested conversion, perhaps it would be possible using a BW65 with a bellhousing from a 4cyl BW35, Harvey could tell us if this is feasible on not.
Now back to the suggested conversion, perhaps it would be possible using a BW65 with a bellhousing from a 4cyl BW35, Harvey could tell us if this is feasible on not.
The figures tell you everything about torque and old slushboxes. Lack of ratios and a TORQUE converter mean torque is absolutely everything. Not just the amount but where it is and how far it is spread. Forget top end power, you simply cannot use it on an auto with anything approaching the mechanical sympathy due a 40 year old car.
2000
SC - 111 @ 2750
TC - 125 @ 3500
2200
SC - 126 @ 2500
TC - 135 @ 3000
The 2200 auto is very useful 20-25% quicker than a 2000 auto 0-60 with only 13.5% more torque BUT crucially @ 250 rpm lower. The bigger engine was a huge improvement. I've not driven a 2200 at all but I guess in manual form it is much more pleasant too.
The main lesson is that the 2000TC is an utterly abysmal choice for the auto (possibly the inappropriate HD8 carbs are more to blame here than the idea of a TC head). It barely makes the same torque as the 2200 with only one carb but at a whole 1000rpm higher! No doubt a 2000TC would work but most of the time it would be slower than a 2200SC very probably in practice slower even than a 2000SC in auto form. Not only that the power delivery would make likely make it jerky.
With the 2200TC it's less clear cut but clearly at the 2000-2500rpm point the SC will still likely have as much or more torque and work as well/better with the autobox.
Rover knew from the outset the performance of the auto was a problem and it is telling they didn't "solve" this by offering a TC auto. It's inconceivable that at some point they didn't try it with a factory prototype. The original 2000 auto was almost identical to a 1098cc Morris Minor 0-60, which was embarrassing for such a relatively expensive car. Clearly it was necessary for Rover's more "traditional" (i.e. old) buyers but it was slow even by mid-60s standards. Personally I have driven a 2000 auto and I liked it (would LOVE to try a good 2200 auto and a 2200TC manual). On the open road it is faster than you'd think and is a great way to use the P6 roadholding to keep your momentum up but in traffic these days it is not really comfortable, I suspect the 2200 auto if it really is that 20-25% quicker makes this a game changer as far as ownership today is concerned; it'd be about as quick as a 1.0 Hyundai i10....
There is nothing unusual about this; improving gas flow almost always loses low down torque. Same with TCs, big valves and gas-flowing. Of course in a manual you adapt your driving style and you gain more from the high-end power than you lose. None of this matters today with up to 9 gears in an automatic and electronic control.
Sure you could build a 2200TC auto but why on Earth would you want something that was probably no better or possibly slightly worse than the factory option? I know the instrument panel is nicer but.... Part of me would love a V8 with the Buick Jetfire turbo engine because it would look cool and sound amazing but I know I'd be far better off with a conventionally tuned 3.9 motor if I really wanted a hotter P6. The answer seems obvious to me keep your 2200TC original and buy either a 2200 auto or 3500 auto to suit. 4 cyl autos are the cheapest of the cheap and fairly plentiful.
Of course all this is "on paper", I love to be proved wrong. Other opinions are available, but I agree with Rover.
2000
SC - 111 @ 2750
TC - 125 @ 3500
2200
SC - 126 @ 2500
TC - 135 @ 3000
The 2200 auto is very useful 20-25% quicker than a 2000 auto 0-60 with only 13.5% more torque BUT crucially @ 250 rpm lower. The bigger engine was a huge improvement. I've not driven a 2200 at all but I guess in manual form it is much more pleasant too.
The main lesson is that the 2000TC is an utterly abysmal choice for the auto (possibly the inappropriate HD8 carbs are more to blame here than the idea of a TC head). It barely makes the same torque as the 2200 with only one carb but at a whole 1000rpm higher! No doubt a 2000TC would work but most of the time it would be slower than a 2200SC very probably in practice slower even than a 2000SC in auto form. Not only that the power delivery would make likely make it jerky.
With the 2200TC it's less clear cut but clearly at the 2000-2500rpm point the SC will still likely have as much or more torque and work as well/better with the autobox.
Rover knew from the outset the performance of the auto was a problem and it is telling they didn't "solve" this by offering a TC auto. It's inconceivable that at some point they didn't try it with a factory prototype. The original 2000 auto was almost identical to a 1098cc Morris Minor 0-60, which was embarrassing for such a relatively expensive car. Clearly it was necessary for Rover's more "traditional" (i.e. old) buyers but it was slow even by mid-60s standards. Personally I have driven a 2000 auto and I liked it (would LOVE to try a good 2200 auto and a 2200TC manual). On the open road it is faster than you'd think and is a great way to use the P6 roadholding to keep your momentum up but in traffic these days it is not really comfortable, I suspect the 2200 auto if it really is that 20-25% quicker makes this a game changer as far as ownership today is concerned; it'd be about as quick as a 1.0 Hyundai i10....
There is nothing unusual about this; improving gas flow almost always loses low down torque. Same with TCs, big valves and gas-flowing. Of course in a manual you adapt your driving style and you gain more from the high-end power than you lose. None of this matters today with up to 9 gears in an automatic and electronic control.
Sure you could build a 2200TC auto but why on Earth would you want something that was probably no better or possibly slightly worse than the factory option? I know the instrument panel is nicer but.... Part of me would love a V8 with the Buick Jetfire turbo engine because it would look cool and sound amazing but I know I'd be far better off with a conventionally tuned 3.9 motor if I really wanted a hotter P6. The answer seems obvious to me keep your 2200TC original and buy either a 2200 auto or 3500 auto to suit. 4 cyl autos are the cheapest of the cheap and fairly plentiful.
Of course all this is "on paper", I love to be proved wrong. Other opinions are available, but I agree with Rover.
Demetris
Well-Known Member
PeterZRH said:
Indeed, and you are looking at just peak torque at certain rpm figures. Comparing curves might make your point more or less valid, but don't be surprised if you find that the twin carb models develop more torque at the peak torque rpm point of the single carb models.
When i was 15 years old i was looking at figures and kept dreaming, then i got my driving license and i actually had to drive a car in order to decide if i like it or not.
The reasons why Rover decided to built its model line like this and not like that are rather complicated and not obviously apparent.
Peter, i don't really understand why you are making irrelevant comparisons with modern Hyundais in order to persuade the OP not to modify his car, when he clearly stated that he prefers automatics. And in any case, do you think that anyone who choses to drive around today with a 40 year old Rover cares about its performance on the traffic lights against modern tin boxes on wheels? Yes, the 2000 auto might need the same time for 0-60 with the 1098 Minor, but if you really had the opportunity would you really chose the second just because it is cheaper? What i want to say is that if the car fits to your driving style and needs (and this is a lot more than a 0-60 time) all is fine.
The smaller carb conversion is going to give the tc more torque and a 2.2tc probably has that more anyway having had those carbs from the get go.... Rover had the v8 auto when the 2.2 came out so there would have been no reason to release one at that point.
Rich
Rich
I was really trying to open a debate. The proposition is a really interesting one because it is something that could have been but wasn't. I would not dream of trying to tell anyone what to do, everything comes complete with an implicit IMHO. I'd love as a matter of fact to see it done simply to prove the point - preferably at someone else's convenience and expense given my views on the likely outcome.
I think it's something all manufacturers tried and rejected; the tuning techniques of the time didn't really work with autos. The US idea of "stick a bigger engine on it" was rather proved in the European context by the P6. I played around a lot with A series motors in the past and its fascinating how you can actually change the characteristics of something and not achieve a whole heap of very much in the outcome. Performance tuning is difficult even at home let alone in a marketable product and the chances of getting a cylinder head, manifold and carbs which were really in effect left-overs from motorsport to play nicely with a clunky 3 speed auto were always going to be slim because it was more or less the opposite of the design goals of those components.
I disagree about performance though. In UK traffic a slow car is no fun at all, people can be very aggressive. Therefore being in the same ball-park as the lowest common denominator of modern traffic is better than being outside it. The mythical open roads to be enjoyed at weekends are few and far between. I say that as someone who comes from "rural" Devon. I always find comparisons useful for context I'm not suggesting for a moment they are one and the same thing; I suggest you read the road reports of the time, they too made comparisons.
But anyway apologies for cluttering the thread and no more from me on this.
I think it's something all manufacturers tried and rejected; the tuning techniques of the time didn't really work with autos. The US idea of "stick a bigger engine on it" was rather proved in the European context by the P6. I played around a lot with A series motors in the past and its fascinating how you can actually change the characteristics of something and not achieve a whole heap of very much in the outcome. Performance tuning is difficult even at home let alone in a marketable product and the chances of getting a cylinder head, manifold and carbs which were really in effect left-overs from motorsport to play nicely with a clunky 3 speed auto were always going to be slim because it was more or less the opposite of the design goals of those components.
I disagree about performance though. In UK traffic a slow car is no fun at all, people can be very aggressive. Therefore being in the same ball-park as the lowest common denominator of modern traffic is better than being outside it. The mythical open roads to be enjoyed at weekends are few and far between. I say that as someone who comes from "rural" Devon. I always find comparisons useful for context I'm not suggesting for a moment they are one and the same thing; I suggest you read the road reports of the time, they too made comparisons.
But anyway apologies for cluttering the thread and no more from me on this.
christopher storey
Member
I think Demetris's point about the shape of the curve rather than peak torque being the important thing is very well made. Also, I think there are some illusions about the nature of the automatic SC's performance. It is well wide of the mark ( I am trying to be polite ) to suggest that an auto SC accelerated at the same rate as a 1098 Minor. Its 0-60 figure was 18 seconds whereas that of a Minor was in the region of 26 seconds , and the majority of its sluggishness was in fact in getting away from rest ( 6.3 seconds to 30! ). It is very interesting to compare 30-70 times : that for the auto was 18.4 seconds, and that for the manual SC was 16.7 seconds. I do not have a comparison for the 1098 Minor but it is salutary to note that even 50-70 in that car took 27.4 seconds, so one can estimate the 30-70 time at perhaps 36 seconds . The automatic car was slow to leave a stationary position, but once on the move its performance was , for the day, acceptable - and to put it in context was little worse than a contemporary 3 litre automatic, or indeed an automatic Jaguar 2.4
craig r said:
If you wanted to use a BW65, then IIRC the 2000 auto converter is the same one as used in the Triumph Dolomite, which uses the BW65, so you could use the original Rover 2000/2200 flexplate, spigot and converter, mated into the front of a BW65 that had the most suitable rear mounting arrangement. Then you would need to find a BW65 bellhousing that had the provision for the starter motor in the correct place, and then make up a custom engine bearer plate to match the bolt pattern on the front of the bellhousing. The only problem might be that the 2000/2200 autobox has a very short tailhousing, which you won't find on any BW65 that I can think of.