Thread: Rover company history

in you all .I've been waiting for someone to comment on all of the incorrect misinformation ( thats a tautology I think ) in the ROVER FOR THE FARMER article ..

cars like these

That's a beauty .When I was a kid in the early to mid 1960's, my then brother in law had a P3 Rover . I used to love going for rides in it.... he was something of a car buff and he'd change cars every 6 months. The Rover didn't last . He also had a 1938 Dodge sedan for a while. At that time, I was fascinated with Triumph Heralds.. they were common on the road then and the flip forward bonnet had me intrigued . Funny what kids think .

Learnt to drive in a Herald. besides Dad's daily driver, we had 2 others in bits in the back yard. hours of fun playing in them as kids.

Paul

Originally Posted by series1buff

in you all .I've been waiting for someone to comment on all of the incorrect misinformation ( thats a tautology I think ) in the ROVER FOR THE FARMER article ..

I see what you mean Mike

Jeeps had a box-section chassis! BS!

Jeeps had constant 4WD! BS! For that matter the early 80" didn't have constant 4WD either!

At that point I threw up and returned to this forum

Cheers Charlie

The article also says the Wilks had a Ford half-track on their farm... Ford didn't make half tracks for the military ( or anybody ) .. they were mostly made by White and International and one or two other companies ..

And I don't understand this:

"The first models were very basic -without doors or trim and no hood as standard equipment".

And the pre pro total wasn't 25 cars .I'm no expert but I thought it was around 48 .

We are picky so and so's are we not
Mike

Good bit of self-praise in the wartime section. Rolls-Royce historian Pugh says Lord Hives and Wilks exchanged the tank engine plant for the jet engine project over lunch because Whittle had worn out Wilks patience and Rover just wanted to be quit of him and his project. Lord Hives thought the jet engine project would be a good fit with RR's aero engine division. RR were fed up with the tank engine by then. They had spent a lot of time and money getting sufficient horse power out of a Merlin sans superchargers, and to run on low-octane pool petrol. The Meteor was never a howling success, relatively low power output, short service life, prodigious thirst, and thoroughly disliked by all who had to work on them. Hives must have chuckled over that deal many times.

Originally Posted by chazza

I see what you mean Mike
..... For that matter the early 80" didn't have constant 4WD either!

At that point I threw up and returned to this forum

Cheers Charlie

Actually the early 80" did have constant four wheel drive, only with a free wheel unit (as stated) instead of a centre diff to allow the front wheels to travel further than the rear on turns. In some ways a better system than a centre diff. Only drawback was the need to lock the freewheel for reversing or for maximum engine braking on downhill slopes.

I suspect the only reason for changing from this setup was that the demand rapidly (and unexpectedly) grew to exceed their manufacturing capability of the free wheel unit. When they changed to the familiar selectable system, they found the difference was not enough to be worth upgrading production. It is possible that plans to introduce the 2 litre engine may have led to doubts about the ability of the unit to withstand the torque - after all it was never designed to be used on the output of a low range transfer case - think about the load on it with first low, full throttle, all wheels slipping - and the front wheels suddenly grip.

John