Rover 200 makes the 95 news December 13, 2009
Posted by richard in : History , 2commentsROVER’S unveiling of the 200 made for a fascinating news report by Julian Rendell back in ’95.
He was reporting from the London Motor Show, at which he spoke to the car’s designer, David Saddington. There, the Rover man explained the internal soul-searching that had been preoccupying all at Longbridge for months.
Apparently, it was a question of grille or no grille. They tried all sorts, eventually setting on a body-colour version of the chrome grille. This would appeal to the younger buyers Rover was targeting – while remaining ‘recognisably Rover’.
‘We’re stretching the perceptions of Roverness so the grille is very important to establish the Rover credentials.’
Younger buyers? Apparently, then-boss John Towers wanted 20s and 30s, rather than 40, 50 and 60 year olds. People like me, then: had I been older, I’d have been receptive to this ‘significant message in a new era of Rover products’.
People such as me are the reason why Rover fitted extra-long seat runners: boosting it for those up front, and sacrificing rear space. Mind you, a properly shorter wheelbase than the 306 Rendell compared it with was also a factor here. Also led to a small boot.
As we know, the R3 project cost £200 million, through using bits from the parts bin, and making sure 3dr and 5dr use lots of common bits: front end, roof, rear hatch and glass are the same for both. Only the side pressings and doors are different.
Rendell also pointed out the front bulkhead forwards was the same as the R8; new press tools built an all-new floorpan.
Suspension, he explained, was modified 200 struts at the front, and a H-frame rear torsion beam we now know is from the Maestro. Despite grannies driving that, the firm tuned it for handling: project chief Bill Owen told Rendell it ‘just turns in and grips.’
Neutral rear steer tuning for the rear combined with ride comfort ’very similar’ to the 400 over smaller bumps. Over bigger bumps, it was just behind. Roll bars make an interesting comparison, tool
• Standard: 19mm f, 16mm r
• Diesel: 23mm f, 16mm r
• Vi: 25mm f, 18mm r
Why the big jump for diesels? To counter the extra weight of the engine: unlike the all-alloy K Series, the then-new L-series was decidedly ferrous. Diesels came in 86hp or 105hp: electronic control for the injection system gave the more powerful one its boost.
More tech: the 1.6-litre got a CVT, from Belgians VCST – the same chaps who made it for the Metro CVT. Impressive example of scaling-up here: indeed, it would also later appear on the 1.8-litre MGF Steptronic.
Overall, Rendell was most impressed with the 200. Should see queues forming outside dealers, he reckoned. See: even as late as ’95, Rover could still do it.
A decade later, alas, it would be no more.
Land Rover’s ride quality secret
Have I (again) solved the great Mini search? March 29, 2009
Posted by richard in : Minutiae of cars , 4commentsSo, as you know, I’ve been looking back at old road tests in Autocar. The Mayfair one was revealing. While the 1997 Cooper one properly got me going.
I asked the question, wonder if the Mayfair’s still on the road? Tom Rowan answered it – probably not. He did a canny registration search, and discovered the potentially bad news.
Well then, I thought… if it worked for that, why shouldn’t it also work for P 752 KWK, the 1997 Rover press fleet car?
To the DVLA link I duly went. Whence, I got back some very interesting news.
The car still exists.
But it’s currently declared SORN.
Why? What’s it doing? Where’s it living? Has it been crash-damaged, and is currently being repaired? Is it a restoration project? Has the owner discovered its famed provenance, and is keeping it safely stored in a lockup somewhere?
I don’t know! But I would love to… see, if this is a car in ill health, that the owner wants to move on for minimal bucks, I’d definitely be interested. Hey – owning an ex-press car… what a thrill!
It could even be the same car my boss Peter Burgess had down here on loan all those years ago. It could be the same test car my mates at Autocar thrashed around the track. Providing me with the delights to pour over a few weeks later.
It’d be nice to find out. Anyone out there recognise it, and can help? If so, let me know.
Because, staring at the images, a metallic orange Rover Cooper on 13”s would do the job quite nicely, I think…
Can you help me buy a Mini in 2009?
Mini search over already? If I’m lucky
What can I expect from a Mini?
What can I expect from a Mini – 2 March 26, 2009
Posted by richard in : Minutiae of cars , add a commentOK, I’ve been ploughing the Autocar library again, seeking out tests from back in the day. 22 January 1997 doesn’t sound *too* far back in the day, even though it is, actually, 12 years ago. Gawd, etc.
Anyway, Autocar Road Test no. 4228 is of the Rover Mini Cooper, by now with airbag, seatbelt pretensioners and side impact bars.
The radiator’s on the side, damping pads are fitted in the roof, there’s an extra exhaust silencer, and the final drive is longer. All helping the 1275cc meet the 74dB noise limit.
Fear not, says Autocar. It’s still a Mini, and thus, unlike any other car on sale. Encouragingly, the 63bhp A-Series is now ‘evergreen’, taking nearly 10secs off the Mayfair’s 0-60mph time. It’s still unrefined, though.
The ride also remains bouncy – ‘burying drivers’ heads in the roof’. The key is finding a smooth corner. There, says Autocar, four-wheel drifts are the norm. Intimate, if crude, feel through the steering helping you achieve ‘perplexingly high speeds’.
Needless to say, the interior is as dated as ever (despite a two-speed fan!). It’s very cramped, doors are tiny, and tall people simply have to bend their knees. Buttons on the dash are unlit (I didn’t realise that) and the boot is highly awkward.
Once again, Autocar’s objective terms write the Mini off as from another era. But, of course, it is! That’s why it’s so great! And thus, ‘as an object of basic desire, it’s still up there with the best of them.’
Couldn’t have put it better myself…
What can I expect from a Mini? March 25, 2009
Posted by richard in : Minutiae of cars , 5commentsI have yet to drive a Mini, but am getting more eager by the day. Until I snare one, I’m having to get my fix from virtual sources.
Hence, me turning to Autocar, 23 August, 1989.
Here, the magazine subjected a 998cc Mayfair to the rigors of its full road test, as a celebration of 30 years’ production.
What did Autocar make of it? Well, I took from it the following impressions:
• Engine
It’s slow. The Mini is substantially slower than the original 1959 test car, says Autocar. Sure, it weighs 10 percent more, but the engine’s also bigger. 0-60mph in 22 seconds sounds slow to me, a top speed of 78mph below my everyday cruising speed.
It’s also, says Autocar, slower in the gears. This is because the gearing has been raised over the original, by 20 percent. At least that means you don’t have to rev it; there’s a ‘cacophony’ near the 5750rpm redline. But, it lugs smoothly through the rev range and, says Autocar, isn’t as unrefined as has been made out. Unlike the gearbox, which whines, is obstructive and agricultural.
• Driving impressions
Autocar loves how the Mini handled. By modern standards, the turn in is almost too sharp; the communicative steering means you place it inch-perfect every time. It’s also throttle-adjustable.
The ride isn’t as bad as feared. It’s nervous in town, with the short-travel suspension easily caught out. But it’s very stable on motorways, dealing with low-frequency undulations well.
• Interior
The car is dated from behind the wheel, with switches out of reach. Visibility is fantastic, but the driving position has ‘serious problems’. Space is ‘inadequate’, noise levels high and the seats, while not uncomfortable, are lacking in lumbar and lateral support.
Even Mayfair trim is sparsely equipped. However, it feels sturdy and strong, with the doors shutting cleanly and solidly. The paintwork would be favourable on a car costing twice as much. Alas, minor items are shabbily assembled, and the keys are difficult to put in the locks.
• Summary
It is slow, unrefined, cramped, and modern superminis are in a different league. Doesn’t matter. It’s still easy to make a case for the Mini, concludes Autocar. It’s great fun to drive, and stands out in a world where cars look ever-more anonymous.
All that criticism’s to be expected. All that we can take. We buy Minis not for rational reasons, but emotional ones. Autocar’s modern-perspective take has only served to reinforce that… now then, does anyone know if F 21 RKV, the reg of the test car, is still out there?
What I learnt from Autocar – 18 March 09 March 19, 2009
Posted by richard in : What I learned today , add a comment… I saw a heavily cloaked test car a few weeks ago on the M42. Looked like a Jaguar, beneath the disguise. It was – the new XJ, which Hilton says will be unveiled in June.
It was going to be a reskin of the current model, but is much more than that. Jaguar’s taken the lessons from the XF – a rehashed S-Type – and applied them here, for an extensive overhaul using the same air-suspension wheelbase.
Styling will wow. Jaguar designer Adam Hatton stressed as much over a beer late last year, at a function in the Cotswolds… and I believe the Malvern-dwelling dude (who rates the Citroen C4, but doesn’t like the new MINI).
There’s even going to be an all-glass panoramic roof.
Jag’s 3.0-litre V6 diesel will feature: this is so powerful and eco, it makes the V8 diesel redundant. Range Rover only for that, then? Seems an expensive way of doing things.
… VW’s said it’s planning a Bluesport range of green performance cars. Like Bluemotion, but faster. Raking in more profits, then.
… Mercedes will sell a diesel version of the next SLK, due in two years. As it’s based on the fine current C-Class platform, expect the brilliant C 250 CDI engine to feature.
… Sweden is not to ban petrol and diesel in 2020. It will ban them in 2030 instead. So that’s why Saab and Volvo are so big on biofuels…
What I learnt… from Autocar, 11 March 2009 March 18, 2009
Posted by richard in : What I learned today , 1 comment so far… Top VW product man Ulrich Hackenberg says customers are prepared to pay more for Bluemotion ‘green’ cars. That’s because they’re 5-10mpg more economical. Win-win for VW, then. It gets more cash for each car, which customers are happy to buy in decent numbers.
With such a business model, why would it thus apply the Bluemotion changes to all models, cutting such a profitable revenue stream?
VW’s rivals may snipe and say that ‘all our cars are green, not stand-out green specials’ – but they ‘aint getting the profits of VW. That’s why Bluemotion’s here to stay.
Hackenberg also says customers are understand that they must look at engine technology, not size, to gauge performance. Good news for the downsizing trend.
… Next year, MINI will start selling patterned soft-top Convertibles. Not easy to productionise down at Oxford, but extremely lucrative, I’d have thought.
… Renault reveals the Megane Renaultsport 250’s carryover platform has been re-engineered to take a short-shift 6-speed gearbox. Why go to the trouble? Unless there are future transmission developments we’re not aware of…
… The Golf R32 will lose its heavy V6 for a more eco four-pot turbo. Probably the TTS’s 268bhp unit. It’s for handling as well as emissions, says VW.
… the origins of the TTRS’s five-pot turbo are revealed. It’s actually a tuned-up version of an engine seen in the US-spec VW Jetta. Not, as Audi claims, half a Lamborghini V10. Ahem.
