This looks like a bargain at £995, considering it's got plenty of MOT left, it's a V8, and it's in nice condition. I like the colour scheme too.
http://www.carandclassic.co.uk/car/C216315/
http://www.carandclassic.co.uk/car/C216315/
Nice SD1, cheap
- Thread starter FrazzleTC
- Start date
I always liked the SD1 shape and thought they were a great car until I drove one in 1979, after a 100 miles I was crippled, I could not get comfortable in the seat. I thought this just might be knackered Police seats, but some years later I got offered a low mileage 1 owner one, and when I drove that it was just the same. I find my P6 very comfortable, so the SD1 furniture was a retrograde step for me, shame, because I still like the look of them.
The Rovering Member
Well-Known Member
I rode in the back of one once. A VERY uncomfortable experience.
happy days
Active Member
It's not for me , don't like the look of them at all, what were they thinking of going from a lovely looking p6 to these. Major step back. SD1 shape very similar to Austin Princess
Need I say more !!!!!! Cheers Mick
Need I say more !!!!!! Cheers Mick
I thought (well, still do actually) that they were great cars, even if not in the spirit of the older Rovers. I found them comfortable but, having thought about it, don't think I ever sat in the back. I had 2 V8s, and thought them to be really practical cars with the hatchback and folding seats. Towed well as well. Build quality could have been better (doors were a bit 'tinny', interior wasn't what you would call luxurious, especially early ones) but, to be fair, I didn't have any problems with mine. My series 1 VandenPlas looked good in Bordeaux metallic / light tan leather ( I still like the VP wheels) and, with a decent round steering wheel, drove well. Good engine access as well.
The colour and trim style of the one advertised wouldn't be my top choice though.
The colour and trim style of the one advertised wouldn't be my top choice though.
happy days
Active Member
ahhhh but its a Ferrari !!!!!!! and looks nothing like a Princess
Or Princess Grace; she drove a P6B 8)
http://newsite.p6club.com/node/9
Here a British gentleman is guiding her through the old Longbridge plant, she's telling James Stewart to "break a leg"
GW
TwinPlenum3500S
New Member
The SD1, like an overweight girlfriend or a moped, great fun until your mates find out!!
TwinPlenum3500S
New Member
Sorry, but I think the SD1 has a number of similarities to the England Football team in the last world cup. Full of promise, some fanatstic qualities, but fundamentally a disappointing failure.
GrimV8
Active Member
TwinPlenum3500S said:
Cheaper to buy than a footy player
If they were that bad you wouldn't be pinching bits of 'em for your P6 http://www.caroftheyear.org/previous-wi ... 977_1/coty :wink:
I'm afraid I agree wholeheartedly with Twin-Plenum!
Some research being done at the moment seems to be getting us closer to what happened to get the SD1 to where it was. Rover were planning a two car range to replace P6 and P5. The P6 replacement was known as P10 and the P5 was the Uber-Saloon P8. Pictures emerging of prototype testing make it chrystal clear that both cars were developed simultaneously and that both were ready for production at roughly the close of 1970 beginning of '71. P8 is fairly well known, but very little has ever surfaced about P10.
P10 was meant to be a replacement for the Rover 2000, not the 3500. Accordingly it had a 2200 DOHC four cylinder engine. To save money, Rover had decided to use the P8 floor pan for P10. This made the car significantly larger than P6. But whereas the P8 was high tech in the best Rover tradition, the intention was to make P10 as cheap to build as possible. This in the light of how expensive the 2000 was to make in relation to its competitors. Hence why P10 acquired the torque tube live axle and mcpherson strut front suspension. P10 prototypes look astonishingly similar to SD1.
At mid 1971 BL cancelled the P8 and merged the Triumph and Rover design teams to form the Specialist products Division. Hence SD1. A competition ensued between the new Triumph and Rover P10 designs for the new "small" SD saloon. P10 won albeit with a minor redesign of the shape to move P10 to the shape we now know as SD1. It was clearly minor, as crash test photo's show the P10 folding up in an extremely characteristic SD1 way! But along the way the 2200 DOHC Rover engine was ditched in favour of the new Triumph six developed from the old Triumph 2000/2500 engine.
So what should have launched as a cheap and cheerful low end Rover 2200 DOHC, finished up launching as the SD1 3500 V8. It launched with the V8 for two reasons. First the Triumph engines weren't ready and second it was now having to stand in as a high end model to substitute for the cancelled Rover 4000 P8. Left to their own devices Rover wouldn't have put the V8 in SD1/P10. Especially with the inherited large P8 platform, the car was therefore perceived by the public as an upmarket car. That wasn't what Rover had intended, and the suspension in particular didn't suit that role. As an aside the excellent Triumph engines suffered badly at the hands of the SD1 team. They had to be artificially restricted to keep their power output below that of the V8.
The poor old SD1 therefore found itself thrust from being a mass market Vauxhall FE Victor competitor to being an upmarket Jag equivalent. The suspension and trim conceived for one role let it down badly in the role it was forced to adopt.
Chris
Some research being done at the moment seems to be getting us closer to what happened to get the SD1 to where it was. Rover were planning a two car range to replace P6 and P5. The P6 replacement was known as P10 and the P5 was the Uber-Saloon P8. Pictures emerging of prototype testing make it chrystal clear that both cars were developed simultaneously and that both were ready for production at roughly the close of 1970 beginning of '71. P8 is fairly well known, but very little has ever surfaced about P10.
P10 was meant to be a replacement for the Rover 2000, not the 3500. Accordingly it had a 2200 DOHC four cylinder engine. To save money, Rover had decided to use the P8 floor pan for P10. This made the car significantly larger than P6. But whereas the P8 was high tech in the best Rover tradition, the intention was to make P10 as cheap to build as possible. This in the light of how expensive the 2000 was to make in relation to its competitors. Hence why P10 acquired the torque tube live axle and mcpherson strut front suspension. P10 prototypes look astonishingly similar to SD1.
At mid 1971 BL cancelled the P8 and merged the Triumph and Rover design teams to form the Specialist products Division. Hence SD1. A competition ensued between the new Triumph and Rover P10 designs for the new "small" SD saloon. P10 won albeit with a minor redesign of the shape to move P10 to the shape we now know as SD1. It was clearly minor, as crash test photo's show the P10 folding up in an extremely characteristic SD1 way! But along the way the 2200 DOHC Rover engine was ditched in favour of the new Triumph six developed from the old Triumph 2000/2500 engine.
So what should have launched as a cheap and cheerful low end Rover 2200 DOHC, finished up launching as the SD1 3500 V8. It launched with the V8 for two reasons. First the Triumph engines weren't ready and second it was now having to stand in as a high end model to substitute for the cancelled Rover 4000 P8. Left to their own devices Rover wouldn't have put the V8 in SD1/P10. Especially with the inherited large P8 platform, the car was therefore perceived by the public as an upmarket car. That wasn't what Rover had intended, and the suspension in particular didn't suit that role. As an aside the excellent Triumph engines suffered badly at the hands of the SD1 team. They had to be artificially restricted to keep their power output below that of the V8.
The poor old SD1 therefore found itself thrust from being a mass market Vauxhall FE Victor competitor to being an upmarket Jag equivalent. The suspension and trim conceived for one role let it down badly in the role it was forced to adopt.
Chris