Police Spec' P6... What made it so?!

Looks like a boot mount PYE Westminster radio upright on the right, with lots of extra amplifiers etc in the middle.
 
This is no ordinary P6, it’s armour plated and weighs two tonnes. In between the seats there’s a chunky radio that today would fit into a fag packet, but that’s nothing compared to the massive stack of valve radios in the boot. ‘This car would have been driven all round the country,’ says Dorsett ‘so would have had to tune into various different forces’ frequences.’ Also in the boot is a fantastingly dished steering wheel that had to be used when the inch-think bullet-proof glass was fitted because there was barely any room for knuckles between the standard wheel and the windscreen.
above said by dally mail
 
Hi, One of the magazines some years ago did an article on the vehicle, I do remember a couple of things about it being a close protection vehicle, apart from the windscreen and knuckles. It mentioned the multi frequency radio and the closed circuit ventilation system in case of chemical attack, presumably tear gas. Which is what I guess the box is on the left, the fuel tank cover card seems further back than normal and flexible trunking can be seen behind the spare steering wheel.

Colin
 
Those tyres look a little different than standard too.
What a shed load of radio equipment, I thought that heaters were for passengers not the spare tyre! the heat from all those lovely glowing valves would fry a chicken KFC style.

Graeme
 
From the P6 to the SD1 its hard to imagine from the P6 to the Sd1.
The SD1 being a rover production car to me just look so different like they have 20 years between them the P6 with such stylish lines rear wings that look like fins and the SD1 looking so modem for its time compared to the P6 even though it was the next of kin to the P6 its like the P6 designers jumped forward 50 years from the P6 to the SD1 such a vast difference.
But apparently they did the same thing with the P6 it was something amazing and advanced for the year.

Especially as P6 replaced P4.
 
Hi, Not that advanced, in some quarters it was seen as a backward step. Going back to beam axle at the rear and Macpherson struts on the front, built to a budget? A friend was a traffic police driver and they didn't like it because the roof was too low and they couldn't wear their caps inside.

Colin
 
Other than a flatter ride when cornering I do not see the SD1 as an advance in any way over the P6.

With is ghastly 70's interior and inferior plastics, design and fitment let alone mechanical issues that the early SD1's suffered from its not surprising that it is not as beloved by the classics community as say the P4, 5 and 6. Those accountants at BL sure did a hatchet job on the end product but thats not to say that Rover itself may have done any better.


Graeme
 
I think it would have been a far better car had Rover actually built it rather than the BL bean-counters. Even at the time it appeared cheap-looking to me, compared to past models.
 
The SD1 turned out the way it was for 2 reasons:
BL started to "cost estimate" the car in the way Ford was doing, so it had to be built on the cheap. It was exactly the opposite from what Rover did until then.
It was a political decision within BL that Rover should fit "beneath" Jaguar, not compete with them. Again in contrast with the past, where the Rover company was aiming high...
 
"Cost estimating" is not building "on the cheap", it's building to a price. You look at what the market can afford and you build the car with materials and construction costs that can produce a car which satisfies the market and makes a profit... Cortina, yes, Mini, no! Had the British manufacturers (including Rover) done it that way in the 60s combined with some decent reliability and quality control they'd still been around. If Rover had survived as a separate car manufacturer into the 70s it would have had to do it that way to survive.
 
I beg to differ. Cost estimating like Ford was doing in the '60s was for Rover, a luxury and quality car manufacturer until then, building on the cheap, downgrading. Actually Rover was rather profitable building quality, expensive cars, and was able to fund the development of Range Rover and P8.
Could you imagine Mercedes building the W123 series on a price?
If the SD1 was designed and built properly it would not have been the sales disaster it turned out to be.
 
You are entitled to disagree, and so do I with your comment. It doesn't matter what the type of car is, from cheap and cheerful up to luxury, a car manufacturer still has to do their homework correctly to make money to fund new designs. Cost estimating was (and still is, all car manufactures from RR downwards still use it!) costing the price of each part and it's assembly, you could still use expensive bit as long as the car was still affordable for it's chosen market at the end. It was not doing things on the cheap, but making sure that the price you were selling your car for actually made money, something BMC got very wrong with their models of the 60s. Any manufacture that wants to survive does it, whether that be Mercedes or Ford.
 
I agree , cost estimating and cost control work together. It is not building on the cheap. Anyone can make a superb car and make a loss as many companies have found. working with a budget is difficult but it can be done , not doing so is a recipe for disaster. The Discovery One was a great financial success for Land Rover , built to budget and on time . The problem with BL was there was never enough money generated to do the job properly and too many competing factions with too many layers of management . I was speaking to an ex Rover Manager who before the merger with Leyland, reported direct to AB Smith, the then Rover Chairman, who could make a decision and sign it off. After BL came about it was 7 layers of management to the chair before anything could happen.
Ex Rover Group & Land Rover Cost engineer
 
I do not oppose to cost estimation and cost control in general. I am merely stating the obvious regarding the SD1, whoever did the calculations and/or took the decisions, went too far for the model's and ultimately the company's own good.
The Disco 1 is a very different story. It was designed and produced on a budget yes, but it was heavily based on the tried and tested Range Rover. A really sage move, especially when you know that you don't have enough money. If they have followed the same route with the SD1, things would have been better.
 
Even at the time it appeared cheap-looking to me, compared to past models.

When the very first one came down to the workshop (Turmeric LML3P IIRC) we were told not to touch it, so we all mooched around it, looking under the arches and walked away disgusted for the most part. Initially we thought we were't supposed to touch it because it had been cleaned and prepped for delivery to the customer, but it didn't take long to realise that it was because everything you touched either fell off or broke.

The early ones were sh*t, by the time they finished making them about 10 years later at least they were screwed together a bit better.
 
Back
Top