v8 or 2000

M

marcus

New Member
Hi all is it just me or do some of you like me think the 2000 is a nicer car than the v8, ive always been wondering what it is about the v8 that people like so much , as i ve just sold my v8 and got another 2200sc and i love my simple 2000sc, but when i tell people i have a p6 the first thing they ask "is it a v8" when i reply itys a 2000sc you can see disapointment on there face, im very into simple and little fuss in my motor new or old, dislike all that aircon eletric everything rubbish, im i alone , just wondering so question do you drive the v8 for the fact its a v8 or do you drive a 2000sc because you want a v8 but dont want fuel costs, its just a thought nothing heavy i just wonder, anyway what you drive enjoy these p6s are fantastic cars to drive ,look at, clean , repair and even weld lol
kind regards to you all
marcus :D
 
I'm inclined to agree about the 4 pots being nicer cars. The V8 is an awful lot of complication for very little extra performance (over a 2200TC - the other 4 pots can be a bit sluggish in modern traffic, especially the autos). They also have nicer handling thanks to the narrower front chassis rails. In the absence of the 4.6 lump in waiting for "Lucky" I would prefer a 2200TC!

Chris
 
chrisyork said:
I'm inclined to agree about the 4 pots being nicer cars. The V8 is an awful lot of complication for very little extra performance (over a 2200TC - the other 4 pots can be a bit sluggish in modern traffic, especially the autos). They also have nicer handling thanks to the narrower front chassis rails. In the absence of the 4.6 lump in waiting for "Lucky" I would prefer a 2200TC!

Chris
Click to expand...

I agree - never been a V8 man (I have had one or two).

IMHO the 2200TC is the most under-rated of classic cars. I've had three pass through my hands in the last few years, all of them had performance to die for. I'd reckon they're faster than a Stag or similar as well as MG's. The 'T' reg car I recently sold, despite it's 140000 miles went like a bat out of hell. Very different performance to my 2200 auto. I'd love a decent 2200TC if one came along.
 
I prefer the V8

Mainly for the noise it makes and the way it pulls like a train from tickover.

4 pots are ok, I would have one if I couldn't find a V8
 
well my first p6 was a 2200sc and i had that for about 13 years then i bougth my father v8 as people say ( do you have a v8 ) but when i was driving my 2200 it goes like stink for a single carb dont get me wrong it drove realy nice i am gutted i sold it i got to say but as i am 23 i am a v8 man but if a cheap 2200 came up for sale i would have another 1
 
I bought a V8 thinking it was an easier engine to work on ! Timing chains , side plates and shimming tappets scared me off a 4 cyl

Plus I do like the V8 noise
 
I have had both and loved the V8 auto, But prefer my 1977 2200tc.

One thing that struck me only recently after driving a fully restored 3500s was that the cars I tend to own or have driven were getting on and tired. My V8 auto was in need of a new camshaft etc just through negelct and old age though I still thought it drove well.

This 3500s was amazing and I finally understood why there was such a WOW factor for the v8.

But when it comes to old secondhand Rover V8 cars I would be adding the cost of a top end rebuild.

Colin
 
MY reasons why i preffer the V8 to the 4 pot its easy to work no shims or tenshioners here :) ALL parts can be bought off the shelf at reasonable price the tunability ie throw injection on a standard V8 and you gain 40bhp instantly 8) There are a variety of RV8 lumps 3.9/4.6/5.0 etc all a straight swap for the old 3.5 lump you can even fit the 4 speed ZF box onto the V8 which many of us have done with an instant improvement over the old sturmey archer i mean B/W box :D In my personal opinion there is nothing better than a healthy RV8 the sound burble :twisted: roar :twisted: and the way it sounds so relaxed at speed not like its screaming its boll*xs off and about to blow up :shock: Before all you 4 potters have a go at me i have NOTHING against the 2000/2200 engines as i have had them all but as previous its just my personal taste oh and i have yet to break a V8 drive plate unlike the 2000/2200 autos :roll: but at the end of the day its your descision :wink:
DOH :roll:
I just read DaveHerns post and he has said more or less exactly what i said but he did it in 3 lines not like all my yapping :oops:
 
i have both and its v8 everytime for me!
i wouldn't mind a 2000 or 2200 though
i like them all , even the 2000 sc auto i had which was the most solid original p6 i've ever seen.
it was also the slowest and a pain to steer cos of shiny seats and no power steering!
i really must try a tc
 
I have only ever owned one car, and that is my 3500...well 4600 for the past 2 years...( and that makes a massive difference).. :D

I have never driven a 4 cylinder Rover, although I have seen quite a number at the various Rover events that I have attended over the years. When you see a p6 on Australian roads...and certainly within N.S.W, it is nearly always a V8. I intend on keeping my V8 for ever, so I don't expect I'll ever own a 4 cylinder Rover.

Ron.
 
I seem to remember reading somewhere that there was reportedly very little difference between the 2200TC and the 2000TC, apparently (from memory) it had something to do with additional weight of the 2200TC - although I'm not sure where that additional weight would come from.

I know alot of people on the forum have a preference for the 2200TC, mainly because of the cable operated HIF6 carburettors, but from a driving perspective, can anyone confirm/deny this rumour and maybe give their subjective views.

Cheers,
Brian.
 
Nominal power output of the 2200TC is the same as the 2000TC (115 from memory) - but the 22 has a lot more torque and is free-er reving thanks to the bigger valves.

Chris
 
Before getting my current and first P6, I had to decide between V8 and 4 pot. The main things that swung in in favor of the 2200TC were:-

1. The 2000 and later 2200 engines were British designed and built exclusively for the P6. Apart from relatively minor mod's, they were fitted to the P6 throughout 14 years of production. Many are still going strong and they are fairly easy to work on. The 4 pot design just like the car itself was quite advanced in it's day (overhead camshaft, pressed steel side plates, hemi combustion chamber etc.). On the other hand, the V8 was a borrowed American GM/Buick lump of older design/technology. Arguably, the V8 was only a convenient fix for Rover when the turbine project fell through?

2. Fuel economy - I can get 25 mpg from my 2200TC cruising at 50-60mph and I guess I would get maybe around 18mpg in 3500? I wanted a car that I could enjoy driving without stopping at every petrol station and feeling slightly less guilty about the environment.

3. Ease of maintenance and maintenance cost - with only "half" a V8 under the bonnet there is a lot more space, and half the number of valves, pistons, spark plugs etc. to worry about.

Despite all of the above, it was still a bit of a difficult choice - as a petrolhead, the noise of the V8 is to die for. I have never driven a V8 P6 but suspect it must be nice to have that extra torque (even if acceleration and top speed are not a lot better than a 2200TC). Also, the popularity of the "Rover" V8 means that there are tons of mod's and uprated/later engines available.

marcus said:
but when i tell people i have a p6 the first thing they ask "is it a v8" when i reply itys a 2000sc you can see disapointment on there face,
Click to expand...

I can certainly relate to this comment. However, I suspect that if I popped the bonnet and proceeded to explain why the 2000/2200 is great, the response might be, "yeah, but it's still not a V8 is it?". I might just smile and think that I just prefer bangers and mash to a Knickerbocker Glory :p
 
I agree broadly with your assesment JVY. Just one small nit to pick - the V8 is a (marginally) newer design than the 4 pot. First prototypes of the P6 were on the road in '59 and the car should have been launced in '61/'62. (Delays down to lack of cash and difficulty getting the Pengham gearbox and axle plant up and running) The Buick V8 was launched for the '63 Buick Special compact. While broadly following established American V8 practice it differed markedly in having aluminium block and heads.

If I was intending to run a standard car it would definitely be a 2200TC (or tax exempt 2000TC with a transplant!). But you can't do too much about the power output of the 4 pot, whereas I can simply drop a 4.6 into Lucky! I still have a hankering to build the car Rover intended - the 2200EI with a transplant of Lucas EFI off an O series Maestro/Montego. If I could track down any info on the twin cam head that was meant to go with the 2200 capacity, then that would be going on too!

Chris
 
JVY wrote,...
Fuel economy - I can get 25 mpg from my 2200TC cruising at 50-60mph and I guess I would get maybe around 18mpg in 3500?
Click to expand...

I was wondering what sort of fuel economy the 4 cylinder engines delivered. The V8 typically over the same speed range of 50 to 60mph with an automatic transmission will see 23 to 25mpg normally. Consumption will increase over time as camshaft and associated wear make their effect known so 20 to 22mpg becomes more the norm.

Before having my 4.6 fitted, people would often say that being a bigger engine it will naturally use more fuel. As it would transpire, this is not the case at all. Over the same speed range, fuel consumption of 25 to 29mpg is typical. There are many factors at play here, but an engine less stressed and with masses of torque (50% more than the 3.5 litre V8) can be more fuel efficient than engines half its size.

Ron.
 
JVY said:
2. Fuel economy - I can get 25 mpg from my 2200TC cruising at 50-60mph and I guess I would get maybe around 18mpg in 3500? I wanted a car that I could enjoy driving without stopping at every petrol station and feeling slightly less guilty about the environment.
Click to expand...

Sparky is currently giving around 27 cruising on motorways at 70.

My old Monza red car 'Thunderdog' used to get thrashed a lot (Many years ago before speeding was considered dangerous), I remember that we went up to Alton Towers. With my brother in a series 1 V8 with the auto box, and a mate with an Sd1 2600S. Thunderdog was a mildly tuned 3500S with a 5 speed LT77.

The series 1 auto was doing around 18mph, Thunderdog was at 25.8mpg, and the SD1 was 26.

We were cruising at a little over 70 :oops:
 
Brian-Northampton said:
I seem to remember reading somewhere that there was reportedly very little difference between the 2200TC and the 2000TC, apparently (from memory) it had something to do with additional weight of the 2200TC - although I'm not sure where that additional weight would come from.

I know alot of people on the forum have a preference for the 2200TC, mainly because of the cable operated HIF6 carburettors, but from a driving perspective, can anyone confirm/deny this rumour and maybe give their subjective views.

Cheers,
Brian.
Click to expand...

I've driven several of both, and have a 2000TC in the business at the moment. I'm certain the 2200TC is a quicker car. The 2000TC is no slouch, but the 2200TC flies. Far more mid-range acceleration.
 
quattro said:
JVY said:
2. Fuel economy - I can get 25 mpg from my 2200TC cruising at 50-60mph and I guess I would get maybe around 18mpg in 3500? I wanted a car that I could enjoy driving without stopping at every petrol station and feeling slightly less guilty about the environment.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Fuel consumption also varies from car to car. My 2000 auto never did more than about 25mpg, even on a long trip. My 2200 auto does well over 30mpg on a long run (far more than Rover claimed), it's ridiculously frugal providing it's not driven hard.

In my experience some TC's can be very good on fuel - again I've seen over 30mpg on a couple.
 
Hi thanks for all the replies its interesting reading , one thing is clear we all love our rover s 2000,2200 and the big daddies 3500, so my next question is , as you know i drive a 2000sc if or when i change the engine ,what should i go for 2000sc again or 2000tc or 2200sc or 2200tc i do have spare engines a 2000sc, and a 2200tc
im undecided
kind regards
to you all
marcus :D
 
Hmm Difficult. 2000sc for originality or 2200TC for a bit of serious poke? I'd be inclined to let the engines decide for you. Have the sumps of both and if one needed a crank grind or worse then it selects the other!

Chris
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top