Rover800.Info

Both seen in Edenbridge in the last week. Surely some here knows these?
The T reg is a Fastback in BRG and the K reg is a saloon in silver over pewter.

Not me, but I was in Edenbridge on Saturday. Went for a drink with the wife

Didnt see me though. Or I you

Nuts4my827 wrote:Not me, but I was in Edenbridge on Saturday. Went for a drink with the wife

Must have worked up quite a thirst on the journey from Croydon to Edenbridge!

Nah, pleasant jouney, and not a direct one either

The number should read T805 BAV as I saw it again in the week. While I was giving it the once over the owner, Peter, happened along.
We had quite a long chat while my wife went off to do the shopping and he turned out to be quite an enthusiast; of cars in general.
Tried to persuade him to look at our forum here as he is a very keen car man. he intends to open a museum in Battle with his 50(!) cars.
I'll try to have another word with him as I'm sure I'll see him again here in Edenbridge.

Rob, I was just looking at your list of cars. What is an '82 214?

traineefarmer wrote:Rob, I was just looking at your list of cars. What is an '82 214?

1982 Rover 214 it is a hatchback.
After looking more closely at the series I've probably got the year wrong It was a 'J' prefix....92?

Ah! That would make sense. I don't think the SD3 came out till '84.

If it was a J reg that would indeed be 1992.

Tom i think you're spot-on, 1984 rings a bell for me as being the launch of the SD3 - whatever happened to the SD2 anyway???

According to AROnline, SD2 was an aborted development by Rover-Triumph for a smaller car to run below the SD1.

The Honda Ballade based 213/216 (I seem to remember) was never officially designated SD3.

That's what i thought on both counts Tom - the "SD3" name was unofficially applied to the 213/216 Honda Ballade Mk2 based cars (the Triumph Acclaim was a badge-engineered Honda Ballade Mk1) and the SD2 was kind of Princess/Ambassador sized with SD1 overtones from what i remember, a Montego Fastback almost. Not entirely sure it was a hatchback design but certainly the basic shape suggested it.
I'm sure one of the designs i saw for it ages ago had the Montego/Maestro side-flutes and another had an Alfa 33 sort of shape from a certain angle, notchback rather than fastback.

This is what I have seen called an SD2



It would have looked good in the early '70s, but if it had been launched after the SD1 it would have looked utterly outclassed. I reckon it looks more like the result of an allegro/princess breeding programme.

I think the thing you describe with the montego features is this:


The AR17


The AR16

Full article

It looks like it had potential. It certainly would have been better than the Monstro carrying on till 1994.

That SD2 pic has the Montego-esque side flutes i'm on about Tom, here's the variation i was referring to that had Alfa 33 overtones :



and the article :

http://www.aronline.co.uk/blogs/news/ne ... torgraphs/

The AR16 is the one i was thinking of that looked like a Montego Fastback, reckon it would have slotted in well as a Princess/Ambassador replacement in the early/mid 80s once people got over the shock of the "spaceship" Ford Sierra and its "moon disc" wheel trims!

scoobyh123 wrote:That SD2 pic has the Montego-esque side flutes i'm on about Tom, here's the variation i was referring to that had Alfa 33 overtones :



and the article :

http://www.aronline.co.uk/blogs/news/ne ... torgraphs/

The AR16 is the one i was thinking of that looked like a Montego Fastback, reckon it would have slotted in well as a Princess/Ambassador replacement in the early/mid 80s once people got over the shock of the "spaceship" Ford Sierra and its "moon disc" wheel trims!

*** EDIT *** While finding the pic above, i stumbled on this, the R16 which would have been the Mk2 800 :



The article :

http://www.aronline.co.uk/blogs/concept ... ing-rover/

suggests a 700-series tag - if they retained the 2.7 Honda engine, they would surely have had a 727, Boeing might have got the hump with Rovers then-owners BAe and sued the bejesus out of them for copyright! Perhaps that's why BAe wouldn't fund the R&D department with enough to do it..........