Tell me about Rover 2000 P6?

[oman5]

My mate had this in as a scrapper over a year ago-excellent structure but knackered engine.

 

He kindly agreed to hang onto it for me while I got my house move out of the way, so now I've found a replacement engine and she should be coming home shortly. yay!

 

what are they like to live with?

[dollywobbler]

To be honest, a bit underpowered and underwhelming - though I made the mistake of owning a V8 first, which really is the engine to have. Check the base unit VERY carefully for rot. They can look fine on the outside, but be absolute cornflakes inside. Checking under the rear seats squab is considered a wise move.

 

The last proper, engineered Rover though. They have a fantastic feel and are a lot like a less-complicated Citroen DS. Lots of clever touches and an excellent car for covering mileage. Before you fit the new engine, take the side panels off the block and give the waterways a good clear out. That job is much more difficult if the engine is in-situ. If you can fit a twin-carb engine, so much the better. Won't be much slower than a V8, though sadly will drink similar quantities of juice.

 

No problems with parts supply, but these cars can quickly absorb a terrifying amount of money - as I've found to my cost. Twice. Though I'd probably be slightly safer now I do much more spanner twirling myself.

[jonathan_dyane]

I'd fit a XUD9TE engine mated to a sherpa gearbox, or even better the 2.1 TD out of a 406 or similar...

[andrew e]

Surely that 2.0 T series out the Disco on here?

[wuvvum]

I had a 2000SC manual until quite recently and found that it kept up with traffic adequately well - although it did have to be worked quite hard which meant that fuel consumption wasn't as good as it might have been. They are nice to drive for such an old design though - the steering is probably the most old-fashioned element as it's rather heavy and low-geared with a massive wheel, but the brakes are pretty good (discs all round) and they have modern touches like a 2-speed heater fan and intermittent wipers which make them more useable as a daily. As Wobbler says though, they can rot like buggery structurally whilst still looking tidy on the outside.

[oman5]

I had a 2000SC manual until quite recently and found that it kept up with traffic adequately well - although it did have to be worked quite hard which meant that fuel consumption wasn't as good as it might have been. They are nice to drive for such an old design though - the steering is probably the most old-fashioned element as it's rather heavy and low-geared with a massive wheel, but the brakes are pretty good (discs all round) and they have modern touches like a 2-speed heater fan and intermittent wipers which make them more useable as a daily. As Wobbler says though, they can rot like buggery structurally whilst still looking tidy on the outside.

 

 

2200 TC engines are not very easy to come by (not within my budget, anyway) but I managed to get a 2200 sc engine. Much as I wanted to fit a dizzler, I just don't have the time/know how to mess about fabricating engine mounts, adaptor plates etc

[wuvvum]

The 2200SC has a bit more torque than the 2000, but still isn't exactly a fireball...

[Morgan84]

Almond is my favourite colour for a P6. Provided the tin worms not been too hungry on her, should make a nice car

[Pete-M]

I've only had V8 ones, but as Mr D.Wobbler said, check everywhere for rot. Sills, A posts, B posts, bulkhead is mega important - check out the front suspension layout.., under the rear seat is a common place for 'em to rot and a bit of a bugger to sort.

 

A working handbrake is a good sign as the (inboard) rear calipers are a pain to work on. I had a slightly sticky rear caliper on my first P6. Didn't realise until I heard a rather loud bang and saw half a rear brake disc, glowing cherry red, shoot across the road.

 

Other than that and a few V8 hot running issues (sorted on my second one), mine were both fine. I like P6s.

[Twiggy]

Rot is the bggest problem - everywhere. The inner sills, A posts, floors, boot floor, and offside of the boot wall, where a locating rod for the rear suspension is located. The bulkhead also rots spectacularly... it`s difficult to weld, and difficult to access. If the vehicle has been standing a while, the rear brakes sieze solid, and since they are inboard discs are a pain to get at.

All the body panels, including the roof, are removable, and the shell can be driven around with them all off: both bonnet and boot lid are aluminium. You could order a glass roof to be fitted when new, but very few were. The doors come off just by raising the screw in the hinge. Compared with today`s motors, they are a dream to work on mechanically. A chain driven overhead cam... they can break with the same disastrous effects as cam belt failure, so change it on your replacement engine. Regardless of what the manual says, it is possible to remove the gearbox without removing the engine as well... so a clutch change is fairly simple. The front suspension appears very strange initialy, but it`s simple enough, and a spring change is delightfully simple, but you do need a special tool to keep the springs compressed. You compress them by getting 3 big mate to sit on the front of the car when the bonnet is up... The rear suspension is De Dion with a Watts linkage and again is easy to work on. You must raise the rear of the vehicle using the special jacking point situated half way across the back just beneath the lower panel and then secure the vehicle safely. The sliding tube needs regular lubrication, but the mists of time intervene and I forget just how to do that...

They are a delight to drive, seat are comfortable, instruments easy to read and controls fall naturally to hand. The gearbox is excellent, well spaced ratios with a slick change. A bit small in the back, and the boot space is minimal. The single carb 2000 is slow, but will keep up with modern traffic.

The most sought after variant is the V8, which uses the same engine as the Range Rover did... there was also an estate version made by panelcraft, and another by H R Owen. Brilliant cars...

[Rocket88]

Rot is the bggest problem - everywhere. The inner sills, A posts, floors, boot floor, and offside of the boot wall, where a locating rod for the rear suspension is located. The bulkhead also rots spectacularly... it`s difficult to weld, and difficult to access. If the vehicle has been standing a while, the rear brakes sieze solid, and since they are inboard discs are a pain to get at.

All the body panels, including the roof, are removable, and the shell can be driven around with them all off: both bonnet and boot lid are aluminium. You could order a glass roof to be fitted when new, but very few were. The doors come off just by raising the screw in the hinge. Compared with today`s motors, they are a dream to work on mechanically. A chain driven overhead cam... they can break with the same disastrous effects as cam belt failure, so change it on your replacement engine. Regardless of what the manual says, it is possible to remove the gearbox without removing the engine as well... so a clutch change is fairly simple. The front suspension appears very strange initialy, but it`s simple enough, and a spring change is delightfully simple, but you do need a special tool to keep the springs compressed. You compress them by getting 3 big mate to sit on the front of the car when the bonnet is up... The rear suspension is De Dion with a Watts linkage and again is easy to work on. You must raise the rear of the vehicle using the special jacking point situated half way across the back just beneath the lower panel and then secure the vehicle safely. The sliding tube needs regular lubrication, but the mists of time intervene and I forget just how to do that...

They are a delight to drive, seat are comfortable, instruments easy to read and controls fall naturally to hand. The gearbox is excellent, well spaced ratios with a slick change. A bit small in the back, and the boot space is minimal. The single carb 2000 is slow, but will keep up with modern traffic.

The most sought after variant is the V8, which uses the same engine as the Range Rover did... there was also an estate version made by panelcraft, and another by H R Owen. Brilliant cars...

 

 

+1 for all the above.they are a tad odd in places, but it's it's good odd! Silky ride, 4 pots are a bit agricultural, V8s lovely, although the manuals are a bit marginal. I had one with a 3.9 and 4 speed auto, with power steering, and boot mounted spare..........lovely

[Junkman]

Do not believe one single word regarding the 'underpowered' anti-hype. It must have been invented by people who never drove one. I own a V8 and I drove a friend's 2000 SC the other day for the first time in my life. I was surprised how lively it was. I expected much worse.

 

If you chose to decide against it, can I have it, please?

Junkman said 'please'!

[dollywobbler]

Do not believe one single word regarding the 'underpowered' anti-hype. It must have been invented by people who never drove one. I own a V8 and I drove a friend's 2000 SC the other day for the first time in my life. I was surprised how lively it was. I expected much worse.

 

If you chose to decide against it, can I have it, please?

Junkman said 'please'!

 

Er, I DID drive one. I even owned one. They are underpowered compared to the V8s, which is hardly surprising when you look at the torque figures. Yes, they can get a shift on but as Wuvvum says, they then drink vast amounts of fuel.

[Junkman]

They aren't underpowered at all. If anything, the V8 is overpowered, if such a thing exists.

Generally, I don't understand this 'keep up with traffic' nonsense anyway. Most of the 'traffic', if one can all it that, can't keep up with a fuggin tractor hauling shit to the fields.

No matter what I drive, I not only can 'keep up with traffic', no, those bloody goutrags are constantly holding me up.

 

Yes, a Rover P6 will need petrol. If you can't live with this, buy a fuggin Prius.

[dollywobbler]

The 2000 is only underpowered compared with its V8 sibling. As these stats show.

 

Rover 2000SC manual

0-60mph 14.7secs

 

Rover 3500 auto

0-60mph 10.5secs

 

The 2000 is not disgraceful by any means, but I know which one feels better.

[Junkman]

The 2000 isn't underpowered. The 3500 is overpowered compared with its sibling.

[Rocket88]

The 4 pots suffer from the same problem as DS and CX Citroens, a futuristic looking car lumbered with a rather agricultural sounding power plant. They go well enough, but they don't sound as well as they look........always thought a Wankel rotary would suit it well, being as close to the original turbine engine that was originally mooted for the P6.

[oman5]

Thanks for replies.TBH I'm not worried about going fast in it. The whole point of buying this particular one- knackered engine and all- is that the body is amazingly good. I've had it up on a lift, there just isn't any rot on it. anywhere. I'll post some pics of my progress on this when I get round to making any