The cars : Rover SD1 development story

The Rover SD1 has a place in the hearts of many car enthusiasts today. Read the AROnline Rover SD1 development story and timeline – the most detailed of its kind anywhere on the internet.

However, when it was new, poor build quality, flaky paint and the poor image of its builder meant that its sales potential went unfulfilled in the UK.

Rover SD1: British bulldog

Rover SD1

The Rover SD1 had a lot to live up to. During the 1960s, Rover had enjoyed considerable success with the P6. This car, along with the Triumph 2000, had basically created the template for the middle management car: larger and more plush than family man’s Ford or Morris, but not as grand as the Director’s Daimler.

In the prosperity of the 1960s, these two cars had carved up this new market between themselves and had both been profitable ventures for Leyland. Now, it needed to happen all over again into the 1980s.

Both 1960s cars had been developed throughout their lives and into the 1970s. The Triumph received a new and more aggressive Michelotti face and an up-gunned 2.5-litre engine; the Rover most successfully receiving the ex-Buick 3528cc V8 engine, in the process becoming a car loved by pushy young executives and the Police alike.

Untangling the executive car mess

As Rover and Triumph were now part of Leyland Cars, it seemed logical that both models would need to be replaced by a single car. However, devising the best plan to achieve this was not so straightforward. Rover and Triumph still operated separate management structures, possessed separate drawing offices and were still fiercely competitive with each other.

As detailed in The Whole Story, the merger was taking its toll on management, so the Engineers and Product Designers were pretty much left to get on with things themselves. Rover had been quietly working on some interesting projects, such as the P6BS supercar and the P8, intended to replace the P5 saloon, so oft-used as ministerial transport.

Triumph was busying itself with the gorgeous Stag and working on rationalising the Toledo/1300 range. Development of a replacement for Rover’s P6 and Triumph’s 2500 only got underway in 1969, with each division working on its own model.

BLMC’s 1970s executive takes shape…

Initial briefing for a P6 replacement, codenamed Rover P10, began at Solihull in March 1969. What tends to be overlooked in the telling of the SD1 story is that the management structure which gave birth to the car and the factory that was to build it was not the same as the one that oversaw its eventual launch and production.

The Rover Car Company was still very much independent in 1969. At its head was Chairman Sir George Farmer, who in April that year, was appointed to the BLMC Board. The Managing Director was William Martin-Hurst, the man who discovered the iconic V8 engine for Rover.

Martin-Hurst retired in October 1969 to be replaced by another veteran Rover loyalist, A.B. Smith, although christened Bernard, he preferred to be known by his initials. The Production Director was Bernard Jackman, another devoted long-standing employee.

The band is back together…

The Technical Director was Peter Wilks, the man who had coordinated the P6 project, as well as being the nephew of Spencer and Maurice Wilks, the two brothers who had built the Rover brand into to a highly-respected purveyor of upmarket cars. The ascent of Rover had been very much a family affair, but now the Wilks family was relinquishing control as age took its toll.

Maurice Wilks had died in 1963 on the eve of the P6’s launch when he was the company’s Technical Director and his elder brother Spencer had retired in 1967 when Rover was absorbed by Leyland. William Martin-Hurst was their brother-in-law.

Peter Wilks had succeeded his uncle Maurice as Rover Technical Director in 1964 and, following the formation of British Leyland, Spen King, one of the P6 design team, nephew of Maurice and Spencer Wilks and cousin of Peter, was dispatched to become Technical Director of Triumph at Canley. Various configurations for the new P10 model were studied on paper including front- or rear-wheel drive.

1970: The Rover P10 project begins

Work by Rover began in earnest following the launch of the Range Rover in March 1970, and the new car rapidly took shape. In June 1970 P10 package drawings were passed to Rover’s Styling Department headed by David Bache. By that time a decision had been taken that the new Rover should be a mechanically conventional, front-engined, rear-wheel-drive saloon using an uprated version of the existing light-alloy V8 engine.

As with the P6, David Bache did not want a contemporary design; when it came to his new car, he wanted something that was ahead of the game and, with the P10, he decided very early in the development phase that he wanted a hatchback configuration, and that he wanted the Rover to look exclusive.

Since the early 1960s he felt sure the hatchback, a saloon with a rear-opening door was the concept people were beginning to want. It could give them an exciting shape with flexibility, practicality and generous living space

1971 Rover-Triumph design shoot-out: P10 vs Puma

Rover-Triumph design competition
In the initial stages of planning a new executive car for the 1970s, both the Triumph drawing office (Canley) and their opponents at Rover (Solihull) came up with competing designs. This picture was taken at the internal competition between the two divisions of BLMC, where Lord Stokes and John Barber had a final say in which design would go on to become the production car. The two Triumph Puma proposals are on the left – Bache produced five scale models on the right (the final one chosen to become the SD1 was the fourth from front). Note the Gullwing design at the rear of the Solihull presentation room – Bache was heavily into this concept – and the small Gas-Turbine Rover model at the front

While David Bache worked on Rover’s model, initially to be called the P10, Triumph’s Design Team worked on a Michelotti-styled scheme – codenamed Puma – in consultation with William Towns, presumably with input from Spen King.

Progressive wins over conservative

This internal competition was brought to a close when the BLMC Board met at Solihull on 9 February 1971 to see both the Rover P10 and Triumph Puma proposals, with a view to the deciding which was the better of the two cars and then go on to become the new large Rover Triumph saloon.

David Bache had produced six scale clay models, five hatchbacks and a notchback for consideration by the Board. Triumph’s Puma was thought to be too conventional in style by the Board which included Rover Chairman Sir George Farmer, former Triumph boss George Turnbull, Jaguar Chairman and stylist Sir William Lyons, Finance Director John Barber and Chairman Lord Stokes. In this ‘head-to-head’ competition, Rover’s car was adjudged to be superior by the British Leyland Board, so development resources were exclusively directed to David Bache’s design.

This result proved to be a happy coincidence, as there was already a feeling that the new large car should be marketed only as a Rover. After all, Triumph’s range at this time consisted of smaller cars (later to be umbrella’d under the Dolomite name) and the slightly cheaper of the two ranges in the 2.0-litre class (Triumph 2000/2500).

Thus, it was decided that a smaller car could be developed in the future to replace the Toledo/Dolomite, and badged as a Triumph. It was at this point in the development of the car that the P10 was renamed RT1 (denoting Rover Triumph), to signify that this was a car that integrated both Rover and Triumph engineering.

Specialist Division One is born…

By late spring 1971 Jaguar, Rover and Triumph were grouped together under the Specialist Division banner and, because of this internal re-organisation within British Leyland, the project was given a new name: SD1 (for Specialist Division).

At this early stage of development, it was obvious that the new car would use the ex-Buick V8 engine that had provided service in the P5B and P6B models and would have gone into service in the P8 model. Extensive work had already taken place on this power unit in order to produce the required power output for the larger P8 model and it was logical not to allow this work to go to waste.

Now that Jaguar occupied a unique and prestigious niche right at the top of the Specialist Division, there would be no requirement for the 4.4-litre version of the V8 engine to be used, but even that did not go to waste, finding its way into the Leyland-Australia P76 model as well as the Australian version of the BMC/BLMC Terrier truck.

Rover SD1 full-scale model

Rover SD1 full-scale model

SD1 reaches full-scale model stage

In July 1971, and after much engineering development work, the SD1 had reached the full-scale model stage and, when management viewed the project, they were very impressed with the designs that were being mooted. It was at this point that the styling was yet to be finalised by Bache, but the British Leyland Board gave the SD1 the green light for production on the strength of what they had seen so far.

Not only had David Bache been working towards the five-door hatchback that the SD1 eventually became, but he also pushed forwards on a wilder proposal, which incorporated gullwing doors – a concept that he believed was a viable one, but which his colleagues around him were not so sure of.

The gullwing idea was dropped on cost grounds, but not before full-sized models of his idea had been built. In later years, when he was in the position of Head of Product Styling for BL, he attended a designers’ conference, where he was still keenly trying to sell the concept to anyone that would listen.

It was at the end of July 1971 that Rover Technical Director Peter Wilks was forced to retire due to ill health. He was to die the following year at the early age of 52 years. Spen King duly returned to Solihull to replace his cousin as Rover Technical Director and Project P10/RT1/SD1 became his baby.

Rover SD1: Engineering the new car

Rover SD1
SD1 clay model poses alongside some rather exotic Italian machinery for comparative purposes. (Picture supplied by Ian Nicholls)

A consequence of the Mini pricing fiasco, in which a cutting-edge design was allegedly sold at a loss, was that British Leyland brought in Ford-style cost-control methods. No doubt this was instigated by BLMC Finance Director John Barber, who was himself ex-Blue Oval. The SD1, unlike the P6, would be designed and built to a price as BLMC’s bean counters tried to reduce cost.

One thing was very evident on the engineering front for the new car; the range of engines available for the new car was very limited. Obviously, the V8 engine was settled, but the question of what to power the smaller-engined versions that would be required to replace the Rover 2200/Triumph 2500 models directly was still unanswered.

The-then current 2.0-litre Rover engine was considered less suitable for use in a 1970s executive car as it was, by that time, a rather unrefined unit, so it was deemed that the six-cylinder Triumph engine would be used as a basis.

Developing a new six-cylinder

As events transpired, the plan to add a overhead camshaft head to this unit was dropped when it became obvious that the straight six required more extensive development – and so a practically new engine known as the PE166 was developed in its place, the Triumph unit acting merely as a starting point. As it happened, this would prove to be an excellent marketing ploy, as executive car buyers were becoming increasingly demanding in their tastes and nothing less than six cylinders in their wagons would do.

Seemingly, no consideration was given to using the Austin Morris E6 engine, as the spirit of rationalisation had not yet entirely taken hold at BLMC – whether it was a suitable engine anyway was debatable because, even in twin-carburettor form, it produced only 110bhp.

However, in an in-line application, the ‘1750’ stroke could be applied to the E6, giving 2622cc. This is what was used in the South African-built SD1, as well as in some of the Australian P76 and Marina models. An Engineer who went out for the South African launch admitted that the 2.6-litre E6 was much smoother and livelier than the ‘Triumph’ SD1 engine.

Rover SD1
Under the fake canvas tilt lurked a Rover P10-based SD1 development hack

Development bottle-necks: six-cylinder delayed

The make up of the PE166 six-cylinder engines was finalised well after development on the SD1 had started, so it was decided that the new car would be launched in two phases: the V8-engined model coming first with the six-cylinder models following later – as and when the new engines came on stream. This strategy thereby gave the SD1 two bites of the cherry as far as publicity was concerned, effectively allowing two new product launches.

While the issue of engines was being decided, development on the SD1 continued apace and Bache continued his work on the SD1’s styling. In November 1971, a further full-size clay model of the SD1, looking remarkably like the finished article, was presented to the British Leyland Board. Bache had changed the look of the RT1 because he felt it too angular and he evolved the shape by making it more curvaceous, to become the SD1 as we know it today.

Looking at the development programme, it would now appear that the definitive SD1 shape was complete by December 1971 and yet it would take a further eighteen months for the styling to be finally signed off by the BL Board. That shows there was already a lack of pace in the development of the car at this vitally important stage of its conception. The industry norm was for the car to take 30 months to reach production from this point in 1971 – it actually took 54 months – had the Rover SD1 arrived on the market in 1974, it would surely have made even more of an impact than it finally did.

‘Four-door’ Maserati – Bache’s masterpiece

Rover SD1

Bache maintained that Designers will come up with broadly similar cars for their intended markets given similar environmental stimuli and resources and that was bourne out by the fact that, in the mid-1970s, we were presented with the Rover SD1, Citroën CX, Lancia Gamma and Renault 20/30 – all six-light, fastback designs with wedge-shaped bodies and good attention to aerodynamic detail. There was also the matter of the 1967 Pininfarina BMC 1800, which undoubtedly had a fair influence on these cars.

When speaking in an interview with CAR magazine in 1982, Bache actually cited the Ferrari 250LM and 365GTB/4 Daytona as the major influences on the SD1 – and this can certainly be seen in the style around the front end of the car; the headlights and indicators are practically a facimile of the classic Ferrari’s.

Another feature that the SD1 shared with the Daytona was its side swage lines, which managed to add practical as well as aesthetic benefits to the SD1: dirt kicked up from the road was caught in the side creases and the upper flanks would therefore remain relatively clean – there would be no mucky hands when pulling the door handles of the SD1!

‘Elegant’ styling underpins the SD1

In 1976, David Bache told the British Leyland Mirror, the in-house newspaper, about the SD1’s style: ‘The word “elegant” describes the styling philosophy behind the new Rover. The problems were to provide a car which had impact and identity, good aerodynamics in all respects, low drag to assist quiet effortless high speed travel, near neutral lift conditions and a centre of pressure optimised to aid straight line movement and stability in cross winds, and, at the same time, a design generally acceptable and hopefully timeless.

‘All this had to be combined in a shape which would accommodate the increased space needs of people today, more living accommodation and more load carrying space, provided in such a manner that the balance could be adjusted to suit the requirements of any particular movement. This has been realised in a sculptural shape which conforms to the almost automatic European solution of five-door hatchback, yet with its own strong identity. Its long continuous lines are designed to increase the impression of size.

‘The muscle is provided by the overall poise of the vehicle, the heavy wheel opening eyebrows and the impressive wheels, whether in cast aluminium or the standard stainless finishers. The overall effect is to provide no impression of size and mass while actually the car is only marginally larger, five inches longer and less than four inches wider than the 2000.’

Industrial design reaches maturity

Bache added: ‘As with the original Rover 2000 every attempt has been made to produce a classical, sculptural form devoid of applied ornamentation. The exterior graphics are limited only to the new Viking Prow graphic symbol on the bonnet and the twin name and capacity plaques on the rear. This is a car close to my own heart, the concept I feel many other people, people who wanted a fifth door facility but who wouldn’t be seen dead in a shooting brake. The rest of the world has tended towards the same idea.’

With the exterior styling of the SD1 settled, Bache worked on the interior, which like the body styling was also a complete departure from the P6. He moved to a more ‘industrial’ design, forgoing the wood and leather ambience of the P6 in favour of an almost stark, Germanic style.

The dashboard and steering wheel were textured from soft-feel plastics, a move which in itself was ahead of its time. The design of the dashboard was cleverly made symmetrical in order to facilitate the assembly of both left- and right-hand-drive cars.

Rover SD1
Design sketch for the interior shows to great effect how the symmetrical dash design works

Throughout the interior, clever touches abounded: fully-adjustable steering column, ample small storage areas including nifty under-dashboard lockers, folding rear seats, a removable parcel shelf and internally adjustable door mirrors, to name but a few of these features. All taken for granted in this day and age, but back in 1976, a great leap forward in interior ergonomics.

Bache reasoned that he could make a feature out of the fact that the instrument cluster was a unit incorporated as part of this symmetrical dashboard. It wasn’t styled, as such, but was simply designed as a box with instruments in it, parked on top of the dashboard in front of the driver.

Chassis and engine – tried and tested

Spen King, who was now in overall charge of technical development of the group’s new models, would oversee the development of the new car, thereby re-uniting the King-Bache partnership that had produced the Rover P6. King was an Engineer who would shun high complexity for the sake of it, preferring a well-developed conventional solution, if one were available – and nowhere was this more evident than in the mechanical set-up of the SD1.

In terms of suspension for the SD1, there was a departure in store: whereas the P6 used a de Dion rear set-up to great effect, this system was rejected for the SD1 on the grounds of cost and complexity. King maintained that a live rear axle (in this case, a torque-tube type design) would be able to do the job equally as well as any of the esoteric independent systems used in the SD1’s rivals.

Careful location and development, concentrated on the bushing for the rear axle were incorporated at the rear – and, at the front, industry-standard McPherson struts were employed, as opposed to the horizontal coils used in its predecessor.

So, why did the SD1 have a live rear axle?

This may have seemed like a retrograde step in terms of technology, but Spen King considered the McPherson strut arrangement to be far less liable to suffer from the effects of camber changes than the double wishbone arrangement in the P6 and, therefore, a more stable solution in emergency manoeuvres.

Budget constraints partially dictated this, but King himself explained that there were other considerations: ‘Costs certainly played a part in the decision,’ he said. ‘But it also kept the back wheels upright all the time, which was a good thing. And while I was away, they had done comparative testing with the live axle and the de Dion suspension – and they reckoned it was good.

‘Afterwards, we did comparisons between SD1 and Jaguar and actually, bearing in mind the cost and so forth, the SD1 was just as good. I remember that we did a long trip in France in icy weather against Mercedes-Benz 450 and SD1 showed up extremely well.’

Responding to criticism it’s not advanced enough

Back in 1976, Spen King responded to criticism that the SD1 was not as advanced as the P6: ‘Some people may well compare the new Rover with the old 2000 series and say that it is not so technical in its specification. This is absolutely true and it is quite deliberate. With the 2000, in an age when people set great store by impressive specification, engineers enjoyed themselves using quite complex solutions to achieve the design requirements.

‘On this car we had to use much more subtly and more intensive development to get equally impressive results from a simpler design which would offer easier servicing, better reliability and generally better cost-effectiveness.

‘On all aspects of our design work we had to remember the need to get the quality and safety we wanted without excessive weight or cost which would affect performance, economy and value. It wasn’t an easy job, but we are pleased with the results.’

Making the V8 fit for the 1970s

The existing Rover V8 Buick engine was mildly warmed over, with its rev limit being upped, slightly giving a small, but useful rise in power (up to 155bhp at 5250rpm from 143bhp at 5000rpm) and also an improvement in driveability through freer breathing and new extractor effect exhaust manifolds, and the change in the torque characteristics (maximum torque being delivered at 1950rpm, as opposed to 2700rpm).

When Rover bought the V8 Buick engine in the mid-1960s, it can’t have known just how far-sighted that decision was – this light and infinitely tuneable engine was used until 2004 in Land Rover’s products.

Through careful development, this sound design was easily capable of keeping up with more modern power units, and it was still going strong into the 21st century elsewhere.

An impressive new gearbox

A new Triumph-designed five-speed gearbox was also developed for the SD1 – which was proposed at the time to be first of a family of new gearboxes for use across the Leyland range. The SD1 version was called the LT77 gearbox in-house (because the shaft centre dimension was 77mm) and was first shown in the TR7 rally car, a few months before the launch of the SD1.

The design of this gearbox was modular, in as much as different versions of this gearbox could be used for different applications. As it happens, Jaguar was a recipient of this ‘box for the XJ6 4.2 in 1979, but the proposed 66mm version that was to appear in the ADO77 and the Triumph SD2 never materialised when it became clear that the money had run out to produce these cars.

The new transmission would be manufactured at the Rover plant at Pengam, Cardiff, which the company had been persuaded to set up by the Government in the early 1960s in order to alleviate local unemployment.

A steering revolution

One major advance for Rover was the adoption of the Burmann power-assisted steering system for the SD1. This was a conventional PAS system but, unlike others of the time, which traditionally retained standard gearing, the advantage of power assistance was put to great use.

King decided that much higher gearing could be used than standard, so the SD1 ended-up with gearing equating to 2.7 turns of the wheel from lock to lock. At this point in time, only Citroën with its DIRAVI system had engineered power steering to be so directly geared.

Development Engineers loved this system and it was noted that, unlike the Citroën set-up, people new to the SD1 needed much less acclimatisation to drive the Rover, although the ‘sneeze factor’ was still somewhat overwhelming for some. It was very conventional it its feel, even though its directness and, therefore, responsiveness were vastly better than its rivals could offer.

Confidence leads to a new factory

Rover SD1 production at Solihull

Having forced Rover and Triumph to work together to produce the SD1 and SD2, British Leyland decided to formalise the arrangement and officially merge the two companies in March 1972 as Rover Triumph Cars Limited with Sir George Farmer as Chairman. The new organisation had a 12-man Board consisting of seven from Rover and five from Triumph.

Such was the optimistic mood in the early 1970s, no doubt fuelled on by the promise of anticipated huge sales figures furnished by the sales networks, Rover managed to secure finance in November 1972 from British Leyland’s management to build a new factory at the Solihull site, solely to build the new car.

The original target had been to build 1500 SD1s a week, but BLMC Finance Director John Barber managed to convince the company’s Board to double this target to 3000 cars a week, equating to 150,000 cars a year.

1973: The P6 factory to be replaced

Initial thoughts were to build P10/RT1/SD1 in North Block, site of P6 manufacture, but this would have required a new paint plant. BLMC managed to secure the requisite Government permission to build on a 64 acre site adjacent to the existing Rover plant.

This £31m investment, although endowed with good intention, did prove to be a major problem for British Leyland, with a poor labour relations record resulting a huge amount of lost days due to industrial action. Lauded as a state-of-the-art factory in 1976, the car producing plant was put on ice as a consequence of the great rationalisation of the company in 1982.

In May 1973, Sir George Farmer retired from Rover Triumph and BLMC to be replaced by Bill Davis, a former BMC man, as Managing Director of Rover Triumph. Bill Davis’s tenure was short-lived as, following George Turnbull’s sudden resignation from British Leyland in September 1973, he was promoted to the firm’s main Board as Director of Production, a similar position to the one he had occupied at BMC.

Rover concentrates on quality

The new boss of Rover Triumph was now Bernard Jackman. Motor magazine interviewed Mr Jackman in February 1974. He emphasised the importance of quality: ‘There was a tendency at one time for production and manufacturing considerations at Rover to override quality and things that we would stop going out now used to get out, but we have really clamped down on that over the past few years and stopped it… Quality and design are a completely integrated thing.

‘If you have a poor design, no matter what you do on the line or how good your facilities are you will still turn out a poor product. It is not possible for fellows on the assembly line to make good the deficiencies of bad design. In the Rover organisation as a whole quality therefore begins in engineering.’

Bernard Jackman also spoke of Rover Triumph’s ambitious expansion programme over the next four years. They would be spending something like £200million on Rover Triumph, around £550 million a year.

Production is expected to double

He added: ‘By 1978, we are due to be producing about 470,000 vehicles a year, compared with around 230,000 we built in 1973. If the present industrial crisis goes on for some time, obviously we’ll have to stretch our capital spending over six years instead of four to four and a half years because the money won’t be there in the quantity I have been talking about. But expand we shall.

‘I am determined that when another upturn in sales comes in a year or two’s time when Britain should be in a much better position than we are now for energy we shall not at that time be caught without an outstanding range of models to sell, or without the means to build them in quantity. We are very flattered at Rover Triumph that the British Leyland Motor Corporation have the confidence in us to invest this amount of money. Certainly, they have given us a far bigger share of the total cake than I dared hoped for a couple of years ago.’

‘By 1978 we are due to be producing about 470,000 vehicles a year, compared with around 230,000 we built in 1973.’ – Bernard Jackman

Of the new plant at Solihull, he said: ‘It is wonderful to begin in a green-field site with a new assembly plant and a new paint shop, and we are determined it is going to be the best for our size of output. When the new plant comes into operation, we shall stop making cars in the north factory and move to these Range Rover assembly and some Land Rover operations which will give us the elbow room to put up Land Rover and Range Rover production very considerably.’

Management confident the SD1’s future

Looking beyond the then current problems, Bernard Jackman concluded: ‘But if we can get our new models out despite the Energy Crisis and the fuel economy drive we are really sitting on a pot of gold. We have got the right range of models in Rover Triumph, the best range in any sector of the corporation. Austin Morris have much bigger outputs, but they cannot command the profit margins on their low-priced cars that we can on a more specialist grade of car.

‘The opportunities are there if only I can persuade everybody, particularly those on the shop floor, that it is right and proper to stay at work. I see it as my job to make sure that there is no failure in communications. Product policy for the future, the vehicles you design and the associated problems are relatively easy to control for you are dealing with inanimate things, but people are a totally different subject.

‘They are unpredictable. But I think the important thing is confidence. Everybody has got to feel that they are being told the truth, that they are not being conned and there is no ulterior motive. If I can’t succeed with that sort of philosophy then I don’t think anybody else can.’

Ryder Report scuppers Rover Triumph

However, Bernard Jackman’s vision for Rover Triumph was about to hit the rocks. Although like Jaguar, Rover was profitable, it was saddled to the lame Austin Morris division, which ultimately brought the whole British Leyland edifice crashing down in flames in December 1974. The Government agreed to step in and prop up British Leyland while Sir Don Ryder investigated what was to be done about the ailing concern.

In the interregnum before the Ryder Report was released, another Rover veteran, A.B. Smith, now Chairman of the company, retired. The question needs to be asked, was the Ryder Report a genuine attempt at solving British Leyland’s problems or a made-to-order fudge designed to please the politicians that commissioned it, like the Widgery Report into the 1972 Bloody Sunday shootings?

The British Leyland Shop Stewards demanded total nationalisation, with workers’ Directors occupying one third of the Board and the rest of the seats going to Government representatives and union-approved management specialists. Left-wing Labour MPs blamed the management for lack of investment and demanded worker participation in the running of the company. Ryder promptly delivered the latter, and removed a whole strata of management to form the more centralised Leyland Cars under former BLMC Finance Director Derek Whittaker.

A new direction for Rover

Like Geoffrey Robinson over at Jaguar, Bernard Jackman found his position was abolished and his services were no longer required. Instead of dealing with the root cause of British Leyland’s problems, which was the volume car Austin Morris division, Ryder instigated a clean sweep of management which removed competent and incompetent alike.

People like Bernard Jackman had a track record of success. His removal, with another four years of working life ahead of him, resulted in the destiny of Rover being put in the hands of the Solihull Plant Director whose hands were tied by the dictats of the more remote Leyland Cars management team.

Unfortunately, Rover did not have anyone with the fortitude and resolve of Jaguar’s Bob Knight to fight the company’s corner…

1975: Readying the SD1 for launch

In the months leading up to the launch, the SD1 was put through many customer clinics and the feedback was excellent. When lined up against such rivals as the Audi 100, Rover’s own P6 and Volvo 164, people adjudged that the SD1 was a much more expensive car – comparing it favourably with the Jaguar XJ6.

This should have spurred Rover on to price the 3500 at a higher level than these immediate rivals but, as we can see, this was not the case – Rover faced a political situation within the Specialist Division of British Leyland and it was decided to pitch the Rover at a price level comfortably below the basic XJ6, the 3.4 Series Two, model in order to avoid internecine competition.

The existence of the upcoming SD1 was possibly the worst kept secret in the history of the British motor industry up to that point and yet it still did not lessen the impact of the car’s launch, when it finally came in July 1976. The press were ecstatic, raving about the car’s styling, the way it performed and how quite simply the car felt so right. The press lauded the SD1 for many aspects but what they particularly liked was its strong, torquey performance which combined with its high gearing making it a very relaxed car to drive indeed. The charismatic V8 added charm to the package.

1976: The new Viking is launched

Rover SD1
Concorde test pilot, Brian Trubshawe, was one of the first SD1 customers in 1976

As Motor magazine surmised after a brief drive at launch, the Rover 3500 was indeed an excellent driver’s car: ‘On the open road, where the Rover excels, visibility is good and despite their blinkered appearance, the lights are powerful enough to let you exploit the roadholding on twisty roads at night. Only the premature squeal of the 195/70 HR14 Pirellis, which start making a fuss long before they reach their high adhesion limit, curb one’s enthusiasm. Whether these fatter tyres and the ornate alloy wheels are worth the extra cost we shall only be able to judge after driving on standard 185/70 HR14 tyres.’

This brickbat aside – and that was a reflection of the current state of the art in tyre technology, the performance of the (suspiciously quick) pre-production car impressed. ‘Until the oil pressure takes up the slack in the hydraulic tappets, the engine sounds clattery for a couple of seconds after a cold start.

‘Thereafter, it’s turbine smooth and feels a lot more vigorous than the previous 3500, especially at the top end. It revs willingly, but not quietly (who wants quiet when the noise was so good?) to the red line at 6000rpm, though such is the low and mid-range torque that you can keep well below 4000rpm and still cover the ground very quickly and quietly. We took no proper performance figures but our stopwatch registered 7.8s for an impromptu squirt from rest to 60mph against the uncorrected speedometer, and Rover claim a top speed of 125mph which we see no reason to doubt.’

SD1: dealing blows to the opposition

The above table demonstrates how the SD1 set the cat among the pigeons in the executive car market – those rivals that matched the new big Rover were slower and generally less economical – those that matched the car’s performance and economy were considerably more expensive.

Autocar magazine summed up the new car in quite succinct terms: ‘It is hard to be over-enthusiastic about the new 3500; on every score, its qualities justify any kind of enthusiasm. It would have been hard to predict, especially looking at the bald paper specification, just how well the car would perform, handle and ride.

‘Add to that the spaciousness and aerodynamic efficiency of the body, and the attention paid to ensuring that the car will last, and it is easy to see why all competitors are casting worried glances, not only at the car but also at its price. If the 3500 will be built in sufficient numbers, if the quality can be maintained along with the price, and if the ground is not cut from under its wheels by ill-advised legislation, the new 3500 should be one of the successes of the decade.’

Unfortunately, as we shall see, all of these provisos that were raised by the magazine’s conclusions concerning build volumes and quality of the product eventually became fact.

Rover V8: Surprisingly efficient

As demonstrated by Autocar, the V8 actually proved to be quite economical in this application because overdrive gear ratios meant that during motorway cruising, for example, the engine was only turning 2500rpm at 70mph and, therefore, was never stressed. Of course, the V8 liked a drink when pressed, but to make very reasonable progress, one never really had to work it hard.

Not only was the transmission’s set of overdriven ratios lauded, but also the gear change of the new 77mm gearbox came in for fulsome praise. Motor magazine again: ‘And what a transmission! A middleweight, ultra-smooth clutch, five perfect gear ratios and, best of all, an outstanding change. Not since driving a Spridget do I recall being able to say that of a car from the Leyland stable. The slick, quick, positive shifts and the car’s excellent performance go a long way to making the new Rover a real driver’s car. Its handling emphasises the point.’

The 3500 was also praised for its good ride and handling and the quick steering made it feel smaller and more responsive than it actually was. ‘Steering response is exceptionally quick and precise: not quite so high geared as that of the Citroën CX which is positively twitchy until you get used to it, but much quicker than, say, a Jaguar XJ-S‘s. When I got back into the 3.4 its steering felt decidedly vague and unresponsive after the sensitivity I’d quickly adjusted to in the 3500.’

Praised to the hilt – good news in bad times

What this all meant was that the 3500 appealed to the same pushy young executives who fell for the P6B’s charms. This time, though, the 3500 was also a commodious car, something the P6 never was, but not only for passengers, but for luggage too – the hatchback configuration afforded practicality that rivals such as the Ford Granada had no hope of matching.

Because of this almost universal acclaim, bouquets were being bestowed on the SD1 in the UK and Europe, alike, and the model became the recipient of some quite prestigious awards.

Rover SD1
Car of the Year 1977 was just reward for BL’s hard work in getting the SD1 into production. Noted ex-racing driver turned motoring writer Paul Frere, acting as President of the Car of the Year committee said of the SD1: ‘The Rover 3500 is the first British car for years with a worldwide appeal. It is lavishly equipped, very economical for its size and performance and offers a good blend of handling and comfort. However you look at Sterling, it represents very good value both on the home and export markets.’

All this praise culminated in the 3500 being awarded the Don Safety award and also the European car of the Year for 1977 – something that a British Leyland car had not achieved since the BMC 1800 in 1964.

Waiting lists build for the new car

Customers agreed with the press and the 3500 was very soon so oversubscribed that people were queuing to buy the car – and worse, some dealers were actually selling delivery mileage examples at a premium over the list price – something that British Leyland had never experienced before.

Rover had priced the 3500 at £4750, which at the time, brought it into direct competition with such cars as the Audi 100, Citroën CX and Volvo 144, all cars with four-cylinder engines and cars that could not hope to go as well as the V8-engined Rover. Only the V6 Ford Granada 3000 was in the same league at that price point, but that was a vastly more conventional looking car than the Rover and lacked its showroom appeal.

Rover SD1 interior
V8-S interior, showing just how modernistic this design was. Not a piece of wood veneer to be seen anywhere. This picture also demonstrates how the dashboard made it from design to production relatively untouched. It’s a shame that the steering wheel wasn’t as small as the one depicted in the original design sketch (above)

After the kicking that the public and the media had given British Leyland over the Allegro, Princess and Marina, this was genuinely good news for the company but, as usual, trouble lurked, not far away. Rover had committed the cardinal sin of not making enough examples to satisfy the demand for the new car.

The target had been to have 2700 cars in the dealers at launch, but only 1400 were actually available. No one within British Leyland had expected the rush to buy the new car but, at the same time, the P6B was a very successful car and the SD1 was so right in design and execution that it should not have come as a surprise that people were going to be clamouring for the new car.

Supply problems caused by slow production

The actual launch was 30 June 1976 and, in traditional British Leyland fashion, a dispute arose in the factory producing the new model over a raffle of five of the new 3500s involving assembly workers. Non-assembly workers objected and many staged a 24-hour strike. The raffle for five of the new £4750 Rovers was a bid to encourage Solihull workers to boost production to a scheduled 500 week. But it was condemned as ‘ludicrous and divisive’ by Transport Workers Union district official Mr Sam Robinson.

‘It’s just a case of being lucky for some. Workers who have been left out of the draw are absolutely steamed up… I can understand the men thinking this scheme is unreasonable. Everyone has contributed to the success of the car, the lads on the chassis, those on engines and transmissions and the women on carburettors.’

Leyland Cars was still able to have a car in every dealer’s showroom, two cars in the main distributor showrooms and fulfil advance orders from car hire fleets. A spokesman said: ‘As of tonight we have completed more than 3000 cars for delivery.’

Used SD1s sell for a handsome premium

After only 12 hours in the showrooms, one car had already been sold by British Car Auctions as secondhand at £600 over the list price. Then, a week later, a two-hour stoppage occurred involving 1770 workers, who complained of excessive heat in the factory. On 5 August, two workers were disciplined for poor punctuality which resulted in a walkout by 300 Paint Shop workers and halted SD1 production at Solihull for 24 hours.

On 13 October 1976, The Times reported: ‘Leyland Cars’ new Rover 3500 is proving so successful that more workers are being recruited and hundreds transferred from existing jobs to treble output within three months. A further sharp increase is planned for early next year with the introduction of night shift working. At Rover Solihull, 330 new workers are being taken on to ‘activate’ a second Rover 3500 assembly line in the £31m plant built specially for the new car, launched four months ago.

‘A further 500 workers will be progressively transferred from the Rover 2200 assembly line in the older works adjoining. With the two lines operating, production will increase from 400 cars a week to around 1200. Talks are under way with the unions for introduction of a night shift on the No.1 assembly line early next year and on the No.2 line later.’

Big production targets seem achievable

The Times continued: ‘No production targets are available for the completed programme, but 2000 cars a week could be within range by next summer. Leyland management has been much criticized by its dealers for not taking earlier steps to increase output of what most regard as the most promising Executive car since the Jaguar XJ6.

‘So great is demand that dealers are quoting six months’ delay in delivery. The shortage has created a black market, with the Rovers changing hands at up to £1250 above the recommended retail price of £4750.’

By January 1977, British Leyland was warning Shop Stewards at its Castle Bromwich body plant that repeated failure to meet output targets was preventing Leyland Cars’ benefiting from the Car of the Year award for the Rover SD1. A Leyland executive said at the time: ‘It is damned frustrating to say the least. Here we are with the first British car ever to win the award [sic] and we are still turning it out in penny numbers. The competition must be laughing all the way to the bank.’

Production fails to ramp up quickly enough

Production of bodies was as much as 50 per cent below target, although they were set by agreement with Shop Stewards. Nearly eight months after the car was launched, the assembly factory at Solihull was turning out fewer than 400 cars a week, mainly because of Castle Bromwich’s failure to supply enough bodies.

Derek Whittaker ordered a strong line in talks with the Shop Stewards at Castle Bromwich. With overseas sales going begging, and a six-month waiting list on the home market, Mr Whittaker was coming under increasing pressure to get the car out at any cost. The new Solihull assembly plant was limping along with two assembly lines manned to produce close to 900 cars a week.

Leyland Cars hoped to introduce a night shift at Solihull to boost production to 1400 cars a week and the ultimate goal was 2000 a week. While all this was going on, a delivery drivers’ strike which lasted two weeks resulted in a stockpile of SD1s at Solihull. By February 1977, a series of stoppages at the Castle Bromwich body plant brought SD1 production to a halt along with several other British Leyland cars.

1977: The toolmaker’s strike bites hard

The situation was also exacerbated by the BL-wide toolmakers’ strike in the early months of 1977, which began as soon as Castle Bromwich resumed normal working – domestic supplies were drastically cut but, more disastrously, when the SD1 was put on sale in the EEC in March 1977.

At the time, it was riding high on the good publicity from the CoTY award and generally excellent press reports, the dealers had no stock which to sell. Derek Whittaker appealed to the sensibilities of the rogue workers, who he said, were costing the company profits – big profits – by not allowing the company to build the car that people across Europe so patently wanted to buy.

Again, the company had shot itself in the foot – all the good pre-launch publicity in the EEC amounted to nothing as people soon associated BL with strikes and non-production.

Production now at a standstill

By 27 June 1977, SD1 production was again at a standstill, following a walkout by 12 tool-fitters. Once this dispute was resolved, there was more bad news for Leyland Cars: 4000 men employed at Leyland’s Rover plant at Solihull rejected company plans to introduce a night shift because they claimed night working disrupted family life and caused health problems.

They rejected management’s argument that night-shift working was essential if Leyland was to exploit the tremendous demand for the then European Car of the Year, the Rover 3500. Shop Stewards at Solihull mounted a strong campaign against re-introduction of night working after an interval of two years and circulated a pamphlet claiming that men working nights had to give half their lives to the company.

Not only were the hours unsociable, but the disruption to normal routine led to family problems, digestive complaints and even affected men’s eyesight, the pamphlet said. By October, SD1 production was again halted, this time the cause was a six-week strike by 57 axle assemblers at Triumph’s Radford factory.

Doubts set in about the wonder-Rover

Rover SD1 Estate
Rover SD1 estate was developed by Solihull but never reached production, due to British Leyland’s financial woes following the Ryder Report. However, Sir Michael Edwardes liked the car so much that he used it as his personal runabout. During 1978 and 1979, it was seen frequently in the City of London

Rover launched the 2300 and 2600 models in late 1977, finally laying to rest the P6 and Triumph 2500 models after their long and distinguished service. As explained before, these inline six-cylinder engines were very loosely based on the old Triumph straight six, but with changes to the cylinder heads, new cylinder blocks, crankshafts, carburetion and just about everything else, thereby bringing them up to date.

In the 2 November 1977 edition of The Guardian newspaper, Victor Keegan wrote about the Rover SD1 plant under the headline, ‘WHY SUPER ROVER CAN’T DELIVER THE GOODS’. After dealing with problems caused by disputes at outside suppliers which had resulted in a stockpile of some 2000 incomplete cars, at one stage it had been as high as 2700, he went on to discuss the plants problems which had seen it operating at only 35% of its potential capacity.

‘The plant has a theoretical through-put capacity of 3000 cars a week, though this would involve another model like the Triumph Dolomite being put through one of the tracks. In the first six months of the year weekly output only once nudged even 800.’

An inquiry is called for

The report continued: ‘A third line was opened in June, and when the effects of holidays and the strike of small tool fitters ended output reached nearly 1100 a week in part of August and was over 1000 in September, when a combination of one week’s holiday and the Radford dispute halted the assembly lines. Some workers – not the main Shop Stewards – have called for an inquiry into the stockpile of unfinished cars.

‘Management and Shop Stewards admit that problems associated with the £6.2m paint shop (with a total conveyor length of 4.1 miles) have been a major constraint on output. It was built to treat ‘perfect’ bodies from the Castle Bromwich body plant which never came up to standard and the resultant imperfections were aggravated by the special thermoplastic paint used, which shows up minute flaws in the body. These imperfections have had to be rectified off the assembly line, thereby slowing down the production rate. Within the next few months it is hoped to have an on-line correction unit installed.

‘Advantage has been taken of the Radford lay-off to install a facility at the end of the assembly line which moves at the rate of 15 to 16 cars an hour. The problem with the paint plant was superimposed on the first major constraint on Rover output – the inability of the Castle Bromwich works to supply enough bodies.’

Body issues now sorted

The Guardian added: ‘This has now been largely overcome because the body plant is on a two-shift system. If the paint shop constraint is beaten the management claim that there will be only one major internal (mechanical) constraint, the necessity either to stop the tracks to do ‘sniff’ tests on emission rates from exhausts to meet recent legislation or else to do it afterwards. Steps have been taken in the last few weeks to reduce this problem.

‘There is little doubt that morale is at a low ebb in the plant, particularly on the shop floor. Workers complain of mismanagement – like the troubles over the paint plant – and claim that management, in a dash to get the various launches of the new range out on time, took on far too much labour relative to the work available. There are constant complaints of ‘green’ labour.

‘As one Shop Steward said: “They will have a one-day induction course, and then in two to three days become experienced operators. It’s one thing to learn the job in five minutes, but another to hold it at a rate of 15-16 vehicles an hour. You can’t expect quality immediately because there is a learning curve.”

Worker issues are far from sorted

Continuing, The Guardian said: ‘Surprisingly, to anyone brought up on an I’m All Right Jack image of British industry, Shop Stewards also complain of the lack of industrial engineers and a consequent lack of standard times to assess work practices – a problem which is only now beginning to be tackled. Stewards say that even when the plant is producing cars, there is a surplus of labour, and point out that men doing little get accustomed to it and that will make it more difficult to persuade them to do the job they were employed to do when they have come to regard their present pace as the norm.

‘Workers are clearly affected by morale throughout the company. There is also criticism of the frequency of management changes at the plant. One worker commented: “It’s like the First World War, the change of generals is so great.”

‘Against this background the incidence of labour disputes as such is surprisingly small. Both sides refer to one or two “silly” disputes plus a genuine one over safety which disrupted output at the beginning of the year. To that extent there may be some hope that the troubles of the plant, considerable though they are, may be transitional, even if many of the mistakes look eminently avoidable with the benefit of hindsight.

Questionable employment policy at Solihull

‘It hardly smacks of good management to run down the old Rover plant, making hundreds of skilled men redundant, only to be forced to employ “green” labour a couple of years later. Then again, part of the problem may simply be a transition from the individual craft tradition of the former Rover plant to the faster cycle times of the new assembly line.

‘And the future? Management is hoping that over the next few months output can be stepped up to 1500 cars a week and onwards towards 2000 next year if negotiations with the unions on matters like speeding the tracks up (for example, through having slip reliefs during tea breaks to avoid stopping the assembly line) are successful.

‘Beyond 1800 to 2000 units a week will need an alternative or night shift. Workers have been resisting this so far, not because of the so-called “sex at night” reports but because they are wary about the prospects of the other Leyland model which would have to be put through the Rover tracks as well to justify working at something approaching full capacity.’

Further model lines needed

‘Management is wary about attempting to run the plant producing only Rovers, since they believe that output of up to 3600 Rovers a week would be testing the world market too much even for such a widely acclaimed car as the 3500 and its family.

‘If management is right in believing that it is well on the way to removing internal bottlenecks then its hopes of a breakthrough in production levels could not only prove right too but could also lead to the mopping up of the surplus labour in the plant.

‘Of itself this could do wonders for the flagging morale. The trouble is that the Rover plant is still part of a wider accident-prone world in which supplier disputes, the detailed negotiations over the Leyland incentive package and a thousand and one other things could easily bring fresh problems. But until Rover, with its shiny new factory, overcomes its difficulties, how can anyone expect the Government to regard new investment as a panacea for Leyland’s problems?’

Expansion of six-cylinder production facility

On 26 November 1977 The Times reported: ‘Leyland Cars is spending £16m to expand production of the new six-cylinder engine which powers the recently launched Rover 2300 and 2600. The announcement yesterday follows agreement with Shop Stewards at Rover Solihull raising weekly output of the range from 1100 to 1800.

‘The Stewards’ refusal to introduce a night shift has been restricting production of Leyland’s best-selling executive range. Now, under a compromise deal just concluded, they will operate a two-shift system (6am to 2pm and 2pm to 10pm) in areas where there are bottlenecks. At the same time, a third assembly line, originally intended for the Dolomite when it is moved from Coventry to Solihull, has been switched to Rover production.

‘Manufacture of the new engines is centred on plants at Pengam, Cardiff, and Canley, Coventry. At Canley a new £2m transfer line is on order from KTM, which will raise capacity for the new engines to 1600 a week. Together with existing production of the V8 engine which powers the Rover 3500, this will give Leyland sufficient engines for up to 3000 Rovers a week.’

Good reviews for the 2300 and 2600

Rover SD1

The new models were warmly received by the press, especially the 2600 model, being viewed as a car that could do 95 per cent of what the V8-engined model could do, but at a lower cost. Production of the new engines was slow to build up and again BL were left with the situation of not being able to supply the cars that customers wanted.

It was not until the spring of 1978 that one could actually obtain a 2300 without a wait: that was an unforgivable crime for the company to commit yet again. There was demand for the 2300 and 2600 models and the factory at Solihull was not producing enough to satisfy this demand.

In January 1978, SD1 production was again halted for 24 hours after six Inspectors walked out in protest at the colour of their overalls (they were issued with brown overalls when they wanted white), and 40 other Inspectors struck in sympathy.

Production interrupted by industrial action – again

The tale of woe continued when, at the end of the month, it was reported that 2500 SD1s were stockpiled at the Solihull factory because of a shortage of components and exhaust emission testing equipment. A spokesman said: ‘This is a continually moving stockpile. Several hundred cars a week are being cleared as the missing parts become available.

‘The problem is that we have doubled Rover production in the past year, and component suppliers cannot keep up with us. It is a choice between laying off workers at Rover, or turning out part-completed cars. Motorists are queuing up to get Rovers.’

In early 1978, following the arrival of Michael Edwardes, Derek Whittaker resigned from Leyland Cars, which was about to be broken up into smaller, more manageable units. Rover now found itself part of Jaguar Rover Triumph (JRT) fronted by William Pratt Thompson. In March the old entity of Rover Triumph was revived, now headed by Jeff Herbert, who was recruited from outside British Leyland.

1978: More industrial strife

In April 1978, production was halted for ten days in a dispute involving Foremen and Supervisors who had to provide cover for the staggered shifts intended to boost weekly production to 1800 cars per week. In June, a strike involving 80 drivers shut down the Solihull factory and cost BL some 3000 Rover cars in lost production.

By now the Solihull factory was only operating at half its intended capacity of 140,000 cars per year and some industry observers took the view that the Rover SD1 was only marginally profitable for its manufacturer.

By November 1978, it was reported that output was now 1500 per week, components shortages prevented the target of 1800 per week from being attained. 1978 turned out to be the peak year of SD1 production, with 54,462 emerging from the factory.

Rover SD1 image: Falling fast

However, things went downhill rapidly for Rover with build problems rearing their ugly head again and reports filtering back rapidly from unhappy customers of tales of woe concerning their cars’ reliability. These centred mainly on the electrical system but, beyond that, there were innumerable paintwork and fit/finish problems reported too – it seemed that the products of new assembly lines at Solihull were not subject to any meaningful quality control methods.

With hindsight, it can be seen that, with a long waiting list for the SD1, the Rover car plant was under pressure from Derek Whittaker and his Leyland Cars management team to satisfy this demand and quite clearly corners were cut to get the cars out of Solihull to meet production targets. Even when the factory was working normally, there was no guarantee of maximum output because of disputes at outside suppliers and the poor supply and quality of bodies from Castle Bromwich.

The only other car Leyland could shift easily in the showrooms at the time was the humble Mini, and there was next to no profit in that. This was why the SD1 was so vital to BL.

Morale plummets as the SD1 falters

Derek Whittaker was in turn answerable to Alex Park, the British Leyland Managing Director. Both men had done time as BLMC’s Finance Director after John Barber’s elevation to Deputy Chairman and probably saw the SD1 in terms of numbers made and profit and loss figures.

Peter Grant, a one time Production Manager at Solihull, recalled: ‘I was at a dance at the Civic Centre in Solihull and a senior Director of British Leyland came up to me and said, ‘You Rover people are all the same. You worry about quality. We want quantity. We’ve got to get this SD1 turned out in quantity’… Morale was very, very bad. We had sensible middle-aged people.

‘They didn’t want to be sworn at or screamed at and threatened with the sack if they didn’t decide this that or the other. The Plant Director was despairing of the quality of the cars that were going into sales. It had to be seen to be believed.’ Inspectors found themselves being overruled by under pressure managers and defective cars were then sent on to dealers to be sorted out, if at all.

The SD1 is found out by the magazines

Autocar magazine reported on its Rover 3500 automatic, which it ran for a year and 11,900 miles: ‘The most disappointing feature about the Car of The Year was the sad lack of quality control during building and the minimal pre-delivery inspection.

‘Most major fault was a gap between windscreen and pillars, which allowed in rain and draughts. Hatchback door was badly fitted, and the front doors were re-hung and adjusted to get them to close properly and to cut down wind noise. The general fit and finish was also poor.’

The weekly also disliked ‘the sadly cheap sounding clang with which the doors shut – most inappropriate for a car of this class.’

Long-term test disasters

CAR magazine ran a similar specification SD1 for 20,000 miles. The vehicle suffered from numerous defects. The magazine added: ‘The finish in the boot annoys us to; it is carpeted, but looks more like a DIY job than something stemming from Britain’s most modern car factory…

‘The latest bit to go on our car is the plastic cowling under the driver’s seat which just fell to bits… It needs and deserves to have silly things like the wind noise eliminated, it should have a more appealing dashboard and better instrumentation, the feeble plastic bits should be replaced by good quality fittings and the cabin would benefit from more attractive upholstery.’

Autocar also ran a 2600 automatic. One of its journalists wrote: ‘Little things saddened me; the way the fascia and instrument binnacle covering PVC material is crudely creased and stuck down at corners, the doors shut at a certain tinniness not found on cars that cost half as much… Without a partial respray the bodywork would now be very tatty. Rattling noises from the hatchback area indicate a degree of poor breeding in a car of such good looks and distinguished pedigree.’

Residual values take a hit

The abolition of Leyland Cars and the resurrection of Rover Triumph seems to have done little for the SD1’s reputation. The sheen of a successful launch was so tarnished by these problems – and, being a British Leyland product, these problems were highly newsworthy, so public perceptions of just how fine a car the 3500 was, were soon changed from admiration of an excellent car to disdain for an unreliable one.

Soon the dealers were marking down the trade-in values of the 3500 and the unreliable reputation that the car quickly gained had stuck. As Lancia’s experience in the UK will tell you, once you get a bad reputation in the UK, it stays with you for years.

Buyers remained faithful to the 3500 and the range of 2300/2600 started to sell reasonably well, with the 2600 especially doing well on the continent.

1979: Strife, strikes, stress and fuel issues

However, 1979 got off to a bad start when, on 13 February, Rover car production at Solihull was disrupted by a walk-out of 50 material handlers. A company spokesman said that the men refused to move from one section to another to cover for absentees. Assembly workers had been redeployed to avoid lay-offs.

The Second Energy Crisis of 1979 affected the Rover range along with all other large cars, but sales held up relatively well and the arrival of the smaller-engined cars meant that Rover could change the marketing emphasis of the SD1, pushing the 2300 and 2600 models, making sure that customers were well aware that there was a path for former 3500 buyers to downgrade to.

Running changes: V8-S adds premium pricing

Rover V8-S

The year of 1979 also brought the first changes to the SD1 range, with the addition of the 3500 V8-S model. This was the first attempt by Rover to move the model further upmarket in order to expand the range’s sales potential.

The V8-S basically included all options available to the 3500 model as standard, with the addition of such toys as air conditioning and an electric sunroof. In effect, this was a test-bed for the North American version of the 3500, which then undergoing preparation work in readiness of its launch the following year.

Despite this, sales continued to fall in line with all other large cars due to the global recession that was now biting very hard. In early August 1979, Jaguar Rover Triumph announced cutbacks to SD1 production and the Solihull workforce. JRT said that the SD1 plant was not operating at anything like the efficiency it should and that management was no longer prepared to turn a blind eye to unacceptable manning levels.

Solihull: One production line is mothballed

The factory had been producing 1150 cars a week on three assembly lines which had a theoretical capacity of about 1800. One track would now be mothballed and production concentrated on the remaining two with the company hoping to lift output to the new capacity level of 1250 cars a week.

The unions were told that 1445 hourly-paid jobs would go out of 4500 – if possible, by natural wastage. JRT said that the third assembly track was never intended for the Rover but for the Triumph Dolomite, which was to have been transferred from Coventry. This scheme was dropped and Rover production had ‘spilled over’ onto the third line because the required output was not forthcoming from the other two.

Ironically, very soon after the announcement of the cutbacks, Motor magazine in its 4 August 1979 issue published an interview with Rover Triumph’s then 37-year-old Managing Director, Jeff Herbert. Mr Herbert was asked if he found the production rate of the SD1 disappointing. ‘No, not at all.’ he said. ‘The plant was originally laid down for two models, and then there was a plan to build the Dolomite there as well as the SD1. Now, for various reasons, we have just the one model in there.’

A more pragmatic view of the future

Herbert continued: ‘We do not intend to expand too rapidly in the immediate future; instead we want to consolidate our present position for a while. We expect to sell about 35,000 SD1s in the UK this year. We are in the luxury sector of the market, and with our cars selling in the £6000-£9000 price band, we hold just under 40 per cent of that market. It’s a very important sector, including everything from Granadas to BMWs; to capture much more than our share, you’d have to work very hard indeed.’

Herbert firmly rejected the suggestion that their were major problems in design, production and quality control of the SD1: ‘For a start, I don’t like to label problems in that way. If you have a problem, it doesn’t make any difference what its origin is: it’s a management problem, and it’s down to management to put things right.

‘Our reliability record is very good. When you consider that we had a brand new car being built in a brand new factory by a largely new workforce (almost the only carry over from the previous models was the V8 engine), you’re bound to experience some difficulties. It’s only when you have hundreds of thousands of customer miles under your belt that you can find out what’s required and it’s the rate at which things are put right that distinguishes a good manufacturer from a bad one.’

‘Quality problems now solved’

‘We had no more problems than any other manufacturer introducing a totally new model. Perhaps at Leyland Cars we didn’t do things quickly enough in the past, but the great emphasis when the management changed was on the recognition that we had to react quickly. None of the problems we suffered were major reliability defects; they were just silly, niggling, customer irritating ones.

‘An example of that was the rear carpets. Not every manufacturer bothers to carpet the boot area, and in the SD1 it’s not just any old carpet, but high quality Axminster. The mistake that was made was that it was just glued in place, and after a few thousand miles it would pull free. So now we pin it down and the problem is solved.

‘There’s a sort of domino effect with reliability problems. Once one or two faults have appeared, the customer grows suspicious and looks for more. On virtually any car, if you look hard enough, you can find something wrong. We are producing better, more reliable Rovers than ever before. I know this from audit information which is measured on a weekly basis. We are auditing five times as many cars this year as we did last year. We are putting more time and energy into improving quality and reliability than ever before.

Rover needs to be better than the opposition

‘It’s an unforgiving, tremendously competitive industry. You cannot hope to succeed merely by being as good as everyone else. The auto industry is a complex business, and car purchase is a highly emotional event. When you have a large percentage of the market, other companies don’t just sit back and let you get on with it. So we have to be better than everyone else: that’s what the Rover and Triumph names have meant historically, and we intend to keep it that way.

‘The amount of time my senior executives and I spend following up reliability features to improve the vehicles would surprise a lot of people. My philosophy is to have a ‘better than’ organisation, and this must run right through the company from the management down to the shop floor.’

Herbert was also proud of the Solihull plant’s record of labour relations: ‘Maintaining good relations between the employer and the employee is a major role of the management. You must remember that our workforce was largely new to the company, and in many cases to the industry. We had about 1500-2000 working on the old Rover, and now we have over 4000. That’s quite a lot of recruitment in a short space of time.

Getting familiar with a new workforce

‘A year ago, more than half the workforce had less than 12 months’ experience. In the early years of building a new product in a new factory with a new workforce, there are bound to be difficulties. All your problems get picked up and publicised, and usually they are blown up out of all proportion.

‘In the course of the last year there have been major improvements in the way the plant makes cars, and manufacturing efficiency has seen phenomenal advances. At the same time, the work force has settled down and realised that the management is working hard and that it has a vital role to play in the prosperity of the company.’

Herbert went on to say: ‘The initial investment on the SD1 was about £95 million, which seemed a large amount of money at the time; already it looks like a bargain and don’t forget that that figure includes building an enormous new factory, possibly the last great car plant to be built in Britain. It would cost an awful lot more to do the same again. We don’t need to change the product every year – we’re not in the boutique sector of the market. We have a different marketing concept.’

Night shift dropped

When asked why there was no night shift at the SD1 plant, Mr Herbert stated: ‘At present, there is not the capacity for it. Everyone seems to ask that question, but the answer is simply that at present it wouldn’t be justified. It’s not true to say that the work force is opposed to it. A couple of years ago there was a sensationalised story about the sex problem; it was suggested that the workers were opposed to operating a night shift because it would interfere with their sex lives. However, I am sure that if and when we explain that a night shift is necessary, the workers will co-operate. Anyway, the Land Rover plant has a night shift and so does the V8 engine plant, and even certain parts of Solihull which have to be kept going round the clock.’

Commenting on the 1979 Energy Crisis, Rover Triumph’s Managing Director added: ‘The V8 is one of the most economical engines in the luxury market, and its combination of economy and performance has the beating of many two-litre rivals; it is one of the greatest assets of BL cars.’

Then, on 17 August, SD1 production was again brought to halt when 120 men went on strike because they were not being paid for putting on and taking off their overalls and 2400 men were laid-off. The dispute was resolved the next day.

1980: Vanden Plas breezes in

Rover Vanden Plas

The expansion of the range continued into 1980 with the release of the even more lavish Vanden Plas model, to replace the V8-S, offering even more interior opulence – having every possible optional extra included as standard.

Further running improvements were made across the range, and the array of models was expanded and build quality was considerably tightened-up. However, as the company’s car sales continued to their downturn (1979 marked the first time that the group’s share of the market dropped below 20 per cent), BL was in the midst of serious cash crises.

In December 1979, BL announced a cutback in SD1 production when 4000 men were laid-off for three weeks because of unsold stocks of cars. A BL spokesman said: ‘The cutback in production is being forced on us by the effects of rising fuel prices and uncertainty about future market requirements. Every other manufacturer of larger cars is affected in the same way. For instance, Ford Cologne stopped Granada production for six weeks out of the last 13.’

10,000 Rover SD1s stockpiled

Asked to comment on reports that BL had at least 10,000 Rovers stockpiled and more being added every day he said: ‘Ten thousand is not a panic figure. We sold over 3000 in October alone. There has not been a collapse in demand for Rovers. We are just being careful taking steps in time to reduce our inventory and protect our cash flow. You only have to look at the sky-high interest rates to see the logic in that. We are saving several million pounds.’

The stockpile of unsold cars caused another long-term problem for BL. Despite extensive anti-corrosion treatment, the condition of these cars inevitably deteriorated over time as they were exposed to the elements. When these vehicles eventually found owners, they only tarnished the Rover brand further.

Then, in February 1980, a strike by 70 gearbox assemblers at BL Cardiff stopped production of Rover saloons at Solihull and TR7 sports cars at Coventry, but by then the restriction on the company’s ability to supply the market had perhaps ceased to matter. Also in 1980 the newly-independent Jaguar took control of the Castle Bromwich body plant and Rover SD1 bodyshells now came from the former PSF plant at Cowley.

Triumph TR7 joins the SD1 at Solihull

As part of rationalisation plans, the SD1 was joined at its Solihull plant by the Triumph TR7 to use up some of its spare capacity. In the spring of 1980, BL’s cash flow problems resulted in heavy discounting of up to £2000 on SD1 models. A far cry from the time when there was a waiting list for the model. During March and April 1980, the entire SD1 workforce was laid off for four weeks in order to reduce stockpiles of the car.

In April 1980, BL successfully imposed new pay and working conditions on its workforce, despite vocal opposition from Shop Stewards. But the company’s victory only came after a struggle with the Transport and General Workers Union, and Solihull was one of the plants shut down by strike action for a week.

Solihull’s public image had been severely tarnished during this period by another story relating to the neighbouring Land Rover plant when employees had been caught sleeping, complete with bedding, on the nightshift. Some of the subsequent unfair dismissal cases were heard by Industrial Tribunals and exposed a culture of lax discipline where even security guards slept and production targets were met by cutting corners at the expense of both safety and quality, to which local managers turned a blind eye. This provided comedians and satirists with plenty of material and, to the public at large, the difference between the SD1 and Land Rover plants was minimal. And was this sort of thing going on in the Rover saloon plant?

Staff changes: Jeff Herbert leaves

In July 1980, it was revealed that Rover Triumph boss Jeff Herbert was leaving his post for pastures new. If his interview with Motor magazine was anything to go by, Mr Herbert was as detached from the reality at Solihull as his Leyland Cars predecessors.

The battle with the TGWU did nothing for sales and, in August 1980, the SD1 plant went over to a four-day week and then, in September, BL announced that it was shutting down one of the three car assembly lines with 450 redundancies.

On 14 January 1981, SD1 production was halted because of a dispute on the assembly line. About 1500 men stopped work because they claimed that not enough time was being allowed for them to complete certain tasks. Then in mid-April production was halted for another three days in protest at the disciplining of a colleague. The dispute began when one man refused a management order to switch to another job.

1981: Solihull gets its marching orders

With the company losing £1m a day, BL and its Chairman Sir Michael Edwardes finally lost patience with the Solihull Rover SD1 plant. In May 1981, it was announced that the five-year-old factory would be mothballed by June 1982, with the loss of 2000 jobs. Only recently the company had spent £1.5m on the paint shop and many thousands more on reorganization to prepare for a facelifted SD1 due for launch in January 1982. Production of the SD1 was to be transferred to the former Morris Motors factory at Cowley.

In July 1981, it was revealed that the forthcoming facelifted Rover SD1 would be produced simultaneously at Solihull and Cowley for at least five months to avoid a repetition of the costly interruption that followed the TR7’s move from Speke to Canley, Coventry. TR7 production was at a standstill for nine months when Speke employees fought the plant’s closure and refused to co-operate in moving machinery.

During the fortnight when Solihull was closed for its summer holiday, some machinery was dismantled and taken by lorry to Cowley.

Cowley gears up for SD1 production

A project team headed by a Manufacturing Director was set up at Cowley to oversee the move and to start training operatives. No new labour was recruited because the Rover was to be assembled alongside the Princess on the track that was used for the Maxi, which ceased production on 8 July 1981. Maxi workers, who had been retained on short time, were retrained to assemble the more complex Rover.

BL wanted to send groups of them to work alongside their opposite numbers at Solihull, but managers acknowledged that this could lead to friction. Doubts about Cowley’s ability to build a prestige car such as the Rover to acceptable standards were dismissed by executives. They pointed out that the Honda-designed Triumph Acclaim was produced on an adjoining line and was attaining, and in some respects exceeding, the highest Japanese quality standards.

A Cowley executive said: ‘The Japanese had the same initial worries about quality but they are now delighted with our product; in fact they agree we have shown them a thing or two. Rover traditionalists should have no fears. Quality throughout BL has improved enormously. Now with our new paint plant and the fact that Rover bodies will only have to move from one part of the factory to another instead of making the long road journey from here to Solihull with the possibility of damage, they will get a better Rover than ever before.’

The production line moves…

The strike riddled-Solihull factory was wound down during 1981 and, at great expense in late 1981, SD1 production was moved over to Cowley as the firm regrouped. The Solihull SD1 plant finally closed its doors in April 1982, when the final 800 workers joined the dole queue. Besides costs and industrial relations issues, a part of rationale for the move to Cowley was that it permitted body shell build and painting to be done on the same site as final assembly.

This was a much more efficient, lower cost and better-quality approach to final production. The shells for Solihull were produced in Castle Bromwich and then shipped by rail, because Rover had not been allowed by the local authority to add a body plant to the SD1 project.

The whole saga of the Rover SD1 at Solihull suggests that BL was fighting a losing battle to stay in existence. The car itself was brilliant, perhaps one of the greatest British cars ever but, as one wag remarked, if it had been built anywhere else in the world it would have been an outstanding success. The Solihull plant cost £30m when new with an estimated capacity to produce 140,000 cars per year; it never got anywhere that figure.

Why and how Solihull failed

The post-Ryder Report era introduced ‘industrial democracy’, which enabled the Solihull Shop Stewards who had no stake in British Leyland to veto changes to working practices, and the introduction of a night shift to satisfy demand for the big Rover at its zenith.

Among the SD1 workforce there seems to have been no sense of urgency or understanding of the commercial reality facing them. As a consequence, the SD1 failed to generate the profits it should have made. Perhaps because of this corners were cut in an effort to boost production and quality suffered. But management were also at fault for emphasising quantity over quality, which only served to tarnish the Rover brand. Many of the SD1’s reliability issues were blamed on Lucas, but it is claimed that BL management put pressure on Lucas to cut costs with a resultant effect on quality.

The effective removal of the old Rover management, courtesy of the Ryder Report, disposed of people who cared about the brand and had the experience to sort out problems. Had Solihull built the SD1 properly, it was indeed possible that the market could have taken 3000 cars a week, the basic car was that good, but as is recorded above, it was not to be.

Solihull: Down, but not out

This was not the end for the Solihull SD1 plant. BL announced in November 1983 that it was closing nine outlying Land Rover plants with the loss of 1560 jobs and transferring their production facilities to the former SD1 plant during 1985/86.

When production started at the new plant, it would appear as a facelifted model, although the first few revised models were, in fact, built in Solihull. In 1981, with Metro successfully launched and the LM10 (Maestro) nearing production, modified versions of existing cars across the BL range started to appear – first was the Ital, then the Acclaim (built under licence) then this revised version of the Rover SD1.

Changes range-wide included cosmetic improvements, the rear window was enlarged to improve visibility when reversing, a new instrument panel was incorporated and a slightly tidied-up front-end styling treatment. The facelift also marked the first appearance of wood veneer inside an SD1.

Rover 2000, Diesel – things looking up

Rover SD Turbo
Rover SD Turbo was powered by a VM Turbo diesel and aimed primarily at the European market…

Along with these further interior and exterior revisions, came the rebirth of an evocative name from the past: the Rover 2000.

What BL created with this clever piece of parts-bin engineering was a moderately successful attempt at an entry-level model. Under the bonnet, where previously large, multi-cylinder engines resided, a dainty twin-carburettor version of the 1994cc O-Series engine, which it has to be said, looked almost lost in the engine bay. The Rover 2000 was a better performer than its modest 104bhp and large body would have lead one to expect.

The new model topped 105mph and completed the 0-60 dash in about 13 seconds. However, if you had previously driven the effortless 3500 or 2600 models, it was a culture shock to drive one. To get the best out of one, being in the right gear ratio at the right time was an absolute must.

Rover SD1: Promised improvements finally appear

Importantly, the SD1’s build quality and rust resistance improved markedly at this point in time – no longer would you see new Rovers sitting on the hard shoulder of the motorway, bonnet up and the driver looking in, a mixture of rage and exasperation on their face. Trade-in values were low, and had remained so since 1977/78, as the trade viewed the SD1 as an unreliable long-shot.

Problems with the early ones were legion – paint, trim and electrical fragility were commonplace, but also the 2300 and 2600 suffered from camshaft failures, due to poor design. These new models came at a time when the SD1’s image was at a low ebb, and sales did pick up slightly as a result of the bargain priced (£5-7million) facelift, and the lift in quality. The group as a whole also posted increased sales in 1981 and 1982 as the new cars, which offered far more buyer appeal, started to appear

Further SD1 variations came thick and fast as British Leyland continued to develop the car. Late in 1982 came the SD Turbo model, a 2393cc Turbo Diesel engine as donated by VM of Italy slotted under the bonnet, which gave a handy 90bhp. Hardly a rocket ship, but as diesels circa. 1982 went, it was not a bad piece of kit. Top speed was over 100mph, which made it one of Europe’s fastest oil burners. Unfortunately, like the similarly powered turbo diesel Range Rovers, it did suffer from a distinct lack of bottom end torque and did not go on to sell in particularly large numbers in the UK, but it did do well, particularly in France and Italy – the markets that it was designed for.

Rover Vitesse: ‘Poor man’s Aston-Martin’

What Rover watchers had been waiting for though, appeared in October 1982: a higher-powered development of the V8 version: the Rover Vitesse.

Rover Vitesse

For a long time, Rover had watched the rise and rise of BMW in Europe with some envy. That company had built a solid reputation for building cars with sporting appeal – something that the 3500 also had, but as market researchers attested, customers were unaware of. Rover wanted a piece of this action, reasoning correctly that if they could create a high-image flagship, this halo effect would trickle its way down the range and give sales a useful fillip.

So, in the lead-up to the launch of the revised range, Rover started work on a higher-powered version of the SD1, which would be unashamedly marketed as a sports model. Development was centred on incorporating Lucas fuel injection, freer breathing and, most importantly, a handy hike in power (up to 190bhp from 155bhp). Of course this increase in power was easily achieved, due to the almost infinitely tuneable nature of the ex-Buick V8 engine.

At the 1982 British Motor Show in Birmingham the car was launched in a blaze of sporting fervour (along with the MG Metro Turbo) using the former Triumph go faster moniker, Vitesse, signifying BL’s renewed interest in fast cars.

Why it wasn’t ‘Rapide’

Originally, the name was going to be something different. John Batchelor recalls: ‘Back in 1981, I was working at Canley where the High Performance Derivative (HPD) of the SD1 was under development. In addition to deciding what induction system to use (the four twin-choke Webers sounded wonderful but were a mite awkward to keep in tune), they also had to choose a name.

Aston Martin was approached for the possible use of the ‘Rapide’ name, but declined to allow its use, and an alternative in-house name chosen instead. Rover had got as far as producing ‘Rapide’ strobe side decals for styling reviews.’

It was, indeed, pitched as an overtly sporting 3500, with body stripes, lowered suspension, bigger wheels and extra aerodynamic spoilers creating a very favourable impression. The advent of the Vitesse signalled a new confidence at Rover and, in a short period of time, it was developed to run in the British and European Touring Car Championships, with a great degree of success. As a road car, it also proved popular, being favourably compared with rivals such as the BMW 528i and Saab 900 Turbo, being described by Motor magazine in April 1983 as a ‘Poor man’s Aston Martin.’

Autocar magazine came way impressed by the Vitesse and gave the car an enthusiastic review, summing up the car thus, ‘Enthusiastic drivers are likely to relish the stiffly sprung Rover’s handling and acceleration response, if not some slightly agricultural aspects of its ride. It may lack the overall sophistication of some of its peers, yet we ended up liking the car almost for this very reason. It has a distinctly “animal” character all of its own.’

And towards the end…

The image of the SD1 took a mild recovery, but age slowly took its toll as new and sophisticated rivals such as the Audi 100, Mercedes-Benz W124 and Saab 9000 started to appear. Austin Rover continued to fight the SD1’s cause, by introducing new variants, which is unusual so late into a model’s cycle: the Vanden Plas trim level became a range of cars with the introduction of the 2600 Vanden Plas and Vitesse-tuned Vanden Plas EFi in 1984.

The introduction of further Vanden Plas versions opened up the pleasures of leather and wood to a far wider audience. The EFi model, particularly, was an excellent piece of parts-bin model creation, marrying up the 190bhp Vitesse engine with the automatic transmission and leather interior expected of the Vanden Plas model…

This would prove to be an effective (if pricey) luxo-cruiser aimed directly at the Audi/BMW/Jaguar market. Because of the attention paid to it by Austin Rover, SD1 sales did hold up well all the way through to the car’s demise and, in June 1986, the Rover 800 replaced it.

Rover SD1: Good despite itself

One interesting anecdote is that the Metropolitan Police force loved the SD1 so much (fast, simple and a boot roomy enough to hold lots of traffic cones) it actually stockpiled a number of them for patrol car use and continued to bringing them into commission up until 1989!

In retrospect, the SD1 showed that there was still real strength in depth in terms of design and engineering within BL, but unfortunately the car was dogged with poor build quality, which gave it a reputation that lived with it until the end.

Had BL built the car to a higher standard, not hamstrung it with self-destructing Sixes, launched it as a full range of cars and made enough of them at the start, it is not inconceivable to think that the Specialist Division of British Leyland could have been a success in its own right.

Simply not enough development

The one-time Chairman of BL Cars, Ray Horrocks, later observed: ‘When the SD1 was designed back in the early 1970s there were not enough Production Engineers alongside the Design Engineers. It was built by Engineers for Engineers, so the car was productionised as it went down the line.

‘There wasn’t enough development done of the car which reflected the lack of testing facilities then available to the company. When you launch a new model, there are a number of things you aim to avoid. They are putting it into production at a new plant, with a new paint shop and with a new engine and transmission. The SD1, particularly in its six-cylinder form, suffered from all these shortcomings.’

So, was the Rover SD1 a success? 303,345 were built in ten years, an average of 30,000 a year, while approximately 329,066 P6 models were built in 14 years, an average of 23,500 per year. At first glance the SD1 was a success. However, it must be remembered that the SD1 replaced not only the P6 but also the Triumph 2000/2500 range of which some 316,962 were manufactured.

The numbers tell their own story

The combined P6/Triumph executive saloon total is 646,028, an average of over 46,000 per year. When seen in this context, the SD1 quite clearly failed, with former Rover and Triumph customers defecting to the Ford Granada in Britain and, more ominously for BL’s future, BMW on the continent. Although SD1 production did recover from the low of 1980, with Cowley producing 33,455 in 1983, alarmingly it slumped to 20,379 in 1984 and 15,916 in 1985 at a time of rapid expansion in the UK car market.

Clearly, buyers were going elsewhere for their executive cars as the world emerged from a deep recession. Many of the big Rover’s reliability issues were never truly solved, consequently many fleet buyers must have been worried about re-sale values and it was public knowledge that the Anglo-Japanese Project XX was in the pipeline to replace the SD1.

At a time of a vicious price-cutting war in the UK car market, Ford was able to offer fleet buyers an appealing value for money package in their Escort, Sierra and Granada ranges. This was at a time when BL’s UK market share resolutely refused to budge above 20 per cent however the company reshuffled its range with new models and facelifts, suggesting that its customer base was now the diehard, buy British clientele who would not contemplate going elsewhere.

Snatched from the jaws of victory

The tragedy of the SD1 story is that the goodwill built up by the Rover P6 and Triumph 2000/2500 was squandered and eroded away and the pace in the executive car market would be set by BMW. Somehow BL had snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

The sad fact is that both Jaguar and Rover’s cars were built so poorly and that, in turn, only served to tarnish the image of these great marques, especially overseas. Fortunately, at Jaguar the Chairman from 1980-1989, John Egan, and then Ford saved that company during the 1980s and ’90s, but MG Rover went down the pan. Throughout the late-1970s and into the ’80s, the speculative media constantly made calls for BL to drop the Austin Morris part of the company and concentrate solely on Rover, Jaguar and the sports cars.

As unsavoury as this notion appeared at the time, it was probably the only option…

Rover SD1 gallery

Rover SD1 timeline

The Rover SD1 saw many detailed changes during its life – and here, we catalogue them for your enjoyment.

This timeline has put the car’s production history in the UK into factual order.

Rover SD1

Year Month Details
1976 June 3500 introduced with 3528cc V8 engine, electronic ignition, five-speed manual or three-speed automatic transmission, independent front and self-levelling rear suspension, power steering and servo-assisted front disc brakes and rear drum. The Rover SD1 3500 replaced the Rover P6 3500 saloon.
1977 October 2300 and 2600 introduced (replacing Rover P6 2200 and Triumph 2000/2500 saloons). 2300 has 2350cc six-cylinder engine and four-speed gearbox (or optional five-speed manual or three-speed automatic transmission). 2600 has 2597cc six-cylinder engine and five-speed gearbox (or optional three-speed automatic).
1978 October 2600 now has standard power steering. 3500 now has rear seat belts.
1979 July 3500 V8-S introduced, mechanically similar to 3500 but with sunroof, tinted band on windscreen, gold-finish alloy wheels, headlamp wash/wipe, air conditioning and headrests front and rear.
1980 September Revised range consisting of 2300, 2300 S, 2600 S, 3500 SE and 3500 Vanden Plas (V8-S discontinued). All models have improved trim. New door mirrors, revised heating/ventilation etc. 2300 S has power steering, central locking and velvet upholstery; 2600 S has sunroof, electric windows, central locking, self-levelling rear suspension and revised fifth gear ratio (also revised on manual V8 models); 3500 SE has alloy wheels, twin halogen foglamps and front and rear inertia reel seat belts; Vanden Plas has luxury specification including leather upholstery, cruise control, electric sunroof, electric door mirrors, headlamp washers and bronze tinted glass.
1982 January Restyled bodies have deeper rear screen (with wash/wipe), full width grille and flush-fitting headlamps. New instrument binnacle. 2000 model introduced with twin carburettor 1994cc four-cylinder O-Series engine and most features of the new 2300. Other models mechanically similar to previous range, but with revised carburation on V8 engine. All models except Vanden Plas have five-speed manual gearbox or optional three-speed automatic transmission. Vanden Plas has standard automatic transmission with manual option to order. 2000 and 2300 have black bumpers and velour trim. 2300 S, 2600 S and 3500 SE have steel sunroof, deeper front spoiler and central locking. 2600 S and 3500 SE have walnut veneer interior. 3500 SE now has electric door mirrors. Vanden Plas specification similar to that of previous model with detailed trim improvements; trip computer now standard.
June 2400 SD Diesel Turbo introduced with Italian 2393cc four-cylinder turbocharged diesel engine, five-speed gearbox and equipment similar to 2600 S.
September 2600 SE launched in UK, mechanically similar to 2600 S, but with equipment specification similar to revised 3500 SE including headlamp washers, trip computer, foglamps, alloy wheels and velour upholstery. All models now have tinted glass. 2000 and 2300 now have central locking. 2300 S now has electric windows, electric mirrors and radio/cassette unit. 2400 SD and 2600 S now have electric mirrors and twin-speaker radio/stereo cassette. 3500 SE and Vanden Plas available with manual or automatic transmission at same price.
October Vitesse introduced with 3528cc fuel-injection engine (190 bhp), five-speed manual gearbox, lower sports suspension, variable-rate power steering and ventilated front disc brakes. Based on 3500 SE, equipment includes tailgate spoiler, rear wheel arch fairings, tinted glass, electric windows, central locking, trip computer, sunroof, sports seats and stereo radio/cassette player.
1983 August Automatic transmission standard on 2300 S with five-speed gearbox optional.
October Automatic transmission now available on Vitesse.
1984 July Revised 2600 and 3500 Vanden Plas introduced to replace previous SE models. 3500 Vanden Plas EFi introduced with similar mechanical specification to Vitesse, but with automatic transmission only and normal ride height. Equipment includes electric sunroof, cruise control, leather upholstery and electronic stereo system. Revisions to other models include: electric windows, radio/stereo cassette player, new velvet seat trim, adjustable front seat lumbar support, walnut veneer door trim inserts, passenger grab handles and extra stainless steel exterior trim on 2000 and 2300; alloy wheels, twin coachlines, hairline velvet upholstery, burr walnut door trim inserts, two band radio/stereo cassette player and under bonnet lamps on 2300 S, 2400 SD and 2600 S; and trip computer, headlamp washers, improved stereo system, rear head restraints and extra walnut trim on revised 2600 and 3500 Vanden Plas. Vitesse continues unchanged except that polished burr walnut door/facia inserts replaces existing veneer.
October All models now have electronic fuel control system (automatic choke is replaced by micro-processor controlled carburettor for improved fuel economy). 2000 and 2300 have heated electric door mirrors, manual sliding sunroof, intermittent screen wipe and improved 4-speaker stereo system (2-band electronic radio/cassette including rear speakers). 2300 S, 2400 SD and 2600 S have electric sunroof, electronic stereo radio/cassette with rear speakers, shadowstripe and plain velvet trim set. Vanden Plas models have same improvements as S models plus 3-band electronic stereo radio/cassette and Box and plain velvet trim set. Vanden Plas EFi available with Box Velvet (plain) trim set at no extra cost. Vitesse has electric sunroof, new deep front spoiler, bodyside mouldings and revised lower body paint finish (side decals are deleted).
1986 February Continued unchanged except for new Philips in-car entertainment.
July Range reduced to 2300, 2600 Vanden Plas and Vitesse (introduction of new Rover 800 Series saloons).
1987 February All models discontinued.


Just a few models to begin with (2300, 2600 and 3500), but the range grew in the 1980s with the trim levels identified by the letters after the engine size. The absence of letters denoted the basic version, then there was S (for Special, I think) and SE (Special Equipment) and, at the top of the tree, stood Vanden Plas. (While many other British models went from Basic-L-GL-GLS/CD/Ghia, Rover preferred the sequence Basic-S-SE-VDP at the time. Even its closest relative Austin used Basic/City-L-HL-HLS/Mayfair/VDP, so Rover could have used L-HL-HLS-VDP for instance!)

Thus, while the 2300 stayed the 2300, the 2600 became the 2600 S, the 3500 became the 3500 SE and the 3500 V8-S became the 3500 VDP in order to provide some engine options within each trim level (or trim options for each engine option) – starting with the 2300 S (2300 engine with 2600 S interior). In 1982, the basic 2000, 2400 SD Diesel Turbo, 2600 SE and the high performance fuel-injected 3500 Vitesse were all launched.

The SE later got swallowed up by the VDP and an even more luxurious VDP EFi entered the fray (wonder why? – rather like Ford killing the GL or GLX and introducing the Ghia Si or Ghia X alongside the Ghia in the 1990s). I noticed that air con became an option on the top models again (after being standard on the V8-S in 1979)!

In 1986, Rover made the curious thing of rationalising the old SD1 when the replacement 800 Series was coming onstream, and not actually killing off the SD1 until some time afterwards (Rover did this with many of their other models, including the replacement of the P6 by the SD1).

As you can see, there was a steep gradient between engine size and trim level in the case of the Rover SD1 – the basic models made do with only the 2300cc engine (with a smaller 2000cc option later) while the most luxurious version was only available with the 3500 V8 engine (the fuel injected VDP EFi from 1984-86). This is rather like the Ford Capri (from basic 1300 to 3000E – later the 2.8i) or Vauxhall Victor/Ventora FD/FE Series (basic 1600 – later 1800 to 3.3-litre only Ventora). Very much the opposite of today’s Rover 75 when the same engines seem to be shared across all trim variants – a big difference in marketing strategy.

Perhaps one needs a maths degree to find the optimum range layout – in the days of the SD1, the men in charge confidently predicted that a basic 3500 or 2000 VDP would have sold pretty poorly in comparison with the ‘zig-zag’ range of 2000, 2300, 2300 S, 2400 SD Turbo, 2600 S, 2600 SE, 3500 SE and 3500 VDP (crowned by the Vitesse) which prevailed in 1982-84.

Sources used: Parkers Car Price Guide (July 1987), Motorists Guide (August 1987).

Keith Adams


  1. I drove a 1985 SD1 2.3s for a couple of years, I loved that cat to bits. The engine was smooth, quiet and VERY reliable. It was so comfortable to drive and as for that dashboard, need I say more.

  2. My Dad had a T reg 2300 in the mid ’80s. Agree with this website that was a big opportunity missed as was a nice looking car even if didn’t look so sporty as 3500 with bigger wheels. In short order a lot of the paint fell off leaving big rusty scabs and a year or two later failed MOT on rusted outriggers. Went for spares. Steering was also incredibly heavy at standstill. Ran an T reg Allegro in 1997 when they were nearly all gone and found this to be much better built and as bad to drive as was made out. So big contrast.

  3. My Dad had a T reg 2300 in the mid ’80s. Agree with this website that was a big opportunity missed as was a nice looking car even if didn’t look so sporty as 3500 with bigger wheels. In short order a lot of the paint fell off leaving big rusty scabs and a year or two later failed MOT on rusted outriggers. Went for spares. Steering was also incredibly heavy at standstill. Ran an T reg Allegro in 1997 when they were nearly all gone and found this to be much better built and not as bad to drive as was made out. So big contrast.

  4. I have a 1981 3500SE which is used as a weekend drive, I can remember as a kid my Dad running 3500s courtesy of British Leyland, I find the engine smooth and silky and is a pleasure to drive. I am amazed at how many teenage lads comment on how cool it is(One lad even made the comment that is totally Lock Stock mate) Is a different world to my BMW 118d.

  5. I remember as a 15 year old schoolboy in the summer of 76 seeing my first SD1 [ a white 3.5] in the local Rover/Triumph dealer.I was thrilled as the car salesman gave me a silver brochure on it which i still have!.
    Some four years later i was to have my first experience of this comfy and good looking car, a 2600 5 speed manual in Tumeric Yellow? with gold velour after that over the next ten years i had dozens, 2.3, 2.6 manual and autos 3,5 and VDPs,in all the colours, the worst model from memory was the underpowered 2000.
    Looking back after some 32 years of the motortrade retail side the problems i encountered were a auto loosing reverse, headgasket on a 2600 and an old 3.5 where the rear axle trailing arms pulled out of the body due to rot!.

  6. Twenty-six years after I first swooned over an SD1 Vitesse, as someone bearly into my teens, I have continued to have a real love affair with the Rover SD1. From every angle it oozes drama and cohesion. The subtle updates for the 1982 Series 2 were discrete yet effective in raising the luxury profile of the SD1 range.

    Sadly this would also signify the last input designer David Bache would have in a Rover model, whose skillful influence first started back in the mid 1950s with a subtle tweaking of the rear-end of the P4.

    For me, it has to be a 1987 E’ Registered 3500 Vitesse finished in black. One day I hope I will get to own one!

  7. It was a sad day indeed for me when ARG axed the SD1 – it has got to be the most dramatic and beautiful British car (apart from the ’68 XJ series). I was fortunate that my Dad, who had always resisted buying one (preferring the Ambassador) had one on loan for a while in the late ’80s – such a magnificent car – it was a 2600S, but felt like being in a sportscar after the Ambo….and I wish that I could have been old enough to drive it……the SD1 Vitesse is very firmly in my list of lottery cars, including a Jag XJ-C and a Paul Smith Mini…….

  8. I still think the original ’76 SD1 looks as dramatic now as it did when launched back in the long hot summer of 1976.Wow what a great looking car!

  9. I drove a Rover 3500i Vitesse in anger for the South Yorkshire Police and it was a truly wonderful car in its day. In a pursuit, we would pull 65 mph down a motorway slipway in FIRST gear it had that much go in it. I once did Sheffield from Leeds town centre in less than 12 minutes decelerating from 155 mph at the first marker, still in the outside lane, to hit the slipway off the motorway into Tinshill.

    The car provided us with supreme confidence and on the fuel injected Vitesse the handling was solid with little roll and bags of grip. The only scary moments were in the wet when it was fairly easy to get the tail swinging. No fancy computers or gadgets in those days to steady the car…. we just relied on driver skill and the knowledge that we had just about the best pacey saloon on the road.

    The Police were gutted when Rover canned the car and bought up all the remaining stock and parts so that they could maintain a motorway fleet for another 2 or 3 years. Golden days indeed.


  10. My second car was a Rover 2ooo P6 of 1968 vintage, I remember it clearly as being underpoweered and a pig to get around a corner unless you were a champion body builder. “Last of real Rover’s was a comment I frequently heard, and I believed it until I drove a SD1 with the V8 under the bonnet. I’ve got to get one of these I thought to myself, well that was a few years ago and things have changed, maily the cost of petrol being the deciding factor. Unless I’m the next lucky winner of the euro millions I think it will remain a pipedream. I worked for a publishing company, and the finance director had a beautiful 3500 VDP in metallic red with beige leather interior, I loved the look of that car, and loved when he started her up the sound of the engine has never been bettered on any car, by any manufacturer! He traded it in and got a Volvo 760, I was heart broken and couldn’t understand why he replaced an executive limousine with a hearse, but there you go. Lifes very strange!

  11. I have owned a 1985 vitesse for 6 years now but because of a back injury it has sat for 4 years! i’m noe pleased to say that as of tommorrow 13th april 2012 the restoration begins with me clearing out the garage where its going to be rebuilt! I will try to keep you updated (for those that want) as much as i can! with any luck pics too

  12. What a great read, very interesting. Although the whole period was extremley depresing. We just could not get things together in the 70’s & 80’s. We were served the car industry on a plate, we had great designers with vision and we chose to kick the whole thing into touch. I have spoken to many people over the years, that worked at Longbridge and Solihull and many say they wish problems between managment and the shop floor had been delt with differently, a case of six to one and half a dozen of the other. Modern British foreign make, car plants show, now we finally get it!
    I loved our British car industry, it’s potential for our country and the younger generations.

    It’s wrong to believe it was because of it’s state backing, that it was all screwed up!

  13. I had a 1984 2000 in the early 90s, and found it to be a competent car. Had some relabilty issues but it was nearly 10 years old being hammered on an 80 mile a day commute and more at weekends. I had v6 800 s after that which were much moret nothing was (or indeed is) more beautiful than the SD1

  14. State backing removed a management team that worked, that is why it was bad for Rover. The independent Rover had its own quality director.It was re-organisation for the sake of re-organisation.
    I have just looked back over the newspaper archives. Leyland Cars did want 2,000 SD1’s a week out of Solihull in June 1976.
    At launch Solihull was producing 800 cars a week, similar to P6 levels. The much vaunted new paint plant was dire, and Leyland Cars quality director, Brigadier Charles Maple, couldn’t be everywhere at the same time.

  15. As a car-mad 7-year-old, I still remember seeing my first SD1, a white one in an undergound carpark on a day-out to Hastings.
    To our shame, neither me nor my Victor FD-driving Dad present could remember what marque the plastic viking on it’s nose represented, (and we could’nt get around to it’s back to read the badges)
    But we were both in awe and considered it so cool it must be a fancy exotic import – I mean, how could something so different to the P5/P6 be a Rover?

  16. Owned a 1981 MK1.5 3500 Vanden Plas for many years, and absolutely loved it.
    Unfortunately, a young family and work issues meant it got part exchanged for a 1990 Ford Sierra Estate 🙁

  17. A real shame as the original far undercut its rivals on price and was both faster and more economical. Had the SD1 been better built, then I think its German rivals would have been in a lot more trouble by the end of the seventies. Mind you when I hear tales of people complaining about the poor quality of their BMWs these days, I always think of a case of deja vu and how if the SD1 had got it right from day one, then it would be BMW who would have gone under rather than Rover.
    Actually I can’t stand those rwd, overrated cars, which in basic form do nothing a Ford can’t do better.

  18. Just been looking at some figures and the thought struck me that if Jaguar had the Rover P8 canned because it was too close a competitor for the XJ6, then why didn’t it push for the SD1 to be put aside as well?

    The SD1 was only 4″ shorter than the SWB XJ6, the SD1’s front and rear tracks were 1″ wider that the XJ6’s, the SD1 was slightly taller, and the cars were spot-on in terms of width. The V8 hatchback was about 165kg lighter than the Coventry car, presumably because that lovely bent-eight was considerably lighter than the XK.

    So was the SD1 really necessary?

    I only ask the question because where BL really had a problem was in the middle-market. The company didn’t really replace the successful P6/Triumph 2000 junior executive cars. Instead, we got the front-drive Princess, the dopey knee-jerk response that was the Marina (spending the not inconsiderable sum of £40 million on a stop-gap was not a clever move), the too-big SD1, and they put the cart before the horse with the TR7/Lynx in developing a sportscar that used the running gear of a proposed RWD saloon that never saw the light of day.

    And why no independent rear suspension? There were good reasons for this, of course (you just need to read the interview with Spen King on this website) but in persisting with live rear axles – no matter how cleverly developed – the company lost kudos with chippy Car journalists, and pub bores everywhere. Given that the market would have – rightly or wrongly – demanded the greater sophistication of IRS in due course then surely the persistence with the live rear axle was a false economy – the more so given that Jaguar had already done IRS so elegantly?

    The point of all this garbage is that hindsight it could be argued that all BL needed was a compact, sophisticated RWD junior executive with the slant four in 8v and 16v flavours and the Rover V8 for North America. If it had been as stunning to look at as the SD1, so much the better. A rather nice sportscar could have employed the same running gear. Leave the bigger stuff to Browns Lane.

    Admittedly, the car would have had to have been more expensive than the Cortina and the like, but this would have been nothing more than the R8 strategy of building a more desirable car than the mainstream opposition and selling it for a higher price. And BL had brands in Rover and Triumph to make such a strategy work.

    So what if there’d been no O-series, LT77, Marina, or Princess, and what if instead there’d been a sophisticated junior executive car of about the size of the Triumph 2000, the LT66 transmission instead of the LT77, and a mid-range six-cylinder unit to broach the gap between the slant four and the V8?

  19. A very interesting read. I worked at Solihull from 76 until after the closure and remember all too well the quality problems and silly disputes that dogged the plant. The ‘ No Nights , No Way !’ campaign was quite simply a disgrace . Reading your extremely informed and detailed article brings it all back so vividly , yet makes what actually occured there seem surreal on reflection. The refusal of planning permission for a body shop facility ( by Solihull Council ) never quite rang true with me at the time , and I’ve often wondered about that particular ‘ final nail ‘ Seeing it in black and white all these years later might lay that ghost for me now !….

  20. What a superb site, so full of interesting information.

    My uncle owned a brown ‘T’ registered V8 in the late 80s. He talked of how he’d admired the SD1 from the day it was launched and was proud to finally own one. He still considers it to be one of the best-looking cars ever designed.

    For me, as well as liking the svelte styling, I loved that V8 rumble and the promise of all that power and torque. I also liked the clever symmetrical dash design, marvelling at how simple the concept was and why other manufacturers had never thought of/produced similar designs.

    Unfortunately, the SD1 eventually found her way to the great car-lot in the sky… Both my uncle and I immediately missed her and probably still do to this day, if I’m honest!

  21. Just as an aside, I’d like to relate a story which came to my attention several years ago.
    This may be just a local “urban myth”, but as it involves my local area; and two of my all time favourite vehicles – Rover SD1 V-8, and Opel Manta – I’ll relate it anyhow.
    There was a time when the local constabulary operated SD1 V8’s, and on this occasion, the boys in blue were on night patrol in the Weston super Mare, Burnham on Sea, and Highbridge area of Somerset. Now I don’t know if the Opel was misbehaving, or it had been half inched, but it was signalled to pull over, but it failed to do so. The inevitable happened and a pursuit ensued, and it appeared that both the combatants were well conversed with the narrow, twisty, country back roads of the area.
    Now this was at a time when calling up air support to keep an eye on the fleeing driver just wasn’t available, so our boys in blue had to keep the Mk 1 eyeball on the miscreant. As quick as it was, keeping up with the Opel wasn’t the big issue; but getting it to stop was. The sometimes bumpy, twisting, narrow roads, with their boarders of fields, and drainage ditches, meant that there was no room to get alongside, to force a vehicle to stop.
    So some other way had to be devised.
    It appears that the Rover driver was a man of experience, and his plan involved an element of trickery. He advised his observer “When I say NOW! Turn off all the lights; blues, everything. Sirens too”. So, as they came up to a particularly twisty section of road the order “NOW!” filled the car.
    To all intents and purposes the pursuing Rover disappeared. For the merest of moments the fleeing driver is confused; whilst thinking “Where the * did ‘e go?” and looking at his rear view, he failed to see the right angle bend, ahead. In the split second his attention was diverted, he’d covered the braking distance to the corner – and then some. Straight into a water filled rhyne.
    Once fished out of the agricultural water, the perpetrator didn’t go past go; didn’t collect £200; but did go straight to the nick.
    As a morality tale, the above just goes to say if you fight the law, eventually the law wins. In this case the errant driver was fished out by his pursuers, but sometimes people are their own worst enemy. Several years ago a local and one of his friends – strangely in a Rover SD1 – left the road, and landed inverted in one of the rhynes. They were desperately unlucky that the rhyne was only slightly wider than the car was. They couldn’t escape from the car, and subsequently drowned.
    So, if you ever come down to this part of the world, please enjoy the lovely countryside, but just remember – don’t drive faster than you can see.

  22. @ Glenn Aylett – comment #23:

    The car used in the Human League video was a Rover 2600 finished in Pharoah Gold. Its tax expired in 1995. I did a number plate check on it a number of years ago!

  23. 300,000+ sales of the SD1 was remarkably good really.
    I’ve considered the relative failure of the SD1 and I think that it is down to much more than shoddy workmanship.
    I think the issue lies with Rover attempting to fulfil too many, very conflicted criteria.
    Rover was a naturally conservative brand with a client base to match. Attempting to add a hatchback design with sporting overtones as well as a contemporary interior of a rather stark industrial nature was a mistake.
    When I imagine what the successor to the P6 might have looked like, the XJ6, BMW 5 series and Leyland P76 come to mind. All 3 box saloons. If Rover had remained independent a product rather like the Sterling might have been the result, around 1975, powered by the V8 and I6 engines. Naturally it would have been priced at a similar level to the Jaguar and then could have gone head to head with the W123 and 5 series. It would be fascinating to see what it might have looked like!

  24. 23 & 25:

    The video for Don’t You Want Me also features a Saab 99 Turbo, which I believe was Phil Oakey’s personal transport at the time.

  25. Richard @27, I lived in Totley in Sheffield in 1987 and I am sure I saw Suzanne Sulley( the blonde one) driving a Saab 900 and there were rumours she had a house there. Perhaps, if it was her, her liking for Saabs could have developed from that video.

  26. The second generation Rover SD1 was a good car. Having everything from a 2000 economy model to the 135 mph Vitesse meant Rover had every base covered. While the car still wasn’t perfect, what car was in the early 80s, quality and reliability seemed to be far better and I know the 2600 S was a popular car for senior management at a local chemical works. I knew two people whose parents had these Rovers and said, apart from some niggly faults, they were reliable.

  27. When I was 12 (that was 1969) I remember going home from school to my friends house for tea. We went in his dads white car. I’d never seen anything like it on the road before so I asked my friend what sort of car it was.

    He told me his dad worked as a car designer for BL and he’d been working on the new Rover and this car, the very one I was sitting in, was “the only road going prototype of the “new Rover” in the world”. The car was unique.

    When we arrived at his house I looked more carefully. Sure enough the car had a Rover badge on the bonnet and the word Rover was written on it.

    It was like an estate but not. It was like a hatchback only I didn’t know about these things then. The car was a precursor in every sense of the bodyshape of the production SDI except it had smooth panels on all the doors and wings without detailing. The roof was lower and overall it was more sleek and less bulky.

    A nice car with a typical smooth Rover ride with a black leather interior and there was even wood trim inside! The car appeared now and then at school over the following year. I then left that school and never saw the car again. Not even a photo. Ever. Truly one of a kind.

  28. My son read my comments and curious about the Rover car that never was looked (more carefully than I ever do) at the site and pointed out the photograph of the competition for the proposed SDI prototypes. He suggested if the proto car was ever built then it might have been one of these.

    Looking now and in closeup mode I now see the car I sat in all those years ago. It is the one ringed in red in this enhanced close up of the original photo –

    The accompanying text advises one or two of these prototypes were indeed built and released onto the open road. That is precisely how I came to have a ride in a Rover car that was never built. I can confirm this car was built as a prototype and driven on UK roads.

    This suggests there might have been 2 rounds to the SDI competition. Several cars were proposed (as in the photo) 2 were selected and built as prototypes and from these 2 the final selection was made.

    With many thanks to my son for a younger pair of eyes and to his tecchwizzo mates for all their help.

  29. I had 2 a Mark 1 3500 on a P plate 1976 and a Mark 2 2600SE on a Y plate 1982. Beautiful cars to drive and ride in but the real problem was the rampant rust. The Mark 2 I owned was to replace the Mark 1 and although a better car for equipment etc it rotted away quicker than the other one. Such a crying shame because they looked fantastic, drove brilliantly if only BL could have built them right in the first place.
    I have previously owned Minis, Metros and a Montego and they all rusted away before your eyes. The build quality was shocking.
    Such a shame…

  30. The Vitesse was the Rover we’d all been waiting for, a 135 mph hooligan that was also quite well behaved at 70 mph and more practical than a BMW 6 series, which had similar performance. Think about it, a car with an Aston Martin like driving experience( as CAR told you), massive performance for the time, a price tag that was below its rivals, a huge boot and space for five adults, looked like a real bruiser with its spoiler and aggressive front end styling, and this was definitely my car of the early eighties.
    The downsides, not many, build quality was still a bit patchy( though vastly better than seventies Rovers), the ride was a bit sporting for those expecting something like a Rolls Royce and the running costs naturally were high, but who cared, this was one hell of a car for the time. Also it proved Rover could now make a car where you didn’t have to wait months for delivery due to supply problems and strikes and your dealer didn’t have to rectify a heap of faults. However, more importantly, the Vitesse put a smile on your face as this was one seriously good British car that was the fastest in its class and could scare away most German cars as soon as it appeared in the rear view mirror.

  31. An interesting variant at least in the early P10 project was the fact it was originally intended to be powered by a new 2200cc (alloy?) DOHC 16v Rover Slant-4 unit putting out around 143-170 hp allegedly derived from the 4.4 Rover V8 and to be built on the existing P6 4-cylinder production tooling.

  32. Quick question..

    What would happen if you were driving one of these and the watts linkage snapped in the rear suspension?
    Would you get the equivalent of an uncontrollable motorcycle tank slapper?

  33. “Concorde test pilot, Brian Trubshawe, was one of the first SD1 customers in 1976”

    That’s Brian Trubshaw (no “e” on the end of his surname). You’re perhaps thinking of the actor Michael Trubshawe.

  34. I had the pleasure/misfortune of owning a 1978 2.6 SD1 in a light metallic blue. Bought at auction for £750 in 1984 it was a lot of car for the money but also quite a lot of trouble as well.
    The engine fan broke off and embedded itself in the radiator two days or so after buying it and the exhaust manifold came loose giving the car a throaty roar it did’nt need. A resourceful mechanic managed to sort this for me at reasonable cost and after a service and tune-up the car drove really well. Smooth and certainly fast enough it was a delight on a long run with good cruising ability.
    Impressed with the cars potential I decided to have a full re-spray done to make it look it’s best and it really did look the part. Reliability was always a consideration though and when I was offered £1000 for it I decided to sell it on.
    I only had this car for a couple of months but for all its faults I do have fond memory’s of it.

  35. Before the Triumph designed SD1-Six engines entered the picture, the car that would eventually become the Rover SD1 was to also feature a 2.8-litre version of the Rover V8 (known as the Redcap type) in between 2.2-litre DOHC Slant/Inline-4 and the 3.5-litre Rover V8 during the P10 project.

    While the 2.2 DOHC 4-cylinder was to put out 120+ hp (being capable of up to 170+ hp) and the 3.5-litre Rover V8 was putting out 155-190 hp, is it known what the 2.8-litre Rover V8 would have likely put out in terms of power?

    Am assuming the 2.8-litre Rover V8 was to put out similar figures to the 2.6-litre SD1-Six (in both restricted and de-restricted forms) so 136-150+ hp, yet apparently in the Land Rover Adventurer design study the same engine was expected to only put out around 92 hp unless the latter was significantly detuned.

    Another discrepancy was hoping would be clarified was regarding the figures of the turbodiesel Rover V8 engine for Project Iceberg, some say it is 125 hp while others say it was 150 hp unless that also refers to the state of tune depending on the models it was to power.

    Also would the Rover SD1 have enough room for the 150+ hp 3.6 VM Motori 6-cylinder Turbodiesel that was originally proposed for the Jaguar XJ and ended up powering of all things the AMC Eagle? Especially since it seems to essentially be a little more than a 6-cylinder version of the 2.4 VM Motori 4-cylinder already used in the Rover SD1.

    • I remember Jaguar had considered using the VM 3.6 in the XJ40, but didn’t know that AMC actually used it. Just read they sold 7 (seven!) of them, though…

      • To be fair it did not help that the 3.6 VM Motori 6-cylinder was a $9,000 factory-approved conversion on the AMC Eagle rather than an actual production variant.

        Given the possible relation with the 2.4 VM Motori 4-cylinder (capable of as much as 110 hp), it is likely an extra 15 hp was available for the 150 hp 3.6 VM Motori 6-cylinder had it properly entered full scale production.

  36. Also given that the 2.2 DOHC 4-cylinder used roughly similar tooling to the existing P6 OHC engine and certain elements from the 4.4-litre Rover V8, there was also the potential to create a 5-cylinder version of the DOHC engine displacing around 2500-2800cc (the lower-capacity version being derived from the 4-litre Rover V8), since unlike the previous Rover P7 2.5 5-cylinder prototype fuel injection was to be available on the 2.2 DOHC.

    So non-Triumph petrol versions of the Rover SD1 could have featured a 2.2 DOHC 4-cylinder (including 2-litre tax special version), 2.5 DOHC 5-cylinder (with scope for further enlargement to as much as 2800cc) and 2.8-3.5 Rover V8 engines.

  37. My dad had a later 80’s Rover SD1 Vanden Plas Diesel with much better build quality than the 70’s ones which was far better built and it didn’t rust when it rained or when you washed it.

    It also had the optional air conditioning fitted as standard which made for a much more pleasant cooler cabin in summer and used in conjunction with the heater / vetilation system in winter, demisted your windows much faster than the standard heat vent system did.

    It was bloody roomy and extremely comfortable for it’s time and could easily take 3 kids and two adults or even 5 large 6ft adults front and rear with ease because it was big and reasonably spacious along with that generous boot and folding rear seats which added practicality that made it an excellent car.

    Shame it bombed to disappear for Rover 800’s which didn’t quite have the flair and sophistication of the SD1.

      • What’s Europe gotta do with price of beef NOTHING and it don’t apply to this so don’t bring it up, that’s NOT relevant to this post you pro-Europhile

    • The 800 fastback had something of the SD1 about it, especially in pre-facelift grille-less form, and in later facelift form looked a bit malevolent in the rear view (though understated “don’t mess”, not like the current crop of “U WANT SOME!!?!?” cars with shouty grilles). Though obviously the proportions were constrained with working alongside Honda, losing some of the sleekness.

      The market for executive hatchbacks was difficult in the 80s – even Ford with their early 80s “everything a hatchback” threw the towel in and replaced the mk3 Granada with the saloon Scorpio.
      Only really now has it matured, with the likes of the 4 series, A5/7, and a rung down the Superb is probably the closest in spirit to a modern Saab.

  38. Late 1975 or early 1976 my father was invited to an unveiling of the Rover SD1 for dealers, he took me a 14 year old car nut with him.
    I was blown away, I had not seen such a beautiful and futuristic looking saloon car (the whole world had not).
    Two and a half years later, I am about to leave school and my dad is offered a transfer from London to work in Solihull (non car related work.
    I want to work with cars, I already have an apprenticeship lined up with Mulliner Park Ward in London, what do I do?
    I write a letter to The Rover Co explaining my love of cars but more importantly how I was blown away by the SD1 and how I had read in Motor magazine how David Bache and his team had designed such a fantastic looking car, I was in awe of their achievements, the fact that it had been shaped in clay was amazing! I wanted to be part of this fantastic car company!
    Within days we had a telegram delivered to the house addressed to me of all people requesting I travel up to Birmingham the next day for an interview, I was offered an apprenticeship in the Design Studio as a Clay modeller, a dream come true!
    I was lucky enough as I was young and enthusiastic to work on the Vitesse model, working with Motorsport and the wind tunnel to develop those spoilers.
    I worked on a lot of other projects too! But its the SD1 that got me!

    I just want to say what a great site this is, I wish I had found it years earlier!

  39. Was the Vitesse version ever made with LHD for sale in Europe or North America? I’m a collector of 1:18 model cars and Minichamps has just issued Rover Vitesse models but they are LHD! Thanks for any feedback.

  40. So, if the Triumph Puma had beaten the P10 at the board presentation in February 1971, might the course of history have been changed, and Triumph become the surviving brand through to the 2000s, rather than Rover? It seems plausible…

1 Trackback / Pingback

  1. The cars : Talbot Tagora | AROnline

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.