In the dying days of Rover-Triumph as a separate entity within the company, in the lead-up to the association with Honda, BL’s prestige car division looked like it was fighting for its very existence. In 1979, in the months following Sir Michael Edwardes’ appointment as Chairman and Chief Executive of BL and prior to his policy of separation of the carmaking divisions, product planners within each area of the company came up with revised versions of their upcoming model plans.
Unlike Austin-Morris, which looked settled in its Metro-Maestro-Montego plan, Rover-Triumph’s future was laid-out before it like an unpainted canvas – and it was in this era that they came up with what actually looked like a very viable plan of platform and component sharing, which could have left us with a much different outcome to the one that we ended up with. Thanks to David Knowles’ excellent book about the Triumph TR7, much has already been written about the sports car side of the business.
In pre-Honda thinking, we’d have ended up with an O-Series and V8-powered TR7 and, later on, this would have spun the MG Boxer and Triumph Broadside models. The range would have included roadsters – possibly a targa and definitely coupes – on two different wheelbases and would have seen the TR7 bloodline last right through to the late-1980s. In our own story about Rover-Triumph’s secret model plans, these cars were planned to run through until an electronic facelift in 1986 and could have lived on well into the MX-5 era.
The basis of Rover-Triumph’s saloon plans are currently somewhat cloudier, though. The ‘SD1 Series 2’ facelift had been set in stone in 1979 and was planned for Autumn 1981. As we know, that was delayed somewhat by the move in production from Solihull to Cowley (not anticipated in 1979), finally being launched in January 1982. However, its replacement, the Bravo, looked like it had also progressed a little further than the sterile pages of the product plans, too, given that the document below discusses both its facelift and subsequent development.
So that begs the question – where are the images of Rover Bravo? We’ve seen all manner of sports car renderings and models but, so far, nothing of the Rover has turned up at all. That’s a shame, as seeing some tangible proof of the SD1’s development beyond its light 1982 facelift would be nice. What the TR7-Rover SD1 platform does prove is that Spen King’s designs were simple and adaptable, and lent themselves easily to spinning out a potentially wider model range. Although I’ve yet to properly analyse a Triumph SD2, it’s abundently clear that it uses the TR7’s front struts, its rear axle, (probably) a shortened version of the SD1’s platform (maybe the Lynx’s underpinnings) and the LT77 gearbox.
Bravo still intrigues me, though. Just how extensive would this SD1 reskin actually be? Slated for launch in late 1984, it was initially to be launched as a four-door saloon and was to be based on a modified SD1 centre section. Early thoughts were that the V8 engine would not be used in the saloon, the TR7’s front suspension set-up and SD1 rear axle. Power would be by the O-Series engine in 2.0-litre form (as the SD1 would end up being from June 1982) as well as the 2.6-litre six-cylinder and four-cylinder VM turbodiesel.
A year later, the hatchback Rover Bravo would be added to the range and, beyond that, possibly an estate version. It was conceived as a differently-styled model and penned to slot in above the saloon. The V8 would find its way into this model, presumably as the performance halo flagship. In many ways, the Rover Bravo product plan was a nascent version of the 800’s – launch in saloon form first, then hatchback – and offered with a range of engines, which one assumes would have ended up having the O-Series based M16 as the main power unit, with the six- and V8-powered Bravos reserved for the luxury and high performance models.
The SD1’s platform wouldn’t have been carried over unmodified, as product planners suggested that the Bravo’s wheelbase would be 105in, some 5.8in less than the SD1 – and 4in less than the Ford Granada Mk2. The logic behind this change in dimension remains unclear, especially as the SD1 was hardly noted for its generously-sized interior. It’s probably fair to say that it wouldn’t have looked a million miles away from this early Rover 800 mock-up, which was completed in July 1982 (above), even if it had been less overtly aerodynamic than this.
However, until we see some drawings or photos of models, this is really all supposition beyond what we know from the product plans. What we can ascertain is that an intriguing and perhaps fruitful 1980s was denied us when Rover-Triumph’s plans were cut short in 1981. A potentially convincing range of sports and executive cars was to be spun from what was essentially the same platform and small range of engines and that sounds like modern, joined-up thinking today, which serves the industry so well…
And to think that Roy Haynes had been trying to achieve the same thing at BL more than a decade before. But that’s another story…
No matter how appealing it looked, though, the question that also really needs asking is whether the Bravo would have been more suited to the late-1980s executive car market than the Rover 800? We might now look back on the car’s potential and see it as a potential rear-wheel drive BMW basher, but would its (by then) elderly underpinnings have held it back? After all, this was a product plan that was to have been done on a budget. No matter how appealing it might seem now, it’s debatable whether it would have lasted as long as the 800 (a car that should have been euthenised by 1996 at the latest). Questions, questions, questions…
Anyway, if you are a designer, or know one, who was there at the company at the time, and know of images, renderings or models of the Rover Bravo, I would dearly love to hear from you in order to fill in another important piece of this huge and complex jigsaw so please get in touch.
|PRODUCT PLAN: Model line Rover Bravo|
|1984||Autumn||Project RT 020 – four-door saloon
Introduction of the first, in a new model range to replace SD1 in established markets, with the exception of North America.
o Front end and suspension as TR7/8
o New mid-section similar to SD1
o Rear end and axle – combination of SD1 and LynxEngines:
o 2.0-litre O-Series
o 2.6-litre six-cylinder OHC
o 4-cylinder turbocharged diesel – bought outTransmission:
o 77mm gearbox
o Mid-range axle
|1985||Autumn||Project RT 023 – Five-door saloon
introduction of five-door hatchback based on four-door underbody with extended front and rear ends to provide styling differential. Additional to model range in established Bravo markets and replaces SD1 in North America.Engines:
o 2.0-litre O-Series
o 2.6-litre 6-cylinder OHC
o V8 petrol engine
o 4-cylinder turbodieselDimensions and other mechanicals as 4-door.
|1986||Model year change
Changes to meet mandatory legal requirements.
|1987||Autumn||Project RT 025 – Bravo facelift
A proposed facelift intended to maintain sales of the Bravo model range.
Possible opportunities on base plan
Autumn 1984: Dependent on AM engine strategy, oppportunity exists to increase the 4-door model range with a 2.0-litre O-Series turbocharged engine in Autumn 1984 and 5-door derivative in Autumn 1985.Autumn 1985: Opportunity exists to further increase the 5-door model range by the addition of a diesel engine based on the V8 petrol unit.
Is the Editor of the Parkers website and price guide, formerly editor of Classic Car Weekly, and launch editor/creator of Modern Classics magazine. Has contributed to various motoring titles including Octane, Practical Classics, Evo, Honest John, CAR magazine, Autocar, Pistonheads, Diesel Car, Practical Performance Car, Performance French Car, Car Mechanics, Jaguar World Monthly, MG Enthusiast, Modern MINI, Practical Classics, Fifth Gear Website, Radio 4, and the the Motoring Independent...
Likes 'conditionally challenged' motors and taking them on unfeasible adventures all across Europe.