Concepts and Prototypes : Rover 700 Series (1986-1988)

Keith Adams tells the story of the AR18, R16, or Rover 700 series.

It was a short-lived proposal to replace the Rover 800 with an altogether more adventurously-styled saloon and two-door coupe.

AR18/R16: The missing Rover

Rover 700 Series
AR18/R16: the Rover 800 that wasn’t…

Back in 1988, when Rover was getting down to the business of devising a replacement for the XX-Series 800, there were still questions over financing the project. It was clear that, under British Aerospace’s (BAe) control, Rover wasn’t going to be getting the development resources that it had under Government ownership and the Design Department was now under strict financial control.

When Roy Axe’s team designed the original XX, it had been lifed for a production run of around five years, with the intention of it then being replaced by all-new model. Without a decent budget, an all-new model was going to be out of the question – so various facelift schemes were devised.

The cheapest facelift proposal of the lot – the R17 – used the existing car’s passenger doors (see the Rover 800 development story to see why that ended up being a false economy); but Axe put Richard Hamblin’s team in charge of producing an alternative project.

New car to be called Rover 700 Series

Initially known as AR18, the design brief was to produce a four-door saloon and two-door coupe. The cars would sit on the 800’s underpinnings, which were still competitive at the time – and the 700 Series tag was considered for the car, giving Rover the opportunity to produce a range-topper on the 800 LWB floorpan (which had yet to be cancelled at that point).

By 1988, the project had been renamed R16 and ran alongside the R17 programme but, as our exclusive images clearly show, R16 really did move Rover forward in terms of design – especially as this car was mooted for a late-1990 launch. However, as it transpired, BAe wouldn’t invest enough to allow Rover to move forward with this concept and stuck with the R17…

We’ll leave it to you to decide whether that was a good move or not.

Rover 700 Series
AR18/R16: the Rover 800 that wasn’t…
Keith Adams


  1. Looks like an elongated 600 at the front and a 75 at the rear.

    I think it would have given Ford and Vauxhall a real run for their money and one or two others, too.

    Yet another missed opportunity… I think it’s unforgivable that BAe, having got Austin Rover for a song, then underfunded the Rover Group.

  2. I agree – it does look a bit like the bastard offspring of a 600 and a 75!

    Personally, I love the R17 and think it is much nicer looking than this. However, I think my tastes are probably a little “individual” and, if I’m honest, I can’t help thinking this would have been rather more competitive.

    It is certainly well ahead of its time in style terms. I wonder, though, could it also have been designed with a nod to the American market?

  3. I’d agree it looks like this influenced the Rover 75 design team or, at least, the person who drew up the rear lights anyway.

    It’s hard to tell if this would have faired much better than the late 800 though, as it’s clear from the photos this was the barebones of a design and that the model was only one step from the paper sketches. The ‘model’ looks like masses of work would have been required before it became a serious proposition.

    Looking at how far back the rear doors go, there wouldn’t have been a lot of headroom in the back.

  4. Dennis :
    Looking at how far back the rear doors go, there wouldn’t have been a lot of headroom in the back.

    I agree. Looks like a very small cabin in quite a long body. If you extend the line of the rear window and the windscreen upwards, they’d meet at a point just above the roof. Almost a triangular cabin…

  5. I couldn’t put my finger on it at first but, ahaa, it’s like a Mazda Eunos 300 – short wheelbase, long overhangs and frameless windows. Makes me wonder what R17 could have been like with a new roof and doors… See the image at this link.

  6. I love this “peek” at another “what might have been” Rover car. Yes, the rear boot shape and lights resemble the R75 and still seem to have that “Rover family look.”

    I agree that the front lights may have been copied from the R600 (or XX R800). The grille could have done with a little more work perhaps but the side profile does lend itself to being worthy of the Rover identity.

  7. That’s not a good looking car by any means – it looks like something Korean crossed with an old Honda Leg-end – and it’s completely over-bodied – one bend in the road and it’ll fall over. For once, I’m glad that this one got away!

  8. I like the rear design and it’s a nice length. I think it would have been hit and miss though. It reminds me, or at least the front does, of the Alfa 166. It is quite nice though. I like that design – a production version might have faired quite well if it was reasonably priced.

  9. This is certainly not as elegant looking as the R18 models that came on stream from November 1991. The rear box area certainly shows that, even at this early stage, the Rover P5 was an influential force, and all the better for it.

    At the front, the sleak nose looks like it has taken inspiration from the 1986 Coupe Concept Vehicle (CCV), but lacks the same serious intent and authority of the R17.

    I think it ultimately reinforces how hard Rover Cars tried to facelift the first generation XX 800 Series when such little finance was forthcoming for the project. If more funding had been available then we might have seen new sleeker R8-style headlamps, a greater reworking of the interior – particularly for the door architecture and dashboard – followed by new outer door skins.

  10. In some ways I actually prefer this – the front end needs some work done on it but otherwise good.

    It is a good mixture between the 600 and 75 and, with the front end suitably modified, could have made for a much more attractive car than the 75 as built, while retaining the majority of its appeal and retrospective styling…

    Another could have been… *Sigh*

  11. CityRover grille meets Lancia Kappa – what’s not to like!

    I keep thinking big Australian Mitsubishis though.

  12. Rover would have been in a stronger position if they had replaced the 800 with a production version of this car. It would have fitted in well the rest of the Rover range at that time.

    Unfortunately, as with most projects, concepts and prototypes made by BMC>MGR, this was a real opportunity lost.

  13. The lack of money to even launch a reskin gives the lie to the idea that BMW took over a profitable company. They took over a company which had no money to develop new cars and was just maxing the profit out of rapidly ageing models.

  14. A clean looking concept, quite ‘British’ in its execution in my opinion. I disagree with the comments about it having a Japanese flavour to it. Very modern looking for the late 80s too – it would have looked a lot sharper then the contemporary Granada and Carlton. Hey, ho, what can we do about that now though?!

  15. There is a hint of Lancia Kappa about it. Amazing that the XX was only scheduled to last five years. I still think the Series 1 is sharper looking than the facelifted version which dated horribly as soon as it was launched.

  16. A much better looking car than the 800 or 75 in my eyes. It has the substance and weight that the 800 lacked without being bloated like the 75. This would have stacked up well against well Jaguar and Mercedes in terms of presence. The design also seems to have aged extremely well given the twenty years that have passed by.

  17. Not as elegant as the 800 facelift, 600 or 75 in my opinion.

    Looks very Japanese, from the rear it could be a Honda Integra four door.

  18. Frameless door glass – that would have been fun to get rigid. Surprised they apparently made a fullsize model when so much needed tweaking/reproportioning, eg rear side doors/wheelarches, tail slope, narrow rear cabin, high swageline producing oversize bumpers, inadequate front numberplate surround. There’s the basis of an attractive car in there though.

  19. As others have said, kind of odd proportions: long nose, short cabin, big overhangs. Got potential though.

  20. If they were really going to do this, Rover should have shared a platform with Lancia IMHO – the two are so similar.

    It does seem to look vaguely Korean minicab-ish. This is one that I’m not shedding any tears over.

  21. Looks very nice, 75ish. I reckon that this could have been a good seller. A nice smooth design and the lines seem to flow.

  22. Yup, a cancelled project Rover were right to drop.

    This looks less like a Rover than the car it was based on…

    Really, the only thing to note about this is that it may be very early on in its development. Look at the very first 800 mock ups – if this had been moved on and on it may have been great but what’s shown above was by no means fit for production.

  23. Ah, that’s where the Chinese found their rear lights for the Roewe 750 – not a nice looking car at all.

  24. Looks like nothing of this planet. May have gone down well on Mars though. We’ll never know now though.

    Saying it looks like a Camry, Alex Scott, is a slight against Toyoda who would be turning in his grave!

  25. The back does resemble the 75 but it looks a lot cleaner and the grille could have definitely used some work. It would have looked good on the road in the early 90s against the likes of the Alfa 164, Peugeot 605 and more modern than the then BMW 5 Series and Mercedes E-Class. Would reliability have held up, though?

  26. Was this design sold to Mazda for their Xedos? I’ve had a Xedos 6 – the small grille looks quite similar and so is the centre of the car. Never mind, I have a 75 now…

  27. There was a Giugiaro prototype doing the rounds at the time called the Jaguar Kensington – that looked a bit like this and eventually surfaced as the Daewoo Leganza. I do prefer the R17.

  28. Wow – deja vu much? Nice juxtaposition of the new Rover 55 and this R16 – 20 years of development and the new Rover is a twin of the junked model from the 1980s. Hehe!

    I agree with Lord Sward – the R17 was a better fit for the 1990s fashion, but this R16 had some good styling. However, it is clearly based on the joint Honda work of the 800 – massive overhangs and a small cabin (which Honda still produce today!) – the exact opposite of Austin legacy.

    I also agree with Luke Scott – the K-Series is a nice engine, but its unreliability hurt AR and its development budget swallowed what should have gone on getting the bodies right – they were the consistent problem for AR (poor styling, lack of body variants to cover market segment).

    Reskins like the R16 should have been affordable ways to keep public interest – and sales – for cars that always had the performance and handling to beat their rivals. Think of XX, then R17, then R16 reskins at 3 year intervals, with refinements to engines and handling and interiors. Had to make profits…

  29. I think that there’s something of the rear end of this in the Focus convertible – the forward sloping back which doesn’t really go with the rest of the Focus.

  30. The front bumper / bonnet / windscreen lines and profile suggest to me:

    1)pedestrian-friendly collision engineering
    2)small frontal area and drag factor considerations, including the small area of the radiator grill

  31. Dreadful looking car. Out of proportion and makes a Ford Sierra look sexy. What happened to the Designer. Did his Labrador savage him to death by chance………..

  32. Concepts rarely make it into production ‘as-is’.

    I think that this is an elegant design, hints of Jaguar Kensington about it. Though translated into production, it may have had last-gen-3series syndrome and looked underwheeled.

  33. Certainly of its time, featuring a number of styling trends that popped up on a lot of cars in the early 90s, including the original Mondeo. Personally I reckon the 800 looked far better and the R17 was probably the right way to go. Pity they didnt realise the bodyside tooling was shot beforehand though. They could have used it as an opportunity to got rid of the rather fussy ridges long the 800s side.

  34. Yes – just read the R17 story again. Yet again a BL/Rover product was compromised on the whim of a bombastic, shoot-from-the-hip, idiot, bully. In this case Andy Barr who insisted on keeping the 800 doors for the R17, even though the tooling was life expired. Thank god that corporate culture and the characters that went with it have gone.

  35. Lots of little designs that no doubt influenced the 75, those rear lights and bumper, the line of the rear pillars etc.

  36. For me, the car it most closely resembles is the Bentley Continental R, and since it came before that by about 4 years ……..

  37. @40

    I take back my earlier comments and seek forgiveness.

    The rear styling is pretty good and reminds me of a Rover 75 or Bentley. Funny how things start to grow on you.

    Wonder if the same principle works with an Allegro……….. Might be pushing it there!!!

  38. Why was the original Rover 800 planned to have only a 5 year life anyway? It’s not as if rival exec cars had a short life, the likes of the 9000, Thema and W124 easily lasted a decade without major changes.

    • Yes, the SD1 lasted ten years and still looked good when it was phased out, and that darling of middle class drivers, the Volvo 240, lasted 16 years with an early refresh to make the front end look less severe that helped sales. The 800 lasted 12 years and with the 1991 refresh and improvements to the engines an styling continued to sell well until it was axed.

  39. Looking at this design in fresh light, it still doesn’t sit right, with the fkznks looking odd compared to the front. Since seeing this originally, I have seen design ideas for Mitsubushi for the Galant in the same time period which had the same weird proportions, which thankfully they didn’t release either!

  40. Mitsubishi did release it. The Rover looks like a 1980s Galant and Sapporo. There are also shades of Alfa 164. When I looked at this article, Galant was the first car that sprang to mind.

  41. Curious this proposal together with an unrealised (900?) range-topper was considered around the same time as the 2.7-litre (2696cc) Rover V6 concept engine (190 hp / 249 ft lb – 80mm bore x 89.4mm stroke) shown at the British Motor Museum.

    Rover contacted Porsche prior to design a demonstration engine, however it was cancelled due to a few problems that made Rover stick with the Honda C V6 until the KV6 appeared.

    Could not help notice the similarity in bore x stroke of the V6 concept engine with the 1.8 Rover K-Series, while the Porsche connection and time period makes one think if a link exists with the Porsche 989’s projected in-house 3.6-4.2-litre (80-degree?) V8 engine and early ideas for what became the Duratec V6 whose primary engineering input came from Porsche before it was sold to Ford (and developed with help from Cosworth).

  42. The back end reminds me of the Honda Accord Coupe [the one the US got, usually with a V6, but we didn’t].

    The front is a 90s Mazda Xedos..

    Who would have bought this thing, when they could have had something like a Mondeo ST200 and kept some spare cash in the bank?

  43. To buy a Mondeo ST200, they would have needed a DeLorean and a Back to the Future moment first! This Rover was planned for launch in 1990. The ST200 was launched in the UK in 2000, so 10 years later!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


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