You are reading a single comment by @bq and its replies. Click here to read the full conversation.
  • You mean the competition to build a massive fat wallowy glacially accelerating slouch of a 2.6 petrol guzzling rust bucket with electrics that were put in as a result of a bet down the pub the Rover designers drank at?

    I'll accept criticism of the car, because it has some big faults, but make that criticism accurate. Spouting the above just makes you look ignorant.

    It's a large car, but compact compared to other large cars of the time. It's light and aerodynamic, and despite the live axle suspension layout the chassis was widely held to be exceptionally well located, with superlative roadholding and handling, as well as superb comfort. It merely needed relocation of the Watts linkage (and race springs and dampers) to turn it into a championship-winning touring car.
    The 2.6 was quick for the time, and thanks to the aerodynamics and gearing actually had class-leading fuel economy. It was actually detuned because it was more powerful than the V8 when developed, but on the road it was nearly as fast. If you wish to level a fault then pick the thing that really made the 6 cylinder models notorious: their habit of seizing through oil starvation.

    Electrics were the nadir of the car. Copper connectors, poor quality plastics and typical Lucas quality did for it. Having said that the only part of the electrical system on my car which didn't work when I parked it up was the German central locking. All the Lucas stuff was fine.

About

Avatar for bq @bq started