(first posted 8/25/2016) Orphan cars hold a special allure for enthusiasts who appreciate the unusual. And there is perhaps no more fascinating orphan than Rover’s US-market 3500. A groundbreaking car when introduced in Europe in 1976, this premium British sedan took nearly 4 years to make it to North America… and then nearly everything went wrong. Far from being the car that would resuscitate the British auto industry in the New World, the Rover was hardly noticed – only 1,200 were sold in the US. This rare surviving example demonstrates the Rover’s many attributes, but it was the unseen aspects that sank the car’s chances for success.
Several other Rovers preceded the 3500 over here in the American marketplace, with Rover’s most serious effort undertaken with the P6, sold stateside from 1967 to 1971. A competent, well-engineered and comfortable upmarket sedan, the P6 was plagued by reliability problems, which was too bad because it was otherwise a great car. Rover cited difficulty in meeting US safety and emissions regulations as a reason for leaving the American marketplace in 1971, but surely poor sales played a part in that decision as well.
The P6 (in red above) featured a somewhat stodgy design wrapped around very advanced underpinnings. Its successor, our featured car, was the complete opposite. Code-named SD1 (for Specialist Division 1), the new Rover featured a unique, modern design, underneath which was technology that was a decade or more old.
SD1’s most striking feature was its appearance, which borrowed major elements from two Pininfarina designs by Leonardo Fioravanti, his Ferrari Daytona (1968, upper left) and his BMC 1800 concept car (1967, upper right), a seminal design that influenced many others for decades. Designed by Rover’s Head of Styling David Bache, the SD1 eschewed the conservative approach of its predecessors in favor of an instantly recognizable modern design that looked more continental than British. Not only was the shape distinctive, but the format was as well, since the SD1 featured a hatchback – quite a novelty for an upmarket sedan in the 1970s.
Upon its July 1976 introduction, the SD1 was extremely popular with European buyers, and awards rolled in. On the day the car was introduced, Rover’s parent company British Leyland estimated that it received $31 million worth of orders. On that same day, however, some production workers walked out on strike; this presaged a problem that would plague the SD1 throughout its lifespan. During the late 1970s, strikes were almost routine in BL factories, and labor unrest, coupled with the company’s own financial crises, led to significant quality-control problems. The car eventually developed a reputation for poor quality, and sales trailed off.
Rover always saw the car as being suitable for the American market, and initially targeted 1978 for its US introduction. But for multiple reasons, the US launch was delayed until mid-1980. Although European SD1s were offered in 5 trim levels, only one package made it to the US market.
Simply called the 3500, the US version included a full complement of upmarket features, as well as Rover’s V-8 standard.
The 3.5-liter V-8 used in this car was no stranger to the American market. British Leyland acquired the engine’s production rights from GM in 1965, after it had been deemed too small for domestic cars. The tried-and-tested V-8 had seen numerous applications in British Leyland vehicles over the years, and its light weight (only 12 lbs. heavier than Rover’s 2-liter 4-cyl. engine) made it an ideal choice for Rovers and Land Rovers.
Like the engine, the SD1’s suspension was highly traditional. In fact, the live rear axle seems antiquated when compared to the car’s futuristic appearance. However, the car provided stable control and quick steering (2.7 turns lock-to-lock), and handling was one of the car’s strengths. Braking was provided via disc/drum brakes – again, this was old technology, but it got the job done. All contemporary reviews praised the Rover’s roadworthiness.
For the American market, the V-8 received fuel injection, but the engine still saw a loss of power compared to the European version. US model 3500s developed 133 hp (down 22 from Euro trim) and 165 lb/ft of torque. Fortunately, a wide torque band provided usable and flexible performance, competitive with other premium cars of its day.
American Rovers came with a long list of standard equipment, including air conditioning, power windows/locks, cruise control, and a 4-speaker stereo. A sunroof and a 3-speed automatic transmission were the only options.
This particular car lacks the most easily identifiable US-market feature because the current owner replaced the quad round headlights with the better-looking European versions (not an easy job since the headlight assembly is welded in place). He did, however, leave the US-market 5-mph bumpers intact.
Ungainly as the bumpers may be, they are at least functional.
While the streamlined design may have been less novel in 1980 then when the car was first designed, it still cut a unique figure on American roads. It looks significantly larger than a typical mid-sized domestic sedan of the period, such as this Malibu. It’s not. In a testament to Bache’s design, the Rover suggests a size advantage, but in reality, it’s smaller than a Malibu in all exterior dimensions.
Considerable thought was put into space engineering, as the Rover’s front and rear passenger accommodations were generous, and the car revealed a 34 cu. ft. cargo capacity with the rear seats folded down (though a high rear liftover could be cumbersome).
The Rover’s interior looks like it was designed with a sci-fi space pod theme. This was certainly an unusual design for the mid-1970s, but the overall effect was well done, with an abundance of horizontal planes adding a feeling of spaciousness to an already generously-sized cabin. Passenger room was ample, and materials were of high quality for the times. American Rovers came with a 3-spoke Y-pattern steering wheel, which this car’s owner replaced with the chunkier European wheel.
The dashboard is completely symmetrical. The place where the steering column would enter on a LHD car is used by an air vent on a RHD car. The instrument cluster sits in a pod that could be placed on either side of the dash, and there are even matching glove boxes – one each on the driver’s and passenger’s sides. Overall, the SD1’s interior looked at least 10 years ahead of its time.
Rear seat room was generous like the front. Although leather upholstery was available on the European Vanden Plas model, only a velour-type cloth was available in North America.
The Rover had plenty of attributes, and was a pleasure to drive. But only about 1,200 cars found homes in the US. Numerous reasons combined to account for this poor showing, but four in particular warrant special mention.
Late Introduction: While the SD1 was splashy and novel when it was introduced, four years had lapsed before it came to North America. Though still unique, it was nowhere near as futuristic as it appeared in 1976, depriving the 3500 of its most significant selling point. Americans may have noticed a design similarity to Chevy’s Citation – that was not a coincidence, as GM is said to have studied the SD1’s hatchback concept when developing its X-cars. The long gestation period turned the 3500 from a trendsetter to a somewhat of a follower.
Price: Rover suffered from an unfavorable exchange rate – the pound peaked against the dollar in 1980, and hasn’t been as high since. With a base price of $15,900 ($17,000+ w/ automatic & sunroof), the Rover occupied a range above its most direct competitors (Audi, Volvo and Saab) and was closing in on Mercedes-Benz and BMW models. A lower price would have helped persuade wary buyers to give the new nameplate a try. Ironically, Rover’s 1981 UK sales brochure boasted that the 3500 had “found favor in an increasingly cost-conscious USA.” That was hardly the case.
Dealers: Rovers were sold by Jaguar/Triumph dealers, which had a reputation for being indifferent to customers. They simply didn’t know how to sell a car like the Rover. Between 1968 and 1980, 95% of vehicles sold by Jaguar dealers were MGs and Triumphs, so catering to a higher-end clientele wasn’t the highest priority. It was difficult to attract new upscale customers in such an environment, and cancellation of the MG and Triumph lines threw the dealers into complete disarray. Eventually, Jaguar dealers improved, but far too late to save the 3500.
Durability: Finally, there’s durability, that long-time bane of British cars. Rover was justifiably proud of its recently-built Solihull plant, but SD1s were often haunted by reliability problems. Labor unrest plagued Rover’s production facilities (at any given time in the late 1970s, some of Leyland’s workers would be on strike) and these troubles translated into significant quality control woes. Overall fit and finish was sub-par for the Rover’s price range, and combined with the public’s generally poor perception of British car durability, these problems doubtless scared off many customers.
American auto journalists generously praised the Rover’s strengths in 1980. Car and Driver admired its “warm, endearing, just slightly eccentric personality.” Road & Track was equally smitten, but added that:
“…the car will stand or fall entirely on the standard of quality control at the factory and the standard of service… at the dealerships.”
That was a prescient comment. Within a year, imports of Rovers would halt, and it would take another year to clear out the accumulated inventory (European production continued through 1987).
Rover’s most creative venture into the US market was a failure so complete that it’s barely remembered today. Which is quite a shame, because the car itself was a fascinating study in ingenuity.
As one few SD1s sold in the US, our featured car is an extremely rare example, and even seeing one at a car show was an unexpected surprise. This Barley Yellow survivor is owned by somewhat of a serial Rover owner, this being his fourth since 1990.
When he bought this car several years ago, he rescued it from almost certain demise, with it having sat neglected in a field for some time. The Rover was sunken several inches into the ground, and looked unredeemable. However, with skill and determination, the new owner got it running on site, and drove it 60 miles to his home.
Once home, the work continued, and the lucky Rover’s new owner repaired body damage, replaced the V-8’s camshaft and completed scores of other projects.
It is much easier, he said, to own unusual or orphaned cars like the Rover now that web searches have made scarce parts more readily available. In the early 1990s, just a handful of suppliers controlled all Rover parts in North America, asking exorbitant prices because there was no alternative. But still, modern-day Rover ownership is not for the faint-hearted.
It’s hard to look back on the SD1’s brief US history without frustration. This was arguably one of the best sports sedans available in 1980, with an advanced design, comfortable interior and stout powertrain. Yet it was one of the most dramatic sales failures of its era. If only the car had been more reliable… and had a better distribution network… and been priced better… and hadn’t taken so long to get here… then the history of Rover over here might have been very different.
Photographed at the Sully Antique Car Show in Chantilly, Virginia in June 2016.
Related Reading:
Car Show Classic: 1985 Rover 3500 (SD1) – The Best of British; The Worst of British Roger Carr
Storage Yard Classic: Rover 3500 SE (SD1) – A Brilliant Exit Strategy David Saunders
Another fascinating example of these “What if…” cars (as in “What if a zillion things hadn’t gone wrong and led to the demise of an otherwise fantastic car”). Kind of like the Citroen SM.
RJR in Warkworth New Zealand have literally tons of new parts for these cars and any other Rover, they were quite popular here, and there are plenty of survivors, I drove past a kerb kept 2600 SD1 a couple of days ago it runs as its not always there when I go past and there are more even just in this area. Nice cars and not as unreliable as percieved, my BIL spent time as parts manager at a Rover franchise and reports these cars werent anywhere near as bad as the Honda models for gobbling parts.
Very enjoyable article. Such promise but yet such a sad, and expected, end. I can remember when these were introduced in the US and being fascinated with the styling but at the same time thinking “what’s the first thing to fall off…”
Kudos to the owner for giving this one the attention it deserved.
All I have to say 🙂
In all seriousness though, great find and a very enjoyable read Eric.
Wow — good memory! (and a Saab Turbo w/ Aztec wheels, too)
Incidentally, at 0:49 in the video, there’s a good shot of the cargo cover that raises with the hatchback. Though commonplace now, when the SD1 was introduced, this was apparently one of the first times such a cover had been used. Some of the original articles about the SD1 spend a whole paragraph explaining the cargo cover.
I reckon our 72 maxi had that
I also had this video in mind when I saw it!
If I had a lot of money and available storage space, that’s another car I’d like to own!
I would suspect that two more factors may have helped sink this car’s US intro. First, fuel prices were jumping and everyone was suddenly all about the gas mileage. A gasoline V8, no matter how much more economical it may have been than other gas V8s was at a big disadvantage.
Second, the economy was beginning a nasty slide into recession and car sales in general took a big dip. A 1976 or even 1978 into would have given the Rover a head start. Although your other factors may still have killed the car here.
I had forgotten that these were even sold here. Nice write-up.
Definitely – on all accounts. 1980 was probably the worst time for luxury car sales across the board on account of the economy. And 1980 ads from premium makes (Mercedes, Cadillac, Jaguar) often stressed “efficiency,” even for cars costing more than the Rover. The 3500’s EPA ratings weren’t too bad (15/24 or so), but certainly nothing to shout about, and not a selling point, either.
A 1976 or ’78 introduction would have at least given the SD1 a fighting chance.
“a fighting chance”. Mighty long odds, though. Rover’s name was mud in the US, after the P6/V8 turned out to be very problematic for US drivers, due to the usual combination of factors: complexity, uneven quality, and very spotty dealer support. There was just no brand equity left. It still surprises me that Rover could sell as many Sterlings as they did, thanks to the name change.
The US market requires significant volumes to work for a brand. Advertising is expensive. Americans have much higher expectations from their dealers. Compliance and certification for safety, emission, and other regulations are a substantial hurdle. Rover should have just stayed home. It was pretty predictable.
I’d agree with Paul there. Outside the premium market and the enduring VW brand, Europe never seems to cut in the US. Rover, B’s other brands, Renault, Peugeot, Fiat have all tried and essentially all gone home again.
Compliance, marketing and dealer set up, and purely a lack of a valid USP appear to overrule all efforts.
Inadequate quality just adds to it; see Sterling for further details.
It’s frustrating though. All the reasons everyone has cited for the SD1’s Stateside failure are valid, but the cars were fundamentally capable enough to live in the same not-quite-premium space as Volvo and Saab. They just couldn’t build them/support them effectively.
As has been commented many, many times before, Rover and Triumph invented the European executive sports saloon, but the Germans executed it properly, while we Brits just shot ourselves in the foot.
The Sterling was a very appealing product on the showroom floor, backed by the implied quality of Honda engineering. All things equal, I’d choose it over the equivalent Acura Legend. (All things weren’t equal.) Also, the mainstreaming of leasing in the mid 80s was a safety net for adventurous folks; lessees weren’t stuck forever with a crappy car that was out of warranty and impossible to trade in.
It’s no surprise the car got nowhere in America, just read a good concise history of the car in England. About the best parallel I could come up with is by trying to visualize a 1980 Honda Accord coming out, and then having all the problems of a Yugo, both in quality and sales.
There are worse things in automotive history than the fall of GM. The fall of British Leyland is one of them. They’re still THE classic post-WWII story of industrial failure.
Very good write-up on a car that sure appeared to die from a confluence of Bad Things.
Major kudos to the owner for reviving this car. Resuscitating common cars is headache enough, so one can only imagine the trials and tribulations a Rover in the US would give someone.
+1 on that. Rare here now, especially early cars.
A college buddy owned one of these (same color) when I was at Georgia Tech in the early 1980s. Always enjoyed riding in it, and remember him lamenting how expensive the car was to keep running.
For better or worse I have always liked Rovers, even before 2 P6Bs came into the family back in the 80s.
The SD1 is a rare sight now. I loved the restraint of the early badging across the tail and the filigree Viking ship up front.
While the car probably improved over its lifetime, to me the final ones never looked as good with the flush headlamps and marginally increased glass area of the hatch. The interiors became just more leather and walnut rather than corduroy and Space 1999.
The late Jennifer Taylor, professor of architecture, practitioner, writer and critic swapped a brick Volvo for the SD1 despite dire warnings from her mechanic, such was its attraction. The Volvo mechanic was soon proven right and a battle to keep water out ensued shortly after. Then things electrical.
According to my BIL the electric hatch lock will fail on every single one built they were $500 NZ each plus installation,
Wanting old British cars anyone?
The Ian Hope collection at Haumoana Hawkes Bay NZ is being downsized Roger visited it several years ago and some quite unusual cars are now up for sale.
I was always intrigued by the air vent that was used to accommodate the steering wheel placement in both LHD and RWD markets.
Until now, I never noticed that BL retained the glove compartment under the steering column. It seems handy, but that footwell looks cramped in the photos – as though one’s shins would be in constant danger of being bruised. But that may just be the angle of the camera in the photos.
My father had two Rover 2000 TCs (the P6 model, red in the second pic) which also had the dual glove compartments. I don’t remember it being a problem on the driver’s side, but the interior space was reduced as it had to wrap around the steering column.
I noticed the parking brake handle is closer to the driver in the left hand version, the “home” right hand drive version uses the same centre console. Why this matters to me is as a 2015 Mustang owner I’ve read many compaints from right hand drive countries that Ford didn’t produce a console that moved the parking brake handle closer to the driver–Rover didn’t think it mattered.
Later in the ’80s, Rover did something similar with the first Sterling 825s that appeared in the U.S.: The early ones that were reviewed by the automotive press were noted to have the inside hood (bonnet) release located in the passenger footwell. But to be fair, this was eventually corrected, so it may have been a quirk limited to early or pilot production.
It’s very common in the UK to have the bonnet release in the passenger footwell – it is on my Mazda – so initially Rover may just have assumed nobody would complain about it.
Rover had it all right, up to and including the P5. After that it was trying and failing to be something that it was not.
The irony is that, until the mid ’60s Rover was very much the company that BMW wished to be.
If Rover had stayed on the same trajectory, with a linear progression from the wonderful V8 P5B and without the Leyland takeover it would have been a different story.
The P6 appeared to be successful but in truth it wasnt; even after that there were some designs for a muscular successor to the P5 but alas it wasn’t to be.
Unfortunately the SD1 to me is one of the very few cars I actively dislike, it reeks of a narrow, technical mindset and an inability to relate to the buyers of a product, a very British phenomenon that I feel is alive and kicking. I’ll keep my Volvo thanks.
Had Leyland not been persuaded to merge with BMC, things may have been different. The planned Triumph-Rover-Alvis lineup wouldn’t have been perfect, but it would have been in a much more competitive position and not had to play second fiddle to the failings of the BMC line. I can’t see Leyland alone having simply abandoned the Toledo/Dolomite market as BL later did, for instance.
True, but that is beside the question of why a successful (yes, you read right. Back in the 50s Leyland produced more buses and trucks than either Kenworth, Volvo or Daimler Benz to name a few) manufacturer of buses and trucks felt the need to go into the car side of the business. Leyland misfortune ultimately has one name, and that name is Donald Stokes, someone who was at best a good salesman but hardly had any qualifications to run the company.
Couldn’t help but think of this… https://youtu.be/bf7q8lWEd-o
I was ten when the SD1 was introduced, and I liked it very much. Owned by older gentlemen, smoking a good cigar while driving. The same men that drove a Jaguar or Citroën CX and wouldn’t be caught dead in a Mercedes or BMW.
And here’s a neat illustration I found, regarding the BMC concept car from the article:
A very influential car. The Chevrolet Citation is missing. As is the Prius. 🙂
As is the Tesla Model S.
…and the Renault 20/30 that Rammstein mentions below. There must be others. Like the Audi A7 Sportback.
And the VW Passat (1974), Chrysler Alpine (1976) and Austin Princess (1976) among others……
And the Lancia Beta (1972)…
Now that one happens to be in the illustration.
Princess wasn’t a hatch.
Oops! Didn’t see the Beta in there, Johannes… How about the Gamma then?
Princess wasn’t a hatch, but neither were the Citroens (GS below), the Beta nor the Alfa. Not sure about the BMC Pininfarina…
Makes the Rover even more of a trailblazer: first V8 hatchback & first RWD hatchback?
Now there’s another missed opportunity by those BL imbeciles, who chose to make that non-event, the Maxi, instead. Mind boggling.
Every large Citroen since untill the MK3 C5 which is based on the Pug 407 bodyshell luv my C5 hatchback, very versatile car.
I wonder what sales would have been like if it had been as cheap as an Audi was in those days?
Another maddening story of British brilliance undermined by execution. BTW what did Europeans think of the SD1’s reliability? Some here give the impression that Americans themselves are to blame for Broken British Cars.
The British must have thought SD1s were “reasonably” reliable as they were a huge favorite with police departments.
In fact, IMHO, BL’s U.S. marketing missed an opportunity by not capitalizing on the SD1s popularity with police.
You just get the idea car companies under the BL umbrella were full of small bands of folks, each with different ideas on how to build cars….or NOT build cars.
Ever heard of the ‘Liver Run’? an amazing story and is certainly a tangible reason why the SD1 was so loved by police departments in the UK.
Oh, and the lead car still exists, and has been restored.
A Swiss guy I knew in Australia (who had briefly been a car dealer in Sydney) waxed lyrical to me about being a youngster back home and going for a trip across 3 or 4 countries at breakneck speed – he in a BMW, one friend in a Mercedes and one in a Rover SD1 Vitesse.
He was hugely impressed by the Rover and how it withstood his friend’s thrashings. “You couldn’t break this thing” were his exact words, which brought a wry smile to my lips.
I remember these well—they were among the sleekest 4 door cars sold in that era.There was a dealer north of Baltimore who sold Triumph and they were the only Rover seller in the metro area. Of course, Rover tried 1 more time with the Sterling in 1987—but that’s another story.
A very nice looking car with a lovely interior and some clever design touches. All sunk like Titanic by a militant striking workforce, shoddy assembly quality, incompetent management and indifferent dealers.
How not to run a car company.
The US spec round headlight buckets are baffling, why not rectangular quads? The round sealed beams just looked so horribly rudimentary I wouldn’t at all be surprised if that alone cost a share of would be buyers. Hell in an ideal scenario do exactly what was done to the Daytona. – hidden/popup headlights – now that would be something to see.
They may have deliberately chosen round lights to look more European. At the time Mercedes and BMW were using round lights. Rectangular sealed beams were very much an American thing and would have created a subconscious association with Buick rather than BMW.
Another possible explanation is that BL’s suppliers had huge stocks of round sealed beam headlights…U.S. market cars had only “recently” switched to rectangular lights, but the U.S. still required headlights to have sealed beam construction, perhaps the only market with that requirement? Rather than try to source sealed beam rectangular lights that fit into the available opening, they used pairs of round lights. What is a bit odd is the welded in brackets.
BTW, the pictures of the RHD model with it’s “color-keyed” instrument binnacle looks quite classy. The U.S. models, as pictured, apparently used an instrument binnacle that didn’t match the rest of the dash….kind of, tacky?
Yeah but on Mercedes that too was part of US spec federalization, and at least their federalized round light cars were largely early 70s products, the latest of which being the W123 but Mercedes did their damnedest to camouflage them with composite lensed housings on those. I guess not being around in that time it’s hard for me to say, were owners so blinded by the snob appeal of European cars that they embraced the poorly integrated US spec components out of ignorance of how much more attractive the actual European models looked?
I used to have Euro headlight-envy in a bad way, but now it’s come back to round headlight lenses instead of the aggressively rectangular ones which CR always argued were optically inferior anyway.
And I read somewhere that the W126 was found no less aerodynamic with dorky US sealed-beams than the smooth Euro style! Which are cheaper to replace if broken?
Believe me, I’m anything but railing round sealed beam headlights, I think one of the biggest mistakes the industry ever made was the widespread adoption of euro composites, but if the car was designed to look a certain way and ends up altered for one completely different looking component after the fact the results are always dire. At least rectangular would actually fit the footprint of the original euro housings properly
“At least rectangular would actually fit the footprint of the original euro housings properly.”
Maybe, maybe not. The quad rectangular headlamps of the time were approximately 3/4″ (19mm) wider than the round ones, so it would have required an additional 1 1/2″ (38mm) of width in the housings for two placed side by side (height wouldn’t have been an issue).
As stated in the article, the SD1’s US launch was delayed, so it’s possible that the design of the housings (and the space in the body to accommodate them) was locked in before the DOT specs were finalized.
Or…perhaps it was reasoned that round lamps were good enough for Jaguar, so they’d be good enough for Rover.
I thought the Rover 3500 styling was “off” just enough to be oddly proportioned…awkward, like a small car design that was stretched to look big. However, from how many I saw, I would have thought they sold better than those paltry figures would indicatd.
I don’t know how much truth lies in this, but I’ve heard more than once that quality control was so poor that one side of the car could actually be as much as one-half inch longer than the other. I wouldn’t disbelieve it, considering British Leyland produced it.
I always liked the SD1, especially the Vitesse models. Unfortunately rust is also a big issue, along with people using V8 models as engine donors.
The live axle was not necessarily wrong. The SD1 used a Watts linkage to locate the axle, which is the most sophisticated and effective setup for a live axle and offered similar handling and much lower cost and complexity than the De Dion axle of the P6. Also consider that lots of 70s cars still used live axles and the Germans had not yet tuned the trailing throttle oversteer out of their IRS setups.
IIRC, the de Dion tube on the P6 was located by a Watts linkage.
If it were possible to wave a magic wand and make any given car reliable (we wish!), I’d take a P6 over an SD1.
You do indeed recall correctly. It’s worth mentioning, though, that the SD1’s engineering was overseen by the same person as the P6 (Spencer King), who decided the De Dion was more trouble than it was worth.
The main flaw of the SD1’s live axle wasn’t handling, which was really pretty good for the time, but a somewhat clunkier ride than competitors with IRS (or FWD competitors like Audi, which had beam axles in back, but with less unsprung weight).
The idea was great, the design was beautiful, unorthodox, a large hatchback, the engine great a light alloy V8 3500cc from American origin, the price compettive.
(Renault tried with their R30, but failed )
The organisation was rubbish, the management amateuristic, the organisation, well it did not exist nor was there any form of ‘quality control ‘ and the workers, well they’d go on strike for sex-time compensation!
No kiddin, the SD1 was such a bomb, the production line needed to run 24/7.
But the BL employees wanted nothing but to go on strike and get bailed out by the British Government!
This is the time when BMW simply took over with their 5 Series, no V8, not as roomy as but at least you’d buy one and could drive the darn thing.
My 90+ old neighbour sold her 1986 VandenPlas V8, I miss it, it is the hottest of summer now and I’d take the V8 out for a spin.
Best standard sunroof ever in a car and the Buick V8, well do I need to say?
Yes smooth as silk!
Clarkson on the SD-1:
Count me as a non-fan of that buffoon Clarkson. This show is well known for tampering with vehicles to produce a desired outcome, and this video is living proof. Doors do not fall off of cars, no matter how bad they are.
It also bothers me to see older and well preserved cars being treated like that by people who are supposed to like cars…
I know it’s all about entertainment but I’d be more entertained if they did more serious tests instead of filling cars with water and smashing them…
Not only older well preserved cars, but also what seems to be older and well preserved instruments.
A rusted out SD1 is hardly a well preserved car, the water ran straight thru it and Marinas to use for catching pianos arent rare here yet either.
Sure I’m across the ditch, but I can’t remember the last time I saw a Marina outside a magazine.
+1. The novelty value of watching the messing fades quickly when you think how contrived and predictable it is
Excellent write-up! Too bad the car was just doomed right from the start…
Also makes me think how useful it would have been for GM to have a decent lightweight aluminum V8 with fuel injection in the late 1970s/early 1980s.
Kudos to this Rover fan for saving such a rare car in the U.S. I have literally never seen one in person…
GM bought back the rights & tooling for the Buick V6 from AMC after some enterprising engineers did some successful tests, so they get partial credit for that.
I have to wonder what AMC got out of the deal; it would’ve been a better fit for the Pacer.
I never knew about these, much less that they were ever available stateside. Shame that these didn’t take off, the bodystyle is VERY sharp looking…reminds me a lot of the Chevy Monza fastback with 2 extra doors.
I find it baffling that this sporty fast hatch 5 door bodystyle didn’t completely supplant the boring stodgy 4 door sedan look, at least from midsize on down. I mean, even though this is actually more practical as a family car, it looks a LOT like a sportier car. Great way to have your cake and eat it too.
Very true. And now you have such rakish, short rear deck sedans on sale. This includes the Buick Regal and Ford Fusion which have hatch variants on sale elsewhere that look almost identical and yet the US doesn’t get them.
In another article about these recently I read that the SD-1’s chassis layout was shared with the TR-7’s … which, if you look at it carefully, is remarkably similar to the Ford “Fox” platform, except that Ford used a Panhard rod for lateral location of the back axle. The good thing about the two British cars is that they both handled remarkably well for such an “unsophisticated” layout, whereas Ford built both the well-regarded and still track-worthy “Fox” Mustang and the Fairlane a visiting friend rented in the ’80s, that while almost new was a slug around town and scary on the freeway, with no apparent sense of direction.
It was actually based on the coporate layout used on many Leyland products struts up front trailing arms out back the P76 was even brought over from Australia for evaluation when the design was being laid out and a Force seven V coupe was amongst the designs being considered, and evaluated.
I must hand it to this guy for loving and saving this car. Many people, myself at the top of list, would have yanked the engine and sent the rest to China to come back as a new dishwasher.
Lovely to see one in this condition in the US – something I would never expect to have seen, even on CC, so thanks Eric and respect to the owner.
There was so much that was right with this car, not just the styling and the engine but the interior and the practical attitude to the engineering, and its proof that a good British car doesn’t need an old fashioned wood and leather interior.
Still my favourte 1970s car
I’m surprised that there is at least one US spec SD1 remaining here. Obviously, I haven’t seen any one of these around in the US, so to see one so well taken care of is nice.
I always thought that the Rover SD1 was the perfect example of a very good car that got ruined by apathetic construction and total mismanagement. Taken on it’s own, the Rover SD1 is nowhere near a terrible car, it’s probably one of the best cars to ever come from Rover and one of the greatest British made cars of the 70s. But when you factor in its terrible build quality, it tarnishes any good aspects of it in the real world. It’s no surprise to me why this car failed here, but even if I think the US spec version is inferior to it’s native homeland version, I’m still glad that one of these still exists in such well preserved condition.
Great find and really nicely written Eric, thank you! My father was a mechanic at a BL dealer here in New Zealand from the mid-70s until the mid-80s, so I knew about the SD1 from a young age. They sold well here – in 2600 and 3500 form – and there are still quite a few left – although they’re not on the internet auction sites in the numbers they used to be. Such a handsome, handsome design, particularly in facelifted guise with the fully flush headlights and larger rear hatch window. A VDP or Vitesse is definitely on my top-5 list of cars to own.
Given how minor the changes of the facelift, it is interesting how much people differ on whether the late versions with the wood and leather or the space themed early cars are better. Personally I would go with the wood and leather but the space age motif fits with the big change this car was.
The OHC Triumph based inline 6 might have gotten the price down a little for the USA. The table in the article shows how an unproven model can be both overpriced and overengined. I know the down under V8s had the USA FI system, did the 2600?
Perhaps one of the greatest examples of would’a, should’a, could’a. It had all the potential to be a great car, but was unfortunately unable to do so.
There’s one in someone’s driveway just down the road. I’ve never seen the car cover off it, but it’s an unmistakable shape.
Very popular with the UK police for many years; they were a very good motorway car but still nimble enough for minor British roads. Great video here of an SD1 in full flight, and plenty of other 80s cars on show: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLKRVIxMSuI
Did they use two vehicles because the Rover wasn’t considered reliable enough?
A very good looking car I think. Nice interior, solid engine. I like the fact that you are very unlikely to see another one at a car show…
Fair bit being talked here.
The SD1 was not doomed to failure; they sold pretty well in the UK.
Also, the build quality improved drastically in later cars.
Some people that comment on here ought to at least attempt to write truthfully.
The truth hurts, doesn’t it?
The SD1 would have been a much more noble end for Rover here in the States instead of the Sterling, the re-badged Honda that (as I read once,) “tried so hard to be British, it should have been named Madonna.”
Actually, Buick tried to buy back the ally V8 later on, after Rover developed it further (casting technology of the early 60s had halted its production, scrappage rate was something like 30%), but they were rebuffed, reportedly coldly. And Jimmy, the damage had been done far too quickly here for any improvements to come.
Rover was simply giving back as good as they got. Their original approach to GM was a request for a license to produce the engine, with GM to retain ownership. GM was having enough trouble (that scrappage rate, for one thing) that they wanted to be rid of it and insisted on an outright sale, which hit Rover’s budget pretty hard. So when their improved alloy-casting process solved the problem, and they had further developed the engine to give more power on two single-throat carbs than GM had managed with a turbocharger, all of a sudden GM had second thoughts. I think a cold rebuff was a lot more polite than what they deserved, under the circumstances!
That V8 served Rover very well, it only went out of production in the 2000s, finding its way into land rovers,range rovers, TVRs, freight Rover vans…
The SD1 would never have done well stateside, even if launched there in ’76. Quality wise the early models were the worst of the lot, with non functioning distributors, paint falling off in sheets and rapid rusting of bodywork. I had lots of them in the ’90s when values here in the U.K were rock bottom, I loved them dearly but I would be a liar if I said they were ever a well built car. The range had a facelift in 1982 which solved some of the problems, but you could almost hear them disintegrate around you. Interior trim like the instrument binnacle cover for example was just cheap millboard with a wafer thin coating of plastic, which warped on the first hot sunny day. Ditto the door cards. The trim covering the rear D pillars got ripped off by the parcel shelf every time you opened the rear hatch. Then there’s the Lucas electrics. Having such a proliferation of power convenience options as the Rover did, showcased wonderfully how crappy the electrics were. You might have mirror adjust and sunroof working, but central locking wouldn’t. Next week, central locking worked, but the rear passenger window didn’t. Sometimes the central locking would lock you in/out of the car all by itself.
Then there was the job of draining the spare wheel well of water every time it rained.
On top of all this there was the engines BL didn’t want to risk stateside- the sixes. We had a full range of engines in this rover, from a 2.0 4 pot (underpowered, but reliable) through a 2.4 turbo diesel (rare and agricultural) to 2.3 and 2.6 six cylinders. In theory these were fine engines, save for their party trick. The cylinder head had an oil feed restrictor valve. A very tiny valve that could easily clog up, and did. When this happened, the cam shaft seized up, welding itself to its bearings. The Timing belt then snapped, causing valves to hit pistons. This well known fault made second hand sixes worthless, and caused many an otherwise perfect car to get scrapped (I rescued a pristine Rover 2600 Vanden plas with a blown engine, fixing it for my own use) 3500s were always worth more as there was always a hot rodder wanting a rover V8 engine for his project.
Great when they’re running, but boy did these cars know how to go wrong.
IIRC those cars got great reviews. I was hopeful, I’m fond of England and many things British.
But from my limited time over there in the early 70s I’m cynical about their cars. Even Englishmen spoke disparagingly about English cars, emphatically including Rover. They liked them, they were the home team so to speak, so they rooted for them, but really they knew they were junk and regarded them as such.
On the other hand, I can’t say I ever owned one or even drove it, but…
Obviously a lot of blame can be laid on management for the death of the British car and motorcycle industry. But it seems like a lot of blame can also be laid on the workers, as represented by the unions and the constant labor strife. Has anything ever been written on the post-mortem perspective of “labor” on the death of the British automobile and motorcycle industry? From 50 years on and on the other side of the pond, it seems like they cut off their nose to spite their face, but maybe things are more complicated than that.
US autoworkers did a lot of sorry work in the 70s, too, while demanding higher pay over the high inflation, but during strikes, management usually caved quickly, and they would kick the can down the road and buy them off with future retirement benefits, which eventually bankrupted 2 out of the Big Three. While losing market share to more reliable foreign makes, management automated most of the workers out of jobs.
I’m sure it was a Commie plot to destroy the industry that did so much to win WWII, but we’ll never hear about if it shows up in the Venona papers.
Hardly a Commie plot, more like a capitalist plot gone very wrong.
Quality was in decline across the board starting in the late 1960’s, but for GM at least, the big goof was putting all factories under the supervision of the newly created GM Assembly Division in 1971. No longer did the divisions have control over their factories, and quality suffered. Also starting in 1971, GM interiors got a lot more plasticky, and those pieces never fit together properly. Compare a 1972 Chevelle to a 1973. The ’72, even in hardtop coupe form, had doors that thunked when you shut them. The ’73 Colonnade’s doors rattled.
At least the mainstream GM cars had solid drivetrains. Except for the Vega, of course, which reached British levels of unreliability.
Rover wasn’t the only one who suffered from quality problems at the assembly line. Jaguars of that vintage were also rubbish, and ruined Jaguar’s reputation in the States to the point that it never really recovered, even under Ford administration.
And in the States, Ford, Chrysler and AMC were turning out junk as well. Just like in Europe, it took the Japanese to force them to clean up their act at least partially.
The Rover was as striking in it’s time as this Audi I saw on the freeway yesterday.
I first saw one of these in 1981 on a trip to the Atlanta auto auction with my dad. It was a mint green metallic color. I got to sit in it as it was the presale preview where dealers could get up close to the cars before the ran through the auction line. It made quite the impression on my 10 year old brain. That is the one and only time I’ve seen one of these in person. I still love the styling.
A nicely kept one of these, in British Racing Brown, is almost a daily driver around our neighbourhood (Wellington New Zealand)
A Citroen CX 2.0 liters or a Lancia Gamma Berlina 2000 ( both the most resembling cars to a Rover 2300 / 2600 / 3500 ) are proven best machines than this troublesome Leyland
One problem with the “use the hole for the opposite side steering wheel as an air vent” setup was that whether RHD or LHD, the driver didn’t get an air vent in the usual place at the far end of the dash; only the center vents reached the driver.
I saw only three of these in the wild in the early ’80s, and two of them were probably the same car in slightly different places. I also saw one at a British car show about 10 years ago., brown with brown velour inside. The owner let me sit inside front and rear, it was a nice place to be. Quite a bit had to be changed to meet U.S. laws; the front fenders don’t interchange for example. Otherwise finding parts is reasonably easy, as despite selling less than 2,000 cars in 1980-81 here, they were quite popular in the UK and some European countries where they were sold for 11 years with about 300,000 built during that time, and using the internet you can find and grab spares from abroad.
The dealership situation in the U.S. seemed a mess. Did they ever even put up “Rover” signs? I don’t recall smaller-selling British makes like Triumph even having their own dealerships; they were usually a sideshow of a major US brand, or sold through multi-import franchises. Any “Jaguar/Rover/Triumph/MG” dealers would have little to sell by 1982, with three of those brands gone from the U.S.
There was talk of Rover importation (again) before the late-’90s 75 was introduced, and finally they had a car that looked like it could sell in America – it looked rather like a 3/4-scale Bentley to my eyes. Unfortunately no such thing happened; again labour strife figured into the situation. Post-BMW MG Rover tried to get back to the U.S. too using the top-line Qvale-based MG which was already US-certified, then using that to leverage the other cars over, but that plot failed too. Meanwhile, Chinese brands are selling what’s left of MG and Roewe (Tata owns the Rover trademark so they had to go with something close).
I have always really liked the 75, on my first UK holiday I tried to rent one but it was 2003 and the agencies had moved on from them. Always wish I could’ve. It would have been interesting to see if anything about it would remind me of my P6.