Discussion
Been offered one at a very cheap price
All the exterior trim is in excellent condition (chrome etc etc), no rips and tears to the interior, engine runs but needs some work to the carbies. Haven't inspected yet, but it sounds free of structual rust (couple of minor spots of panel rust). Paint is dull but polishes up well
200 notes is all that is wanted for it. Was last on the road in 2006, then the 90 year old original owner died, been in storage ever since.
Any pitfalls to this? Seems to be a pretty good buy given the nature of the car (only seen pics, but complete and original).
Any common faults to look at?
First classic project so just getting a feeling for it at the moment.
All the exterior trim is in excellent condition (chrome etc etc), no rips and tears to the interior, engine runs but needs some work to the carbies. Haven't inspected yet, but it sounds free of structual rust (couple of minor spots of panel rust). Paint is dull but polishes up well
200 notes is all that is wanted for it. Was last on the road in 2006, then the 90 year old original owner died, been in storage ever since.
Any pitfalls to this? Seems to be a pretty good buy given the nature of the car (only seen pics, but complete and original).
Any common faults to look at?
First classic project so just getting a feeling for it at the moment.
If it is a 2000, then the carbs from memory are twin Solex side-drafts. Carb servicing/renovation can be an expensive business, even something really common like SU4s and 6s can set you back £600 for a twin refurb and then there's getting them on the car and balanced properly so unless you know how, that's another £200.
If you are starting out in the classic car world, you need to consider the following.
Join the owner's club, they will have technical resources, probably have a buyer's guide, valuation officers (to get an insurance valuation) and also discounts for parts and services. They are a mine of information.
Consider your locality, do you have a good local garage that can do the difficult jobs without requiring the sale of a kidney?
How good are you mechanically? Classic cars can be an absolute money-pit because 9 times out of 10, head will follow heart, doing some of the basics can knock of hundreds of quid in labour charges.
Lastly, when you do take the plunge, go for the very, very best car you can afford unless you are a competent welder/mechanic with the tools to do a resto. Rust is the four-letter word all owner's fear because a 10p sized blister is really hiding a big problem and also big expense. Bodywork jobs are the most expensive to fix.
If you are starting out in the classic car world, you need to consider the following.
Join the owner's club, they will have technical resources, probably have a buyer's guide, valuation officers (to get an insurance valuation) and also discounts for parts and services. They are a mine of information.
Consider your locality, do you have a good local garage that can do the difficult jobs without requiring the sale of a kidney?
How good are you mechanically? Classic cars can be an absolute money-pit because 9 times out of 10, head will follow heart, doing some of the basics can knock of hundreds of quid in labour charges.
Lastly, when you do take the plunge, go for the very, very best car you can afford unless you are a competent welder/mechanic with the tools to do a resto. Rust is the four-letter word all owner's fear because a 10p sized blister is really hiding a big problem and also big expense. Bodywork jobs are the most expensive to fix.
Well said 215cu! I went to see a friend this weekend to look at his "new" E type he had bought and was quite proud of. To say that it was a heap of junk is to overstate the case - it is fit only for spares. Rust in the bulkead making the front frames in danger of pulling out of their mountings, more filler in the wings and sills than I would like to weigh, etc. If Colonial is not a BMW expert for goodness sake contact the club and pay for one of their specialist members to have a look at the car before going any further. The same applies to any make - join the club first and follow their advice. Alarm bells started ringing in my head the moment I saw the price being asked - anybody except an idiot would be asking much more if the car is even in reasonable condition since if I'm right parts for this model (especially body panels) are expensive and the car is worth more just to take apart if as described. Make haste slowly Colonial!
If the car is as described it could be a genuine bargain. Couldn't have a better background than an elderly deceased owner.
But is it as described? Main thing is to get an unmolested and rust free example. In those circumstances the only reason I'd walk away is terminal rust. At least take someone with you who understands this and can contain your enthusiasm - Even if they're not a marque expert.
The car is very straightforward by today's standards but bear in mind that someone elses labour to generally sort out a car will turn out to be very costly.
Best plan IMHO is to get it running & MOT'd yourself then wheel it round to specialists to upgrade specific bits only.
But is it as described? Main thing is to get an unmolested and rust free example. In those circumstances the only reason I'd walk away is terminal rust. At least take someone with you who understands this and can contain your enthusiasm - Even if they're not a marque expert.
The car is very straightforward by today's standards but bear in mind that someone elses labour to generally sort out a car will turn out to be very costly.
Best plan IMHO is to get it running & MOT'd yourself then wheel it round to specialists to upgrade specific bits only.
Cheers for excellent advice
I went for a look today (about 1.5 hours from my house) to get a better feel for it. And no, I didn't buy it, just wanted to get a feel for it.
Has been fitted with a sunroof (original winder etc) which set some alarm bells ringing for rust etc, but it has been outside for a week in wet weather without any ill effects - all carpets are dry, no wet smell, and the boot appears to moisture free. Missing a battery and also has what appears to be an oil leak from the top of the engine.
All the rubber seals on the doors etc are complete, but perished.
All sills and wheelarches are rust free. But there is panel rust, which looks surface but I'll investigate more.
Comes with original owners manual and full logbooks!
I'm a semi compotent mechanic - but the carby sounds less straightfoward that I though. I used to help my uncle get his S11A Land Rover carby working again, and that was relatively simple. Damm my youthful naivety.
I'm getting a family friend who is a mechanic (independent BMW/Alfa bloke, looks after all our family BMW's) to come with me to check it out over the weekend, taking a battery and seeing if we can get the thing started. Get a rough idea of getting it registered and on the road. If it's too much I'm walking away.
Nice car though. Bloke who looked at if prior to me who put me onto it gave it a polish on one side and the paint came up gleaming.
I went for a look today (about 1.5 hours from my house) to get a better feel for it. And no, I didn't buy it, just wanted to get a feel for it.
Has been fitted with a sunroof (original winder etc) which set some alarm bells ringing for rust etc, but it has been outside for a week in wet weather without any ill effects - all carpets are dry, no wet smell, and the boot appears to moisture free. Missing a battery and also has what appears to be an oil leak from the top of the engine.
All the rubber seals on the doors etc are complete, but perished.
All sills and wheelarches are rust free. But there is panel rust, which looks surface but I'll investigate more.
Comes with original owners manual and full logbooks!
I'm a semi compotent mechanic - but the carby sounds less straightfoward that I though. I used to help my uncle get his S11A Land Rover carby working again, and that was relatively simple. Damm my youthful naivety.
I'm getting a family friend who is a mechanic (independent BMW/Alfa bloke, looks after all our family BMW's) to come with me to check it out over the weekend, taking a battery and seeing if we can get the thing started. Get a rough idea of getting it registered and on the road. If it's too much I'm walking away.
Nice car though. Bloke who looked at if prior to me who put me onto it gave it a polish on one side and the paint came up gleaming.
Colonial said:
Been offered one at a very cheap price
All the exterior trim is in excellent condition (chrome etc etc), no rips and tears to the interior, engine runs but needs some work to the carbies. Haven't inspected yet, but it sounds free of structual rust (couple of minor spots of panel rust). Paint is dull but polishes up well
200 notes is all that is wanted for it. Was last on the road in 2006, then the 90 year old original owner died, been in storage ever since.
Any pitfalls to this? Seems to be a pretty good buy given the nature of the car (only seen pics, but complete and original).
Any common faults to look at?
First classic project so just getting a feeling for it at the moment.
Can I confirm with you that the car is a genuine 2000 as opposed to a 2002?All the exterior trim is in excellent condition (chrome etc etc), no rips and tears to the interior, engine runs but needs some work to the carbies. Haven't inspected yet, but it sounds free of structual rust (couple of minor spots of panel rust). Paint is dull but polishes up well
200 notes is all that is wanted for it. Was last on the road in 2006, then the 90 year old original owner died, been in storage ever since.
Any pitfalls to this? Seems to be a pretty good buy given the nature of the car (only seen pics, but complete and original).
Any common faults to look at?
First classic project so just getting a feeling for it at the moment.
If so these were arguably the best, and definitely the most underrated, of all BMs.
There was nothing in this era with a 2 litre, four cylinder motor that would catch these cars, and the build quality was second to none, despite the fact that the interiors were quite austere.
It was the way they drove, in an era when handling was at best questionable on most cars, even the exotics, these were utterly superb on a corner, and could be drifted beautifully on the throttle.
The best engine was the Ti version, and if the one you are looking at has twin Solex carbs, then it is most likely a Ti. There is a great deal of nonsense talked about Solex carbs, mainly out of ignorance, but the German carbs were superb, and much more technically advanced than Webers: more economical and far easier to keep in tune.
As long as they are clean and properly built, they will be totally reliable.
I had one of these cars in the early seventies running on SP Sports and Konis and it was phenomenal and surprised many a Jag and Merc owner on a regular basis.
Don't hesitate, buy it.
Anything I can do in the way of technical advice, give me a shout.
jith said:
Can I confirm with you that the car is a genuine 2000 as opposed to a 2002?
If so these were arguably the best, and definitely the most underrated, of all BMs.
There was nothing in this era with a 2 litre, four cylinder motor that would catch these cars, and the build quality was second to none, despite the fact that the interiors were quite austere.
It was the way they drove, in an era when handling was at best questionable on most cars, even the exotics, these were utterly superb on a corner, and could be drifted beautifully on the throttle.
The best engine was the Ti version, and if the one you are looking at has twin Solex carbs, then it is most likely a Ti. There is a great deal of nonsense talked about Solex carbs, mainly out of ignorance, but the German carbs were superb, and much more technically advanced than Webers: more economical and far easier to keep in tune.
As long as they are clean and properly built, they will be totally reliable.
I had one of these cars in the early seventies running on SP Sports and Konis and it was phenomenal and surprised many a Jag and Merc owner on a regular basis.
Don't hesitate, buy it.
Anything I can do in the way of technical advice, give me a shout.
Yes, is a genuine 2000 sedan. We only ever recieved the 2002 and 2000, so pretty easy not be misled by 1600/1602 sedans. I've loved the styling of the 2000 since I was 15. I'm 23 now. If so these were arguably the best, and definitely the most underrated, of all BMs.
There was nothing in this era with a 2 litre, four cylinder motor that would catch these cars, and the build quality was second to none, despite the fact that the interiors were quite austere.
It was the way they drove, in an era when handling was at best questionable on most cars, even the exotics, these were utterly superb on a corner, and could be drifted beautifully on the throttle.
The best engine was the Ti version, and if the one you are looking at has twin Solex carbs, then it is most likely a Ti. There is a great deal of nonsense talked about Solex carbs, mainly out of ignorance, but the German carbs were superb, and much more technically advanced than Webers: more economical and far easier to keep in tune.
As long as they are clean and properly built, they will be totally reliable.
I had one of these cars in the early seventies running on SP Sports and Konis and it was phenomenal and surprised many a Jag and Merc owner on a regular basis.
Don't hesitate, buy it.
Anything I can do in the way of technical advice, give me a shout.
The interior (cloth) on this things was immaculate. No tears, carpets in good order, wood on dashboard had no cracks of discolouring. Minor discolouring to the headliner about halfway along sunroof and on the left C pillar.
To be 100% honest I'm an not positive as to whether it is a the 2000 or the 2000 Ti. Have a feeling it was the base model.
jith said:
Colonial said:
Been offered one at a very cheap price
All the exterior trim is in excellent condition (chrome etc etc), no rips and tears to the interior, engine runs but needs some work to the carbies. Haven't inspected yet, but it sounds free of structual rust (couple of minor spots of panel rust). Paint is dull but polishes up well
200 notes is all that is wanted for it. Was last on the road in 2006, then the 90 year old original owner died, been in storage ever since.
Any pitfalls to this? Seems to be a pretty good buy given the nature of the car (only seen pics, but complete and original).
Any common faults to look at?
First classic project so just getting a feeling for it at the moment.
Can I confirm with you that the car is a genuine 2000 as opposed to a 2002?All the exterior trim is in excellent condition (chrome etc etc), no rips and tears to the interior, engine runs but needs some work to the carbies. Haven't inspected yet, but it sounds free of structual rust (couple of minor spots of panel rust). Paint is dull but polishes up well
200 notes is all that is wanted for it. Was last on the road in 2006, then the 90 year old original owner died, been in storage ever since.
Any pitfalls to this? Seems to be a pretty good buy given the nature of the car (only seen pics, but complete and original).
Any common faults to look at?
First classic project so just getting a feeling for it at the moment.
If so these were arguably the best, and definitely the most underrated, of all BMs.
There was nothing in this era with a 2 litre, four cylinder motor that would catch these cars, and the build quality was second to none, despite the fact that the interiors were quite austere.
It was the way they drove, in an era when handling was at best questionable on most cars, even the exotics, these were utterly superb on a corner, and could be drifted beautifully on the throttle.
The best engine was the Ti version, and if the one you are looking at has twin Solex carbs, then it is most likely a Ti. There is a great deal of nonsense talked about Solex carbs, mainly out of ignorance, but the German carbs were superb, and much more technically advanced than Webers: more economical and far easier to keep in tune.
As long as they are clean and properly built, they will be totally reliable.
I had one of these cars in the early seventies running on SP Sports and Konis and it was phenomenal and surprised many a Jag and Merc owner on a regular basis.
Don't hesitate, buy it.
Anything I can do in the way of technical advice, give me a shout.
A Rover P6 2000TC.
As for Solex v Weber - you are joking, right?
215cu said:
jith said:
Colonial said:
Been offered one at a very cheap price
All the exterior trim is in excellent condition (chrome etc etc), no rips and tears to the interior, engine runs but needs some work to the carbies. Haven't inspected yet, but it sounds free of structual rust (couple of minor spots of panel rust). Paint is dull but polishes up well
200 notes is all that is wanted for it. Was last on the road in 2006, then the 90 year old original owner died, been in storage ever since.
Any pitfalls to this? Seems to be a pretty good buy given the nature of the car (only seen pics, but complete and original).
Any common faults to look at?
First classic project so just getting a feeling for it at the moment.
Can I confirm with you that the car is a genuine 2000 as opposed to a 2002?All the exterior trim is in excellent condition (chrome etc etc), no rips and tears to the interior, engine runs but needs some work to the carbies. Haven't inspected yet, but it sounds free of structual rust (couple of minor spots of panel rust). Paint is dull but polishes up well
200 notes is all that is wanted for it. Was last on the road in 2006, then the 90 year old original owner died, been in storage ever since.
Any pitfalls to this? Seems to be a pretty good buy given the nature of the car (only seen pics, but complete and original).
Any common faults to look at?
First classic project so just getting a feeling for it at the moment.
If so these were arguably the best, and definitely the most underrated, of all BMs.
There was nothing in this era with a 2 litre, four cylinder motor that would catch these cars, and the build quality was second to none, despite the fact that the interiors were quite austere.
It was the way they drove, in an era when handling was at best questionable on most cars, even the exotics, these were utterly superb on a corner, and could be drifted beautifully on the throttle.
The best engine was the Ti version, and if the one you are looking at has twin Solex carbs, then it is most likely a Ti. There is a great deal of nonsense talked about Solex carbs, mainly out of ignorance, but the German carbs were superb, and much more technically advanced than Webers: more economical and far easier to keep in tune.
As long as they are clean and properly built, they will be totally reliable.
I had one of these cars in the early seventies running on SP Sports and Konis and it was phenomenal and surprised many a Jag and Merc owner on a regular basis.
Don't hesitate, buy it.
Anything I can do in the way of technical advice, give me a shout.
A Rover P6 2000TC.
As for Solex v Weber - you are joking, right?
What I will say is that I was a qualified motor engineer and technical advisor in the days of the awful British Leyland takeovers.
This company managed to ruin the inegrity of any design that the top end manufacturers came up with, including Jaguar and Rover.
The Rover P6 was an absolutely brilliant design, but it was made in Britain; there was the snag. I would be interested to hear you attempt to justify your comments about the design being more advanced than the BMW.
I am afraid you are wrong about the performance of the TC. My work on the Police TCs showed them to be the type of engine that did not take kindly to be driven hard on a regular basis. Head gaskets would go and chain tensioners were also a weak point, not to mention constant gearbox problems.
The fuel consumption when driven hard was worse than a 3.8 Jag!
At speed on the motorway the BMW 2000 was one of the most stable cars I have ever driven, and could be driven flat out all day.
German Solex carbs are entirely different from the old English ones. At the end of the carb era Solex in Germany manufactured the 4A: a four barrel carb of infinitely sophisticated design and beautiful build quality.
This carb was used by BMW on the 5 and 7 series, by Mercedes on the 250, W123 series, and importantly by Rolls Royce on the Shadows.
Every function on the carb was adjustable, including the secondary main jets, meaning that each carb could be tuned precisely to every engine giving highly accurate fuel metering.
All Italian cars with twin chokes for export use, i.e. Lancia, Alfa were fitted with Solex or Dellorto carbs because Weber could not conform to the emission requirements of the day.
The Weber is really a performance carb better suited to the track, and at this it excels, but the Solex is far more developed for road use and will give better flexibility, lower emissions and improved fuel consumption.
As I understand the 2000 and 2002 suffer from brake fade (the P6 had servo assisted disc all round to the rear drums of 2000 and 2002) The P6's suspension was also far more advanced opting for a rear suspension found on far more exotic cars (not even Maserati at the time could get it right).
The P6 also has it's rear diff bolted to the 'chassis' and it's discs inboard to reduce unsprung weight on the rear axle. It has a far more 'planted' ability as the 2000/2 are more prone to side winds.
The P6 also didn't need it's induction arrangement re-engineered to convert cars to right hand drive. It was one of the first car to be crash tested and also the first ever European Car of the Year.
As for 2000TC's head gasket going, that's a new one to me, knowing several long term owners (taking engines well beyond 175,000 miles) the main problem with the 2000TC is a weakness in the side plates.
As for hydraulic tensioners failing, I can only imagine that a deliberate lack of proper servicing would bring that about. I treated my 2000TC with total disrespect, frequently red-lining it and when I broke the car for spares, the guy that bought the engine (at a near-rebuilt 75,000 miles) told me at a subsequent club meet that it needed little if anything doing to it. As for the gearbox as the first iteration of the LT77, the only problem I'm aware of is the linkage can wear making it pop out of reverse/difficult to select first. 2000/2 gearboxes are prone to synchroniser wear.
As for Solex v Weber, each to their own, it's a bit like comparing chalk and cheese. Originally we were talking about ease of use (in terms of balancing). Weber's are well regarded as idiotproof in this respect, even the 4-barrels.
Finally, in a case of my technical advisor is better than your technical advisor. I used to have my car serviced by a gentleman called Brian Terry. Brian was one of Rover's test drivers during the days of P5/P6 and SD1. It was Brian's job to test these cars to destruction during the development using the facilities of MIRA and Gaydon. His personal ratings on the P6 were the 2000TC, 3500 and 'S' were the best cars by far. All the acceleration figures, top speeds, fuel economy were down to Brian's work.
He also bought and owned one of the 'KUE' Monte Carlo rally cars (a ex-works 2000TC) which he used to rally drive as a privateer with considerable success. In terms of pushing a P6 to its limits knowing its weaknesses and its abilities; I reckon his personal experience would trump yours totally. I had the honour of Brian doing a shakedown of my car once I bought it to give me an idea of what to do with it; hence the suspension mods.
And his chariot, he owned a stunning P5B complete with BW35 gearbox.
The P6 also has it's rear diff bolted to the 'chassis' and it's discs inboard to reduce unsprung weight on the rear axle. It has a far more 'planted' ability as the 2000/2 are more prone to side winds.
The P6 also didn't need it's induction arrangement re-engineered to convert cars to right hand drive. It was one of the first car to be crash tested and also the first ever European Car of the Year.
As for 2000TC's head gasket going, that's a new one to me, knowing several long term owners (taking engines well beyond 175,000 miles) the main problem with the 2000TC is a weakness in the side plates.
As for hydraulic tensioners failing, I can only imagine that a deliberate lack of proper servicing would bring that about. I treated my 2000TC with total disrespect, frequently red-lining it and when I broke the car for spares, the guy that bought the engine (at a near-rebuilt 75,000 miles) told me at a subsequent club meet that it needed little if anything doing to it. As for the gearbox as the first iteration of the LT77, the only problem I'm aware of is the linkage can wear making it pop out of reverse/difficult to select first. 2000/2 gearboxes are prone to synchroniser wear.
As for Solex v Weber, each to their own, it's a bit like comparing chalk and cheese. Originally we were talking about ease of use (in terms of balancing). Weber's are well regarded as idiotproof in this respect, even the 4-barrels.
Finally, in a case of my technical advisor is better than your technical advisor. I used to have my car serviced by a gentleman called Brian Terry. Brian was one of Rover's test drivers during the days of P5/P6 and SD1. It was Brian's job to test these cars to destruction during the development using the facilities of MIRA and Gaydon. His personal ratings on the P6 were the 2000TC, 3500 and 'S' were the best cars by far. All the acceleration figures, top speeds, fuel economy were down to Brian's work.
He also bought and owned one of the 'KUE' Monte Carlo rally cars (a ex-works 2000TC) which he used to rally drive as a privateer with considerable success. In terms of pushing a P6 to its limits knowing its weaknesses and its abilities; I reckon his personal experience would trump yours totally. I had the honour of Brian doing a shakedown of my car once I bought it to give me an idea of what to do with it; hence the suspension mods.
And his chariot, he owned a stunning P5B complete with BW35 gearbox.
Edited by 215cu on Monday 10th March 09:01
king idiot, didn't move quick enough and missed outWell hard lines Colonial, you missed a real bargain and a superb car.
Now you know a bit about them you can keep your eyes open for another.
Ok, the classic car business is one in which you can have a lot of fun, but also get your fingers utterly roasted into the bargain; it stands to reason therefore that the more pertinent knowledge you accrue BEFORE buying the better.
So I am now going to put the record straight on a few myths; and this is straight from the horses mouth, not from " a bloke I knew who was an expert".
I actually worked on the cars mentioned here when they were new. Found the flaws, did the warranty claims, discovered the ones that shone.
It was fully independent and ultra lightweight. The differential was harnessed to the bodyshell and the unsprung weight was far lower than the P6 Rover. This was due to the fact that Rover chose the DeDion tube design, a layout that was independent, but due to the tube and associated components had much higher unsprung weight. A further flaw with the P6 that bore a similarity to the Mk1 Jaguar was that the rear track was far too narrow whereas the BMW was exactly the reverse and was wonderfully stable at any speed.
It was on vehicles that were everyday at the time, and in particular the police cars. You have to work on them to understand just what kind of abuse they are expected to take.
The P6 was a great car to drive from the comfort point of view, but it did not prove to be as reliable as the Jaguars for example. The early cars had serious and constant selector problems and this reoccurred with the 3500S. Again the 'box was not up to the engine and was much noisier than the four cylinder cars.
The BMW used ZF or Getrag gearboxes, both of which were utterly superb and only showed wear at extremely high mileage.
Well 215, I don't have a technical advisor, I am a technical advisor.
Brian Terry is undoubtedly an experienced man on Rovers, but what, if anything does he know about BMWs, or indeed, why would you mention this man anyway? This thread is not about Rovers, it's about a particular car that was for sale that is a BMW.
This brings me to the crux of the matter, and that is your constant and ever eager ability to enforce a P6 Rover as the ultimate classic vehicle.
I think your enthusiasm for the marque blinds you to the fact that you do this constantly.
You must always remember that all cars, no matter how beautiful or desirable they appear are in fact flawed in design, and when I come on here giving advice it is with over forty years hard bitten experience in the workshop, on the road and track and in development.
So please show a little respect when you attempt to browbeat me with wisecracks like the last one here: it doesn't work.
Now you know a bit about them you can keep your eyes open for another.
Ok, the classic car business is one in which you can have a lot of fun, but also get your fingers utterly roasted into the bargain; it stands to reason therefore that the more pertinent knowledge you accrue BEFORE buying the better.
So I am now going to put the record straight on a few myths; and this is straight from the horses mouth, not from " a bloke I knew who was an expert".
I actually worked on the cars mentioned here when they were new. Found the flaws, did the warranty claims, discovered the ones that shone.
215cu said:
As I understand the 2000 and 2002 suffer from brake fade (the P6 had servo assisted disc all round to the rear drums of 2000 and 2002)
Completely incorrect. The BMW had very adequate discs front and substantial drums rear, but most importantly had fully independent dual circuit braking with twin servos and anti lock on the rear wheels. I never once had fade or any problems whatever with the braking sytem on these cars.Edited by 215cu on Monday 10th March 09:01
215cu said:
The P6 also has it's rear diff bolted to the 'chassis' and it's discs inboard to reduce unsprung weight on the rear axle. It has a far more 'planted' ability as the 2000/2 are more prone to side winds.
Again, completely inaccurate. The BMW rear suspension design was one of the finest around at the time and continued basically unchanged into the '90s.Edited by 215cu on Monday 10th March 09:01
It was fully independent and ultra lightweight. The differential was harnessed to the bodyshell and the unsprung weight was far lower than the P6 Rover. This was due to the fact that Rover chose the DeDion tube design, a layout that was independent, but due to the tube and associated components had much higher unsprung weight. A further flaw with the P6 that bore a similarity to the Mk1 Jaguar was that the rear track was far too narrow whereas the BMW was exactly the reverse and was wonderfully stable at any speed.
215cu said:
As for 2000TC's head gasket going, that's a new one to me, knowing several long term owners (taking engines well beyond 175,000 miles) the main problem with the 2000TC is a weakness in the side plates.
As for hydraulic tensioners failing, I can only imagine that a deliberate lack of proper servicing would bring that about. I treated my 2000TC with total disrespect, frequently red-lining it and when I broke the car for spares, the guy that bought the engine (at a near-rebuilt 75,000 miles) told me at a subsequent club meet that it needed little if anything doing to it. As for the gearbox as the first iteration of the LT77, the only problem I'm aware of is the linkage can wear making it pop out of reverse/difficult to select first. 2000/2 gearboxes are prone to synchroniser wear.
My experience was not with one or two cherished vehicles owned by enthusiasts who pamper them.As for hydraulic tensioners failing, I can only imagine that a deliberate lack of proper servicing would bring that about. I treated my 2000TC with total disrespect, frequently red-lining it and when I broke the car for spares, the guy that bought the engine (at a near-rebuilt 75,000 miles) told me at a subsequent club meet that it needed little if anything doing to it. As for the gearbox as the first iteration of the LT77, the only problem I'm aware of is the linkage can wear making it pop out of reverse/difficult to select first. 2000/2 gearboxes are prone to synchroniser wear.
Edited by 215cu on Monday 10th March 09:01
It was on vehicles that were everyday at the time, and in particular the police cars. You have to work on them to understand just what kind of abuse they are expected to take.
The P6 was a great car to drive from the comfort point of view, but it did not prove to be as reliable as the Jaguars for example. The early cars had serious and constant selector problems and this reoccurred with the 3500S. Again the 'box was not up to the engine and was much noisier than the four cylinder cars.
The BMW used ZF or Getrag gearboxes, both of which were utterly superb and only showed wear at extremely high mileage.
215cu said:
Finally, in a case of my technical advisor is better than your technical advisor. I used to have my car serviced by a gentleman called Brian Terry. Brian was one of Rover's test drivers during the days of P5/P6 and SD1. It was Brian's job to test these cars to destruction during the development using the facilities of MIRA and Gaydon. In terms of pushing a P6 to its limits knowing its weaknesses and its abilities; I reckon his personal experience would trump yours totally.
Edited by 215cu on Monday 10th March 09:01
Well 215, I don't have a technical advisor, I am a technical advisor.
Brian Terry is undoubtedly an experienced man on Rovers, but what, if anything does he know about BMWs, or indeed, why would you mention this man anyway? This thread is not about Rovers, it's about a particular car that was for sale that is a BMW.
This brings me to the crux of the matter, and that is your constant and ever eager ability to enforce a P6 Rover as the ultimate classic vehicle.
I think your enthusiasm for the marque blinds you to the fact that you do this constantly.
You must always remember that all cars, no matter how beautiful or desirable they appear are in fact flawed in design, and when I come on here giving advice it is with over forty years hard bitten experience in the workshop, on the road and track and in development.
So please show a little respect when you attempt to browbeat me with wisecracks like the last one here: it doesn't work.
Edited by jith on Thursday 13th March 21:07
jith said:
Well hard lines Colonial, you missed a real bargain and a superb car.
Now you know a bit about them you can keep your eyes open for another.
Ok, the classic car business is one in which you can have a lot of fun, but also get your fingers utterly roasted into the bargain; it stands to reason therefore that the more pertinent knowledge you accrue BEFORE buying the better.
So I am now going to put the record straight on a few myths; and this is straight from the horses mouth, not from " a bloke I knew who was an expert".
I actually worked on the cars mentioned here when they were new. Found the flaws, did the warranty claims, discovered the ones that shone.
It was fully independent and ultra lightweight. The differential was harnessed to the bodyshell and the unsprung weight was far lower than the P6 Rover. This was due to the fact that Rover chose the DeDion tube design, a layout that was independent, but due to the tube and associated components had much higher unsprung weight. A further flaw with the P6 that bore a similarity to the Mk1 Jaguar was that the rear track was far too narrow whereas the BMW was exactly the reverse and was wonderfully stable at any speed.
It was on vehicles that were everyday at the time, and in particular the police cars. You have to work on them to understand just what kind of abuse they are expected to take.
The P6 was a great car to drive from the comfort point of view, but it did not prove to be as reliable as the Jaguars for example. The early cars had serious and constant selector problems and this reoccurred with the 3500S. Again the 'box was not up to the engine and was much noisier than the four cylinder cars.
The BMW used ZF or Getrag gearboxes, both of which were utterly superb and only showed wear at extremely high mileage.
Well 215, I don't have a technical advisor, I am a technical advisor.
Brian Terry is undoubtedly an experienced man on Rovers, but what, if anything does he know about BMWs, or indeed, why would you mention this man anyway? This thread is not about Rovers, it's about a particular car that was for sale that is a BMW.
This brings me to the crux of the matter, and that is your constant and ever eager ability to enforce a P6 Rover as the ultimate classic vehicle.
I think your enthusiasm for the marque blinds you to the fact that you do this constantly.
You must always remember that all cars, no matter how beautiful or desirable they appear are in fact flawed in design, and when I come on here giving advice it is with over forty years hard bitten experience in the workshop, on the road and track and in development.
So please show a little respect when you attempt to browbeat me with wisecracks like the last one here: it doesn't work.
You made the statement that nothing could touch a BMW 2000, I pointed out another car what certainly could, you've jumped into argue might I say with a somewhat arrogant attitude. Which for someone so experienced is an outlandish and foolhardy thing to do.Now you know a bit about them you can keep your eyes open for another.
Ok, the classic car business is one in which you can have a lot of fun, but also get your fingers utterly roasted into the bargain; it stands to reason therefore that the more pertinent knowledge you accrue BEFORE buying the better.
So I am now going to put the record straight on a few myths; and this is straight from the horses mouth, not from " a bloke I knew who was an expert".
I actually worked on the cars mentioned here when they were new. Found the flaws, did the warranty claims, discovered the ones that shone.
215cu said:
As I understand the 2000 and 2002 suffer from brake fade (the P6 had servo assisted disc all round to the rear drums of 2000 and 2002)
Completely incorrect. The BMW had very adequate discs front and substantial drums rear, but most importantly had fully independent dual circuit braking with twin servos and anti lock on the rear wheels. I never once had fade or any problems whatever with the braking sytem on these cars.Edited by 215cu on Monday 10th March 09:01
215cu said:
The P6 also has it's rear diff bolted to the 'chassis' and it's discs inboard to reduce unsprung weight on the rear axle. It has a far more 'planted' ability as the 2000/2 are more prone to side winds.
Again, completely inaccurate. The BMW rear suspension design was one of the finest around at the time and continued basically unchanged into the '90s.Edited by 215cu on Monday 10th March 09:01
It was fully independent and ultra lightweight. The differential was harnessed to the bodyshell and the unsprung weight was far lower than the P6 Rover. This was due to the fact that Rover chose the DeDion tube design, a layout that was independent, but due to the tube and associated components had much higher unsprung weight. A further flaw with the P6 that bore a similarity to the Mk1 Jaguar was that the rear track was far too narrow whereas the BMW was exactly the reverse and was wonderfully stable at any speed.
215cu said:
As for 2000TC's head gasket going, that's a new one to me, knowing several long term owners (taking engines well beyond 175,000 miles) the main problem with the 2000TC is a weakness in the side plates.
As for hydraulic tensioners failing, I can only imagine that a deliberate lack of proper servicing would bring that about. I treated my 2000TC with total disrespect, frequently red-lining it and when I broke the car for spares, the guy that bought the engine (at a near-rebuilt 75,000 miles) told me at a subsequent club meet that it needed little if anything doing to it. As for the gearbox as the first iteration of the LT77, the only problem I'm aware of is the linkage can wear making it pop out of reverse/difficult to select first. 2000/2 gearboxes are prone to synchroniser wear.
My experience was not with one or two cherished vehicles owned by enthusiasts who pamper them.As for hydraulic tensioners failing, I can only imagine that a deliberate lack of proper servicing would bring that about. I treated my 2000TC with total disrespect, frequently red-lining it and when I broke the car for spares, the guy that bought the engine (at a near-rebuilt 75,000 miles) told me at a subsequent club meet that it needed little if anything doing to it. As for the gearbox as the first iteration of the LT77, the only problem I'm aware of is the linkage can wear making it pop out of reverse/difficult to select first. 2000/2 gearboxes are prone to synchroniser wear.
Edited by 215cu on Monday 10th March 09:01
It was on vehicles that were everyday at the time, and in particular the police cars. You have to work on them to understand just what kind of abuse they are expected to take.
The P6 was a great car to drive from the comfort point of view, but it did not prove to be as reliable as the Jaguars for example. The early cars had serious and constant selector problems and this reoccurred with the 3500S. Again the 'box was not up to the engine and was much noisier than the four cylinder cars.
The BMW used ZF or Getrag gearboxes, both of which were utterly superb and only showed wear at extremely high mileage.
215cu said:
Finally, in a case of my technical advisor is better than your technical advisor. I used to have my car serviced by a gentleman called Brian Terry. Brian was one of Rover's test drivers during the days of P5/P6 and SD1. It was Brian's job to test these cars to destruction during the development using the facilities of MIRA and Gaydon. In terms of pushing a P6 to its limits knowing its weaknesses and its abilities; I reckon his personal experience would trump yours totally.
Edited by 215cu on Monday 10th March 09:01
Well 215, I don't have a technical advisor, I am a technical advisor.
Brian Terry is undoubtedly an experienced man on Rovers, but what, if anything does he know about BMWs, or indeed, why would you mention this man anyway? This thread is not about Rovers, it's about a particular car that was for sale that is a BMW.
This brings me to the crux of the matter, and that is your constant and ever eager ability to enforce a P6 Rover as the ultimate classic vehicle.
I think your enthusiasm for the marque blinds you to the fact that you do this constantly.
You must always remember that all cars, no matter how beautiful or desirable they appear are in fact flawed in design, and when I come on here giving advice it is with over forty years hard bitten experience in the workshop, on the road and track and in development.
So please show a little respect when you attempt to browbeat me with wisecracks like the last one here: it doesn't work.
Edited by jith on Thursday 13th March 21:07
Y'know it's funny because I was back at the garage last weeked to pick up some Valvoline Racing and Brian was there, we had a good chat actually as I mentioned this, he lit up mentioning the 2000/2002.
One thing Rovers were very good at in those days was they would take a clutch of cars (like the DS as the reference for P6) but also during model development several other competitor marques and drive them, take them to bits and then find their weak points. All the manufacturers did this as reverse engineering was commonplace. One interesting point he mentioned was Rover at the time were messing with 5-cyl engines and had a problem with 3 carbs in a 2-2-1 arrangement. The BMW mechanical fuel injection was looked at as a possible solution, they felt though the pump was a weakpoint.
Part of Brian's job was to take these cars and simply drive them to bits. His recollection of the 2000/2002 was quite vivid as 'management' held it in very high regard and so spent considerable time understanding the car. As a car the ride and handling were very good, however he felt the drums were a compromise and the use of unbraided rubber for brake hoses was a puzzling one as it was an obvious deficiency with the braking system. The car had a number of issues especially concerning the twin Solex install around the early 70s which he felt was very complex and difficult to maintain tune and fuel delivery.
His biggest concerns though was after piling on quite a few miles were the gearboxes and cylinder head, the synchro in 2nd would wear and was a pain and the gearbox woul get noisy pointing to loose output joints or rear layshaft bearings which by then meant inevitable rebuilding of the box. He mentioned that it was certainly corrected by BMW by the mid 70s as it was a well known malady by then.
Also, the alloy cylinder head intrigued them as Rover were very well versed in cast aluminium blocks and heads. There was a predisposal of the 2000/2 head to leak at its gasket or even crack its head. Also valve guides, rocker arms and guides would wear too all symptomatic just over 100,000 miles requiring a rebuild.
For someone that doesn't do online arguments you seem to be doing very well. You are absolutely right, all cars have their faults it's just your rose tinted spectacles only seem to slip when it suits you.
As for wisecracks what do you expect? Coming here singling out individuals and demanding respect will always attract that response and not just from me.
Without wishing to be rude, could you two confine your personal slanging match to personal messaging? Poor old Colonial, who started this thread, must be quite fed up by now. On a personal front, I see this as a BMW question and how Rovers come to be involved escapes me. Perhaps I ought to introduce Jaguars as a third factor? Every car ever made has its plus and minus points, but surely we must confine our comments here to what the original post required. For every person who is for a car, there is always someone against. Let's leave it there please.
Oh, and I've only driven one BMW of this era and it was a 2002 tii. I was literally blown away by the on/off turbo and found it quite dangerous as the turbo cut in. Exhilarating but frankly dangerous, but then others will no doubt say otherwise. That is the nature of classic cars and really life in general.
Oh, and I've only driven one BMW of this era and it was a 2002 tii. I was literally blown away by the on/off turbo and found it quite dangerous as the turbo cut in. Exhilarating but frankly dangerous, but then others will no doubt say otherwise. That is the nature of classic cars and really life in general.
I apologise, it wasn't my intention when I offered some advice to Colonial at the time.
Unfortunately, my advice on this thread and several others is followed by jith in his own unique way often taking personal swings at me and also I've noticed a few others too.
I'll happily delete my entries here if that suits.
Unfortunately, my advice on this thread and several others is followed by jith in his own unique way often taking personal swings at me and also I've noticed a few others too.
I'll happily delete my entries here if that suits.
215cu said:
I apologise, it wasn't my intention when I offered some advice to Colonial at the time.
Unfortunately, my advice on this thread and several others is followed by jith in his own unique way often taking personal swings at me and also I've noticed a few others too.
I'll happily delete my entries here if that suits.
This is utter, absolute nonsense.Unfortunately, my advice on this thread and several others is followed by jith in his own unique way often taking personal swings at me and also I've noticed a few others too.
I'll happily delete my entries here if that suits.
I'll make a deal with you: I will gladly totally ignore what you write if you agree to do the same.
Gassing Station | Classic Cars and Yesterday's Heroes | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff