tonys
Rover Fanatic
Posts: 419
|
Post by tonys on Oct 7, 2018 9:39:38 GMT
I probably didn't phrase it well, I think it was more a case that the BW35 would work well with the standard power/torque engine, whereas the DG obviously didn't.
I haven't seen the technical specfic the DG, nor compared the torque curves of the higher/lower cr engines but I would guess that it was near its working limits or the torque curve was different.
|
|
|
Post by geoff53 on Oct 7, 2018 10:36:23 GMT
Thanks Tony I agree it is a Mk2 as too many indicators not to be, as your Record of chassis number runs confirms, I can also add the side window glass markings show it manufactured 1965, but that could have been used in 66 I suppose. I wonder why such a delay in first registration, I wonder if it could be something to do with a private plate it had ? As the owners kept the number WVB 513 as was her fathers initials, not knowing the process of changing Reg no in those days ! Perhaps it was originally registered a 1965 car ? Would they issue a new log book in 66 if number was changed then ? As I have the 66 original log book stating first Reg 3/5/66 but it has the new number on it, but a stamp saying transfer of Mark £5 ? Sadly the husband of the daughter we bought from was the most unhelpful person I have ever met, don’t know was his answer to all my questions. Didn’t even know what the original number was ! Oh well it’s a guessing game.
|
|
|
Post by geoff53 on Oct 7, 2018 10:49:27 GMT
Tony even further to confirm your knowledge of such models my mistake of the stainless window surrounds, for the chap that informed me of that difference was pointing them out to me on his mk3 coupe ! So again I bow to your knowledge. Picking your brain for another minor fact if I may ? When we got the car it had a pair of headrests the slip over type of the 60’s / 70’s. Were these offered as optional extras from Rover ? As these are trimmed in exactly the same green leather making them look very original, I have removed them as I prefer without but obviously they will stay with the car, just curious.
Thanks to one and all for all your input, very reassuring that you all exist to preserve these fine cars in the way they deserve.
|
|
|
Post by Phil Nottingham on Oct 7, 2018 14:01:01 GMT
All to do with the torque curve to suit the lockup torque converter which is completely different to the simpler BW35 type
|
|
|
Post by enigmas on Oct 7, 2018 16:15:57 GMT
All to do with the torque curve to suit the lockup torque converter which is completely different to the simpler BW35 type That's odd Phil...I had a friend with a mk2 Jaguar (3.4) originally fitted with a DG trans...and that certainly was a torquey engine, although it sapped a lot of performance from the car.
|
|
|
Post by Phil Nottingham on Oct 7, 2018 17:34:17 GMT
Rover was perhaps overly fussy - I prefer the Mk2 auto to the BW35 on the P5B but I have only driven a Mk3 briefly so cannot say whether there is any real difference. As the DG ceased production by 1965 and the 3 Litre was soon to be given the boot it was probably not worth having 2 different engines + the 2.6 non-Westlake head version for the LWB LR's
|
|
|
Post by enigmas on Oct 8, 2018 0:19:17 GMT
As you're probably aware Phil my MK3 is not standard as far as the drive train goes and the BW35 (really a Ford BW40 internally) has been upgraded as far as I could take it. A friend of mine now long deceased had a fawn MK3 Coupe which was his pride and joy. He was very mechanically adept. I drove it on several occasions. The standard Rover version of the BW35 really did sap all the performance potential from the engine. The shifts were very smooth but it would want to get into top gear as quickly as possible and literally stay there. He never upgraded the original transmission as I did, but eventually (he was in his 70s at the time) adapted a Supra 5 speed manual trans to the car as he annually drove it interstate (Victoria to the Gold Coast in Queensland). The difference in engine performance (including the 5th gear overdrive) was amazing and of course much more fuel efficient.
As an aside the only way to tell if the engine was idling from inside the car was to look at the red ignition light blinking on and off! It was that quiet.
|
|
tonys
Rover Fanatic
Posts: 419
|
Post by tonys on Oct 8, 2018 17:56:29 GMT
Tony even further to confirm your knowledge of such models my mistake of the stainless window surrounds, for the chap that informed me of that difference was pointing them out to me on his mk3 coupe ! So again I bow to your knowledge. Picking your brain for another minor fact if I may ? When we got the car it had a pair of headrests the slip over type of the 60’s / 70’s. Were these offered as optional extras from Rover ? As these are trimmed in exactly the same green leather making them look very original, I have removed them as I prefer without but obviously they will stay with the car, just curious. Thanks to one and all for all your input, very reassuring that you all exist to preserve these fine cars in the way they deserve. I'm happy to be corrected but I'm fairly sure that headrests weren't offered by Rover prior to the MK111 3-litres, although they might have been available as dealer options. The P6 seats weren't fitted with headrests fittings initially, either. Rover's headrests were vinyl-covered, and fitted into the seats, so if yours are slip-over matching leather I would guess that they were done as one-offs. Re your earlier query re registration, I would imagine that it was simply a case of the car being unregistered until May 1966. As far as I'm aware, changes of registration number would not have affected registration dates, unless the car was initially out of the UK, in which case they were often registered at date of import and that didn't change until the early 80s. It's very unlikely, especially with the MK111 being introduced, but I suppose a dealer could have used it as a demonstrator under trade plates, without registering it, but I doubt it. P5 sales no doubt tailed off after the P6 2000 was introduced (late '63, deliveries in effect from '64) and most likely that, and the introduction of the MK111 in late '65, presumably for the '66 model year, simply meant that a number of MK11s were left unsold.
|
|
|
Post by geoff53 on Oct 9, 2018 15:58:41 GMT
Hi tony Yes I agree with your thoughts re registration etc. Yes I did wonder if the head rests had been one offs. They can be seen (just )in the first two pictures I posted if you expand on them. I prefer it without so will keep them to one side for any future owners. Cheers
|
|
|
Post by enigmas on Oct 10, 2018 1:15:37 GMT
We're totally off topic guys!
|
|
|
Post by geoff53 on Oct 11, 2018 8:20:02 GMT
Noted ! My fault entirely I digressed I’ll start new thread on my topics. Thanks all Geoff
|
|