1953 Rover 75

Post pictures and stories about your cars both present and past. Also post up "blogs" on your restoration projects - the more pictures the better! Note: blog-type threads often get few replies, but are often read by many members, and provide interest and motivation to other enthusiasts so don't be disappointed if you don't get many replies.
Message
Author
User avatar
JPB
Posts: 10319
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2011 3:24 pm

Re: 1953 Rover 75

#11 Post by JPB »

michaelw wrote:
rich. wrote:i wondered if ms gaga had dressed as a rover 75.... now theres a thought :lol:
can`t be any worse than the meat dress ;) :lol:
:o I'm not so sure. Anything that's been next to her skin for a while is probably quite gamey and there'd be little difference - in taste or smell - between her sweaty ochsters and a P4's seats. Probably.
In fact, until Rich asked the question, I'd simply assumed that the stench would be the reason for the car's naming after the famously malodorous American eccentric. :|

Lovely motors these P4s, if I ever find a decent 105R to add to my rapidly expanding collection of ancient stuff I'm going to name it after Anna Friel. :D
J
"Home is where you park it", so the saying goes. That may yet come true.. :oops:
michaelw
Posts: 17
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2011 12:19 pm

Re: 1953 Rover 75

#12 Post by michaelw »

they sure are :) this is the second one i have owned now...... the other one in the 2nd picture is also mine, but has recently been sold to a chap locally (who is the rather large chap in said 2nd pic :) ). mind you, the 75 is almost a completely different vehicle - column change and free-wheel should be fun the first few times :shock:
User avatar
JPB
Posts: 10319
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2011 3:24 pm

Re: 1953 Rover 75

#13 Post by JPB »

As a matter of interest and in the hope of satisfying a long-held desire to know this; was a 2-stroke engine originally contemplated for the P4? Just wondering why they felt that the freewheeling arrangement was needed with a 4 stroke. :?
J
"Home is where you park it", so the saying goes. That may yet come true.. :oops:
michaelw
Posts: 17
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2011 12:19 pm

Re: 1953 Rover 75

#14 Post by michaelw »

thats the first i`ve heard of a 2-stroke being planned for a P4. to me, a 2-stroke whatever the size would seem woefully underpowered and unrefined for a car of the desirability of a Rover..... afterall, they were called the 'poor mans Rolls Royce'.

Mind you, speaking of alternative engines, there are several Rover V8-converted cars known to the club. And there is also one chap who has a Land-Rover 200TDi powered P4 80 that has been all round Europe and even been to the Nurburgring - hitting 120mph at one point! :o :shock:
tractorman
Posts: 1399
Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2011 11:22 am
Location: Wigton, Cumbria

Re: 1953 Rover 75

#15 Post by tractorman »

I had a Rover 60 for a few months in the mid 70s and my father was most enthusiastic - because of the freewheel! He was of a generation that used to put their cars in neutral when going downhill - to save fuel. TBH he did it until he died in 1988 but he kept it quiet as a vicar breaking the law would set a bad example!

Unfortunately my Rover was very much a banger and it decided to let go of it's front suspension just after I turned off the main road and onto our drive. The front cross member had been bodged and, as a 20 year old, I didn't know enough to realise that when I bought it. It turned out the whole underside was rotten and the car wasn't worth restoring (they were all "bangers" at the time!).

The 75 brings back some good - and bad - memories!
Willy Eckerslyke
Posts: 225
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2011 2:35 pm

Re: 1953 Rover 75

#16 Post by Willy Eckerslyke »

michaelw wrote:thats the first i`ve heard of a 2-stroke being planned for a P4. to me, a 2-stroke whatever the size would seem woefully underpowered and unrefined for a car of the desirability of a Rover.....
Unrefined yes, but I don't see why it would be underpowered. Twice the bang of a 4-stroke means twice the power doesn't it?
tractorman
Posts: 1399
Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2011 11:22 am
Location: Wigton, Cumbria

Re: 1953 Rover 75

#17 Post by tractorman »

I'm not sure about twice the power - some is wasted with scavenging etc. The fuel economy wasn't all that good either - not ideal in the late 40s/early 50s.

Another negative is that, when that 75 was built, self mixing oil wasn't readily available. I only know that because my father bought a new Sun motor bike in about 54/5 and self mixing oil had just started being used. His trusted mechanic (and fuel supplier) said that self-mix was rubbish and insisted father used ordinary oil. One of my fond memories was the ritual cleaning of plugs: if he left them too long, the bike would cut out on the most embarrassing bit of road! He sold the bike after coming off in front of the "posh" hotel in Carlisle ("Crown and Mitre") and the toffs stood at the windows and laughed. The next owner discovered the new-fangled telescopic front forks weren't working properly!

I suspect that bike is the reason I never bought a motor bike - the trip down the main trunk road while sitting on the fuel tank was scary for a three or four year old!
User avatar
JPB
Posts: 10319
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2011 3:24 pm

Re: 1953 Rover 75

#18 Post by JPB »

michaelw wrote:thats the first i`ve heard of a 2-stroke being planned for a P4....
I just couldn't think of any other possible reason for the cars to have featured the freewheel basket. Saab kept the freewheel when their cars went from the 3 cylinder pinger to Ford's Cologne V4, but there's no mechanical need for a freewheel in a 4-stroke which was why I've been wondering about Rover's use of one.
Saying that, the Ford Fiesta 1.2 litre, 3 cylinder 2-strokes, as tested by various Police forces a few years ago, had no freewheel. Instead, they used a separate - pressurised - oil feed to supply the bearings.
J
"Home is where you park it", so the saying goes. That may yet come true.. :oops:
michaelw
Posts: 17
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2011 12:19 pm

Re: 1953 Rover 75

#19 Post by michaelw »

as far as I understand, Rover used the freewheel as an alternative to an overdrive system until a suitable o/d could be found. also, once the freewheel is engaged its pretty much equivalent to an automatic transmission but with the ability to select which gear you need.

the 95 i have/had, used to manage 25mpg around town and near 30mpg at a steady 55mph on a run........ far better than the 'estimated' 22mpg combined in period articles. Bear in mind though, the 95 was not available with overdrive when new. A friend who owns a 1960 o/d-equipped 100 tells me he regularly gets 27,28mpg (town) and 30,31mpg on a run.
michaelw
Posts: 17
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2011 12:19 pm

Re: 1953 Rover 75

#20 Post by michaelw »

just a quick progress update......

i`ve rebuilt the nearside rear brake cylinder. Its ironic isn`t it? it took 4 weeks to free off, 30 minutes to clean up the bore and pistons and finally 30 seconds to reassemble with new rubbers and bleed nipple.

The transmission tunnel has been completely de-rusted and cleaned then finally painted ready to be refitted shortly. The floors are almost cleaned of paint/sound deadening/rust as well...... and even the trim piece has now finally been removed after the stubborn screws were drilled out. The rubber matting on the top of the sill/step panel has also came off (in about 50 pieces) to reveal a nasty hole at the front near the a-post :o the lip of the whole length of the sill is also heavily rusted as is the flat panel it attaches to. it could be repaired but will most likely be cut out and replaced with a complete new panel.
Post Reply