Rover 2000 TC
- BMW 2002 - Triumph 2500 PI
Every serious
motoring observer knows how Munich´s BMW concern came close to disaster and of
its subsequent spectacular rise from the ashes over the last few years, just as
he is equally familiar with the more restrained return from senility of Rover
with its highly successful 2000 series. And he will be aware that Triumph is
also making some pretty worthwhile cars nowadays after plugging on with
exceedingly boring ones in the past.
These three
names compete with one another in the lucrative executive saloon area of the
British market; indeed they have been actively exploiting this field. Their
approaches in terms of design are similar but far from indentical, although it
is very evident just how cut-throat the market place can be when prices are
mentioned.
And in the
cases of the respective high-performance versions of the base models the
infighting is closer still. Rover´s 2000 TC and Triumph´s 2.5 PI are identical
in price at ₤1867, despite a ₤132 difference (in the Triumph´s favour) when you
compare the basic 2000s from which they are derived. Ranged against them – and
in many ways more than their match – BMW has its 2002 priced at just ₤7 above
the British competition at ₤1874. It may not convay the air of luxury that the
Rover and Triumph contrive to exude but it more than compensates in the
performance and handling stakes – which is the other half of the appeal of these
so-called executive saloons.
Not that the
BMW owes its success to being a very much later design: all three cars can trace
their design history back a decade or so ago at the very least.
The Rover and
the Triumph first appeared in 1963 and set the pattern for well appointed
two-litre saloons. Since then the Rover has remained virtually unchanged, the TC
(for twin carburettor) coming along to counter valid criticism that the SC was,
and is, underpowered; the only alteration of note came last autumn when the
factory saw fit to tamper with one of the best facias in the business and went
on to spoil the front grille and bonnet lid for an encore.
The Triumph on
the other hand has led a less sheltered existence. It has been through one
partial restyling and now comes with an optional, enlarged fuel injection
version of the standard engine; with this its name changes to 2.5 (for litres)
and PI (for petrol injection). Basically, though, and especially where the
suspension, steering and brakes are concerned, it is little different from the
original 2000s.
The BMW reached
the British market in 1968, having been available on left-hand drive markets for
some time before that. It may seem a much newer car, but in fact is an amalgam
of rather older components. The single overhead cam engine, for instance, was a
foundation stone of BMW´s recovery while the body shell is that of the 1600
saloon, introduced to keep the firm going in that end of the market while it
made hay with the 2000 and laid its plans for the 2500/2800. The 1600 used
running gear similar to the 2000´s and possessed handling qualities far in
excess of its performance potential. It cried out for the extra muscle of the
2000 engine and, when the benefit came, turned into a car that topped even the
most optimistic expectations. The 2002 is a driver´s car in the true sense of
the cliché, able to put up cross-country averages that it takes a good (and
considerably more expensive) sports/GT car to beat.
Although
starting to look dated (or is it just overfamiliar?) the Rover remains a prime
example of just can be achieved by the British motor industry´s own stylists.
The Triumph was originally Michelotti-designed so naturally enough, perhaps,
BLMC turned to him when a facelift was wanted for the autumn motor show season
of 1969. With an eye to the soaring costs of new body dies, he revamped the ends
of the shell while leaving the middle largely untouched. The Triumph gains
visually from its generous external dimensions whereas the Rover is similar in
width and height – though a few inches shorter – and impresses as a well
proportioned design. The BMW, conversely, does not. In width and height it is
little different from the British cars, but length is a good deal less so that
the overall is slightly ungainly. The effect is heightened by the large area of
glass and the correspondingly disproportionate gap between waist and roof.
Compared to the 2000s, the 2500/2800 range and the coupé shell, the 1600/2002 is
very much the ugly duckling of the BMW family; albeit, a very popular ugly
duckling.
But what it
lacks in looks it more than makes up in engineering. The chunky-looking
four-cylinder, five-main bearing engine is the mechanical basis of all BMWs. A
crossflow head carries a single chain-driven camshaft operating inclined valves
through two rows of rockers. The valves open into a combustion chamber of
modified hemispherical layout. Carburation is by a single Solex. Bore and stroke
are over-square at 89 by 80mm to give 1990cc.
The Rover´s
power unit is similar, it is a single overhead cam with five bearings, the
valves are in line and bore and stroke are identical at 85.7mm to give 1978cc.
Compression ratio is a highish 10 to one, and carburation is by a pair of those
trusty SUs.
By comparison
the Triumph´s engine is unsophisticated almost to the point of vulgarity, for it
is a four-bearing six with pushrod-operated valves. Designed originally for the
last of the Standard Vanguards and used now for the GT6, Vitesse and 2000, it
has a longer stroke in its 2.5 application, taking the measurements out to 74.7
by 95mm and capacity to 2498cc. Its saving grace lies in the use of the tried,
efficient Lucas mechanical fuel injection.
Combined with
an extra 500cc above the stuck 2000´s capacity and better breathing, the 2.5 PI
gives a near-50percent boost to power, taking it up to 132bhp at 5450rpm. The
Rover in TC form provides a relatively smaller gain over its parent 2000. Dual
carburettors and generally improved breathing raise peak power by a little over
25percent to 114bhp at 5500rpm. The BMW engine is the cooking one and produces
what appears to be a modest 100bhp at 5500rpm.
If the BMW
appears down on power remember that West Germany has stringently-applied trade
description laws and that, judging from the results of our maximum-speed tests,
some of those British horses tend to lose their way on route to the back
wheels. They should not get diverted in the transmissions, though, for all three
cars come as standard with straightforward four-speed manuals. Overdrive is an
extra cost option on the Triumph but not on the other two. Automatic gearboxes
are available for the Triumph and BMW (the latter at a staggering ₤199 extra)
but not the Rover.
Coil spring
suspension is common to all three and the BMW and Triumph also share McPherson
strut front ends and semi-trailing arms at the rear. The Rover diverges
completely, not only from its two rivals but also from practically anything else
on the market. In its suspension design i is clearly the work of some remarkably
level-headed engineers, untrammelled by many preconceived ideas or by the need
to use existing components. This clean sheet of paper approach resulted in
something approximating wishbone geometry for the front end but with the springs
operating through longitudinally, feeding back loads direct into the massive
structure of the scuttle bulkhead. For good measure the links are angled to
reduce nose dive under braking. At the back, convention is left even further
behind with a de Dion axle that telescopes to allow for track variantions during
roll. In turn these are included by the use of solid non-splined half-shafts,
the principle being that minor track changes are preferable to the presence of
splines which can bind under acceleration to lock the suspension solid, as well
as being a potential source of transmission clonk. The de Dion tube is located
fore and aft by Watt´s linkages.
Only the Rover
takes advantage of the chassis-mounted differential to fit inboard disc rear
brakes. Unusually, they are larger – in diameter, but slimmer – than the front
ones. Triumph and BMW stick on outboard drums at the back with discs for the
front.
Power
assistance is an optional extra for the Triumph´s rack-and-pinion steering that
is not available on the worm and roller systems of the Rover and BMW. The
Triumph and BMW share normal steel unitary construction body shells, the former
with four doors and the latter with two. The four-door Rover, diverging again,
is welded in the form of a skeletal steel structure to which all the mechanical
components are attached before being clothed with an outer skin that forms the
visible body. The result is a car that is less susceptible to major structural
damage in minor accidents and is likely to incur a smaller bill at the repair
shop. The bonnet and boot lid are aluminium.
The BMW makes
the best use of space available, if only because it is a substantially shorter
car than either of its rivals yet can still carry four adults in comfort plus a
reasonable amount of luggage. The British importer puts a Coupé tag on to
its title but, in fact the 2002 is no more or less than a compact saloon with
two doors. Legroom is better than you might expect in a car less than 14ft long,
and headroom is as generous as the inordinately high roofline leads you to
anticipate. Sufficient back seat elbow room is achieved by hollowing out the
panels above the armrests. The Rover is also a four-seater, but goes a step
further than the German car by being an unequivocal one. The original 2000 was
the first saloon of its kind to recognise that most drivers seldom have more
than two or three passengers and only very rarely want to carry more than three.
So the back is designed as two individual seats. The Triumph has a more normal
back seat, suitable for two and a half adults. Back seat legroom is usually the
first dimension to suffer when it comes to squashing people, luggage and engine
into a given length. In the BMW an acceptable amount of this commodity has been
retained, and naturally it abounds in the lengthy Triumph. In the Rover rear
passengers feel more cramped than simple dimensions suggest unless the front
seats are well forward.
Despite its
overall size the Triumph seems rather lacking in boot space. The Rover gives you
less room, even with the extra-cost kit that mounts the spare wheel outside the
boot lid, and it does away with the rear sill that hampers loading operations in
the Triumph. The BMW is best of all, though, if you can forgive its high sill.
The huge lid lifts up to expose a gratifyingly large cavity – bigger than either
of its rivals´ - und more roomy than in most cars of similar overall size. All
three allegedly have space-saving rear-suspension systems, but only the BMW
takes full advantage of the possibilities.
Down at the
other end it does a similarly effective job of fitting a tall and bulky engine
into the space available without making things look too cramped. The engine is
canted sharply to the right to leave to leave space for carburettor and air
cleaner and at the same time provide a smoothly curved induction tract. The
Rover has more than enough space for its compact power unit. The unconventional
location of the spring damper units leaves surplus width that goes to waste in
the 2000 TC (but is very welcome for the V8 installation in the 3500 edition).
The Triumph needs all of its long bonnet for its slende six and width, too, is
in demand for the fuel injection equipment. Instead of the nead
double-carburettor set-up of the 2000 the 2.5 has six inlet stubs curving out
from the head and into a large air box running down the right-hand side of the
engine.
There is little
about the BMW´s interior to give away the sporting side of its character. The
reclining front seats, for instance, provide the acceptable minimum of lateral
grip and in the Rover, too, the temptation to boy-racerise the cockpit has been
resisted. The Rover seats do, however, offer more sideways support than the
BMW´s. And, as in the BMW, they are high mounted, making the already excellent
all round visibility seem even better. The Triumph seats you lower and with less
lateral grip than the Rover. In all three the seats give sufficient support over
a wide area of the body to prevent aches and pains on a long day´s drive. We
especially liked the Rover´s ultra-simple friction-clutch method of reclining
the back rests although we were less enthusiastic about its slippery leather
upholstery.
Each one of the
trio scored highly in matters of the layout of controls. The Rover has an
unfashionably large diameter steering wheel but compensates with rake adjustment
controlled by a knob down on the column. The gear lever, with lift-up collar
guarding reverse, is a splendidly short, rigid lever with the handbrake right
next to it, while the pedals are nicely placed for heel and toeing. Pedal
positioning is also sastisfactory on the BMW now that some attention has been
paid to it by the engineers. Mounted high and well away from the facia, we found
the steering wheel odd in its location but the positions of gear and handbrake
levers are beyond crtiticism. The BMW´s control layout suits tall men best,
while that of the Rover is most comfortable for those of average height and
below. The Triumph manages to satisfy the entire range of stature, aided, like
the Rover, by a steering wheel adjustable for rake and secured by a quick
release clamp. Last autumn´s alterations to the Rover´s facia have done little
to improve it. The plain round speedo and tachometer are clearer than the ribbon
speedo and separate rev counter of yore, perhaps, but the quickly memorised,
differently shaped switches have been replaced by identical ones placed in a row
and therefore confusable in the dark. One area where improvement would have been
welcome is the steering column stalk switches; they control so many functions
that it´s too easy to get a toot when you wanted to dip... The Triumph still has
the minor controls about which we enthused on the 2000 Mark Two, though again
most drivers would welcome a reduction in the number of column-mounted controls.
Stalks abound also on the BMW – well, there are two of them – but the other
minor operations have been simplified down to a bare minimum of knobs and
switches. Instrumentation comprises a matched speedo and tachometer, plus
another dial for a modicum of information about the other essential and not so
essential services.
All three cars
were commendably free of wind-excited noise, at least up to 80 mph or so, though
the BMW in particular tails off quickly above this figure. The Rover and BMW
were prone to a limited but nonetheless occasionally audible degree of tyre
thump, once a prominent bugbear of the Rover. Engine noise levels, which were
inordinately high in earlier 2000 TCs, have now been reduced to an acceptable
level although, as in the BMW, the power unit still produces a hard, thrumming
roar when on full throttle or near the top of the rev range. The Triumph is the
quietest and smoothest of the three. It is also at least a match for its
competitors in matters of heating and ventilation. Its systems are comprehensive
and versatile, as well as being quite finely adjustable. The Rover is nearly as
good, being spoiled by feeble face-level fresh air outlets. The BMW lags behind
with its rather indifferent provision for ventilation.
In spite of
having fractionally firmer suspension the Rover will manages to give its
occupants a ride as comfortable as that of the softly sprung Triumph and does so
with much less lean on corners. The BMW is even less roll prone but its ride is
that much harder.
Safety has
always been a strong point of the Rover 2000 range although in such matters as
collapsability of engine and luggage compartments, strength of passenger
compartment, roof and screen pillars, it is today matched ny an increasing
number of its rivals. Even so, there is much evidence of intelligent attention
to detail, as in the padded leg-protecting shinbins and in the small (but
misleadingly wide angle) rear view mirror. Yet in such matters as the use of
crushable material around the cockpit, recessed or deformable protrusions,
telescopic steering columns and so on a mixture of commomsense, experience, and
the US safety regulations have let other manufacturers catch up.
All three cars
started easily from cold on their manual chokes. The Triumph offers dire
warnings on windscreen stickers about continuing to run the engine if it
persists in misfiring after firing up (ours didn´t) and about leaving the
ignition on with the engine not running (fuel may be pumped through an open
injector to collect in the head and seep explosively down to the crankcase). The
Rover, incidentally, matches its manual choke with a pull-out knob for a reserve
fuel supply. The BMW also has a fuel reserve. Both the Rover and the BMW picked
up and pulled strongly right away, but the Triumph was unduly sensitive to
rich-mixture settings. Once warmed up, though, the 2.5 PI ran with smoothness
and flexibility and gave instantaneous throttle response in a way that no
carburettor engine can match.
The
heron-headed Rover felt harsh and rough when working hard. Partly as a result of
a non-too-flat torque curve and partly because of high gearing it proved far
from flexible, being at its happiest when kept on the boil with lots of
gearchanging. The change action was nicer than the notchy one on the Triumph if
not as slick and positive as the BMWs. As well as being a poor puller in the
high gears the Rover emphasised its unwillingness to slong by being prone to
transmission snatch if driven sloppily.
The BMW proved
to be in a different class altogether. Its excellent engine has a generously
spread range of really meaty torque and will, if you insist, make short work of
accelerating in third and top from ridiculously low speeds. It performs just as
well at the other end; the peak of the power curve falls away slowly and the
test car was still breathing freely as it rushed into the red at 6500rpm.
Considering
this, we were surprised that the acceleration times of the much lighter BMW did
not look even better when compared to its rival´s. Still, from 60 mph upwards it
moves away quickly and it is still pulling hard as it nears its maximum whereas
the British pair are labouring at anything much above 100 and take what feels
like infinity to struggle up the last few mph. The BMW, thanks to better gearing
and aerodynamics, you might presume, marches straight up there – in spite of
having anything up to 32percent less power to propel a roughly similar front
area. The generally superior efficiency of the BMW is underlined by fuel
consumption figures – a little better than the Rover (which demands five star
petrol) and well ahead of the heavier, bigger-engined and less efficient
Triumph.
The German car
tends to lead in matters of handling. Its concerning power, measured in terms of
lateral acceleration, is ahead of the TC. Rover, remember, set new standards in
its class when first introduced and remains a first class roadholder today. The
Triumph falls a long way behind in this area, as it does in handling. The three
run the gamut of understeer from the engine exaggerated behaviour of the Triumph
through the still strong characteristic of the Rover to the mild understeer
(easily-throttle-adjusted to neutral, or even oversteer) of the BMW. All three
change, as the limit is approached, to oversteer, the BMW doing so quite
quickly, the others less so. Steering on the Triumph is unexceptional. The
Rover´s steering is light and well damped but somehow lacking in the finer
degrees of road feel. We preferred the BMW´s which is light, into the bargain –
certainly a good deal lighter than we remember from early 2002s. Overall, the
BMW has by far the best handling. The Rover is acceptably stable (unlike the
BMW, which can be unsettled by a crosswind), very manageable and forgiving, but
it does not present the standing invitation to fast driving that comes from the
BMW. The Triumph clings to the road better than its wallowing body roll leads
you to expect but its size and generally soft nature combine with soft,
under-damped springing to dissuade most drivers from anything other than a staid
style.
In braking
tests the Rover comes out on top, being less prone to fade than the others. Thr
Triumph was more progressive still, but it could not achieve a 1g stop during
our trials. The BMW managed 1g stops at first, then began to fade rapidly when
just over halfway through the test. The brakes soon recovered themselves but
disturbed us by departing and reappearing very unevenly. Their action was also
far from progressive.
Cars like this
trio are taking an ever increasing share of the market and after prolonged
experience of them it is not difficult to see why. Even the least agile of them
can match the majority of similarly priced sports cars in many respects, while a
good one like the BMW will leave them standing. At the same time they provide
high standards of comfort, carrying capacity, sobriety of appearance and
reasonably low prices.
The most
successful of these sports saloons are those like the Rover, which were designed
for the job, or the BMW, which sprang from a particularly well informed,
sporting-minded design team. Those like the Triumph, developed from sompler
beginnings, show up less well when pushed hard.
As enthusiastic
drivers we preferred the BMW but we can see that a motorist who puts more store
by sumptuous looks, both inside and out, will prefer the Triumph. At best, the
BMW is certainly an unexciting car with nothing to give away the other side of
its character. The Rover fits neatly between the two in this as it does in most
things.
We would
consider the Triumph for its comfort, quietness and easy performance. The again,
the Rover matches it on most of these points and gives you greatly preferable
handling and roadholding. Its peaky engine can be tiresome after a while,
though.
So it really
comes back to that unobstrusive, effortless, if rather plain BMW 2002.