"RogerM" <RogerM@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:13umh0nn87bdk71@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> The V8 P76 was not unreliable and way ahead of it's time of the day.
Clearly you've never been remotely close to one :)
The P-76 was *hopelessly* unreliable, and most of it due to the fact that
it
was poorly designed and built using absolute crap quality components.
> i.e. aerodynamic shape,
It was no more aerodynamic than an XA Falcon :)
> and a Rover all alloy V8, one of the most reliable engines of the day.
Roger, Roger, Roger, Roger, Roger... :)
The Rover V8 was a *terrible* engine. It was a bored and stroked version
of
the 3.5 litre variant, and it was hopelessly underpowered and not at all
reliable. It leaked oil like a tin can with the arse blown out of it with
a
shotgun, suffered terribly from corrosion, had head gasket issues like you
would not believe and suffered from poor casting issues that resulted in
things like liners being incredibly thin in sections (which ****ed up ring
seal), valve guides moving in their bores, main bearing caps that walked
all
over the place and spun cam bearings were a regular occurance.
Their *one* saving grace was that being of all alloy contruction meant
that
they were light, but that was it and it certainly wasn't enough to put up
with the rest of it's "issues".
Don't even get me started on what a complete turd of an engine the 6
cylinder was :)
> The P76 was not given a chance, thanks to BMC's David Hill who came out
> here to squash an all australian invention, just like Mitsubi**** and the
> 380. However, whilst I ahve owned many cars over the many years of
> driving, I have never owned any of those.
Count yourself lucky. They were a ****ing *huge* lemon.
The P-76 was given *every* chance, and it's interesting to note that
people
like yourself try to re-invent history in an attempt to blame everything
(and everyone) for the car's failure *but* the car. The *truth* is that
the
car was a ****ing great heap of ****, and the public realized that *very*
early on. They had major issued from the get-go, and earned a horrid
reputation almost immediately to the point where the press was
****-canning
the things within 6 months of them being released.
The problems were compounded by the fact that Leyland was in deep **** as
far as being a viable manufacturer was concerned, and the whole operation
was wound up when head hunters arrived out here and saw what a complete
****ing mess the car was and decided it was cheaper to scrap the lot
rather
than fix it.
Interestingly, many people claim that the P-76 had a lot of "innovative
features", and these comments are usually made by people who weren't even
born when the things were being made, let alone have ever driven one. The
only real advantage they had over their rivals at the time was the use of
rack & pinion steering. They used the same rear axle & auto trans as found
in any Ford Falcon of the era, and the McPherson strut front suspension
they
had made them a floaty understeering heap to drive, and totally unsuited
to
rural roads (which makes you wonder why they pitched the car towards that
segment with the "44 gallon drum in the boot" crap). They had comfortable
seats, and plenty of rear seat room, but also had *appalling* interior
plastics and switchgear and electrics that were a ****ing nightmare on
their
best day.
So bad was a quality of the cars that many left the factory damaged from
bumping into the machinery as the assembly line was way too narrow for a
car
of it's size, or incomplete with most (but not all) of the parts needed to
"finish off" simply thrown in the boot for the dealer to worry about :)
You think they were a reliable car that was "ahead of it's time"? good for
you mate, but you're in a very select ignorant minority if that's what you
*really* think. The reality is that they were a ****ing *butt* ugly car
that
were plagued with appalling build quality and reliability issues, and they
were *never* going to make it.
At all.
--
Regards,
Noddy.
|
