Noddy wrote:
> "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.
>
>
So shall I put that down as a 'no' then :>)
|
