[ROVERNET - UK] People who buy Rovers

Nathan Obuch nathanobuch at yahoo.com
Mon Apr 7 04:48:17 BST 2008


I think you could argue that the 2000TC was a much
higher-tech car than the Volvo 122S. (Perhaps to the
Rover's downfall.) 

SOHC engine vs. pushrods
DeDion "IRS" (we can argue that point) versus live
4 wheel discs vs. Disc/drum
"Exotic" aluminum bonnet/boot vs. all steel
Fancier interior materials. 

They both DID have ribbon speedos if I recall
correctly, so cross shopping was inevitable! :-)


--- Glen Wilson <rovercar at comcast.net> wrote:

> ilcommodor at aol.com wrote:
> > i remember precisely, because my parents wanted a
> rover 2000tc in fall 
> > 1966, but settled for a 1967 122S volvo wagon,
> which cost a not 
> > inconsiderable $2800, with optional,
> dealer-installed rear seat belts. 
> > (hello? safety anyone?)  the TC, at $4200, was
> precisely 50% more 
> > expensive.
> >
> > jamie kitman
> So, there you had the option of buying a wagon and
> still got a great car 
> for a lot less money? Why was the TC so much more
> expensive? Was it all 
> that advanced engineering or the leather seats? Was
> the P6 considered to 
> be that much more upmarket? They always mention the
> Triumph 2000 as its 
> competitor. The PV544 was within an inch of the same
> wheelbase and 
> overall length as the P6, so the 122S must have been
> about the same size.
> Glen
> _______________________________________________
> rovernet mailing list
> rovernet at lyris.ccdata.com
> To unsubscribe, go to this web page, look near the
> bottom and follow instructions:
> http://mailman.nipltd.com/mailman/listinfo/rovernet
> Back-up list and photos at:
> http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/Rover_net/

You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster Total Access, No Cost.  

More information about the rovernet mailing list