Development

 

ROVER 800 (Mark I) Sterling from the rear side - strict but balanced lines.

From 1980, serious thought was given to a successor model to the SD1, whose reputation had bottomed out. It was to become an executive car again. The project was named LM15.
British Leyland was under enormous financial pressure. Therefore, only an external redesign of the SD1 was initially tested. But in September 1981 Gordon Sked and Roy Axe, head of car development, travelled to Frankfurt/Main for the IAA. They wanted to find out which vehicle models the competition intended to bring in the coming years.
They saw among other concepts the Ford Probe III and the Opel Tech-1. Europeans are increasingly relying on aerodynamics. And BMW presented the second edition of the 5-series, in which the mechanical and electronic further development was also a top priority. Thus BL was also clear that purely external changes at SD1 were not sufficient to face the competition in the future.

For Austin-Rover this meant that the only way to develop a technically advanced luxury car would be to cooperate with Honda. There were the resources and ambitions for such an undertaking. Negotiations began in October 1981, and Honda was also very interested in the car class. They wanted to expand on the American market - there Honda was currently represented with the Accord (1,602 ccm) as the largest model.

The contracts for the project XX were already signed in November 1981. The Austin-Rover - development team had not waited long and had already drawn designs after the first discussions with Honda. The new design studios in Canley developed various concepts for the new car. It should be aerodynamic, but also in line with the SD1. Gordon Sked was responsible for the outer form of the XX.

IIn July 1982 the first 1:1 clay model was presented. It was a ROVER 800 - with elements to be retained throughout the production period, such as the two-color design and the black A, B and C struts, which gave the impression of a continuous glass part with a "flying" roof over it. Still the first model of XX gave the impression of a characterless wind tunnel product, but the MIRA - wind tunnel determined an excellent C_w value of 0.27.

The first prototype of the "XX" made of clay from July 1982 was already visible a ROVER 800. Headlights and grill remind of the later "R8" ROVER 200.

Elements of the SD1 were added to the original XX design to give the car more autonomy: longitudinal beads on the flanks, ribbed rear lights and the wide, flat headlights flanking the front without radiator grille. Roy Axe attached great importance to the style of XX being transferable to later ROVER models. He defended the view that there must be a "family face" to the ROVER series.
From the beginning it was planned to use the classic design with three departments - engine, passengers, luggage - again. Since the XX was mainly intended for the export market, where traditional design was important in this class - especially Germany and the USA, where BMW, Audi and Mercedes-Benz dominated this class - were aimed at, a quite acceptable thought. The fact that there must be a common platform with Honda also pointed in this direction. The British engineers were unhappy that they had to align themselves with Japanese ideas regarding the width of the wagons. In the conflict between Japanese tax laws and British spatial concepts à la SD1, Honda won. So the interior designers had to rethink at Austin-Rover - and the result was one of the big highlights of XX.

The second model of the "XX" in November 1982: the convex flanks were replaced, but in this version Gordon Sked interfered with the large glass surface, the short bonnet (cab-forward-design) and the proportions.

The joint work of the Japanese and British design teams began quickly. The Japanese were behind because the British had already finished a 1:1 model for the first meeting. The models of XX and HX (as the Japanese version was called) were quickly advanced in Canley. The cooperation between the two teams was exemplary.

Honda put pressure on Austin-Rover to make the sides of the car smoother. Finally, the XX and HX should have the same chassis mounting points. The Japanese were of the opinion that the Citroen-like tapered front, which produced such good aerodynamic values, did not give the car enough presence. Therefore the dimensions of the ROVER have been slightly changed. Soon it became clear that the requirements of November 1981, according to which the two cars should only differ from each other in the front and rear area, could not be met. It was agreed that the exterior design should differ more strongly overall. And so XX and HX became two very different vehicles.

Also the Tatache, that Honda was not interested in a 2-liter machine in HX, showed structural differences between both developments. Austin-Rover attached importance to a 2-liter version of the XX, as it was considered indispensable for the British and European markets. Therefore the XX had to be able to accommodate the M16 engine designed by Roland Bertado, as well as the 2.5-litre V6 engine built by Honda. Unfortunately the V8 of the SD1 had got a bit offside at that time, so that it was not considered for the XX. Regarding power and torque of the Honda-V6 very sad.

The HX was by far the largest car Honda had ever developed and benefited from the experiences of <BL in the area of large bodies. As there was a risk that the two cars would move too far apart in development, they met again in Conley in January 1983 to define common cornerstones. This step bore fruit - and although both development teams believed that their wings had been cut too much, the project was now continued as a strict joint venture.
When the news came from Japan that the dimensions of the V6 engine would deviate from the plan, the two teams reacted differently. The new engine required 9 mm more track width. Gordon Sked changed the side panels according to the more barrel-shaped body panels originally provided in the DEV 1, while the Honda - team put on a wheel arches similar to the Audi Quattro - quite unusual for an Executive Car.

The "DEV 3" prototype of the "XX" in early 1983: Apart from minor changes in dimensions, the model is already very similar to the ROVER 800.

For Austin-Rover the four-cylinder engine was of great importance. The little impressive machine of the O-series served as a basis. Unlike the SD1, which was based on a large, high-torque engine, the XX was to be equipped with a highly developed four-cylinder in-line engine, which was to reach the values of the 2,300 and 2,600 ccm six-cylinder engines used in the SD1 with two power levels. For the top version Austin-Rover relied on the expected V6 of Honda.
Roland Bertodo developed new versions of the O-engine. The stronger version should deliver 70 bhp per liter displacement - instead of the previous 46 bhp / liter. Not an easy task in itself, the ever-increasing requirements of the emission protection laws were added. It was decided to develop a 16-valve cylinder head, in addition the carburetor was replaced by gasoline injection. Also the combustion chambers had to be changed, whereby Bertodo reverted to the development of the Triumph Dolomite Sprint - engine from 1973.
Spen King also had his hand in developing the engine. The weaker 2-litre engine, called the M16e, had a single-point injection system that was a real rarity in 1986. It functioned as an electronic carburettor and supplied all four cylinders with a mixture. The machine developed 118 healthy bhp at 5,600 rpm. The stronger M16i engine brought it up to 138 bhp. The M16 engine was a remarkable development, especially considering its unconvincing base and low development budget.

This gains additional importance if the V6 of Honda, which was also available in two versions, is set against it. Torques of 163 lb ft at 4,000 rpm in the automatic version and 160 lb ft at 5,000 rpm in the manual version were hardly convincing. The engine ran quietly and silky smooth, but unlike the SD1 with the V8 machine, with which you could pull out trees, the V6 had to be shifted violently if you really wanted to get power out of it. Both Honda and Austin-Rover were aware of the deficits of the V6 and were working hard on improvements. But you had to live with this version at the start of sales.

There were significant differences between Honda and Austin-Rover when configuring the chassis. Honda represented the "double wishbone" design as usual, while Austin-Rover leaned towards a more conventional design in favour of a larger interior. Honda became accepted, but the discussion about it continued. Since Honda preferred a lower sideline leading to a lower bonnet, there was no room for conventional McPherson struts. Therefore, a complex and expensive "double-wishbone" solution had to be used, which allowed only relatively little spring travel - typical for Honda.

The Rover 800 in the form in which it was finally presented. I'm sure it's a little different than if Austin Rover had had a free hand. The design may have been a compromise, but without Honda there would probably have been no replacement for the SD1.

From the point of view of Austin-Rover the driving quality was a compromise from the beginning. If the British had designed the chassis, the driving characteristics would certainly have been different. But the detailed work by Rover also bore fruit. And the chassis was quite an improvement over the more rustic characteristics of the SD1.

After the main development work was done, further versions were already planned. At first they thought of a model with a large tailgate, and thanks to the low waistline that Gordon Sked had designed, this seemed an easy undertaking. Marketing for such a version would be more difficult, at least as the marketing department saw it after the announcement by Graham Day in May 1986. But the 5-door version should not remain the only variant: intensive studies of the US market showed that the Americans wanted a more "personal" version - in other words a two-door coupé. The Canley design team immediately began designing such a version.

In April 1986 the public first saw the result of these works in the form of the Rover CCV (Coupé Concept Vehicle), which was regarded as a masterpiece of the Austin-Rover - design team. For more information see "Prototypes - CCV".

The clear profile of the early Rover 800 can be seen nicely on this picture - The continuous belt and the glazing are clearly visible.

In July 1986 the ROVER 800 was presented to the expectant media. As with SD1 in 1976, the existence of the project was long known. The XX has appeared in many corporate plans since 1982, which Austin-Rover had to present to the parliamentary committees, among others, in order to get fresh money for developments. The main features had also become known through the introduction of the HX and Honda Legend, as he was then called, in December 1985. Thus only the deviating form of the car surprised.

Some trade journalists mocked the new car, but they were in the minority. The magazine Car belonged to these critics and called it Bland Rover (about "softwashed Rover"). They praised the car for its British engines, but scolded it for the Honda V6:
"Despite all the technical innovations, the new 2.5-litre V6 lacks mid-range torque. Even the stronger M16 machine got rid of its fat:
"The more powerful machine with multipoint injection is neither quiet running nor particularly lively. Like the V6, the M16 must be switched diligently to deliver power. The highest torque is only reached at an absurdly high 4,500 rpm."
It must be said that the M16 engine reflected the wave of changes in engine design that swept through the automotive industry in the 1980s and 1990s. All brought out 16 valves with two camshafts. Rover jumped on this train. Lower-emission, more powerful and more economical engines - At the end of the 1990s, almost all gasoline-powered executive cars were powered by 2-litre 16V engines with relatively low torque.

The Rover 800 was consistently praised for its inner qualities.

Vehicle handling and driving characteristics of the 800 also found quite shared views. Thus wrote "Car":
"At low speeds, the ride shows - albeit well - certain shortcomings. The suspension is hard and lets road bumps through, which would swallow a Ford Granada, for example. All in all, the damping is surprisingly bad when compared to the Montego and Maestro."
Austin-Rover pointed out that some things had already been changed, but the criticism showed that much still had to be done.
Despite all the criticism, the ROVER 800 was positively received by the press and the public. Initially, the range consisted of only two models - the 'Sterling' and the '825i'. The cars with M16 engines did not arrive until six months later.

The relatively expensive ROVER 800 made its way into the executive car class, both in Great Britain and in the rest of Europe, despite these calamities. Production in Cowley went well, but as ARCONA was unable to establish the Sterling brand in the USA, there were virtually no sales to the USA. ARCONA did not accept the price wars that prevailed in the States at the time; moreover, reliability and quality left much to be desired. This marked the end of the "Sterling" chapter in the USA.

In addition to the coupé version of the 800, Rover was working on a convertible version, which was probably mainly intended for the American market - see side lights. But when ARCONA got into trouble, the idea was dropped.

In the UK the 800 sold excellently. In February 1988 the new Honda 2.7-litre V6 was announced, which made many problems of the old 2.5-litre V6 forget. The torque curve was now flatter and performance increased. The handling has also been improved. When the fastback version of 800 was released shortly afterwards, there was a spoilered Vitesse - version that recalled the much-loved SD1 Vitesse.

The fastback model is a good example of the influence the marketing department had in Graham Day's Rover Group. First, the fastback model of the 800 with slimmed-down equipment was to be offered at a lower price than the saloon, but as a rover 600. The five-door was seen as a rather practical car. But during market research it turned out that the customers appreciated the five-door no less than the saloon and were outraged about the 600er - label. The plans were quickly dropped and the car was offered as 800 Fastback with similar equipment as the saloon, although this name was never officially used. In addition, the 820 with O-series carburetor engine was added as a new basic model. Few months after the release of the Fastback, the sales figures of the ROVER 800 in the UK remained stable above those of the Ford Granada - a significant step forward for Rover.

The only problem for Rover was that the 800 was not considered sufficiently exclusive. After the company was sold to British Aerospace, the general plan was to make the highest possible profit from each series. Therefore, a facelift for the 800 was necessary so that the car would be seen more as a "British BMW" than as a rival of the Ford Granada. In 1989 plans were made for a radical facelift. Then it happened that the Sterling was equipped with the larger US bumpers (remainders?), which gave the car a new appearance and increased the road presence substantially.

The completely refurbished 'R17' version of the ROVER 800 certainly had a higher road presence than its predecessor. But was she also a better car? Unfortunately not, as Rover soon felt.

Gordon Sked worked on a more traditional grill for the facelift of the ROVER 800, which was internally called R17. The problem with the current 800 was the design from the eighties, which was out of date. Brand identity was very important in the executive car market. In the interest of aerodynamics, the ROVER 800 looked smooth and simple at the front - but Renault, Citroen and many others looked the same. Time, then, that Rover stood out from the crowd again. But the new 800 not only received a new grill, front and rear mudguards were also reshaped.
The new 800 looked bigger, was clearly identifiable on the road and had a distinctive brand identity. Only the fact that the doors had to remain as they were did not make the new concept appear completely conclusive. The roof had to be kept flat, it did not quite fit to the rounder form. Mechanically there was hardly anything new: The M16 machine was successfully redesigned to improve the torque curve, and the new T Series engine seemed to fit the car better. The V6 Vitesse has been replaced by the 2-litre turbo engine - now available as a fastback and saloon. Otherwise the car remained almost unchanged under the sheet metal.

Beautiful or not beautiful? That was the question about the 800 Coupé. Undoubtedly an impressive car, but when it was introduced in 1992 it was already somewhat older in appearance - and at a price of £ 30,775 at the same price as a Jaguar XJS 4.0 or a Mercedes-Benz 300 CE.

The following year the ROVER 800 Coupé finally appeared. Why did it take so long for this version to come out? Originally planned for the American market, the CCV presented the company with unsolvable production problems. Over time, the design of the prototype became more and more conservative. When the Sterling finally went down in the USA in 1991, the coupe was finally ready for production - but without the American market, only small quantities could be expected. When the coupé finally arrived in April 1992, nobody expected any more significant production figures. And so it was.
Then the 800 was left to run quite unchanged. In 1994 the impressive 2.0-litre Vitesse Sport came as a replacement for the meaningless predecessor. The driveability and handling were excellent, and despite the 200 bhp engine the car was comparatively economical. But the market ignored the car. The course of time had overwhelmed the ROVER 800, and he lacked the image of his German rivals.
After the Vitesse Sport came the KV6 models. The KV6 was a straight six-cylinder engine developed with the help of Porsche from the four-cylinder K-engine, which showed what the engineers in Longbridge could achieve if they were given the money and time. But it was no longer able to assert itself as a highly remarkable engine. In fact, his time only came in 1999 with the ROVER 75.

With fewer restrictions, the Rover developers would have liked to design a new car instead of a facelift. The figure shows where the development would have gone.