The Triumph v Rover debate heats up and our Fuzz talks to you about home economics.
With reference to John Neumuller’s response to the observations (not criticisms) regarding Rover P6Bs and reliability while in use by the police ( Your Letters, 3 February), as an avid reader of CCW, one of the things I notice with some regularity, is for people to mistake their enthusiasm and preference for a particular make or model for being an expert on the downfalls of that marque’s rival/competitor.
With regards to the police P6Bs, there were several issues that required addressing. One in particular was the fitting of an oil pump in the manual gearbox, because it was found when the police engaged reverse and drove at speed, it left the front bearings dry, and damaged what was already an ‘on the limit of ability’ gearbox. One or two cooling issues were sorted via the police’s ongoing development work. Second, this business of the Triumph six-cylinder thrust bearing problem did exist, but nowhere to the extent pub experts would have you believe.
It’s probably the sweetest-revving pushrod six I’ve come across. Then of course, there are its many long-distance rallying achievements. I am fortunate in having owned both marques, and I hold both in very high regard. More importantly, I was working on these cars when they were new.
I therefore concur with the ex-copper’s original view, and think that in general, as a high-speed pursuit vehicle, the Triumph was indeed superior. It wasn’t for nothing that it became thought of as the default choice for a sports saloon. Rob Squire, West Sussex