Comments about this vehicle

Author	Message
cl82 ◊ 2010-07-16 20:26	Nice and rare capture! How many of them were officially exported to the U.S.? Fifty or so, right?
DynaMike ◊ 2010-07-16 20:39	Very nice indeed. My neighbours have got a 3500 S [P6] 'Federal' (so: US-spec), with all-amber side lights, sidemarkers, scoops on the bonnet, etc. Somehow I'd think the car shown here is raher a 2000, since thare seems to be no air-intake under the front bumper. And I cannot see the the side markers...
DynaMike ◊ 2010-07-16 20:47	@Cl82: Fifty? no, a bit more... 6149 4-cylinder models and 2043 V8s (so 8192 in total), according to http://www.ruediger-wicke.de/Produktionszahlen.htm -- Last edit: 2010-07-16 20:47:37
dsl ◊ 2010-07-16 20:51	I think the US cars were badged 3500 S and had special trim as in the picture; they were all automatics, unlike the later use of the 3500 S identifier from October 1971 for the new manual version. Surprised if only 50 or so were officially sold, as it was a fully supported sales initiative with one example tested by Road & Track in late 1969.
an_unusual_eye ◊ 2010-07-16 20:54	when i was in high school in atlanta, i was at a restaurant downtown that had valet parking (not that the place was all that nice, but because parking was a few blocks away), and there was a dark blue 3500 parked right next to the valet stand. i offered the valet that he could keep my MG for himself if he could find a way to slip me the keys to the rover, and just let the other guy walk home... beautiful cars.
DynaMike ◊ 2010-07-16 20:56	Looks similar to /vehicle.php?id=49475 , /vehicle.php?id=104299 , /vehicle.php?id=74209 ...
an_unusual_eye ◊ 2010-07-16 21:01	... sorry, i went off on a reminiscent story telling adventure, and forgot my initial point... which is that i agree that this one is more likely a 2000.
chris40 ◊ 2010-07-16 21:07	So do I. Not only does it not have the big air-intake under the bumper, but IIRC the 3500s had bigger tyres than these. I also seem to remember that the fake Rostyle wheel-covers ('borrowed' from the more upmarket Triumphs?) were a US-only decoration.
dsl ◊ 2010-07-16 21:23	I'm moving to a 2000TC as well now because of the lack of the under-bumper intake. Just to note that the link to http://www.ruediger-wicke.de/Produktionszahlen.htm also gives a production figure of "3500 S (USA) 2,043" so there must have been some of these 1969-70 pre-facelift cars out there, and that the Rostyles could be genuine as used on the 1968+ P5B 3½ Litre rather than dummy trims borrowed from Triumph. -- Last edit: 2010-07-16 22:03:26
rjluna2 ◊ 2010-07-16 21:47	an_unusual_eye wrote when i was in high school in atlanta, [sic] Hey, so you were Atanta transplant!
an_unusual_eye ◊ 2010-07-16 23:27	@rjluna2 middle and high school (plus a year or so after) in cobb county. pennsylvania for college, raleigh by choice from 1993 to 2001, pennsylvania again (not-so-much by choice) from 2001 until summer of 2016, then it will be back to the carolinas. my mother still lives west of atlanta, but i don't get there often enough... usually let her travel instead.
rjluna2 ◊ 2010-07-17 02:05	Well, I moved down to Cobb County, Georgia at the summer of 1998 so we kinda of missed each other
rjluna2 ◊ 2010-07-17 02:07	Back to the topic.... This one has no sidemarker
DynaMike ◊ 2010-07-17 11:22	So 1966, like the first to in my previous comment?
dsl ◊ 2010-07-17 14:52	I can't find confirmation, but this looks to me more like about 1968 due to trim features which only started to appear on UK Rovers about that time eg the Rostyle wheels (on the P5b), and raised front bumper from UK P6b 3500. /images/074/209.jpg looks more like a 1966/7 2000TC with UK hubcaps and simpler trim (eg no side chrome strip). Also we keep hitting the US sidemarker issue (3 different cars in the last couple of days) in relation to 1968 dates and some confusion (eg /images/318/647.jpg has September 1968 onwards trim features but no sidemarkers). So as general questions: 1] when exactly did sidemarkers become legal requirements in US? 2] was this date the same in all US states? 3] were there loopholes which made it possible to sell a new car in US without sidemarkers after this date (or dates)? (hopefully the answer to this is no). 4] did some manufacturers anticipate the legislation and voluntarily fit them earlier? If so any suggestions for who and when?
Ingo ◊ 2010-07-17 15:03	Our lamp- and sidemarker-specialist rljuna2 will surely have the answers.
rjluna2 ◊ 2010-07-17 18:47	All I can say some of the European cars continues to export in our market without the sidemarker in 1968/69 model years... To answer dsl's question: 1) The federal requirement starting in January 1st, 1968 requires either retroreflector or side lighted. Both lighted and retroreflector are required starting January 1st, 1970. 2) Yes, due to the federal level requirement... 3) I don't know. It is my understanding that some European cars export in our market did not have sidemarker after the requirement until stronger law implemented in 1970... Same idea with some European cars withouth CHMSL that was made on 1986 model year. 4) Generally, they are not required to do so because they are grandfathered by them. Some owners did fitted in side retroreflector on older cars. Same idea with CHMSL on older cars with the owners. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automotive_lighting#Sidemarker_lights To obtain full text (which may be long) at: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/octqtr/49cfr571.108.htm I hope I have answered all of your question...
dsl ◊ 2010-07-17 20:39	Thanks very much - extremely useful. What I want to try is to establish which years we can rely on sidemarkers as dating evidence. If I understand this correctly: 1] up to and including 1967 (calendar year not model year, so goes to 31 Dec 67 and may include some 1968 model year cars). Sidemarkers not required; in some cases they may be fitted by manufacturers in anticipation or retrofitted by owners, but these are variables we can not deal with unless we can identify other dating elements for that particular car. 2] 1968 and 1969 calendar year cars should have sidemarkers but in practice many imports did not. While the majority probably did, we can not rely on the absence of sidemarkers to exclude cars from these years and will need other evidence. 3] 1970 and later calendar year cars always have sidemarkers. Does this make sense for everybody?
rjluna2 ◊ 2010-07-17 20:42	Sounds good to me Meanwhile, all American made cars did adopted the federal sidemarker requirement for the 1968 model year starting August 1967 where manufacturer starts new model year vehicles.... There are some examples that did slip through the federal sidemarker requirement such as Citroen, SAAB, Jaguar and Rover. I don't know exactly how many remaining European cars manufacture did slip through -- Last edit: 2010-07-17 20:53:39
rjluna2 ◊ 2010-10-09 17:34	Hi gang I found USA spec 1969 Rover P6 TC2000 in unrestored form from Collectible Automobile magazine, Volume 27 Number 4, December 2010 issue. At page 59, someone snapped a photo of the said car at San Francisco, CA and indeed doesn't have the sidemarker... Sorry about that -- Last edit: 2011-10-01 22:26:53
cortina.chris ◊ 2011-12-12 20:54	Would the red rover in thumb have its UK position side/indicator lights lit acting as marker lights eliminating need for side units? Was going to comment on why grey one has none buts its been covered. also im sure ive seen some US Austin Marinas without marker lights too. Im sure theres a '70s US spec P6 on the UK classic car scene
cortina.chris ◊ 2011-12-12 21:02	Forget my Austin marina comment, i think markers are combined with rear lamp unit.
RoveringP6 ◊ 2011-12-18 15:36	interesting comments.. ^^
dsl ◊ 2011-12-18 16:00	As an additional comment, though not specific to any of the illustrated cars, Canadian-spec cars would have US front and rear lights but no sidemarkers for 68-70-ish.
Sunbar ◊ 2011-12-18 16:55	rjluna2 wrote All I can say some of the European cars continues to export in our market without the sidemarker in 1968/69 model years... To answer dsl's question: 1) The federal requirement starting in January 1st, 1968 requires either retroreflector or side lighted. Both lighted and retroreflector are required starting January 1st, 1970. ... ... Regarding the FMVSS for side-markers and the introduction dates for vehicles there was a difference between cars and trucks or buses etc. FMVSS 108 (including the first side-marker regulations) became effective on January 1, 1968, for vehicles wider than 80 inches (large trucks and buses) and on January 1, 1969, for the other vehicles. from: NHTSA Report Number DOT HS 806 430 July 1983 "An Evaluation of Side Marker Lamps For Cars, Trucks, and Buses" http://www.nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/regrev/evaluate/806430.html Reading the report, as I understand it, side marker lamps were introduced voluntarily by manufacturers on vehicles less than 80 inches wide, typically one year before the standard's effective date. This was therefore any time between late 1967 and January 1, 1969. However the actual regulation applies to cars etc. built after January 1, 1969. This could explain how some imported cars could be seen on cars sold in 1969, and considerably later than January 1, 1969 due to shipping delay?
dsl ◊ 2011-12-18 17:31	Interesting. It's always slightly puzzled me that this is such a complex issue as sidemarkers should be a relatively easy dealer-fit without needing particular dispensation in the regulations. But if the same system and date thresholds applied for other safety features (eg interior equipment) or emissions regulations, then these considerations become a lot more real.
Sunbar ◊ 2011-12-18 17:57	FMVSS regulations were a nightmare to implement particularly in the early days. I worked on the 'Federal' Jaguar XJ6 in the early 1970s and the legal team were as remote as the styling team. Access for getting approval from both (conflicting priorities included) was a problem and took forever despite the need to meet an implementation date. By the 1980s it was possible to talk direct on a daily basis to the legal team but styling were always remote. The possibility of a dealer-fit option would not meet even the easiest FMVSS regulations which require the manufacturer to show compliance based on strict prior design approval and consistent monitoring.
dsl ◊ 2017-09-29 21:49	We can add earliest US Fiat 850 Sedan (only sold there 1968-71) to the list of exceptions.

Advertising

Last completed movie pages

1969 Rover 2000 TC 'Federal' MkI [P6]

1969 Rover 2000 TC MkI [P6] in Un homme est mort, Movie, 1972

Comments about this vehicle

Add a comment

Advertising

Watch or buy this title - Powered by JustWatch

Advertising