rover 2000 tc v. volvo 144s

ROVER 2000 TC v. VOLVO 144S

Sir,

In the October issue of MOTOR SPORT, MCSSrS. Cockle, Richards and Sokel have very conveniently forgotten to mention the two essential engineering points of the Rover 2000 TC! (I) The Rover has got a single o.h.c. engine, which is far superior for performance and reliability than the push-rod operated o.h.s, of the 144 S engine’. The Rover’s type of power unit maintains its tune for a -longer period than any push-rod operated o.h.v. unit. Illease note that all Mercedes43enz power units have the sante design of valve operation as the z000 TC.)

(2 For sheer road-holding, the tic Dion suspension of the 2900 is far superior than the ‘• solid-beam ” rear suspension of the 134 S. There was a time when most racing cars used dc Dion rear suspension—the only reason for abandoning this laybut was the tact that engines moved to the rear, thus it became impossible to accommodate the de Dion tube !

May I finally remind the prejudiced 144S owners, that the Rover 2000 TC is designed as one complete engineering conception and it is not a development of a 10-year-old design like that of the 144S.

I own neither a 2000 TC nor a 1445—I just like to be fair and unbiai:ed when judging a motor car.

Ramst-ate. B. F. MASAMI.