“Working on the long-established premise that there is no substitute for sheer horse-power, Rover have in many respects transformed the hithertosomewhat underpowered 2000 by giving it the all-aluminium 3½-litre V8 engine, that they developed from an originally American Buick design.”—Maxwell Boyd, reporting on the Rover Three-Thousand-Five in The Sunday Times. But he has got “the long-established premise” wrong. It is: “There is no substitute for litres”, meaning that if you want quiet, effortless, undramatic performance it is better to use a big, low-revving engine than a smaller high-output power unit which may well involve twin o.h.c., roller bearings and even supercharging and which, while it could well be considerably more powerful than the larger unit, will inevitably be harsh or noisy or temperamental, or all three. Indeed, Peter Wilks has followed this premise with the Rover Three-Thousand-Five, giving it more litres than the 4-cylinder 2000 but not exactly “sheer horse-power”, for although it may be credited by Mr. Boyd with “nearly 50%” more power, in terms of h.p. per litre the new V8 gives away some five horse-power to the older four-cylinder model.
“Just over a year ago I covered 500 miles a day for five days in succession in a 2000TC in one of the most impressive exhibitions of long-distance motoring I remember. I have no doubt that the new 3500, with its inherent comfort and its top speed of nearly 120 m.p.h., could do even better.”—Maxwell Boyd, again comparing Rovers, in The Sunday Times. This is a different matter, although a difficult one to measure.