Talk:Rover P4

Untitled
I find it strange that this otherwise very good article insists on using the "P4" designation as if it were part of the car's name. It was not. From the point of view of owners and public Rover never inroduced a car called the P4 90 - this is nonsense: it was ONLY referred to as a "Rover 90". To say "I have a P4" would have been a completely bizarre thing to say, perhaps unless you were a Rover employee or car nerd - for everyone else, these cars were Rover 80s and 90s and 105s or whatever. I think the article should reflect this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.37.199.166 (talk)


 * I was under the impression that the P4 nomenclature was fairly common over there when I wrote the article. For comparison, the NA and NB names for the Mazda MX-5 are in widespread use by enthusiasts, but nearly unknown to all others.  That said, I have no problem at all with your clarifying addition to the article.  --SFoskett 13:50, July 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * That's great, thanks very much. It sounds very much like your MX-5 model is much the same as my experience - I don't know any real Rover enthusiasts, only ordinary owners (including my family and the various 90s, 105Ss and 100s we had!), and whereas I'm happy to accept that the enthusiasts very likely do say "P4", I am quite sure that this term wasn't in general use among owners and other "ordinary" (?!) people. Thanks for your kind reply and cooperation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.37.199.166 (talk)

Range summary
How about adding this?

The P4 seroes encompassed several different models, although no more than two or three were available at the same time. All except the 80 used the Rover IOE engine, first introduced with the P3 range in 1948.

Comments? -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 09:09, 25 April 2023 (UTC)


 * As an interested reader (not a wiki editor) that table seems a most useful summary of a complex model range, and I'd welcome it as an addition to the main article.
 * I note one anomaly though: Sometimes the bore of the 2.6-litre engine is given as 73.025mm (2.8750 in), and sometimes as 73mm (2.9 in). The metric dimensions suggest the first bore is the larger (73.025 > 73), but the Imperial ones the opposite (2.8750 < 2.9).
 * Using the standardised 25.4 conversion factor, 73mm is 2.874 in; 73.025mm is exactly 2.8750 in, so it seems likely to me that the '73 / 2.9' dimensions are simply a rounded version of '73.025 / 2.8750', and consequently that the latter is likely the 'true' dimension in all cases. That is, however, synthesis or original research or some similar naughtiness. 80.175.14.26 (talk) 22:03, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * My notes (made circa 1995 from a book in Bolton public library) show that for the 1958 model season (which began in about August/September 1957), the bore was increased from 73 mm to 73.025 mm, and for the Rover 90, the power output increased from 90 to 93 bhp, but apparently the 105R/105S remained 108 bhp. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 20:38, 26 May 2023 (UTC)