Dr John I found your comments especially relevant to me, having driven only one Rover 2000 but have owned several Triumphs, including two 2000 Saloons, one of which was brought up to MD Specs with the Triple Stromberg carbs. (not the wire wheels, I had Globe Bathurst Mags) The first 2000 I owned though, was a stock standard sedan. It may not seem a suitable comparison with Rover, because I only drove one, when it was for sale in a shonky car-sales yard in Holland park Qld. It drove smoothly, didn't have a great deal of poke, felt a bit underpower-to-weight. What did impress me about the Rover, was the leaning toward a more luxurious & comfortable interior as opposed to the perhaps more sporty but basic Triumph, and in particular, those padded panels under the dash of the Rover to protect knees in the event of a collision. I think that given more time with the Rover I would have found more things to like, but I instigated the sale of the Rover to a lady who fell in love with it. My BIG liking of Rover came to me in a different way, when my Brother bought a Triumph TR-8 Convertible, with the wonderful 3.5 litre V8 Rover Engine. The 3500 motor was fabulous, very responsive, and oh-so-quick in the little sports Triumph. So there we had a kind of "mating" between Rover and Triumph ! The early Triumph's attempts at installing a crook V8 into the Stag had many owners very disappointed. So my point being that in the 2000 series for both Triumph and Rover, they seemed to me to be worlds apart, but once again it came down to Personal Choice. Both are great cars ! My Bro's TR-8 is in the Gosford Auto Museum now, and there was interest shown in my Bro's 1988 ASC McLaren Mustang Convertible, but I think my brother was asking too big a price for it. Photos of TR-8 and '88 Stang inserted.