Does this seem like an unusual pairing for a comparison? Not really, considering that the 1961 GM “senior compacts” were intended to compete with the mid-range imports as well as offer domestic brand buyers an alternative. These two were priced quite similarly: $2495 and $2529 for the Special, although the as-tested price for the little Buick swelled due to being equipped with an automatic, the four-barrel high-compression version of its engine, and perhaps some other options.
They were lopsided in other ways though, most of all in their power plants: The Buick’s 215 cubic inch (3.5 L) aluminum V8 was more than twice the displacement of the 1.6L B16 Volvo four. And the Buick, with 185 hp, had exactly 100 hp more than the Volvo. Nevertheless, the Volvo acquitted itself well enough in other terms, and showed just why a growing number of Americans were buying them, despite cars like the Special.
The 122 was still fairly new to the US, having arrived about a year or so earlier here to supplant the hunchback 544. Given that they both had the same engine, the 122’s greater weight was inevitably going to dull its performance versus the 544. The larger B18 engine would replace the B16 in 1962, offering a bit more power. always welcome in the US.
CL started the comparison at the rear, meaning the trunk. Although the Special’s trunk looked bigger, and could haul more golf balls, it was shallow and its floor was too irregular, whereas the Volvo’s tall trunk swallowed suitcase standing upright. This of course is a reflection of GM’s making these cars look like 7/8 scale versions of the big cars, including a lower overall height. There’s a price to be paid for lowness.
As to the other end of the car, the Buick’s much larger engine obviously made it significantly quicker, with a brisk 0-60 time of 10.0 seconds versus the Volvo’s 16.8. CL notes that given American’s relatively greater affluence and cheaper gas, it’s something of a false economy to give up so much performance for somewhat better fuel economy (27 mpg for the Volvo; 21 mpg for the Buick). They suggested that the Europeans should make larger engine versions for the US market. Well, yes, although that’s a bit easier said than done, but of course that did happen over time: the B18 arrived the next year, and the B20 in 1970. And Volvo created the six cylinder 164 undoubtedly to a large extent because of the US market, but that also put it in a higher price bracket.
CL notes that one of the biggest variables in car ownership cost is repairs and maintenance, and although there was no record yet, at least for the Buick, CL points out that the Volvo would be easier for the owner to work on. There’s no question that these two cars would have very different paths in terms of long term durability: the aluminum V8 became known for its cooling issues and more, and of course the 122 only enhanced the excellent reputation that Volvos were becoming known for.
Of course there’s more to just dollars and cents that drives car buying decisions, especially for the more expensive import brands. Although the Buick presented itself well in terms of its assembly quality, paint and such, the Volvo was clearly in a higher category, with obvious attention to all aspects of materials and construction. The high quality upholstery on the very comfortable bucket seats alone made a big difference from the Special’s bench seat covered in the typical fabric of the times used in domestic lower-end cars.
“The Volvo has that indefinable aura of custom craftsmanship, which is one of the primary causes of foreign sales getting as good a toe hold in this country as they had up to the time of the compact’s introduction”. True that, and it’s important to note that Volvo, along with VW, Mercedes, and Peugeot all survived the great implosion of the import market in 1960-1961 without taking a hit. It was precisely for that reason, and buyers of these brands very unlikely to buy domestics again. That was not so much the case for all the folks that bought Renaults, British brands, DKW’s and a raft of other obscure European brands.
In terms of interior room, obviously the Buick had more of it, but CL points out that for those many buyers not needing that space (the majority, for most of the time), the question is, does it matter, especially if the smaller Volvo has a finer ambience, never mind the more comfortable bucket seats?
As to handling, the Special’s fundamentally “good handling” ended at about 85 mph, above which it exhibited a decided lack directional stability. Given its powerful engine and 110 mph top speed, this was a rather typical Detroit disconnect between those two qualities; as in the engine was a lot “faster” than the chassis. Weak shocks were part of the problem, but the “ridiculously-slow steering (4½ turns), which effectively damps out road feel at high speeds“.
As to transmissions, there two were as different as their engines. The Volvo of course came with a four speed floor-shift manual transmission, which helped make the most of the rather modest power. The Buick had the Dual Path Turbine Drive automatic that was “the best darn two-speed plus torque converter type box we’ve encountered—and was a real surprise to us”. This unit was light, efficient, and very effective. Both units worked well with their respective engines, “with the Buick getting the nod for convenience.”
CL suggests that imports that don’t offer automatics may increasingly be at a disadvantage going forward. I’m not sure exactly when Volvo started offering the BW automatic; likely shortly after this time period.
In summation, CL says that “one of the nicest things about the Volvo, for instance, is that we think it makes an excellent example for our domestic manufacturers to strive better.” How true, but it wasn’t a lesson taken to heart by the domestics, at least not yet for quite a while, as their long decline at the hands of import brands was just starting.
Related CC reading:
Curbside Classic: Volvo 122S – The Cult Of The Amazon
Curbside Classic: 1962 Buick Special – A Truly Special Buick
It looks like you’re missing the last page with the spec tables.
I think this might have been a fairer comparison with the base-engine Special, which still would have been faster than the Volvo, but not by nearly as much. (Presumably the reason for testing the high-compression four-barrel engine was that Car Life hadn’t yet tested that version, or hadn’t yet published a test with that version, since it was a late introduction.)
Yup. This is what happens when you create three posts after a long day putting down a new floor at a rental house.
You have two copies of the same page and missing the one before it (they were talking about the yearly $ savings from better mpg).
I read that as “mental house.”
I need help…looking for an assistant. Anyone interested?
Sell the rental house.
A bit easier said than done. And it’s not just one; I have 14 units.
Also, I believe the 122S automatic was added in 1964.
The “new” Volvo looks very much like a fifties car, high and narrow, high belt line. The styling of the Buick is much more modern.
Speaking with some experience with those kind of Volvos (called “Amazone” here), I was never much impressed of the Volvo. These were sturdy, solid sedans but drove like a truck. A driver could not get much fun from the car. For people who were not really interested in cars, just wanted a good dependable car.
I concur completely. My grandfather and my aunt ( his daughter ) liked these cars, they each had a 1968 models, one a wagon, the other a 2-door sedan, the last year for this body style.
They were neat in their own way but were rather spartan by the standards of the rest of our family, though my uncle swapped out the stock steering wheel for one of those heavily padded 3-spoke racing car wheel with the chrome spokes with holes in them. Added a sporty edge…somehow, but the cars were slow. They were rugged, but they did have a bit of the “drives like a truck” feel to them too. That long lanky shifter may as well been from a school bus, and it sure did like to wobble about on its own. Always thought those dual carburetors looked cool to my eyes.
Well, the Volvo 122 did start production in 1956 as a 1957 model, so it WAS a fifties car. It was “new” in the sense that it was newer than Volvo’s PV444 and PV544 models that started production in 1947 and continued to be built and sold through 1965, alongside the 122. (Everyone always says the PV444 and PV544 look like a 8/10 scale 1947 Ford.)
Every once in a while the old rumor resurfaces that the Volvo 122/Amazon was built using the tooling from the American-built Willys Aero passenger car of the 1950s. (While the Volvo and Willys arguably had a certain resemblance to each other, the Willys was a larger car and they apparently did not share any parts.)
Annddd I’d still pick the Buick. As an ex mechanic, I’d much rather work on American cars than European.
Note that the Buick’s distributor is at the front. No need for regular tappet adjustments thanks to hydraulic lifters.
Almost bought a 122s when I was a 20-something engineer, and I’d still pick the Volvo. As a 50-something engineer I probably was part of Volvo’s demographic back in 1961. Also when buying a new one the car would come with a floor, which was lacking in the one I considered in my 20’s.
Was $2529 the base or as tested price for the Buick?
Base. The as tested was $2941.
I forgot the spec page; it’s there now.
Taken on the whole, the Volvo is probably the better car. But here it was 1961 and the Volvo looks old and dated like a 1950 sedan. At the start of a new decade, I probably would have chosen the Buick back then.
Two years earlier “The Motor” said of the 122S “Extremely modern in many aspects of mechanical design … a car of slightly old-fashioned shape.”. They were more impressed by a “Swedish family saloon offering performance with a kick in it.” and “a fast car which the sporting enthusiast finds it fun to drive”. Mind you, the next car tested was an Austin A55 Mk.2 (Farina) which wandered up to 60mph in 24.5 seconds so not quite the same comparison as with the Buick.
Like “Car Life” they were also impressed by the comfortable seats and got very similar mpg figures. Unusual for 1959 were the 3-point seat belts (a Volvo invention) fitted for the front seats, a £15 option equivalent to £281/$343 now.
Would have been tough to get the “Volvo” serviced , in many places, back then..
Even up into the “80’s” service appts at the “Volvo dealers” were hard to schedule..
We DID buy a used ’67 122-S at Champion Ford of Catonsville on Rt 40 in Dec of 1970. It was my wife’s first car, to drive to her student teaching internship that Spring, and our only car when we were married the following summer. For good reason they were known as the “Amazon” in Sweden. It had 38,000 miles, we kept it for 10 years, and it had 240,000 miles on it when my wife hit a guardrail hard on the Baltimore Beltway during a snowstorm coming home from work. It was still running fine and I sold the engine + trans to a guy with a P-1800 so it’s stout heart lived on. The only work the engine required in that time was a valve job at 120k due to my propensity to rev that free-revving engine too hard, being in my youthful early 20s. A great car, one of the 2 the best we ever owned, our ’71 Fury III sedan with 318 being the other one.
Volvo quality!! Also, I really like the 1970-1971 Plymouth Fury’s. At least I really like their styling! Never owned owned one to speak to the quality.
I tend to think of Car Life as being written by unnamed R&T staff, allowing them to cover domestics without sullying their reputations. Yeah, I know R&T tested a few significant domestic cars, but probably never touched a Buick except perhaps the Riviera. So I’m surprised at their handling assessment, and their preference for a car with initial understeer and then final oversteer. I understand the theory, but I think in practice that’s questionable. But maybe the limits were so low in those days of skinny bias-ply tires that speeds were low enough for it to be easy to control the oversteer. And maybe they meant a gradual transition. Anyway, as the former owner of a 122S and driver of many, while it did have a lot of body roll, I never once felt at risk of overturning. And I autocrossed mine more than once. And in our community, at least, 122S owners were more likely to consider a Rambler or Dart or Falcon than any kind of Buick. A Volvo was discreetly sophisticated, but not about the brand. By then, a Buick (or Olds or Mercury) was all about the brand; a Chevy II would do but I don’t remember nearly as many of those in town as Darts or Falcons.
My mother’s first car was a 1961 Buick Special in a lemony yellow color.
It wasn’t actually a lemon, though if you overlooked its tendency to overheat.
We actually liked that car quite a bit. I was sorry that, when I got my driving license in 1969, the Special was long gone. I still have the dealer brochure, though.
In the photos of the Buick parked next to the Volvo, the Special is shouting, “1961!” The Volvo is shouting, “1952!”
I believe that the Volvo was of superior quality but, in 1961, was trumped by styling.
I would venture to guess that there are still Volvo Amazons on the road but, Buick Specials, Oldsmobile F-85s, and Pontiac Tempests are likely just memories.
The GM Y body triplets confuse me the longer I think about them. These things should have been huge, but they barely made a ripple in the market. This was the time of Peak GM, when that company could do little wrong. Chryslers were styled weirdly, Fords were plain and dull, and lots of people had been burned by bad foreign car experiences over the prior two or three years. The economy was picking up and these things had the market for upmarket smaller cars almost to themselves.
But no – they were just the wrong cars that did not strike a chord with buyers. They didn’t do any one thing really well, and every powertrain they offered had significant tradeoffs, especially for traditional GM customers. The aluminum V8s suffered from overheating and other ills, the V6 was rough as a cob and was not what Buick buyers (who had enjoyed smooth 8 cylinder cars for 30 years) were comfortable with, and the Tempest had that big thumping 4, a configuration that had not been popular in the US since the Model A.
These cars with a small, smooth lightweight iron V8 like the Ford 221/260 might have helped these cars in the market a lot. A larger size and more power made the Ys’ 1964 replacements a dominating force among mid-size cars.
I agree that they were developed with a lack of a clear or logical focus. Why a V8 for these? It should have been a brand new 60 degree V6 for all of them, except maybe the Tempest. And more attention to its handling and steering. I drove a ’62 Cutlass a number of times; it was soggy in both accounts. They tried too hard to make them feel just like a big Buick.
Of course they were somewhat constrained by using the Corvair’s basic body. But still…
I think their prices also didn’t do them any great favors. The Tempest was the bestseller of the three, probably in large part because it was the cheapest.
The V-8 wasn’t a terrible idea in some respects (it was really pretty competitive on gas mileage and was peppy and smooth), but it was underbaked as a design, and it seems pretty clear that GM greatly underestimated how much it was going to cost to produce. The various early problems and high scrap rate certainly didn’t help, but it appears that the original estimates really understated the costs, and there was the idea that they’d make up a bit of that in areas like machining time, which turned out not to be true at all. In retrospect, it’s tempting to say, “Look, you tried to offer an all-new, all-aluminum V-8 as standard equipment in a class dominated by cast iron sixes, how did you really think that was going to go?”
There are commercials for the 1961 F-85 on Youtube. The commercials hammer home these selling points – the car has room for six adults, just like the “real” Oldsmobiles; it has a V-8, just like the “real” Oldsmobiles; and it drives just like the “real” Oldsmobiles.
Then, in addition, it is easier to maneuver and park, due to its trim exterior dimensions, and gets better gas mileage than the big cars.
Rambler ads in the late 1950s were touting six-passenger room and easier maneuverability, in addition to greater economy. I’m guessing that Buick and Oldsmobile management were focused on Rambler sales when these cars were being developed. But Oldsmobile and Buick were supposed to be a step up (or two or three steps up) from Rambler. The standard V-8 helped to differentiate the cars from the Rambler. The chassis tuning meant that buyers used to a LeSabre or Super 88 would feel right at home.
On paper, the cars probably meant their development goals, but the real-world execution didn’t work out as well, and also resulted in some missed opportunities. In making the F-85 drive like a Super 88, Oldsmobile missed an opportunity, because buyers attracted to the size and features like the aluminum V-8 were also likely to appreciate improvements in handling and steering.
I don’t see any discussion of seat comfort, ride quality, or interior noise levels in the review. Seems like a fairly limited comparison.
I can answer that. The Volvo is extremely noisy and the ride quality is very bad, compared to the Buick.
I never understood why any in the US would buy a Volvo Amazon (122), 140 or 240 -series. The american alternatives was so much better by the time. I live in Europe, and I just can’t see any good reason to buy a Volvo in the 50/60/70s over an american car.
It’s interesting to hear you say that. Our cars were so different than yours in those days. Today we don’t make cars, just big trucks and SUV’s that suck gas like there’s no tomorrow. I miss those days.
Your cars were different back then, and they were way better in terms of comfort, quietness, power, equipment and reliability and durability. Only MB and Volvo could match the american durability and reliability at the time (50s-70s).
In Europe, we drove small cars, with small underpowered engines into the 2000s. In southern Europe they still do. Usully they were noisy and uncomfortable, and some of them extremely unreliable too.
Well, Volvo were first with an effective seatbelt that would do more than just keep the bottom half of you in place in a crash. That was in ’59, so it counts as the ’50s. Volvos had better brakes, sooner, than most any American-brand car. Volvos were a whole hell of a lot more crashworthy, a whole hell of a lot sooner, than most any American-brand car. Volvos in the timeframe you describe were quite a lot more durable than most American-brand cars. Volvos were expensive European imports, and so carried a cachet not available by buying an American-brand car. All the Volvo models you slag here had a much tighter turning radius than any American-brand car I can think of. Fuel-injected Volvos of the early-late ’70s tended to give much better driveability than carbureted American-brand cars, and much better fuel economy as well.
And that’s just the quickie-offhand version of the list; there are probably more.
Yes, Nils Bohlin did a good job with the seatbelt in 1959, but every amerian car had seatbelt – shoulder belt in front, since 1969, steel guards in the doors from 1970, headrest in front from 1969, collapsible steering colum and dual master cylinders from 1967. All this before Volvo. Cadillac even had the dual master cylinder from 1962.
No, the Volvo was not more durable or reliable than an average american car from th 50s-70s. I live in Norway, Volvo 240 was the best selling car in the late 70s, and yes, they were good, but they were not better than say a Chevrolet Impala or a Ford LTD.
In the US, you only got the best drivetrain, the most powerfull and best equipped Volvos. Yes you got the fuel injected Volvos in the US, we drove them with carbs a long time into the 80s. And their carbs was not the best, Rochester Quadrajet is a masterpiece of a caburator, Volvo didn’t even get the automatic choke to function properly.
Some well known problems with the Volvos (140 and 240) was, head gasket on the 2,7 PRV engine (260), oil leak from the B20, problems with the carburators (especially in cold winter weather), bushings at the rear and ball joints at the front. After some years, rust in the rear wheel wells, front floor and lower doors.
That beeing said, Volvo was one of the better cars from Europe, together with Mercedes it was the best in terms of reliability and durability. Peugeot 504 was also pretty good at the time in the 70s.
Oh, dear. Really? Okeh:
Very poor two-piece ones, nowhere near as effective or easy to use or comfortable as the Volvo-type belts installed quite a few years before 1969.
1973.
Head restraints—many of which were ineffective at best, because of a laxly-written US standard.
1968. And no American-brand car had Volvo’s dual-triangular hydraulic circuit (’67), nor Volvo’s stepped-bore master cylinder (’67), nor Volvo’s noncorroding brake lines (’76).
All new vehicles offered for first sale in the US had to have the required equipment by the required date, no matter who made the vehicle or where. Including Volvos.
…and since that’s the kind of Volvos Americans could buy, and you said you couldn’t imagine why an American would buy a Volvo, that’s the kind that matters. By the same token, the Chevrolets and Fords you got in Norway lacked the poorly-done emission controls that gave American cars of that era notoriously poor driveability, dependability, and fuel economy. And…so what? Americans could not have Norway-spec American-brand cars, either.
Oh! I guess not everyone agreed with your opinion about them, then.
Rather than have a silly pissing contest based on anecdotes and your fondness for American cars, let’s just agree opinions are generally held to be as numerous as people.
At the time of this comparison test, American cars might offer lap seat belts as an extra-cost option, but shoulder harnesses were not available unless you had some kind of aftermarket racing harnesses installed. These small Buicks did not have dual-circuit brakes, and their brakes were not great. (Note that the Buick has more than 20% less lining area than the lighter, less-powerful Volvo.) The small aluminum V-8 was light and smooth, but it had cooling issues that were never fully resolved (Rover’s version did as well), and early examples often had serious problems, including a tendency for coolant to react with the aluminum and fill the passages of the water jacket with metallic fluff. The senior compacts had a soft ride, but they weren’t all that quiet, especially in road noise.
I know that every car sold in the US had to meet the federal requirements, also Volvo. My point it that Volvos reputation for safety is connected to that they included the US safety regulations on their cars sold in Europe at the time.
The american shoulder belt was every bit as effective as Volvos, but it was not as easy to use, but I think most of the drivers at the time didn’t use the seatbelt anyway.
Well, I live in a country were Volvos sold really well, my parents and relatives had Volvos, and still have, all my life. Volvos (especially 240s) were everywere.
You can continue to have you opinion, but it does not change the fact that the Volvo 240 was no more reliable than a Chevrolet Impala at the time.
And, the Volvo Amazon is noisy and uncomfortable. It has trouble of maintaning 60 mph up a hill. I drove a 67 model last summer, because a relative of me has one in very good condition. My 67 Buick is a way better car, we both agree about that, even if my Buick is all original with 190.000 miles on it.
Volvo did start offering automatic transmission in the 122 at some point. When Road & Track did an owner survey on the 122, they said most respondents who had the automatic made some adverse comment on it.
Great article Paul.
Although I tend to be a Buick fan (or was until the last 8-ish years), in this case I’d choose the Volvo just on looks alone. This is one of my favorite style Volvo’s ever and this seems (from looks alone) that the Volvo should be going against a early 50’s Buick instead of early 60’s. But that’s ok to my eyes as I’ve never been a huge fan of the 60’s styling of American cars. Anyhow, I wouldn’t kick either of them to the curb.
I find this reasonably believable…
…and this not . The mileage, I mean. I see from the spec page that this was the highway figure, and could maybe almost believe 21 mpg at a steady 50 mph, but they don’t specify what speed the highway figure is given for.
Whoah, tilt! The speedo was more than 17 per cent overreading at that speed, and from the ambiguously-written spec chart, it was between 13 and 17 per cent overreading at 30; 60, and 90 mph. Yee! If they weren’t using external instruments to measure mileage, that might explain the 21-mpg claim.
I can certainly agree with 4.2 turns being ridiculously slow, given that we see a power steering pump in the underhood shot. Perhaps there was too little positive caster in the test car and/or alignment specifications; in that case, adding more would’ve surely made a big improvement.
That was the normal state of affairs with all the Y-bodies. A 1961 Special with non-power steering had an overall ratio of 26.18:1 and about 5.5 turns lock-to-lock; power trimmed the ratio to 20.8:1 overall, which was better but not great. Stock caster setting was -1.25 degrees +/- 0.5 deg. (All this data is from the 1961 AMA specs, except the number of turns, which the specs assert as five, but all the contemporary reviews say was really closer to six turns.)
As Paul noted above, Buick, Olds, and Pontiac were really determined to make these cars drive like contemporary big cars.
Yack, a degree and a quarter of negative caster‽ No wonder the damn thing felt centre-dead and wandery!
Steering feel was basic shopping cart, yes.
There had to have been a picture of a 1955 Chrysler on the wall when the Volvo 122 was being designed.
Gimme that Buick with factory air !!
I don’t want to do battle with that Volvo on a hot Texas highway… lol
Given the aluminum V-8’s cooling problems, I’m not sure you wouldn’t still be better off with the Volvo in those conditions.
I’ve always felt the Volvo 122 was the finest 1949 Plymouth ever made.
I remember when these were newer cars. The Specials had a myriad of problems down the road. First of all when the spark plugs were changed sometimes the same heat range was used, say a plug that didn’t extend from the cylinder head into the cylinder and carbon would build up. Then the next time the correct plug would be used and the threads would strip out on the cylinder head. There was a problem with galvanic differences between the aluminum block and the steel radiator causing problems and lastly the automatic transmission was garbage. My father had 3 friends who owned ‘61 & ‘62 Specials and they were not happy.
The spec page is revealing. Far from being close in price as initially suggested by the magazine, the Buick as tested turned out to be almost 20% more. Despite the Volvo being 8 inches narrower overall, hip room in both cars is virtually identical and the Volvo actually has more front seat leg room despite its 10 inch shorter wheelbase.
Then there are the wheels (15in for the Volvo vs. 13in for the Buick), the brakes (25% larger for a slightly lighter car), and a turning circle that is about 15% smaller than the Buick.
But the performance figures would have been a killer in 1961, even with a car that apparently felt better made and better finished than a Buick (which would have been disconcerting to some back then). The B-18 engine that appeared a few years later would help somewhat in the performance department.
Buick did offer 15-inch wheels as an option for the Special, which Car Life ended up recommending strongly because the Special’s ground clearance (4.9 inches) put the sump precariously close to the pavement. Also, the performance gap was not nearly so pronounced with the regular-fuel engine: 0–60 mph in 13.2 seconds with automatic, 11.2 seconds with the three-speed.
Later in the year, Car Life compared the Y-body cars and concluded that the best bet for economy and performance would be a Special with the V-6, 15-inch wheels, and 3.36 axle (which gave the same overall gearing as the 3.08 and 13-inchers, but with more ground clearance). That would have been perhaps the fairest comparison with the Volvo, although I’m pretty sure the conclusions likely would have been the same.
A quick look at the specs page and it appears the Buick is the winner by a landslide. However in the real world, the text suggests it’s not quite so clear cut. I’m sure I’d have been happier with the Volvo, perhaps with a 2 barrel or a cam to get a little more umpph to it.
The trunk space. Do I read it right? 28 cubic feet in the Buick? That’s enormous. And measuring space by golf balls? I’d heard of golf bags, but not balls. I’d always heard of ping pong balls being used. 28 cubic feet of golf balls? You might pop the tires due to the weight!
The point the text was getting at is that the actual volume of the trunk, which sounds impressive, really didn’t translate into usable luggage space.
Wouldn’t that year’s Valiant be a better buy than either of them?
I doubt it. My parents had a friend who owned a Valiant of that era. I remember riding in it quite often as a kid. One of my friends mom bought a used Valiant in the late 60’s. I also owned a 1969 Valiant. While it was a lot better than the car it replaced, it was clunky and didn’t want to start in cold weather.
We had a 1962 Special wagon with the 215 from 1966 to 1984, and had no cooling issues with it. And in fact we parted it out, sold the engine and it still had its factory original water pump on it. That engine was as reliable as a anvil. Had more repeat issues with the driveline center bearing than the engine.
The ongoing issue, which Rover wasn’t able to resolve either, was that the location and design of the coolant filler made it really difficult to bleed air out of the cooling system, which tended to create water circulation problems. This was a design issue, although how much of a problem it actually created was variable.