Mark - Niggly problems?? Can't say we've seen an excessive amount of faults as you say. Yes we get bits of trim here and there but nothing out of the ordinary.
75 Diesel [Auto] followed by the 2.5 V6 is the one to have IMO
I'm currently running an MG ZT-T190+ and very pleased with it I am too :-)
MG-Rover Problems? forums.mg-rover.org
|
Agree on the Diesel auto.
Now, if I can find the right colour, right price and right car, then I'm gonna be No. 1 son again.
Its proving a little more difficult than that.
|
|
|
|
|
And oh yes, I did own a Triumph and a Rover once. Both were the worst in reliabilty I had ever come across. A rebadged Rover-Honda 213 was one of the best in terms of reliabilty (but tinny and terrible for rust). A Nissan never gave me any trouble, and my current BMW E39 5 series has done a faultless 100,000 miles in just over 3 years.
|
Hey......a bit of a contradiction there??
But I agree - the "RoHonda" 213 was a good car but the old tin-worm did it's best to kill it.
The next incarnation (1989-on) 200/400 series was much better both rust-wise and engine-wise.
MG-Rover Problems? forums.mg-rover.org
|
My rants isn't Red Robbo neither Socialist, I remember the damage they caused and a huge amount of blame lies with them alone for the death of the British car industry. The products weren't badly designed, many were highly innovative. Whether it was the P6, of which I own one through to the Maxi, Dolomite, SD1 all of which were well designed cars but badly manufactured by a largely truculent militant workforce. The management certainly played its part, BL was just too large with too many warring manufacturers. Jaguar, for example, didn't like Rover this is the reason why P8, P9 and the Zagato were never made. My P6 is thirty-one years old still on its original gearbox, clutch and engine. Sure rust is a problem but how many cars from the 1972 do you see on the roads of any make?
I can't see the analogy either with Rover cars being anymore unreliable than an Audi, Ford, VW and Alfa. If you were to check the warranty claims made by manufacturer, maybe a better indication of long term reliability, currently Rover cars have less claims made against them than Audi's and they are in the same league as Ford, VW and much, much better than Alfa. As for Land Rover they bring up the rear after years of BMW ownership and now Ford ownership. The Rover cars included are cars like the older 800s and Metro's. What is the perpetuated myth that Rover cars are still stuck with their 70s image? Most cars in the 70s and 80s rusted, some more than others, Rovers were just as prone to it. The differences came with zinc galvanisation and improved design.
If you want a current debate about reliability, how about the coil pack debacle with most of the VW range? Imagine if that was Rover and not VW, it would the lead article on most news programmes.
Rover have been trading with Honda for years for spare parts for it colabouration cars, both companies are in it for money but why the lack of stories like this one regarding BMW? Most of my Rover 600 is Honda sourced but I have no trouble getting spares not that I've needed many. In six years of 600 ownership, I've had to order one electric window mechanism from a Rover parts dept which they had in stock. So much for unreliable.
Finally, if British workers are less productive, why the inward investment by firms like Honda and Nissan? Honda has just made it's 1,000,000th car in the UK and it's for export. Nissan Sunderland is one of the most productive plants outside Japan. BMW got it wrong, you'll never see any productivity figures for BMW factories, why?
I'm not exactly the first to jump up and scream 'unfair', car businesses work to cut-throat margins but the action of BMW in the UK ever since they bought ARG has been one cock-up after another. BMW's are good cars I'm not disputing that but are they really worth the price premium or are you paying more than just for the engineering?
Finally, someone mentioned the Euro. The Euro is currently at an all-time high against the pound making our exports much cheaper to Europe. Closing a plant in Birmingham on a Euro argument wouldn't hold water.
|
If you want a current debate about reliability, how about the coil pack debacle with most of the VW range? Imagine if that was Rover and not VW, it would the lead article on most news programmes.
Totally agree on this point.
|
|
|
Regarding the Honda link, it?s worth remembering that the two big sales disasters for Rover in the 1990?s were the 1995 400 and the 600. Neither of these cars got close to their sales targets and both were product developments under the BAe management rather than BMW.
The 400 was dated when launched and apart from it?s first year the 600 never sold at all well. The 600 was also hampered by restrictions under the licence as to what Rover could do to it ? hence no Estate etc. Some of this was due to pricing but most of it was due to them being very average products.
I wish MGR well and hope they succeed but can?t help but think they?re still in the same viscous circle of average car leading to average sales leading to not enough profit to afford to develop good replacement leading to even lower sales etc. etc.
I think I?m correct that the only new Rover car to sell in greater numbers than the car it replaced was the 1989 Rover 200 as (a) it was a competitive product and (b) only had to do better than the Maestro.
The TATA link sounds promising and the TCV looks good (though they need to survive long enough to get it into production ? 25 & 45 sales are haemorrhaging) but what about the 75? It?s due for replacement by 2006 at the latest so in the normal scheme of things work on its replacement should have started by now.
|
|
BMW aren't without their quality problems either, I know of more than one 6-cylinder E36 that had a new short-engine at 30k due to cylinder bore coating issues (same as on early Jag V8s). Again if this happened at MG-R there'd be national outcry! Give me an A4 1.8T Q over a 3-series anyday (sorry 3500s I a bit of an Audi man these days!).
|
|
|
|
Some of my reliability information was a bit out. This is the reliability index from www.reliabilityindex.co.uk
100 being average reliability.
MAZDA 48.64
FORD 65.44
FIAT 66.71
MERCEDES 67.19
HONDA 68.67
VOLKSWAGEN 71.8
TOYOTA 73.62
BMW 78.11
DAEWOO 82.08
VAUXHALL 83.61
VOLVO 83.81
SUBARU 83.94
PEUGEOT 88.89
HYUNDAI 90.09
ROVER 91.44
MG 92.88
NISSAN 98.49
CITROEN 98.92
AUDI 98.98
RENAULT 115.36
SAAB 121.38
MITSUBISHI 134.23
ALFA ROMEO 156.8
LANDROVER 165.64
|
|
Cripes! Ford second and Fiat third! Judging by experiance, and everyone I know's opinion of Ford reliabilty that seems strange. Would have thought Toyota would be further up too. LR at the bottom, they're great aren't they? I think that'll change big time with the new models though...
|
|
Maybe it depends on how you define reliability. Fords usually get you home, they just might have annoying minor problems all the way.
|
|
|
|
I agree with you that in design terms the Rover companies have been innovative, but it's simply a fact that British workers are now and have historically been less productive than others. The govts own pre-budget report last year claimed a productivity gap (output per worker) of 40% compared with the Americans and 20% compared with Europe. The fact that British workers can be productive for companies like Nissan and Toyota suggests it's a management problem for individual companies and a general problem with our work culture. Some of the problem in terms of profit margin is down to the strength of the pound in recent years--only in the last few months has this eased, too late for many companies. But who wants unnecessary exchange rate risk anyway? Not BMW it seems.
And now back to work, or my own productivity gap will be huge.
|
|
|
>>> Most cars in the 70s and 80s rusted, some more than others, Rovers were just as prone to it. The differences came with zinc galvanisation and improved design <<<
The 2some more than others" applied specially to Lancia and Fiat, and they learnt a costly lesson.
Can you tell us which Rovers are galvanised, and since when? The last time I checked (in 1999) Rovers apparently/allegedly were still not galvanised!!
|
Since this has become a debate about Rovers: You never see rusty rovers these days. (Or rusty cars of any hue)
As for the achievments of Rover lets not forget the K-Series engine. Anyone who's seen a tomcat on the track will have no doubt how quick the coupe is.
--
I worship the ground that the Moderators walk on.
|
|
|
3500S: I am keenly awaiting your answer to:
Can you tell us which Rovers are galvanised, and since when?
The last time I checked (in 1999) Rovers apparently/allegedly were still not galvanised!!
|
|
|
|
Your rant may not be Red Robbo, 3500S, but the fundamental ignorance of the way global business works, a feeling of powerlessness, and a basic belief that it must always be somebody else's fault - spiced up by some jingoistic anti-German prejudice - have peppered this debate from start to finish.
Land Rover 'bring up the rear after years of BMW then Ford ownership'. Well, it's obviously, their fault then isn't it? Nothing to do with the Prima Donnas at LR who believed that they made the best 4x4 in the world and, therefore, didn't need to listen to some upstarts from Munich or Dearborn. Keep on churning out old, difficult to manufacture designs, keep the faith with suppliers who live in the past and you're bound to succeed. Certainly topped the warranty claims chart, that's for sure.
And why is Honda some kind of golden era? Just because it doesn't have a B, M, or W in it? In the same vein, you seem to think that the basic reason Nissan, Honda and Toyota built factories in the UK is because of their faith in the British worker. Let's add a rider to that: they had a particular faith in workers who hadn't seen the inside of car factories in the West Midlands. And they got some nice subsidies, too.
There are those in the automotive industry who used to think that when you put the car industry together with the West Midlands all you got was trouble. Initiatives like Accelerate will tell you that's all in the past.
Then you read reports about sabotage and see debates like this...and wonder whether the penny's dropped yet.
|
I totally understand how global business works, why else would companies like VW, GM, BMW and MGR be looking at the East for lower unit costs. I'm actually in favour of globalisation, in my own industry knowledge workers come from all over the world, India, Russia and Africa. Being highly skilled and highly motivated knows no national boundaries.
As for an anti-German prejudice, I'm sorry I don't see it. I certainly don't like the way BMW have behaved in the UK so that makes me anti-German? Grow up. As for being proud of British car firm, the last one, making a damn good go of it then line me up against a wall and shoot me.
The skills available in the West Midlands and the Midlands as a whole are world-renowned. Whether it's making family cars to making Formula 1 cars it would seem many engineeering firms the world over have a presence there. Why would BMW just not get it and fail to succeed there? Blaming the workforce is not an excuse these days that's well and truly are over.
So if you think that West Midlands workers aren't up to much, what about the Peugeot plant at Ryton? They make the 206 there 24 hours a day.
If I hear of something I don't like then I'll say something about it, if it makes people feel uncomfortable then hard luck.
Business is tough and car industry has it tougher than most at the moment, my firm has lost 50% of its workforce in the last 18 months so don't tell me I don't understand how global business works, I have first-hand experience.
|
>>Blaming the workforce is not an excuse these days
Seems to make about as much sense to me as blindly blaming the "evil corporation".
|
|
|
Regarding the Poland plan - does anyone think making the defunct 45 will work there?
"Eastern European" markets are just as interested in brand, image and quality of a car than anywhere else and my gut feeling is that most buyers, if they can't afford a new Golf, will prefer a used Golf rather than a new aged design 45.
|
|
Whereas the Golf is so evidently an up to the minute design, created for the twenty-first century. It looks nothing like the Golf of 1974, does it? Taking VW's lead maybe Rover should try selling a revamped Maxi to the Poles.
|
Whereas the Golf is so evidently an up to the minute design, created for the twenty-first century. It looks nothing like the Golf of 1974, does it?
Bang-on! Theres nothing like flogging a dead horse!!!
|
|
|
|
"Eastern European" markets are just as interested in brand, image and quality of a car than anywhere else and my gut feeling is that most buyers, if they can't afford a new Golf, will prefer a used Golf rather than a new aged design 45.
Company car drivers won't have the choice. The Rover drives far better than the VW every time.
--
You're a shower! You're an absolute shower!
|
The Rover might drive better, but it's not the point. The Golf sells, what, about a million a year plus probably another 500,000 based on the same platform. The 45 sells 50,000 or so. The Golf has market appeal, the 45 does not. Rover, as a name, is virtually unknown in Eastern Europe and anything which is known about it is negative.
The idea that "Eastern European" or ex-Soviet bloc car buyers will put up with second rate is completely wrong. They are more aware of perceived value than any western European buyer.
If MGR take on the Polish factory they should build the TCV, 25 successor and 75 replacement there for these markets, not a 1990's Honda cast off however technically capable it might be.
A Polish made 45 will not sell, in Poland, or anywhere else, at a profit.
|
Actually, come to think of it, what might work is a Polish built Indicar. A modern design, cheap to build, "Europeanised" by Rover might well work for those markets if its cheap enough.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
