One of the motoring weeklies had a computer picture of the proposed replacement for the Rover 45. Looks like it was copying Ford's dubious 'new edge' styling theme, which Ford themselves are abandoning with the next Focus!
Mind you, the current Mondeo looks nice, I will say that.
Cheers, SS
|
Stories of MGR's demise have yet again been grossly exaggerated.
For a start, the GEN2 platform is a decent enough car. However, Rover were very, very late on the scene for this platform. It would have been little more than a re-badge and perhaps a new interior and bumper changes. That would certainly be the not 'economically viable' angle. Especially as Proton are marketting their's at £8995.
However, where a lot of people are confused is where MGR's desired participation would be. Gen2 would not be a 45 replacement, for a start it sits right between a 25 and 45 for size. It would have been the vaunted R3 car. I've heard some interesting things about R4 and also some other R4 derived cars.
MGR and Proton's collaboration goes much further than Gen2. I would suggest you look at Proton's TRM small car prototype, that would be the 25 replacement. This the current car Hethel is having a lot of early input on and MGR are interested in this as a 25 replacement because it can buy into the development process and have more of a say.
Also, the SAIC deal is not just for the 75 replacement. RDX/60 has been revised to allow for a Chinese variant, the Chinese go for saloons, not hatchbacks. This is where the SAIC money will go on a saloon variant and also other variants. The SAIC deal is progressing well and there is talk of an SAIC taking equity stake in MGR. It is worth remembering SAIC have NO ability to design and develop its own cars, MGR does. SAIC is a very cash rich and wants to become the 6th largest car maker in the world. All MGR need is development funds. SAIC also want to manufacture Rover's on CKD which is their expertise. Apparently talk of the 75 being made in China has caused quite a sensation amongst Chinese car enthusiasts. They clearly value it more than we do.
In terms of RD/X60 news, my MGR source this weekend said RD/X60 was all systems go, the official launch coincided with Geneva or FRANKFURT in Q3 2005 with a launch in Q4 2005. The numerous variants are all prototyped (and there are several), some are fully developed, test tooling rigs is currently being installed and tested and all the component suppliers are coming on-line in Q1 2005. Hot and cold weather testing was due to start very soon, so expect some real spyshots. The only thing they could tell me about the car I didn't know were RDX/60 will be US Type approved, features RWD and FWD models and will carry both the Rover and MG badges. There is also a surprise badge but wouldn't say what.
If that is the case, a broad RD/X60 platform, then the Proton deal would definitely be off. Sales and SAIC money would hopefuly pay for a 25 replacement.
|
The news this morning is that the SAIC deal is, if it happens, likely to lead to a full takeover over MGR. MGR do not appear to have denied it either - they seem to be talking it up.
I suspect that, if true, this is why the Proton talks stopped.
|
MGR have denied it saying they would be 'flattered' but it isn't true, the reports in the broadsheets today centre on 'sources' from Automotive News Europe.
So the news is third-hand already before it makes the papers.
But I admit, reading between the lines, the least it has done is finally has provoked a statement from MGR who have said nothing about Proton or SAIC for months now.
I wouldn't be surprised that there is an equity stake taken on both sides, SAIC's whole future lies in the balance of transitioning from making early 1980s VW Santana's to 21st century RDX/60s and other designs. That's one hell of a leap. MG Rover would be the technology partner and also get a lot of capital to design and make its own cars and that's quite a trump card as GM and VW have both rebuffed SAIC's overtures for further co-operation. China needs everyday cars, Rover needs capital.
The Chinese government have also said it wants it businesses to act more like global firms rather than backwater outfits.
It's a mouth watering prospect. Rover have shown what they can do when money is available with the 75. Shanghai's regional government today has announced another $350Bn in state aid with another 5-year plan to its businesses and SAIC is going to get a large slice of this. Bearing in mind SAIC are sitting on a $9bn cash pile at the moment.
SAIC have said by 2010 they want to be the 6th largest car manufacturer in the world. That would mean a total output of over 3.6 million cars a year.
|
|
Phoenicks - if you can\'t communicate civilly, then don\'t communicate at all. Mark.
|
There was nothing wrong in this note, but given I removed the previous one it no longer made sense.
Mark.
|
|
I suspect there are many, like me, who agree with 3500S, but are fed up with the constant slagging on this forum, so don't bother to comment on MGR threads any more.
|
|
quite so - they're down, but not out yet .. so less kicking would make pleasant change!
|
|
|
I suspect SAIC may well buy into MGR if this deal goes ahead, probably with an "option to purchase" rather like the GM/FIAT one. They certainly won't put themselves in the vunerable position Honda did with regard to somebody else being able to buy the whole project out from under them.
If MGR do get some money it will be interesting to see what they can come up with. They haven't engineered a new car on their own for a long, long time. A lot of the R75 is BMW based (from underneath it looks like a 5-series) and they lost a lot of engineers and their engineering base when Gaydon went to Ford.
Still, if SAIC get a reasonably decent design to European standards out of it and MGR get some much needed cash I can see something in it for both parties.
|
It does look to me like a good deal, the SAIC partnerships with GM and VW have been 50:50 joint ventures.
R75 was not and never was based on a 5-series. They tried to use a 5 platform during early development but it was too expensive to re-engineer. The 75 platform was all new for 1999, designed and developed by Rover. I do know MGR took on a lot of the TWR engineers after they went into administration bringing RDX60 in-house. They have purpose built offices in Longbridge apparently well sectioned off from the rest of the plant. I do agree though, I hope the development engineers are up to the job as this will be the first car since the 25 developed entirely by Rover.
|
3500,
But surely such a deal will mean the end of any volume production in UK?
Rover UK could provide high level engineering and design expertise but the shop floor can forget it?
Plus SAIC unlikely to agree to any structure that gives them exposure to the pensions black hole.
|
MGR would be subjected to heavy tariffs from selling cars made outside the EU in the EU.
Also, MGR are committed to manufacture in the UK, if the grapevine is true, MG looks like it is going back to the US market with an RDX60 derivative, possibly the much vaunted Coupe. Longbridge has the potential capacity for 600,000 cars a year and if all the lines went into 100% 24 hour a day production that would reach 375,000 cars.
The cost of developing new cars is getting to the point where the car itself has to be a global seller to make any money. However, I would imagine the cost of shipping complete cars from China to England in serious volumes would be very expensive especially when considering the component manufacturers are mostly European based.
Ford are just getting to this point where the Focus is now sold in the US. Car designs are now being ever further homogenized across continents. However, this car is made in the US but designed in Europe. MGR are certainly looking to share development costs, do the lion's share of the work and then build it in the UK and its partners manufacture for their marketplace.
As for a pensions black hole, this is the first I've heard of it. Part of the BMW payment was to cover any pension shortfall and as far as I'm aware, that is intact. The only pension provision not covered was those of the chief executive which was the big fuss over the £12m annuity being set up for them.
|
Scotsman 24/11/2003
'Trade unions have voiced concerns about executive pay at the company - said to be the highest in the car industry - as well as a pensions deficit of more than £70 million and reports that a trust fund has been set up for directors.'
Drop in the ocean compared to BT's mind...
|
Relax it is not going to happen. Nobody and I mean nobody wants MGR.
Come to think of it what have MGR got to offer? They don't own their name (Rover), they don't own the land on which the factory sits on (Longbridge), they don't own their parts department and they have no new technology to offer. This much talked about RD60 is only a low tech medium class saloon and if it ever gets launched will undoubtedly have the unreliable K series under the bonnet ? people who think otherwise should remember that there just isn't the funds available to offer anything else. There will be far better cars on the market when it is (ever) launched. So its back to square one for Rover.
Sad but true.
|
Puppetland,
For a start, the 'Rover' name is being held by BMW as part of the agreement with Ford that Rover do not use their for a 4x4. They do not pay royalties for it and the agreement is only for another six years. They do own the MG name along with Wolseley, Austin and Morris. Contrary to reports, the Healey name is still owned by the Healey family.
Secondly, some of the land on the Longbridge site is mortgaged, the property is not. As for the parts business, this is only in line with other manufacturers to outsource this business.
Thirdly, how to you know that RDX/60 is low tech? If you have the specs for it, show them on here, I'm sure the entire motoring press would love to have this information.
Fourthly, the K-series engine is no more unreliable than any other engine. This is old news concerning a very small quantity of engines bearing in mind some 2 million K-series have been made since 1984. It did have some gasket issues some 6-7 years ago on the 1.8, these have been corrected with a revised gasket set, metal locator dowels and a stronger redesigned inlet manifold. Also, Lotus, Westfield and Caterham use this engine is high states of tune without such problems. Also, there is talk of a revised K+ engine that will meet Euro V emissions whilst preserving power. If the rumours of RDX/60 being US type approved are true then the K-series must have had some serious development work on it.
Lastly, in terms of technology, the K-series still delivers power to performance better than most of the competitors, 105 bhp from a 1.4 is still class leading. The technology to cast the engine is licensed to Jaguar and Aston Martin. Also, you've never heard of the hybrid MGTF test car that has a 1.8K and a 40Bhp electric motor?
Also the R75 production line is the most advanced in the UK and probably Europe, the robotised line delivers over 40,000 spot welds to the chassis and monocoque structure. This is 10,000 more than the current and brand new 5-series making the 75 chassis one of the stiffest in the world.
All very sad but true.
|
thankyou 3500s
bout time someone supported the underdog.
i still think rover's marketing team would benefit form some common sense.
im still puzzled they dont push the 1.1 litre engine inside the 25.
if they did it in 5 door for under 7 grand with a free servicing or insurance offer - they would sell quite a few, that i have no doubt.
I WOULD BUY ONE!
until then, i'll get ever more closer to purchasing a getz &(although it will probably be a ball of rust in 5 years time).
|
Thank you Davey,
There is a 25 1.1, it's not that powerful but there is one available. Auto Trader is a good place to look.
|
But the other side of the argument:
The land on which the Longbridge assembly plant stands on is sold. The buildings that are on it are high maintenance and by todays standards, worthless.
The K-series has the reputation of being susceptible HGF. Whether later engines have this problem well and truly rectified (and I do not believe they have) mud sticks ? K-series are perceived in the trade as being unreliable. Hence low residuals and low sales.
Selling the parts business is seen by the public as a desperate attempt to raise more capital.
The 75 production line (as developed by BMW at Cowley) may be advanced, but the car itself is falling well behind the pace. Longbridge cars have constant cost cuttings and indifferent build quality. Be honest, can you really see this R75 plodding on for another three, four or even five years with buoyant sales figures? No, of course you can't. Retro styled cars are all very well but they are extremely hard to facelift convincingly - as the current mess of designs highlight so very well.
I doubt SAIC will offer anything worthwhile to help Rover. The minute this company see the £500m that has to be repaid to BMW, the dwindling MGR market share and the exorbitant maintenance fees for Longbridge ? they will run a mile, just like Proton did.
The RDX60 can be nothing else but low tech, where has the money come from to design anything else? Also, it has been years since MGR developed a brand new car. The pace has moved forward so much that I doubt there is the talent at Longbridge to make any impact on the current market. Also, this alleged talented engineering team "Roverised" the TaTa Indica and came up with a product the public quite clearly do not want.However, I do admit they transformed the handling of the R45 to make it into the ZS.
If the RDX60 comes to market, and I have seen no evidence that it will, how will the R25, R75, MGTF, K-series be replaced, and their replacements be replaced ? and so on? Sorry, the future is dim and that future belongs to MGR.
|
|
I thought the 1.1 K series in the 100 was a gem - my better half owns an SLi with that lump and it's an absolute hoot to drive with more than enough oomph through the range and a lovely engine note when it's working hard.
|
K series isnt unreliable. it suffers or did H/G failure.AND in most cases was due to neglect by the owner. Not saying all but some.As I recall it has been and still is used for Racing. as the bottom end is bullet proof. my point is dont write Rover off yet.I did post saying they need to improve the engine. And stand by that. but I reckon they will come back as always. Tis only a pity so many are against rovers for their failures where others get away with it.To put it another way I like em and have not long bought another rover.You only need to look around to see how many are still going.
--
Was mech1
|
|
|
|
..cars based on Mitsi models..
And shockingly good they were for the money too - the Persona was a Lancer and had a series of lovely rorty engines. The Compact was basically the little rounded Colt and handled just as well. Shame the dealerships were few and far between and often hammered you for parts though..
|
>>and often hammered you for parts though>>
That wasn't the case around Preston, where I used to work. It was not uncommon for Mitsubishi owners to buy body parts such as doors from the Proton dealership as they were much cheaper.
The Protons were good at the time - built in a brand new factory from the late 1980s created in association with Mitsubishi - but the interiors left a lot to be desired if you didn't like acres of nasty plastic...:-)
Another (one of many) similar tieups was that between Mazda and Kia - the Pride was a Mazda 121 and good value at the time.
|
As I remember Proton Persona also came just below the Toyota Corolla in the JD power survey a few years ago, not a bad car when they come out but getting very old now(new model looks OK).
As for 3500s saying that Ford are only just getting to the point of selling the Focus in the US, it was on sale in the us only a year after it was here in the UK and the US model is quite different from the euro model. Ford in the early 90's used to sell the Mondeo in the US and also the Mazda 121 as a Ford there. In fact the Mazda 121 and Ford version were always made by KIA and they continued to make the model under there own name when Mazda/Ford stopped selling them.
The Ford Cortina was also made by Hyundai in South Korea to theie home market, so as you can see 3500S they are more into world wide car sales than most other brands. What happened to Rovers own expansion plan into the USA in the late 80's ?
|
|
Ford also made the Mazda at Dagenham based on the Fiesta bodyshell in the early 1990s.
|
In todays 'Times' Rover have a new advert, they have started a cashback offer:
Rover 25 & 45 has cachback of £1000
The 75 has £1500
To little to late but it all helps sales I should think.
|
|
That add does not feature the excorable city Rover........think I know why, with a 25 offered under £7k!
|
Just been looking at the results from last week's BackRoom poll.
34% thought MG-Rover was either sinking fast, or a dead parrot.
But an amazing 39% thought that MG-Rover was "on the verge of a great revival". Wow!
|
|
That might have something to do with the MG-Rover fans web site linking to the poll.
|
|
From the balance of opinions expressed on the two backroom threads that would explain a lot. Initially the poll showed a sizeable majority going for the company facing a great challenge, but it seemed to swing towards a revival very suddenly.
|
|
|
