Damn you and your technicalities!
|
"If anything ever gets built there again, apart from a retail park, houses or offices, I will be astonished."
And I will eat my slippers - again.
I fail to understand what the Chinese are up to. No-one wanted MGR products for years, why should they suddenly want them now?
|
This is just a guess, but I suspect the Chinese are more concerned with their home market.
As the car market booms in China, what will the newly-minted consumer want to buy: a "Shanghai Automotive large car model 10" that sounds like a kick-back to the communist-era, or an MG-Rover which can be marketed with premium-car aspirations and plenty advertising bumph about heritage harking way back to the dawn of the motor industry?
And you can be sure that the 25 and 75 are years ahead of anything Shanghai Auto currently produce. After all, VW still sell the Passat B2 design last seen in these parts about 1987 to the Chinese market...
|
>>I suspect the Chinese are more concerned with their home market.
Not just their home market, but all developing third world countries who find the likes of American, European and Japanese vehicles too expensive. Provided the cars are strengthened for roungher roads then the market for cheap Chinese Rovers is probably quite large.
In the current Readers Digest there is an article about a modern German steelworks that went bankrupt being bought by a Chinese firm. Their decision was based upon it being modern technology, that even allowing for dismantling, shipping and rebuilding, only cost them 60% of the new cost. So they were very shrewd. Could this be the same with both Chinese car manufacturers?
--
Roger
I read frequently, but only post when I have something useful to say.
|
|
|
Well you also get teh the latest Passat and BMW 5's , Accords and a whole lot more.
This will probably influence the home market. Was in Shanghai last week - a whole lot of "Worsley" knitwear shops opening up compete with Royal hallmarks etc. Guess that is what Rover will be used for
|
|
|
|
|
>>It was a tenner though wasn't it?
And if I remember rightly they even forgot to bring one to the signing meeting with BMW and one of the Pheonix directors had to pull a scruffy one out of his wallet. Probably the best investment he ever made.
--
Roger
I read frequently, but only post when I have something useful to say.
|
...Especially as BMW also lent them about half a billion which never got repaid. Proves how keen BMW were to get rid of Rover in the end. Or maybe all along??
The sad bit about Rover for me was that before BAe sold to BMW, I believe Honda were going to buy invest more into Rover. In fact Honda owned 20% of Rover at the time. And if they had continued with that relationship the 25 and 45 would have been based on new Honda models ages ago.
I know BMW invested lots of money but that all probably went on the 75, Range Rover and Mini. And of course they kept successful Mini and sold Land Rover for about £1.85 billion (?3bn) to Ford.
Of course conspiracy theories suggest BMW bought Rover to derail them and to do some damage to Honda too. Look at some facts
- Rover bought for £800m
- Cowley retained after sale (Rover 75 production moved to Longbridge)
- Hamms Hall engine plant retained
- Originally the Longbridge Engine & Transmissions facility and the Swindon panel pressing plant were not included in the original sale to Phoenix. So Rover had to buy components from BMW until they later sold these to Phoenix.
- Land Rover netted them £1.85bn from Ford
- Mini a massive success
- Retain rights to old margues like Triumph. Riley, etc. All better than the Rover marque now?
- Oh and they just sold the Rover margue to SAIC for £11m! But they sold Rover group for a tenner.
|
The sad bit about Rover for me was that before BAe sold to BMW, I believe Honda were going to buy invest more into Rover. In fact Honda owned 20% of Rover at the time. And if they had continued with that relationship the 25 and 45 would have been based on new Honda models ages ago.
I agree. Honda and Rover were a brilliant combination. The 200 was a great example - all the good bits of the Concerto it was based on, but with much nicer interior and exterior styling details. As a 1.4 it was quicker than most of the competition's 1.6's, and as a 1.6 it would give an 8 valve Golf GTI a run for its money off the line. They even had PSA provide XUD diesels for it as well.
I was sorting through the loft the other day and came across a Rover brochure from 1993. I have no particular like or dislike for Rover's cars, but this brochure just smacked of a confident, optimistic company with a popular and highly regarded product range. The Maestro/Montego era had been kicked into touch, the facelift Metro was popular, and the 200 and 400 were still receiving good reviews. The brand new 600 had just been launched (again, based on a reliable Honda but with nicer detailing) to favourable reports, and the 800 was a bit long in the tooth, but still one of the best selling execs on the market (people forget that).
Look at it now. Such a shame.
Cheers
DP
|
I see nostalgia rules.
madf
|
|
Despite some success in the early 1990's, the company also had an unrivalled ability to shoot itself in the foot. They priced their cars too highly and put the 1995 200 in the sector above it. Daft.
|
I'm not saying they didn't play a big part in their own downfall (particularly at the end), and I have no allegiance to Rover. I've never owned one, apart from a 1976 BL Mini, and would be the first to argue they have made some dire carp over the years.
I do think the beginning of the end was the BMW acquisition in 1994 though, which destroyed the incredibly successful partnership with Honda. In the final years running up to this split, they were making cars that, if not class leaders, could at least be mentioned in the same sentence, and Honda's quality control influence was starting to filter through.
My uncle bought a 1992 216 GTI Twin Cam new, kept it for three years and still looks back on it as one of the most reliable cars he's ever owned. There are still stacks of these 89-95 shaped 200's on the road, and on average they look to be in better nick than the average 89-95 Astra or Escort, and not that far away from contemporary Golfs.
A far cry from the tarted up "two generations out of date" stuff they were trying to punt at the end.
Cheers
DP
|
"I do think the beginning of the end was the BMW acquisition in 1994 though, which destroyed the incredibly successful partnership with Honda. In the final years running up to this split, they were making cars that, if not class leaders, could at least be mentioned in the same sentence, and Honda's quality control influence was starting to filter through. "
The word "nostalgia" I used before should be replaced by another which the swearchecker would reject so how about "bull's gonads"?
The Rover 800 was rubbish from both a design and quality viewpoint, the Metro was outdated and the 600 while nice was no match £ for £ with its competitors. And if "incredibly successful " means "making huge losses" then they were. And they were still making a 34 year old car..which could be mentioned in the same sentence as the class leaders .. of 1959. (I refer of course to the Mini .. designed by a Mr Issigonis with zero japanese/german input).
And if the Rover 800 was an example of Honda quality control "filtering through" it must have been osmosis through a 100 metre barrier.
I'm sorry. You are living on a different planet. I had 3 Rover 800s .. no choice. They were all awful. And Minis rusted in the same places as in 1959 and had the same engines..and a 4 speed gearbox. And Metros were plain unsafe from a crashtest viewpoint.
rose tinted glasses.
Rose tinted spectacles.
madf
|
>> And Metros wereplain unsafe from a crashtest viewpoint.
madf
By todays standards, yes.
But at the time they went into production (1980?) the Metro which had been used for
type approval crash testing was on show as a shining example of how good it was (then)
... how well the passenger cell held up, steering wheel didn't interfere too much with the
driver, etc, etc.
ISTR it won a Design Council award, or similar, for its secondary safety.. but there's no
trace of it now that I can find.
|
I'm sorry. You are living on a different planet. I had 3 Rover 800s .. no choice. They were all awful. And Minis rusted in the same places as in 1959 and had the same engines..and a 4 speed gearbox. And Metros were plain unsafe from a crashtest viewpoint.
Calm down!
All I said about the 800 was that it was one of the best selling exec cars in the country. That is a fact. I didn't say anything about how good or bad it was, just that it was a sales success. As for the Metro's safety, it was ballpark for a car of its era. Most cars built 15 years ago are dangerous from a crashtest viewpoint by today's standards.
The fact is there are stacks of 200's still going around today that are in fair condition for their age, that were very highly rated by the mags at the time, and which of the four people I know who've had them, none have significantly criticised them.
DP
|
Sorry - no edit button!
As regards the Mini, I would call that a special case. Ask any fan of the original (and there are a lot of them across the world) what they think of the new BMW version and see what response you get.
You either love or hate the Mini. If you hate it, it's irrelevant, and if you love it, adding a 5 speed 'box or a modern multivalve engine would remove the entire point.
DP
|
"what they think of the new BMW version and see what response you get."
fine but,,,
The Minis were 1950s cars and were very very tired by the time production ended, made out of sub standard steel, they rusted as you watched. The engine was pre-war in origin, the gearbox was a joke, the suspension was antique and the driving position of a bus. We owned two of these one on a C and one on an F. Utter rubbish.
SWMB bought a MINI in 2001, apart from tyres, oil and petrol and scheduled servicing this car has cost nothing, the car hasn't got a piece of corrosion on it has been enjoyable to drive and is still worth something now despite a huge mileage which would have seen the ancient Mini have crumbled into a pile of red-oxide. The old Minis are are at best museum pieces at worst a piece of automotive junk. As I look at it in the yard outside now it looks as if it was made last year, you could clock it and no-one would be any wiser as to it's true mileage. SWMBO neglects her cars, this wasn't washed last winter and I could swear had a 2 inch layer of salt on it ! Thank goodness that a company with some financial acumen took it over before Rover blew it.
|
I am sorry PU but the modern mini is pure design rubbish. Its a triumph of style and mimicry over practicality or good design. It tries so hard to look like the original and in the process is a poor caricature. There is no unique piece of engineering in the entire package.
------------------------------
TourVanMan TM < Ex RF >
|
I am sorry PU but the modern mini is pure design rubbish. Its a triumph of style and mimicry over practicality or good design. It tries so hard to look like the original and in the process is a poor caricature. There is no unique piece of engineering in the entire package. ------------------------------
>>
But it works.............History is for learning from...........not for re-visiting!
vbr........................................MD
|
There is no unique piece of engineering in the entire package.
I agree ! Which perhaps is what makes it so good. As a package it's spot on. SWMBO bought it because she (a) Like the look of it (b) knew it would make good financial sense and (C) knew that it was a finished product, the trouble with BMC/BL/Austin-Rover/Rover/MG Rover was that the customer was a major part of the develpoment programme. At least BMW are developing the MINI not letting it laguish.
|
>DP
You said "up to this split, they were making cars that, if not class leaders, could at least be mentioned in the same sentence.."
and my contention is: they could not, not even then.. (the Metro was 13 years old then and outdated )
We agree to disagree:-)
madf
|
We agree to disagree:-)
I agree! :-)
|
I agree with DP. I'm no fan of Rover but In the late 80s/early90s after dumping the Maestro/Montego range Rover were a brand to be reckoned with. Widely seen as a cut above Ford and Vauxhall they sold plenty of cars with clever marketing worthy of VW ("Above all we're Rover dealers" etc). The company I used to work for in the late 90s switched from all Rover company cars to a choice of eiter Peugeot or Vauxhall - a lot of unhappy people...
The Metro, although out of date, still sold well. The 200 and 400 were good quality, modern, popular cars, the 400 estate from this era still looks good today IMO. I personally thought the 600 was a good design with a great interior and actually considered one around 1998. Fair enough the 800 was out of date (like the Metro) but BAE didn't put the investment in to get it replaced and why should they if it was still selling.
Look at the outdated cars Ford and Vauxhall were making in the early 90s - Sierras and Novas anyone?
If BAE had brokered a deal with Honda and not BMW then I personally think things would have been a lot different...
|
It's funny how perceptions change. My first car was a second hand 1975 Mini 1000. It was a hoot to drive and proved very economical. Can't remember rust being an issue and reliability was excellent. I liked it so much I traded it in for a brand new Mini Clubman (!!) in 1979. The Clubman was delivered with a large hole where the front ashtray should have been. Within a week the gears were so bad it had to go back for a gearbox strip and new synchromesh. Then the front footwell filled up with water. The paintwork cracked and started to rust at the back wheelarch. Weeks later the battery split across the top!! The thing had Dunlop Denovo runflat tyres (I forget the name of them but I think they were bolted between a split rim of some description) So there was no spare wheel - instead a kit with a 12 inch length of rubber and a thing resembling a crochet hook!
I despaired of Mini and along with it BL etc etc. About the same time, my mum bought a second hand Renault 12 - a car she was to keep for 13 years and has mourned the loss of it to this day! In those days, Renaults were reckoned to be 'hyper reliable' and technologically advanced so you were seen as enlightened if you went foreign. This was actually quite true - the likes of Renault 12 and 16 were superb designs.
I traded in the Clubman for a brand new Renault 18, which was followed by a Renault 11, Renault 21, Renault 19, Citroen Xantia and C5. (See a pattern developing!)
Nowadays, French cars are reckoned to be unreliable I wouldn't necessarily share that view of course, but as I say, perceptions develop and we tend to be swayed by them.
I wonder what it would take to make me buy a Skoda.......?
Graeme
|
"Look at the outdated cars Ford and Vauxhall were making in the early 90s - Sierras and Novas anyone?"
I drove 80k miles in 2 years in a 1.8 Sierra estate. It was nicer to drive than a Montego/Maestro - which were Rover's products introduced at around the same time and it never once broke down. (I won't bore you with a list of the many faults of my Montego in 12k miles). And the Montego was introduced around 1993 - surely a far better comparison?
madf
|
I much preferred the Sierra to the Montego too, but the Montego was first introduced in 1984 (and killed off in 1995.. )
Now these are cars that have been slated by the people I knew who had them. The only exception was a 1987 MG Turbo bought by one of my mates "for a crack". He did some kind of bodge on the wastegate to increase the boost and it really did go like stink. Dreadful car in most respects, but a fast, dreadful car!
Lasted two years and about 25k like that before it put number 3 rod through the block coming off a roundabout (with the front tyres alight) one evening. A long walk home that was!
Good times.
Cheers
DP
|
About '83 for the Montego introduction I think, not '93.
Still quite a number of diesel estates kicking about in France, I note. I guess because they were class leaders in interior space, if nothing else.
I wouldn't have touched one with a bargepole, but my father aspired to one. Mind you, his new wife had induced him to swap his mint and lovely to drive Morris 2200 auto for a Ford Escort, so his judgement was obviously shot to pieces.
|
Sorry my post should have read: "And the Mondeo was introduced in 1993...a much better car.."
I drove a Montego in 1988 - horrible load of tat.
madf
|
Maybe the Chinese will start exporting them back to the UK...
|
|
Who knows what you'll get next time you ask for a 75 with extra noodles.
|
the likes of Renault 12 and 16
Brilliant cars, we had a 12 estate and a 16 in the family as kids.
|
|
|
Swindon Pressings is still part of BMW group I think. I worked with a guy who was there about 12 months ago. Told me that they knew the writing was on the wall for Rover 12 months before the final day and had pretty much pulled out of any work they did for Rover under a mitigation plan they were running. Plant now makes the panels for the MINI
|
Don't they still make BMW 18 series engines in Brum somewhere.
Love em or hate em BMW make money period. Even the original Bangle Seven series made a profit despite dire predictions, Mugs they are not.
|
|
If they do make the BMW 18 series engines near Brum then probably that's the Hamms Hall Plant then.
|
Found this:
BMW Hams Hall Motoren GmbH
Canton Lane, Hams Hall
Coleshill, Warwickshire B46 1GB,
United Kingdom
Phone: +44-1675-460-100 Fax: +44-1675-460-470
BMW Hams Hall puts the vroom in your Beamer. The 103,000-sq.-meter plant produces four-cylinder petrol engines that are later installed in BMW plants in Germany, South Africa, and the US. Opened for production in 2000, the plant was the first engine production facility to be built outside of Germany and Austria. It is also one of four in the UK that manufacture for BMW Group's premium brands -- BMW, Mini, and Rolls-Royce. With a capacity for 400,000 engines, BMW Hams Hall currently produces 146,000 enginess annually. A boost in demand for Mini engines could double that number by 2006
The new Mini engine is to be made there too then. Will save BMW loads not buying the South American Chrysler engines.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
