Its a stupid question. It would have been canned, and a re skinned metro would have been given the name MINI.
------------------------------
TourVanMan TM < Ex RF >
|
|
|
|
in fairness om the 75 was/is a decent motor. A far more complete motor than the x-type for instance.
|
|
yes i agree 75 is a fine an dandy motor unfortunately to be fair it was also a bmw
|
Rover engineers were in the throws of designing the MINI at the same time as the 75, BMW were merely observing and ensuring the quality was there and no doubt using their experience along the way to ensure it was 100% ready to market (much the same as the 75) so the question isnt whether Rover could have designed a different car, but whether it would be more successful if Rover had kept it and sold it themselves.
|
Without BMW the 75 and the MINI would have been canned.
------------------------------
TourVanMan TM < Ex RF >
|
Been asked to put this on here by a previous poster who's now banned.
I`m banned from HJ , but will you please inform them that Alec Issigonis` Mini was a success for Rover/BMC/Leyland, and it will always be a more successful car than the MINI
because it was designed for ordinary people rather than middle class fools with too much money. You can also add that the new car hasn`t won any rallies or races, the remake of the Italian Job was a total disaster, the new MINI is "gay car of the year 2004" and finally
the Rover 75 is a heap of scrap.Thanks in advance.
Rich.
There you go Rich ;-)
|
|
Depends how you define "success". Selling large numbers or making profits.
|
|
|
Alec Issigonis` Mini was a success for Rover/BMC/Leyland, >>
No it was n't! The idiots actually sold it at a loss. At the time it came out, a concerned Ford managment purchased a Mini, stripped it down and costed each part and the manufacturing cost. The result, for a relieved Ford, was that Rover/BMC/Leyland were selling the car too cheaply. They had n't a clue!
_______
IanS
|
Nice to see a poster being politically incorrect, factually incorrect, and banned...:-)
madf
|
|
Come on PU, great car though it is, er was, you really cannot be serious in saying that the 75 is a far more complete motor than the X-Type, the 75 is basically a good car though it drifted in and out of actually making any money during its life time due to being fairly costly to manufacture and being made in relatively small numbers. Although the X-Type has not been made in vast numbers either it is actually a marketing success, taking Ford components, a little extra development and producing a great car, yes it could have done better, perhaps AWD could have been an option making it more price competitive and the Sport models would be more sporty if they had 2WD with the Mondeo saloon / hatch multilink rear setup, i.e. an ST220 chassis. Similarly the MG variants were fairly successful variants on the 75 though rather more badge engineering than NPD went in in the Rover marketing dept. The fact that it must have cost Rover as much to make a V6 75 or MG ZT as it did Jaguar to make a 3.0 AWD X-Type says it all.
|
In response to the original question, it would have probably been like the MG-F. A very capable, potentially class leading car completely ruined by incomplete development patchy build quality, iffy components and a list of "known issues" longer than the M6! This would have ensured that all bar the most committed badge enthusiasts would have ditched it within months and bought something German.
Rover also wouldn't have captured the badge snobs who bought a MINI simply because it's an "affordable" BMW and who wouldn't be seen dead going into a Rover dealership (I know two of them personally, so there must be many more).
So no, it wouldn't have been a success in my opinion.
Cheers
DP
|
|
No - Rover had the King Midas touch in reverse, everything they touched turned to ****
|
Get a life, charming way to carry on...politically incorrect, what/why? factually incorrect, what/why? and banned, I don't think he's upset about that at all...
They did lose money on the original Mini in the early days, for about the first year, thats all...You can't make money straight off on a new design anyway...Right little rust box, but people loved them, thats why they were made for 40 years...The new one will be lucky to see 10 years, and as for the Rover 75, nice to drive, shame they've got so many faults...Mongrel of a car....I wouldn't have one as a gift....
|
What has he said thats incorrect?
Mini did lose money on the original for about the first year or so...Yes the little rustbukets were popular, thats why they were in production for 40 years, can't see the new one lasting more than 10....The new ones are status symbols, the old model was a car for the people, much like the Beetle was...
|
|
I`m banned from HJ , but will you please inform them that Alec Issigonis` Mini was a success for Rover/BMC/Leyland, and it will always be a more successful car than the MINI because it was designed for ordinary people rather than middle class fools with too much money.
>>
BMC/Rover lost money on every Mini they sold. Far from being a success it must have played a major part in the company's downfall.
|
And where does this information about BMC losing money on every mini they sold come from?
If they had used the money it made to re invest rather than sitting on their backsides pretending there was no competition and making every other (poor) car in 6 different badge variations etc then they could still be a good manufacturer.
management fault not a worker fault (though they were not blame free) and the name mini would sell cars whoever owned it!
Anyone ever wondered why the BM mini is actually called a mini? Its not for its size is it! It is just badge marketing!
|
And where does this information about BMC losing money on every mini they sold come from?
its common knowledge actually and well documented.I think it was even mention in iacocco "s book and he wasnt working for ford at the time
|
|
Under Rover, which engine would have been used?
|
Would hope a Honda 1 ???
Cooper S with Civic Type-R power. Mmmmm.... :-)
|
the K series of course.
------------------------------
TourVanMan TM < Ex RF >
|
>>the K series of course.
For me, that provides the answer to the original question. Under Rover, the MINI would not have been a good car.
|
Surely, they would have stuck the K-series in it. In their defence, it would have probably worked brilliantly. For a bit anyway.
Cheers
DP
|
Sorry nc but the original question was whether the car would be a success; not a good car.
Not necessarily the same thing ! And the mini proves this ??? imo anyway!
|
Fair point yorkiebar.
So, with a K series under the bonnet, I don't think the MINI would be either a good car or a success.
Although, you could easily argue that the style concious typical MINI customer wouldn't know or care about such trivialities as the engine having an insatiable appetite for head gaskets, as long as the car looked good.
Number_Cruncher
|
K-series problems are all fixable, but it's a shame that Rover didn't fix them earlier ..... before the things starting breaking when the punters were driving them would have been useful. It's still one of the lightest engines available, but it's designed primarily for a shopping car. An unmodified K-series should never have been used in the MGF or the Freelander.
Even now, the K-series can be competitive. What might have been etc.
www.austin-rover.co.uk/index.htm?essaykseriesf.htm
|
K-series problems are all fixable, but it's a shame that Rover didn't fix them earlier ..... before the things starting breaking when the punters were driving them would have been useful.
ive just spit my tea on the keyboard..........thats so funny
|
|
Absolute rubbish, don't know where you got that info from
|
Absolute rubbish, don't know where you got that info from
Wish you could edit this thing....This was in responce to CHRIS'S post
|
>> Absolute rubbish, don't know where you got that info from >>
From here and dozens of other places:
classic-car.y2u.co.uk/Cl_Austin_Mini.htm
Sales were strong across most of the model lines in the 1960s, but the car never made money for its makers. It had to be sold at less than its production cost to compete with rivals.
|
>> >> Absolute rubbish, don't know where you got that info from >> >> From here and dozens of other places: classic-car.y2u.co.uk/Cl_Austin_Mini.htm Sales were strong across most of the model lines in the 1960s, but the car never made money for its makers. It had to be sold at less than its production cost to compete with rivals.
I'm sorry Chris,but I can't see anything on that page regarding production costs or building it at a loss?!
|
As i thought about loss making minis.
Not quite true. In the article highlighted it was the mini derivatives that lost money; in this case the mini moke.
overall the mini made profit . According to my info anyway.
|
Whoever owns the Mini need to redesign it to include a 5 dr model. 3-dr models don't add up in my opinion. Also the interiors need a makeover to lessen the cheap plasticky and gimmicky appearance - and the prices for what were/are essentially Chrysler-engined cars!!
It is amazing what badge engineering will do for car sales to those with more money than sense.
|
I think under Rover the Mini would have done moderately well but not as successful as under BMW. Rover had lots of problems but one sticks out in my mind, the company essentially was a small car company, that?s where all the successful products were, Metro, 200 and 400. Yet they tried to market themselves as something bigger and grander, that simply wasn't true and no one would pay the sky-high prices.
The Mini was going to be a BMW product a long before the Rover divorce, they knew what they were doing using the Chysler engine.
I doesn't matter how good something is to sell, the Peugeot 206 looks good and is marketed well but far from a class leading product, yet its been the best seller for private motorists. In the words of Bob Grant "People like trash".
|
">Yet they tried to market themselves as something bigger and grander, that simply wasn't true and no one would pay the sky-high prices.<"
How true. The Rover 200 and 400 of the early 1990s were more than a match for the Ford and Vauxhall equivalent but the price reflected that. The early 1990s Escorts were appalling things, yet people bought them. The Focus was a big leap forward for Ford, and the 1997(?) Astra likewise for Vauxhall. Rover couldn't respond.
|
Wish you could edit this thing....This was in responce to CHRIS'S post
You don't need to edit this thing. If you temp change how you view this thread to "view threaded" instead of "view flat" you will that your reply is in fact in response to Chris's post.
www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?t=45434&...t
|
|
Do you ever get bored typing that? ;-)
|
I don't think Rover could have afforded the expensive but hugely successful marketing that MINI had.
I'm not a great fan of MINI, viewed purely as a car I think it's average, bit uncomfortable for me. But as a complete motoring package, it's right on target.
|
Do you ever get bored typing that? ;-)
Not as bored as I get with people saying it in the first place, and asking for edit buttons, etc.
|
Can we have an edit button?
No. The 5 in existance are already allocated to people. DD
|
Yes, I'd lik an edtitt buton aswel incase i make mystakes when tiping my postes to tese froms.
|
I actually don't want an edit button. Completely pointless unless you can change other people's posts and start arguments.
|
Hold on a minute - who's the fifth one?
Stephen Khoo - DD.
|
Would MINI been a success under Rover?
Well if so , it would have been the first and only one. I can't believe they would have broken the bad habits of the past 40 years...
madf
|
|
BMW spent more money on the pre-launch advertising budget for the MINI than the total Rover advertising budget 1994 to 2000.
|
|
But the original Mini was/is a success
|
|
Appreciate that, but the "view threaded" is enough to give yourself a migraine......Be much easier to have an edit/modify button so that you can change errors etc..
|
Be much easier to have an edit/modify button so that you can change errors etc..
But there were no errors to change.
|
"BMC/Rover lost money on every Mini they sold. Far from being a success it must have played a major part in the company's downfall."
BMC/Rover lost money period, thanks to the unions - who, amonst other things, drove the best managers out of the industry or even out of the country.
Anyone got a decent Downton Mini - the 118 mph road job?
|
In some ways, the creation of BMC/BL/Rover had to happen to gain advantage from economies of scale, but the end result of different models competing for the same market was a shambles. Lots of heads in the sand, and none of them looking to the east ..... no, not Trabant ;-)
German auto industry unions were and are stronger than their British counterparts.
|
Typical, poor management blame the union.
Where was Rover (BL BMC etec etc) when they had made money? Why didnt they design new stuff and stop the japanese from stealing the show?
Instead they pressed on with marina/ital 1100 princes/a,bassador etc etc.
That the unions fault too?
Poor management, poor government.
As said before German unions much stronger than ours, still produce better cars too. Why? better management?
|
There are 4 edit buttons.
PG has a "the last word so there " button
------------------------------
TourVanMan TM < Ex RF >
|
BMC/Rover lost money period, thanks to the unions - who, amonst other things, drove the best managers out of the industry or even out of the country.
You make some pretty wacky statements - have you ever worked in the car industry, or even visited a car plant? I don't think any managers ever left the old BL - the dud's were just kicked out early with fat 'redundancy' packages and a company car or two.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
