I'm sorry but the company was always a basketcase. I am just old enough to remember Red Robbo and his ilk.
Margaret Thatcher decided to dump them at whatever cost and once that happened it was only a matter of time.
Why BMW every got involved I do not know, it nearly bankrupted them as well.
Havng said that all volume metal bashing in Europe will die out over time. Its not just the wages and the taxes its the red tape as well. Could you imagine the planning process to get authorisation for a new factory that like eewww makes smelly polluting things with oil and such like.
Asia will take all these jobs, most likely China.
|
That latest ad won't help - it's nauseating. The last thing I need from a company is to hear how we should buy their goods because they are British made and therefore contribute to the British economy. Why not show someone dying of a terminal disease and showing their treatment from the NHS - then saying buy Rover and you can help this poor person because we employ British people who pay taxes to support the NHS - awful.
|
I think the advert is just a reminder of how important Rover are to the economy which is undeniable. My only annoyance with it and MGR as a whole is they are not pitching Rover cars into the market and it's tacitly apologising. The 75 is better than the equivalent VW, it's the 45 and 25 that do need that treatment.
As for MGR not going anywhere in the last four years, the MG brand has been very successfully been re-established and the Z cars have been very well received, the ZR is the country's biggest selling hot hatch and the TF is still the country's biggest selling roadster. The 75 has been correctly positioned in the marketplace and the V8 has a full order book for six months and its release date is still a month away.
But the biggest news for MGR went under the news radar last week. The SAIC deal has been formalised after the Chinese government issued a 'press release' saying their indigenous car manufacturers must start to produce their own cars. Sure enough a day later the deal was formalised.
So far RD/X60 investment has totalled £300m, MGR selling X-Part to CAT has raised another £100m for RD/X60 and it is thought SAIC is putting in another £400m to fill out the range. The tooling has been ordered and also many of the component contracts are in place.
John Towers' track record with cars is typified by Project R8 in which they got seven cars out of two platforms. RD/X60 promises the same. Saloon, hatch, estate, MPV and 'variants'. The SAIC deal commits MGR and SAIC to develop an entire range of cars. MGR also have a new range of smaller diesel engines under development, they also are still in advanced talks with Proton for the Gen2 platform for a slightly smaller sub-medium car, probably an MG/Rover coupe a la Tomcat.
If you really want to find out what is going on at MGR, my advice is to read the Birmingham Post, they have been 100% accurate in their reporting unlike far too many of the more 'respectable' tabloids. Longbridge is currently on overtime and Sunday working as the facelifts have brought a lot of orders. Lead times are now a month even for the 'old in the tooth' 45. Such is the nature of their order book, there are whispers that the MGR part of PVH may make break even this year. Even the 'dreadful' City Rover sales are picking up.
Yes, MGR have had to hang on for a few years but compared to the doomsayers of four years ago who gave them six months, they have done very well indeed.
|
My impression is that when Phoenix took over MG Rover, they were genuinely intending to re-establish the group, with exciting and competitive new models. But everything so far apart from the Rover 75 (early on, and developed under BMW ownership) and the MG TF, has been an variation or update of an existing model. Time looks to be running out and the list of options may be diminishing.
Cheers, Sofa Spud
|
|
|
Incidentally, the Thatcher administration poured the equivalent of £15 BILLION in today's money into BL and the Edwardes plan did in most parts succeed.
It got to the point when the Government simply could not afford it. If my memory is correct, we were up to our eyeballs in debt and without North Sea oil we'd still be paying it back now.
It's also worth bearing in mind, that as the fruits of Edwardes plan were realised, Rover had two cars in the Uk Top 10 best sellers and they were making a profit in the mid 1990s.
And that attracted BMW to the party.
Which incidentally BMW probably made the biggest post-war manufacturing balls up of.
What would I do with Rover? Market them, unashamedly, it seems many people's misconceptions are based on the 1970s more than the 21st century. They are different enough in the market, they are made to ride well and get you from A to B in comfort. They do look sufficiently different and in an age of jelly mould conformity that is definitely a plus.
As for being left behind, in terms of the K-series, it being 25 years old this year, many manufacturers have yet to catch up. The Rover 75 plant is amongst the most advanced in the world, it also holds the current record for torsional stiffness and has 20% more spot welds than the new BMW 5 mainly down to the excellent robotised production line.
Which incidentally has the production capacity for 175,000 cars. It's no secret RD/X60 will use the same line.
|
|
|
I think rover waited for too long to tie up with a chinese company. They should have tied up with TATA, a company with good R&D and a strong background which is 100% straight in its dealings. Tata could have done some of the development of Rover concepts and opened up Rover to a large emerging market.
Am sure if the City Rover was priced 2000 pounds less, it would not be as dreadful as most BR's label it to be. It is pure no nonsense robust transportation for the third world. It was never intended to be sold in the UK until Rover asked for it. Bit like inviting a someone over to have a go at him.
|
TATA are tied into RD/X60.
MGR are heavily involved at Pune, TATA have been recruiting a lot of engineers lately with a slant on RD/X60.
RD/X60 is not going to be a car just for the Western Europe market, it's going to be made in China and I feel, India. So that's the two fastest growing car markets in the world with a presence and not with some CKD Meccano kit either.
|
|
That info is not public out here in India. Probably makes a lot of sense - Tata are developing a platform to succeed the Indica/City Rover. Though the car is selling well, it will face pressure from the impending arrival of the Getz, Fiat Panda and may be the Ignis. Rover input would help - they know how to develop cars even with limited resources
|
A reason for the low key Rover association is that Tata market could be impacted if Rover goes under. Fiat is suffering in India due to rumours that the parent organisation is going bust and .....bad dealerships. Haven't we heard that before ?
I won't be surprised if TATA takes over Rover. They've already taken over Daewoo trucks.
|
|
|
|
May I just say this thread is impressive and informed (so far).
Normally anything to do with Rover decends in to name calling as one camp thinks anything they do is automatically rubbish and the other camp hates reading anything unpatriotic.
|
Perhaps we should be asking, Should it be saved? Not how can it be saved.
Why should a failing company (and in terms of what it now has left asset wise, the number of cars it sells etc the spiral is ever downwards) be saved merely to save a few jobs?
Mrs T had the right idea when she got rid of our unprofitable coal and steel industries. The fit survive, the weak don't and I'm afraid MGR is a weak company, producing weak products and is presumably selling them to the weak minded (please read this a little tongue in cheek).
|
Rover need to get out of the mass market and build niche cars. They just don't have the resource to compete in a fiercely competitive market. The 25 and 45 are well past their sell-by date. Rover are good at creating interesting vehicles such as the Streetwise - people criticised Rover but just look how VW and Citroen have now copied the car.
I would have liked Alchemy to have taken over Rover rather than Towers and his team. Alchemy recognised that there was no future for Rover in the mass market and were going to build low volume sports cars. Was a great opportunity missed.
|
If the mg-zr is the fastest selling hot hatch it might make sense for them to target the Max Power brigade with a factory built modified car and have a good set of possible options eg tuning, bodykits, interior and so forth. These youngsters think nothing of spending thousands on their cars changing them so why not save them the bother of buying a donor car and altering it, just bung out of the factory looking like it fell out of halfords ;-)
teabelly
|
The Alchemy plan was a total non-starter and they were the consortium that got to look at the book, Phoenix did not until after Alchemy dropped out.
What Alchemy found that was they could talk a good game but didn't have the resources to do it.
And MG have the XPower and also Monogram options list. This includes such fabolous things as factory holographic paint and bigger spoilers.
In terms of tuning, I think there's a 200Bhp ZR in the offing. Also rumblings of an Australian supercharged ZT220 from the 2.5L V6.
|
|
Don't be so quick to knock John Towers. He did a lot of good work for Land Rover and Rover in the 1990s.
|
Ask anyone in and around Brum about John Towers and he is considering to be nothing short of a living deity.
He turned around ARG in the 80s and 90s, got out when BMW took over and he was proved right about them in the 1990s and it's his commerical nouse that has Rover still in business now. He has the respect of the moneymen and the unions which is a very rare quality indeed.
If they do survive which I think will happen, nothing short of a knighthood will suffice for me.
|
|
I met John Towers many times and was always impressed not only by his ability, but also his great charm and charisma.
|
Just a quick point: The K-Series is 15 years old, not 25.
I've always felt with MGR the challenge was going to be surviving to 2004 and the launch of the RD60. Well, they did the surviving part with some clever facelifts but the problem is the delay in the new model (not all MGR's fault). The 25 & 45 facelifts are IMO a facelift too far and will extend any useful life of the models by probably less than a year.
If they have a new deal in place then lets hope it comes off and MGR do not loose too much money before the new model comes along. It'll have to be good, too.
There are still enormous challenges for them, not least how to replace the 75 which is due for replacement in 2 years time, where to get a decent, reasonably priced common rail diesel engine range from, how to replace the TF, will Powertrain still be viable after Land Rover switch to Ford units etc. etc.
|
That's correct about the K-Series - it was first introduced in the newly launched 200 Series in 1989.
It was a very advanced engine design and delivered 95bhp from just 1.4 litres at that time, well above even some 1.6-litre units of the era.
|
the 1.4 k series is till one of the fastest - compare it to the 1.4 74bhp golf engine.
the reason i wont byuy a rover - not enough models with decent insurance bands.
ie, the only model sub band 4 is the 1.1 bottom of the range 25.
Plus i want a rover 45 size car, but it starts around band 8-9 insurance, where trhe equivelent golf, astra, accent, focus - starts at band 4.
plus the biggest of all these deterents - no small diesels. who wants to drive a 25 with a 2.0 diesel?
i want a 1.4 diesel, such as the fiestas, fabia or 206's. Not a 2.0 which doubles the insurance.
btw - is the 2.0 diesel a rover engine or imported peugeot unit?
no chance of using the indica tata 1.4 peugeot diesel unit in the city rover?
|
The K-series development started in 1984, so we're both wrong, I had it down for '79.
After a chat with some of the guys at the local dealership, much of Rover's high insurance group is due to the availability of spare parts which can be a problem, courtesy cars cost money to hire.
And the 75 platform will be around for a while yet, if 14 years is about the life of a platform, it really won't be due a replacement until 2009-11 at the earliest. I think a reskin might happen once the 25 has been replaced and cash is a bit more abundant.
|
but surelyrover parts are more available than hyundai parts in the uk?
yet hyundai accent 1.3 - band 4
rover 45 1.4 - band 8
no sense?
|
Let's just say it's had a 15 year production life (it was introduced in 1989 in the Rover 200 in 1.4 form).
The 75 platform should last another model cycle but the normal life of a model in the 75's segment is 7 years. The car industry is such these days that an average model can sell well for about 5 years and then go on for about another 2 with a few incentives and/or a faceilft.
It is as much due to fashion than anything else. Some models don't even last long enough to get a facelift these days before being replaced by something completely different.
|
>>Let's just say it's had a 15 year production life (it was introduced in 1989 in the Rover 200 in 1.4 form).
That's what I pointed out - I went on the Press launch of the then new Rover 200.
|
|
The 2.0 turbo diesel is a Rover unit, known as the L-series. It's a development of the Perkins unit usedin the Maestro and Montego. It's a good tough unit but noisy compared to the latest common-rail diesels.
|
I thought the 400 series used this engine.200 used the pug.correct me if wrong?
--
Was mech1
|
I thought the 400 series used this engine.200 used the pug.correct me if wrong? -- Was mech1
The Mk2 200/Mk1 400 (1989 - 1995) used the 1.8 turbo and 1.9 NASP Peugeot XUD diesels, but the Mk3 200 and Mk2 400 (1995 on) used the L-series. MG-R have recently signed a deal with Indian tractor maker Sonilika to build a new common-rail diesel engine, they also have a deal with Siemens for the supply of a new injection system for diesel engines, this all points to a new Rover 2.0 common-rail diesel developed from the L-series. I don't know if there will be any other capacities.
|
If the mg-zr is the fastest selling hot hatch it might make sense for them to target the Max Power brigade with a factory built modified car and have a good set of possible options eg tuning, bodykits, interior and so forth. These youngsters think nothing of spending thousands on their cars changing them so why not save them the bother of buying a donor car and altering it, just bung out of the factory looking like it fell out of halfords ;-) teabelly
I think they are indeed thinking of doing exactly this, with the Xpower brand.
|
|
|
Perhaps we should be asking, Should it be saved? Not how can it be saved. Why should a failing company (and in terms of what it now has left asset wise, the number of cars it sells etc the spiral is ever downwards) be saved merely to save a few jobs? Mrs T had the right idea when she got rid of our unprofitable coal and steel industries. The fit survive, the weak don't and I'm afraid MGR is a weak company, producing weak products and is presumably selling them to the weak minded (please read this a little tongue in cheek).
You could have asked the same question about Renault, say, about fifteen years ago. But look what happened - the French Government continued to pour money into it, the French people continued to buy the cars, and now it's a powerful global player with a controlling stake in Nissan.
But I suppose we do things differently in this country...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>>Why BMW every got involved I do not know, it nearly bankrupted them as well.
They did because BMW wanted the mini.And nothing else.Think BMW made their point ie got what they wanted.
--
Was mech1
|
There was another version of the 'BMW only interested in the Mini' story. It was widely thought they were only interested in the Land Rover so that they could plunder their expertise to develop the BMW X5.
However, personally speaking, I don't see the 'New Mini' becoming an enduring icon like the original. However, at least it's better looking than BMW's 1-series. Strangely, since New Minis have become a common sight our brains have been tricked into thinking they ARE Minis, making the real 'old' Minis look that much quainter and smaller!
Cheers, Sofa Spud
|
|
|
>>Why BMW every got involved I do not know, it nearly bankrupted them as well. They did because BMW wanted the mini.And nothing else.Think BMW made...
The sale of the Rover Group to BMW happened because the then owner, British Aerospace, wanted to get rid quickly. It would have been better for the company if Honda had been able to increase its stake and I seem to remember howls of betrayal coming from the Japanese at the time.
Yes, BMW did obviously want to keep the Mini when they pulled out but it can hardly have been the main reason for their original involvement. The old Mini was well past its sell-by date and the new one was in the early stages of development. In fact the new Mini that eventually emerged bore little resemblance to what Rover had been working on and owed far more to BMW.
Full story at www.austin-rover.co.uk/
|
Honda were about to increase their stake to 40%. ARG and Honda both had a 20% stake in each other at the time.
BMW came in and made BAE a ridiculous offer that was about double the companies value. BAE should have kept Honda in the picture but it was always unlikely they would take a controlling interest in ARG.
There were a number of factors, ARG was developing Rover into a posh-Hondaesque marque and the blend of Japanese reliability with English looks and styling were proving very successful. Whilst Rover didn't pitch the 600 series into BMW's 3-series sector, many of the car magazines and indeed the public had a much higher perception of the 600 as better than the 3-series. You don't mess with BMW's bread and butter, I can only imagine this alarmed them greatly.
ARG were already working on the Metro and Mini replacement before BMW turned up.
It's also worth bearing in mind, Rover had a full range of cars from Supermini to 4x4. BMW made only 3 cars and a few motorbikes. Also ARG had access to all the English marque names with the exception of Alvis and Healey.
And I would commend austin-rover.co.uk. Many of the all too common lingering misconceptions and half baked truths are replaced by fact. Rover were treated very shabbily by BMW.
|
|
|
|
They did because BMW wanted the mini.And nothing else.Think BMW made their point ie got what they wanted
Sorry, but that\'s not correct..:-)
Remember when BMW bought out its first diesel engine? The boffins at Land Rover realised it would be a perfect replacement (after modifications to up low down torque) for the noisy TDi unit in the Discovery.
As a result staff from both companies worked congenially together on the engine modifications and Land Rover eventually, after three years\' work, got its new diesel.
But a more important result was that BMW, which was very keen to get its hands on Land Rover\'s present and future four-wheel drive expertise, got the chance to buy Rover for £720m.
For that price it got the whole company as well as all the land and buildings, yet it was no secret that BMW would have paid a similar sum just for Land Rover alone.
Eventually shoring up Rover proved too much for BMW\'s shareholders etc and it got out, but hung on to the Mini.
British Aerospace\'s problems earlier arose because it took on a business (at the behest of the government) that was far removed from its own core operations and was subsequently very much out of its depth.
|
MINI was a BMW concept from Day 1. They were not interested in any of the three Rover proposals bearing in mind Rover had Cooper, Moulton and Daniels working on their concepts. Incidentally, these were more in tune with Issy's original Mini concept that the retro lash up BMW comissioned. BMW were impressed enough to show the Rover 'Spiritual' at the Geneva Motor Show. This car was a RWD, rear-engined three cylinder car with more interior space than an S-class in a 10-foot wheelbase. A very interesting concept.
BMW wanted to cash in on the retro image of Mini than develop the real concept itself.
However, MINI itself owes more to Rover's input than BMW's. BMW Munich made a monumental mess of MINI during its design phase leading Reitzle to make the ridiculous claim that the 1.4L K-series was not 'space efficient' because the Munich engineers had made the engine space too small. BMW did not have the ability to make small cars.
The next MINI will not be a development of the current car, it will be much cheaper to manufacture to start with. There is talk it will be developed outside of BMW.
BMW did a lot more than take MINI and sell LR to Ford. They also took R30 with them, the fabled Rover 55 / BMW 2-series medium car replacement which was at a highly advanced stage of development. They also were able to write off MINI's development costs, this fact alone means MINI will actually make a profit for BMW.
The modular nature of the NG engine range and also the variable valve timing component is more a development from Rover's own VVC than the previous BMW Vanos system. Rover's real crown jewels is its engine technology, the production techniques are patented. These are so good, they are used by F1 engine manufacturers. NG was designed to be a replacement to K-series. More importantly, this makes them immune from paying Rover licensing fees for the casting technology. Fees that Aston Martin and Jaguar both pay to Rover.
BMW also kept all the names (including Triumph and Riley) with the exception of MG, Austin, Morris and Wolseley. The Rover marque is licensed to Rover as a condition Ford placed on buying LR. The idea being this would prevent Rover using the name for a 4x4. Rover can develop 4x4's but they cannot use the Rover name for any future model.
In terms of shoring up Rover, it's worth remembering Rover sales rose consistently during the early BMW days and EBITDA was showing a very healthy profit. BMW put all its investment on Rover's books where BMW's model development is kept separate from the BMW AG balance sheet. This was done for tax reasons in Germany, however this lead to it being open to exchange rate flucutations. Rover's books bore the full brunt of R30, 40 and 50 to the tune of over £2 billion. BMW also stopped production of cars still selling well without a replacement, killing off cash flow at totally the wrong time.
In other words, BMW hamstrung itself with a device entirely of its own making.
|
I believe it was a great shame that BAE sold the company in such a hurry. How much better if they had floated it on the stockmarket with Honda perhaps taking a greater share'
Two points for the Rover bashers to consider.
Much of the MINI development was done outside BMW by people like Ricardo.
Last October, following a queue of cars between Swindon and Oxford up the A420, I finally saw my chance at a short stretch of dual carriageway to jump the dismally slow queue of vehicles. I suceeded in this and passed several cars one of which was a fairly elderly N reg Rover 416. We then then drove in company down the fairly empty road towards Oxford. Exiting every roundabout the Rover could comfortably out drag my car and believe me I had my foot on the boards.
My car? The wonderful 1.8 petrol Focus that Rover should be emulating, and it could just about hold its own against a 1.6 Rover!!
Peter Bowman
|
Honda did want to have a joint partnership, but to restrict their holding to around 47 per cent to ensure it remained a British company.
However, others who thought they knew better had other ideas.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
