MG's best selling car is still the MG 1100, with twin carbs and freer breathing it was good for 0-60 in 10 seconds. Now that might not sound much today, but for the 1960s anything under 10 was pretty special. The MG 1100 started out as a bog standard Austin 1100.
MG have always created either hot versions of other manufacturer's cars or made their own sports cars. And MG have the SV and SV-R, the £70,000 supercar. Both very capable cars indeed.
As for the Montego and Maestro, the Austin badge was removed from the cars but a Rover badge was never put on them, ever. They were also made at Cowley, a former Morris plant. Incidentally Cowley was the plant, BL Cars were sent to to have their quality improved, SD1, the 600 and the Austins were all made their. SD1 quality especially was good enough for the Police to use them right up to 1986 and into the 1990s. They even commissioned an end of run batch, they liked the power, engineering quality and space.
Sure Longbridge was formerly an Austin plant, then a BL plant but the styling of the current cars, the touches on them and the nature of their performance is Rover.
Rover's former reputation has always been described by the press as the 'poor man's' this and that. Comparable performance and ride, sturdy engineering, good looks but at a reduced price. The P5 was the poor man's Rolls Royce, P6 a poor man's Jag Mk2, SD1 a poor man's Aston Martin. That's Rover forte. In the case of the 75, it's ride is second only to a Jag XJ at least according to several successive JD Power surveys. So there you go.
The cars do have a lot going for them, even the long in the tooth ones are well recognised for value for money and quality.
The only problem is perception. They need to create a modern, forward looking car based on the same principles, it's easy to forget they have Peter Stevens as the designer. Perhaps one of Britain's best at the moment.
John Towers by pitching the 200 at a younger market in the 1990s put the car in the Top 5 best sellers. It was a cut above an Escort, faster, higher quality, better made but it was only 5% more. That's exactly what P6 did also. Both cars were a success.
Rover have been in very dire straits before and they have a very strong survival instinct. It would be very premature to write them off just yet.
|
|
3500S, did the MG1100 REALLY sell more than the 500,00 units the MGB managed? I seriously doubt that to be the case.
|
Well I\'m sure HJ can defend himself but could someone tell me how a Rover 75 V8 is \'new\' or \'exciting\'?
Isn\'t it just the same old car with a big engine shoe-horned in to it?
Isn\'t it just Rover once again trying to spin out an old model with new specs because it does not have the capital to develop a replacement?
Even at £17,000 I would not buy such a tired old concept and neither I suspect will many other people.
3500\'s comments have been insightfull but this is just plain old \'don\'t bash Rover \'cause its British\'.
|
''Well I'm sure HJ can defend himself but could someone tell me how a Rover 75 V8 is 'new' or 'exciting'?''
Well I am awaiting HJ's reply with interest.
As for 'new and exciting', I don't think these are unreasonable statements. The 75 has not had a V8 fitted before, and converting it from frontwheel drive to rearwheel V8 power is farly exciting!
|
|
Sorry that should read 'not unreasonable'
|
Sorry that should read 'not unreasonable'
so the phrase would read "I don't think these are not unreasonable statements"
My head hurts! :)
|
|
|
|
Thommo,
If you knew anything about anything, you would know that the new Rover 75 V8 is rear wheel drive. This means it has a totally different drive train to normal Rover 75, along with brakes, suspension, steering etc.
The Rover 75 V8 and MG ZT260 V8 cost tens of millions to develop. Although they may look similiar to the normal 75's and normal ZT's they are in fact very different underneath, and effectively new cars.
The Rover 75 V8 does not aim to be 'exciting', but instead gives effortless performance in luxury.
On the other hand the MG ZT260 is exciting and sporting, but I wouldn't expect you would know that.
|
I'd agree that the ZT260 is a completely different car to the standard 75.
Wouldn't buy either new, though.
Or secondhand, thinking about it.
|
|
|
Thommo, If you knew anything about anything....
Unhonest, if you knew anything about this forum and it's policies, then you should know that we don't allow slanging matches, personal insults, or any other conflicts that rattle other people's cages.
Any more of it and the thread gets locked.
DD. BR Moderator.
|
Hear hear
--
Lee
MINI adventure in progress
|
|
|
|
|
|
This set me thinking. BMC/BLMC 1100/1300 models were just about the commonest cars on the road in the late 60's/early 70's. The MG version was by no means a low-volume specialist model, they were ten a penny.
The 1100/1300 was exported in large numbers too, and the MG version was sold in USA, or attempted to be. Probably a lot more MGBs have been saved for preservation than MG 1100/1300s. But I don't have the figures to prove my hypothesis!
Cheers, Sofa Spud
|
Well Unhonest if you want to get unpleasant I can match you.
If the Rover 75 V8 has cost tens of millions to develop then its millions more of BMW's money wasted. The model will be a disaster because the market it is aimed at would not buy a Rover 75 if it came wrapped in fairy lights V8 or no.
Shall we revist this topic in 1 year and see who is right and who is wrong?
|
MG Rover had a real good honeymoon period with the public when Phoenix took over control of the company ? but that period is well and truly over. Sales have crashed and people have lost interest. The cars are really poor quality with ancient mechanicals and iffy head gaskets. The R75 has gone from a reasonable Ford Mondeo alternative to a Hyundai and Kia competitor. In other words, it is cheap and cheerful and its best days are behind it. Bit like the whole company really.
|
No doubt this thread will get edited but here's my two cents.
unhonest, whether you feel passionately enough about Rover to be that rude to Thommo is neither here nor there. I don't have the foggiest idea about the Rover 75, MG ZT whatever the number or letter of it is. I don't know how it handles, I don't know the performance figures or anything but I do know that at anything over 15K would be waste of money - In my opinion of course. It's boring. Again, my opinion. I won't even try to match the knowledge about the financial state of Rover but Thommo is right - whilst I'm sure the 75 (or whatver the MG equivalent is) handles/drives superb, well over 20k for that car is ridiculous. I'm sure it isn't aimed at young whippersnappers but I just don't like it.
I'm sure HJ has his sources but even if I had 17k...even if I they were 10k I would not walk into a Rover dealer and ask for one because, to be perfectly honest , I'd rather have a Mondeo....or a Focus of course.
Feel free to shout at me now about my unpatriotic views.
Adam
|
i would purchase a nw mid-range city rover if it was sub 5k. where can i get one?
cant seem to find a rover 25 1.1 5 door for less than £7500.
|
A city rover may seem cheap at sub 5k but the insurance and 10 MPG less than everything else would cost you more in a year than the cost of Getz, Yaris etc. And the 6000 mile service intervals emm........
As for the Rover 75 V8 or MG Z thingy-me-bob (why call the same car something else). There are some on auto trader for £19,999 as most MG-R dealers aren't doing to well I can see one changing hands for 17k if they need the cash.
Anyway this forum is about ideas to save Rover, so all those attacking HJ, whats your idea(s) to save the company ?
|
|
regardless of peoples ideas for MG rover - honest john should still have the dignity to answer the questions.
|
Near the start of this thread somebody suggested that the company should have used the Triumph name instead of Rover. In a world where image counts for a lot, that comment makes sense.
After all, think about it. MG-Rover. What does it conjour up in the mind, apart from confusion? Marrying the names of a brand associated with affordable fun and excitment to one with a staid upper middle class image doesn't make much sense in marketing terms. It suggests a company that doesn't really know where it wants to go or what it wants to do.
|
I think it's a bit sad that a thread that was going so well has started to degenerate into the usual collection of cheap shots (why is it okay that BMW use numbers and letters to describe their ranges, but it's a bit too complicated to remember when it comes to MG-Rover!!).
Ah well, anyway, a couple of points.
1) I still find it hard to believe that MGR would be discounting cars that heavily when they haven't been launched yet! (Rover V8)
2) There has been talk of the R25 being a bad car, and unreliable to boot. I ran one for 2 and a half years without a single blip. It was reliable, did many many miles, was very quick for its engine size, comfortable, cheap to run, and drove well. As 3500S says, I think many of Rover's detractors have yet to drive a modern Rover (and I'm not talking about a 15 year old 214 or a Metro!)
3) R25 1.1 5 door for under 7k. Autotrader has just pulled up 3 3-doors under 7k straight away. The 1.1 is very scarce though, and the 1.4 16v is barely less economical - you will find many more of these around in your price range.
4) CityRover. A hot potato. I agree that these are too expensive, price cuts need to be made.
5) Whoever said they would rather drive a Mondeo than a R75. Fair enough, your choice. No doubting the Mondeo is an excellent car, but it's nice to be a bit different isn't it?
MG-R's saviour lies in RDX-60. The R75 is still an excellent car by any standards. The R25 still cuts it IMHO - feels much more solid than something like the Clio or C2, drives nicely and has plenty of power.
As for the Z range - far more than a rebadge as has already been said - Tiff said the ZS (45-based for the hard of thinking) had the best FWD chassis he had ever driven. MG started out making saloon based specials, so there is no shame in this.
In summary, my plan would be:
- Get the RDX-60 out tout-de-suite
- Cut CR prices
- Get to work on a 25 replacement.
In the long term I think Rover should concentrate on large saloons as in the days of yore. Practically, however, this isn't a consideration at the moment as they need the profit from the smaller cars.
Time after time I totally fail to understand the anti MGR feeling so many people seem to hold. It's not about "loving the company because they're British", it's about giving them a fair crack of the whip. In the 4 years since they became independant I think they have achieved a huge amount on a limited budget, considering the mess they were left in.
I for one have every confidence in them coming through this DESPITE the attitude of many towards them. I'm not being blindy jingoistic, I just think they have what it takes, and it's about time somebody gave them credit for it.
|
I cannot see that.Triumph had a lot more probs than rover do now.only have to look at what they made.speaks for itself
--
Was mech1
|
As for the Rover 75 V8 or MG Z thingy-me-bob (why call the same car something else). There are some on auto trader for £19,999 as most MG-R dealers aren't doing to well I can see one changing hands for 17k if they need the cash.
You may well be able to find pre-facelift MG ZT260s at £19,999 but as the Rover V8 is based upon the post-facelft MG ZT and has yet to arrive at dealers showrooms, it would be difficult to find one at £17,000.
The situation is similar to that of the recently replaced VW Golf - although the Mk5 is working it's way (very slowly we hear) onto the roads, you can still buy "new", heavily discounted Mk4 Golfs from dealers.
As for what can be done to save MGRover, I think it is already being done. To whit:
New cars are under development - but it takes time and money: development of the new Mondeo started pretty much as soon as the first generation car hit the road and cost over £1 billion! BMW assest stripped Rover before they sold it - they killed off the mini-MPV project, taking the production rights with them. They also took the cash cow of the MINI with them.
In the meantime, the present models - which are well past their best buy date in many ways - have been updated as far as possible. The chassis of the current cars actually perform very well, the ZS is particular is a fine handling car, even though it's interior space falls behind the competition. The 75/ZT is not an old car in market terms, anyway, and is still hgenuinely competitive.
The recently announced tie-up with Proton to use their Lotus designed Gen2 as the basis for a new 25/45 range will address one of the model replacement programmes. This is similar to the way in which Seat, Skoda and Audi use VW based platforms to generate their models. MGRover will lead the design of a larger car (RDX60) to fit in above the 45 and that will be shared with Proton, too. Finally, the 75 will be replaced by a model co-designed with SAIC of Chine, MGRover being the lead design partner there, too. This whole process is expected to be complete within 4 years - the 75 being the last model to be replaced, the initial emphasis being on the 25 and 45.
Once the basics of the model range have been then the cash flow should be there to develop the niche models - the MPVs, the convertibles and then look at the MGTF for replacement/expansion too.
It is happening - it is just that MGRover has had to start from nothing due to the assest stripping of ALL of their R&D by BMW and then the collapse of TWR to whom they had outsourced the engineering of the RDX60, setting back the development by many months.
Yes, some of the current models are a bit old at 8-9 years (although the 75 is much newer) and the MGF/TF is a good deal younger than it's chief competitor, the Mazda MX5. But the Mondeo was about 8 years old when replaced recently - yet no-one went on about how old it was!
The CityRover will be replaced with a higher quality model before too long - TATA are working on the next generation Indica and they will have learnt plenty about quality and european design preferences from MGRover and that will show in the next generation of Indica/CityRover. I see the Indica as being alot like the Triymph Acclaim - a car that Rover had no design input on, except with the interior, but which paved the way for the collaboration that gave us two/three generations of joint Rover/Honda cars.
If the next Indica fails to fit the bill, then MGRover can probably call upon the next Proton small car, anyway.
Finally, comments about "dodgy head gaskets" are no longer relevant. The problem did exist on the bigger K series engines up to the 2000 model year but a revised head gasket design, revised inlet manifold gasket design and the use of metal rather than plastic for the head locating dowels has cured the problem. Post 2000 head gasket failure rates are no different from any other volume car maker (and a good deal less than many). For the record, the recently publish HJ guide to buying a TF (recent Telegraph Motoring section) erroneously refereed to head gasket problems on the TF - a model released AFTER the improvements made to the head gakets etc. For the record my 10 ear old K series engines 414 has NO head gasket problems.
|
There have been a very few £20,000 pre 04MY Zt260's come up as pre-reg'd but that's it, the cheapest I've seen is £19,000 and that was a one owner. The current 04MY, you would be lucky to get down to £22,000. £22,000 for a V8 version of a car that's won 30+ international car awards! But I bet people are falling over themselves to order that latest mini Chelsea tractor, the X3 which start at £30,000!
As for the car itself. Here's a list of the bits.
Bilstein dampers
Eibach springs
AP Racing brakes
Tremec gearbox
Dana limited slip diff
These are serious performance names. Coupled with the very capable 'stang V8 engine.
And in the qualified hands of Tony Dron as he wrote voluminously in the Telegraph, it is a proper driver's car and it definitely confirmed what I already suspected Andrew Frankel (who writes for Murdoch's rag The Times) is a big pampered girl's blouse.
Not bad for a knackered car company with no future that makes cars no one wants. I want one, I know a few friends that want one.
Now for £26,000, it's quicker than an BMW 330Ci, it'll have more presence, sounds better, be more exclusive and it has a real badge with real racing heritage.
What deters many people about buying MGR is the fear they will not be here in five years.
And yet there are other manufacturers with a much bigger sales volume that are in a worse financial state than MGR. Fiat? Ford?
I have to admit I do think a lot of it comes down to prejudice and laziness. Rover cars are rubbish because....
... someone told me in the pub
... someone had one that broke down (15 years ago)
... the journalist in the press said so.
Well, it's simple really, look at the cars now not what happened 20 years ago. Just like we're prepared to forgive the Germans for bombing our chip shop, Rover should be forgiven for being involved with some dodgy cars in the 70s.
Incidentally, speaking of the Germans.
Did you know EVERY MGR car is rated higher for reliability than EVERY single Mercedes?
But then, that bloke in the pub said they were unreliable so that must be true.
|
My last Rover was made in 1996 (NOT the 1970s) and it was awful.
Stories - which are true - of lack of spares availability - which are both recent and TRUE - do deter buyers.
No doubt reliability is better - and I would hope it is better than Mercedes. Ever know Chrysler producing any decent cars?
Frankly I cannot see a Rover model I would wish to buy new or secondhand: the Rover 75 styling reminds me of the 1960s S type Jaguar from the rear. I am not into bodykits or spoilers and 2 seater sports cars are unsuitable by nature.
I would like MG Rover to succeed but as I am a consumer and their products are unsuitable, the prices are high and depreciation is sky high I would never buy a new one - let alone a second hand one.
I may be untypical: I suspect not from the sales figures.
As for the City Rover?
Ask what it has done for MG Rover prestige and credibility?
A bargepole job from what I have seen. (I would not be seen dead in one...)
Not the way to resusitate a failing model line..
madf
|
Depreciation is no worse than a Ford or Vauxhall, in the case of the Z cars (R and T) and the 75, they are some of the least depreciating in their class. In terms of a 75, only a 3-series depreciates less.
Also CityRover is a separate brand or would you think of a LandRover pre-Ford days as a Rover as well?
|
|
How on earth can you say that depreciation is the best in its class when dealers are selling R75 on an 03 or 53 plate for half list price? What on earth is that doing to private buyers who have invested in the marque? Nobody should pay anywhere near list price for any of these products.
|
Now for £26,000, it's quicker than an BMW 330Ci,
As a driver of an 04 BMW 330Ci, I have to rise to this.
I don't happen to know the 0-60 times for a 75 V8, but I know my 330Ci is superb and can only quote the old adage, "power is nothing without control".
it'll have more presence,
Matter of opinion, you think so, I don't.
sounds better,
Ditto.
be more exclusive
Ah - a justification historically applied to (a) seriously expensive cars and (b) cars that everyone else decides not to buy.
and it has a real badge
No it doesn't. It has a badge that has been a corporate plaything for decades
with real racing heritage.
The Williams team might disagree
In terms of a 75, only a 3-series depreciates less.
Ooops. I thought it was better than a 3 on all counts?
|
Isn't there an an obvious solution to the Rover crisis?
Give it to VAG group. They will rapidly launch a whole series of new models, which are rebadged and mildly restyled versions of the VW range.
That would bring us a little bit closer to the ultimate destiny of European car-making: the choice will simply be between different VAG brands.
|
That would bring us a little bit closer to the ultimate destiny of European car-making: the choice will simply be between different VAG brands.
LOL!
(Please noooooo......)
I'm not sure you could persuade them to take it, though.
|
CityRover a separate brand!:-) ???
Sorry have I missed something?
It's a Rover with all that the name means in terms of heritage.
Racing heritage? Sorry.. I have missed something. Which year did the win the Touring Car Championship? Was I asleep?
What Rover desperatley needed was to follow the 75 - a fine car but with a limited appela - with another fine car..
Instead they gave us a CityRover. Consistency of heritage?
IF they seriously want to succeed , every new model must have high quality and some unique selling points. Not maybe mass appeal but building on the brand name and adding to its reputation.
As far as I can see the CityRover builds on the bits of the heritage they should have buried with stakes through the heart.
madf
|
Puppetland, it's not me saying that but every quarterly Alliance and Leicester depreciation guide for 2000,1,2,3 and 2004.
And Patently,
BMW 330Ci.
Bhp - 225
Torque - 214Lb/ft
0-60 - 6.4 seconds
Price - From £32,000
MG ZT 260
Bhp - 254
Torque - 302Lb/ft
0-60 - 6.3 seconds
Price from £27,100
As for the MG badge, it's 80 years old this year.
As for power and control, the ZT260 has the 50:50 weight distribution and even Mr Clarkson said himself (inbetween his typical anti-MGR diatribe) it was one of the best handling cars he has ever driven. After all the chassis is one of the stiffest in the world at over 20,000 Nm per degree (BMW 3 series - 14,500 Nm per degree).
Want me to carry on?
|
Also, since when has a German 6-pot ever sounded better than an American V8?
|
Also, since when has a German 6-pot ever sounded better than an American V8?
Give me the lower weight and the smoothness of a straight six every time.
Big noises do nothing for me. And I'm not just saying this to do down the 75 V8 - the Viper left me cold.
|
Give me the lower weight and the smoothness of a straight six every time.
Actually, except for when I can have the torque and low CofG of a flat 6.......
|
|
0.1 seconds 0-60 will not draw me away. Sorry.
|
|
Well in your 330i you will just have one view, and that's of the quad exhaust pipes of the MG ZT260!
|
This thread is, as usual degenerating intio the "my dad is bigger tha your dad" debate concerning nought to whatever acceleration times....BORING!
Get back to the real issue
1) are MG/Rovers really that much worse than other makes? -answer NO (apart from that dreadful city rover thing)
2) are their chances of survival any wose/better than Ford (huge losses) Renault (Huge state Support) Fiat (abysmal non small car range- Bravo!!)Merceedes (poor build quality) etc etc.
At the end of the day were all stuck in the same traffic jam so esoteric discussions on 0-60 times are irrelevent (especially when I'm driving my 34 year old MGB).
|
At the end of the day were all stuck in the same traffic jam so esoteric discussions on 0-60 times are irrelevent (especially when I'm driving my 34 year old MGB).
My point exactly re the effect of a 0.1 second "improvement".
And the point remains, that I have no attachment to any particular make. I simply reached the happy position some years ago where I could afford to choose from a wide range of new cars. I had an absolute whale of a time trying everything in sight, but two things stand out in my memory.
The first was that the BMWs I tested were head and shoulders above the rest. Sorry, but they were. I actually went into the process prejudiced against them, but to no avail.
The second was just how much dealers were willing to offer in px for my hand-me-down 316i Compact. Having experienced depreciation of other cars this came as a serious shock.
So, having started with a shortlist of Ford, ROVER (yes...), Peugot, Renault, Saab, BMW, Audi and Merc, there was a simple clear winner.
I have repeated this process every time that I have changed car. The results are getting to be a little boring and, dare I say it, predictable. So, this year, the ZT260 did merit consideration but the 330Ci won as an overall package. That missing 0.1 second was well and truly overwhelmed by a whole host of other factors.
This is not to denigrate the 260, just to say that if it is priced up near to the 330s and 325s it will struggle.
|
But in real life the depreciation on MGR products is horrendous. Depreciation is another word for supply and demand and MGR have the former in abundance and none of the latter. MGR dealers are stuffed to the rafters with pre-registered cars and almost any deal is possible, so desperate are the dealers to shift their stock. Maybe dealers should try selling their cars on Ebay!
The Rover 800 Sterling was one of the fastest depreciating cars on the market and R75 has followed the same way. My question remains, if a dealer is selling delivery mileage 03 or 53 plate R75s at half list price, then the cars in private hands must be worth peanuts compared to their list price.
Phoenix must have a reality check. GM, Ford, Peugeot, VW et al. are no longer their competition ? they are too far ahead. MGR must target Daewoo, Kia and Hyundai - this budget orientated market they may have a very slim chance. Dreamers can dream on if they think MG or Rover badge comes anywhere near a mass-market name, never mind the premium or luxury label!
What MGR must do if they have any chance of surviving is dramatically reducing the list price of ALL cars TODAY and fit every factory option as standard. Having a bespoke car is okay when it as much in vogue as the MINI, but a ten year old car with a list of expensive extras is taking the Michael!
And potential customers are now realising it.
|
Puppetland,
Depreciation was bad on the 800, it was a very old car by the time it was pensioned off in '99. However, I don't believe the '75 has gone the same way - even early cars with high mileage and low specs are going for 4-5k on Autotrader, not bad for a 5 year old car. Likewise, the ZTs are nearly 4 years old now and only just coming in under the 10k mark.
As I understand it, MGR have a policy of rarely selling cars at list price (I am sure somebody will jump and correct me if necessary) with frequent discounts and offers, so you have to temper these "half price" year old 75s with this information.
I disagree with your "reality check" idea - even an old car like the 45 is streets ahead of its Daewoo and Suzuki equivalents. I think most people deep down still perceive big Rovers as aspirational, maybe because there are fewer about than Mondeos et al. I used to have a 25 which I liked very much, and I was constantly surprised how friends of mine were seriously impressed with the car (far more than their Pug 206s and Saxos) - they genuinely thought it was a cut above.
The "cut prices and chuck all the extras in" idea is also flawed - it smacks of desperation, which is bad for MGR, and is also going to hammer resale values of cars and further propogate the "don't buy an MGR car, they're not going to survive the year" myth.
I think if Rover can bring out a really good RDX-60 then things should get a lot easier for them. I genuinely believe that their biggest problem has been the unending tiresome anti-Rover tirade constantly peddled by Clarkson et al. The sooner they prove him wrong the better.
Finally, I think the real issue here is that you used to have a Rover 75 and were a bit hacked off with the money you got offered back at trade in time. Get over it, it's part of owning a car! People choose cars with their hearts not with their heads, and nobody buys a car as an investment! Fair play to you if you feel hard done by, just don't buy another one. I just don't understand your mission to spread the anti-MGR message as far as you can! Why do you care if they succeed or fail? Some kind of revenge for the money you lost on the 75? I suspect you may get a shock when you sell your current car and find you get less than you expect!
|
Hurrah, Puppetland found yet another forum on which to talk down MG Rover!
PL, you talk about depreciation on the R75, but I look on Autotrader in my area and cannot find one single car under £4k, that includes T platers with high miles. But look for T plate Mondeos, Vectras, Lagunas, Passats...it's a different story. So what exactly are you comparing Rover's depreciation figures to?
|
|
|
I'm sure HJ has his sources but even if I had 17k...even if I they were 10k I would not walk into a Rover dealer and ask for one because, to be perfectly honest , I'd rather have a Mondeo....or a Focus of course.
test drive the latest 75 if you can. i'm sure you'd change your mind.
|
No I wouldn't. Whilst I'm sure it drives well, personally I think it looks blander than a box of bland things and that's why I wouldn't buy one.
Sorry.
Adam
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As for the Montego and Maestro, the Austin badge was removed from the cars but a Rover badge was never put on them, ever.
sorry 3500S - until a few months ago a (now deceased) friend of mine in France had a LHD Montego diesel estate with a Rover badge on it...as a one-time P6 Three Thousand Five owner it used to make my blood boil.
I sold mine when I became too embarrassed about what was happening at so-called Rover to enjoy it any more.
I hope you find something interesting to engage your writing skills after so-called Rover has finally gone belly-up. Maybe in ten years time you'll be explaining to everyone what a fine but misunderstood car the Shanghai Tatarover (with door handles made at Longbridge) really is.>>
|
>>I sold mine when I became too embarrassed about what was happening at so-called Rover to enjoy it any more.
I dont see what you had to be embarrassed about.I dont see any reason why any one would be ashamed at owning either.Bl.Austin/ Morris or rover.But will say this thread is getting boring.fords arent perfect and use mazda parts.And most manufactures are in with other co`s.which means rover is only going same route as others.I would also suggest 3500s`s reply`s did make a point.and please dont run his posts down (with door handles made at Longbridge)you may be surprise where they turn up?
--
Was mech1
|
|
|
|
|
|
