Ford buys Rover
Discussion
Fire99 said:
Hi Podie..
Yeah thats what i heard from 'a friend on the inside'..
A bit off topic but what about GM? Aren't they in more strife than FMC?
I always have in my mind that cause FMC are such a huge US institution, no matter what someone somewhere would bail them out.. Perhaps the reality is that no firm is immune from going skint..
GM are in poo as well, but have a "5 year plan" to revitalise the business, whereas FMC have already gone through one of those, and not made the turnaround they promised... hence FMC's situtation is seen as worse.
FMC is a huge institution... Detroit is an interesting place to visit...
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Yeah - Nanjing took the 25/45 lines and power train. Longbridge still has the (new and expensive) Paint shop and the Rover 75/MG ZT line.
Surely the paint shop and the 75 lines are the most valuable assets, why have they not been either sold or shipped to China?
Seems a waste to just let them rot.
This sounds interesting - especially as Ford have shown itchy fingers over Jaguar of late, suggesting that they might keep it long enough to update the models one generation, see what happens, and get rid of them if they don't perform.
Perhaps seeing as though it wants to make Jaguar hi-tech and modern-looking, Rovers will be 'traditional' retro-products in the mould of the S-Type?
I'm glad to see Rover back with Land-Rover though - makes sense, really.
Will this mean a RWD Mustang-engined 75???
Perhaps seeing as though it wants to make Jaguar hi-tech and modern-looking, Rovers will be 'traditional' retro-products in the mould of the S-Type?
I'm glad to see Rover back with Land-Rover though - makes sense, really.
Will this mean a RWD Mustang-engined 75???
I think we are all missing the point with the Ford purchase of the Rover brand. They bought it to protect the Land Rover brand.
What they mean by this is that if one of the Chinese companies bought the Rover brand and used it on cheap knock off of old cars, that fold up and kill people in the NCAP tests this would greatly damage the Land Rover brand by association.
I suspect the additional value of the brand as part of a possible Land Rover Jaguar portfolio is a very secondary effect.
What they mean by this is that if one of the Chinese companies bought the Rover brand and used it on cheap knock off of old cars, that fold up and kill people in the NCAP tests this would greatly damage the Land Rover brand by association.
I suspect the additional value of the brand as part of a possible Land Rover Jaguar portfolio is a very secondary effect.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
OK, I get that bit, but surely if you are securitising you are losing that future revenue stream at a discount (to account for bad debt and cost etc.). If it's Ford Credit borrowing and secured against Ford Credit (with undertakings from other parts of the empire not to cross secure) then surely they can borrow at similar rates without losing the revenue stream and giving themselves both cash now and also future revenue (and of course, debt repayments) ?V Or am I missing something obvious ?No, think you're nail on the head there.
I think one of the problems is the short term fix on issues, rather than a long term solution...
francisb said:
ford payed £6m for them - showing the same astute financial management that got them in $160 billion debt in the first place
Actually, I'd disagree - I think it was good practice to purchase the name, if only to protect the LR name, or to help any future sale.
Like them or loathe them, the LR brand is a very strong one, and although Ford are in the red, they still need to protect what they own.
It's not all financial management that has caused them grief either.. the changing economic climate (especially in the US) means that their exisitng products have not met the customers needs, and they are paying the price for not developing them.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Ford's marketing people are bad too - plus they've never made a penny out of the Focus apparently - exchange rates saw to that - the best car they've ever made and it's been a financial disaster. [/quote[
Let's not talk about Ford marketing... absolutely shocking. The only one that was any good was the SportKa viral featuring the "evil twin" thing that killed the pigeon...
Never seen anything from the Focus? Really? I'll take your word on that, but it almost defies belief!
[quote=tonker]
The US market has caught the big three in all sort of problems - their cars are mainly not good enough - poor quality, refinement and priced too low so no margins - they were happy making money out of trucks - I think the best selling Us vehicles are still the Chevy Silverado and the F series pickup. Which are the ideal things to stick hybrids into - large, not proportionately much more weight..... lots of space to package them right.... - but they have not.
F series is the biggest selling truck - by some margin. In fact, hasn't it outsold the Toyota Corolla or something daft?
They are nastily built and make cars from the 70's in Europe look solidly built... Toyota and Nissan have gone over the pond and shaken the market.
Ford have gone onto this green bandwagon... in fact Bill Ford has a hybrid of some sort (probably an F-truck).
It'll be interesting to see Mullaly's impact...
anonymous said:
[redacted]
They've got a version of the Maverick (as we call it) (Escape I think it is over there) with a hybrid and I think they are pushing for me - they are just a bit slow on the uptake when Toyota has technology out there now. They were launching it as I was over there and the mags were full of it - does a US 30mpg apparently - though like all hybrids, it's going to be crap outside of town.
If they got their legislators to sort out decent diesels being allowed in and dealt with the crap they do sell, they have a hope, but as it is, Toyota and Nissan must be shoving those US led press articles about the abysmal state of the Japanese automotive industry from the late 90's in front of Detroit executives every chance they get
re: F series, it's the best selling vehicle on the planet - apparently even more than a Honda Cub (but I have never seen anyone put numbers to that claim).
Yep, the Escape is awful (well, it's a Maverick
) - could be what Bill Ford is tootling about in. Yep, Jap industry must be laughing now... US auto industry wasn't the politest about them back then...
Honda Cub? Wossat? See the odd F series about - bloody huge things. Scary thing is that there are bigger things in the range.. F350 and Excursion...
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I feel a bit sorry for them over the Streetwise - it's the right idea - a jacke dup front wheel drive City car with bodywork protection and decent economy - lots of other companies with bigger budgets got one as stopgap - e.g. Citroen, VW - they will have similar fully developed products out in the future - with money, the concept of a FWD mini Freelander for town was and is a good one (certainly better than the Shogun Pinin) - a lot of foresight but no money in my book - and it needed a bespoke LR badged body.
VW did a version of the Polo in this vein, saw one yesterday. I agree it was a cracking idea, just what you need round and about town - good economy, nippy, safe but fun handling, non-body coloured bumpers/rubbing strips, and enough ground clearance to totally ignore speed humps and crap road surfaces. The perfect round town car, frankly. I think that Rover's reputation was too tarnished by this stage though. It should have sold more. I will happily agree that the CityRover was the worst aberration ever to receive the Rover badge and that they would have been better off resurrecting the Rover 100
Other than that, though, I can't think of a single "bad" car that Rover made. Many were not "top of the class" or aged badly (Rover 100), but there were a hell of a lot worse cars out there!
Podie said:
LR brand is a very strong one
i agree. no one associates landrovers with rover or the cr@p they have churned out for the last 20 years. so not a good reason to buy IMO.
i can only think of 2 reasons; they want to add to their collection of sh1t brand names joining lincoln, mercury & mazda.
or they are going to bung a rover badge on some POS they can build for $2000 and sell it to retirees who remember the P1 for £5000.
francisb said:
Podie said:
LR brand is a very strong one
i agree. no one associates landrovers with rover or the cr@p they have churned out for the last 20 years. so not a good reason to buy IMO.
People who know about cars don't... but a large proportion of the population do.
For example, in a recent survey as many as 80% of Volvo owners didn't know that the Comapny was owned by Ford...
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Problem was, their reliable cars were Hondas Eg
Rover 200 (1983 4 door Honda Civic saloon (had one with the 1.6 Rover injected engine) - it was actually pretty good in VDP spec trim)
Rover 200 1989 - Honda Civic
Rover 400 1989 - Honda Civic
Rover 200 1995 cut down Honda Civic
Rover 400 1994 onwards - Honda Civic
Rover 600 1992 - Honda Accord
Rover 800 1990 onwards (we'll ignore the 1986 first phase) - Honda Legend platform
The Maestro was a great idea badly executed - huge wheelbase, loads of space, electronics, good handling performance versions - but rubbishly built and dated quickly. Menotgo was erm, built badly but not really worse than contemporary Cavalier and Sierra when it came out.
Metro/Rover 100 was satisfactory will about 1986, then dated, and then the 1990 K series was a great car that was just too small - if they could have afforded a decent bigger bodyshell.......
The good cars were Hondas.
Hi tonker,
(just a small correction - the early 90s R200 was actually based on the Honda Concerto.)
There's a lot of truth in that, but I don't think it necessarily detracts. I think the Rover engineers did a fine job in spite of some of the Honda constraints. I think the later early 90s R200s are a much more coherent design than the Honda Concertos, and for me the Rover 600 is one of the best proportioned good looking saloons of recent years - compare it to the Accord of the time
I don't think it's fair to say that they were only not bad cars because they were Honda - how many other manufacturers platform share in this day and age?
Don't forget most of the engines were Rover (K-series was cutting edge stuff - let's not get bogged down in the usual HGF stuff
).Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff