RE: The Red Octagon Returns, Along With The 'K-Series
Discussion
Back ON TOPIC.... Not checked all the pages on this thread to see if this has already been highlighted but this article by Quentin Wilson makes a refreshing change.
Save looking it up, here's the content :~
I spent a day hurling the hatch and saloon round a track, and enjoyed their poise, sharp steering, smooth ride and decent power.#
Full of MG attitude, but with a monster boot and lots of rear seat room, the 6 is a practical and feisty family motor.
Spec is really generous, too, and the top TSE model has leather, 18in rims, air con, electric front seats, sat nav and reverse camera, all as standard.
And at £16,000-£20,000, it’s fine value for such a distinctive and fresh-faced set of wheels.
It’s also great to see Longbridge back in business, with nearly 400 people designing, engineering and assembling these new-era MGs.
At the moment there’s only a petrol lump – a 1.8 turbo good for 60 in less than nine seconds and a limited top of 120 – but come next year there will be a 1.9 turbo diesel as well.
Most reassuring of all was that after a day of sliding this urgent MG through tarmac chicanes and curves, nothing broke, failed or fell off.
And really, as an alternative to a Focus, Golf or Astra, the MG6 makes a very compelling case.
This is the first all-new MG in 16 years and we should wish it and the British workers involved the very best of luck.
Better still, show your support by buying one.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/advice/motor...#ixzz1ESWu9...
# Decent Power ...
Here's another picture of it in blue. As ordinary production cars go, and lets face it, most production cars are quite ordinary, sure looks OK to me old minces ...
Save looking it up, here's the content :~
I spent a day hurling the hatch and saloon round a track, and enjoyed their poise, sharp steering, smooth ride and decent power.#
Full of MG attitude, but with a monster boot and lots of rear seat room, the 6 is a practical and feisty family motor.
Spec is really generous, too, and the top TSE model has leather, 18in rims, air con, electric front seats, sat nav and reverse camera, all as standard.
And at £16,000-£20,000, it’s fine value for such a distinctive and fresh-faced set of wheels.
It’s also great to see Longbridge back in business, with nearly 400 people designing, engineering and assembling these new-era MGs.
At the moment there’s only a petrol lump – a 1.8 turbo good for 60 in less than nine seconds and a limited top of 120 – but come next year there will be a 1.9 turbo diesel as well.
Most reassuring of all was that after a day of sliding this urgent MG through tarmac chicanes and curves, nothing broke, failed or fell off.
And really, as an alternative to a Focus, Golf or Astra, the MG6 makes a very compelling case.
This is the first all-new MG in 16 years and we should wish it and the British workers involved the very best of luck.
Better still, show your support by buying one.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/advice/motor...#ixzz1ESWu9...
=======================================================
# Decent Power ...
Here's another picture of it in blue. As ordinary production cars go, and lets face it, most production cars are quite ordinary, sure looks OK to me old minces ...
steven211 said:
will261058 said:
Listen I dont care who you believe. All you need to do is check the facts as documented to realise that the 1.6/1.8 engines were stretched by ROVER ENGINE DESIGN LONG BEFORE BMW bought the company. You might also want to ask yourself why a company like BMW that is famous for building engines like the four cylinder 1.5 Formula 1 engine back in the 70s that produced 1500 bhp and provided the engine for what was the fastest road car for 10 years in the 90s the Mclaren F1. You seem to be listening to the wrong people. But dont take my word for it, do some proper research and I dont mean Wikipdedia. You will find that this is all well documented recorded FACT. Not some opinions by people who dont know what they are talking about or have an axe to grind. Oh and why dont you try reading my post a bit more thoroughly, save me having to repeat myself, then you might even have some answers to the other points I have raised.
I don't use wikipedia, the real facts come out of the mouths by people like my teacher who were Rover engineers, he has told me everything that they did, he was on the development of it, tested the engines, took them apart, they had montegos going around with the engines and were bullet proof. He KNOWS what he is talking about as he worked on the engine he is the FACT, I would rather listen to an ex engineer then read some dodgy website written by someone who has an opinion. He recently sold a BMW so its not like he hates BMW. I ask myself why a company like BMW didn't investigate the K-series problems after they started having problems, I smell a rat. Don't believe the Germans and the Internet, only the people who worked hands on the engine know the FACTS.Edited by steven211 on Monday 21st February 02:04
will261058 said:
Again, if you had read my post properly you will have realised I said DONT read Wikipedia! For the record I dont hate Rover. They used to make fine cars a long time ago. But ask yourself a question, If there were montego cars running around with bulletproof engines how come there were so many failures of the same engine when bought by customers? Remember MG had history when it comes to less than quality development. I am thinking of the MGB that sat too low for the US market so they stuck some pieces of wood in the suspension and called it a job done. I am sure your teacher is right when he says a lot of the things he does assuming he has no axe to grind but I am not disputing what he has said since I dont know anyway. I just do not see the point in laying blame at the wrong door. If you bother to research this properly rather than listening to someone who may or may not be biased you will see for yourself that the timing makes it impossible to lay the blame at the door of BMW. Or are you just willing to believe the Germans are to blame in spite of hard evidence to the contrary. I have already told you I dont care what your teacher says and I dont care what you believe. I deal in facts and no matter what your teacher says the evidence clearly says something else.
Show me these so called facts then, I will quite happily read it. You can believe in what you want to, same here.Edited by steven211 on Tuesday 22 February 01:06
steven211 said:
Show me these so called facts then, I will quite happily read it. You can believe in what you want to, same here.
have a look at this website and you will see the 1.6/1.8 K series were first used in 1995.Edited by steven211 on Tuesday 22 February 01:06
//www.aronline.co.uk/index.htm?enginekseriesf.htm
Bmw only took over in 1994 and you must realise it takes a lot more than a year to develope an engine and thoroughly test it. With such a radical change it would involve tooling issues too. The new MGF was in design for years before that and that was the car that needed a bigger engine. The reason the engine was made larger in the first place was so Rover could maintain its independance from Honda. it was felt that any bigger engined MG/Rovers would seem less British with Honda engines and rightly so in my opinion. I really wish things had turned out better for Rover as it was our last proper car manufacturer. I cannot however blame BMW for the design when it was clearly before they were involved. If BMW were at fault it was in not replacing the engine with one of their own when it became apparent that the enlarged capacity with wet liners was not working but that in itself would have required massive rework. This is my last comment on the subject since I feel I am wasting my time here. Your comment that you just wont trust the Germans tells me that you have already made you mind up and are unwilling to remain open to anything else.
will261058 said:
have a look at this website and you will see the 1.6/1.8 K series were first used in 1995.
//www.aronline.co.uk/index.htm?enginekseriesf.htm
Bmw only took over in 1994 and you must realise it takes a lot more than a year to develope an engine and thoroughly test it. With such a radical change it would involve tooling issues too. The new MGF was in design for years before that and that was the car that needed a bigger engine. The reason the engine was made larger in the first place was so Rover could maintain its independance from Honda. it was felt that any bigger engined MG/Rovers would seem less British with Honda engines and rightly so in my opinion. I really wish things had turned out better for Rover as it was our last proper car manufacturer. I cannot however blame BMW for the design when it was clearly before they were involved. If BMW were at fault it was in not replacing the engine with one of their own when it became apparent that the enlarged capacity with wet liners was not working but that in itself would have required massive rework. This is my last comment on the subject since I feel I am wasting my time here. Your comment that you just wont trust the Germans tells me that you have already made you mind up and are unwilling to remain open to anything else.
I have read that many of times, and it doesn't specify when the changed the design, they used the same tooling for all K-series, just fitted different sized liners, that was the whole idea, so they didn't need to invest in new tooling. If they were aware of the cases of HGF after 1995, then why didn't BMW invest in redesigning the engine or making a new engine? Fair enough Rover engineers could of done something better to enlarge it, but why didn't BMW stand up and say NO? Any way I am going to leave this to rest, rather go back on topic to the future - the MG6.//www.aronline.co.uk/index.htm?enginekseriesf.htm
Bmw only took over in 1994 and you must realise it takes a lot more than a year to develope an engine and thoroughly test it. With such a radical change it would involve tooling issues too. The new MGF was in design for years before that and that was the car that needed a bigger engine. The reason the engine was made larger in the first place was so Rover could maintain its independance from Honda. it was felt that any bigger engined MG/Rovers would seem less British with Honda engines and rightly so in my opinion. I really wish things had turned out better for Rover as it was our last proper car manufacturer. I cannot however blame BMW for the design when it was clearly before they were involved. If BMW were at fault it was in not replacing the engine with one of their own when it became apparent that the enlarged capacity with wet liners was not working but that in itself would have required massive rework. This is my last comment on the subject since I feel I am wasting my time here. Your comment that you just wont trust the Germans tells me that you have already made you mind up and are unwilling to remain open to anything else.
Edited by steven211 on Tuesday 22 February 01:52
andymadmak said:
will261058 said:
MDT said:
HellDiver said:
with an engine that should have been put to rest 15 years ago?
why should it have been out of production 15 years back? They have some know faults, which according to the report say have been resolved. There are lots of engines which have been in production and in use for many decades with small amendments and add-on’s. The Jag XK lump was in production and use for 42 year. And from memory the Rover V8 will not have been much less? Bizarre, I wonder how I managed hundreds of thousands of miles in K series engined cars.... Wish I could say the same of the Audi and BMW products I have had the missfortune to own (from new) Coil packs failures, Vanos failures, cracked cylinder heads, noisy diff, more electrical failures than I care to remember, PAS pumps that self destruct.... all in German cars, sometimes leaving me stranded. (Never been left stranded in any MG, Rover, TVR or Jag I have owned)
I suspect you're one of those much fabled internet know-alls. And for that read "know nothings". Witness your pathetic response to the MG6 chassis design.
One thing that does amuse me about people like you is just how inconsistent you are. I bet you're one of those people who, if offered a Rover 100, would turn it down cos of the Euro NCAP 1 star result it got in 1995. I dare you to check out the 1994/1995 Euro NCAP test result for the 3 series BMW. (I see you are a BMW fanboi).......................
Hint for those who can't be bothered... It achieved a half a star higher rating, despite being a substantially larger vehicle.... German engineering at its best though eh?
MGJohn said:
The Crack Fox said:
Why does any thread with MG / Rover in the title descent into the same old HGF stories ? MG could launch a titanium chassis'd 200 mph microcar that runs on marmite and costs £2 and we'd still end up with the bore-fest that is Head Gaskets... 
PSSST! This is PH. Decrying home product is what many are good at. Our media went into Overkill mode with the so called head gaskets failures and a Nation who still excel at the self-inflicted, consumed the negativity avidly.As far as I'm aware, there is not one instance of a fatality as a result of a damaged Rover cylinder head gasket so called failure. Other manufacturers have had far more serious faults some resulting in fatalities but, do our media go into incessant and prolonged overkill mode? No they do not for numerous legal reasons. The ailing Rover Group and the asset stripped, cheery picked remnant MG-Rover in 2000 when BMW bottled it were easy meat.
.
steven211 said:
I have read that many of times, and it doesn't specify when the changed the design, they used the same tooling for all K-series, just fitted different sized liners, that was the whole idea, so they didn't need to invest in new tooling. If they were aware of the cases of HGF after 1995, then why didn't BMW invest in redesigning the engine or making a new engine? Fair enough Rover engineers could of done something better to enlarge it, but why didn't BMW stand up and say NO? Any way I am going to leave this to rest, rather go back on topic to the future - the MG6.
I am not of the opinion that BMW could not have done something to improve the situation but they were not to blame for the initial design. I too wish the MG6 every success but I would be happier if it was still British as I have said before. Edited by steven211 on Tuesday 22 February 01:52
will261058 said:
I am not of the opinion that BMW could not have done something to improve the situation but they were not to blame for the initial design. I too wish the MG6 every success but I would be happier if it was still British as I have said before.
Yes its a shame, especially that they are not producing the cars from scratch, however I found have some articles, pictures of the production/assembly of the MG6 production and some future projects, also it explains everything, like why it isn't getting fully produced here yet...http://www.mg-rover.org/articles/1/1070/a_rare_opp...
http://gallery.mg-rover.org/showgallery.php/cat/40...
http://www.aronline.co.uk/blogs/2011/02/17/essays-...
http://www.aronline.co.uk/blogs/2011/02/17/mg-birm...
Edited by steven211 on Tuesday 22 February 02:43
steven211 said:
Yes its a shame, especially that they are not producing the cars from scratch, however I found have some articles, pictures of the production/assembly of the MG6 production and some future projects, also it explains everything, like why it isn't getting fully produced here yet...
http://www.mg-rover.org/articles/1/1070/a_rare_opp...
http://gallery.mg-rover.org/showgallery.php/cat/40...
http://www.aronline.co.uk/blogs/2011/02/17/essays-...
http://www.aronline.co.uk/blogs/2011/02/17/mg-birm...
Thanks for posting those links, very interesting.http://www.mg-rover.org/articles/1/1070/a_rare_opp...
http://gallery.mg-rover.org/showgallery.php/cat/40...
http://www.aronline.co.uk/blogs/2011/02/17/essays-...
http://www.aronline.co.uk/blogs/2011/02/17/mg-birm...
Edited by steven211 on Tuesday 22 February 02:43
g3org3y said:
So what does this new 'MG' actually offer over the equivalent Korean white good which is actually pretty good for what it is and has a 7 year warranty?
By the sounds of it, class leading dynamics. I dearly hope it hasn't come to the day when Pistonheads cares more about warranties than than vehicle dynamics. will261058 said:
You seem to like using emotive language and half truths. If you could be bothered to check with Euro NCAP you will see that you cannot compare cars from different classes with each other. The E36 with 1.5 stars compares favourably with others from the same class. The fact that it is only 0.5 higher than the R100 is completely irrelevant and I know which car I would rather be in.
I think you are missing my point Will, BMW used the 1 star rating at Euro NCAP as the excuse to end R100 production. It was part of their deliberate strategy to hamstring MGR prior to disposal of those bits of the company it no longer needed. The 100 could easily have achieved a higher score, the test says so. The media at the time was full of stories about how sombre faced BMW managers were "shocked" by the R100s crash score, and how ending production was the only ethical thing to do. They could not be seen to be selling a 1 star rated car. Now, I am aware that different classes of car are not compatible under NCAP, but the general public is not so educated. The E36 score of 1.5 stars WOULD have been seen as similar performance to the 1 star R100 by most people, yet BMW carried on with production till the replacement came in. The R100 was neither replaced (despite it being MGRs biggest cash cow) , nor did BMW authorise the relatively minor work required to get an extra star or two for the vehicle. Does that not strike you as a little odd in your mind? After all, they let the original Mini (which was even worse in a crash) continue till 2000, when the new MINI was ready..........
Think about it, it was a stitch up.
The K series does not need a head gasket every five minutes (as you originally spouted) but it does have some problems - problems that could have been easily overcome, and problems which by all accounts the Chinese (ironically with British engineering help) HAVE overcome.
I've just come back from Shanghai and the Roewe 550 (the MG6 sister car) is very well liked there. And it looks good.
If the 6 has the class leading dynamics claimed of it by parts of the British media, and if the engines don't go all mayo in short order, and if it's as well assembled and safe as the competition, then I think you may just be surprised by how succesful it could be
I wish it well
kambites said:
g3org3y said:
So what does this new 'MG' actually offer over the equivalent Korean white good which is actually pretty good for what it is and has a 7 year warranty?
By the sounds of it, class leading dynamics. I dearly hope it hasn't come to the day when Pistonheads cares more about warranties than than vehicle dynamics. I'd have thought fleet buyers will stick to the typical Mondeos and Vectras. Tried and tested FTW. (The MG will have to be pretty darn good to outhandle the Mondeo/Focus).
'Successful' company car owners will stick to Audi and BMW as the draw of the badge is too great.
Private buyers who have no interest in cars will go for the Korean 7 year warranty car.
Private enthusiast buyers will buy a 'proper car' second hand with cash obtained from their company director wage (obviously).
Where is the MG going to fit in?
g3org3y said:
Do you really believe this MG will be thought of as the enthusiasts' choice?
Well if it drives better than its competition, it will become the non-badge snobbish enthusiast's choice. If there is such a thing as a non-badge snob these days. If it was best in class to drive and I was after a new car in this class, then I'd buy it. Why wouldn't I? Unfortunately for MG, I don't buy new cars and have no real interest in mid-sized hatchbacks, though.
g3org3y said:
kambites said:
g3org3y said:
So what does this new 'MG' actually offer over the equivalent Korean white good which is actually pretty good for what it is and has a 7 year warranty?
By the sounds of it, class leading dynamics. I dearly hope it hasn't come to the day when Pistonheads cares more about warranties than than vehicle dynamics. I'd have thought fleet buyers will stick to the typical Mondeos and Vectras. Tried and tested FTW. (The MG will have to be pretty darn good to outhandle the Mondeo/Focus).
'Successful' company car owners will stick to Audi and BMW as the draw of the badge is too great.
Private buyers who have no interest in cars will go for the Korean 7 year warranty car.
Private enthusiast buyers will buy a 'proper car' second hand with cash obtained from their company director wage (obviously).
Where is the MG going to fit in?
It'll be a competitor in the Skoda area. If they can it because of short term sales then it'll have been a wasted opportunity. But if it's a good car and proves itself over a few years. Then it'll take a share of the market.
(Of course if it's not a good car, it'll have poor sales and flop. But we'll not know that until 5 or so years after now...)
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff