RE: The Red Octagon Returns, Along With The 'K-Series
Discussion
anonymous said:
[redacted]
CAB2 is next to CAB1 isn't it? Yes it is still there, a part of that was meant for the new MINI but is still unused, so that is a future expansion area, the paint shops inside the south works are still modern, and can be reused if production goes over 30,000. I still think they should get some land off ST Modwen and build a new part of the factory for body pressings etc for the future. Here is a link of MG/SAIC Longbridge...http://www.austinmemories.com/page168/page168.html
I thought Euro Ncap scores were comparable between market sectors, surely it has to be so you can decide whether a small car is as safe, The Metro was indeed a good way to end up dead or injured in a crash but a BMW with 1.5 stars was precisely half a star better, I watched the Euro Ncap footage of both and would want to be in neither in the event of a crash. I think potentially BMW did want to hamstring BMW but to be honest the Metro had dragged on too long, sticking some hastily designed door bars and a few airbags would not have made it a paragon of automotive safety, the basic structure went back to the late seventies and was never going to be strong enough to withstand impacts like a contemporary car of the time.
So, BMW did the right thing, possibly for the wrong reason.
"English Patient", just sounds condescending, to the entire country, is that how they see us ?
So, BMW did the right thing, possibly for the wrong reason.
"English Patient", just sounds condescending, to the entire country, is that how they see us ?
J4CKO said:
"English Patient", just sounds condescending, to the entire country, is that how they see us ?
Erm, well let's see .. by all accounts the Brits messed up (stretched) design of engine and leave it to fester .. Germans don't sort it out (or don't want to sort it out) .. Chinese (with British expertise) sort it out (or we'll see anyway). Not the best way to earn respect from an engineering-led country is it?J4CKO said:
"English Patient", just sounds condescending, to the entire country, is that how they see us ?
That's how senior BMW managers referred to MGR. Others called it the "organ donor". (Once eviscerated of all useful parts the carcase was put out for disposal.)Worryingly for those behind the master plan, MGR actually didn't do too badly once it went solo. The Phoenix 4 originally had a 400 replacement quite close to production engineering stages, but the external engineering contractor (TWR? ) went pop and the data was locked away inside their computers, untouchable according to the Official Receivers. MGR simply did not have the time or money to start again, so Towers and co hit upon the "find a partner" plan. To do this, they decided to "big up" the MG brand by getting involved in Motorsport at various levels, launching (cheap to engineer in absolute terms) "halo" models and generally making a far bigger splash than their size would have suggested they were capable of. The plan involved impressing potential partners in the far east so that they would WANT to partner with MGR for their engineering expertise..
Efforts included:
1, The TF (actually a VERY different car underneath to the old F, but not according to PH wisdom!)
2, The MG ZS 180 - described at the time by the motoring media as handling as well as a Scooby Imprezza turbo
3, The ZR 160 - which actually won it's Giant Test in CAR magazine against the (BMW) MINI Cooper S, but was demoted to second place on the basis that the MINI ought to represent the future.....
4, The ZT 190 - Very well thought of, even in Germany!
5, The R75V8/ ZT 260 V8 - demonstrating that a RWD big saloon chassis was within MGR capabilities - A 385 version had just been slated for production when the curtain came down, in fact I think the first one had gone down the MGR line!
6, MG ZR Rally car - pretty good by all accounts
7, MG ZS BTCC entrants - generally pretty competitive
8, MGZT DTM entrant - had not raced at closure
9, The MG EX257 (Lola) entrants at Le Mans (actually did pretty well)
10, The MG SV - perhaps in hindsight a bit of an error!
11, The MG ZTT land speed estate car ( 765bhp, 225mph special!!! )
12, The appointment of Peter Stevens (ex McClaren) as design director
13, The MG TF V6 coupe
14, The (gorgeous) R75/ZT coupe
15, A camless engine
16, A new diesel engine with class leading power/economy
17, lots of other stuff....
And it so nearly all worked. After kissing a few frogs and despite a few cul de sacs, China's SAIC was on the cusp of signing a full partnership (as opposed to buy out) deal with MGR which would have given the MGR engineers the resources and economies of scale to finally realise their full potential. The last stumbling block was the pension fund deficit that I mentioned in my earlier post. Towers genuinely believed that he had a deal to secure all the jobs (and more) He was confident that the Government would underwrite the modest (in real terms) pension fund short fall.
At this point BMW called its friends within New Labour and politely reminded them of what was at stake elsewhere. The loss of an iconic motoring brand like Rolls Royce was a scenario that HMG was not going to countenance. Hams Hall and the MINI were not safe either. Nor were BMWs threats limited to motoring.... (remember the links to RR aero engines....) In short, MGR had to die (as it had always been intended to do by the sausage brigade in Munich)
Oh, and you have to remember that when it closed, MGR was not the only car company with red ink in the P+L. Most car companies were suffering at the time. Compared to most, MGR was actually doing pretty bloody well. Indeed, I'm told (although this was never confirmed to me) that it was actually operating at a trading profit at the time of its closure...
I REALLY hope MG gets a chance to shine again..
Edited by andymadmak on Tuesday 22 February 16:27
J4CKO said:
I thought Euro Ncap scores were comparable between market sectors, surely it has to be so you can decide whether a small car is as safe, The Metro was indeed a good way to end up dead or injured in a crash but a BMW with 1.5 stars was precisely half a star better, I watched the Euro Ncap footage of both and would want to be in neither in the event of a crash. I think potentially BMW did want to hamstring BMW but to be honest the Metro had dragged on too long, sticking some hastily designed door bars and a few airbags would not have made it a paragon of automotive safety, the basic structure went back to the late seventies and was never going to be strong enough to withstand impacts like a contemporary car of the time.
So, BMW did the right thing, possibly for the wrong reason.
"English Patient", just sounds condescending, to the entire country, is that how they see us ?
So, BMW did the right thing, possibly for the wrong reason.
"English Patient", just sounds condescending, to the entire country, is that how they see us ?
- Star performers ...
The Rover 100 for all its faults was a popular car and sold well for a long period. It was a often a first car stepping stone to others in the Rover range. My cousin was most dispappointed to learn that she could no longer buy a new Metro as she had done twice in the past. She bought a Saxo as a replacement and that car is so flimsy compared to the more substantial Metro. I have no idea what rating her car has all I know is that it is a much less nice place to be compared to her Rover Metro. I sometimes drive her Saxo and it is not a pleasant experience. I really dislike the pedal placement and their arcs of travel. My relatively small size nines struggle to operate the things cleanly. God know how folks with larger feet that I get on, or, not. I wonder which car would fare better in an identical collision. Either way, if the collision involves a 44+ tonne articulated truck, I would not want to be in any car irrespective of the number of stars.
Never forget, the safest feature in any vehicle is the quality of the nut holding the steering wheel. Some nuts are not up to the required standard.
Killing off the Metro was the move that finally confirmed for me my original reaction when I first heard of the BMW takeover that it would undeed come to pass that it would all end in tears on a Bavaria ÜBER Longbridge basis.
My cousin did not part exchange her Rover Metro when buying the new Saxo. She passed it on within the family. It is now eighteen years old and still in good shape and providing good service.
.
Morris said:
''The Red Octagon Returns, Along With The 'K-Series'
147bhp turbocharged 1.8 to power new MG 'family' models''
It's not called a 'K' series, and it's not 147 bhp (it's 158bhp or 160ps if you prefer).
Apart from that your heading is spot on.
Well done Pistonheads.
Well done Morris. 147bhp turbocharged 1.8 to power new MG 'family' models''
It's not called a 'K' series, and it's not 147 bhp (it's 158bhp or 160ps if you prefer).
Apart from that your heading is spot on.
Well done Pistonheads.
I was very tempted to highlight that when I first read the thread title. But the "some fell on stoney ground" scenario came to mind.
Hey, this is PH. Do not let inaccuracies spoil any opportunity to knock anything Rover and MG related. They're still queuing up to put the boot in ... hey nearly a pun.
.
J4CKO said:
I thought Euro Ncap scores were comparable between market sectors
Unfortunately, NCAP is not comparable between vehicles of different weights. Because NCAP tests are conducted against a immovable but deformable object, a 5* Range Rover will be as safe as a 5* Fiat 500 in a crash with a stationary object.But if you were to crash a RR into a Fiat 500 in a head-on crash, the laws of momentum would make the sudden change in velocity on the 500 much more painful than in a large vehicle. The large vehicle will shunt the small vehicle backwards making the small vehicle more likely to impart dangerous forces on the occupants.
Mr Gear said:
J4CKO said:
I thought Euro Ncap scores were comparable between market sectors
Unfortunately, NCAP is not comparable between vehicles of different weights. Because NCAP tests are conducted against a immovable but deformable object, a 5* Range Rover will be as safe as a 5* Fiat 500 in a crash with a stationary object.But if you were to crash a RR into a Fiat 500 in a head-on crash, the laws of momentum would make the sudden change in velocity on the 500 much more painful than in a large vehicle. The large vehicle will shunt the small vehicle backwards making the small vehicle more likely to impart dangerous forces on the occupants.
... and both would not fare too well in head ons with 44 tonne trucks.
.
andymadmak said:
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
Of course I didnt mean K series engines needed a head gasket every 5 mins there was a degree of sarcasm there! I too hope the MG6 does well and look forward to seeing them on the road, I was saddened to see the pictures of Longbridge after it shut down with half finished cars on the still production line gathering dust.
Actually zero stars is the lowest rating that can be given. And I say again... if one star is enough to qualify a car to stop being made "on safety grounds" why continue making the original mini for several years beyond that? Answer: Because (of course) BMW wanted to protect the Mini brand as it was going to keep it, whereas Rover needed to die for their plan to work.
And why not fit the K series to the new Mini? You could hardly argue that the Brazilian made Chrysler lump that got fitted in the end made any sense either technically or financially, especially as Chrysler ended up being controlled by Daimler Benz shortly after. Answer: For BMW to not be accused of killing Rover completely it had to divest itself of a carcase that on the face of it still had at least some chance of survival, and that meant retaining its ONLY remaining engine range.
Think about the time line for removing the K from the MINI design and commissioning the Chrysler lump for installation.... BMW had to have been planning this from day one of its Rover ownership!
And why, during BMW ownership of MGR, were the prices paid by MGR for THE SAME parts that BMW bought for its own cars up to 60% higher? I'm not talking about special parts for Rover, I'm talking parts that still carried BMW badges on and were used in the same way as the BMW bits were, bought from the same suppliers.... I thought the idea merging car companies was that economies of scale meant that parts were cheaper for all.. You'd only make one bit of the business pay so much more for the same part if you wanted to increase its losses....
There are lieterally dozens more examples of the steps taken by BMW to ensure that Rover did not survive, but look, it's a sterile debate now. The dice are cast and we shall see what the Chinese will do from now on. Interesting to note the hoards on here pandering to the stereotypical views of Chinese products.. I'd be willing to bet a large sum that a considerable number of those naysayers will be driving a car from a Chinese owned company within 20 years. Remember those funny little Datsun 120Ys? ooooh, and the Toyota Cressidas, and those dinky little Hondas and ridiculous gawky 4wd Subaru things.... And that stuff from Korea, I mean who would drive a Hyundai?
I see history repeating itself
And why not fit the K series to the new Mini? You could hardly argue that the Brazilian made Chrysler lump that got fitted in the end made any sense either technically or financially, especially as Chrysler ended up being controlled by Daimler Benz shortly after. Answer: For BMW to not be accused of killing Rover completely it had to divest itself of a carcase that on the face of it still had at least some chance of survival, and that meant retaining its ONLY remaining engine range.
Think about the time line for removing the K from the MINI design and commissioning the Chrysler lump for installation.... BMW had to have been planning this from day one of its Rover ownership!
And why, during BMW ownership of MGR, were the prices paid by MGR for THE SAME parts that BMW bought for its own cars up to 60% higher? I'm not talking about special parts for Rover, I'm talking parts that still carried BMW badges on and were used in the same way as the BMW bits were, bought from the same suppliers.... I thought the idea merging car companies was that economies of scale meant that parts were cheaper for all.. You'd only make one bit of the business pay so much more for the same part if you wanted to increase its losses....
There are lieterally dozens more examples of the steps taken by BMW to ensure that Rover did not survive, but look, it's a sterile debate now. The dice are cast and we shall see what the Chinese will do from now on. Interesting to note the hoards on here pandering to the stereotypical views of Chinese products.. I'd be willing to bet a large sum that a considerable number of those naysayers will be driving a car from a Chinese owned company within 20 years. Remember those funny little Datsun 120Ys? ooooh, and the Toyota Cressidas, and those dinky little Hondas and ridiculous gawky 4wd Subaru things.... And that stuff from Korea, I mean who would drive a Hyundai?
I see history repeating itself
andymadmak said:
Stuff
What on earth makes you think BMW had any moral obligation to Rover, even were all your conspiracies correct?They bought Rover to make money, made a massive mistake and paid a very heavy price for it.
As much as I support my country, I don't for one second understand where people are coming from when they talk about how oh so unfair it all is. Rover failed. Get over it.
andymadmak said:
And why not fit the K series to the new Mini? You could hardly argue that the Brazilian made Chrysler lump that got fitted in the end made any sense either technically or financially,
Apart from the fact that the K-Series couldn't be used in the US you mean as it hadn't/couldn't pass the regulations requirements. And therefore someone else's engine would be required for technical and/or financial reasons.10 Pence Short said:
andymadmak said:
Stuff
What on earth makes you think BMW had any moral obligation to Rover, even were all your conspiracies correct?They bought Rover to make money, made a massive mistake and paid a very heavy price for it.
As much as I support my country, I don't for one second understand where people are coming from when they talk about how oh so unfair it all is. Rover failed. Get over it.
Some will applaud BMWs acumen, I don't. I have never said it was unfair, I just said that what happened was really not what the public has been led to believe happened.
Of course, you may not care that thousands lost their jobs, that historic British brands have disapeared, that a chunk of UK manufacturing was destroyed. You may even be firmly of the view that it's no great loss. But we are learning the hard way today that this country needs to actually make things if it is to have a future. A domestically owned car industry would be a nice start..
Munter said:
Apart from the fact that the K-Series couldn't be used in the US you mean as it hadn't/couldn't pass the regulations requirements. And therefore someone else's engine would be required for technical and/or financial reasons.
Actually it could be made US emissions compliant. It just needed a bit of investment - rather less investment in fact than BMW had to make to engineer the MINI to accept the Chrysler lumpandymadmak said:
10 Pence Short said:
andymadmak said:
Stuff
What on earth makes you think BMW had any moral obligation to Rover, even were all your conspiracies correct?They bought Rover to make money, made a massive mistake and paid a very heavy price for it.
As much as I support my country, I don't for one second understand where people are coming from when they talk about how oh so unfair it all is. Rover failed. Get over it.
Some will applaud BMWs acumen, I don't. I have never said it was unfair, I just said that what happened was really not what the public has been led to believe happened.
Of course, you may not care that thousands lost their jobs, that historic British brands have disapeared, that a chunk of UK manufacturing was destroyed. You may even be firmly of the view that it's no great loss. But we are learning the hard way today that this country needs to actually make things if it is to have a future. A domestically owned car industry would be a nice start..
And if you think the exit strategy BMW were forced into, considering the absolute near death experience to the balance sheet that MGR became to them, was planned, you have got to be joking.
People who lost their jobs, which is unfortunate, have to have someone to blame. Easier to blame Johnny Foreigner than their inept employers, unions and working practices, isn't it?
andymadmak said:
Munter said:
Apart from the fact that the K-Series couldn't be used in the US you mean as it hadn't/couldn't pass the regulations requirements. And therefore someone else's engine would be required for technical and/or financial reasons.
Actually it could be made US emissions compliant. It just needed a bit of investment - rather less investment in fact than BMW had to make to engineer the MINI to accept the Chrysler lumpMunter said:
andymadmak said:
Munter said:
Apart from the fact that the K-Series couldn't be used in the US you mean as it hadn't/couldn't pass the regulations requirements. And therefore someone else's engine would be required for technical and/or financial reasons.
Actually it could be made US emissions compliant. It just needed a bit of investment - rather less investment in fact than BMW had to make to engineer the MINI to accept the Chrysler lump10 Pence Short said:
If BMW bought MGR to rape it (and I don't believe that for a second), then so what? Happens every single day of the week. It's business.
And if you think the exit strategy BMW were forced into, considering the absolute near death experience to the balance sheet that MGR became to them, was planned, you have got to be joking.
People who lost their jobs, which is unfortunate, have to have someone to blame. Easier to blame Johnny Foreigner than their inept employers, unions and working practices, isn't it?
There you go, quoting the "near death experience to the balance sheet for BMW" .... That was PROPOGANDA! Do the maths on what the ACTUAL cash in/cash out/subsidies/tax breaks/retained IP/retained factories/tax write offs/R+D credits/sold assets (land, facilities, Land Rover (for which it got £1.85 BILLION alone from Ford) etc) and you will see that there was NO huge strain placed on BMW balance sheet at all. And if you think the exit strategy BMW were forced into, considering the absolute near death experience to the balance sheet that MGR became to them, was planned, you have got to be joking.
People who lost their jobs, which is unfortunate, have to have someone to blame. Easier to blame Johnny Foreigner than their inept employers, unions and working practices, isn't it?
Behind the smoke and mirrors and PR spin of BMW risking its own survival to save the English patient lies the truth. The last numbers I saw (from Munich it has to be said) was that for a grand total net cost of £75 million BMW got two new factories, a completely engineered new MINI ready for selling worldwide and all the FWD/4WD expertise it needed for the future. Not to mention it reatins a number of niche brands (such as Triumph) for future use if required. Thats an absolute bargain.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff