Ford buys Rover
Discussion
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Depends which date you take it from. Historically, Rovers were extremely reliable. The P6 was an absolute groundbreaker, the equivalent today would probably be a BMW built like a Volvo. Even today they're reliable and they're getting on for 40 years old.
Rover's biggest failing, reliability/build quality-wise, was the SD1, which was a real shame as otherwise it was the best car they'd designed (live rear axle excepted). If we'd had a John Egan-style turnaround at Rover to sort the quality out in the way Jaguar was sorted with the XJ40, it would have been a completely different story.
The Honda-based cars were reliable, but nothing special at all. The P6 and SD1 showed real innovation and progress and that's what they couldn't muster in the end.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
NO NO NO!!
Rover 800 - JOINT development. Honda AND Rover engineered both cars. Its not just a case of sticking a badge on it and calling it a Rover.
1989 Rover 200/400. JOINT DEVELOPMENT 50/50 between Rover and Honda. And it wasn't the Civic, it was the Concerto!! Might also be worth mentioning that in the 5 years it was for sale, they sold nearly 1 million of them. And at the time, they were the best cars in their class.
Rover 200 1995 - Uses the front part of the previous mentioned floorpan. Honda had NOTHING to do with the 200MK3.
As for the Montego/Maestro - both were Austin Products, and after the Austin named was finished, they becamse marque/models in their own right. Neither had the Rover badge adorned on them in the UK.
Edited by red_rover on Tuesday 19th September 17:44
Twincam16 said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Depends which date you take it from. Historically, Rovers were extremely reliable. The P6 was an absolute groundbreaker, the equivalent today would probably be a BMW built like a Volvo. Even today they're reliable and they're getting on for 40 years old.
Rover's biggest failing, reliability/build quality-wise, was the SD1, which was a real shame as otherwise it was the best car they'd designed (live rear axle excepted). If we'd had a John Egan-style turnaround at Rover to sort the quality out in the way Jaguar was sorted with the XJ40, it would have been a completely different story.
The Honda-based cars were reliable, but nothing special at all. The P6 and SD1 showed real innovation and progress and that's what they couldn't muster in the end.
Agree 100%. Although the Rover 800 and 200/400 that were developed by BOTH companies were class leaders (well, the 800 was for a while).
Oh deffo agreed MK1 800 build quality was the pits. But I think the car makes up for it for being so fabulously high-tec 80's!
Thing is, the Honda engine models are only the most sought after because everyone now thinks that if they have a K-series powered one, it'll have HGF straight away and every week. Which is a total shame.
Having said that - the worst engine in the Rover 600 is the Honda engine. The 2.3 is a total lame duck and pretty troublsome!
Thing is, the Honda engine models are only the most sought after because everyone now thinks that if they have a K-series powered one, it'll have HGF straight away and every week. Which is a total shame.
Having said that - the worst engine in the Rover 600 is the Honda engine. The 2.3 is a total lame duck and pretty troublsome!
Twincam16 said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Depends which date you take it from. Historically, Rovers were extremely reliable. The P6 was an absolute groundbreaker, the equivalent today would probably be a BMW built like a Volvo. Even today they're reliable and they're getting on for 40 years old.
Rover's biggest failing, reliability/build quality-wise, was the SD1, which was a real shame as otherwise it was the best car they'd designed (live rear axle excepted). If we'd had a John Egan-style turnaround at Rover to sort the quality out in the way Jaguar was sorted with the XJ40, it would have been a completely different story.
The Honda-based cars were reliable, but nothing special at all. The P6 and SD1 showed real innovation and progress and that's what they couldn't muster in the end.
Sir John Egan was a fantastic salesman and PR guy, but one thing is for sure - Jaguar had quite a few quality issues when Ford bought the company and Sir John's successor Bill Hayden communicated that very bluntly. Ford fixed that, and they went from being second to last in JD Power surveys to the very top by the end of the nineties.
disco1 said:
Why on earth would someone want to protect the name of Rover? It isn't like they had a name in the first place is it? Most people probably don't even associate Rover and Rangerovers
They made rubbish cars and deserved to go bust. I just feel sorry for the Longbridge workers
They made rubbish cars and deserved to go bust. I just feel sorry for the Longbridge workers
No, Rover didn't have a name in the first place
They didn't build some of the most respected, technically advanced, sought after cars for a large portion of the century We have been discussing some of the more recent cars on this thread if you would actually care to read it - with a couple of notable exceptions, none were "rubbish".
As stated several times, the reason for Ford buying the Rover name is not to sell Rovers but to protect the Land Rover name
It's not about association, it's about being allowed to use the LR name - if they own the Rover name as well there is no problem. Apart from that, thanks for the constructive and informative post
nicecupoftea said:
we have been discussing some of the more recent cars on this thread if you would actually care to read it - with a couple of notable exceptions, none were "rubbish".
As stated several times, the reason for Ford buying the Rover name is not to sell Rovers but to protect the Land Rover name
It's not about association, it's about being allowed to use the LR name - if they own the Rover name as well there is no problem. Apart from that, thanks for the constructive and informative post
All their cars sucked, none of the recent ones were any good hence why they didn't sell, what part of supply/demand don't you understand? They used low quality materials on all cars but for some reason thought they were part of the 'big boys' when it came to car production. Naff cars, ancient technology, imported engines etc etc. The only thing resembling a car was the SV but that was designed externally by a renowned designer but the moment rover built it the cost/quality compromise shone through and a pig was delivered on the forecourts.
Couldn't help noticing you owned 2 2series rovers, did you like the honda engines?
You should read my post a bit more, never stated they wanted to use the rover name, who on their right mind would?
Edited by disco1 on Wednesday 20th September 10:59
Edited by disco1 on Wednesday 20th September 11:00
K 5ive said:
DrDeAtH said:
Ford.... the new british leyland.... (just not all british)
I was only thinking that yesterday! If it doesn't sort itself out it will go the same wasy as well.
possibly "too big to fail" in the US they employ 170,000 people (and have pension liablilites for far more) the federal government will be picking up a lumpy pension/medical bill if they are allowed to fail !
disco1 said:
nicecupoftea said:
we have been discussing some of the more recent cars on this thread if you would actually care to read it - with a couple of notable exceptions, none were "rubbish".
As stated several times, the reason for Ford buying the Rover name is not to sell Rovers but to protect the Land Rover name
It's not about association, it's about being allowed to use the LR name - if they own the Rover name as well there is no problem. Apart from that, thanks for the constructive and informative post
All their cars sucked, none of the recent ones were any good hence why they didn't sell, what part of supply/demand don't you understand? They used low quality materials on all cars but for some reason thought they were part of the 'big boys' when it came to car production. Naff cars, ancient technology, imported engines etc etc. The only thing resembling a car was the SV but that was designed externally by a renowned designer but the moment rover built it the cost/quality compromise shone through and a pig was delivered on the forecourts.
Couldn't help noticing you owned 2 2series rovers, did you like the honda engines?
You should read my post a bit more, never stated they wanted to use the rover name, who on their right mind would?
Edited by disco1 on Wednesday 20th September 10:59
Edited by disco1 on Wednesday 20th September 11:00
Did you own or drive any of their products? I have and never had any problems with any of their products. I also know plent of people that had or still have their products and theyare very happy with htem too. They only own other products because there is no Rover. Rover was once a very innovative company that designed class leading developments in safety. They won many awards for safety and won car of the year in 1977. The cars they built in the end were old fasioned i will agree and this is the only reason they did not sell. At the end the Rover brand was not worth much but this was only due to years of abusing the Rover badge and sticking it on such rubbish as the City Rover.
disco1 said:
nicecupoftea said:
we have been discussing some of the more recent cars on this thread if you would actually care to read it - with a couple of notable exceptions, none were "rubbish".
As stated several times, the reason for Ford buying the Rover name is not to sell Rovers but to protect the Land Rover name
It's not about association, it's about being allowed to use the LR name - if they own the Rover name as well there is no problem. Apart from that, thanks for the constructive and informative post
All their cars sucked, none of the recent ones were any good hence why they didn't sell, what part of supply/demand don't you understand? They used low quality materials on all cars but for some reason thought they were part of the 'big boys' when it came to car production. Naff cars, ancient technology, imported engines etc etc. The only thing resembling a car was the SV but that was designed externally by a renowned designer but the moment rover built it the cost/quality compromise shone through and a pig was delivered on the forecourts.
Couldn't help noticing you owned 2 2series rovers, did you like the honda engines?
You should read my post a bit more, never stated they wanted to use the rover name, who on their right mind would?
Edited by disco1 on Wednesday 20th September 10:59
Edited by disco1 on Wednesday 20th September 11:00
LOL what rubbish! When BMW took over rover they where in excellent shape having made profits for the previous few years, And when BMW pulled out the Rover 25 was the best selling car in the UK for a couple of months.
As has been previously stated Rovers problems where all due to not having a replacement for the 45 and having no small car, hardly there own fault as bmw put all there efforts into the 75.
Quite a bit of the blame for rover has to fall to bmw, they watered down the MGF so it wouldn't compete with the (crap) z3, they didn't replace the 45 which is the biggest market sector and they scapped the metro (100) with no replacement.
Yes I have owned a few Rovers and MG's in my time, and to be honest they where brilliant cars, not as many toys as other cars but the prices reflected this, never let me down which is more then I can say for other 'quality' marques, never had a hgf, never broke down, never rusted in fact I never had any of the rover 'horror' stories happen to me. As soon as the ZT 260 prices drop a bit more I may even get one of those.
But hey its 'cool' to jump on the 'lets knock rovers' band wagon, I bet you also say TVR's have rubbish build quality and break down a lot, and all bmw drivers are w*****s too having never owned or driven any of those either.
smilerbaker said:
LOL what rubbish! When BMW took over rover they where in excellent shape having made profits for the previous few years,
balls
pre bmw profits were pathetic (following a decade+ of subsidies.)
you need a $1bn to develop a new platform and another $1bn to develop a new engine for high volume sector. just because they made a couple of £m does not mean they were in excellent shape. they were in pathetic financial shape which is why they were getting passed around like a mangy dog. bmw kept it alive, in exchange for rr.
smilerbaker said:
Rover 25 was the best selling car in the UK for a couple of months.
LOL. every one at a loss
Edited by francisb on Wednesday 20th September 12:04
smilerbaker said:
disco1 said:
nicecupoftea said:
we have been discussing some of the more recent cars on this thread if you would actually care to read it - with a couple of notable exceptions, none were "rubbish".
As stated several times, the reason for Ford buying the Rover name is not to sell Rovers but to protect the Land Rover name
It's not about association, it's about being allowed to use the LR name - if they own the Rover name as well there is no problem. Apart from that, thanks for the constructive and informative post
All their cars sucked, none of the recent ones were any good hence why they didn't sell, what part of supply/demand don't you understand? They used low quality materials on all cars but for some reason thought they were part of the 'big boys' when it came to car production. Naff cars, ancient technology, imported engines etc etc. The only thing resembling a car was the SV but that was designed externally by a renowned designer but the moment rover built it the cost/quality compromise shone through and a pig was delivered on the forecourts.
Couldn't help noticing you owned 2 2series rovers, did you like the honda engines?
You should read my post a bit more, never stated they wanted to use the rover name, who on their right mind would?
Edited by disco1 on Wednesday 20th September 10:59
Edited by disco1 on Wednesday 20th September 11:00
LOL what rubbish! When BMW took over rover they where in excellent shape having made profits for the previous few years, And when BMW pulled out the Rover 25 was the best selling car in the UK for a couple of months.
As has been previously stated Rovers problems where all due to not having a replacement for the 45 and having no small car, hardly there own fault as bmw put all there efforts into the 75.
Quite a bit of the blame for rover has to fall to bmw, they watered down the MGF so it wouldn't compete with the (crap) z3, they didn't replace the 45 which is the biggest market sector and they scapped the metro (100) with no replacement.
Yes I have owned a few Rovers and MG's in my time, and to be honest they where brilliant cars, not as many toys as other cars but the prices reflected this, never let me down which is more then I can say for other 'quality' marques, never had a hgf, never broke down, never rusted in fact I never had any of the rover 'horror' stories happen to me. As soon as the ZT 260 prices drop a bit more I may even get one of those.
But hey its 'cool' to jump on the 'lets knock rovers' band wagon, I bet you also say TVR's have rubbish build quality and break down a lot, and all bmw drivers are w*****s too having never owned or driven any of those either.
What he said! I have 1985 Twin Plenum Vitesse sat outside, starts up for me all the time, everything still works and it is a joy to drive. Can't have all been crap could they for it to still be here. Not many other C Reg cars around from other manufacturers is there?
smilerbaker said:
disco1 said:
nicecupoftea said:
we have been discussing some of the more recent cars on this thread if you would actually care to read it - with a couple of notable exceptions, none were "rubbish".
As stated several times, the reason for Ford buying the Rover name is not to sell Rovers but to protect the Land Rover name
It's not about association, it's about being allowed to use the LR name - if they own the Rover name as well there is no problem. Apart from that, thanks for the constructive and informative post
All their cars sucked, none of the recent ones were any good hence why they didn't sell, what part of supply/demand don't you understand? They used low quality materials on all cars but for some reason thought they were part of the 'big boys' when it came to car production. Naff cars, ancient technology, imported engines etc etc. The only thing resembling a car was the SV but that was designed externally by a renowned designer but the moment rover built it the cost/quality compromise shone through and a pig was delivered on the forecourts.
Couldn't help noticing you owned 2 2series rovers, did you like the honda engines?
You should read my post a bit more, never stated they wanted to use the rover name, who on their right mind would?
Edited by disco1 on Wednesday 20th September 10:59
Edited by disco1 on Wednesday 20th September 11:00
LOL what rubbish! When BMW took over rover they where in excellent shape having made profits for the previous few years, And when BMW pulled out the Rover 25 was the best selling car in the UK for a couple of months.
As has been previously stated Rovers problems where all due to not having a replacement for the 45 and having no small car, hardly there own fault as bmw put all there efforts into the 75.
Quite a bit of the blame for rover has to fall to bmw, they watered down the MGF so it wouldn't compete with the (crap) z3, they didn't replace the 45 which is the biggest market sector and they scapped the metro (100) with no replacement.
Yes I have owned a few Rovers and MG's in my time, and to be honest they where brilliant cars, not as many toys as other cars but the prices reflected this, never let me down which is more then I can say for other 'quality' marques, never had a hgf, never broke down, never rusted in fact I never had any of the rover 'horror' stories happen to me. As soon as the ZT 260 prices drop a bit more I may even get one of those.
But hey its 'cool' to jump on the 'lets knock rovers' band wagon, I bet you also say TVR's have rubbish build quality and break down a lot, and all bmw drivers are w*****s too having never owned or driven any of those either.
I'm not going to get into bashing Rover or their products- especially seeing as I've worked with some of their engineers- some of whom have been very respectable indeed, but it doesn't make sense to "bash BMW" either.
After coming accross many Bitter English - ones who usually know absolutely sod- all about the automotive industry - who think that BMW were out to shaft Rover for all they had from day one. After working in Germany now, with some ex- BMW engineers, it seems all too apparent that BMW had the best of intentions for Rover and weren't out to "shaft last of the British car industry"- they sincerely wanted great things for Rover and invested alot into them and alot of engineers there were genuinely dissappointed when things didn't work out.
Alot of the better German engineers have respect for what the British car industry once was and a respect for British engineers- very different to many of the bitter British managers (the engineers were usually more balanced) view of the BMW organisation.
Myth number 2 is that BMW bought Rover to learn about the K series secrets- it was a good engine in it's day, however if they wanted to do this- all they would have had to do was buy an engine to Benchmark.
francisb said:
smilerbaker said:
LOL what rubbish! When BMW took over rover they where in excellent shape having made profits for the previous few years,
balls
pre bmw profits were pathetic (following a decade+ of subsidies.)
you need a $1bn to develop a new platform and another $1bn to develop a new engine for high volume sector. just because they made a couple of £m does not mean they were in excellent shape. they were in pathetic financial shape which is why they were getting passed around like a mangy dog. bmw kept it alive, in exchange for rr.
Didn't bmw buy rover to get hold of honda's technology and the huge pension excess? British Aerospace owned it before but never wanted it, the gov made them take it as part of some other deal and they had to keep it for 10 years IIRC as soon as 10 years where up they sold it, for rather a lot of money.
bmw stripped the bits they wanted and left the rest eg range rover tech, mini etc
smilerbaker said:
Didn't bmw buy rover to get hold of honda's technology
Nope, you obviously don't work in engineering.
If there's a class leading engine, you don't need to buy the company and factories to learn why it does what it does. Benchmarking combined with intelligent conjecture/reverse engineering will do.
Marquis_Rex said:
smilerbaker said:
Didn't bmw buy rover to get hold of honda's technology
Nope, you obviously don't work in engineering.
If there's a class leading engine, you don't need to buy the company and factories to learn why it does what it does. Benchmarking combined with intelligent conjecture/reverse engineering will do.
But the owner of the associated patents may get a little arsey
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff