Ford buys Rover
Discussion
smilerbaker said:
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
If there are patents. Often GOOD design doesn't have patents. Besides if you can UNDERSTAND how something works, without simply blindly copying you can achieve similar if not better.
For example:I know for a fact that there are a few designs of valvetronic valve system floating around being proposed by Unis, consultancies and other technical institutes that would be legal to use for other manufacturers without infringing on BMWs patent
smilerbaker said:
Didn't bmw buy rover to get hold of honda's technology
i used to work in competitor evaluation at chrysler in detroit. a department dedicated to teardown, testing and reverse engineering others products. you dont buy a company to learn how to build an engine you just buy an engine. one month we couldnt get sign off to buy a 740 so we rented it for a month stripped it down to a shell, examined/tested everything each department wanted, rebuilt it and took it back.) development is about time and money. if you can start your development where the competitor left off you can design a new better product.
francisb said:
smilerbaker said:
Didn't bmw buy rover to get hold of honda's technology
i used to work in competitor evaluation at chrysler in detroit. a department dedicated to teardown, testing and reverse engineering others products. you dont buy a company to learn how to build an engine you just buy an engine. one month we couldnt get sign off to buy a 740 so we rented it for a month stripped it down to a shell, examined/tested everything each department wanted, rebuilt it and took it back.) development is about time and money. if you can start your development where the competitor left off you can design a new better product.
agreed, but I think what tipped it into BMW's favour was the excess in the pension fund which effectivly meant they ended up paying nothing for rover.
Twincam16 said:
With a re-sized badge (obviously) that doesn't look half bad. I'll have mine in dark red...
Coming right up sir
. 
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
Funny thing is Rover actually doesn't have the same poor reputation overseas, in places like Japan they love the old english connotations that go with the brand. Ford may not bother with using the brand in the UK market, but there is potential to use it overseas on some badge engineered jobs like my photoshop above.
GM has been doing basically that for years.
Erm if BMW wanted Hondas technology - why did they get rid of Honda engines from Rovers as soon as they could?
If anything the Honda connection was a problem for BMW because it ment Royalties had to be paid to Honda.
Lets remember the reason BMW wanted Rover. Rover, with its FANTASTIC and Class leading range (Rover Metro, Rover 200/400, Rover 600 and Rover 800 - which was still a best seller in 1994) and of course Land Rover and Range Rover.
Here is a good quote from Austin-Rover.co.uk
'The opportunity arose to look at Rover when BMW were to supply diesel engines to the Rover Group for the new Range Rover. The Rover Group had recently had a huge upswing in sales to continental Europe when the market there was contracting, Rover being the only company to actually grow their sales at that time. Furthermore, their sales were actually on course to overtake BMW's.
When BMW looked at Rover, they were impressed. Their opinion was that in terms of quality, Rover were as good as, if not in some cases better than, BMW. Rover appeared to fit perfectly with BMW. There was very little in the way of overlap. Rover cars would be able to fit below BMW in the line-up. Land Rover did not compete with BMW at all, and yet had a luxury image that complemented BMW's perfectly, and an under-developed, 'latent' brand of Mini (Bernd Pischetsrieder, BMW's chairman was the nephew of Sir Alec Issigonis, the Mini's designer). However, best of all, there was a cupboard-full of heritage that BMW could exploit (MG, Riley, Austin-Healey, Triumph, etc) - and to an Anglophile like Pischetsrieder, this was manna from Heaven.'
If anything the Honda connection was a problem for BMW because it ment Royalties had to be paid to Honda.
Lets remember the reason BMW wanted Rover. Rover, with its FANTASTIC and Class leading range (Rover Metro, Rover 200/400, Rover 600 and Rover 800 - which was still a best seller in 1994) and of course Land Rover and Range Rover.
Here is a good quote from Austin-Rover.co.uk
'The opportunity arose to look at Rover when BMW were to supply diesel engines to the Rover Group for the new Range Rover. The Rover Group had recently had a huge upswing in sales to continental Europe when the market there was contracting, Rover being the only company to actually grow their sales at that time. Furthermore, their sales were actually on course to overtake BMW's.
When BMW looked at Rover, they were impressed. Their opinion was that in terms of quality, Rover were as good as, if not in some cases better than, BMW. Rover appeared to fit perfectly with BMW. There was very little in the way of overlap. Rover cars would be able to fit below BMW in the line-up. Land Rover did not compete with BMW at all, and yet had a luxury image that complemented BMW's perfectly, and an under-developed, 'latent' brand of Mini (Bernd Pischetsrieder, BMW's chairman was the nephew of Sir Alec Issigonis, the Mini's designer). However, best of all, there was a cupboard-full of heritage that BMW could exploit (MG, Riley, Austin-Healey, Triumph, etc) - and to an Anglophile like Pischetsrieder, this was manna from Heaven.'
R998 said:
Twincam16 said:
With a re-sized badge (obviously) that doesn't look half bad. I'll have mine in dark red...
Coming right up sir
. 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
Funny thing is Rover actually doesn't have the same poor reputation overseas, in places like Japan they love the old english connotations that go with the brand. Ford may not bother with using the brand in the UK market, but there is potential to use it overseas on some badge engineered jobs like my photoshop above.
GM has been doing basically that for years.
Yes Rover does have a rubbish rep overseas especially in Europe where it should have been Rovers main stomping ground. The Japanese never took Rover seriously, Rover is just a 'British' thing, didn't the same people try building a mini London and are still crazy for the Beatles, beckham and any other fad? Not exactly a decent argument!
Someone on hear also made waffle about how their C reg Rover heap of dung still works and nice to drive.......ummmmmm, doubt it. I have driven Rovers and they are not a patch on their rivals. What would you have?:
Metro Vs Golf mk1
2** Vs Take your pick, allegro?
4** Vs BMW 3 series/C Class
6** Vs BMW 5 Series etc
8** Vs Audi A8/7 series/S Class
Rover = mediocore at best money pit
disco1 said:
R998 said:
Twincam16 said:
With a re-sized badge (obviously) that doesn't look half bad. I'll have mine in dark red...
Coming right up sir
. 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
Funny thing is Rover actually doesn't have the same poor reputation overseas, in places like Japan they love the old english connotations that go with the brand. Ford may not bother with using the brand in the UK market, but there is potential to use it overseas on some badge engineered jobs like my photoshop above.
GM has been doing basically that for years.
Someone on hear also made waffle about how their C reg Rover heap of dung still works and nice to drive.......ummmmmm, doubt it. I have driven Rovers and they are not a patch on their rivals. What would you have?:
Typical, you are loosing the argument so you revert to name calling. What do you drive then some dung from another maufacturer. Nice to drive i'll re phrase that then for you. It is awesome to drive and will chase off modern cars with no problem! You opinion is obviously one that hates Rover so you will always come back to the Rover is crap argument. You have told us Rover is crap and we have listened now go and annoy someone else. You have obviously never Driven all of the Rover variants or a Rover Vitesse by your comeback at mine!
disco1 said:
R998 said:
Twincam16 said:
With a re-sized badge (obviously) that doesn't look half bad. I'll have mine in dark red...
Coming right up sir
. 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
Funny thing is Rover actually doesn't have the same poor reputation overseas, in places like Japan they love the old english connotations that go with the brand. Ford may not bother with using the brand in the UK market, but there is potential to use it overseas on some badge engineered jobs like my photoshop above.
GM has been doing basically that for years.
Yes Rover does have a rubbish rep overseas especially in Europe where it should have been Rovers main stomping ground. The Japanese never took Rover seriously, Rover is just a 'British' thing, didn't the same people try building a mini London and are still crazy for the Beatles, beckham and any other fad? Not exactly a decent argument!
Someone on hear also made waffle about how their C reg Rover heap of dung still works and nice to drive.......ummmmmm, doubt it. I have driven Rovers and they are not a patch on their rivals. What would you have?:
Metro Vs Golf mk1
2** Vs Take your pick, allegro?
4** Vs BMW 3 series/C Class
6** Vs BMW 5 Series etc
8** Vs Audi A8/7 series/S Class
Rover = mediocore at best money pit
disco1, you keep spouting the same ill informed rubbish, at the time some rovers where class leaders, and best sellers FACT you cant just keep saying they where rubbish and it will be so.
By the time rover went under they where not class leaders, except maybe the 75, no one in denying this, but they where still far from rubbish.
I brought a 96 400 to drive my 140 mile round trip to work everyday expecting it to last 6 months tops (A primera lasted 3 months) A YEAR later, having done NOTHING to the car, not even oil, round the M25 everyday and some 50,000 extra miles I sold it for £400 less then I paid for it, That was by far the best value car I have ever owned, it did exactly what I wanted from a car, was comftable, quite quick, had some toys and most importantly never let me down.
Yes all rovers are crap
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Right - and let's put up the real competitors when they came out
Metro versus Peugeot 104, Ford Fiesta, Talbot Samba
200 (1989) against Escort, golf MK2, Vauxhall Astra, Renault 19
200 (1995) against Micra, Fiesta, Clio, by then 12 year old 205
400 - against the Orion/Belmont/Vento early doors through to about 1996 when they got dumped
600 - against Sierra/early Mondeo, Cavalier, Nissan Primera
800 - only ever against the Granada and Carlton/Senator (maybe)
You can't make up the competition.
The cars I quoted were the market leaders at the time in those categories, this is the competition if you wanted to be the best in your chosen class. Rover didn't come close, the only reason people got Rovers is because they were 'middle England' and wanted British. The moment you step over the continent Rover get exposed for what they are, built to a major cost/quality comprimise!
I haven't resorted to name calling as someone mentioned just stated the facts. Rover is no more for a reason, it was a money hole producing bland cars and people in the UK have become more image conscious over the last 15 years, Rover didn't keep up.
RIP
[quote=disco1
The cars I quoted were the market leaders at the time in those categories[/quote]
How did you work that out??? I think the Escort, the Sierra, Astra etc etc far and away outsold the cars you have chosen as market leaders, to compair like for like you have to take price into account, a humble 200 series cost half the price of a 3 series with similar equipment.
I think what you meant to say was Class leaders which is completely different, for instance somthing like a caterham would be in the same class as a Veyron (eg sports car) yes the caterham cost 100th of the price (ok well nearly), see you just cant compaire the 2 and be taken seriously.
When I was a company car driver, nearly 20 years ago, we all had Astra's, everyone wanted the Rover 200, we looked forward to the astras going in for service so we would get a 200 for a couple of days, it was far far superiour to the other cars around at the time(for the same price) eg escort, astra, sunnys but of course wouldn't have come close to a 3 series or Jag or Audi, they wern't even in the same leauge.
Sorry mate your 'arguments' just dont add up
The cars I quoted were the market leaders at the time in those categories[/quote]
How did you work that out??? I think the Escort, the Sierra, Astra etc etc far and away outsold the cars you have chosen as market leaders, to compair like for like you have to take price into account, a humble 200 series cost half the price of a 3 series with similar equipment.
I think what you meant to say was Class leaders which is completely different, for instance somthing like a caterham would be in the same class as a Veyron (eg sports car) yes the caterham cost 100th of the price (ok well nearly), see you just cant compaire the 2 and be taken seriously.
When I was a company car driver, nearly 20 years ago, we all had Astra's, everyone wanted the Rover 200, we looked forward to the astras going in for service so we would get a 200 for a couple of days, it was far far superiour to the other cars around at the time(for the same price) eg escort, astra, sunnys but of course wouldn't have come close to a 3 series or Jag or Audi, they wern't even in the same leauge.
Sorry mate your 'arguments' just dont add up
anonymous said:
[redacted]
The cars I quoted were the market leaders at the time in those categories, this is the competition if you wanted to be the best in your chosen class. Rover didn't come close, the only reason people got Rovers is because they were 'middle England' and wanted British. The moment you step over the continent Rover get exposed for what they are, built to a major cost/quality comprimise!
I haven't resorted to name calling as someone mentioned just stated the facts. Rover is no more for a reason, it was a money hole producing bland cars and people in the UK have become more image conscious over the last 15 years, Rover didn't keep up.
RIP
How much did the BMW, Merc, Audi variants cost compared to the Rover, Ford, Vauxhall counterparts?
disco1 said:
smilerbaker said:
When I was a company car driver, nearly 20 years ago,
BINGO!!!!!!
Thats why you like Rover
May I just point out, Nearly 20 years ago, and I was a co. car driver at 18, if you are tying to say I am some cap wearing old fart, and before you try getting into a my dicks bigger then yours argument (which it isn't
) Like the way you ignored the rest of the post re real car comparisons btw
Edited by smilerbaker on Wednesday 20th September 14:55
smilerbaker said:
How did you work that out??? I think the Escort, the Sierra, Astra etc etc far and away outsold the cars you have chosen as market leaders, to compair like for like you have to take price into account, a humble 200 series cost half the price of a 3 series with similar equipment.
The German cars were miles ahead of the Rovers in every way, this is why they were the class leaders; leaders of quality, refinment, production efficiency, class, reliability..blah..blah
We are not talking sales figures, sell something cheap enough and people will buy it and this showed in the compromise on quality.
disco1 said:
smilerbaker said:
How did you work that out??? I think the Escort, the Sierra, Astra etc etc far and away outsold the cars you have chosen as market leaders, to compair like for like you have to take price into account, a humble 200 series cost half the price of a 3 series with similar equipment.
The German cars were miles ahead of the Rovers in every way, this is why they were the class leaders; leaders of quality, refinment, production efficiency, class, reliability..blah..blah
We are not talking sales figures, sell something cheap enough and people will buy it and this showed in the compromise on quality.
BUT THEY COST AT LEAST TWICE THE PRICE FFS
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Yes niggles, not flawed design and materials. The thought of a rover called a GSI Sport Turbo is quite funny
anonymous said:
[redacted]
The same price for a reason, the rover lacks quality so rover tries selling cheap, the results are there to be seen. BMW become massive, Rover collapse
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff