Ford buys Rover
Discussion
From BBC website
Fantastic news IMO. Cherry picking SIAC can't access the Rover marque after todays sale. Rover is now back at home in Solihull with LandRover. Even if the Rover marque isn't used again, at least it can rest in peace with what dignity it has left.
BBC said:
Ford to buy Rover brand name from BMW
Mon Sep 18, 2006 2:12 PM BST
FRANKFURT - Ford will exercise its right to buy the Rover brand name from BMW, a spokesman for Ford's Premier Automotive Group (PAG) said on Monday.
"We feel it is in interests of our Land Rover business to have the Rover brand," the spokesman said, adding Ford had informed BMW about its decision on Monday.
"We are acquiring it and we're not looking to sell it. We believe it is a valuable asset for us," the spokesman said, declining to give any financial details.
BMW had no immediate comment.
PAG also includes the Jaguar, Volvo and Aston Martin marques.
Ford bought Land Rover from BMW in 2000 and had the rights to buy the Rover brand name, which BMW said last month it had agreed to sell to an unspecified partner.
Chinese media reports have said top Chinese carmaker SAIC had agreed to buy the brand name. SAIC has the design rights to two Rover models which it bought from failed British carmaker MG Rover before MG Rover collapsed last year.
SAIC is making its own cars based on the Rover platform, hoping the sell them one day to developed markets including Europe.
Mon Sep 18, 2006 2:12 PM BST
FRANKFURT - Ford will exercise its right to buy the Rover brand name from BMW, a spokesman for Ford's Premier Automotive Group (PAG) said on Monday.
"We feel it is in interests of our Land Rover business to have the Rover brand," the spokesman said, adding Ford had informed BMW about its decision on Monday.
"We are acquiring it and we're not looking to sell it. We believe it is a valuable asset for us," the spokesman said, declining to give any financial details.
BMW had no immediate comment.
PAG also includes the Jaguar, Volvo and Aston Martin marques.
Ford bought Land Rover from BMW in 2000 and had the rights to buy the Rover brand name, which BMW said last month it had agreed to sell to an unspecified partner.
Chinese media reports have said top Chinese carmaker SAIC had agreed to buy the brand name. SAIC has the design rights to two Rover models which it bought from failed British carmaker MG Rover before MG Rover collapsed last year.
SAIC is making its own cars based on the Rover platform, hoping the sell them one day to developed markets including Europe.
Fantastic news IMO. Cherry picking SIAC can't access the Rover marque after todays sale. Rover is now back at home in Solihull with LandRover. Even if the Rover marque isn't used again, at least it can rest in peace with what dignity it has left.
SAIC haven't got any tooling. All they ended up with was a set of blue prints and some IPRs.
SAIC knows that in China and most other countries, Rover was still (rightfully) seen as a Premium marque and remembered for the good old days.
SIAC wanted Rover more than the other Marques. It had intentions of selling back into Europe under the Rover marque. If you read the quote, you will see that SIAC had almost bought Rover off BMW, but Ford got just bought it in time due to a clause Ford had made with BMW when BMW sold Rover group off.
SAIC knows that in China and most other countries, Rover was still (rightfully) seen as a Premium marque and remembered for the good old days.
SIAC wanted Rover more than the other Marques. It had intentions of selling back into Europe under the Rover marque. If you read the quote, you will see that SIAC had almost bought Rover off BMW, but Ford got just bought it in time due to a clause Ford had made with BMW when BMW sold Rover group off.
Edited by red_rover on Monday 18th September 20:19
Hmmm, I don't think that would be a good idea. The Rover marque has been critisised(wrongfully) for using Honda bases let alone Ford (no offence to Ford cars!).
I think if Rover was to be re-released it would have to be developed to the quality of the Rover 75 but aimed to be a carry on from either the P5 or P6.
I think if Rover was to be re-released it would have to be developed to the quality of the Rover 75 but aimed to be a carry on from either the P5 or P6.
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!
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.'
The Rover V8 was a Rover engine. It was originally designed by another company (NOT BMW as some people for some reason love to believe). When Rover (not BL, not austin-rover group - but the actual class leading, envy of the world, Rover company) got their hands on it - they changed lots of things, and up untill the last days had the sand casting method pantented to them.
Another reason to mention why BMW bought Rover was because quite simply, in the early 90's, Rover had one of the best product line ups in the world. Everything from a small Mini to a big Range Rover. And ALL were big sellers.
BMW got their sleeves in, cheapened the K-series hence why so many HGFs are from the BMW era, they also stopped developemtn on many other cars Rover had been working on. BMW paid for the R40 development (Rover 75) but they didn't do the development.
Let it also be known that the latest MINI is Rover engineered.
Another reason to mention why BMW bought Rover was because quite simply, in the early 90's, Rover had one of the best product line ups in the world. Everything from a small Mini to a big Range Rover. And ALL were big sellers.
BMW got their sleeves in, cheapened the K-series hence why so many HGFs are from the BMW era, they also stopped developemtn on many other cars Rover had been working on. BMW paid for the R40 development (Rover 75) but they didn't do the development.
Let it also be known that the latest MINI is Rover engineered.
Nope - when Rover Group split from BMW, the 1-series was still probably an idea.
All we know is that there is the R30 fully working prototype (Rovers 45 replacment) is languishing in a BMW basement somewhere. Some sceptics believe that the 1-series is just a rebodied version of this and converted to RWD.
The only people who know are BMW and Richard Woolley (head of design at Ford- he designed the 600, the 400 mk2 saloon and the Rover 75).
All we know is that there is the R30 fully working prototype (Rovers 45 replacment) is languishing in a BMW basement somewhere. Some sceptics believe that the 1-series is just a rebodied version of this and converted to RWD.
The only people who know are BMW and Richard Woolley (head of design at Ford- he designed the 600, the 400 mk2 saloon and the Rover 75).
Oh sorry Disco1 - I think you're mistaking your world for reality.
BMW bought Rover from BAe (a Private company - NOT STATE).
Rover Group had been making money for about two years untill BMW bought Rover Group off BAe for £800 million. BAe sold because car making didn't fit in with its own industry.
BMW bought Rover mainly because;
BMW were a lot smaller back in 1994 and a take-over looked likely
Rover Group slotted in perfectly - a Range of premium FWD cars and a range of premium 4X4s.
The then Manager of BMW was an angolphile and loved Rover and all the other marques.
Also a BIG bonus was that 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.
Rover Group also owned 20% stake in Honda UK. And Honda UK owned a 20% stake in Rover Group ltd.
Rover Group had NEVER recieved a handout. British Leyland and Austin-Rover group both did as they were state owned, all though it must be said, by the time it became Ausin-Rover group it didn't really have many hand outs. Just before Austin-Rover was to be privatised and sold to BAe, Graham Day was given the job of getting it ready for sale - and thus Rover Group was formed.
So PLEASE do some research rather than reading News Of the World or listning to Jeremy Clarkson before you make these stupid remarks!
BMW bought Rover from BAe (a Private company - NOT STATE).
Rover Group had been making money for about two years untill BMW bought Rover Group off BAe for £800 million. BAe sold because car making didn't fit in with its own industry.
BMW bought Rover mainly because;
BMW were a lot smaller back in 1994 and a take-over looked likely
Rover Group slotted in perfectly - a Range of premium FWD cars and a range of premium 4X4s.
The then Manager of BMW was an angolphile and loved Rover and all the other marques.
Also a BIG bonus was that 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.
Rover Group also owned 20% stake in Honda UK. And Honda UK owned a 20% stake in Rover Group ltd.
Rover Group had NEVER recieved a handout. British Leyland and Austin-Rover group both did as they were state owned, all though it must be said, by the time it became Ausin-Rover group it didn't really have many hand outs. Just before Austin-Rover was to be privatised and sold to BAe, Graham Day was given the job of getting it ready for sale - and thus Rover Group was formed.
So PLEASE do some research rather than reading News Of the World or listning to Jeremy Clarkson before you make these stupid remarks!
Edited by red_rover on Thursday 21st September 00:06
Edited by red_rover on Thursday 21st September 00:08
francisb said:
red_rover said:
Oh ignorance shows up again!
No - Rover pre-BMW was profitable
Would BMW have bought Rover Group if it was losing money?
No - Rover was making profit for the first time and was going to be a force to be reckoned with.
No - Rover pre-BMW was profitable
Would BMW have bought Rover Group if it was losing money?
No - Rover was making profit for the first time and was going to be a force to be reckoned with.
LOL you are painful. they made a TINY profit after many years of subsidies by not investing in new platforms. given the costs and development time of new platforms/engines for that sector i'd estimate they should have been spending £200m a year. they wern't. so they showed a tiny profit. its pretty basic stuff. if bmw stopped all development how good would their profits look? how good would they look in 20 years?
are you incapable of understanding the difference between a good product (which is extremely debateable) and a sh1t company (which is a matter of history).
Oh who is they?
Well they would be BAe. As mentioned earlier by moi, BAe and Rover Group weren't matched because both businesses were so different. HOWEVER, we did see Rover work on the Rover 200 mk3, the Freelander, the Range Rover mk2, started working on the Rover 75 and the development of the MGF.
BMW held closed accounts but by all accounts, during the Rover years, EVERYTHING was charged to Rover. In the just under 6 years of ownership, we only saw one Rover model come out that was actually mostly done in the BMW years. Rover Group paid for MINI development and engineering, the new MINI line, the Rover 75 line that was in Cowley originally and the redevelopment of Cowley and of course the entire R30 (45 and 25 replacment) project which has been languishing in a Muncich basement or been turned into the 1-series, something we will never know. Its also a small know fact that BMW charged Rover Group for every flight, every hotel for BMW managment.
Of course, Rover Group DID need lots of money to produce a line of cars that it could wave Honda goodbye too - and BMW did that by killing off the 600 and the 800 and replacing them both with one car. BMW then kept the Rover 45 replacment, and kept Rovers MINI and flogged off LandRover and its new new Range Rover.
If BMW kept a nerve, we would have seen Rover group with a New Rover 75, a new Rover 45 and 25, the new MINI and of course the entire LandRover business.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Erm I think you have memory problems. Rover was still seen as a premium marque in most of Europe right up untill the end. But in the 80's, the ROVER marque was still an Aspirational brand, even if it was less aspirational than it had been 10 years earlier.
The Rover 213 and 216 OVER took Montego sales (even though it was more expensive). And with the new Rover trim and such like the SD3 became a premium product, and was replaced with another, the R8 series (the co-development project with Honda).
And you honestly would want a Renault 11 over a Rover 216 Vitesse with REAL wood trim, full leather interior and stainless steal interior door handles?
Quote from austin-rover.co.uk
'The jump in sales of the car from late 1986 onwards can also be put down to the fact that the advertising and marketing emphasis of the company radically changed after the arrival of Graham Day. One surprising fact about the Rover 200 was unearthed by Austin Rover’s huge market research programme undertaken (from late 1985 into the following Spring) was that customers perceived the it as being an expensive car – as Kevin Morley put it, “Customers see the Rover 200 as a car with a starting price of £10,000”.
In fact, this was far from the truth – the entry-level 213 models actually cost nearer £7000 – and as a result, all advertising for the car centred on the range’s starting price but continued to make great play of its exclusivity. The resultant jump in sales following this change in tactic is plain to see from the SMMT figures listed above.'
Edited by red_rover on Thursday 21st September 11:50
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff