Rovers - were they really that bad?
Discussion
HoHoHo said:
I've only had two Rovers. 1st Rover 420 GSI Tourer died after 2000 miles, could not be fixed and was replaced FOC. 2nd Rover 420 GSI Tourer died after 20000 miles and was replaced with a different make. It is also of note the second GSI had the headrest from a totally different car when it was delivered (from new) which I never understood how that could happen?
Absolutely s
t cars. The end.
Considering those were both rebadged Hondas, not really Rovers at all...Absolutely s
t cars. The end.tdm34 said:
1, The 800 replacement that Rover had almost ready to go (based on a revised, widened 800 platform) was canned
In effect, the 75 replaced both 600 and 800. It was a much more spacious car than the 3-series, more 5-series in size. The Rover 800 and its ilk were all disappearing at this time - the Ford Scorpio didn't last much longer, the Vauxhall Omega saloon wasn't a sales success (most sales were estates, to big families and the police, but the arrival of the Zafira killed that off too), Toyota pulled the Camry from the UK market. Rover simply didn't have the badge prestige, by this time, to hack it in the 5-series/A6/E-class/S-type market, which demanded a premium badge, never mind the engineering. tdm34 said:
3, The R100 production line was closed with no replacement. Now, the 100 sold more than 100,000 cars annually, (it was in effect Rovers 3 series in terms of cash generation) and the effect on Rover cash flow was huge. The official reason given was the “horrendous” Euro NCAP crash test results of 97, which ranked to R100 as only 1 star. In fact the report, which is still available on line makes it clear that with only a little work the R100 could easily have got more stars. Yet, BMW felt that such a low score merited the immediate cessation of production. Go have a look at the 3 series NCAP test for the same year – it scored 1.5 stars... No replacement for the R100 was ever started.
By the time R100 was axed, development of the new (3-star EuroNCAP) E46 3-series was well under way. Crucially, the R100's arch-rivals, the Mk4 Ford Fiesta and Mk3 VW Polo, were also 3-star cars: the R100/Metro had, by this time, been in production for 17 years, and as such was well beyond any hope of life-extension. The new 200 launched around the same time and was arguably the direct replacement for the 100, albeit bigger and pricier - but that was the way the whole class was moving.tdm34 said:
5, A new mid range Rover was started to replace the 400/45... paid for by Rover in large measure, [it] would eventually see the light of day as the BMW 1 series
Rubbish. The Rover groupies raise this one every so often, but there was nothing in common between the new Rover and the 1-series. The new Rover was derived from the 75 platform, and was to be FWD with a K-series-derived engine (properly sorted) mounted transversely. The 1-series was derived from the E90 3-series platform, RWD, and engineered to take engines up to and including a 3-litre straight six , mounted longitudinally.tdm34 said:
6, The new Range Rover was started, and BMW charged this to Rovers accounts also. (by now the Rover books, which had been profitable under BAe looked horrendous with the company spending on R+D for BMW at an unprecedented rate, but with sales chopped by a third or more following the closure of the R100 line)
BMW also managed to get all the 4wd expertise it needed for the X5 and X3, and as these vehicles were launched, it became clear that the BMW brand could be stretched and so the Land Rover brand would not be required. BMW dressed this up for sale to Ford (but made sure in the process that for the time being at least, Ford would have to pay BMW for the completion of the dev work and the subsequent supply of key components (engines etc)
Once again, this is incorrect. By the time L322 development started, Land Rover had been sold to Ford: Ford paid the bills, BMW and Land Rover did the development. The X5 and X3 owe nothing to any Solihull product mechanically: they used a form of the BMW X-Drive AWD system that made its first appearance in the E30 325iX in the mid-late 1980s. The only thing BMW took from Land Rover was Hill Descent Control, which was used (in another name, I think) in the E53 X5.BMW also managed to get all the 4wd expertise it needed for the X5 and X3, and as these vehicles were launched, it became clear that the BMW brand could be stretched and so the Land Rover brand would not be required. BMW dressed this up for sale to Ford (but made sure in the process that for the time being at least, Ford would have to pay BMW for the completion of the dev work and the subsequent supply of key components (engines etc)
tdm34 said:
8, The Rover engineers were not entirely helpless though. Their 800 replacement had been merely a stopgap for what was to become the R75. This car, with its Rover designed floorpan had a better torsional rigidity than the 5 series BMW and potentially offered a real threat. Yet, here BMW saw a real opportunity. They allowed Rover to finish the development of this car and even allowed Rover engineers to use several major components to speed development (Z axle rear end, aircon and electrics systems etc), but it was a con. Whilst Rover engineers twittered excitedly about being allowed finally to have two mouldings for the handbrake surround/centre console for LHD and RHD markets, BMW now had their exit strategy in place. The R75 would be launched to massive public and press praise - “looks like a baby Bentley, class leading ride and refinement, better than the S type Jaguar (launched at the similar time) a real small limo experience” were some of the comments... yet at the launch Bernd Pischetsrieder effectively warned that Rover's days were nearly over. The result was that the leasing companies wouldn’t touch the 75 at competitive rates. This severely restricted sales...
Yes, I thought this the strangest of BMW's moves. The 75 was the one car in the Rover range at the time that stood a chance of being a success. The sick patients were really the 200/25 and 400/45. I can't comment on the allegations about alterations to the K-series engines, but if BMW was serious about sorting Rover out, you would have thought that they would have got on top of reliability problems (the K-series wasn't exactly Japanese in reliability before BMW arrived) and injected cash to get as many all-new models to market as soon as possible.tdm34 said:
It’s easy to blame the Phoenix 4. After all, they were in charge when it all finally collapsed. But that’s another story that is far from being as simple as the media have portrayed it. And the end, when it came, was bizarre, with Patricia Hewitt waiting till John Towers had boarded his plane in China before marching into Longbridge at nine o’clock in the evening to close what was at that time a PRIVATE limited company.
Phoenix were spending money on non-essential stuff that was never going to make the company money, such as the acquisition of Qvale (for that lash-up supercar thing with the Ford engine) and their own pay and bonuses (which were hugely disproportionate given the losses stacking up). The rear-drive V8 75/ZT and the ensuing land speed record with a tuned ZT-T were all vanity projects too. All this only served to exacerbate the haemorrhage of cash. Hewitt's behaviour was disgraceful (especially when you compare the cost of saving MGR to that of propping up HBOS), but she didn't close it, the receivers did... the company was bankrupt.Steffan said:
I do personally mourn the demise of the largest manufacturer of cars in the UK for some decades. I also regret the fact that the unequalled talent of Issigonis was not used effectively by this crowd. Perhas that woud have avoided the dire Allegro the even more dire Marina and the laughably unreliable Stag and TR7? Issigonis would never have sanctioned these cars so the management went around him.
The Stag should have had the good old reliable Ex Buick lightweight alloy engine in it which the group already owned. Instead ego trips by the idiots in charge designed a new v8 with all the development sits involved. Which proved to be totally unreliable OTR. Inadequte drvelopment once agin prducing a product hat t totally destryed all confidence in the car from the start. Absolutely finished all hope of that car ever being a financial success.
Unequalled? He was responsible for quite a few horrendous misses (Maxi, Landcrap) as well as successes (Morris Minor, Mini, ADO16) - there were other really talented engineers around, like Gordon Bashford and Spen King. The TR7 was a decent design spoiled by bad build quality, and so was the Stag. People bash the Stag because of the engine problems it suffered (stretching timing chains), but does anyone remember that the Porsche 928 had the same issue? Yet the latter is considered a legendary sports-car and the Stag a joke. OK, the Stag should have used the Rover motor, but that was never going to happen, and a properly sorted Triumph V8 with a modern chain (metallurgy has sorted chain-stretch) is a very nice thing indeed.The Stag should have had the good old reliable Ex Buick lightweight alloy engine in it which the group already owned. Instead ego trips by the idiots in charge designed a new v8 with all the development sits involved. Which proved to be totally unreliable OTR. Inadequte drvelopment once agin prducing a product hat t totally destryed all confidence in the car from the start. Absolutely finished all hope of that car ever being a financial success.
bander said:
When Rovers were Rovers,they were in the top bracket,as were MG's,Austins and Morris's.
When they amalgamated and became BMC,they still held their standards.
As soon as they amalgamated with Leyland and became BLMC,they were on the road to ruin.
No investment in "Jigging up" No modernisation,they were no longer reliable,and were cheapened for profit.
If we take the massive step forward the transverse engine Mini brought to motoring,then note the way the advantage was let slip away,it broke my heart.
The British motoring industry was sold down the river,and along with it many brilliant engineers.
If we take the Range Rover as an example,until recently it was a rattling box on spongy suspension..The years of it's potential were wasted. If we look at the present 4X4 market and it's popularity,how many years of top sales have been wasted?
Then British car industry was sold down the river by bad management and greed.
Actually, you've got the chronology wrong there. Rover became part of Leyland under the management of Donald Stokes in about 1962, alongside Triumph. Curiously, the two bedfellows got on together reasonably well. The casualty was Alvis, which Rover had acquired some time before, and which was still turning out quite antiquated separate-chassis 3-litre barges: its carmaking division was closed, and the military vehicle arm eventually sold. Issigonis had worked for them briefly in the 50s, designing a new 3.5 litre all-alloy V8 (sound familiar?!) for a new unitary-construction saloon, the TA350, but this was axed after a few years, and the sole prototype was scrapped in 1964.When they amalgamated and became BMC,they still held their standards.
As soon as they amalgamated with Leyland and became BLMC,they were on the road to ruin.
No investment in "Jigging up" No modernisation,they were no longer reliable,and were cheapened for profit.
If we take the massive step forward the transverse engine Mini brought to motoring,then note the way the advantage was let slip away,it broke my heart.
The British motoring industry was sold down the river,and along with it many brilliant engineers.
If we take the Range Rover as an example,until recently it was a rattling box on spongy suspension..The years of it's potential were wasted. If we look at the present 4X4 market and it's popularity,how many years of top sales have been wasted?
Then British car industry was sold down the river by bad management and greed.
Meanwhile, over at BMC, the launch of the MGB, Spridget, Mini and ADO16 couldn't solve the main issue, that their principal larger offerings (the A55/A60 Austin Cambridge and its rebadged variants, the Morris Oxford, MG Magnette, Riley 4/68 and 4/72 and Wolseley 15/60 & 16/60, and the bigger Austin A110 Westminster, Wolseley 6/110 and van den Plas 3-litre/4-litre R), were seriously superannuated and technologically antiquated. The company was haemorrhaging money. Thus, in 1966, the government of the day begged Sir William Lyons to take BMC over. What followed was effectively a forced merger - and it nearly killed Jaguar stone dead. British Motor Holdings, as it became, continued to haemorrhage money, and in 1968, another merger, with Leyland, occurred. Donald Stokes and William Lyons both took seats at the directors' table - and, sadly, it was Lyons who killed off the Rover P6BS/P9 V8-engined sports car (also sometimes wore Alvis badging). The big Rover barge designed to replace the P5, codenamed P8, was another casualty of this era - although it is said that its development was not going well, with fundamental design problems being exposed.
hidetheelephants said:
If BMW were so keen on LR as an access to the SUV/RV market and a export revenue earner in the US, why would they sabotage the K series when it was fitted to so many Freelanders? Does not compute.
Perhaps - but then one could argue they were more interested in the Discovery and Range Rover than the Freelander. I suspect that their ordering of inadequate parts was more down to an attempt to cut costs than anything else - the K-series was a quite advanced engine and was reputedly the most expensive of its kind to produce, certainly far more sophisticated than anything you could get in a Fiesta or Polo at the time. ISTR there was something quite unusual about the bottom end, something to do with the crank or bearings...Steffan said:
the unequalled talent of Issigonis
Eh?He was certainly a clever bloke, but there were cleverer. Look at a Cord from the 1930's and it's rather better than much of what BMC came up with 30 years later. Gerald Palmer designed the Jowett Javelin, a much more technically dense and clever car than the Morris Minor. Sadly, he got the bullet in favour off Issigonis who told Len Lord what he wanted to hear.
Issigonis came up with two profitable cars, the Minor and the Austin Morris 1100. The Mini lost money and both the 1800 and Maxi were sales flops. What BMC needed was to move Issy aside and get some Ford guys in there in the mid sixties.
RoverP6B said:
Actually, you've got the chronology wrong there. Rover became part of Leyland under the management of Donald Stokes in about 1962, alongside Triumph. Curiously, the two bedfellows got on together reasonably well. The casualty was Alvis, which Rover had acquired some time before, and which was still turning out quite antiquated separate-chassis 3-litre barges: its carmaking division was closed, and the military vehicle arm eventually sold. Issigonis had worked for them briefly in the 50s, designing a new 3.5 litre all-alloy V8 (sound familiar?!) for a new unitary-construction saloon, the TA350, but this was axed after a few years, and the sole prototype was scrapped in 1964.
Meanwhile, over at BMC, the launch of the MGB, Spridget, Mini and ADO16 couldn't solve the main issue, that their principal larger offerings (the A55/A60 Austin Cambridge and its rebadged variants, the Morris Oxford, MG Magnette, Riley 4/68 and 4/72 and Wolseley 15/60 & 16/60, and the bigger Austin A110 Westminster, Wolseley 6/110 and van den Plas 3-litre/4-litre R), were seriously superannuated and technologically antiquated. The company was haemorrhaging money. Thus, in 1966, the government of the day begged Sir William Lyons to take BMC over. What followed was effectively a forced merger - and it nearly killed Jaguar stone dead. British Motor Holdings, as it became, continued to haemorrhage money, and in 1968, another merger, with Leyland, occurred. Donald Stokes and William Lyons both took seats at the directors' table - and, sadly, it was Lyons who killed off the Rover P6BS/P9 V8-engined sports car (also sometimes wore Alvis badging). The big Rover barge designed to replace the P5, codenamed P8, was another casualty of this era - although it is said that its development was not going well, with fundamental design problems being exposed.
This is why I always thought that the end came when Austin and Morris (Nuffield) joined to become BMC. Nuffield Group designed some superb cars and Gerald Palmer (Riley Pathfinder, Z Magnette) had some good ideas such as developing the MG Twin Cam to be reliable enough to use in the saloons as well as a six cyl version for the big Rileys. They were using coil sprung rear axles with radius arms as well as torsion bars up front when Austin were pissing about with leaf springs and lever arm dampers. BMC had the chance right there and then to go with the advanced engineering, forget the loss making FWD stuff and make cars that would make BMC some real money and compete with Alfa, Rover and Jaguar. Austin could continue making basic porridge to pay the bills. Meanwhile, over at BMC, the launch of the MGB, Spridget, Mini and ADO16 couldn't solve the main issue, that their principal larger offerings (the A55/A60 Austin Cambridge and its rebadged variants, the Morris Oxford, MG Magnette, Riley 4/68 and 4/72 and Wolseley 15/60 & 16/60, and the bigger Austin A110 Westminster, Wolseley 6/110 and van den Plas 3-litre/4-litre R), were seriously superannuated and technologically antiquated. The company was haemorrhaging money. Thus, in 1966, the government of the day begged Sir William Lyons to take BMC over. What followed was effectively a forced merger - and it nearly killed Jaguar stone dead. British Motor Holdings, as it became, continued to haemorrhage money, and in 1968, another merger, with Leyland, occurred. Donald Stokes and William Lyons both took seats at the directors' table - and, sadly, it was Lyons who killed off the Rover P6BS/P9 V8-engined sports car (also sometimes wore Alvis badging). The big Rover barge designed to replace the P5, codenamed P8, was another casualty of this era - although it is said that its development was not going well, with fundamental design problems being exposed.
I was looking around a 1963 MG Magnette Farina the other day and laughing at the sorry heap. To think that was built the same year as the first Lotus Cortina. To take BMC and cock it all up took time and skill, but they managed it.
Steffan said:
Equally the Allegro was an absolute disaster of a car, launched with a square, yes SQUARE steering wheel. Absolute madness and unsurpriingly the car never achieved the popularity of the modlel it was supposed to replace. Absolutely ridiculous way to run a car business.
Utter madness, why would you ever fit a square steering wheel?
MarshPhantom said:
blueg33 said:
MarshPhantom said:
blueg33 said:
iSore said:
Steffan said:
Like the identity names
My comments are a reflection of the fact that modern VW group cars seem to be very resistant to serious body rot.
Most cars are. But VAG stuff is nothing special - there are now quite a few Mark 5 Golfs with rotten front arches, ditto Passats. VAG bodies are alright but no better than they need to be. Vauxhalls are rather better tbh.My comments are a reflection of the fact that modern VW group cars seem to be very resistant to serious body rot.
Rovers? The 800 was crap, a horrible thing with a Montego quality interior and as a car it was far adrift of the 5 Series and Merc E Class it was laughable. The 75 was a good car and the 600 was better still - probably the best thing they made. The Metro was s
te, the R8 200 and 400 pretty good and the replacements rather less so. The blame lies with BMW who failed to grasp that Rovers were not prestige but cheap trams with some fake wood. Priced right they would have sold well enough and the 75 was definitely on the right track in terms of quality. Not perfect but getting there. But BMW overpriced the 200 and 400, sales bombed and that was that, not helped by the pound/euro exchange rate that slaughtered export sales - Rovers' biggest asset.
But, it died a natural death. The end of the 75 was a pity but the rest of it was crap. The good bits (Range Rover and Mini) live on and does well enough.
The launch models were mechanically pretty much identical to the Hondas. My middle 620 was a 93L and had the Honda steering rack which was awful. I'm not sure about the 800s but Rover recognised the woefulness of the Honda steering and changed the steering racks in the 600s from 1997 onwards.
Pre 1997 they were just power assisted. After 1997 they were speed sensitive power assisted steering and much more confidence inspiring. The Honda rack was crap with no feel at all.
To be honest, all the bad points about the 600 were Honda features:
The weak universal joint on the gear linkage
The window regulators which would seize, bend and break
The brake discs fitted inside the hubs
The moisture trap rear wheel arches
All Honda design or Honda labelled parts
Edited by jamieduff1981 on Sunday 29th March 22:01
iSore said:
This is why I always thought that the end came when Austin and Morris (Nuffield) joined to become BMC. Nuffield Group designed some superb cars and Gerald Palmer (Riley Pathfinder, Z Magnette) had some good ideas such as developing the MG Twin Cam to be reliable enough to use in the saloons as well as a six cyl version for the big Rileys. They were using coil sprung rear axles with radius arms as well as torsion bars up front when Austin were pissing about with leaf springs and lever arm dampers. BMC had the chance right there and then to go with the advanced engineering, forget the loss making FWD stuff and make cars that would make BMC some real money and compete with Alfa, Rover and Jaguar. Austin could continue making basic porridge to pay the bills. I was looking around a 1963 MG Magnette Farina the other day and laughing at the sorry heap. To think that was built the same year as the first Lotus Cortina. To take BMC and cock it all up took time and skill, but they managed it.
Funny you should say that... my elder son, in his teenage years, was quite infatuated with Farina Austins - until he got a ride in a Magnette. No synchro on first, awful transmission and engine noise, no power from either engine or brakes... just an awful piece of kit. Really a step backwards from the old ZB Magnette. Such a shame, because Nuffield could have had a really good lineup - Morris as the bread-and-butter, Wolseley doing the really posh luxury stuff, and then they'd have had a dilemma with MG and Riley, because they both had a formidable reputation for making fine sports-cars - perhaps Riley could have gone for the Triumph to Jaguar sports saloon market while MG focussed exclusively on sporting 2-door GTs and sports cars?I've a lot of respect for Austin, because there's probably not a family in the country that doesn't have a Mini, A30/35/40 or Seven in its past - it was really the company that put the country on wheels - but Nuffield were altogether more forward-thinking.
My dad had a g reg 214SLi for a couple of years which got replaced with a K reg 216GTi. Cracking car to be in when I was younger. Engine sounded nice with the exhaust it had fitted. Nice alloys and the half leather was decent. First hot hatch sort of thing I remember being in. I nearly got one I saw for sale recently for nostalgia reasons.
RoverP6B said:
hidetheelephants said:
If BMW were so keen on LR as an access to the SUV/RV market and a export revenue earner in the US, why would they sabotage the K series when it was fitted to so many Freelanders? Does not compute.
Perhaps - but then one could argue they were more interested in the Discovery and Range Rover than the Freelander. I suspect that their ordering of inadequate parts was more down to an attempt to cut costs than anything else - the K-series was a quite advanced engine and was reputedly the most expensive of its kind to produce, certainly far more sophisticated than anything you could get in a Fiesta or Polo at the time. ISTR there was something quite unusual about the bottom end, something to do with the crank or bearings...They didn't offer the K-series engine in the US.
Zyp said:
Five and a half grand for that? They're brave... even if it is effectively delivery-mileage!Palmer got the hoof because the Pathfinder was more of a ditchfinder, the handling was woeful and much worse than the RMA/B it replaced. Issigonis was a good ideas man but should never have been let anywhere near the styling or the detail engineering, as he was rubbish at sheet metal and had an uncanny knack of creating water leaks and rust traps.
Taz1383 said:
vtecyo said:
I would have bought a 1.4 ZR at 17 had I not read about the K series engine on the way to the bank.
Your loss. Can be fixed from £100 up to £300, and that's for a GOOD fix. I did mine. Took me 10 days from start to finish, that's alongside college and with no help from anybody.
So if a novice can do it, head gasket is not an excuse.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff