RE: SOTW: Rover 800 Vitesse Coupe
Discussion
red_rover said:
boyoM3 said:
Find one that dosnt have imminent head gasket failure and youre a lucky man (for the short term).
Awful awful cars.
Why do you even bother posting?Awful awful cars.
The 4 cyl. 800 series has the "L" series engine......
Edited by stegt4 on Thursday 29th October 20:16
Motorrad said:
skid said:
Said some garbage which contradicted his earlier statement
You whined about clarkson and bmw being to blame for the failure of the 75 in your original post. You then followed this with a denial in response to my comments. You then insulted me.You're pathetic.
I suggest you actually read what you've written before attempting to deny it.
BMW and clarkson didn't kill MGR, it self destructed in an orgy of uselessness.
It didn`t it was actually thrown away by the Wilson Gov`t and each subsequent Govt, zero investment compared to other manufacturers, from the early 70`s they had about 30% of the advertising budget of Ford or Vauxhall.
It had nothing to do with that knobhead from the BBBC though, he is just an opinionated t.w.a.t!
Edited by stegt4 on Thursday 29th October 20:16
andymadmak said:
magic_marker said:
fido said:
magic_marker said:
The Rover debacle nearly sank BMW. When selling on they were forced to sell Land Rover to sweeten the deal (and with it the benefit of the incredible (then) new Range Rover model which they had spent years developing and was launched under Ford) - and it was still a bad deal.
I can't really see where they lost money - bought Rover Group for £800m + sold Land Rover for £1.8-billion.I wouldn't call that a sweetener i'd call that a good profit (even if they had to pretend to be sorting out Rovers new models for a couple of years). Development costs for the Mini were kept with BMW, now a major asset. 4wd technology - some of it would have been useful for the BMW X- range. Even if they broke even on pure financials they gained Mini, took out a medium-sized competitor and stalled Honda for a couple of years.
I have a friend in Munich very high up in the BMW hierarchy who told me that at the moment the actual deal was announced there was a moment of complete silence in the building, followed by euphoria once the news of the sale and teh transfer of Land Rover to Ford was complete. They honestly thought the company might have ask for emergency bailout from the German government (and the Germans DON'T do 'no strings attached' packages) / sell the whole company.
No point in kicking over this corpse, but lets just say that BMW was never in any danger, and Rovers demise was very much planned before BMW acquired it....
As for the Phoenix 4, ..... well their plan was simple. Dress the company up to look as sexy as possible so that they could court a big fish (volume wise) as a partner for the future - Hence the overtures to Nanjing, SAIC and several others. The racing and stuff was there to give the brand some kudos. The 40 million they pocketed, whilst considerable, is but a drop in the ocean and would not have saved MGR. Interestingly, documents show that SAIC would have done the deal that would have saved MGR and left it as a technology providing partner in a new entity that would have had huge economies of scale (the chinese market) available to it,if the Govt had underwritten the pension fund deficit ( a deficit that they themselves had helped to create) The Government (in the form of La Hewitt) waited till Towers was on the plane from China (and as such incomunicado) and called a press conference at 9.30PM to close what was in effect at that time a PRIVATE company..
Towers only found out after his plane landed.
Now, if you want to know why the Govt did this you'll have to dig a little deeper... clue: aero engines and subsidies...
Onwards and upwards. Still think its a great shed.
Andy
Sense on PH? wow! that makes a change lately.
I
stegt4 said:
It had nothing to do with that knobhead from the BBBC though, he is just an opinionated t.w.a.t!
I sincerely believe he did ~ He most certainly played his part even if only on a relatively smaller scale. He has massive influence. Few folks would admit to being influenced in their car choices by media types ~ the influence is certainly there though and over the years, I've listened to work colleagues and others who were most certainly influenced by his TG "knobhead" Tallness and stayed away from Rover showrooms in droves as a result. Again listening to their experiences, their loss as some of their car choices they lived to bitterly regret later having been conned into this "Foreign is best, British is rubbish" where cars are concerned. Foreign is not automatically best and many so called reliable alien product is a myth ~ even those brands regarded through 'premium' tinted spectacles. Until recently, Brits actually formed queues to pay over the odds for the things... more fool them! That influence is now deep rooted, entrenched and widespread within the UK car consumers' mindsets and all you need do is read this and a few of related threads on PH to appreciate just how widespread that misconception mindset is ...
As ordinary production cars go, and after all most cars are ordinary, the Rover 800 Coupe is a fine example .... here I do speak from direct experience not simply regurgitating what some clueless geeezah dahn the pub says ....
Edited by MGJohn on Thursday 29th October 23:36
andymadmak said:
magic_marker said:
fido said:
magic_marker said:
The Rover debacle nearly sank BMW. When selling on they were forced to sell Land Rover to sweeten the deal (and with it the benefit of the incredible (then) new Range Rover model which they had spent years developing and was launched under Ford) - and it was still a bad deal.
I can't really see where they lost money - bought Rover Group for £800m + sold Land Rover for £1.8-billion.I wouldn't call that a sweetener i'd call that a good profit (even if they had to pretend to be sorting out Rovers new models for a couple of years). Development costs for the Mini were kept with BMW, now a major asset. 4wd technology - some of it would have been useful for the BMW X- range. Even if they broke even on pure financials they gained Mini, took out a medium-sized competitor and stalled Honda for a couple of years.
I have a friend in Munich very high up in the BMW hierarchy who told me that at the moment the actual deal was announced there was a moment of complete silence in the building, followed by euphoria once the news of the sale and teh transfer of Land Rover to Ford was complete. They honestly thought the company might have ask for emergency bailout from the German government (and the Germans DON'T do 'no strings attached' packages) / sell the whole company.
No point in kicking over this corpse, but lets just say that BMW was never in any danger, and Rovers demise was very much planned before BMW acquired it....
As for the Phoenix 4, ..... well their plan was simple. Dress the company up to look as sexy as possible so that they could court a big fish (volume wise) as a partner for the future - Hence the overtures to Nanjing, SAIC and several others. The racing and stuff was there to give the brand some kudos. The 40 million they pocketed, whilst considerable, is but a drop in the ocean and would not have saved MGR. Interestingly, documents show that SAIC would have done the deal that would have saved MGR and left it as a technology providing partner in a new entity that would have had huge economies of scale (the chinese market) available to it,if the Govt had underwritten the pension fund deficit ( a deficit that they themselves had helped to create) The Government (in the form of La Hewitt) waited till Towers was on the plane from China (and as such incomunicado) and called a press conference at 9.30PM to close what was in effect at that time a PRIVATE company..
Towers only found out after his plane landed.
Now, if you want to know why the Govt did this you'll have to dig a little deeper... clue: aero engines and subsidies...
Onwards and upwards. Still think its a great shed.
Andy
I would dispute your BMW end of the facts simply because it is almost inconceivable to me that I would have been so greatly misinformed (you can guess my contact is no janitor and though he's not on the BOD, he was at the time in a position to know exactly what was going on - it occurs to me btw that if your friend was also in Munich at that time, they must definitely know each other.)
As for Phoenix 4, what you say is very interesting. I was aware of the Towers / Hewitt press conference fiasco - but I perceived the whole affair as an extreme mishandling by the government rather than something deeper which I think you are implying (and which I find quite intriguing).
Edited by magic_marker on Friday 30th October 09:26
This is my understanding of what was behind the great Rover / BMW debacle, based on first hand reports, conversations with senior people in Germany and a little digging around in documents that are freely available on the web and elsewhere,
I’m writing this in a hurry, so please excuse in advance any typos and other minor errors. In essence, this is what happened….
The Great Rock and Rover Swindle
In the mid 1990s, the BMW board was looking hard at its product range. There were concerns that the company was over reliant on sales of the 3 series. The 7 was not a big seller (relatively speaking) and barely covered the cost of its development. The 5 was profitable, but under increasing attack from the E class Mercedes and whilst it enjoyed top dog status technically, even the 5 could not support BMW alone.
No, the real bread and butter was the 3 series, and concern was being expressed that BMW had already rung as many changes on this theme as was available to them - compact, saloon, coupe, cabrio and touring. The M3 halo model worked well too.
It was noted that to compete in the increasingly popular smaller car segment a better solution was going to be required. The 3 Compact was really not very good and was too expensive to make, despite using earlier generation mechanicals. Buyers in this segment were more conscious of space and practicality and the compact simply lost out to rivals from companies such as VW (and yes even Rover) in this regard.
It was felt that BMW needed to expand its ranges and add vehicles in sectors both upwards and downwards. The 7 series upper limit had been established - hence the BMW interest in RR. The lower limit was the 3 compact, but this was not competitive. BMW needed FWD for this smaller sector, but this was the antitheses of BMW brand philosophy. BMW also felt that they could broaden the 5 series range with an SUV type vehicle for the lucrative North American Market, but following some work with customer focus groups it was uncertain whether customers would see the BMW brand stretch towards the SUV sector.
BMW began to cast around to look for an acquisition target. Through their (excellent) working relationship with BAe (through the BMW aero engine division) Rover Group became the focus of their attentions. The marriage looked perfect. Rover had an iconic small car brand – Mini, that could easily sit below the BMW brand without detracting from the latters brand message. Rover also had one of the two global Iconic SUV brands – Land Rover/Range Rover (the other being Jeep) and this potentially could allow BMW to grow their US market share via SUV sales in the event that the then mooted X5 failed to find favour with buyers.
BAe was happy to sell Rover. It had looked at the costs of redeveloping Longbridge and the fact that several cars in the range were in need of replacement. Fling in the fact that BAe had been largely forced to take Rover off the Govts hands and was in an industry with very little synergy or opportunities for savings from joint engineering and BMW represented to best deal in town. So the company was sold with much fanfare.
At this point the BMW strategy was simple. “Keep what we need, get as much money as we can whilst we have the assets (Govt loans and subsidies, sales of land etc) spend as little as possible on product development, without being seen to do so, (hence lots of press announcements about design projects that mostly never took place) and bail out with as big a damaging (to Rover) fanfare as possible thereby ensuring the likely death of a (albeit minor) competitor.
Remember too that at the time of the acquisition BMW and Rover built about the same number of vehicles..
This was plan was enacted very quickly.
1, The 800 replacement that Rover had almost ready to go (based on a revised, widened 800 platform) was canned
2, Changes were made to the K series spec - the selection of plastic dowels for the head location.. – thereby leading to greatly exacerbated problems with the HGF issue – in other words a minor problem was made much worse and the legend of K series HGF began to gather momentum
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) and the effect on Rover cashflow 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.
4, The new Mini project was started. Rover paid for the entire engineering on this from its own cash flow. Bizarrely, the K series (at the time, still the lightest and most compact engine in its class) was dropped from the line up in favour of a Chrysler engine, built at a plant in Brazil… This only makes sense if you consider that the plan to sell off the dregs of Rover once it had been asset stripped could only work if Rover retained its own engine building capability. The K was Rovers mainstream and thus had to stay with Rover. Also, since BMW had deliberately sabotaged the K reputation through the use of the plastic dowels and the refusal to update tooling which was worn out, it was not going to be possible to use the K in the Mini
5, A new mid range Rover was started.. to replace the 400/45. Rover paid for all of this. This was vital, given the significant license costs that Rover had to pay to Honda each year on the older chassis. Drawings and CAD renderings of this vehicle were published by several major UK car magazines, BMW was absolutely furious at the leak – with good reason as it turns out since it very nearly exposed their scam.
This new car, paid for by Rover in large measure would eventually see the light of day as the BMW 1 series…..
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)
7, The anticipated launch of the MGF in the USA was cancelled. The MG brand still had massive following in the USA and had once been valued as one of the 3 most valuable brands in the USA. The MGF was a thorn in BMWs side. Dynamically superior to the Z3 and arguably much better looking, the little F consistently trounced the Z3 in road tests by motor magazines and TV shows. The engineering work to take the F to the USA was never signed off and the F was allowed to sit undeveloped.
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 Pisch effectively warned that Rovers days were nearly over. The result was that the leasing companies wouldn’t touch the 75 at competitive rates. This severely restricted sales…. The red ink on the Rover balance sheet grew worse.. and of course, all the while BMW claimed it was doing its best. It pocketed a nice subsidy to develop the Hams Hall site for engines. The NG range of engines was supposed to power both future BMW and Rover ranges. Odd then that the NG is not designed for transverse fitment…….
BMWs “good work” on the K series was also bearing fruit with warranty claims for HGF rising and the little engines reputation sinking like a stone.
Rover paid for Cowley works to be completely refettled. (it cost tens of millions) This is the current Mini factory owned by BMW…..
When the end came, BMW looked like heros for having tried so hard with their English Patient. “So much money lost” was the cry, but a quick perusal of the actual balance sheet of the deal shows that BMW lost almost nothing, once IP, dev costs of new models which Rover paid for but BMW retained, land sales and the sale of Land Rover to Ford are taken into account. What they gained though was a couple of effectively brand new factories. A new range of cars in an iconic sub brand – Mini, a new engine range paid for by Rover and HMG (the British taxpayer) and all the IP they needed for the 4wd and Fwd technologies they might need in the future.
The much ballyhooed “dowry” of thousands of Rover cars on airfields (and cited on this very thread) was another con. Rover had begged BMW to slow production lines to prevent a build up of unsold stock. Such stock undermines used car values, undermines the brand and also costs money to build. Rover had to build these cars, lose money on them . BMW circulated a list of sites where these cars could be photographed…….
Now, there’s lots more I could go into, and for everything I’ve written here there are another 5 points that should be made. But there is no point.
Most of you have swallowed the story that BMW put out hook line and sinker.
Goebbels would be proud.
I’m writing this in a hurry, so please excuse in advance any typos and other minor errors. In essence, this is what happened….
The Great Rock and Rover Swindle
In the mid 1990s, the BMW board was looking hard at its product range. There were concerns that the company was over reliant on sales of the 3 series. The 7 was not a big seller (relatively speaking) and barely covered the cost of its development. The 5 was profitable, but under increasing attack from the E class Mercedes and whilst it enjoyed top dog status technically, even the 5 could not support BMW alone.
No, the real bread and butter was the 3 series, and concern was being expressed that BMW had already rung as many changes on this theme as was available to them - compact, saloon, coupe, cabrio and touring. The M3 halo model worked well too.
It was noted that to compete in the increasingly popular smaller car segment a better solution was going to be required. The 3 Compact was really not very good and was too expensive to make, despite using earlier generation mechanicals. Buyers in this segment were more conscious of space and practicality and the compact simply lost out to rivals from companies such as VW (and yes even Rover) in this regard.
It was felt that BMW needed to expand its ranges and add vehicles in sectors both upwards and downwards. The 7 series upper limit had been established - hence the BMW interest in RR. The lower limit was the 3 compact, but this was not competitive. BMW needed FWD for this smaller sector, but this was the antitheses of BMW brand philosophy. BMW also felt that they could broaden the 5 series range with an SUV type vehicle for the lucrative North American Market, but following some work with customer focus groups it was uncertain whether customers would see the BMW brand stretch towards the SUV sector.
BMW began to cast around to look for an acquisition target. Through their (excellent) working relationship with BAe (through the BMW aero engine division) Rover Group became the focus of their attentions. The marriage looked perfect. Rover had an iconic small car brand – Mini, that could easily sit below the BMW brand without detracting from the latters brand message. Rover also had one of the two global Iconic SUV brands – Land Rover/Range Rover (the other being Jeep) and this potentially could allow BMW to grow their US market share via SUV sales in the event that the then mooted X5 failed to find favour with buyers.
BAe was happy to sell Rover. It had looked at the costs of redeveloping Longbridge and the fact that several cars in the range were in need of replacement. Fling in the fact that BAe had been largely forced to take Rover off the Govts hands and was in an industry with very little synergy or opportunities for savings from joint engineering and BMW represented to best deal in town. So the company was sold with much fanfare.
At this point the BMW strategy was simple. “Keep what we need, get as much money as we can whilst we have the assets (Govt loans and subsidies, sales of land etc) spend as little as possible on product development, without being seen to do so, (hence lots of press announcements about design projects that mostly never took place) and bail out with as big a damaging (to Rover) fanfare as possible thereby ensuring the likely death of a (albeit minor) competitor.
Remember too that at the time of the acquisition BMW and Rover built about the same number of vehicles..
This was plan was enacted very quickly.
1, The 800 replacement that Rover had almost ready to go (based on a revised, widened 800 platform) was canned
2, Changes were made to the K series spec - the selection of plastic dowels for the head location.. – thereby leading to greatly exacerbated problems with the HGF issue – in other words a minor problem was made much worse and the legend of K series HGF began to gather momentum
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) and the effect on Rover cashflow 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.
4, The new Mini project was started. Rover paid for the entire engineering on this from its own cash flow. Bizarrely, the K series (at the time, still the lightest and most compact engine in its class) was dropped from the line up in favour of a Chrysler engine, built at a plant in Brazil… This only makes sense if you consider that the plan to sell off the dregs of Rover once it had been asset stripped could only work if Rover retained its own engine building capability. The K was Rovers mainstream and thus had to stay with Rover. Also, since BMW had deliberately sabotaged the K reputation through the use of the plastic dowels and the refusal to update tooling which was worn out, it was not going to be possible to use the K in the Mini
5, A new mid range Rover was started.. to replace the 400/45. Rover paid for all of this. This was vital, given the significant license costs that Rover had to pay to Honda each year on the older chassis. Drawings and CAD renderings of this vehicle were published by several major UK car magazines, BMW was absolutely furious at the leak – with good reason as it turns out since it very nearly exposed their scam.
This new car, paid for by Rover in large measure would eventually see the light of day as the BMW 1 series…..
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)
7, The anticipated launch of the MGF in the USA was cancelled. The MG brand still had massive following in the USA and had once been valued as one of the 3 most valuable brands in the USA. The MGF was a thorn in BMWs side. Dynamically superior to the Z3 and arguably much better looking, the little F consistently trounced the Z3 in road tests by motor magazines and TV shows. The engineering work to take the F to the USA was never signed off and the F was allowed to sit undeveloped.
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 Pisch effectively warned that Rovers days were nearly over. The result was that the leasing companies wouldn’t touch the 75 at competitive rates. This severely restricted sales…. The red ink on the Rover balance sheet grew worse.. and of course, all the while BMW claimed it was doing its best. It pocketed a nice subsidy to develop the Hams Hall site for engines. The NG range of engines was supposed to power both future BMW and Rover ranges. Odd then that the NG is not designed for transverse fitment…….
BMWs “good work” on the K series was also bearing fruit with warranty claims for HGF rising and the little engines reputation sinking like a stone.
Rover paid for Cowley works to be completely refettled. (it cost tens of millions) This is the current Mini factory owned by BMW…..
When the end came, BMW looked like heros for having tried so hard with their English Patient. “So much money lost” was the cry, but a quick perusal of the actual balance sheet of the deal shows that BMW lost almost nothing, once IP, dev costs of new models which Rover paid for but BMW retained, land sales and the sale of Land Rover to Ford are taken into account. What they gained though was a couple of effectively brand new factories. A new range of cars in an iconic sub brand – Mini, a new engine range paid for by Rover and HMG (the British taxpayer) and all the IP they needed for the 4wd and Fwd technologies they might need in the future.
The much ballyhooed “dowry” of thousands of Rover cars on airfields (and cited on this very thread) was another con. Rover had begged BMW to slow production lines to prevent a build up of unsold stock. Such stock undermines used car values, undermines the brand and also costs money to build. Rover had to build these cars, lose money on them . BMW circulated a list of sites where these cars could be photographed…….
Now, there’s lots more I could go into, and for everything I’ve written here there are another 5 points that should be made. But there is no point.
Most of you have swallowed the story that BMW put out hook line and sinker.
Goebbels would be proud.
+ 1.
The present-day British must be the most gullible people on this planet.
My MG does a great job as a daily driver (30,000 a year), as did my previous Rover. The MG cost probably half the price of any comparable car, so more fool the knockers I say, but please don't export any more of our home industries and jobs by buying foreign products when we are perfectly capable of making our own.
If your sons and daughters don't have jobs....then look to yourselves and where you've spent your money.
The present-day British must be the most gullible people on this planet.
My MG does a great job as a daily driver (30,000 a year), as did my previous Rover. The MG cost probably half the price of any comparable car, so more fool the knockers I say, but please don't export any more of our home industries and jobs by buying foreign products when we are perfectly capable of making our own.
If your sons and daughters don't have jobs....then look to yourselves and where you've spent your money.
grahamw48 said:
+ 1.
The present-day British must be the most gullible people on this planet.
My MG does a great job as a daily driver (30,000 a year), as did my previous Rover. The MG cost probably half the price of any comparable car, so more fool the knockers I say, but please don't export any more of our home industries and jobs by buying foreign products when we are perfectly capable of making our own.
If your sons and daughters don't have jobs....then look to yourselves and where you've spent your money.
Ouch ~ your closing paragraph is just plain nasty ~ but, sadly right on the money ~ or, lack of for an ever increasing segment of the population.The present-day British must be the most gullible people on this planet.
My MG does a great job as a daily driver (30,000 a year), as did my previous Rover. The MG cost probably half the price of any comparable car, so more fool the knockers I say, but please don't export any more of our home industries and jobs by buying foreign products when we are perfectly capable of making our own.
If your sons and daughters don't have jobs....then look to yourselves and where you've spent your money.
Still, why should I worry , I'm alright Jack. Now, where's those BMW brochures.... I fancy a nice shiney black one with big bling 19" rimz.... Yes, buying that will be great for the economy ~ unfortunately not the UK's. Still, who cares... I'm alright Jack ... for now....
My neighbour two doors away has a newly arrived new black 3-series on his drive. Good looking car. Some ten years earlier, the previous occupant of his house also had a nice BMW and a VW for the Mrs. Then his firm went bust and he was made redundant. When he glum faced told me the tale, it appeared his firm's regular customers they'd relied on for years were going abroad for their stuff .... How about that! Still, my neighbour had lots of time now to polish his Beemer and his wife's VW ... before they could no longer service their debts and they went back.
"John... you know about cars. I'm selling the Beemer and have been offered a Rover by a work colleague ... I'd respect your opinion" ... long story short, he got the Rover, sold the germanic tinware ~ both ~ and downsized his house too. Lives a couple of miles away now and now back on his feet ~ guess what, there's a nice tidy R75 parked in front of his garage now.
Some folks do get the message but, sadly, often learn the hard way.
..
Well, it's all a pound down and a pound a week isn't it ?
Whatever vehicles I have on my drive, they're all bought and paid for.
Most of the late model Beemers you'll see rolling around are lease cars or company cars.
I'm not impressed by debt...that's easy, and merely requires you to be able to sign your name...often to a fraudulent document.
Whatever vehicles I have on my drive, they're all bought and paid for.
Most of the late model Beemers you'll see rolling around are lease cars or company cars.
I'm not impressed by debt...that's easy, and merely requires you to be able to sign your name...often to a fraudulent document.
I'm sure they didn't deliberately wreck the K-Series with the plastic dowels; it would have been a cost-cutting measure too far.
Similarly I don't think the utter destruction of Rover was their original intention. I can imagine they will have planned several routes and competing power groups. Ruining Rover might have been the plan of one of the groups.
I think Pischetsrieder's ideal world situation would have been BMW against Jaguar and Mercedes with Rover against VW. Of course he was dropped at the same time as Rover. Maybe it's a pity he hadn't gone with Rover but that may not have guaranteed failure, which I think was the intention by this point
But I do think when the large group option was dumped they did as much damage as they could.
Similarly I don't think the utter destruction of Rover was their original intention. I can imagine they will have planned several routes and competing power groups. Ruining Rover might have been the plan of one of the groups.
I think Pischetsrieder's ideal world situation would have been BMW against Jaguar and Mercedes with Rover against VW. Of course he was dropped at the same time as Rover. Maybe it's a pity he hadn't gone with Rover but that may not have guaranteed failure, which I think was the intention by this point
But I do think when the large group option was dumped they did as much damage as they could.
magic_marker said:
tali1 said:
THESE ARE THE FACTS FOR THE ANTI-BMW BRIGADE
The Phoenix four’s initial dowry from BMW consisted of
(a) 60,000 cars, which realised £385MILLION
(b) a £427 MILLION INTREST FREE loan repayable in 2049, and
(c) £112 MILLION cash
That's nearly 1 Billion pounds worth minimum of BMW goodwill- and that's not including the 49 yrs worth of free intrest.
Rather generous i would say?
With respect I think you're wrong to see an "anti-BMW" brigade; I think it's more a question of answering people's curiosity. PS yr above stats sound about right. The Phoenix four’s initial dowry from BMW consisted of
(a) 60,000 cars, which realised £385MILLION
(b) a £427 MILLION INTREST FREE loan repayable in 2049, and
(c) £112 MILLION cash
That's nearly 1 Billion pounds worth minimum of BMW goodwill- and that's not including the 49 yrs worth of free intrest.
Rather generous i would say?
It's fair to say that I've been a life long Rover enthusiast and often found myself trying to defend my view that Rover engineers did amazing work on what must have passed for a shoe string budget; certainly when compared to their facing competition. I'm not sure if it's true but I remember reading somewhere that Rover Group developed and brought to market the Discovery Mk1 and then the MGF for the same amount of money that BMW apparently spent on developing the Z axle. In fact I used to be so obsessed by Rover's trails and tribulations that my final year dissertation was entitled "BMWs Take Over of Rover Group - It's Rationale and Implications". Well it kept me motivated during my final year at uni !
I'd concluded that although Honda had been good for (and perhaps even saved Rover) by the early 90's Honda was starting to hold Rover back through restrictive contracts and licensing fees. I saw BMW's acquisition as perhaps the ultimate acknowledgement that Rover had actually done a great job at slowly but surely closing the perception gap to the premium manufacturers. In fact, I thought BMWs move to buy out Rover Group was a master stroke on their part as it provided them with a great way to grow their overall market share and realize economies of scale by strengthening a British brand with very different (but still profitable) positioning to their own. In fact thinking about it I'm sure that must have been their original plan. Just look at what Rover's engineers and designers were permitted to achieve during BMWs ownership - the Rover 75 and the Range Rover - and look at what they subsequently achieved with both MINI and Rolls Royce.
Perhaps the Rover 100 was canned because it was so long in the tooth and a new Mini was in the product cycle? Perhaps the 800 replacement was canned because the Rover 75 would offer more opportunity for shared technology? I'm not sure at which when point BMW decided to find an exit strategy but part of the underlying cause will have been down to poor decision making on their part by giving up volume too early and underestimating the necessary R&D investment.
As for intentionally trying to ruin the K-series; could they really have been that calculated?
I'd concluded that although Honda had been good for (and perhaps even saved Rover) by the early 90's Honda was starting to hold Rover back through restrictive contracts and licensing fees. I saw BMW's acquisition as perhaps the ultimate acknowledgement that Rover had actually done a great job at slowly but surely closing the perception gap to the premium manufacturers. In fact, I thought BMWs move to buy out Rover Group was a master stroke on their part as it provided them with a great way to grow their overall market share and realize economies of scale by strengthening a British brand with very different (but still profitable) positioning to their own. In fact thinking about it I'm sure that must have been their original plan. Just look at what Rover's engineers and designers were permitted to achieve during BMWs ownership - the Rover 75 and the Range Rover - and look at what they subsequently achieved with both MINI and Rolls Royce.
Perhaps the Rover 100 was canned because it was so long in the tooth and a new Mini was in the product cycle? Perhaps the 800 replacement was canned because the Rover 75 would offer more opportunity for shared technology? I'm not sure at which when point BMW decided to find an exit strategy but part of the underlying cause will have been down to poor decision making on their part by giving up volume too early and underestimating the necessary R&D investment.
As for intentionally trying to ruin the K-series; could they really have been that calculated?
Edited by Pushi on Friday 20th November 22:10
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff