RE: MG-TF returns to Longbridge
Discussion
Google them or look on www.globalautoindex.com
All interesting stuff and all will be in the UK soon!
All interesting stuff and all will be in the UK soon!
odyssey2200 said:
Goochie said:
There is a TF Coupe floating around too but the design is owned by another company all together.
in its death throws Rover actually turned out some nice looking models ( or pictures of)
they even rebadged a SsangYong Rexton to try to convince the dealers they had a 4x4 on the way
I know cos I sold it to them!
Oh get real...Rover/MG cars were always ill conceived, poorly funded, badly engineered, shoddily produced, etc, etc. It ONLY went the way that it did because Joe Public didn't want what they had to offer, in sufficient numbers to make it's existance viable!
scotty_917 said:
Oh get real...Rover/MG cars were always ill conceived, poorly funded, badly engineered, shoddily produced, etc, etc. It ONLY went the way that it did because Joe Public didn't want what they had to offer, in sufficient numbers to make it's existance viable!
What a load of tripe. Maybe the funds were not there to bring out new models but they were definitely not badly engineered. My experience of 3 Rover group cars was good. No breakdowns ever, no faults and inexpensive to run. The 75 is reknowned as one of the best in its class at the time. Magazines like EVO hold the driving abilities of the MG Z cars in high esteem. Look at the latest breakdown figures in Auto Express, putting MGRover mid table, way above many current so called 'quality, well engineered marques'.
Be quiet you former driver of many Vauxhalls!
scotty_917 said:
odyssey2200 said:
Goochie said:
There is a TF Coupe floating around too but the design is owned by another company all together.
in its death throws Rover actually turned out some nice looking models ( or pictures of)
they even rebadged a SsangYong Rexton to try to convince the dealers they had a 4x4 on the way
I know cos I sold it to them!
Oh get real...Rover/MG cars were always ill conceived, poorly funded, badly engineered, shoddily produced, etc, etc. It ONLY went the way that it did because Joe Public didn't want what they had to offer, in sufficient numbers to make it's existance viable!
I agree but some of the pics/mock ups they produced while trying to deflect attention from the fact that they were in the shit, were possibly the best cars they have ever produced and would have been far more sucessful that the 15 year old Honda civic they kept churning out with a crap engine in it.
The fact that they had no chance of actually going any farther that a mock up or clay sculpture is a shame in a way but it was way too little much too late.
their rebadged and re bumpered Rexton was quite nice though!
odyssey2200 said:
I agree but some of the pics/mock ups they produced while trying to deflect attention from the fact that they were in the shit, were possibly the best cars they have ever produced and would have been far more sucessful that the 15 year old Honda civic they kept churning out with a crap engine in it.
The fact that they had no chance of actually going any farther that a mock up or clay sculpture is a shame in a way but it was way too little much too late.
their rebadged and re bumpered Rexton was quite nice though!
I HAD 2 K-SERIES ENGINED CARS - NO ENGINE PROBLEMS EVER! ALSO 25, 75, ZR AND ZT WERE NOT 15 YEAR OLD HONDA CIVICS. EVEN THAT ZS, BASED ON AN OLD HONDA AND BUILT WHILE HONDA WERE STILL SELLING THEIR CAR BASED ON THE SAME DESIGN, IS A VERY GOOD DRIVERS CAR.
KANEIT said:
scotty_917 said:
Oh get real...Rover/MG cars were always ill conceived, poorly funded, badly engineered, shoddily produced, etc, etc. It ONLY went the way that it did because Joe Public didn't want what they had to offer, in sufficient numbers to make it's existance viable!
What a load of tripe. Maybe the funds were not there to bring out new models but they were definitely not badly engineered. My experience of 3 Rover group cars was good. No breakdowns ever, no faults and inexpensive to run. The 75 is reknowned as one of the best in its class at the time. Magazines like EVO hold the driving abilities of the MG Z cars in high esteem. Look at the latest breakdown figures in Auto Express, putting MGRover mid table, way above many current so called 'quality, well engineered marques'.
Be quiet you former driver of many Vauxhalls!
Tghey were mostly engineered by Honda with the exception of theKseies engine with its crappy head gasket problems and liner issues!
KANEIT said:
odyssey2200 said:
I agree but some of the pics/mock ups they produced while trying to deflect attention from the fact that they were in the shit, were possibly the best cars they have ever produced and would have been far more sucessful that the 15 year old Honda civic they kept churning out with a crap engine in it.
The fact that they had no chance of actually going any farther that a mock up or clay sculpture is a shame in a way but it was way too little much too late.
their rebadged and re bumpered Rexton was quite nice though!
I HAD 2 K-SERIES ENGINED CARS - NO ENGINE PROBLEMS EVER! ALSO 25, 75, ZR AND ZT WERE NOT 15 YEAR OLD HONDA CIVICS. EVEN THAT ZS, BASED ON AN OLD HONDA AND BUILT WHILE HONDA WERE STILL SELLING THEIR CAR BASED ON THE SAME DESIGN, IS A VERY GOOD DRIVERS CAR.
Rubbish
What Rover were peddling as the 45 was the 1994 honda civic, which the UK got years after the Jap market.
Honda were on their 2nd or 3rd incarnation of the civic since the 400/45 launch when Rover died!
The 45 was an earlie 1990s design and if launched again tomorrow would be at least 13 tears old.
Some of our friends have a MGF which has had its engine/ head done 3 times in 40K.
You may have been lucky but they were renouned for it!
Edited by odyssey2200 on Wednesday 31st January 17:25
odyssey2200 said:
KANEIT said:
odyssey2200 said:
I agree but some of the pics/mock ups they produced while trying to deflect attention from the fact that they were in the shit, were possibly the best cars they have ever produced and would have been far more sucessful that the 15 year old Honda civic they kept churning out with a crap engine in it.
The fact that they had no chance of actually going any farther that a mock up or clay sculpture is a shame in a way but it was way too little much too late.
their rebadged and re bumpered Rexton was quite nice though!
I HAD 2 K-SERIES ENGINED CARS - NO ENGINE PROBLEMS EVER! ALSO 25, 75, ZR AND ZT WERE NOT 15 YEAR OLD HONDA CIVICS. EVEN THAT ZS, BASED ON AN OLD HONDA AND BUILT WHILE HONDA WERE STILL SELLING THEIR CAR BASED ON THE SAME DESIGN, IS A VERY GOOD DRIVERS CAR.
Rubbish
What Rover were peddling as the 45 was the 1994 honda civic, which the UK got years after the Jap market.
Honda were on their 2nd or 3rd incarnation of the civic since the 400/45 launch when Rover died!
The 45 was an earlie 1990s design and if launched again tomorrow would be at least 13 tears old.
Some of our friends have a MGF which has had its engine/ head done 3 times in 40K.
You may have been lucky but they were renouned for it!
Edited by odyssey2200 on Wednesday 31st January 17:25
One car,the 400/45, was jointly developed with Honda.Even after this time it still drives really well but might not look so modern. Up till a few years ago Honda were still selling a Civic based upon the same old design, albeit a revised version just like the 45 MKI and MKII were. The rest of the late Rovers were not Hondas. Personally I like Hondas and have nothing against Rover sharing a little heritage with them, just give them credit where credit's due.
Your MGF chums must have run over a black cat called lucky!
odyssey2200 said:
Lets face it had it not been for the Triumph Acclaim. A Honda
Rover would have gone pear shaped years ago.
Rover would have gone pear shaped years ago.
No. That car was joint developed. Would you argue a Citroen C1 is a Toyota or a Toyota Aygo is a Peugeot? Don't think the Acclaim sold enough to make a difference. If it was that good and that important to Rover they would have badged it as a Rover, not a Triumph. Wonder how well Honda would have done in the UK/Europe without Rover? They got a lot out of the deal too.
Once more with feeling.
1) The K series head gaskets issue was partly caused by BMW insisting that cheaper gaskets and plastic dowels were used in the engine. Once Rover reverted to their preferred gasket and dowel (metal) design the issue largely went away. Recurrent gasket failure in your friends F points to either the job not being done properly (most likely the system not being properly bled) or a damaged head.
2) By the time the last 45s were being built there was so little of the original Honda Civic chassis design left in it that Rover actually asked Honda to forgoe the license fees on the grounds that the car was no longer to their design
3, The ZT / 75 is a VERY fine car indeed. It has superb driving dynamics and is renowned for its reliability and quality. FACT!
4, The 200 was based on the concerto, but the later Blob style 200 had a concerto front structure linked to a Rover designed rear structure - when did you last see a Honda with twist beam rear suspension?
5 The MGF is not really the same car as the MG TF. The later car has different styling, revised interior, different suspension systems (coils in place of hydragas units) and the chassis is 30% stiffer. Of course there are large elements that are the same, but thats the case with all car manufacturers. If you are going to say that the F and TF are the same then you might just as well criticise Porsche for still selling a 40 year old 911! Its nonsense.
Andy
1) The K series head gaskets issue was partly caused by BMW insisting that cheaper gaskets and plastic dowels were used in the engine. Once Rover reverted to their preferred gasket and dowel (metal) design the issue largely went away. Recurrent gasket failure in your friends F points to either the job not being done properly (most likely the system not being properly bled) or a damaged head.
2) By the time the last 45s were being built there was so little of the original Honda Civic chassis design left in it that Rover actually asked Honda to forgoe the license fees on the grounds that the car was no longer to their design
3, The ZT / 75 is a VERY fine car indeed. It has superb driving dynamics and is renowned for its reliability and quality. FACT!
4, The 200 was based on the concerto, but the later Blob style 200 had a concerto front structure linked to a Rover designed rear structure - when did you last see a Honda with twist beam rear suspension?
5 The MGF is not really the same car as the MG TF. The later car has different styling, revised interior, different suspension systems (coils in place of hydragas units) and the chassis is 30% stiffer. Of course there are large elements that are the same, but thats the case with all car manufacturers. If you are going to say that the F and TF are the same then you might just as well criticise Porsche for still selling a 40 year old 911! Its nonsense.
Andy
andymadmak said:
Once more with feeling.
1) The K series head gaskets issue was partly caused by BMW insisting that cheaper gaskets and plastic dowels were used in the engine. Once Rover reverted to their preferred gasket and dowel (metal) design the issue largely went away. Recurrent gasket failure in your friends F points to either the job not being done properly (most likely the system not being properly bled) or a damaged head.
2) By the time the last 45s were being built there was so little of the original Honda Civic chassis design left in it that Rover actually asked Honda to forgoe the license fees on the grounds that the car was no longer to their design
3, The ZT / 75 is a VERY fine car indeed. It has superb driving dynamics and is renowned for its reliability and quality. FACT!
4, The 200 was based on the concerto, but the later Blob style 200 had a concerto front structure linked to a Rover designed rear structure - when did you last see a Honda with twist beam rear suspension?
5 The MGF is not really the same car as the MG TF. The later car has different styling, revised interior, different suspension systems (coils in place of hydragas units) and the chassis is 30% stiffer. Of course there are large elements that are the same, but thats the case with all car manufacturers. If you are going to say that the F and TF are the same then you might just as well criticise Porsche for still selling a 40 year old 911! Its nonsense.
Andy
1) The K series head gaskets issue was partly caused by BMW insisting that cheaper gaskets and plastic dowels were used in the engine. Once Rover reverted to their preferred gasket and dowel (metal) design the issue largely went away. Recurrent gasket failure in your friends F points to either the job not being done properly (most likely the system not being properly bled) or a damaged head.
2) By the time the last 45s were being built there was so little of the original Honda Civic chassis design left in it that Rover actually asked Honda to forgoe the license fees on the grounds that the car was no longer to their design
3, The ZT / 75 is a VERY fine car indeed. It has superb driving dynamics and is renowned for its reliability and quality. FACT!
4, The 200 was based on the concerto, but the later Blob style 200 had a concerto front structure linked to a Rover designed rear structure - when did you last see a Honda with twist beam rear suspension?
5 The MGF is not really the same car as the MG TF. The later car has different styling, revised interior, different suspension systems (coils in place of hydragas units) and the chassis is 30% stiffer. Of course there are large elements that are the same, but thats the case with all car manufacturers. If you are going to say that the F and TF are the same then you might just as well criticise Porsche for still selling a 40 year old 911! Its nonsense.
Andy
Exactly!
KANEIT said:
odyssey2200 said:
Lets face it had it not been for the Triumph Acclaim. A Honda
Rover would have gone pear shaped years ago.
Rover would have gone pear shaped years ago.
No. That car was joint developed. Would you argue a Citroen C1 is a Toyota or a Toyota Aygo is a Peugeot? Don't think the Acclaim sold enough to make a difference. If it was that good and that important to Rover they would have badged it as a Rover, not a Triumph. Wonder how well Honda would have done in the UK/Europe without Rover? They got a lot out of the deal too.
Yeah it was a joint venture
Honda designed it Rover built it for the Eu market and stuck a Triumph badge on the front and back.
i think it is widely regarded as saving BLs bacon
the only advantage Honda got was the later benifit of the Ballade being built in the EU and therefore outside the JAMA agreement.
They funded their own engine plant and later their own factory.
They were asked to but Rover when BMW bought it but did not want to offend the British public and offered to buy 49% and when questioned My Kawamoto Honda's President at the time told us that they did not want Longbridge and asked "What could you do with it?"
Other that bulldoze it and start again nothing
Cheaper to start with greenfield and build exactly what you want
andymadmak said:
5 The MGF is not really the same car as the MG TF. The later car has different styling, revised interior, different suspension systems (coils in place of hydragas units) and the chassis is 30% stiffer. Of course there are large elements that are the same, but thats the case with all car manufacturers. If you are going to say that the F and TF are the same then you might just as well criticise Porsche for still selling a 40 year old 911! Its nonsense.
Andy
theirs is a 53 plate which I beleive is the later type with the later suspension.
And I do criticise Porsche fo still selling the soupped up beetle!
Obviously there were a lot of serious structural problems at MG Rover, but the FWD Rover 75 / MG ZT was a superb platform and when launched, I really believe it was as good as any front-wheel drive in its class. Yes there was a lot of BMW involvement, but that doesn't mean there was no Rover Group input, or that it was only good because Rover didn't get the chance to ruin it. There's no point speaking ill of the dead anyhow...
And as for the F/TF platform, a two-seater convertible will always sell in the sort of numbers being spoke about, providing it's cheap enough and engaging enough. The TF was a bit soft in sports car terms, but was quick enough, stylish enough and had a good enough image to sell well until the factory was shut. I hope it does OK.
Oh, and if I recall correctly, the 1990s R8 / Honda Concerto was a Rover rebadged as a Honda. The 800 and 600 were broadly Honda designs.
And as for the F/TF platform, a two-seater convertible will always sell in the sort of numbers being spoke about, providing it's cheap enough and engaging enough. The TF was a bit soft in sports car terms, but was quick enough, stylish enough and had a good enough image to sell well until the factory was shut. I hope it does OK.
Oh, and if I recall correctly, the 1990s R8 / Honda Concerto was a Rover rebadged as a Honda. The 800 and 600 were broadly Honda designs.
odyssey2200 said:
scotty_917 said:
odyssey2200 said:
Goochie said:
There is a TF Coupe floating around too but the design is owned by another company all together.
in its death throws Rover actually turned out some nice looking models ( or pictures of)
they even rebadged a SsangYong Rexton to try to convince the dealers they had a 4x4 on the way
I know cos I sold it to them!
Oh get real...Rover/MG cars were always ill conceived, poorly funded, badly engineered, shoddily produced, etc, etc. It ONLY went the way that it did because Joe Public didn't want what they had to offer, in sufficient numbers to make it's existance viable!
I agree but some of the pics/mock ups they produced while trying to deflect attention from the fact that they were in the shit, were possibly the best cars they have ever produced and would have been far more sucessful that the 15 year old Honda civic they kept churning out with a crap engine in it.
The fact that they had no chance of actually going any farther that a mock up or clay sculpture is a shame in a way but it was way too little much too late.
their rebadged and re bumpered Rexton was quite nice though!
Well we can blame the '15' year old Civic on Honda, BAe & BMW.
odyssey2200 said:
KANEIT said:
odyssey2200 said:
I agree but some of the pics/mock ups they produced while trying to deflect attention from the fact that they were in the shit, were possibly the best cars they have ever produced and would have been far more sucessful that the 15 year old Honda civic they kept churning out with a crap engine in it.
The fact that they had no chance of actually going any farther that a mock up or clay sculpture is a shame in a way but it was way too little much too late.
their rebadged and re bumpered Rexton was quite nice though!
I HAD 2 K-SERIES ENGINED CARS - NO ENGINE PROBLEMS EVER! ALSO 25, 75, ZR AND ZT WERE NOT 15 YEAR OLD HONDA CIVICS. EVEN THAT ZS, BASED ON AN OLD HONDA AND BUILT WHILE HONDA WERE STILL SELLING THEIR CAR BASED ON THE SAME DESIGN, IS A VERY GOOD DRIVERS CAR.
Rubbish
What Rover were peddling as the 45 was the 1994 honda civic, which the UK got years after the Jap market.
Honda were on their 2nd or 3rd incarnation of the civic since the 400/45 launch when Rover died!
The 45 was an earlie 1990s design and if launched again tomorrow would be at least 13 tears old.
Some of our friends have a MGF which has had its engine/ head done 3 times in 40K.
You may have been lucky but they were renouned for it!
Edited by odyssey2200 on Wednesday 31st January 17:25
Right situation. Rover Group (it is important that we remember its Rover Group under BAe) wanted to develop a new car. However, Honda had offered BAe their rather lack luster Honda Dolly to become the new Rover main car. Engineers were very dissapointed when this car was forced upon them as BAe didn't want to pay any development costs.
When Richard Woolley got his hands on the HHR (400MK2) he did a fantastic job of making it into a half decent looking car with the Saloon version.
As for a crap engine - the K-series was one probably the most superior engine in its class for its life. It was originally only ment to be a 1.4 at max (which it still holds the record for highest BHP for a NASP car).Its won more engineering awards than any other engine has recieved. It inspired the Honda V TEC system, it forced Ford into trying to make a decent engine & set new standards in its class. NOT a crap engine because if unlooked after it can have HGF due to the low intolerance to loss of coolant. The K-series is an engine that in this part of the world, is too clever for its own good.
bob1179 said:
Could you imagine this happening in France or Germany? Their governments would do everthing to protect their manufacturing interests.
Edited by bob1179 on Wednesday 31st January 12:28
Economic specialization perhaps? Could it be that those respective governments have a vested interest in ensuring the health of a major, very competitive domestic industry? It's harsh on the workers in British plants sure, but what is the point of making cars that nobody buys? It's akin to keeping a sick dog alive for the sake of being alive when deep down you know that you should put him down and out of his misery.
Ali.
Gassing Station | Rover | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff