RE: More Power for Streetwise
Friday 16th January 2004
More Power for Streetwise
Urban Look 25 gets bigger motors
 |
Rover's plastic clad Streetwise range is expanding with the introduction of two, more powerful, engine derivatives – a 1.6-litre manual and a 1.8-litre engine combined with a continuously variable transmission (CVT).
The ‘Urban On-Roader’ reminiscent of a Rover 25 in nappies now has benefits from 105bhp from the 1.6 or 115bhp from the larger 1.8. Both models are specified in five-door bodystyle, with the choice of ‘S’ and ‘SE’ trim levels.
Rod Ramsay, Sales Operations Director, MG Rover Group, said optimistically: "Streetwise has established a new market niche that provides our customers with real product benefits. Initial response to Streetwise has been most encouraging and the larger engine range line-up will extend the product’s appeal further ."
Discussion
Why do they bother? Why?????
I work for an MG Rover dealer and have the misfortune to have to drive one of these every day. The 'urban on-roader' they call it. More like the 'urban con-roader'. The seats are very comfortable but that is it's only good point.
You'd think that with the jacked up suspension it would be a settled, comfy ride? Umm..no. Not even close. In fact it's just as crashy as the normal 25. The steering is vague, and the chassis can't cope with the big alloys fitted to some models. Unless your on a perfectly even surface they pull the wheel all over the place. Our demonstrator hadn't even done 250 miles before it developed a creak. And as for the looks......
It doesn't matter what engine they put in it, it's a terrible car. MG Rover needs to get it's head out of it's ass and develop some brand new models, intead of just facelifting the current worn out models again and again. And don't get me started on the City Rover.....
>>> Edited by flooritforever on Friday 16th January 08:59
I work for an MG Rover dealer and have the misfortune to have to drive one of these every day. The 'urban on-roader' they call it. More like the 'urban con-roader'. The seats are very comfortable but that is it's only good point.
You'd think that with the jacked up suspension it would be a settled, comfy ride? Umm..no. Not even close. In fact it's just as crashy as the normal 25. The steering is vague, and the chassis can't cope with the big alloys fitted to some models. Unless your on a perfectly even surface they pull the wheel all over the place. Our demonstrator hadn't even done 250 miles before it developed a creak. And as for the looks......
It doesn't matter what engine they put in it, it's a terrible car. MG Rover needs to get it's head out of it's ass and develop some brand new models, intead of just facelifting the current worn out models again and again. And don't get me started on the City Rover.....
>>> Edited by flooritforever on Friday 16th January 08:59
cerbman said:
Time you got another job,it's clear you hate the company, make way for some who is loyal.
Thats the trouble. Perversly, I don't hate the company. The Rover 75 and MG ZT are superb vehicles. The MG ZS is good to. But the rest of the range is very dated and needs replacing. They need to stop putting money into facelifts and develop a new fleet. And I don't mean borrowing more indian tat. They could do well, if they realise that they need to do what they did with the 75. Design a brand new car!
Besides, I need to gain more experience in this line of work before I move on. After that, I'll probably be giving the local Merc garage a call
I don't see how these are any more offensive than "real" off roaders with lumpy looks and suspension that are only ever used in an Urban setting! The Plebs want a car that "looks" like this, Rover should complete the lie by saying its also 4wd and capable of bog-hopping because no-one will ever catch them out! I have seen a couple about and all I think is that if it snatches a few sales away from other soft roaders for a UK company then thats all good news!
flooritforever said:
They need to stop putting money into facelifts and develop a new fleet.
Obviously that is what they'd like to do but I'm going to stick my neck out here and say they're probably a little short of cash at the moment
. The 'facelifts' are clearly a short term solution but they have definitely breathed new life into the old models(how many ZRs and ZS' do you see about?........lots!) Although saying that I don’t hold out much hope for them when even their employees are slagging them off. t1grm said:
Have they actually sold any of these hideous things yet?
Yep, seen quite a few around my way.
>> Edited by ScoobyManchester on Friday 16th January 10:46
t1grm said:
Have they actually sold any of these hideous things yet?
Official figures actually show that they have been selling very well. Personally, I don't like it, but if it sells and helps make MGRover some money to get back on it feet, then they are doing the right thing.
Those who moan that they should 'update their fleet' and 'get new models' obviously don't realise that new designs are not brought in a sling by a stork, but actually require money and time to develop.
MGRover do have a replacement comming for the 45/ZS. It has taken longer than anticipated due to the consultants that were working on it going bust, the chinese deal falling through and difficult market conditions. But they are making reasonable effort - they've made money off selling their land, possibly got a new big foreign deal set up, selling the city rover which cost almost nothing to develop (so if it does not sell in big volume, there is less to write off) and selling the 'nappy-25'. All these things will make it money to allow it to bring out these new cars we all crave.
< / pro-rover rant >
Hey they're only cashing in on a trend. If they get away with it without actually having to design a 4x4 from scratch then great... it's not like the prospective purchaser is actually likely to take a 'proper' 4x4 off the road any more than they are likely to off-road in one of these dodgy Rovers.
Sad to see Rover MG reduced to this sort of car. I worked for Rover from 1990 to 1996 after the BMW takeover and although the Duestchmarks/Euros kept getting poured into the group nothing ever came out.
The troubling thing is, that apart from the 75/ZT they are still selling the same cars.
Have to agree that slagging off the products that you presumably sell is not very professional. Hopefully, you will never be interviewed to work at my dealership.
>> Edited by Mark M on Tuesday 20th January 18:10
The troubling thing is, that apart from the 75/ZT they are still selling the same cars.
Have to agree that slagging off the products that you presumably sell is not very professional. Hopefully, you will never be interviewed to work at my dealership.
>> Edited by Mark M on Tuesday 20th January 18:10
Mark M said:
Have to agree that slagging off the products that you presumably sell is not very professional. Hopefully, you will never be interviewed to work at my dealership.
No, I'm not a salesman. The rover cars aren't all bad, they're just old and in need of replacement. But I just think Rover made a big mistake with the 'Streetwise'. And the City rover is competant for what it's supposed to do, but is clearly VERY cheap and cheerful, and is overpriced for what you actually get.
All this doesn't stop me doing my job properly. It's not up to me if other people want to buy cars that I personally would not touch with a very long bargepole.
squirrelz said:
count duckula said:
They should do a welcome pack with the 1.8 where you get 2 spare head gaskets and a voucher for a free head re-build when it warps.
Malc
Mmmm and perhaps BMW M3s should come with a spare engine too (pass me that rake, theres some old coals here).
If I had an M3 had that just cost me £812 for head work because the Head gasket had failed for the second time in 8 months, I would be asking for a new engine voucher as a spare as well.
Malc
>> Edited by count duckula on Wednesday 21st January 10:51
Gassing Station | Motoring News | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff