RE: Longbridge MG TF Plans Shattered
Discussion
bencollins said:
Even though we are not likely to agree anytime soon, we are both equally peeved not to have a home owned car industry, for different reasons.
I see it as some German guy with English relatives having a soft spot for the company, selling the purchase to the BMW board using mini LR etc as bait, then buying it. A couple years later getting pressure of the board to financially win from the situation. I.E. "whats happening and make it a business".
The best he could manage was sell off LR and squeeze out a revised Mini, nothing else had any business value and hence the "brand dead" announcement. IMO they didnt have any other business case option. As the guy said above, that is business and it is tough.
Some of the rose tinted analysis of our "great motoring heritage" is painful, the 16v Dolomite mentioned should have been fantastic except it was never properly cooled and the heads warped so it didnt actually work long term, i.e. was half arsed. Pitiful.
My family only ever bought British but rarely got rewarded by great ownership, watching my Mum call in for work to say she would be late again, because the AA are coming, it had rained and the points had got wet on her 4 year old bubbling car, was pitiful. British cars really should cope with rain.
Sales slid and never climbed for 30 years, so that experience must have been replicated Europe wide. True our (Hondaesque) R600 was 100% reliable but the buying mindset in Europe was already cast. We have no one else to blame but ourselves.
She has a new BMW Mini, with proper brakes, no rust, low depreciation, pride of ownership, crashworthy i.e. is a great car to own.
Im sceptical if that project had been British managed it would have been another done-on-the-cheap fiasco. Better one good global product focussed 200k++PA Mini factory than a raft of half arsed projects at miserable UK only selling "blacksmith" volume. BL/AR/RG was run like a chaotic plate spinning act on the Generation game.
If BMW did buy it to asset strip or knock out a potential segment competitor, they are perfectly entitled to do that because there wasnt much of a queue for the £800M (pittance) they paid for it.
BMW shot a financially-mangy old horse.
IMO the criticism of BMW and general unwillingness to accept that the MGR death was inevitable illustrated herein from some folks (hence the polarised thread comments), is symptomatic of the financial–ignorance malaise and begging bowl mentality that British managed vehicle engineering has terminally suffered and why it would have never been able to stand on its own feet with such an endemic management culture.
Good post entirely correct and seen in black and white probably applies to lots of the "family silver" sold off of late ,not just in the car trade,being bitter to the purchaser is what we do as a nation,but they are not ripping anyone one off, they didnt have to take their offer!I see it as some German guy with English relatives having a soft spot for the company, selling the purchase to the BMW board using mini LR etc as bait, then buying it. A couple years later getting pressure of the board to financially win from the situation. I.E. "whats happening and make it a business".
The best he could manage was sell off LR and squeeze out a revised Mini, nothing else had any business value and hence the "brand dead" announcement. IMO they didnt have any other business case option. As the guy said above, that is business and it is tough.
Some of the rose tinted analysis of our "great motoring heritage" is painful, the 16v Dolomite mentioned should have been fantastic except it was never properly cooled and the heads warped so it didnt actually work long term, i.e. was half arsed. Pitiful.
My family only ever bought British but rarely got rewarded by great ownership, watching my Mum call in for work to say she would be late again, because the AA are coming, it had rained and the points had got wet on her 4 year old bubbling car, was pitiful. British cars really should cope with rain.
Sales slid and never climbed for 30 years, so that experience must have been replicated Europe wide. True our (Hondaesque) R600 was 100% reliable but the buying mindset in Europe was already cast. We have no one else to blame but ourselves.She has a new BMW Mini, with proper brakes, no rust, low depreciation, pride of ownership, crashworthy i.e. is a great car to own.
Im sceptical if that project had been British managed it would have been another done-on-the-cheap fiasco. Better one good global product focussed 200k++PA Mini factory than a raft of half arsed projects at miserable UK only selling "blacksmith" volume. BL/AR/RG was run like a chaotic plate spinning act on the Generation game.If BMW did buy it to asset strip or knock out a potential segment competitor, they are perfectly entitled to do that because there wasnt much of a queue for the £800M (pittance) they paid for it.
BMW shot a financially-mangy old horse.
IMO the criticism of BMW and general unwillingness to accept that the MGR death was inevitable illustrated herein from some folks (hence the polarised thread comments), is symptomatic of the financial–ignorance malaise and begging bowl mentality that British managed vehicle engineering has terminally suffered and why it would have never been able to stand on its own feet with such an endemic management culture.
As for selling the remmanants off after extracting all the goodness so to speak ,buisiness is buisiness again,its no different the world over but is always a bit emotive when talking about British Car manufacturers,for what its worth I dont think we would've had the new Mini/Land Rover, done any other way all only IMO.
It is still hummiliating when we are shown how to do it by other countries! Time and time again.
Edited by gary11 on Monday 21st April 15:03
gary11 said:
I dont think we would've had the new Mini/Land Rover, done any other way all only IMO.
It is still hummiliating when we are shown how to do it by other countries! Time and time again.
No we could have had an intelligent city car design and true successor to the original mini idea, based on the Spiritual concept. Not another tacky retro design.It is still hummiliating when we are shown how to do it by other countries! Time and time again.
bencollins said:
She has a new BMW Mini, with proper brakes, no rust, low depreciation, pride of ownership, crashworthy i.e. is a great car to own. Im sceptical if that project had been British managed it would have been another done-on-the-cheap fiasco. Better one good global product focussed 200k++PA Mini factory than a raft of half arsed projects at miserable UK only selling "blacksmith" volume. BL/AR/RG was run like a chaotic plate spinning act on the Generation game.
If BMW did buy it to asset strip or knock out a potential segment competitor, they are perfectly entitled to do that because there wasnt much of a queue for the £800M (pittance) they paid for it.
BMW shot a financially-mangy old horse.
IMO the criticism of BMW and general unwillingness to accept that the MGR death was inevitable illustrated herein from some folks (hence the polarised thread comments), is symptomatic of the financial–ignorance malaise and begging bowl mentality that British managed vehicle engineering has terminally suffered and why it would have never been able to stand on its own feet with such an endemic management culture.
Well, how many times can you miss the contributions in here?If BMW did buy it to asset strip or knock out a potential segment competitor, they are perfectly entitled to do that because there wasnt much of a queue for the £800M (pittance) they paid for it.
BMW shot a financially-mangy old horse.
IMO the criticism of BMW and general unwillingness to accept that the MGR death was inevitable illustrated herein from some folks (hence the polarised thread comments), is symptomatic of the financial–ignorance malaise and begging bowl mentality that British managed vehicle engineering has terminally suffered and why it would have never been able to stand on its own feet with such an endemic management culture.
The MINI was saved from design disaster by Rover after BMW designers made an total and utter mess of it. Such a mess that the 'K' series engine didn't fit and even in MINI Mk2, a smaller capacity NG will not fit as it's a 'jointly' developed PSA/BMW engine. This happened after BMW canned Rover's 'Spirtual' design which was certainly as revolutionary as the original Mini and looking at the engineers that designed it, it certainly had the Mini credentials.
Once MINI was put under Rover control, it was certainly British managed as the argument went to BMW board level and was settled to get Rover to complete MINI and get it out into production.
As for the plant, the production process and people that make MINI they are ex-Rover all over, it's made at Cowley using a manufacturing process designed by Honda/Rover using the Rover plant that was originally put into Longbridge.
The only thing BMW really did was slap their badge on it, make an utter mess of the design and take the profit.
And their contempt knows no bounds, the home of the MINI doesn't get the Clubman doors to open onto the pavement.
As for "mangy old horse" Honda certainly didn't think so at the time of the BMW takeover as it was prepared to take its stake to 70% as long as BAe/Government kept 30%. Honda were also treated lamentably by the whole deal, BMW were less than forthcoming over their plans and Honda felt totally shafted by it.
Now MGR is no more many of the UK's design studios and manufacturers didn't think so as once MG Rover folded the design and engineering staff were snapped up as British car design and conceptualisation is sought the world over. Only the production line staff suffered.
I agree with much your post funnily enough.
Mini was a bit naff-retro, the brazilian chrysler engine seemed an odd move and quite thirsty, and UK auto design can be great. The Sprints 127HP in 1973 from 1.8 litres was nothing short of brilliant. Problem was and always was, it was never executed into successful mass production.
The Mini really is the spiritual continuance of BL/AR/RG, yet the main reason it sells is the BMW badge/dealers.
However I reserve the right to take certain contributions with salt pinches and dont treat them as gospel even if they are closer to information sources than my external viewpoint. Though I would not blame anyone for being bitter.
The clubman door thingy is interesting, but illustrates the kind of financially minded robust decision making needed to make profits. The UK/Jap/Aus predicted sales lost must not have added up to enough pay for the mirrored door = no mirrored door.
The car is not focussed according to the UK but world market.
Mini was a bit naff-retro, the brazilian chrysler engine seemed an odd move and quite thirsty, and UK auto design can be great. The Sprints 127HP in 1973 from 1.8 litres was nothing short of brilliant. Problem was and always was, it was never executed into successful mass production.
The Mini really is the spiritual continuance of BL/AR/RG, yet the main reason it sells is the BMW badge/dealers.
However I reserve the right to take certain contributions with salt pinches and dont treat them as gospel even if they are closer to information sources than my external viewpoint. Though I would not blame anyone for being bitter.
The clubman door thingy is interesting, but illustrates the kind of financially minded robust decision making needed to make profits. The UK/Jap/Aus predicted sales lost must not have added up to enough pay for the mirrored door = no mirrored door.
The car is not focussed according to the UK but world market.
Edited by bencollins on Monday 21st April 19:31
niva441 said:
gary11 said:
I dont think we would've had the new Mini/Land Rover, done any other way all only IMO.
It is still hummiliating when we are shown how to do it by other countries! Time and time again.
No we could have had an intelligent city car design and true successor to the original mini idea, based on the Spiritual concept. Not another tacky retro design.It is still hummiliating when we are shown how to do it by other countries! Time and time again.
May be shallow may be not but thats why its a success,the next one to do this will be the fiat 500!.
niva441 said:
gary11 said:
I dont think we would've had the new Mini/Land Rover, done any other way all only IMO.
It is still hummiliating when we are shown how to do it by other countries! Time and time again.
No we could have had an intelligent city car design and true successor to the original mini idea, based on the Spiritual concept. Not another tacky retro design.It is still hummiliating when we are shown how to do it by other countries! Time and time again.
Edited by Bodo on Monday 21st April 21:49
gary11 said:
May be shallow may be not but thats why its a success,the next one to do this will be the fiat 500!.
What irks me about the whole Rover situation is that companies such as Fiat, Citroen, Renault, Peugeot have managed to survive whilst making cars easily as crappy as BL / Rover during the 80's and beyond, how did they do it ?Ben
BigBen said:
gary11 said:
May be shallow may be not but thats why its a success,the next one to do this will be the fiat 500!.
What irks me about the whole Rover situation is that companies such as Fiat, Citroen, Renault, Peugeot have managed to survive whilst making cars easily as crappy as BL / Rover during the 80's and beyond, how did they do it ?Ben
Ever compared a halewood build escort with a german one? or looked at the quality/cost per unit.
By the way I was involved the paint quality evaluation at dealer level for Fords quite honestly the Irish sierras,liverpudlian escorts,and the Dagenham rubbish all had reams of refinishing poor paint ect.to do but the german/Belgian/spanish cars were far superior very rare to find any paint film issues,or other problems.
BigBen said:
gary11 said:
May be shallow may be not but thats why its a success,the next one to do this will be the fiat 500!.
What irks me about the whole Rover situation is that companies such as Fiat, Citroen, Renault, Peugeot have managed to survive whilst making cars easily as crappy as BL / Rover during the 80's and beyond, how did they do it ?Ben
The French patriotism always seems to favour domestic products but even that is not what is once was.
gary11 said:
BigBen said:
gary11 said:
May be shallow may be not but thats why its a success,the next one to do this will be the fiat 500!.
What irks me about the whole Rover situation is that companies such as Fiat, Citroen, Renault, Peugeot have managed to survive whilst making cars easily as crappy as BL / Rover during the 80's and beyond, how did they do it ?Ben
Ben
p.s. Escorts a bit before my automotive time
BigBen said:
What irks me about the whole Rover situation is that companies such as Fiat, Citroen, Renault, Peugeot have managed to survive whilst making cars easily as crappy as BL / Rover during the 80's and beyond, how did they do it ?
Ben
Does make you wonder. How much was paid out on warrantee repairs over the years, and if half of that had been kept then what? The other thing is while PSA were building car platforms, AR got to share costs with Honda. The 90's AR hondas were pretty good overall IMO.Ben
Edited by bencollins on Tuesday 22 April 06:59
BigBen said:
gary11 said:
May be shallow may be not but thats why its a success,the next one to do this will be the fiat 500!.
What irks me about the whole Rover situation is that companies such as Fiat, Citroen, Renault, Peugeot have managed to survive whilst making cars easily as crappy as BL / Rover during the 80's and beyond, how did they do it ?tinman0 said:
BigBen said:
gary11 said:
May be shallow may be not but thats why its a success,the next one to do this will be the fiat 500!.
What irks me about the whole Rover situation is that companies such as Fiat, Citroen, Renault, Peugeot have managed to survive whilst making cars easily as crappy as BL / Rover during the 80's and beyond, how did they do it ?Edited by Engineer1 on Tuesday 22 April 13:49
Engineer1 said:
tinman0 said:
BigBen said:
gary11 said:
May be shallow may be not but thats why its a success,the next one to do this will be the fiat 500!.
What irks me about the whole Rover situation is that companies such as Fiat, Citroen, Renault, Peugeot have managed to survive whilst making cars easily as crappy as BL / Rover during the 80's and beyond, how did they do it ?Which isn't a bad thing because yo ucan now spot bad Italian drivers from a mile off. They drive Audis.
gary11 said:
niva441 said:
gary11 said:
I dont think we would've had the new Mini/Land Rover, done any other way all only IMO.
It is still hummiliating when we are shown how to do it by other countries! Time and time again.
No we could have had an intelligent city car design and true successor to the original mini idea, based on the Spiritual concept. Not another tacky retro design.It is still hummiliating when we are shown how to do it by other countries! Time and time again.
May be shallow may be not but thats why its a success,the next one to do this will be the fiat 500!.
I'm sure the Rover engineers who engineered and now produce it (albeit as BMW) are pleased that the results of their labours are perceived as a quality product.
I don't think it's sales are wholly due to BMW heritage, the myth of BMW quality has will be a factor for some, but the MINI brand is probably more of a draw, hence why BMW when to such lengths to retain it.
niva441 said:
I don't think it's sales are wholly due to BMW heritage, the myth of BMW quality has will be a factor for some, but the MINI brand is probably more of a draw, hence why BMW when to such lengths to retain it.
And why the new Mini trades on an image and heritage it has no right to whatsoever, and people are stupid enough to buy into it. Union Jack rooves for f
k's sake. fk off.Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff