RE: City Rover
Wednesday 9th July 2003
City Rover
MG Rover re-enter the Metro sector with Indian thing
 |
This is Rover's new small car. Built by Tata of India it will allow Rover to once again compete in the small car sector that it deserted when the awful Metro was finally put out of its misery.
Four trim levels will be provided: Solo, Sprite, Select and Style. Sprite and Select will apparently emphasise the sporting and luxury elements of the motor.
It's priced at £6,500 to £8,500 and should appeal to the older generation thanks to its tall stance and easy access via five doors.
It's unlikely to appeal to younger generations who will no doubt prefer the more stylish 106, Saxo, Lupo, Ka etc.
It's a shame that Rover can't produce something more exciting but without huge investment they've had to make the best with what they've got and teaming up with Tata does give them the small car that they desperately need.
Discussion
sidevalve said:
How come they wait all this time after they stopped making the Metro, and then come out with a car that's even worse? This should finally seal their fate, and then the British taxpayer won't be saddled with them any more.
they are a private co now, the tax payer hasnt helped them for years
sidevalve said:
How come they wait all this time after they stopped making the Metro, and then come out with a car that's even worse? This should finally seal their fate, and then the British taxpayer won't be saddled with them any more.
You can blame BMW fairly and squarely.
They bought MGR for a song, got them to develope the new mini. Failed to invest in ANY new models (the Rover 75 is based on the 5 series chassis and R800 engines) for years, whilst at the same time running down the company and it's employees.
Oh, and they claimed some humungous tax credits off the UK and German Govts that VERY effectively took care of those nasty losses we all read about so publicly in the newspapers at the time.
They then sold LR to Ford for loadsa money (500million from memory), having first ripped off the HDC and 4WD technology/expertise for use on the X5.
Having got Rover to develop the new Mini at great cost (forget all this shite about marvelous German engineering, it was designed by and engineered by Rover) , they of course kept that when the flogged what was left off for a pound. They never expected it to survive. In fact when the new management went into the engineering offices they found nothing, and I mean nothing but empty filing cabinets and wiped computer hard drives.
50 years + of motoring heritage either wiped out or stolen or ripped off.
Fact : BMW NEVER had a plan for ROVER, they just wanted it's crown jewels and ended up getting them for free. It's a major scandal and is one of the reasons why I will NEVER buy a BMW ever again. Sadly, we all buy into the "aren't MG ROVER crap" mentality, and thats what BMW relies upon.
BMW killed the Metro cos it did so badly in crash tests, and then refused to let ROVER work on a new car despite their pleadings. Since the Metro was Rovers biggest seller by far, it was (I'm sure as far as BMW were concerned) the ultimate nail in Rovers coffin.
Bravo to them for finding a way to survive say I. The car is cheap so will appeal to many. So what if the stylings a bit off? You haven't driven it yet so how can you judge? It might be brilliant on the road!
Even if it isn't brilliant, if it saves Rover for long enough for them to reach better times with the new 25/45 cars (which by all accounts are truly great to drive) then that's got to be a good thing hasn't it?
Andy 400se
sidevalve said:
How come they wait all this time after they stopped making the Metro, and then come out with a car that's even worse? This should finally seal their fate, and then the British taxpayer won't be saddled with them any more.
Do you actually know anything about the history of the British car industry?? Yeah and thousands of people won't have to be saddled with jobs aswell - great result all round don't you think. Fool.
andymadmak said:
sidevalve said:
How come they wait all this time after they stopped making the Metro, and then come out with a car that's even worse? This should finally seal their fate, and then the British taxpayer won't be saddled with them any more.
You can blame BMW fairly and squarely.
<snip!>
Even if it isn't brilliant, if it saves Rover for long enough for them to reach better times with the new 25/45 cars (which by all accounts are truly great to drive) then that's got to be a good thing hasn't it?
Andy 400se
sidevalve, could you tell us whatever it is that has caused your passionate bias against any kind of Rover successes? You've dramatically slagged off Rover in two news articles today with little obvious justification. Are the rest of us missing some vital fact that means we're all naive and ill-informed, or can I continue to ignore your rants as the meaningless prejudice that they appear to be at the moment?
>> Edited by sublimatica on Wednesday 9th July 16:21
Well said andymadmak. The only positive (kinda) outcome is that BMW didn't actually do that well from the deal. Their hand was forced into leaving MGRover with some ongoing funds, the Mini hasn't been a great financial success (someone forgot about selling them at a profit, where have we heard that story before ?) and control of LR (the real Jewel in the crown) passed to Ford.
This looks a pretty desperate measure on Rover's behalf - sadly there's not much else they can do.
Most cars today are built on shared platforms - what's the problem?
Care to substantiate that? I seem to recall quite a few plans including a 45 replacement on a shortened 75 platform, a bigger Mini and a large sports car with the Austin Healey badge.
BMW's plans were badly conceived - they didn't appreciate the state Rover were in for some reason - but they certainly had some.
In what way? Rover pay the Indians to make the cars - both make a profit.
andymadmak said:
Failed to invest in ANY new models (the Rover 75 is based on the 5 series chassis and R800 engines)
Most cars today are built on shared platforms - what's the problem?
andymadmak said:
Fact : BMW NEVER had a plan for ROVER
Care to substantiate that? I seem to recall quite a few plans including a 45 replacement on a shortened 75 platform, a bigger Mini and a large sports car with the Austin Healey badge.
BMW's plans were badly conceived - they didn't appreciate the state Rover were in for some reason - but they certainly had some.
victormeldrew said:
its exploitative of the Indian sub-continent
In what way? Rover pay the Indians to make the cars - both make a profit.
sublimatica said:Well it's obvious, isn't it? Anyone who has ever owned a Metro hates them and hates Rover for making them.
sidevalve, could you tell us whatever it is that has caused your passionate bias against any kind of Rover successes? You've dramatically slagged off Rover in two news articles today with little obvious justification.
So, ergo, sidevalve is a closet Metro owner (or ex Metro owner, perhaps)
JonRB said:Of course! You're right. sidevalve must be a 17-year old schoolboy, forced through poverty to drive his mum's 1985 Metro and is therefore brimming with resentment.
Well it's obvious, isn't it? Anyone who has ever owned a Metro hates them and hates Rover for making them.
So, ergo, sidevalve is a closet Metro owner (or ex Metro owner, perhaps)
OK, sidevalve. If this is true, all is forgiven. If it's not then we await your explanation...
It's not going to be the greatest city car on the market. Rover know this, and they aren't even planning on selling as many as the Metro used to sell - only around 30k p.a. apparently. But it's not going to be the worst car on the market either, and if they could still sell 40,000 Metros a year in its last years of life, there should be a good market for this one. Most potential owners aren't going to know it's made in India, anyway - how many Polo owners know their car is built in Spain, not Germany?
Can't say I dislike Rovers. The ZT looks quite smart (It's based on the 3 series platform BTW 
). As for the Metro it was shockingly badly engineered but the K-series engine was an absolute stormer. I had a Metro and the 1.4GTi MPi gave 103bhp from 1.4 litres and would see off just about any of the hot hatches of the time such as Fiesta RS Turbo, Nova GSi etc...
Roop
). As for the Metro it was shockingly badly engineered but the K-series engine was an absolute stormer. I had a Metro and the 1.4GTi MPi gave 103bhp from 1.4 litres and would see off just about any of the hot hatches of the time such as Fiesta RS Turbo, Nova GSi etc... Roop
So sad that people slag off something they havent tried yet. To my mind it doesnt look any worse than a saxo, polo, and some of those hidious jap travelling suitcases. THEY ALL LOOK THE DAMN SAME ANYWAY!
People dont seem to car about jobs, our country , our industry, i guess idiots like sidevalve think a saxo with more plastic add-ons than a tupperware convention is cool!, There are people who want a cheap no frills transport to Tesco's and this will be no worse but probabley cheaper to buy and run than most of them.
People dont seem to car about jobs, our country , our industry, i guess idiots like sidevalve think a saxo with more plastic add-ons than a tupperware convention is cool!, There are people who want a cheap no frills transport to Tesco's and this will be no worse but probabley cheaper to buy and run than most of them.
thanuk said:
andymadmak said:
Fact : BMW NEVER had a plan for ROVER
Care to substantiate that? I seem to recall quite a few plans including a 45 replacement on a shortened 75 platform, a bigger Mini and a large sports car with the Austin Healey badge.
BMW's plans were badly conceived - they didn't appreciate the state Rover were in for some reason - but they certainly had some.
It was window dressing. Little or no engineering work was ever done on any of this stuff. They owned Rover for years and from day one Rover said it needed new small and medium cars- it wasn't rocket science to work that one out!
Any body can produce a sexy draweing and a press release saying "we're looking at this or that" but to actually build cars you need to commit engineering resources. BMW simply didn't do that at all.
The 45 replacement based on a shortened 75 platform is actually ROVERS plan, formulated after BMW left.
Trouble is, the 75 platform is expensive to make because it was designed for a much larger car with a higher gross price point. You wouldn't really want to start with this as a plan for a new small (price sensitive) car if you had a choice now would you?
The upside though is that the new car will likely as not drive very well indeed since it will be rather over engineered in the chassis department
I was told by a senior Rover engineer that the 75 is 5 series based, not 3 series as someone else has posted, and again that was a deliberate ploy to keep costs high and thus profits low. It was also the case that the 5 chassis was the older (although still superb)technology and thus BMW were not so sensitive to giving it away. He may have been wrong, but when you view the story as a whole in context with what happened it makes sense.
The Mini did appear, but BMW kept that. They also kept the rights to names like TRIUMPH (Not sure about Riley and Austin Healey) so that ROVER could never use them again.
I stress again that BMW did not lose a fortune with Rover. Yes, they had to give a dowry, but they did a deal with the UK and German Govts on a tax break that basically gave them most of it back, plus the "losses" that were incurred. I doubt that overall BMW were more than 250million down, but for that 250million they got the new Mini, the modern Canley production plant and lots of technology and valuable motoring names.
They did VERY well out of the deal IMHO.
Andy 400se
I don't think that PH are the target market somehow but a cheap and cheerful runabout has a place in the market so best of luck Rover.
PS I'm looking after an elderly Metro 1.3 for some months, a bit like house sitting, I am a big bloke but I can fit in, it goes and stops very well and is one of the few 15 year old cars on the road without any rust. Its worth very little but provides quite a lot. Its not my sort of car but I understand why many people love them. A lot of the knocking of Metros, and other cars arises from ignorance and imaturity, not a lot we can do about that.
PS I'm looking after an elderly Metro 1.3 for some months, a bit like house sitting, I am a big bloke but I can fit in, it goes and stops very well and is one of the few 15 year old cars on the road without any rust. Its worth very little but provides quite a lot. Its not my sort of car but I understand why many people love them. A lot of the knocking of Metros, and other cars arises from ignorance and imaturity, not a lot we can do about that.
Gassing Station | Motoring News | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff