kreeeee said:Got to love how defensive people get about their purchases![]()
jamoor said:never got involved in a rover crap debate but,
Rover is crap! why do you think BMW got rid of them?
Probably because after being unable to modernise the processes within Rover they couldn't see a future. So they extracted the Mini brand, which is generating them a very tidy amount of revenue today.jamoor said:never got involved in a rover crap debate but,
Rover is crap! why do you think BMW got rid of them?
Firestar_3x said:The T Series is a great engine, used in kit cars etc, it can give loads of power and be quite reliable even under high stress.
Its the rover way of doing things i don't like and the entire company structure.
Dr Who said:Yup K-Series was more popular in caterhams, westies and the like
![]()
PMKeates said:Probably because after being unable to modernise the processes within Rover they couldn't see a future. So they extracted the Mini brand, which is generating them a very tidy amount of revenue today.
An interesting article if you're genuinely interested: http://www.austin-rover.co.uk/index.htm?whydbbrf.htm
Their opinion was that in terms of quality, Rover were as good as, if not in some cases better than, BMW. Rover appeared to fit perfectly with BMW
They (BMW) invested selectively, only in the areas that they could sell on at a profit once they had acquired capability in those areas themselves. The crippled Rover that was left was 'set free' as a manufacturer with no development facilities or on-going development to use, with a largely outdated model range and, initially at least, dependent on BMW for the purchase of components (engines and panels) without which they could not build any cars. Leaving BMW with the modern facilities, the products in the pipe-line that it had wanted all along (ie: those which complemented the BMWs rather than competed with them