Longbridge 'to make cars again'
- Thread starter Firestar_3x
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Dec 2004
- Posts
- 11,364
- Location
- Knowle, Solihull, UK
Rover had an image problem as well as dreadful management
The Rover 75 is a good car - my Dad had a 2001 V6. He liked it so much he replaced it with a 2004 CDTi. The Rover 75 also won a lot of awards, including the What Car best Compact Executive yet it still didn't sell in big numbers. Having good cars is only one thing - they need to improve their image. IMHO the Rover 75 is better than the Mondeo, yes they were trying to push it as a 3-series alternative but it could be bought for Mondeo money (/dons flaming suit...!)
The post-facelift MG cars also look better IMHO and the interior is a lot better. They are a lot better than the 200/400 they're based on, but the fact that they're based on these models does hurt them (the new shape 200/400 was released in 1996)
Developing new cars costs billions of pounds which Rover didn't have. It was a catch 22 situation really - no one bought their cars as they were based on old designs so they didn't have enough money to develop new models
The Rover 75 is a good car - my Dad had a 2001 V6. He liked it so much he replaced it with a 2004 CDTi. The Rover 75 also won a lot of awards, including the What Car best Compact Executive yet it still didn't sell in big numbers. Having good cars is only one thing - they need to improve their image. IMHO the Rover 75 is better than the Mondeo, yes they were trying to push it as a 3-series alternative but it could be bought for Mondeo money (/dons flaming suit...!)
The post-facelift MG cars also look better IMHO and the interior is a lot better. They are a lot better than the 200/400 they're based on, but the fact that they're based on these models does hurt them (the new shape 200/400 was released in 1996)
Developing new cars costs billions of pounds which Rover didn't have. It was a catch 22 situation really - no one bought their cars as they were based on old designs so they didn't have enough money to develop new models
Hmmmmm, the choice of either two metro front sub frames welded together and branded an MG or a Japanese car that paid attention during british roadster history lessons.
Tough choice
EDIT - and as for the X power jobbie - even the Italians realised it was a bit pants and so they flogged it to the brits!
Tough choice
EDIT - and as for the X power jobbie - even the Italians realised it was a bit pants and so they flogged it to the brits!
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
- Joined
- 11 Mar 2005
- Posts
- 32,222
- Location
- Leafy Cheshire
djbenjo said:
TBH its very mixed views, fact is they need to develop a new car at some point, the chinese know this its just a question of when and if the company can last till a new car is sorted.
[TW]Fox said:What you could do is enlighten them as to the 'full facts' - it tends to go down in a debate better than just laughing
Well, the number of times I've mentioned the real reason why K-series head gaskets go and no one seems to take notice and continue to slate the engine.
Simon said:
I'm sorry, but when I look at that I just see a pimped version of my Father-in-law's 1998 Rover 400. It might not be the same underneath, and the interior might be a lot better (you can see some origins though), but I just can't get past the mid-90's Rover 400 thing
agw_01 said:Well, the number of times I've mentioned the real reason why K-series head gaskets go and no one seems to take notice and continue to slate the engine.
No-one wants to hear excuses agw. HGF is a bad thing, it doesnt matter whether it's because engine fairies fart in the expansion tank - it remains a bad thing.
DreXeL said:I'm sorry, but when I look at that I just see a pimped version of my Father-in-law's 1998 Rover 400. It might not be the same underneath, and the interior might be a lot better (you can see some origins though), but I just can't get past the mid-90's Rover 400 thing
Cool cars I tell ya. Go like stink and handle like they're on rails.
- Joined
- 11 Mar 2005
- Posts
- 32,222
- Location
- Leafy Cheshire
Muncher said:Sometimes I despair. Regardless what you think of the product, these are British people's jobs on the line
Along those lines they need to bring fresh people in, non of this union tanted 50 year old BS, that was half the original problem.
merlin said:Cool cars I tell ya. Go like stink and handle like they're on rails.
Don't get me wrong, I've heared lots of good things about them, and it's not that I don't like the looks, I'll admit they are a good looking car. But I just can't get the image of my Father-in-law's Rover 400 out of my head whenever I look at one.....
When anyone mentions Rover and HGF they somehow at that same instant totally forget that any other cars have ever had HGF.
This announcement is great news for the British manufacturing industry, whether people like their cars or not. People do and will buy them.
This announcement is great news for the British manufacturing industry, whether people like their cars or not. People do and will buy them.
Things to rerember with the TF:
- Metros were a good car so they had a good base to start on
- Mid Mounted K series configuration was raved about in the Elise!
- The TF is not simply a restyled F, the shell was redesigned and manufactured in one piece not two welded together which gave it more strength, the suspension was redesigned not to use the bouncy gas which really helped the handleing/responsivness.
- Why would they completly change the F concept when it already sold very well for a niche car (better than MX-5 at times)
- look at the stats vs an MX-5, both top models have around 157bhp but the MG is half a second faster to 60 mph
- more useful boot in the MG due to it's shape!
- looks is a matter of opinion but where as the old mx-5 looked ace, the new on is like a 4x4 height and the styling leaves a lot to be desired (the lights in particular are awful) the MG is slick but looks a bit fat for it's size imo.
Rover are right to bring this car back as it is a brand leader and did sell enough to be profitable.
I maybe should have brought an MG after all back in November!
- Metros were a good car so they had a good base to start on
- Mid Mounted K series configuration was raved about in the Elise!
- The TF is not simply a restyled F, the shell was redesigned and manufactured in one piece not two welded together which gave it more strength, the suspension was redesigned not to use the bouncy gas which really helped the handleing/responsivness.
- Why would they completly change the F concept when it already sold very well for a niche car (better than MX-5 at times)
- look at the stats vs an MX-5, both top models have around 157bhp but the MG is half a second faster to 60 mph
- more useful boot in the MG due to it's shape!
- looks is a matter of opinion but where as the old mx-5 looked ace, the new on is like a 4x4 height and the styling leaves a lot to be desired (the lights in particular are awful) the MG is slick but looks a bit fat for it's size imo.
Rover are right to bring this car back as it is a brand leader and did sell enough to be profitable.
I maybe should have brought an MG after all back in November!
Pigeon said:- Metros were a good car so they had a good base to start on
This bits a joke, yes?
Metro was so awful they kept running its predecesser, the Mini, alongside it becuase they knew the Metro wasn't good enough to be a proper replacement.