Longbridge 'to make cars again'
- Thread starter Firestar_3x
- Start date
[TW]Fox said:
What about the fancy xenon (or whatever those blue ones are) ones?
And what about the seatbelt pretensions and airbags or other gismos?
Im not really attacking the focus, just the fact that cars are going in a very bad direction and are going to bankrupt a lot of people who unestimate just how much there is to go wrong.
So as for people originally saying that MGs are old and ****, Im just saying that they arent **** and having something old doesnt make it ****.
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
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
Do you think the same when you see Mitsubishi evo and then some grandad in a mitsubishi carisma?
Or a Focus RS and and 5 dr 1.6?
Why not it's new parts.[TW]Fox said:
An old Rover design isn't neccessarily out of date. K series was way ahead of its time winning countless design awards. Rover MEMS ecus was also way ahead its time, 1989 and full fuel and ignition management which most manufacturers tried to copy without success.
Pigeon said:
I actually really like the new MX-5:
Good looking car IMO, I don't get your 4x4 height point TBH
This however, just looks gay
Also in that pic it looks a lot more '4x4' than the MX-5.
Simon said:
That's a fair point and hard to argue with, but no, I don't in all honesty. Why? I don't know TBH.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 Mar 2004
- Posts
- 11,919
- Location
- SE England
Ah but that's something with race-winning potential and a legendary tuner status...whereas the MG is 'just' an uprated Rover. If it had 400BHP, was rear or 4 wheel drive, then people might take notice.
Muncher said:Sometimes I despair. Regardless what you think of the product, these are British people's jobs on the line
We are flogging a dead horse though! Whatever jobs that are produced, are unlikely to be around for more than a couple of years. Unless Rover sees some significant investment, it is never going to succeed.
I'll also add that the British taxpayer has been pumping cash into Rover, a dying brand, for years - we should be moving forward and realise that Britain isn't the manufacturing giant it used to be. The longbridge plant needs to be closed, and the workers re-trained. Sure it's not going to be easy in the short-term, but it's best for the long term.
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 Mar 2004
- Posts
- 11,919
- Location
- SE England
Someone should buy the Triumph brand off BMW and get back to that. At least that was a company worth saving....
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 17,608
- Location
- Shakespeare’s County
Lashout_UK said:
What like the SV
I've never paid a huge amount of attention to the K-Series engine, so bear with me here. I know it's a theoretically good design, it's very light, small, easy to get big power from. That's why it's so popular as a race/rally/kit car engine - it's regarded as quite a good tuner's engine.
But put it in a Rover 200 and it has a worrying tendancy to suffer head gasket failure. This is pretty much beyond debate, let's be honest. So why does it not seem to suffer anywhere near as badly when put into a third party vehicle like an Elise or Caterham? I'm assuming it must be something to do with the Rover cooling system rather than the engine design itself. Or does it still fail in these cars but it just isn't publicised so heavily?
Can any Roverheads fill me in? (agw_01, I've read your post but that doesn't explain why the engine seems to be more reliable when it's not mounted in a front engined Rover saloon)
But put it in a Rover 200 and it has a worrying tendancy to suffer head gasket failure. This is pretty much beyond debate, let's be honest. So why does it not seem to suffer anywhere near as badly when put into a third party vehicle like an Elise or Caterham? I'm assuming it must be something to do with the Rover cooling system rather than the engine design itself. Or does it still fail in these cars but it just isn't publicised so heavily?
Can any Roverheads fill me in? (agw_01, I've read your post but that doesn't explain why the engine seems to be more reliable when it's not mounted in a front engined Rover saloon)
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 Mar 2004
- Posts
- 11,919
- Location
- SE England
Yea, that was a flash in the pan though - 75 grand? Who were they kidding? Most of them fell apart of their own accord
Lopéz said:
It's normally the opposite. The Elise with the rad in front and engine in back had a lot of thermostat 'lag' which would cause a long of stress on the headgasket and liners due to heat cyling as the thermostat opens letting cold water from right at the front of the car into the back, a modification was made later to solve this issue. Owners of such cars tend to maintain them properly too with correct coolant, scheduled changes and no leaks to top up with plain water.
The 1.8s have a tendancy for liners to shift due to the overstroked engine, this can lift the head and cause HGF. The 1.4 is a strong engine and most Head gasket problems are due to poor maintenance/ water leaks etc.
The cooling system is tiny and any leaks soon cause overheating. The inlet manifold has a habit of leaking and blowing the HG, people assume the water coming from the head is from the headgasket most the time.