MGJohn

NACRO ... they are simply YOUR opinions and that's all they are!

For someone who professes to have scant regard for such surveys, you're soon able produce reams of such stuff.

The fact remains that the Rover 75 was the ONLY car to Top Score in Two sections!! No other car did that. Repeat NONE!

Must not go without responding in kind... Hate repeating it but then why not! You're still and no doubt will always be an immature anti-Brit young fart!!!! The only thing I'm in complete agreement with you on is your choice of country to live. I do hope you'll permanently reside there or in fact anywhere bar the country that you by your own admission, have little respect for.

MGJohn

Flat 4x4

>>I wondered if the engine location make this kind of fire more likely if it turns over ? <<

Luck, both good or bad plays a large part here. With any modern car with fuel lines under high pressure, it only needs a little release of fuel onto a hot part of the car (ANY CAR) and you have serious fire risk problems despite all the various safety gizmos most modern cars are fitted with.

Flat 4x4

I haven't seen any shots of the car in question, but it does make you think about the strength of roof pillars on roadsters and cabrios, which could affect how you get out if it flips.

I remember seeing a story hit the press about the A4 Cabrio when Princess Diana had one (ironically) and the pillars were horizontal with the top of the doors when it was flip-tested.

NACRO

lol@MG John and mini boy- you two should consider meeting up.

Reel em in and keep em dangling.

NACRO

grandad said quote: "For someone who professes to have scant regard for such surveys, you're soon able produce reams of such stuff.

his gimp also said: "LOL Narco you REALLY do need to get out more, get a life FFS"

2 points the survey results were cut and pasted from the top gear site in less than 60 seconds and although I don't hold that much store by them some people obviously do otherwise they wouldn't bother quoting them to support their argument. Strange you don't have any comments about the poor positions acheived by the bulk of MGR's products. Then again I suppose you like to pick and choose the parts of the "truth" that support your contentions. I notice you ignore my repeated comments that the 75 is the only semi-decent vehicle they produce.

The facts are plain to see , for the most part MGR produce outdated cars that perform badly in surveys and out in the real world. You can't win this argument because MGR have already lost it for you- suckers.

Butty

iTrader: (2)

Nacro,

If your going to wind people up and then be consistent with your replies:
<<
It's an MG what do you expect? Hopefully they will sort out the problem for you. Build quality problems are endemic in that marque.
<<
I have no axe to grind whatsoever, I just think MG/Rover make crap, outdated cars for the most part. Soon they'll be consigned to the dustbin of history where they belong.
>>

But then you start hooking a few bigger fish and start panicking...

<<
Edited to add: don't include the 75/ZT in any of these comments.

[Edited by NACRO - 11/10/2003 5:37:28 PM]
<<
John you need to try reading what people have actually written-I've said on this thread repeatedly that the 75 is the type of car MGR need to produce across the board


Oh REALLY??? Are you sure that was this thread?? Please show me as I can't seem to find it.


<<
Then again I suppose you like to pick and choose the parts of the "truth" that support your contentions. I notice you ignore my repeated comments that the 75 is the only semi-decent vehicle they produce.


Oh, dear, you've really lost it now.

When you want some bites, make sure you know what fish you want to catch. It looks like you thought you could handle a pike, but seeing its teeth, you've decided to catch minnows.

My comments about the Rover/MG range are that having tried the Z range last year, I went for the ZT.
Although I wanted a larger car, I went out in the ZR and ZS and found them fun to drive but the styling and build quality pretty dire.
Rover do need a modern designed small hatch to prop up long term figures.
Hiding them under fancy bodykits and limited editions can't last forever.

The ZT is so good (apart from the FWD engine - its so weedy), that come the end od the lease I'll ditch the Scoob znd ZT then get the RWD baby.
I'll then need a hatchback, but it certainly won't be Rover.
Seems like Rover were really saved by BMW after all.

Nick

NACRO

posted Saturday, October 11, 2003 17:35

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So you think they have a fresh up to the minute product line of market leaders then? Or do you agree with me that they are old, tired and therefore crap? Or do you think they are such classic designs that they have stood the test of time.

I think it's fair enough to say their products are outdated as they are all well past their intended product cycles.

My experiences of MGR products are irrelevant here, suffice to say I've driven a few, been given pool cars and known people who've had them. All these experiences have led me to believe they are carbage (LOL).

Edited to add: don't include the 75/ZT in any of these comments.

[Edited by NACRO - 11/10/2003 5:37:28 PM]


The edit was made 2 minutes after the original post as you can see here- I noticed I'd missed out that IMHO the 75 is a pretty good car and therefore didn't want to include it in my comments. Nothing to do with "big fish" I'd already reeled in the tiddlers long, long ago. This is an ongoing debate in which some people blindly defend all MGR's products and I try to bring a note of realism to their deluded ideas.
I think you've come into this half way through without fully understanding the background to the debate, this has been going on for more than one thread! You are welcome to join in though, I agree fully with you the 75/ZT is a pretty good car and that the "styling and build quality pretty dire" applies to the rest of
the range.


edited because of a spelling mistake- nothing to do with changing my "argument"


[Edited by NACRO - 11/17/2003 9:39:33 AM]

Skittles

I agree all this Rover bashing seems to be a 'trendy' thing to do, and in most cases totally unjustified and is not based on any experience. But on the otehr hand, some are genuine concerns.. you can't expect someone to sing a marque's praises just because it is made in the country they live in...

Most people seem to have missed Narco's numerous posts about the 75 being a good car - if he was against Rover just because it is British, why would he like this particular model? He may be anti-Rover in some respects, but it is vbased on his own experiences.

I would love to see Rover succeed. I think the people of the UK have given it a lot of support. HOWEVER, I think it will all change very soon. I don't know how many of you have followed the press articles about the Rover management sucking the company dry? The company is still making a loss (albeit declining). Moreover, the blue-collar workers' pension scheme it has been revealed has a £73m (i.e. 25%) deficit. In the same year, the senior board members (mainly Towers and three others) managed to squirrel £13m for a management specific pension fund! They refuse to answer questions about it. The workers, unions, local councils and other senior supporters are turning against the management - quite rightly. There are also a bunch of other financial instruments (e.g. loan notes) providing senior management with a steady and lucritive income stream.

All this when the company is making a loss, the workers pensions are unfunded, workers are being laid off and cash is required for R&D.

The management reply is always that they need to pay to get the best people. Sure, but don't take the cash before the results have been delivered.



[Edited by Skittles - 11/17/2003 10:16:27 AM]

NACRO

That's exactly my point- I'd like to see MGR succeed, not least because it is a British company. I just can't see it happening with the bad cars they seem to have a track record of churning out.
I just don't see why we should pretend that their current output is any good when by any objective measure you care to choose it plainly isn't (for the most part)

I've not heard any of the pension stuff before but it doesn't surprise me in the least that the current directors are trying to suck the life blood out of the company- after all they are venture capitalists.

Skittles

"after all they are venture capitalists"

The ironic thing is that they aren't! Alchemy, the venture cvapital firm lost the bid.

John Towers was ex-Rover management - i.e. pre-BMW days.

The venture capitalists, Alchemy, criticised Rover manegement this weekend for sucking cash out of the company at a time when they need it most.

NACRO

Well I never- I thought Phoenix were venture capitalists too, thanks for putting me straight,I'm always willing to be educated!

NACRO

I've just done a quick search as I wouldn't want to be accused of commenting on a subject I know nothing about-

Here John Towers said in YR2000 quote: ""I expect Rover to be in profit within two years."- anyone know whether they managed it? I thought they were still making a loss

Also re the venture capitalists : "£200 million of funding was secured from American bank First National, who will have the rights to unsold Rover stock across the world"


see here http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2003/10/30/cnmgee30.xml

For some interesting information regarding who is actually benefiting from MGR- it sure as hell isn't the UK or any of its workers. Rotten to the core.