Horico

Not at all....things are hard, no doubt about it but they must get some money from somewhere to plough into the RDX/60 platform....

This is a far bigger matter than any of us have the insider information to make assumptions about, let alone preach it as gospel....

One thing is true though - the press talk crap, especially on slow news days.....I know, let's make up some rubbish about our poor old british car manufacturer....oh, and there is an election soon right? Did the government say something?

I'm going to see what happens later in the month.

dpb

Honda acclaim.................that was a reasonable rover........

Brit_in_Japan

...couldn't agree more about Patricia Hewitt, "last chance" comments are likely to make any potential investor run a mile. What was she thinking of? Has she never been involved in any negotiations before? If I were SAIC I would now wait until MG Rover folds now and buy eveything I want cheap from the administrators.


The biggest mistake in recent history (as people have pointed out) was when BAe sold Rover to BMW, not that Rover really had any say in it. Honda really got a kick in the teeth from that. It was a shocking way to behave. Japanese companies value business relationships very highly, so by doing that BAe killed off any chance of any tie-up with Japanese firms in future. Honda also have a great record for reliability and are real petrol heads. That relationship was starting to show real benefits when BAe pulled the plug.

BMW then cherry picked the bit it wanted (MINI) and sold off Land Rover to Ford. As soon as it started to get split up it was doubtful the core MG Rover could survive because of the sheer cost of developing new models. Without being able to spread R&D costs across more projects and more vehicles, platform sharing etc, it's just a matter of time.

Manufacturing at MG/Rover is simply not efficient enough and Longbridge an albatross around their necks. The BMW MINI factory turn out many more cars with half the workforce IIRC. What is needed is to get shut of Longbridge and build a brand new factory on a green field site. Only then there might there be a chance of MG Rover making profits. But how much would that cost? Too much I think, the opportunity has passed.

It will be sad when MG Rover as we know it dies, not because of the cars necessarily but because of what it tells us of UK manufacturing and business. The blame can be shared wide, from nationalisation, to the unions, BAe, BMW and the Phoenix Group.

BTW, the K series engine when introduced was actually a fantastic unit. Just look at all the innovations that went into it and the power output for it's size/weight. It showed what the engineers could do given the chance and investment. I feel sorry for all the talented individuals at MG Rover who will be out of a job when it folds, as I think it inevitably will.

Vegescoob

Why the concern?
Manufacturing, pah, the past.
"The knowledge economy" is that not what our leaders have decreed we now are?
Except it appears that might be moving "offshore" too before it even fully exists here.

Brit_in_Japan

We all need to buy things which have been made. Manufacturing requires design of products, design of machines to make those products, research and development, materials science, in fact all the things that once made this country the manufacturing powerhouse in the world. It's true that we cannot compete with China and the like on wages, but that doesn't mean we can't compete on high-end, big ticket, high technology stuff. What the hell is the "knowledge economy" anyway?

dpb

..Pass............

Vegescoob

I was being sarcastic! I'm with your view.
"Knowledge economy" is the soundbite the politicians, especially the Prime Minister, use to try to convince themselves and us that there is an economic future.
I'm one of those who believes that you can't base an economy on the excessive inflation of house prices.

Brit_in_Japan

Fair enough

But does anyone know what a "knowledge economy" is?

skoobidude

There's nothing in the current line up of the Rover marque that interests me in the slightest. All boring cars IMO.
Although I did own a 220 Coupe Turbo for nearly 4 years. Bought it with 53k on clock, sold it with just over 100k. Had no trouble with it at all. Performace was great and it looked cool in black - especially after I changed the springs.
The MG 25 looks like its been Max Powered, the 45 is trying to look like an Impreza - especially in blue with that rear spoiler , and the 75 reminds me of a guy I used to work for who I couldn't stand.

Nick

Iain Young

Presumably an economy based upon the sale of intellectual property rather than manufacturing (i.e. scientific research, computer software, banking etc)...

At least, that's what 'knowledge economy' says to me...

Iain Young

My brother has an MG ZT, and he really likes it. Quite quick, comfy, very reliable etc. Must admit it's not exactly what I would call exciting though. Basically a cheap beemer...

Wish

iTrader: (2)

A Cheap Beemer .... ????


I would think the car has more in common with a stone than a BMW. Well the residual at least

Iain Young

Nah the first ZT was made by BMW. If you look under the bonnet and behind the door panels etc, a lot of the parts have BMW stamped on them....

(Note the current ZT is not as well specced or as well made)...

Dr Hu

The MGF TF is still the countrys best selling sports car..........so they must be doing something right....

We had some ex-rover employees at our place for a while - I have never met more work-shy, lazy, anti-establishment dossers in all my life - all expecting mega wages, best IT kit and all the usual perks There is a definate 'Rover Mentality' with its workforce/management - and until that has gone (i.e sack the lot & start again) they are doomed.

Dieseldog

75 production started off in Cowley and moved up to Longbridge after the split. Just curious, but which BMW parts would they be, and did Phoenix subsequently retool to produce cars using non BMW parts???

Sorry if I'm missing the irony/sarcasm in your post - bit dull this morning

Iain Young

No irony at all. BMW took the original 75 chassis etc, modified the suspension, handling etc, and produced the ZT. I know for a fact that the self levelling (xenon) headlights he has have bmw stamped on them, as do some bits in the engine (I've seen them, but I don't know what they were). Also the climate control is ripped straight out of a 3 series beemer...

The ZT you can buy today is not as well specced as the old one, and so I've no idea if they still use those parts. Just stating what he's told me (and what I've seen) on his one.

SD

The ZT came to fruition in 2001. BMW had nothing to do with it (They left in 2000, remember?). BMW were not interested in producing sporting Rovers in case they competed against BMW's own line-up.

Simon.

SD

If you want to know more facts about the ZT development, go here:

http://www.austin-rover.co.uk/r40indexf.htm

Project DRIVE in late 2003 reduced the spec of some of the models in order to cut production costs, but a lot of the ommitted items have now been reintroduced.

Simon.

TelBoy

If we had an Other Marques Forum, this would fit in perfectly.

SD

Iain Young

Doesn't alter the fact that there are a load of bmw parts on my brothers ZT. I forgot to mention the bmw rain sensing wipers as well

SD

Yes, there are a lot of parts; the most obvious being the climate unit which is lifted straight out of the '3'. Radios (earlier ones) and satnav units were also identical between the 75 and many of the BMW range. The parts were already proven and good quality so why not use them.

X10, X20 and X30 (development codes for the 'Z' range) were not announced till many months after the BMW split...