Rover - any hope?

I saw one once.

Too many times has Rover or BL or whatever been bailed out. It's simply not viable. If it was a modern, efficient plant like Nissan in Sunderland or Honda in Swindon then it would be. However, the unions have and continue to wield too much power, so that level of efficiency can't be achieved because it would mean job cuts, and the Longbridge plant is old and not set up for this, unlike the much newer plants at sunderland and swindon.

 

According to Radio 2 a few minutes ago, The UK government have funded BL/Rover/BMW/? to the tune of ~ £5BILLION (in today's money) over the last 30 years. That has come from our pockets.
Very sorry for all the people who will be adversely effected as a consequence, but I don't think we should should pay up any more? If they can't make money as a stand alone company, shut 'em down.

 

I think enough is enough. Its a shame and I feel sorry for the people of the area, but in the long run Rover is damaging the UK econemy, the situation will only get worse.

Lets all be glad its not 250,000 workers at risk like it was in 1975.

 

Don't forget the 2.5 billion or so quid that BMW sunk into Rover. While they did get the Mini brand and factory out of the deal, I'm sure they could have got that a lot cheaper.

 

haha thats quite clever.

I was thinking last night I don't want the government to save Rover anymore. It would need at least £1 billion of investment to design new models, which may solve the problem for five years, after that? Rover will be back to square one.

 

...unless it sold lots of them.

theres a crest of demand for 'brit' cars - like the BMW mini.

a rover that was actually a brilliant car might get that high demand.

.. I know thats asking a lot.

 

Possibly but it is mainly smaller cars that sell well these days, or large German executive cars. I think the Rover 75 was supposed to be quite retro and use the past heratage to help sell it. It has worked, the 75 still sells well but that size of car dosn't sell that well, unless of course its German or Swedish.

I think Rover need to look out of Europe and they may find a lot of people who love the British. A lot of British Americans love driving the old 1970's MGBs over there because they are British. The MG brand is well known in the USA. I think its a shame it never tried to sell cars over there recently.

I saw some calculations some where I think it may have been the Gaurdian, that calculated in order for MG Rover to make a profit, they would need to sell 250,000 cars per year per model. Otherwise the development cost would not pay off.

At the momemnt its selling 100,000 cars in total.

I think Rover is just a victim of globalisation. If Ford didn't buy Jaguar they would have gone under many years ago.

 

The Ford Mondeo sells well, and it's not German or Swedish.

MG couldn't sell cars in the US. The K-series could not pass US emissions regulations. That was also a problem for the Elise while it used the K-series, and one of the reasons for the switch to the Toyota VVTI engine for the elise was that they would then be able to sell cars in the USA. They would have dearly loved to sell cars in the US I think. The last cars that they sold over there was the honda V6 827.

 

It just seemed like such a wasted oppurtunity though, I was reading on the BBC site that GM North America are in trouble becuase their american brands are not selling well over there, American buyers are prefering cars like the 3 series, Golf and the Mini.

I guess they didn't have the money or skills to modify the K series to pass these emissions.

 

I'm not sure that was possible. The K-series problems stemmed from inadequate cooling in the engine block. This causes the engine to run too hot, which is what makes it eat head gaskets/warp heads/crack heads. Additionally, the higher operating temperature of the K series meant that significant amounts of nitrogen compounds were formed, and probably other things too, resulting in the emissions.

 

European cars have always been far superior to their American counterparts, now that the prices are coming down they sell much better. The Korean companies also have a massive following in the US, Kia is one of the biggest sellers over there.

The 75 2.0 V6 & 2.5 V6 are fully compliant with US legislation and the US market was a major factor in the development of the car. Originally, BMW was going to sell the car through their dealers over there, like they are doing with the Mini and the car had made an appearance on US roads. However, without BMW's backing they had no chance of launching a car over there. They have no dealer network and no partnerships to use. Im sure if the SAIC deal does go through then the 75 will be sold in the US.

I cant see how Jaguar has saved Ford, to them Jaguar is a money pit thats far from profitable, I did read that Ford were becoming increasingly twitchy about the X-Type and the performance of the factory. I must say that Im very impressed with ford, despite poor sales and nervous directors they have continued to plough money into Jag, Aston, Volvo, LR & Mazda, this should pay-off, hopefully.

 

Jaguar have not been doing well... They looked and saw that BMW were selling more 3 series tourings than jaguar were selling X-types, so they thought "let's make a jaguar estate!". Unfortunately, the touring is but a small fraction of 3 series sales, and the X-type estate is really not doing well (that it looks like a volvo from the the rear three quarters doesn't help). So, diesel, estate, front-wheel drive... doesn't sound like a jaguar to me. BMW has clear brand values (50:50 weight distribution, RWD, driver enjoyment) which they stick to, whereas jaguar are casting about... sporty or comfy? FWD, 4WD or RWD?

For jaguar to make progress they need to put their 2.7 diesel into the XJ (it's an economic reality unfortunately), axe the mondeo links in peoples minds (doesn't matter how good a car the X is, people know it's mondeo based) and make the X RWD (quite aside from any driver issues, it's simply about having a clear brand value).

They can easily build on the XJ as a more individual, personal car than the 7 series or S class, which are rather antiseptic. The concept eight was a step in the right direction IMO.

Another problem is part sharing. Other than the Jaguar, where else can you find the same 4.2V8 and 2.7 diesel? Yup, the Land Rover Discovery. There was talk of putting the Aston V12 into the Range Rover as well... That starts to dilute the brands... Next step will be finding the 2.7 diesel in the next Volvo S80.

 

Dont forget the 2.7 diesel will be soon found in the Pug 407, 407 Coupe and the new 607.

Im pretty certain that the XJ will be getting a 3.0 diesel next year, I cant remember if its based on the 2.7 or the new Volvo unit.

 

Good, thought provoking post, Isaac. Thanks for that.

 

Platform sharing is need for obvious ecomonic reasons but I agree that each brand should have their own idendity. This is Rover's biggest problem apart form old models. Rover was once a luxery car brand, then they started selling Metro's and Meastro's under the Rover brand.

The Rover 75 should be their entry level car not their top end car. For this reason during the 1990's Rover was seen as a Ford and Vauxhall rival rather than Jaguar. I think the brand was also slightly stronger than Ford, sadly though thery kept selling outdated cars, this seems to have worked for British Leyland for the past 30 years but now sales have finally dryed up. The Rover badge is no longer enough to sell cars.

Ford has done the same, the 1990 Escort was woeful, but it sound becuase it was a Ford. Ford however realised if they continued to make cars this badly their reputation would be ruined, Ford soon fixed their mistakes and created great cars such as the Puma, Mondeo and Focus.

Its a shame its taken admistration to make Rover realise that brands are not the only thing that sells cars.

In the days of the Morris Marina people buyed them because of the badge, even Rover were surprised just how well the Rover 100 sold at first. People just are not loyal to bad cars anymore thanfully.

 

The difference between ford and Rover was that ford had billions. BL, Austin or whatever has struggled since the late 70's to produce anything original.

The real issue at the end of the day has got to be the running of the company, Im not quite sure how you can go from such a big company to having fixed assets worth around £17 million plus whatever the MG name is worth. I remember Alchemy being called asset strippers at the time coz they claimed MG Rover could only operate as a niche market brand! Selling the rights for the 25 & 75 to SAIC before a deal is done is criminal, I hope we get a full public investigation into this.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4431623.stm

I think the whole thing is crinimal BL, Austin-Rover should never have ended this way. The chineese now have the rights to the K series, The 25 and the 75, I assume they couldn't sell the 45 becuase its a Ronda. When the sell out starts at Longbridge no doubt the SAIC will buy the plant machinary. SAIC have basicay got a bargain, I wouldn't be surprised if they have manipulated the whole thing hoping this would happen. Ths way they have bought Rover without the hassle of running a British factory.

Issigonis would have a fit if he knew what was going on.

I am still not sure how much damage goods Rover is, people seem to be buying Hyundai's and Kia's, Rover must have a better image than those brands, plus the 25 and 75 are not that bad cars. The 45 is ancient though and probably dosn't fair favourably with Korean offerings.

The 75 is a very very classy car, I will be sad to see that car go. Although the design is now 7 years old it can't have much shelf live lift in it.

I also question this £6 loan/grant to pay wages till the end of the week. I doubt the tax payers will ever see this money again.

This Chineese company must be laughing, one of the golden rules in business is never appear desperate yet Rover is very very clearly desperate and they have made it too clear that these Chineese company is the only way the company can be saved.

 

Yes, platform sharing is a necessity to a point. But am I the only one who gets tired of VAG's "same sh*t, new wrapping" approach of having the golf, bora, leon, toledo, octavia, TT, A3 variations of the same chassis with the same gearbox and the same engines? BMW and mercedes and toyota seem to do ok with making a chassis for one type (eg 3 series) and not have to use it for 10000 other models.

VAG have taken it too far. If I was buying a £130000 Bentley, I'd be a bit peeved to find that it has the same engine, gearbox, chassis and many interior bits as a £60k VW saloon. And yes, that applied to the Aston Martin DB7 as well (an early bit of platform sharing... XJS chassis, jag 3.2 engine, cheap ford interior bits... still drop-dead gorgeous though).

 

I dont think the 75 will go, they've bought the 75 coz its still modern, fully compliant for all markets and has a chassis that they know can be used for smaller cars, and why do they know that? coz Rover told them it was going to be used for future cars! The biggest question mark will be if they are able to maintain the quality, the 75 is a strong, reliable performer with quality parts.

Dont forget Deawho started by using the last-generation Astra & Cavalier for their cars. Proton started with Mitsubishi engineering, Kia used Mazda etc etc.