Save MG Rover

Why? Both the first MG and Rover were crap cars run by shoddy businessmen

When it became MG Rover it was even more so, phoenix was just another bunch of losers!

Let it die, I won't say gracefully, because it should have put to rest years ago.

Their only downfall was it just made cheap crap.

It was somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold. I remember "Save MG Rover" saying something like:

Here's a galvanised washer.

Ask yourself why both BMW and SAIC thought there was something worth investing in. Personally I have more faith in their evaluation of the Rover/MG technologies and brands than I do in the views of some sections of the British public who can't think beyond the 1970s. The fact is that this is not the 1970s. The Rover 75 was the Car of the Year when it was launched and in some quarters is viewed as better than the Jaguar S-type. The MG models are extremely popular sports cars.

So, either BMW and SAIC are both stupid, or the British public are stupid and just can't help but do themselves down at every opportunity. I know which I believe.

Unfortunately nobody has been sufficiently able to kick the British public's views into shape. Rover's advertising has been pathetic, for a start.

Michael

Phoenix were a bunch of shysters and definitely winners. Rover lost out, but Phoenix themelves lined their pockets _very_ nicely (look at the old training centre and waht that's now worth as an independent business).

Saving Rover is going to need a time machine. It died a few years ago when Phoenix did the final asset stripping on it.

BMW wanted a small car and a 4x4. They took the technology from Land Rover for the X5 (HDC being the most obvious) and the brand from Mini. Then they sold the rest for £10 as it wasn't worth having.

6 years ago. Where is the replacement? It's old - hardly worth buying a company for.

SAIC were interested, and then they saw the numbers. They may revive a deal, but only because administration has cut the liabilities somewhat. However you slice it, the current business is losing money and sales are in freefall. The assets were always the only thing worth having - Alchemy were honest about their plans for asset stripping and downsizing, so they didn't get the deal. Phoenix talked a bigger game and quietly pulled the house down.

On the other hand, Phoenix gave people jobs for a few more years than they would have had them under Alchemy.

Neither. The public are staying away in droves from old outdated products. The MG brand means nothing to anyone under 40 - to me in my mid-thirties it reminds me of the MG Maestro and the MG Metro. Hardly sportscar icons.

MG sales are a little better than for Rover, but are they profitable? I have a lease offer on my desk of a brand-new MGF for £159 / month - heaps less than for an MX5. Is that making money or shifting stock? With a new MX5 about to appear the game is about to move up a notch, and with the recent events would YOU buy a new MG/Rover?

Much is made of German and French patriotism in buying their home-grown products. If I was German I'd be happy to choose between BMW, Mercedes, Audi or Volkswagen. In the UK we can choose between Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Land Rover, Ford etc etc and still support UK workforces. And largely we do. Rover haven't invested in the right new models, probably because they couldn't, so haven't been in the game.

Nobody will take pleasure from seeing massive job losses at Longbridge and the rest of the supply chain, but it's a fundamentally sick business making second-rate products in a flooded market. I'd rather see tax money put at regenerating the area with new businesses and skills than thrown into an ever deepening pit.

Yep. Not only did they line their pockets (with four times more salary and pensions than the board of BMW) but they failed to understand what was really needed to save Rover and MG. After all these years, still nobody understands.

Rover never made good small cars - think of the Metro, Maestro and 100. Rover made larger, executive cars - the car "my bank manager drives", as they said in the 1960s. The P5, P6, SD1, 800, 75 - those are the cars that are "Rovers".

Yet once again, they tried to compete with the big boys in the small car market. No chance! A wasted investment.

My view is that Rover could only have been saved by scrapping the R25 and R45 and concentrating on keeping the MGs and R75 (and its future replacement) up to date, probably with a smaller workforce than the current 6000. The Rover branch shuld have become a one-model brand for a period. After all, with at least 4 different models of MG to produce, how could a company that size *possibly* survive with such a diverse low-volume product range? Of course not. And yet they still went ahead with the CityRover, Streetwise, the V8 and the MG. The result - not enough investment momentum to keep moving forwards on the models which would do best.

Bad mistakes, all the way through. I could have done better myself. And I could have written better television adverts for them than their last two rather amateurish attempts.

Michael

That's a complete fallacy. A lot of companies produce cars that are in truth just as old as that. A bit of new styling here, new components there. Most models around today are based on earlier models, and the companies are more than keen to use the same name for the revised model. Of all the varieties of cars that you yourself have never actually owned, how much do you *actually* know about what lies underneath the surface of the "latest model"?

In hindsight it might have been better if Alchemy had kept fewer people in jobs for a longer period of time, rather than the other way round. A lot of people were eager to daemonise them as asset-strippers at the time, but who turned out to the real devils?

That's utter nonsense. MGs are very popular, especially with women. And those under 40, too. The comparisons between the R75 and the S-type are perfectly just.

My God, why is it that you insist on assuming that because MG-Rover produced the Maestro, any other new MG *must* be equally bad? And yet no such assumption (from I judge of the opinions I hear) is ever applied to any other brand from any other country!

It's not just about workforces, it's about engineering and design too. You should have watched James Dyson's Dimbleby lecture last year, for example. It's of vital strategic importance that design and engineering leadership and skills are retained. After all, when the Chinese take over the world economy in a few decades' time, how are you going to feel if we depend on them for all our technology and design? It isn't just about having a job on a production line. It's also about being in control of those who designs the products. To put one aspect of the problem in rather simplistic tersm as an example, do you think the Chinese designers will care as much about the needs and desires of 50 million Britons when they have 1 billion of their own customers to keep happy? Do you want a drive a car designed for a 6ft British male and British roads, or a 5ft6 Chinese male and Chinese roads?

Michael

Because what was needed to save them was, unfortunately, a more manufacturing and export friendly economic situation in the UK. And perhaps a workforce in the 1970s that had some degree of vision to see what simultaneously screwing the cars together badly and screwing the company well would do for their future...

(Not that the management weren't equally to blame, of course).

I'd say that really, you can't blame the Maestro and Metro on the "Rover" demise. They're Austin Rovers, and both of them were quite underrated. Yes, the 100 is evil in a crash, but it handles brilliantly and the K-series was a perfect engine for the size of car - the fact that they could have done it in 1969 and beaten everyone else to the small, fun hatchback market should be thrown in every subsequent manager's face in much the same was as the people at GM responsible for the Cadillac BLS should be made to sit in a Cimarron for a month.

Cityrover. Bad idea, badly done. Really, really bad idea. Mostly because they overpriced it.

Streetwise - Well.. you know, I actually quite like them. Wouldn't buy one as I fail to see the point in that size of car, period, but I don't dislike them as much as most people seem to.

V8 - fantastic idea. When I got to drive the ZT 260, I wanted the auto. I wanted the understated design. I also wanted the Tourer, but the saloon market is quite established. At the price they were asking - £25,000 - it was undoubtedly a bargain and if only the contract hire figures had been the same as getting a premium brand car worth £25,000. I'd have had one in an instant. My local dealer has been calling me and implying that there may be cheap ZT 260s around Real Soon Now and I'm very, very unhappy that I've got my Beetle for another year and just can't afford that sort of car - because they will undoubtedly be absolute bargains.

I am still very, very sad that I will never own one, because they simply cannot have sold that many, and I know that the remaining ones will probably be sold off cheap or tucked away.

MG-TF - horrid. IMO. I liked the F, it had good dual-purpose behaviour - was comfortable, and quite pretty. The TF is harsh and nasty to drive below the legal limit, and the rear styling is enough to put you off your breakfast for a week. They reduced the potential market with their determination to be 'sporty'.

MG ZS/Rover 45. Simply - WHY? Though I see a KV6 45 was considered, even a 425 - that would have been quite a nice Bora V6 alternative. Except no-one bought those, either.

One opinion many people seem to have that I don't share is the concept of the cars being "dated". Cars are cars. If someone made a car that looked like the 300SL Gullwing - hell, if Mercedes had continued to make the 300SL Gullwing to special order for the past half-century (is that right? Is that car now 50 years old?), would you complain that it was dated - especially if the suspension, brakes and tyres were just as modern as any other car? I drive a 3.0i Supra. It is as comfortable, fast, spacious and IMO, safe (at least before airbags are needed) as any comparable 2005 car I could name, and a hell of a lot prettier.

And that's before we get going on the Mk II Golf GTI, which seats 5, does 45mpg and is a blast to drive - all the car anyone needs for 90% of the time, I think - if they still sold those new I'd have one. Does anyone really not buy a perfectly good car with the equipment and features they want just because it's been in production for 6 years?

What I want to know is - will Towers et al be criticised the way John DeLorean (may he rest in a stainless coffin) was? Because IMO they were more dishonest, greedier and generally less competent.

Richard

Yes, lots of it is derivative, but a good deal isn't. My main point was that the future value of the 75 is as much about the development pipeline as the current model. I don't know what, if anything, is in the design pipeline at MG Rover. Based on industry standards the next model ought to be about signed off by now.

I agree entirely; although I would say that too much is made about the £10 price - there weren't many other people in the queue at the time.

I don't doubt that they are selling, but how many people buying MG's are doing so because of this wonderful heritage. I know about the glorious history because I'm quite interested in classic cars, but most of my contemporaries are more driven by fashion, performance sheets and magazine reviews. So I doubt the real value of 'the brand' and suspect they would sell almost as well if they were called Kia.

I don't. I'm just commenting on the 'brand value' in marketing terms. I actually quite like some of the more recent models, particularly the MGF. But, like the rest of the range, it's 'end of life'. Is there a new model anywhere near ready for production?

From interviews on Radio 4 this morning it's not even clear who owns the MG name either! The Rover name is still owned by BMW.

I agree that we need skills - my degree is mech eng although I deserted to IT some time ago. The Chinese issue is very complex, and they already have a massive impact on our economy - just look at fuel and steel prices as quick examples. However, does MG Rover really represent the pinnacle of UK engineering? It's a very old and outdated plant and even if it was levelled and rebuilt regardless of cost, we still couldn't compete based on labour rates to supply the Chinese market. That just leaves the European and US markets, and they are totally oversupplied (as is the Chinese one at present, BTW).

We do still have a vibrant motor industry though, it just isn't in monoliths like Longbridge. It's in Formula One, it's in Norfolk, it's in Blackpool etc. I'm not sure about China, but can you name one genuine invention to have come from Japan, Korea, Taiwan and the like? Perhaps there's a real future in UK/European design allied to mass production in low labour cost economies?

In many other areas we already do depend on other, far flung and culturally different nations for supply - oil, electronics for two. Yes, we have capacity of our own, but nothing like enough to be self-sufficient.

Why does everyone say the Maestro was so bad, anyway? They handle better than contemporary Astras and Escorts (I won't even mention the Chevette

- I like them but good handling cars they were not), they're roomier and more comfortable. The styling might be odd, but it wasn't bad - the glass area and thin pillars made for a very pleasant and airy car. They didn't even rust significantly, especially in comparison to the Escort.

The only car I can think of that is equally panned yet vastly superior to the competition was the Citroen GS, which in 1971 (IIRC?) was like being handed the future on a plate. And people still bought sodding Vivas.

I'd rather have an MG Maestro Turbo over an Astra GTE 16v anyday. At least the Maestro can corner. I've owned an MG Montego, too - wasn't a bad car at all.

In fact, most people I know with Montego estates only really want to replace them with another Montego estate, for some reason.

Richard

The next model of 45 was signed off. All over Auto Express a fortnight ago. Quite a nice looking effort.

And as for derivative; the S-Type Jaguar that the 75 competed with in many people's eyes, is quite heavily based on the last generation Scorpio floorpan wise. The same (DEW98) platform has just been launched as a new car again, under the Mustang. As for Fiat; the Strada platform became the Tipo platform with minor changes, and then went on to underpin everything from the Tipo to the Alfa GTV. The Strada itself was little removed from the 1960s 128, too.

The French are masters of the art - Peugeot 104 to 106 via 205, AX, Visa , 309 and Saxo...

You're not paying much attention, then. I know loads of people, mostly MG ZR owners, who bought the car because it's a small sporty hatch, and they associate MG with XPower. They know it's British, they know it's sporty, and they may be vaguely aware of some CAMRA members in B roadsters, but it certainly wasn't their motivation to own the car.

The MG F did even better. It couldn't be more removed from the MG Midget; it's a genuinely sporting car and aside from the seat bolsters which appear to be derived from the Inquisition's worst torture devices is very comfortable and quite practical.

The Sony Walkman. Dihedral doors, as on my Sera. The Erhu, a strung fretless instrument played like a violin.

Now, should I actually research it, too?

Richard

and having driven a brand new Maestro a year or so ago, the chinese have made a bloody nice job of it too. Decent engine and build quality and nicely updated. Plus it sells for less than four grand.

-- Howard Rose

1966 VW Beetle 1300 Deluxe 1962 Austin Mini Deluxe 1964 Austin Mini Super Deluxe (cars on website)

Around 10 years ago my parents bought a diesel turbo Maestro, with a Perkins engine. That engine admittedly didn't last long, but the engine and whole car were surprisingly good while it did.

_Far_ better than the nasty Citroen ZX they were driving lately.

I never liked the Citroen GS though. It fell inbetween the Dyane and the CX and offered the worst of both. If you ever did fill up the enormous interior space it was so underpowered it could barely climb a carpark ramp (I remember dumping my passengers out of one before doing so).

Selling it to BMW was the mistake. Under Honda's ownership it was really starting to dig itself out of the hole it was in.

I think the the concept of cars being 'dated' is tied in with the idea of a certain design or shape being fashionable, and to show the neighbours you have a new car. :-) What a stupid reason for buying a car. AFAIC a car is a tool for getting from A to B. It shouldn't be a fashion statement. Unless a new car is fundamentally better than it's predecessor, why tart around with what it looks like. I drive a 'dated' car. 2 in fact. A '94 BM 5 series, and a Celica ST185 GT4 coupe. IMO, both are good looking cars, by any stds. Mike.

Absolutely. BMW were only after the 4x4 technology and the MINI name, after which they dumped the rest

Chris Bolus ( snipped-for-privacy@FARINAb0lus.com) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :

Is that why the X3 drivetrain was developed by Steyr?

They screwed up the classic Mini as well, by making small design mods that caused them to rot even quicker. There are three Minis in my garden right now. The 72 Clubman will be restored in due course, the 85 Mayfair is almost finished, but the 93 Sprite is so far gone I'm making a grasstracker out of it.

"Michael Kilpatrick" wrote

BMW: 4 x 4 technology and the rights to the new Mini.

SAIC: the Rover name, which they apparently already have the rights to.

That's it.