MG again?

The 600 was dead and buried many years ago.

The 75 chassis was very well regarded, being BMW based.

That's what I thought, but I've been told that the new MG was originally designed around it.

I hated it .. though only drove one and not for long, maybe 150 miles.

I think the project was known as the Rover 6 while Rover was developing it, but it would probably have been sold as the "65". I read it was based on the 75 chassis but shortened (I don't know whether the wheelbase is shorter, or just the overhangs), probably on mg-rover.org. The 600 was put out to pasture when the 75 came out and I don't think anything significant about it stayed in production or was developed into a new model except the L-series diesel. 6, 600, potential for confusion?

I could well be getting the numbers confused. ;)

Apart from that, the 600 was based on Honda Accord and was very reliable as far as I have heard about it.

Also not a bad looking car in its day in a conventional sort of way - unlike the new MG which is ugly. Worse in the flesh, too.

Apparently some people at Honda were quite miffed that the 600 was better looking than the Accord (and Rover's suspension set up was said to be better too). Perhaps that helped influence how much they were forced to stick to Honda panels for the susbequent 400 ;).

True, it isn't a good-looking car. There were some artists' impressions of what it was expected to look like before Rover went bust that looked quite nice. But now the fashion is for "fastbacks" instead of upright tails. The same thing that ruined the look of the new Jag.

But how quickly you get used to a quirky looking car. BMW 1 is most ugly looking, but still popular and copied look for KIA Ceed and to some extent for Hyundai i30.

They're both the same car, just different detailing.

Not sure you can say they 'copied' the BMW, as they were launched only 2 years apart - which is too close for Kia / Hyundai to have copied BMW.