I like big alloys, leather trim, air conditioning, cruise control, deep pile carpets, a good stereo, enough toys to keep me from getting bored in traffic jams and I want the biggest, meatiest, most powerful V shaped petrol engine I can get.
I also want the ability to cruise quietly in town without dislocating my spine combined with decent enough handling to make hurtling down rural lanes at somewhat illegal speeds genuinely enjoyable.
Rover made my car, but they stopped building good stuff in 1986.
Puzzling. Having test driven most new 'large family cars' that have come onto the market in the past few years I would say that it is nothing like the Germanic rivals. It is the *only* car that I have driven recently that I would say matches the ride quality of my 75. All the others I have driven I have found to be far too firm.
Do you think that 'inspiring to drive' should be a prime consideration for a prospective average purchaser? What about reliability? What about running costs? What about purchase price? What about comfort? etc. etc. Many people simply want transport. They want a car that is competitively priced, does most things well, and starts when they put the key in. Bearing in mind that for around 70% of its life the car will be just parked up somewhere, and for most of the remaining 30% it will be used for the supermarket/school/work run - just where should 'inspiring to drive' come in a list of desirable attributes?
I agree. I rented one the last time we visited my wife's sister in Spain. I was not impressed at all. Underpowered, sombre and depressing black interior, just a utilitarian hack.
Well, that's the Top Gear team talking!
But you have to consider initial purchase price. The two cars that I lost the least amount of money on when re-selling were the two Ladas I owned, one after the other, in my poorer days. They were both around 2 years old when I bought them and I paid around £2k each for them. I only lost a few hundred pounds on each them when I traded them in. Don't forget either that the i30 will still have two years warranty left to run if traded in after 3 years (the Kia C'eed will still have four years left to run!).
Then why the clear smirk when you commented that the 75, which came 7th in the survey, was 6 places behind the i30? Very clearly i30 owners are very very happy with their cars.
Whereas the buyers of French cars know everything about what makes a car a good car? And yet, surprisingly, they buy a car from a country that is renowned for producing troublesome cars and having poor dealership customer service? I would have thought that anyone who knows anything about cars would steer clear of cars that other owners clearly dislike?
But we are not talking about you - we are talking about car buyers in general and you appear to be claiming that people who buy French cars know more about cars than people who buy Korean cars. Can you substantiate that?
And driving enjoyment should come above other factors such as reliability, ownership costs, comfort, practicality? etc.
Why should a person who only uses a car for short trips on runs to school, supermarket, work, etc. place driving enjoyment above other more valuable attributes?
Incidentally, bearing in mind your praise and obvious love of Citroens, why is your main transport a Saab? How would you rate the ride quality in your Saab compared to your highly praised past Citroens?
"Ret." gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:
Which merely proves my point about expectations and calibration.
The 75 may well be better than most mainstream rivals. But that's a different thing to being outright good. It's like eating a dozen greasy dogburgers then picking which one tasted best.
So why do you keep quoting press reports when you repeatedly disagree with them?
Depreciation is very rarely quoted as anything but a percentage of initial list price.
I'm sure they are. They equally clearly have very low expectations.
I am.
That'll be the same "car buyers in general" who widely ignored the R75, then?
No, I can't, because I haven't claimed anything approaching that. The only person in this thread who seems to be generalising by nationality or marque is you.
For me, yes.
I have no idea, because I just cannot understand the "car as transport only" mindset.
Because I want a large car, but didn't want another XM, I wouldn't touch a C5 with yours, parts supply for CXs isn't really up to daily-use standard any more - and because I've always liked c900s - I learned to drive in one, we took one across the Sahara a couple of years back, but I always wanted a turbo - and this one popped up at the right price at the right time. If this hadn't been there, I'd been thinking about trying to find a Scimitar GTE.
But the problem is that unless I search around and find an ancient relic of a Citroen - then I am not going to find anything better am I? All we can do is look at what is available today.
Well, all I can do is repeat that you are certainly a lone voice in criticising the 75s ride quality.
I don't 'repeatedly' disagree with them - but nor do I agree with everything they say.
And a percentage of a low purchase price is a lower loss than a similar percentage of a high purchase price. Mercedes may hold their value - but someone buying a new top-of-the-range Merc will undoubtedly lose more in terms of hard cash after 3 years than someone buying a new i30.
Which is irrelevant. If they are happy with their cars, then they are happy with their cars. You clearly are very happy with your old Saab - but I wouldn't be. Does that mean that your Saab is a poor car? No - it just means that it doesn't tick the right boxes for me. Your requirements and likes and dislikes are different to mine.
For unique reasons of course. Do you think that they would still have 'ignored it' (which is not really accurate) if BMW had remained in control of MG/Rover? Look at the new Mini. That was being developed by MG/Rover but BMW took it with them when they bailed out. If they hadn't - do you think it would have become the cult car that it is today, even though it would have been the same car?
People did not buy the 75 in huge numbers because they were concerned (with reason) about the stability of MG/Rover after BMW had left. The car does not command high second-hand prices today because people mistakenly believe that there will be a problem over parts.
None of the above has anything to do with the merits of the car.
But you *do* appear to have claimed that owners who praise their i30s do so because they know little about cars (without anything to substantiate the claim). The unavoidable corollorary to that is that owners who criticise their Peugeots and Citroens are doing so, not because their cars are any worse than Korean cars, but because they are somehow more knowledgeable about cars. It doesn't wash!
Well that explains a lot then. But I don't think it is reasonable for you to criticise other people who have different priorities and hence choose different cars. For the majority of owners, whether or not a car is 'inspiring' to drive is irrelevant.
For many people today, it's simply a cost issue. They cannot afford to go leisure driving for fun.
OK. Incidentally, I once attended an RTA in which a Scimitar had been involved. Both front seat-belt door-pillar mountings had pulled straight out of the fibreglass pillar...
"Ret." gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:
Is it? Why?
You may _prefer_ to restrict your vehicle choice to only one segment of the market, on age, but if you do so, then you'll be getting shot of the
75 soon enough. What then?
Yes, and?
Correct.
You have no idea how glad that makes me.
Yes.
No, I don't.
It didn't command high second-hand prices even before BMW bailed. It was always unloved. Same as the 600 & 800 before it.
Sometimes it's to do with merit, other times it's due to intangible market perceptions.
Correct. Which is why they're happy with such bland mediocrity.
Why do you keep trying to lump cars together by marque or by nationality? It's ridiculous. Every single manufacturer makes some good cars and some bad cars. Some make far more good cars than others, of course.
Good, we're agreed, then. Because that's exactly what I've been saying all along. People who are happy with Hyundai i30s are not very demanding towards their cars, and are satisfied with mediocre bland cars. Such is their choice.
My only query is why you think that says something positive about the R75, rather than something negative about the relevance of the survey?
That's nice, dear. Is that meant to make me change my mind towards 'em? It doesn't.
I'm not sure I can follow the sense of that sentence... At the moment I have no intention of getting rid of the 75 because I like it so much. Our 'plan' at the moment is to hang onto it at least until we've had enough of caravanning - and then we'll sell the 'van and, at the same time, probably down-size to a medium-size family car. Which creates even more problems because although the C5 is attracting good reviews and has a good ride - the C4 is not and hasn't. At the moment I have no idea what medium sized car I would go for.
If you want to lose a lot of money on your next car purchase - buy a Mercedes...?
LOL!
I honestly don't think so.
Exactly. It has become a much desired cult car because it is perceived as a BMW. If BMW had not taken it with them, and it had been put on the road by MG/Rover, then many idiots would have been put off simply because it had an MG/Rover badge on it. Exactly the same car.
When was it launched and when did BMW bail out?
It was launched in 1998 and MG/Rover was sold by BMW to Phoenix Holdings in
2000. Hardly time for second-hand values to be an issue! Added to which, from the date it was launched there were reports that BMW *was* about to bail out, which clearly caused concern amongst potential customers:
"Initial sales of the Rover 75 were disappointing, as it failed to match the BMW 3 Series and Audi A4 in the British car sales charts during 1999. The public unveiling of the car at the Birmingham Motor Show was unfortunately over-shadowed by a speech containing criticism of the British Government's attitude to financial assistance in the redevelopment of the Rover Longbridge factory (where the new Mini was to have been produced). Stunned press reaction interpreted this as saying that BMW were unhappy with continuing financial losses and were intending to close Rover down. This undoubtedly scared off many prospective buyers, despite the very positive reaction to the car itself. Indeed it did (and still does) hold up very well with the Jaguar S-Type that was unveiled at the same show. Sales picked up substantially during 2000, and it was Britain's fifth most popular new car in the month of April of that year. It was still selling reasonably well at the time of MG Rover's bankruptcy in April 2005"
"The 75 was the first Rover for a generation to be produced without tight budgetary constraints - and it showed with almost previously unheard of engineering quality. However, BMW's Chairman decided to torpedo the car - and the company that produced it - at its launch in 1998, casting a long shadow over over Rover's bright new star which took years to extinguish."
And the uncertainty caused by BMWs reported intentions, at the time of launch, had much to do with those perceptions.
When it was launched it was priced to match comparative BMW prices. After BMW bailed out, MG/Rover significantly reduced prices in order to stimulate sales. As a result, canny buyers got a superb executive car for the same money as a bog-standard Mondeo. I don't doubt that this was part of the cause of MG/Rover's demise - they simply weren't making enough profit (if any) on the car.
Absolutely - and that is why I get annoyed that the 75 is frequently lumped in with the rest of the MG/Rover range, which were dated and of far less merit.
Having said that, it is a fact that in the various car reliablity surveys, when it comes to the 'manufacturer' charts - the French cars invariably appear in the bottom third. I'm more than willing to concede that there will always be exceptions to the rule - but if reliability is a prime concern for a prospective purchaser then he should avoid French cars because there is a greater chance of having problems if he doesn't.
Because all the cars in the survey are reported on in exactly the same way. Owners are asked to rate their cars under various headings such as comfort, performance, handling, etc. Clearly those owners will be rating their cars according to their expectations. You cannot buy a Citroen C3 and then downrate it because it doesn't perform like a Lamborghini.
I don't need to have driven all available large family cars to be able to say that the ride quality, road noise, and engine noise, in the Insignia that I test-drove was poor.
What I will concede is that buyers of more expensive cars are likely to be more disappointed. They expect a lot and often don't get it. Because a top of range Merc may cost double the price of a Mondeo, they expect the car to be twice as good - but, of course, it wont be. The standard of your average family car has improved so dramatically in recent years that they are not so far behind the BMW/Mercedes standards. That, I suppose, is the reason that my wife and I were so disappointed with the Merc 'C' class we had on hire recently. It is a car that I had perhaps aspired to at some time - but now, having experienced one, the bubble has been burst. If you expect a lot - and then don't get it - then you are going to mark the car down.
LOL! No - it was just a factual observation that would certainly make *me* think twice about owning one - but I know that the poor driver/passenger protection in older cars doesn't concern you at all...
I know you have - and you appear to base your opinion of the ride quality of every current car against ancient Citroens that are no longer manufactured. If you are accepting that as a yardstick - then you might as well state that the ride quality of every currently produced car is bloody awful - which is somewhat pointless don't you think?
How about having a re-calibration and judging ride quality on cars produced within, say, the last ten years.
I have no doubt that they do - but they are also heavily influenced, I believe, by what they perceive will be the magazine testers' opinion of their cars. The new Mini is slated in the Driver Power Survey for its ride quality. It comes 92nd out of 100 cars in that category. So just *who* did BMW ask about the car's ride quality before putting the car into production? Clearly not prospective buyers who just do not like that aspect of the car.
I thought you lived in North London? Anyway, you will have to accept that your experience is unusual and that the daily commute for the vast majority is a slow-moving grind in heavy congestion.
"Ret." gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:
I base "good ride quality" on what I'm used to.
Is that really such a difficult concept for you to grasp?
More of a statement of fact, tbh.
Although, having said that, did you ever try a C6?
So at least that's one thing that they kept consistent to the original Mini. A total lack of interior space is another.
The M25 is about a mile from my house. It's not all grim urban sprawl and EastEnders dahn sarf, y'know. Same as I'm sure it's not all flat caps, whippets, gravy and Coronation St around you.
Not at all - but your regular transport is a Saab which has far worse ride quality than my 75 - so why don't you acknowledge the fact that the ride quality of the 75 is far better than your Saab - and also far better than the overwhelming majority of cars produced today? Why go on saying that you think the ride quality is harsh - when any objective assessment would be that it is not?
No I didn't. Pretty pointless in view of the fact that I would never want to own a car of that size. My next move will most probably been downwards in size - although I have not fully decided on that yet. Top Gear describes the C6 ride as unnatural and 'waftacious' (whatever that means). I have said previously that I regarded the ride on my BILs Xantia as too 'floaty' over humps.
But it clearly shows that they pay no attention to what their prosective customers want. I have no doubt at all that if one hundred average motorists were taken to a test track and asked to drive various cars over poor surfaces, and then grade ride quality preference - the vast majority would choose the cars with the most compliant rides. Nobody can actually *like* having their guts shaken about, and so the only people who will want a car like this is those who want to drive like boy-racers and throw their cars around corners - which is a tiny minority of the motoring public.
There is a road in Warrington not far from my daughter's house that has an absolutely appalling road surface. It is on the route from my daughter's place of work to her house and occasionally we pick her up from work and take her home to have dinner there. When we had the 'C' class on hire and drove along that road, all three of us commented about the terrible ride over that surface. It was truly awful - and yet my 75 smooths it out quietly and without fuss.
Inside or outside?
It's not all grim urban sprawl
You know it's not because you have my address and I've no doubt you've taken a look on Street View!
The experience of only having one arm is not unusual for an amputee - but it is for the majority...
Good for you. Being retired I rarely venture forth until after rush hour. I recently had to be in Warrington at a time which meant I had to join the morning commute. It was bloody awful. How people put up with that, day after day after day I just don't know. It would drive me crazy.
"Ret." gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:
I do.
I do.
Because it is.
If all you ever ate was junk food, you may very well think that a microwaved ready meal was "good food" - because it's better than you're used to.
Does that make it good by absolute standards? No. It merely makes it better than a poor baseline.
Do so. See what that does to your views on the R75's ride quality.
Why would people buy a car that they really, really do not like? Simple. They don't. That would kinda suggest it really isn't that big a deal to the average buyer (look at the production and sales figures)
Outside.
Don't flatter yourself.
Just remind me, are we talking about personal preferences or the majority view at the moment? You seem to switch back-and-forth.
Umm, this IS at "rush hour". I just go a different way.
LOL! OK - I'll give it a go. But I still don't accept your criteria. If you have 100 cars with the majority having a terrible ride quality and two or three having very good ride quality, and one having absolutely great ride quality - you cannot therefore say that the ride quality of the 'two or three' is poor. It may not be as good as the top one - but that does not make it poor,
But the problem is that most buyers don't read surveys like Driver Power. They like the look of a car, they consider it to have 'street cred', they take it for a short test drive along a smooth main road - and they buy it. It is only after they have bought it that they begin to realise its shortcomings.
Look at what owners have to say about the Peugeot 307 in that survey. They slate it on just about every category - and yet they went out and bought it in the first place.
I wasn't intending to - but if I knew the addresses of the various posters that I debate with on usenet - I would certainly take a look, just out of interest.
I think it is you who do that. I stated that your 'nice drive' into work is unusual - which, to anyone with any sense, would mean that your experience is unusual in comparison with most people's drive into work. But you then have to come up with the rather obvious comment that your nice drive is not unusual for you. Of course it isn't. If that is your drive into work - then that is your drive into work. How on earth could it be *unusual* for you?
Around here every 'different way' is the same - and if you are driving into a city then clearly you are not going to get a 'nice drive'. Many people who live in Cheshire work in Manchester or Liverpool. Try and find a nice quiet way into either of those cities and you will be struggling!
Possibly because they've been in BMWs and so on before, and it isn't harsh like they are? Or they've had old tat before, and it will of course be smoother than that. It's not hard to work out..
That's no great achievement. BMWs and Audis, IME are harsh riding.
I don't really care what they have to say. I think it's hard riding, which compared to a Xantia, BX, CX or GSA it *is* most definitely..
They're frequently diametrically opposed to yours.
You ridiculed me for thinking that street cred and "keeping up with the Joneses" was a reason for wanting to buy a car in an earlier post.. now you're claiming it yourself. Do decide what you believe..
That's their fault. I always take my prospective cars down a fast stretch of road, and over some bumps, and if possible some speed bumps before I buy them.
My old postcode was RG10 0XP, feel free.. I live 300yds away from there now. I work in SL1, and go through White Waltham to work..
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.