Found this on a Mini website, very sad.
Taffy
Found this on a Mini website, very sad.
Taffy
No it doesn't work oh well try this then?
What an absolute shame, Taff, and the ironical thing is, towards the end,, the rover factory was producing a very nice range of cars, better than it has done for years, Fitzy
They were nice cars, but they were at least 2 generations behind competition. Biggest seller was the 200/25 that was 10 years old, when the shelf life of a car is usually no longer than 5 years. The last model (except for a couple of niche models or restylings) was the 75 and dated back to 1999, 5 years! Most brands launch a major model at least every year. Let's not even mention the 45 that was already an old design when it came out 10 years ago.
In a day when all car manufacturers have a complete range of 7 to 10 models, including minivan derivatives, coupés and SUVs, there was no way MG Rover could compete with just the 25, 45 and 75 and no new models in the pipe. Good cars, but antiquated when compared to the competition.
Well BMW's involvement didn't help and pulling production of the BINI was the deathknell, but still it gives us even more of a reason to hate the BINI.
Taffy
Of course, cutting off the only models that had received an investment and had a chance of being profitable (Land Rover and Mini) should never have been accepted by the people in charge. Without those profits there was no way Rover could invest in R&D.
I forgot the only new model that was introduced was the CityRover, and that wasn't even a PR disaster, it was non-existant! They had been selling them for one year and there was NO advertisement, NO exporting, NO publicity! Stealth marketing!
Buick V8. They didn't think it was good enough so sold it to Rover/BMC :-)
How right they were too, that lump of pig iron went on to do nothing else ..... not ! ;-)
PS - Fitzy, there are photo's of my old mini's, but they be photo's; and me have no scanner !
The restoration is being fully photographed and will be web'ised in glorious technocolour at some point in the future(ish).
Look forward to viewing them, ;-) Fitzy
Turned out to be a brilliant engine if I recall, even as a transplant replacement for the troublesome V8 Triumph Stag, Fitzy
Am I being stupid or isnt that he same engine? Not being funny or sarcy but I thought that Triumph used the same V8s as Rover? Im only saying this coz I remember a few years ago my mate bought a TR8 (TR7-V8) and it was exactly the same block and heads as the Rover unit. (alloy)
You could be right, I was told by a old mechanic who worked for a Triumph dealership years ago, that the Rover engine was better than the Triumph, something to do with the heads or the head gaskets, ?? Fitzy
did a search and found these
totally different engines, loads of people put rover engines in triumphs because the triumph engine was extremely unreliable,
Steve.
Thanks for clearing that one up Steve, Fitzy
The triumph has the overhead cam where as the Rover does not.
The triumph is much like the SAAB and the V8 Triumph is another 4 cylinders attached. I think that SAAB and Triumph did have a connection where Triumph were supplying motors or castings to them.
The Rover V8 is a nice motor but having some problems in the short cuts implemented into the motor. (the timing chain is the only thing keeps the cam in place hence wear lets the cam float) etc.
Performance wise the Triumph was better. There were heaps of head gasket problems, Head studs had to be removed to remove the head. These were often seized in the head and were cut off to remove the head. The head studs (middle) were at an angle so had to be removed to remove the head.
Yes Triumphs still have a couple - sigh!
You could hardly call the CityRover "a Rover product" when the bonnet and boot badges were about all that Rover manufactured for it!
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.