Poll: The BIG Rover debate
- Thread starter agw_01
- Start date
Caporegime
[TW]Fox said:
I'd argue the 3 ranges listed above would still sell even today, were they still in production, why? They are proven designs that have stood the test of time very well.
Rover had nothing that could match never mind better any of the above cars at launch, even Rovers most uptodate car, the 75, was hopelessly outclassed by the end of its model life.
Why do you lust after a car designed in 1996 in the year 2006 Fox?
Simple, it still delivers the goods 10 years on, what 10 year old Rover design could cut the mustard today? I'll let the companys fate answer that one for you.
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
It's widely known that the reason Rover continued rehashing old products was becuase they had no choice, I cannot find any specific online sources but even die hard Rover fans don't normally try and pretend the reason they kept using old designs were becuase they were fantastic.
Whats your question by the way? I'm ignoring everything in your opening post becuase I think the idea of a dragging something from IRC onto the forums to have a moan about is petty
Whats your question by the way? I'm ignoring everything in your opening post becuase I think the idea of a dragging something from IRC onto the forums to have a moan about is petty
Soldato
[TW]Fox said:
He's completely right. I grew up in Birmingham and watched it happen.
My brother inlaws father is a Rover man through and through having worked there all his life and is still upset about the way Rovers final years went.
Fox, I am talking about Clios.
Up to the latest revision I think the 25 was a better drive, I am exluding the 172/182 and maybe a couple of others from this.
It's also better than the equivalent Corsa, 206 and Saxo and no doubt a few other cars that I have not driven.
For what it's worth I paid £8k for it and lost less than £2k over 2 years, buying from a dealer in the process. OK the arse has somewhat fallen out of the market since but how many 10 month old cars can you buy from dealers these days and sell over 2 years later and lose less than £2k on them?
At the time in the same market there was nothing I would have preferred.
Up to the latest revision I think the 25 was a better drive, I am exluding the 172/182 and maybe a couple of others from this.
It's also better than the equivalent Corsa, 206 and Saxo and no doubt a few other cars that I have not driven.
For what it's worth I paid £8k for it and lost less than £2k over 2 years, buying from a dealer in the process. OK the arse has somewhat fallen out of the market since but how many 10 month old cars can you buy from dealers these days and sell over 2 years later and lose less than £2k on them?
At the time in the same market there was nothing I would have preferred.
[TW]Fox said:It's widely known that the reason Rover continued rehashing old products was becuase they had no choice, I cannot find any specific online sources but even die hard Rover fans don't normally try and pretend the reason they kept using old designs were becuase they were fantastic.
Whats your question by the way? I'm ignoring everything in your opening post becuase I think the idea of a dragging something from IRC onto the forums to have a moan about is petty
The Mk3 200 was probably just as good a seller as the Mk2. The ZR wasn't just a run of the mill 200/25 though.
Ok, so Rover might have not have had any chance of releasing new models (the Streetwise was evidence of this) but the MG range weren't just crummy old Rovers. They were totally restyled... if you put a 200 and ZR next to each other, they'd look completely different... and they'd drive completely differently as well.
Take a look at posts 16 and 17. That's my question. I think you'll find I mentioned IRC for about one sentence
agw_01 said:
Only becuase a handful of people bought them regardless of how poor they were simply becuase 'Aye lad, best buy british' or some other inane reason, or becuase in the latter stages of Rovers existence they tried to give them away by selling them at stupid prices, offering free leather, etc.
No, it was a run of the mill 200 that was driven into a local branch of Halfords and emerged with most of the ripspeed section fixed to it
Totally restyled? Oh come off it - it was a 25 with a bodykit - it was no more 'totally restyled' than a Mondeo with RSAP is totally restyled - it was simply a bodykit nothing more, nothing less, and some lowered suspension. They never released anything new - just more and more rehashes of an old, tired product. I mean what on EARTH was the Streetwise about? What a pointless car.
Even their one 'new' car, the CityRover, was a rebadged Tata Indica.
Take a look at posts 16 and 17. That's my question. I think you'll find I mentioned IRC for about one sentence
Why was it years behind the others? Well thats blatantly obvious really, isn't it? The 200 was released in 1995 and heavily based on the previous model which traces its routes to the 1980's.
The new Clio was a completely new car in 1998, the new Fiesta a completely new car in 2002, the Yaris a completely new car in 1999, etc.
Soldato
The only Rovers I trust are the ones with Honda designed engines. The day they were stupid enough to ignore Hondas wise words was the day they started to die imo
I like their looks I have to say but Iam not a mechanic so I would not enjoy tinkering with one all the time like many do.
Iam sad to see them go but it was not for lack of second chances given by the british public and many others.
I like their looks I have to say but Iam not a mechanic so I would not enjoy tinkering with one all the time like many do.
Iam sad to see them go but it was not for lack of second chances given by the british public and many others.
Caporegime
agw_01 said:
Rover had no chance because the MG Range was crap and they could'nt afford replacements, they simply tarted up the existing outdated range.
You cannot polish a turd, as history and Rover proves.
Last edited:
[TW]Fox said:
Are we talking about the Mk3 here? I see more Mk3's on the road than I do Mk2's... I'd hardly call that just a 'handful' of people. Oh, and leather is very rare in the Mk3's. Which takes me back to my other point. I'd like to see another car which fell into the same category as the 200 which had a similar spec.No, it was a run of the mill 200 that was driven into a local branch of Halfords and emerged with most of the ripspeed section fixed to it
Ok, so I didn't think about that one, I'll let you off.
I agree with the CityRover being called the ******Rover for a reason. I have no idea what they were thinking when they released that, but it wasn't a Rover. Truthfully, I liked the way rover re-used the 25/45/75 to make the MG range. The CityRover was just sat in a corner on its own.
Oh, the bigger engined MG's had lowered and stiffened suspension. I think that, and the engines in the ZR160, ZS180 and ZT190/260 gave them the right to be sporty cars.
I'll let you off again with that one. I'd only just realised that they used the Mk2 chassis for the Mk3. But just look what it's like with decent suspension.
Permabanned
Haha, aw man, so true, there are some ok rovers, but as a company there cars would have to have been a lot better to stay in business nowadays, they wernt, they went bust, evidence enough that overall, Rover built poor cars, especially for the money they were asking for.Jokester said:
Last edited:
Just because they went bust doesn't mean the cars were crap.
Fiat were in big trouble but seem to have pulled things round.
Jaguar are still losing money hand over first but are bailed out by Ford - $362m losses for the PAG group comprising Aston Martin, Jaguar, Volvo, Land Rover.
Ford motor group are in big financial trouble - Full Year losses topped $4.8 billion
GM aren't in a healthy state - Full Year losses topped $8.6bn
Ford could quite easily go under, does that mean all their cars are crap?
Fiat were in big trouble but seem to have pulled things round.
Jaguar are still losing money hand over first but are bailed out by Ford - $362m losses for the PAG group comprising Aston Martin, Jaguar, Volvo, Land Rover.
Ford motor group are in big financial trouble - Full Year losses topped $4.8 billion
GM aren't in a healthy state - Full Year losses topped $8.6bn
Ford could quite easily go under, does that mean all their cars are crap?
Muncher said:
Rover's reasons for going bust were hopelessly inefficient, outdated working practices combined with an ageing range of cars they could not afford to replace.
Fords reasons for potentially going bust are an enormous pensions and healthcare defecit and huge costs associated with running numerous inefficient factories in the States.
Not QUITE the same thing.
Soldato
I voted 'No, they suck harder than a dyson'. I work in car parts and the number of rover headgaskets we sell is unbelievable. The local engine works skim on average 20 rover heads a week. In the last couple of weeks ive actually sold a couple of headgaskets for the newer MG's with around 30k on the clock.
It seems that from maybe 90-95onwards rover just keep building on what they had and didnt really do anything new.
Also buying parts from the dealers is a nightmare, I had to order a power steering pipe and was told it would be at least 9months. Another part we actually sent up to get matched and they managed to send the wrong one back down even though it had all the part numbers on the part itself.
Just about every garage/mechanic who buys from our shop all have the same bad opinions on Rover.
Parts wise japanese cars are by far the most reliable based on what we sell, and rover are one of the worst.
It seems that from maybe 90-95onwards rover just keep building on what they had and didnt really do anything new.
Also buying parts from the dealers is a nightmare, I had to order a power steering pipe and was told it would be at least 9months. Another part we actually sent up to get matched and they managed to send the wrong one back down even though it had all the part numbers on the part itself.
Just about every garage/mechanic who buys from our shop all have the same bad opinions on Rover.
Parts wise japanese cars are by far the most reliable based on what we sell, and rover are one of the worst.
At a company i worked at a couple of years ago, i was offered a rover 25 company car. I drove it for one day.
The thing was terrible, i had to totally gun it at junctions to be safe! The 45s were no better, blowing engines/gearboxes left right and centre..
I point blank refused any rover and stuck it out with a 1.8 turbo diesel transit connect. I loved that van, not only was it great, but every rover driver was always claiming they needed my van for jobs cause they hated the rovers so much.
My mate has a 220 coupe turbo. I have lost track of the number of times i have been under it replacing the gearbox with him, then if its not that, its the clutch, brakes, imobiliser, its just endless!
The thing was terrible, i had to totally gun it at junctions to be safe! The 45s were no better, blowing engines/gearboxes left right and centre..
I point blank refused any rover and stuck it out with a 1.8 turbo diesel transit connect. I loved that van, not only was it great, but every rover driver was always claiming they needed my van for jobs cause they hated the rovers so much.
My mate has a 220 coupe turbo. I have lost track of the number of times i have been under it replacing the gearbox with him, then if its not that, its the clutch, brakes, imobiliser, its just endless!
Rover had there ups and downs. Mostly downs, during the 80's when BL started to use the Rover name more they had a good partnership with Honda. Using the Honda Ballade as the Rover 200 and the Honda Legend as the Rover 800 this allowed BL who changed their name to use the more popular Rover name to produce some good alternatives to Ford and Vauxhall.. Their flagging Montego and Maestro cars, under the Austin name were toss though, and when they released the MG Montego and MG Maestro to compete against the XRi cars of Ford, that has got to be one of the biggest laughs the motor industry ever had..
Don't get me wrong, the MG name was good, and I think the MG name could be invigorated and made into a niche British Car name again, but the cars that the MG badge were attached to were just toss..
The Rover 800 was also a bit of a shock as well. The Honda Legend was a joint project with Honda providing engines and drivetrain systems, with Rover doing the styling etc, I think it was codenamed project XX.. Oddly, the Legend in the states that was built elsewhere was a very good car and was even marketed under Hondas western flagship name Acura, yet the Rover 800 built in England were rust buckets, that had a lot of electrical problems, and even the ones exported were no better. This give Rover a very bad name, and a bad image, yet the Legend sold well and cemented Honda as a reliable and trustworthy car. They were the same cars, yet Rover were perceived as an awful car, and Honda as the one to buy. Let’s not get me mistaken, the Legend did have problems, but nothing like what the Rover had, and the Legend even won best of car in its class in Japan for a few years, even after the 800 by Rover was long gone.
Rover, I think were a group that just didn't know what to do. Their image just changed too much, and then towards the end they changed very little, talk about contradictive, a group that had many cars and tried to release as many new models as possible, to a group that tried to sell something that should have been buried years ago. The Rover 200 and Rover 75 were produced way past shelf life, and the 45 was still based on the old Honda Civic, whereas Honda had released many marks since disassociating themselves from the Rover group of this very car, and well marketed. Rover didn’t market well, had that image that wasn’t going them no good and this killed them, as well as entrenched management and too many changes in board members, owners and public image.
Oddly, Rover did approach Honda towards the end, but Honda wanted nothing to do with setting up another joint venture. I think Rover just tried to remain a mass production product but in today’s market, they just couldn't compete. They had neither the image or the range to continue, and their build quality was at times questionable and hence they went bust.
The MG name was all that anyone really wanted. The younger generation of Rover buyers were buying old style cars with MG badges attached to them. TBH, the Rover 75 MG had little chance of competing with some of the bigger boys, but was priced competitively, but in the end, low sales, high wages, pension gap and no new models just finished the group off.
I don't feel Rover were a bad car, I’ve seen worse, but they did release some very dodgy models, made bad managerial decisions, and I think their split with Honda was a bad idea, and I feel if they hadn't split from Honda, they might have succeeded better. They seemed to shed a very capable partner, Honda, for a partner that was totally un-suitable. BMW only wanted the compact technology for them to release their own compact, Mini One, and the 4 x 4 systems, X3 and X5. Phoenix Venture Holdings tried to market the brand of Britishness, and for a country like ours, where a vast majority of citizens do not give too hoots where their car is built, this was one of many directions that was wrong.
Isn't it odd though, you think of Rover and it's hard to remember some of their cars.. That is just how bland their image was. If only they could have made more of the MG name. Such a shame.
Don't get me wrong, the MG name was good, and I think the MG name could be invigorated and made into a niche British Car name again, but the cars that the MG badge were attached to were just toss..
The Rover 800 was also a bit of a shock as well. The Honda Legend was a joint project with Honda providing engines and drivetrain systems, with Rover doing the styling etc, I think it was codenamed project XX.. Oddly, the Legend in the states that was built elsewhere was a very good car and was even marketed under Hondas western flagship name Acura, yet the Rover 800 built in England were rust buckets, that had a lot of electrical problems, and even the ones exported were no better. This give Rover a very bad name, and a bad image, yet the Legend sold well and cemented Honda as a reliable and trustworthy car. They were the same cars, yet Rover were perceived as an awful car, and Honda as the one to buy. Let’s not get me mistaken, the Legend did have problems, but nothing like what the Rover had, and the Legend even won best of car in its class in Japan for a few years, even after the 800 by Rover was long gone.
Rover, I think were a group that just didn't know what to do. Their image just changed too much, and then towards the end they changed very little, talk about contradictive, a group that had many cars and tried to release as many new models as possible, to a group that tried to sell something that should have been buried years ago. The Rover 200 and Rover 75 were produced way past shelf life, and the 45 was still based on the old Honda Civic, whereas Honda had released many marks since disassociating themselves from the Rover group of this very car, and well marketed. Rover didn’t market well, had that image that wasn’t going them no good and this killed them, as well as entrenched management and too many changes in board members, owners and public image.
Oddly, Rover did approach Honda towards the end, but Honda wanted nothing to do with setting up another joint venture. I think Rover just tried to remain a mass production product but in today’s market, they just couldn't compete. They had neither the image or the range to continue, and their build quality was at times questionable and hence they went bust.
The MG name was all that anyone really wanted. The younger generation of Rover buyers were buying old style cars with MG badges attached to them. TBH, the Rover 75 MG had little chance of competing with some of the bigger boys, but was priced competitively, but in the end, low sales, high wages, pension gap and no new models just finished the group off.
I don't feel Rover were a bad car, I’ve seen worse, but they did release some very dodgy models, made bad managerial decisions, and I think their split with Honda was a bad idea, and I feel if they hadn't split from Honda, they might have succeeded better. They seemed to shed a very capable partner, Honda, for a partner that was totally un-suitable. BMW only wanted the compact technology for them to release their own compact, Mini One, and the 4 x 4 systems, X3 and X5. Phoenix Venture Holdings tried to market the brand of Britishness, and for a country like ours, where a vast majority of citizens do not give too hoots where their car is built, this was one of many directions that was wrong.
Isn't it odd though, you think of Rover and it's hard to remember some of their cars.. That is just how bland their image was. If only they could have made more of the MG name. Such a shame.
moss, that's not suprising given that the gaskets you sell are for use on wet-liner (after 1996) engines. The dry-liner (pre 96) blocks were much much less prone to HG failure.
I've seen MANY people state different things about what causes the failures, but it would be really good to be able to put it down a one thing and resolve it. Quite a few people think it the positioning of the thermostat.
Malt_Vinegar, he's not running increased boost is he, or constantly floors it in 1st? It's very unlikely for the PG1 box to go just like that.
iv-tecman, a superb post there, with a lot of discriptive information. Thanks for that
I'll reply to specific parts tomorrow as I'm pretty tired at the moment (read. been drinking )
I'd just like to thank everyone for contributing to this thread. Some very good points have been made.
I've seen MANY people state different things about what causes the failures, but it would be really good to be able to put it down a one thing and resolve it. Quite a few people think it the positioning of the thermostat.
Malt_Vinegar, he's not running increased boost is he, or constantly floors it in 1st? It's very unlikely for the PG1 box to go just like that.
iv-tecman, a superb post there, with a lot of discriptive information. Thanks for that
I'll reply to specific parts tomorrow as I'm pretty tired at the moment (read. been drinking )I'd just like to thank everyone for contributing to this thread. Some very good points have been made.
Soldato
agw_01 said:
I cant quite remember what year most are tbh, one of our suppliers FAI even have a page about it...
http://www.faiauto.com/news/hg512.htm
The HG512 is the most common gasket we sell, its used on Rovers from 1989 onwards, many 2000 onwards Rovers use the same one, such as the 1.8 75.
Water pump failure is quite common too.
When I saw its the most common, i'd say over a year we would sell more HG512's than the rest of the HG's put together.