With the exception of the last one (which I'm intrigued about, surely not the MGSV being given as an example?) all those can be countered with: but they sold millions of cars, and the second hand has always been healthy. Secondhand Rovers were priced similarly to secondhand versions of their contemporary competitors. Or at least so my observations of autotrader etc have lead me to believe.Limecat wrote:
* Overpriced and not as good as the competition when new.
* Cheap and unwanted as a second hand vehicle (supply and demand Jon, prices stay high if demand is there! Demand is market driven, people will buy good products!)
* Poor image in terms of styling, branding and reliability.
* Same outdated line-up with a few bits of extra plastic glued on every now and again.
* Poor model line-up.
* Manufacturing an already over-priced model at a LOSS.
I use words like "probably", "possibly" and "likely" to differentiate fact from merely my opinion. You seem unaware of such a distinctionLimecat wrote: If I cannot hold an opinion that they weren't financially viable without the information then how are you qualified to say that they were?
The whole debate here is about sales performance and comparison with competing marques in the past. If you can't remember what cars were like at the time then how can you be qualified to comment?Limecat wrote:Sorry, by all means find me a 2010 Rover I can compare it to? Hmmm...
I do remember what competitors cars were like and I think I can say with confidence that a Rover model was generally nicer than it's competitor from Vauxhall, Ford etc. They were more expensive, but how many astras had full leather interior, aircon, electric windows & mirrors, ABS as standard etc?
Comparing a 1995 average car to a 2010 one is just stupid. You might as well say the Comet or Spitfire were logger because the A380 and Eurofighter are better.


