non rover owner's

[mg-richard]

are cheap undesirable cars instantly crap?

allot of the more expensive and supposedly good cars

just dont live up to their names

most rovers ever built were everything they wanted to be and allot more, bar the cityrover

[munky]

Used to annoy me when I had the rover, but I liked the car and that was that.

Thing is, it'll only get worse as the rovers left are just going to look even worse compared to modern day cars. I know they're quick and handle well but they're nowhere near the build quality of a lot of offerings, the insides are dated generally a lot of the ones left aren't well looked after.

You can see why people will think they're rubbish now... as most people want the solidity of modern cars and anything old will just look rubbish.

Not that I agree with that mind, I think they're great bargain cars and definately underestimated performance wise (a 220 turbo would leave me standing) I probably would't buy one now though as I have to admit I'd want something a bit more solid and modern now.

Rovers are in the same sort of limbo state as e30's. There are a lot of them that will, without question, be classics... but they just arent there yet.

The same thing I said to e30 owners applies here. No matter how shiny and mint your car may be, when you still see battered multicoloured versions of the same car, with 7 kids bungee strapped into the back and some skanky council estate mother doing the Lidl run in them, they are not yet a classic.

They will one day, but they arent yet.

[Sheaf]

are cheap undesirable cars instantly crap?

allot of the more expensive and supposedly good cars

just dont live up to their names

No, but the public these days wants a car that gets them from A to B with zero hassle, no noise, no rattles, little fuel cost and a lot opf safety.

A lot of modern cars are insulated as hell and tbh not a very good driving experience. In fact I had a rant a while back on the same topic. BUT it's what people want, and in their eyes, the dated rovers simply aren't anywhere up to scratch.

And as Munky says, they're just not going to be classed as a classic yet. They're just in the 'old banger' age to most people.

As I say, I loved my rover, and I still say it was a great car. But that's just not going to convince people.

[munky]

the thing is, the enthusiasts look down on the school-run bangers and say what a shame it is to see such a good car in such a poor state... but its because of these old bangers that your cars will one day be seen in a different light.

The more that get scrapped, abused, driven into the ground, the more valuable and rare yours will be.

It takes more than a good old car to become a classic, it needs to be thin on the ground too. You cant have the best of both worlds.

At one point a rover p5 was just a family saloon, a mk2 jag was just an executive wagon... its taken a long time for them to become what they are today. Some classics are clearly classics from the day they were designed (e-type, gt40 etc) but they are in a different league than the 'lower end' potential classics like e30's and rover coupes etc.

As to people looking down on you because of your rover, do you care what other people think of you? Did you buy your car for other people to enjoy?

Nope... if you like it, drive it.

In essence, the more people who dont realise the potential of a rover, the more it benefits the people who do. So when someone looks down at your car, carry on, with the smug knowledge that thanks to their disdain, one day you'll be driving a classic and they'll be driving a 307.

[Punx0r]

Thinking about it, I'm not sure I've ever been confronted by someone saying "your car is crap, all rovers are crap". I'm genuinely surprised by the number of people who compliment my 800, they say how good it looks (even though I'd say it was becoming a shed with the number of scratches and scabs it has).

Quite often they reminisce about a Rover they had/their company had/someone they knew had, or bemoan the lack of UK car manufacturing now Rover is gone.

Perhaps I spend more time talking to grown ups?

[munky]

your car is crap, all rovers are crap.


Actually that reminds me of the other week, we were doing a car boot to clear out the shed/cupboards and the chap next to us had an 800, I was explaining things about it to the wife and saying how nice it looked inside and the guy looked really shocked. Ended up having quite a nice chat with him about it.

[David-Ti]

Only time I got any stick about owning a rover was the first one or two weeks of owning the Ti...

Who owns the grandads car parked outside.
what would you like for your birthday - a pipe or slippers!

Its very light hearted stuff from mates mostly. They actually quite like the car, keep asking me when the feck its going to be back on the road though.

I have had nice comments whilst at the pumps. One time a guy came up to me to thank me for letting him out of a side road and went on to ask me about my Ti - is that a turbo? yes I replied,, nice nick that, you done much to it.. No, I said just trying to look after it.lol

[Din]

All my mates at work rip me for loveing Rovers

But im quite open about it its more an obsession tbh

I have got past the careing stage tbh, you can not get this much bang for buck anywhere else, and if you know/love the brand anyway, then its a win win situation

[Punx0r]

the chap next to us had an 800, I was...saying how nice it looked inside and...Ended up having quite a nice chat with him about it.

Welcome to middle-age!

[munky]

I've been middle aged and proud for years now.

Tbf, he didnt hear me saying how, good as it was, it wasnt as good as the e39 interior... but thats purely incidental and I thought it would detract from my point in this topic

[Limecat]

Rovers have a bad reputation and rightly so.

Corsas have a bad reputation and rightly so.

Renault 5 turbos have a bad reputation and rightly so.

Strangely, I own all three (although the Corsa is now a shell on the old Queens driveway) but people say my opinion is not valid or claim that I am trolling.

It's each to their own. If I said that I am very seriously considering buying a 1994 Vauxhall Corsa for big money (enough to buy a brand new car) you would all laugh. I would laugh at you, in that car, even if you owned a Countach, F355, F40 etc. Each to their own. He will make his mind up at the end of the year but the money is there waiting and I will still say that a Corsa is a crap car, even if it can hit 100 MPH in 8 seconds.

[Null_Byte]

Rovers have a bad reputation and rightly so.

I'll bite. Why?

Corsas have a bad reputation and rightly so.

Why?

Renault 5 turbos have a bad reputation and rightly so.

Yeah fair point, they are rubbish.

Strangely, I own all three (although the Corsa is now a shell on the old Queens driveway) but people say my opinion is not valid or claim that I am trolling.

It isn't, and you are.

It's each to their own. If I said that I am very seriously considering buying a 1994 Vauxhall Corsa for big money (enough to buy a brand new car) you would all laugh. I would laugh at you, in that car, even if you owned a Countach, F355, F40 etc. Each to their own.

A brand new car eh? Like a Tata nano?

I honestly don't think a Countach driver would really care what you thought, at all, about anything, ever. They are going to be way too busy - being rich somewhere. But like you said, each to their own. The majority of Rover owners drive a Rover because they want to.

He will make his mind up at the end of the year but the money is there waiting and I will still say that a Corsa is a crap car, even if it can hit 100 MPH in 8 seconds.

Lets hope he gets you some reliable slips for that then and it isn't another one of these phantom 500bhp corsa Bs. 8 seconds to 100mph will take around 500bhp and some drag tyres. I would imagine it would be largely undrivable on anything other than the pod.

[Limecat]

I'm on a phone now Jon so I will pyramid quote you tomorrow if that's Ok?

Well, that's a rhetorical question to be honest, you don't have much choice in the matter, it's a right bugger multi-quoting on this without decoding War and Peace!

[radddogg]

Anyone thinking they are all that are just deluding themselves. That's why they don't exist anymore at the end of the day.

Stop trolling, they don't exist because of the sort of people that were more concerned with their share money.

I'm sorry but it was all down to sales, which dwindled because they didn't make any new models (except 75) and the reliability issue of the K. If your product doesn't sell then your company fails.

[Null_Byte]

I'm on a phone now Jon so I will pyramid quote you tomorrow if that's Ok?

Well, that's a rhetorical question to be honest, you don't have much choice in the matter, it's a right bugger multi-quoting on this without decoding War and Peace!

You really didn't have to make a post stating that

I am genuinely interested to see what you mean by a bad reputation and why it is rightly deserved. The majority of modern cars sold meet their design targets and their customers requirements. Comparing a mondeo to a murcielago isn't fair as they are designed for different purposes.

IMHO Rovers were no more unreliable than any other car of the era, no less practical, with comparable stats to most other cars. They suffered from bad press, and it could be argued they were slightly overpriced, but I can't see these being reasons a bad reputation is justified.

Anyone thinking they are all that are just deluding themselves. That's why they don't exist anymore at the end of the day.

Stop trolling, they don't exist because of the sort of people that were more concerned with their share money.

I'm sorry but it was all down to sales, which dwindled because they didn't make any new models (except 75) and the reliability issue of the K. If your product doesn't sell then your company fails.

Do you actually know why Rover went bust at all? It has nothing to do with the K or the 75 or the lack of new models.

The root cause started with the chronic underinvestment in engineering in this country, the inefficiency and labour expense of the British Leyland era. The fact the government pushed for BMWs takeover, and wouldn't bail out Rover till after they had cherry picked any profitable parts out.

The fact that the phoenix four only input was to line their own pockets using tricks like taking out a huge interest free loan from BMW, then loaning it to MG Rover charging interest on it.

Dogged by underinvestment, with all profit making departments gone, vast amounts of money being squandered, wasted and (let's be honest) embezzled, in a competitive market where other manufactures are bailed out by their country's governments in hard times - the only wonder is they lasted as long as they did whilst managing to still make incredibly enduring models.

Apply those criteria to any successful business today, and see how long they last. Had there been any interest in actually saving Rover, rather than saving face and empty election promises - they would still be around today. Rover was still innovating right up until the end.

[Punx0r]

People seem to compare old Rovers to modern family cars and conclude they're crap by comparison. Our Rovers were actually competing with Mk4 escorts, bubble-shaped astras, last of the line Granadas etc.

Generally they were a little more expensive but generally much better equipped.

[jase]

Rover did some stupid things, and there is no doubt a heavy political side to there failure.

But Ill also add the attitude of the British. We always do slate our own. Brits are far happier showing off there new German car (usually sans low spec badges) so they can feel superior to there neighbour, or falling gullibly for what they see on the telly with what i can only guess is british arrogance at thinking they know more than they do.

My Partner had an Audi A3 and she loved it. But after much laughing and complaining about my Vitty sport it suddenly dawned on her it was actually a much much better car. When the Vitty went She sold her Audi and with the inspiration of the Vitty comprimised at an Octavia Vrs. It couldnt win her totally to Rover but it completly changed her view of cars and badges.

'If only everythng in life was as reliable as a VW' .... erm, we'd spend most our lives asking for our money back.




J

[zozzie_9t9]

Jon's spot on; Rover's demise starts a long time ago! The final straw in many ways, I think, loosing the Mini and Land Rover.

Considering the help bankers received it seems wrong to me that all the normal workers at Longbridge didn't receive anything like that.

Rovers have a bad reputation and rightly so.

danglies deluxe!

Corsas have a bad reputation and rightly so.

Now, I'm not a Vauxhall fan but we have a Corsa C and as a little hatch it is actually a great little car. It's only one litre but round town it was nice and nippy. Cross country is another matter... It's well screwed together too and will run for miles and miles on just an egg cupful of petrol! The only problem we have is that being a three door it's really awkward getting a baby seat in and out but you can't really blame GM for that.

It doesn't handle as well as either of the family's zeds or a ti but as a small hatch it does pretty well.

[Limecat]

Are you sitting comfortably Jon? Here goes. Go, go gadget pyramid quoting...

Rovers have a bad reputation and rightly so.

I'll bite. Why?

Well, Rovers as any car, can be looked at in 2 ways - as a new car (at the time obviously) and as a used car. Now as a new car, there were far better options out there at the time. As a result the used car market meant you could buy one a few years old for peanuts in comparrison to the competition. Now without new cars being built there is no second hand market so unless you are buying a car for it's lifespan then suddenly the pool of potential new buyers massively drops by virtue of the second hand market, people who replace a car every 3 years or so (as many people do as they want motoring on a set budget and the safety of a warranty), then start to look at resale values and all of a sudden the Rover doesn't look a good option, especially given the age of the model line up.

As a used car, as many people on here have no doubt purchased them then they are a cheap budget option. As a new car they would be very far down the list, the image both in terms of style and reliability wasn't too good. The fact that they just re-hashed existing designs to try to prolong somethings shelf life was a bit of a joke (Ok, it was done with things like the Fiesta and the Nova but only for a brief amount of time) they tried to pull the wool over the eyes of the consumer by giving the Rover 200 a shave and putting it in a dress and passed it off as a Rover 25, which by virtue of the name change implies a 'new model', something it certainly wasn't, they then decided to stick 2 fingers up at the consumer by sorting it's split ends and poor roots and calling it an MG ZR. If you keep doing the same thing and failing, expect the same result. They not only did it with the Rover 200/25/MG ZR but also the Metro/R100 and even the Metro was largely a re-hash of the previous Metro to retain various panels and save costs.

Then you look at the companies demise, people still to this day cry about it. All the above contributed to it, as well as other issues, but people claiming the Government should have bailed them out really aren't thinking about the situation fully and no, the banking sector isn't a good retort against a failing manufacturer. The directors would have put a proposition together forcasting future sales/profitability (even though they were losing money hand over fist) based upon their current market range and their future ones - what future ones? Exactly. A car, so I am led to believe, takes 3-4 years to design, develop, test and manufacture, so lets forget the costing of that for a moment (unless you want the Government to also pay for that too?) and assume it's all 'free'. So that's 3-4 years selling an already outdated product with further dwindling sales in the meantime and no guarantee of success with the new models either? Those dwindling sales against a company already losing money and the same workforce the Government do not want on the dole, it doesn't weigh up does it? The Government aren't there to hand out money willy-nilly, they would expect returns on that money otherwise not only have they just thrown money at a situation, which rarely works anyway, but they then have to pick up the cost of those who inadvertantly lose their job at a later date so they have shelled out twice. They aren't stupid, no matter what we may think.

Corsas have a bad reputation and rightly so.

Why?

I say so, what I say goes...

They do everything needed of a car in that bracket adequately but don't excel at any of those attributes.

Renault 5 turbos have a bad reputation and rightly so.

Yeah fair point, they are rubbish.

They are, I think they are powered by an early derivative of the K series judging by the sales figures for headgaskets?

Strangely, I own all three (although the Corsa is now a shell on the old Queens driveway) but people say my opinion is not valid or claim that I am trolling.

It isn't, and you are.

How is that then Jon?

It's each to their own. If I said that I am very seriously considering buying a 1994 Vauxhall Corsa for big money (enough to buy a brand new car) you would all laugh. I would laugh at you, in that car, even if you owned a Countach, F355, F40 etc. Each to their own.

A brand new car eh? Like a Tata nano?

I honestly don't think a Countach driver would really care what you thought, at all, about anything, ever. They are going to be way too busy - being rich somewhere. But like you said, each to their own. The majority of Rover owners drive a Rover because they want to.

I don't think that is the case to be honest, Ok, people on here no doubt own them as they want to but for every cherished example there are some right snotters being used because people just don't have a choice to be honest, they will buy whatever runs and is cheap.

He will make his mind up at the end of the year but the money is there waiting and I will still say that a Corsa is a crap car, even if it can hit 100 MPH in 8 seconds.

Lets hope he gets you some reliable slips for that then and it isn't another one of these phantom 500bhp corsa Bs. 8 seconds to 100mph will take around 500bhp and some drag tyres. I would imagine it would be largely undrivable on anything other than the pod.

Credit where it is due, you are almost right with the figures, not quite at the output but near enough. No drag tyres, fully road legal and he even used it to potter about in during the bad snow, that's how tractable it is.

[618ireland]

Didn't the Z models sell in large numbers though ?

[MarkCoupe]

If it bothers you, just pick out something in their life thats logger. let me make an example:

'Haha, whyd you buy a Rover ??'

- 'Why did you marry a pig?'


'Rovers are logger though..'

- 'Your wifes face looks like something i threw up once'



'But theyre so feckin unreliable, why dont you buy a good car?'

- 'Your kids look like they have downs syndrome, why dont you adopt some good looking ones and swap yours in'


Simples

[TheRealStig]

[Punx0r]

A epic rant that wasn't remotely factual

Most car manufacturers rehash models/platforms to extend their lives. You imply Rover did it to rip people off, but they did it out of necessity. The transformation to Z range was done on an absolute shoestring, and the results were very impressive, considering.

The Z's, especially the ZR did sell in large numbers and I've heard plenty of owners claim they wouldn't be seen dead in the Rover version. That is marketing genius, they effectively created a whole new range of cars with their own, new markets for £3.50.

Considering your detailed insight into the financial and commerical workings of MGR it's odd you're not aware of the 25/45 replacement that was about to start production, the work well underway for replacing the 75 and I think they were also finally working on a new mini (which BMW got). I'd have to check the details on the mini. That's aside from the new engines that were in late stages of development.

Rover certainly did make some screw-ups, but they also made some cracking cars. What else would explain the fondness that the majority of ex-owners speak of?

A government bailout would have been a good idea if you take other national mass manufacturers as examples. I'm not sure why you of all people would prefer to have 10,000 extra people on the dole

And yes, the almost complete lack of support for domestic manufacturering amongst the car buying public was a huge problem.

[Limecat]

A epic rant that wasn't remotely factual

Most car manufacturers rehash models/platforms to extend their lives. You imply Rover did it to rip people off, but they did it out of necessity. The transformation to Z range was done on an absolute shoestring, and the results were very impressive, considering.

The Z's, especially the ZR did sell in large numbers and I've heard plenty of owners claim they wouldn't be seen dead in the Rover version. That is marketing genius, they effectively created a whole new range of cars with their own, new markets for £3.50.

Considering your detailed insight into the financial and commerical workings of MGR it's odd you're not aware of the 25/45 replacement that was about to start production, the work well underway for replacing the 75 and I think they were also finally working on a new mini (which BMW got). I'd have to check the details on the mini. That's aside from the new engines that were in late stages of development.

Rover certainly did make some screw-ups, but they also made some cracking cars. What else would explain the fondness that the majority of ex-owners speak of?

A government bailout would have been a good idea if you take other national mass manufacturers as examples. I'm not sure why you of all people would prefer to have 10,000 extra people on the dole

And yes, the almost complete lack of support for domestic manufacturering amongst the car buying public was a huge problem.

I am aware that other manufacturers use tried and tested methods for the rest of the range, VW Mk3 Golf/Corrado/Beetle have largely the same under pinnings, also the Vauxhall J platform of cars like the Astra Mk2/3, Cavalier Mk3, Calibra etc again share a huge number of chassis components (I am talking the 2WD varients before you pull me up on that!).

I didn't imply thet did it to rip people off, that was your interpretation of my post, at the end of the day a consumer can buy what they want but the Rover/MG was not a good option when you look at *spit* Toyota/BMW etc.

People banging the 'Rover drum' tend to be those that think they should buy British, even though a lot of them buy second hand (see above, without new cars there is no second hand ones) but they are happy to have Japanese TV's/cameras, german appliances, italian/asian food etc, they are just selective on their purchasing.

At the end of the day Rover was just a brand. That's all. I am still amazed that people cry about it. I love Kenwood for electrical appliances but if they went bump tomorrow it wouldn't be something I would spend 5 years crying about on a forum. Likewise, as you know, I LOVE my football and my team, Oldham Athletic, almost went to the wire a number of years back. Football is far more emotive than a badge on a car but if they no longer existed I would have followed another team, or whatever came as a result of their demise, again I wouldn't be crying about it years later.

I feel for those that worked for the company but as I said, the Government aren't stupid and throwing money at something until it works isn't the answer, no matter how much I dislike dole sponging badgers. The difference being the dole sponging badgers I hate are the ones that are NOT prepared to work, not those that have stuck in years of service and find themselves in a bad place.

EDIT: As a matter of interest, if my football team had gone to pot, do you think they should have been bailed out by the Government? Just to put the cat amongst the pigeons like...

[Null_Byte]

To keep things readable, I'm not going to requote all of that wayne

But your first point is a history lessons, we already know the story of the 25. However it is important to note, to this day it still remains an excellent chassis, supposedly superior to the civic of the same era, which are still held in high regard. The ZS (which by your logic is just a rehash of a 400/45 and therefore a big fraud) is still considered one of the best handling FWD cars of all time. None of this explains why you think it has a bad reputation, or why you think it is justified?

Not designing a new car every year is not a problem if it does the job and meets the customer’s requirements (Remember Rover was under a lot of stain at this point due to chronic under investment by BAE).
For instance, up until a few years ago they were still producing mk2 golfs for the south african market because the demand was so high and that is what the consumer wanted.

Landrover still sell the defender, a design that has changed very little since the late 40s.

It has been said if the tooling still existed to produce the 200/25/ZR chassis today, and presuming it could be manufactured to pass whatever amendments have been made to standards, it would still have a market even now.

The second hand market is still buoyant, although not if the 3 years or younger bracket of course. The number of second hand cars has not diminished over the last 12 months by any noticeable amount according to Xpart.

With regards to the bailout, yes I wholeheartedly believe the government should of bailed out Rover at any cost, and no it is absolutely no different to the banking sector.

Rover was our national car manufacturer, it has the same significance as the bank of England. We have now lost any foothold in the global market. Any other government of any other country with a national vehicle brand would not stand by, and have not stood by. Those skills have now been lost for ever.

The French government invested billions in their car industry, GM received a huge bailout. Why was this done? Because the loss of job and of a national car industry was simply not an option.

When BMW approached the UK government, their attitude was - "tough sh1t". Once again a short sighted view of our manufacturing industry and no desire to keep people in work.

The government, all UK governments are stupid. Trust me I've worked in both defence and education sectors for yonks and you cannot begin to imagine just how idiotic and wasteful they really are.

Don't forget the scrappage scheme, which effectively bailed out the car industry for the rest of the world - that was fine of course, but the UK car industry? Naaaah.

In any case, none of this has any reason as to why you think rovers are justifiably rubbish - an average consumer cares nothing for politics or corporate history when choosing a car.

Corsas have a bad reputation and rightly so.

Why?

I say so, what I say goes...

That only works when you know what you’re talking about though

They do everything needed of a car in that bracket adequately but don't excel at any of those attributes.

And this gives them a bad reputation?

I have a corsa C, I don't like it. But as a car I can't fault it. Making an average car that doesn't excel at anything is a perfectly acceptable position for a volume car manufacturer. A lot of people are quite happy with a generic appliance car. This is not a fault or a negative.

Once again you haven't justified your previous statement at all.

Strangely, I own all three (although the Corsa is now a shell on the old Queens driveway) but people say my opinion is not valid or claim that I am trolling.

It isn't, and you are.

How is that then Jon?

I say so, what I say goes...

But seriously, if you have a valid point to make, you need to learn to actually make it. Just proclaiming an arbitrary viewpoint guaranteed to ruffle feathers without having any substance to back it up just makes you look like you are trolling for bait with no idea what you are talking about.

I don't think that is the case to be honest, Ok, people on here no doubt own them as they want to but for every cherished example there are some right snotters being used because people just don't have a choice to be honest, they will buy whatever runs and is cheap.

There are cars a lot cheaper than a Rover. People choose rovers because they offer cheap power, not because they are a cheap car. Yes a lot of people choose them because they are cheap full stop, but they still choose a Rover. Equally there are a number of people, as you say, who cherish or have a loyalty or interest in the brand. I can think of several names off the top of my head of members who have spent small house money on their rover.

In anycase it is the same for almost any brand. Even reliant robins have their fans.

Credit where it is due, you are almost right with the figures, not quite at the output but near enough. No drag tyres, fully road legal and he even used it to potter about in during the bad snow, that's how tractable it is.

I know I'm right, not being big headed but it is basic physics and maths. As for being tractable, time will tell. I would still get those powerplots - there is a lot of "rounding up" in the corsa world.

Summary:

Nice rant but epic failure off topic, I give it a D.

[MarkCoupe]

Regarding the 400/45 being rehashed into a ZS. I suppose you could say at least they didnt change it for the sake of it and end up with a chassis far worse like alot of other manufacturers of that era, like Honda cost cutting.

[200coupe]

Rover was brought up on a thread on one of the 306 forums the other day with people saying there crap etc, almost felt as if i should defend rover and point out the crapness of french electrics.

I didn't as i knew it wouldn't do any good.

But there is a chap on there building a vvc 100 so there not all haters. lol

[Punx0r]

I didn't imply thet did it to rip people off, that was your interpretation of my post, at the end of the day a consumer can buy what they want but the Rover/MG was not a good option when you look at *spit* Toyota/BMW etc.

The fact that they just re-hashed existing designs to try to prolong somethings shelf life was a bit of a joke...they tried to pull the wool over the eyes of the consumer by giving the Rover 200 a shave and putting it in a dress and passed it off as a Rover 25, which by virtue of the name change implies a 'new model', something it certainly wasn't, they then decided to stick 2 fingers up at the consumer by sorting it's split ends and poor roots and calling it an MG ZR.

People banging the 'Rover drum' tend to be those that think they should buy British, even though a lot of them buy second hand (see above, without new cars there is no second hand ones) but they are happy to have Japanese TV's/cameras, german appliances, italian/asian food etc

You shouldn't buy a rubbish car just because it's British, but a lot of people bought rubbish foreign cars to avoid buying British. Name me a mass UK producer of British TV's and cameras. I eat a lot of food grown and produced in the UK and why not? It's good food, locally or nationally produced. A bit like MGR cars...

I feel for those that worked for the company but as I said, the Government aren't stupid and throwing money at something until it works isn't the answer

They did it for everything else they did

Quite how you can argue one way or another that MGR wasn't financially viable over the medium-long term given proper management and investment is beyond me. There must only be a handful of people in the world who have the knowledge and access to the finanical information required to make that call.

EDIT: As a matter of interest, if my football team had gone to pot, do you think they should have been bailed out by the Government? Just to put the cat amongst the pigeons like...

Hell no. This team is not the only remaining team in the country, probably employs 50 people and has zero export potential. The analogy would be more accurate if you compared the England team, not a team a thousand places down the rankings. And yes, if the end of English participation in internation footballing events was at stake I imagine the Govt would step in.

From watching old news reports, TV programs etc, have people spotted that politicians including the PM always used to drive British cars? That was until NuLabour. Just shows their distain for domestic manufacturing.

[Null_Byte]

but the Rover/MG was not a good option when you look at *spit* Toyota/BMW etc.

Such a bad option that the first thing BMW did was pull all advertising for the 600 because it was competing with the 3 series. I think you are falling into the trap of comparing a 1995 Rover with a 2010 eurobox.

People banging the 'Rover drum' tend to be those that think they should buy British, even though a lot of them buy second hand (see above, without new cars there is no second hand ones) but they are happy to have Japanese TV's/cameras, german appliances, italian/asian food etc, they are just selective on their purchasing.

People banging the 'Rover drum' tend to be peed off that large national car manufacturer with buckets of innovation and engineering talent, supporting thousands of jobs across the UK and producing genuinely good cars - went to the wall for no good reason, as part of this country’s systematic self destruction. People don't by British mass produced goods because, as it may have escaped your attention, we have trashed our entire manufacturing industry to concentrate of selling sub primes. Britain still produces some very high quality products, but usually in very small scale specific markets. It really has nothing to do with any sort of misplaced national pride, but even if it did by your logic you should support the German football team, because they are better.

At the end of the day Rover was just a brand. That's all. I am still amazed that people cry about it.

To a lot of people it was a livelihood, actually. I'm amazed you are using the same argument you were so violently opposed to in the WC thread. But not as amazed as I am by the fact you still haven't answered the original question. Why do you think Rovers "bad reputation" is justified?.

EDIT: As a matter of interest, if my football team had gone to pot, do you think they should have been bailed out by the Government? Just to put the cat amongst the pigeons like...

Let's see - an employer of 11 men and a net exporter of nothing vs a multi billion pound industry employing thousands of people with a large export potential bringing in millions of pounds to this country. I'm not even going to answer that.

So, back to the original question.

Why do Rovers have a bad reputation, and why is it rightly deserved?

Why do Vauxhalls have a bad reputation, and why is that rightly deserved?

We will get to the bottom of this, paxman style.

[mj88]

it does bother me having to defend the badge all the time. maybe its just because im young and a bit hot headed (sometimes ) but the amount of crap people drive these days and they think there so good in there A3 Focus ST etc.... and if one more person says FECKIN HEAD GASKET to me again i may go on a killing spree

as i was still in school when they went bust how was they regarded b4 bmw came along?
did they cost a lot to buy compared to other cars in there class good value for money etc

i do like rovers because my first car (on the road ) was a 98 coupe
but i also like the fact it was made in this country buy british people

[Limecat]

None of this explains why you think it has a bad reputation, or why you think it is justified?

I have answered it Null_Byte but I will break it down into a brief series of bullet points if you are unable to extract the points from the above...

* 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.

Not designing a new car every year is not a problem if it does the job and meets the customer’s requirements (Remember Rover was under a lot of stain at this point due to chronic under investment by BAE).
For instance, up until a few years ago they were still producing mk2 golfs for the south african market because the demand was so high and that is what the consumer wanted.

No, up until about 6/7 years ago they were still producing the Mk2 Golf in Mexico, up until about a year ago they were still making 4 door Mk1 Golfs in South Africa.

Landrover still sell the defender, a design that has changed very little since the late 40s.

It has been said if the tooling still existed to produce the 200/25/ZR chassis today, and presuming it could be manufactured to pass whatever amendments have been made to standards, it would still have a market even now.

A difference between an agricultural tool and a family car though Null_Byte.

There are a lot of outdated nostalgic old relics that are still made for a niche market - sun dials, the abacus, mangles, whistling kettles etc. Just because some people still buy them doesn't make them popular to the wider public and if you have say a clog manufacturer knocking out small volume items they can't sustain the workforce that Nike over the road can!

But seriously, if you have a valid point to make, you need to learn to actually make it. Just proclaiming an arbitrary viewpoint guaranteed to ruffle feathers without having any substance to back it up just makes you look like you are trolling for bait with no idea what you are talking about.

You mean like you did on the World Cup thread? You admit you have watched one game of football in your life and you hate it, yet I have not only driven numerous Rovers I still own one. So my views carry more weight in this topic than yours did in that one.

Quite how you can argue one way or another that MGR wasn't financially viable over the medium-long term given proper management and investment is beyond me. There must only be a handful of people in the world who have the knowledge and access to the finanical information required to make that call.

Yeah, Government advisers being some of them. They made the decision based on numbers, facts and figures.

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? It's academic now as they are no more.

but the Rover/MG was not a good option when you look at *spit* Toyota/BMW etc.

Such a bad option that the first thing BMW did was pull all advertising for the 600 because it was competing with the 3 series. I think you are falling into the trap of comparing a 1995 Rover with a 2010 eurobox.

Sorry, by all means find me a 2010 Rover I can compare it to? Hmmm...

At the end of the day Rover was just a brand. That's all. I am still amazed that people cry about it.

To a lot of people it was a livelihood, actually. I'm amazed you are using the same argument you were so violently opposed to in the WC thread. But not as amazed as I am by the fact you still haven't answered the original question. Why do you think Rovers "bad reputation" is justified?.

I don't recall you saying anything about a brand in the football thread Null_Byte? I also said further up this page that football is far more emotive than a badge on a car. Try getting a Rangers fan to put on a Celtic shirt or vice-versa, but even the most arduous Rover fanatic will have travelled in other cars in their lifetime. Furthermore, I also acknowledged (again as with a lot of what you have countered with it has already been touched upon further up this page) about former workers and how I felt for them.

[radddogg]

I couldn't be bothered to read all of that gumph but I get the gist was Jon asking Wayne to prove Rover deserved the bad rep. I owned 6 Rovers one after the other due to my love of Rover but I have to agree with Wayne. The K series reliability was disastrous in all formats. One engine design doesn't make or break a manufacturer but when its in virtually every model then it's a problem. No replacement for 200/400 in ten years is a problem. Why buy a car that's clearly 8 years old in design when you can buy a brand new design Astra/Focus/307/Golf etc.

Jon, Rover can't be blamed on the government, it was a company just like Tesco, Manchester United and Norwich Union. If you run a company badly (that includes not manufacturing a quality and desirable product) you cannot blame the government. Take a step back and stop blaming everyone else, next you'll be saying Capello wasn't to blame for England's poor world cup performance. Oh wait......

[Null_Byte]

None of this explains why you think it has a bad reputation, or why you think it is justified?

I have answered it Null_Byte but I will break it down into a brief series of bullet points if you are unable to extract the points from the above...

I am unable to extract the "points" from above because none of them answer the question.

Here is a definition to help you out.

Reputation A specific characteristic or trait ascribed to a person or thing

You have stated that Rovers (and Vauxhals) have a bad reputation, and that it is rightly justified. So which particular trait is it they have that is rightly justified as attributing to their bad reputation?

* Overpriced and not as good as the competition when new.

Overpriced? Maybe, targeted at the wrong market? Perhaps. But a car doesn't get a bad reputation for being "overpriced". A Ferrari is "overpriced", but nobody will claim it is a bad car based on its price tag.

In any case, if you take the Rover 600 for example the prices were actually in line with the market sector, and given comparable equipment levels, actually lower than the price of the BMW 3 Series and Audi A4.

So, the car was comparable to the competition and cheaper, I don't really think your statement carries much weight tbh.

Next.

* 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!)

Supply and demand is a tricky concept Wayne, I'm glad you explained it, I would have never of guessed BTW people don't buy good products, people will buy what they are told they want.

What I am struggling to get my head around, is why you think that they are unwanted as a second hand car? The newest Rover is well past the 3 year or less band, warranties have no bearing in this band, prices are buoyant (as I said earlier, there are far cheaper cars out there then rovers) Take an L series 25, or rather, struggle to find one. Dealers know they shift like hot cakes, you can still expect to pay £2500+ if you don't shop about. My 53 plate corsa isn't even worth that.

As I stated earlier, Xpart say the 2nd hand market hasn't changed in the last 12 months - that is exceptional considering how many older cars have been lost to the scrappage scheme.

Cheap? Well yes, badge snobbery and an lower initial purchase price is going to mean second hand prices are going to be low. Prices will rise as the desirable models become classics but that is a way off yet.

* Poor image in terms of styling, branding and reliability.

Translation - "I don't like the way it looks therefore it is crap". "It's a rover and therefore rubbish" - This is the sort of thing that helped conspire against Rover - not liking something because it has become fashionable to do so, does not give it a deservedly bad reputation.... Reliability is fine if you bother to look at the reliability index you will see it's about average.

* Same outdated line-up with a few bits of extra plastic glued on every now and again.

Already been through this, nobody refuses to buy a Leon because it is a Golf with tat screwed on. The consumer cares what it looks like not what models it shares tooling with. The consumers were raving about the MG ZR styling and the ZS handling - both "just rovers with extra plastic glued on".

In any case what you appear to be saying here is Rovers "bad" reputation is based on the last 3 years of its existence.

* Poor model line-up.

Translation “This company has a bad reputation because it doesn’t sell what I want”? WTF? This is like complaining that tesco don’t do bogoffs on tactical nuclear devices.

* Manufacturing an already over-priced model at a LOSS.

Ahh I see you have added this one in as an after thought, and I am very glad you did as it is your best one yet. Let me get this right.

We already have established that the cars were comparably priced (not all of them I admit). but putting this aside, what you are infact saying is:

People think Rovers have a bad reputation because they cost more to make then they are sold for? This must be the first time in history that giving something away is considered a bad thing.

By this logic the veyron has a terrible reputation, and seeing as most car manufacturers made an operating loss this year every single manufacturer is clearly rubbish.

Fantastic, well done. I think what we have here is a list of why you don't like Rovers (c) topgear, rather than why they "have a bad reputation". So I'll throw you a bone.

What I think you mean by a bad reputation is their brand image in the eyes of the public - this was largely down to hype exagerating any real problems of underinvestment. However by the late 90s Rover's reputation had actually improved and from that point of view the future was promising. Yes Rover was optimistic with pricing on the mk3s but so what.

Things came unravelled for them in the last few MGRover years with the quality of cars slipping, new models still stuck on the drawing board and no money in the kitty - but even in their death throws they still managed only a 14% loss in sales throughout the year. Not good – and the poor sales certainly hastened the end, but not bad considering the company was already finished.

What you appear to be saying is "Rover cars are rubbish, so nobody bought them and the company went bust", which is simply incorrect.

What killed Rover has already been discussed, the huge operating losses, bad management and under investment slowly strangled Rover to death over a period of many years, despite the fact they were still selling cars. If everybody had decided Rovers were the best thing since sliced bread and gone out and bought three it still wouldn't of saved them. Even short term investment without a major restructure would have been futile.

Landrover still sell the defender, a design that has changed very little since the late 40s.

A difference between an agricultural tool and a family car though Null_Byte.

You are out of touch Limecat, farmers stopped buying landrovers 20 years ago, they are now a style icon. You can even buy fake mud to spray on them. I kid you not.

This is the perfect example of turning around an old model into a new market with good PR.

But seriously, if you have a valid point to make, you need to learn to actually make it. Just proclaiming an arbitrary viewpoint guaranteed to ruffle feathers without having any substance to back it up just makes you look like you are trolling for bait with no idea what you are talking about.

You mean like you did on the World Cup thread? You admit you have watched one game of football in your life and you hate it, yet I have not only driven numerous Rovers I still own one. So my views carry more weight in this topic than yours did in that one.

I made my point (and no I don’t hate it), you just refused to accept it, and rather than give an answer to any of my questions or substantiate your own, you went off on a tangent as you seem apt to do, disregarding what has been said completely.

You are entitled to your views, just as I am on footballers wages – however I did ask you for an answer to a simple question. Why is Rovers bad reputation justified? Your statement sounded more like an assertion of facts rather than a “view”, so I presumed you had some hither to unknown concrete evidence to back it up. I still have yet to see it. Can I assume it is merely your opinion that Rovers have a bad reputation – and the justification for it is goes something like "‘cause they said so on topgear"?

Yeah, Government advisers being some of them. They made the decision based on numbers, facts and figures.

You do know that Government advisors are paid by the government to put spin on facts and figures to support their masters arguments. Independent reports are almost never independent. Look at the MGRover report, what value for money that was, really got into all the facts and figures didn't it, left no stone unturned.

Sorry, by all means find me a 2010 Rover I can compare it to? Hmmm...

Take your pick:

I don't recall you saying anything about a brand in the football thread Null_Byte?

I was alluding to the fact it is just a bit hypocritical to say that rover is rubbish because they sold no cars, whilst arguing that England isn’t rubbish because they scored no goals.

I couldn't be bothered to read all of that gumph but I get the gist was Jon asking Wayne to prove Rover deserved the bad rep. I owned 6 Rovers one after the other due to my love of Rover but I have to agree with Wayne. The K series reliability was disastrous in all formats.

And all BMW vanos units fail, and all vauxhal corsa gearboxes fall apart. You can't blame a manufacturers entire range on one thing, unless it is Rover it would seem. What always cracks me up with the K series is the same engine in a Lotus is the dogs danglies deluxe, but put a Rover badge on it and it is rubbish. Hmmm. Nothing to do with the fact the cars are getting on for 15 years old of course.

Yes the K has some issues, had Rover continued the chances are they would of been ironed out in time, much as the Chinese claim to have done. Many manufacturers have huge problems with engines or cars, people still buy them, and the companies don't all go bust as result. Even with this "disastrously unreliable" K series, Rover reliability was still pretty good.

So yes you could argue Rovers "bad reputation" was entirely down to the K series engine, but it is a pretty weak argument tbh.

No replacement for 200/400 in ten years is a problem. Why buy a car that's clearly 8 years old in design when you can buy a brand new design Astra/Focus/307/Golf etc.

307? You mean the 8 year old design based on the 306 which is a 9 year old design based on the ZX which dates back to 1990. No that's a good example Rob.

Rover can't be blamed on the government, it was a company just like Tesco, Manchester United and Norwich Union. If you run a company badly (that includes not manufacturing a quality and desirable product) you cannot blame the government. Take a step back and stop blaming everyone else, next you'll be saying Capello wasn't to blame for England's poor world cup performance. Oh wait......

The dangers of skim reading, nowhere am i defending Rover's poor management and operational ability. In fact if you read the essays that you cba to read you would see that I have been saying all along this was to blame. What I am also saying, however, is they should of been bailed out.

If Tescos declared itself bankrupt tomorrow something would be done, trust me. It is too important to the economy to be allowed to fail, in the same way as the banks were bailed out, and GM was bailed out, and Sarkozy pledged 6 billion to Renault.

So at the end of all of that we are forced to conclude all Rovers are rubbish because of head gasket failures and instead of buying an 8 year old design we should of all gone out and bought a 18 year old French one instead.

This from enthusiasts , no wonder Rover was sunk it wasn’t the bad management after all – it’s because the general public are all

[mj88]

i need to lie down after that
just to add the 206 and 307 are total different cars inside and out, the way the drive the way they look. the similarities are small
dont bite my head off

[Limecat]

No wonder it took you half a day to reply. Jesus H Christ Jon. Fair play, it's obviously something close to your heart but I will not disrespect your post by giving a poor reply while half cut, having been watching the World Cup again! (I love not being in work until the 10th of August and I have been off 2 weeks already!).

Such a posts deserves full attention for a reply and I cannot give that now. Kudos though, I like the points, even though I don't agree with many of them. (I knew pointing out the whole Mk1/2 Golf thing would get you hot under the collar! ).

Also @ Munky being moderated for trolling. I was tempted to point out that his rant should have started with a capital but I knew I would be lowering myself.

Cracking debate Jon. I won't ever agree with you and vice versa but fair plays for putting the effort in. If we all thought the same the World would be a boring place and still wouldn't have any new Rovers. I will happily admit that you are more aware of all the Rover 'facts' than I am but I don't think you are man enough to say the same on the Football thread!