Rover on the brink of collapse - car production stopped

unkel

If they don't get government backing it looks like the end...

Linky

Eoin

Bayerische Motoren Werke AG sold MG Rover in 2000 for 10 pounds

£10? they might have done better on eBay?

De Hipster

Can't say I'm surprised...that place has been wobbly for years. Bad quality output hasn't helped!

mike65

Sniff!

It'll be a great pity, a bit like FIAT closing in Turin. It must be said they are the agents of thier own misfortune, apart from the 75 have they made a good saloon since the P6? I'd say the various strategic link-ups down the years have confused the companies branding and image but without the associations with Honda, BMW they'd have gone to the wall years ago.

I could be wrong but I think MG has seen rising sales dispite them using the same cars.

Mike.

peasant

Always sad to see another individual brand go, or worse get gobbled up by corporate America (see Saab). Having said that, Rover haven't produced anything enticing since I started driving in the 80's. Had a mini once, but that wasn't really a Rover either, now was it?

Rover quality was crap and the image fuddy-duddy at best ...no GREAT loss, really ...

secret_squirrel

Lets face it once the crown jewels like Landrover went their days were always numbered.

BMW took the brand names they wanted and left Rover with the crappy meat and potato cars that even daily mail readers dont want any more.

lomb

tis sad though, one of the few icons of a bygone era like jaguar and rolls royce/ bentley but for ordinary people will be gone.

IrishRover

Yeah, the receivers have been called in now. It looks like it's the end...

IrishRover

mike65 wrote:

without the associations with Honda, BMW they'd have gone to the wall years ago.

I'll probably leave a full essay about this until another time, but just to say a few things: It is a great pity that the Honda and Rover partnership ended so badly. Things would probably be a lot different now if they were still in partnership. It was British Aerospace that sold them out and that was really the start of the chain of events. Also, the relationship wasn't a one sided affair. Honda learned a lot of things from Rover too.

As for BMW, it's still open to debate as to what their real intentions were for Rover. It's probable that that they intended to kill off Rover after taking what they could from it, although it is possible that they had the best of intentions for the company which simply didn't work out.

highdef

And let's not forget that 6,000 employees are now unemployed! That's alot of people affected when you think of it family wise.

IrishRover

Yeah, and all the ancillary businesses around Longbridge too.

lomb

funny thing is grace kelly prince rainiers wife died at the wheel in a 10 year old rover 3500, so they crossed the boundries into the uber rich too.

will always be the classics anyway the only decent rover of the last couple of decades is the rover 75 a very nice car.the problem was second hand values for the 75 were low and the leases in the uk were consequently dear so sales collapsed. real shame, the management was an utter shamples for 2 decades.really was.the MG line was a joke and the MGF was dated after a couple of years. their cars lacked brand identity and apart frm landrover they were peobably doomed from the start. they needed a good partner for cross platform sales and honda was it. the fooked up their last chance with them. bmw had got pockets deep enough to invest in rover and they had no cars that they could cross platform with.

stil landrover will soldier on and keep the flag flying........

mike65

6000 direct employees plus about 15000 associated jobs though not all wil be at risk. What chance that the MG bit will survive? The name still just about means something and the cars have generally been well recieved as cheap fun hatches and touring saloons.

Mike.

lomb

mike65 wrote:

6000 direct employees plus about 15000 associated jobs though not all wil be at risk. What chance that the MG bit will survive? The name still just about means something and the cars have generally been well recieved as cheap fun hatches and touring saloons.

Mike.

yeah really sad for the workers, thats all alot of them know probably. real shame

Alfasudcrazy

I don't know when this article was written but it makes for a sort of morbid read - in the light of current events

http://www.jyanet.com/cap/2002/1104fe0.htm

Eoin

mike65 wrote:

What chance that the MG bit will survive? The name still just about means something and the cars have generally been well recieved as cheap fun hatches and touring saloons.

Don't forget the MG F - quite a respectable convertible.

lomb

from bbc-That core range consists of three models - the 25, 45 and 75 - together with the MG TF sports car.

The Rover range remains the company's most popular, despite a recent dip, and the 25 its biggest seller.

It's the smaller cars, the 25 and 45 hatchbacks, that are its most uncompetitive models.

The 45 is a vehicle from another era. It was launched as the Rover 400 in 1995, but was actually based on a Honda Civic several years older than that.

It has had two facelifts since, and though it is a pleasant enough drive, it is completely outmoded.

The only reasons to buy it would be price and loyalty to Rover, as well as reliability.

The 25 isn't much younger, but its exterior design, all Rover's work, was and is attractive, and is a key reason why the car has continued to sell in surprising numbers despite its antiquity.

Moreover, the 25 has converted well to an MG, though again, there is no older supermini out there.

We mustn't forget the cringingly-named Streetwise either - though most of the buying public have. A jacked up, faux four-wheel drive that, in truth, is a better effort than similar devices from VW (the execrable Polo Dune) and Citroen with its silly C3 XTR.

MG ZR
The ZR has helped MG Rover sales hold up

The Rover 75 is far and away the company's most competitive product, and despite being six years old - more than pensionable by Japanese standards - it is still competent, and much-liked by owners who appreciate its quiet charm, reliability and quality.

This car still does well in owner surveys. It's a well-engineered car, and that is why MG Rover has long dreamed of being able to develop further models from its platform.

Indeed, it is this strategy that it has been pursuing with Shanghai Automotive Industry Corporation (SAIC).

Sporty versions

The 25, 45 and 75 are also available as more sporting MGs, confusingly labelled ZR, ZS and ZT.

While the decision to rebadge these Rovers as MGs might have seemed like cynical opportunism, their clever restyling and retuning won very favourable reviews when they were launched in 2001.

And as sales of the Rover versions of the cars declined, the MGs more than compensated.

For a while, the cheapest of them, the ZR, was even the best-selling hot hatch in the country. It still sells modestly well now.

MG ZT-T
The MG ZT is more modern than its parent, the Rover 75

And they're all fun to drive, an ingredient increasingly absent from modern cars - even supposedly sporting editions.

Yet the ZR and ZS feel ancient, despite the facelifts they received last year.

They lack modern features, modern finishes and modern styling - though the ZR still looks good - and only make sense if the price is right.

The ZT, being based on the 75, is more modern and can be had with a full complement of airbags and a few sophisticated features.

But it, too, is showing its age, and the introduction of an extreme V8 version - whose creation involved converting the car from front- to rear-wheel drive - has done little to boost sales, even though it's an amusing drive.

The company also facelifted the popular MGF sports car and with impressive speed - enabling it to maintain its position as Britain's most popular roadster as the MG TF.

Though dated, it's not a bad car, and has recently received modest upgrades.

That said, it's a decade old, not marvellously finished and faces strong competition from a brand new Mazda MX-5. Like the rest of the range, it needs replacing.

lomb

heres some funny quotes from bbcs website- This company has, over the decades been nationalised, privatised, sold off, chopped up, came to the brink of closure. It's had millions or pounds worth of tax payers' money pumped in, was swamped with strikes and produced what? Some of the worst cars ever. I would say it's time to call it a day.
James, UK

Recent Rover cars have just been variations on the same tired old stuff that they've been producing for years. Their design appeals to pensioners, and their MG sports range are merely pensioner's cars with body kits!
Andrew Hamilton, Manchester, UK

No, Rover should be allowed to go under. British Leyland went bust years ago having produced cars widely regarded as rubbish. Rover is the dying embers of that group which should have disappeared long ago before it was sold to BMW. As for the jobs, well that's always unfortunate but the work force have seen the writing on the wall for many years, the tax payer shouldn't have to bail them out just because they haven't re-trained to do something with a future. Rover would have no chance of repaying the government loan.
Roger, UK

Rover was doomed the day it turned its back on Honda and was sold to BMW, those responsible should be made accountable for such crass stupidity and for dealing such a heavy blow to manufacturing in the West Midlands.
Rik, Oxford

My heart goes out to the people who work there but this company was milked by its management since they took over rewarding their poor performance with whopping bonuses and pension payments. If it is to be saved all the senior fat cats need to go.
Gerry, Scotland

No, the Government should emphatically not put any taxpayer's money into supporting Rover. They tried that some 30 years ago [when it was British Leyland] and all that managed to achieve was to prolong the company's inevitable death. Rover is a dog which should now be put down once and for all.
David Moran, Nr. Aberdeen, Scotland

If you go to France, everyone drives French cars, Italy, Italian cars! Why is no one in this country patriotic enough to buy British? I have had three Rovers and am looking to buy my first MG shortly! Coming up to an election you would think that saving Rover would be a good notion, 6,000 + 18,000 - that's a lot of votes lost! And the money the government would have loaned Rover will now be used to compensate their employees and suppliers! Isn't that great - it could have saved Rover by securing the deal! Fools!
David Rowlands, Bournemouth, Dorset

lomb

eoin_s wrote:

Don't forget the MG F - quite a respectable convertible.

old though

De Hipster

IMO the once respected MG brand has been lowered & cheapened by Rover over the last few years.

The MG A, B, C, V8 & midget are the cars that I know as thoroughbred MGs...the rest are just rover crap with the badge.

secret_squirrel

Rovers days were numbered when BAe turned their backs on Honda for a quick sale to BMW (no doubt making some decent money at the tax payers expense (although I believe BAe did write off some of Rover's debts. - they were really rovers last chance. Rover has always suffered from a lack of platforms and the money to develop new ones. Honda was their last good chance at platform sharing. BMW's platform fit was always going to be worse given their favouring of RWD.

TBH underated car though it is the 75 was another nail in the coffin. All that money wasted developing an upper-mid level car when the real money is in super-mini's and family sized cars. Still that was a legacy of BMW too.

lomb

secret_squirrel wrote:

Still that was a legacy of BMW too.

bmw made their money out of premium cars, its just not a formula that could apply to the lower rover.

camarobill

what if u just bought a new rover,theres one accross the road 05 reg,will they still make these cars under a new bage.

lomb

camarobill wrote:

what if u just bought a new rover,theres one accross the road 05 reg,will they still make these cars under a new bage.

i dont think so, but parts will be available. looks like the end.......

secret_squirrel

Dont be too sure - a lot of the parts will come from OEM's (lucas etc) so will still be made.

Also that Chinese company might be interesting in churning out cheap rovers for China. Apparently they were mostly interested in the Rover brand name though.


Also just speaking to a mate of mine who worked at Rover for years but stayed at BMW after the split. There are rumours going around about an alledged £400m hole in the Rover pension scheme. A scheme that was healthly 5 years ago when they split between the ex-Rover (BMW) and the remaining Rover employees. 400m is a decent sized hole to make in just the last 5 years!

Capt'n Midnight

IrishRover wrote:

It was British Aerospace that sold them out and that was really the start of the chain of events.

That was because EEC rules meant that Maggie couldn't give government money to BAe so they sold Rover to them at a discount instead and BAe then cashed in as soon as they were allowed. Oddly enough Rover did a fair bit of work on jet engines following on from WWII.

http://www.austin-rover.co.uk/index.htm?wschapter6f.htm

The announcement that British Aerospace (BAe) had intended to buy the Rover Group was made in a joint press conference chaired by Lord Young, with Graham Day and BAe chairman, Professor Sir Roland Smith briefing those attending with the finer details of the takeover. The cost to BAe for Rover would be £150million, but this bargain price was only part of the deal - the company’s bank debts, which amounted to some £400million would be written off and not only this, but the Government would throw in a further £547million into the deal, as working capital. Not bad, when you think that BL had swallowed a total of £2.6billion in taxpayer’s money between 1975 and 1988. These were the costs and benefits to BAe, but what guarantees did the Government demand? In short, the Government initially made no stipulations to BAe that they should keep plants open, maintain a minimum workforce, guarantee R&D spending - or even continue to offer a full model range, in fact the only condition of the deal was that BAe were required to keep hold of Austin Rover for a minimum of five years.

http://www.austin-rover.co.uk/index.htm?wsindexf.htm

sceptre

lomb wrote:

The 45 is a vehicle from another era. It was launched as the Rover 400 in 1995, but was actually based on a Honda Civic several years older than that.

And the Honda styling is obvious, though technically the 400/45 was a saloon version of the 200, which in turn was based on Honda's Ballade rather than the Civic. Basically it's a Ballade with a Civic engine, the differences were so small that it was like Dell's relationship with Samsung. The later mid-90s 400 (the 400 was first launched in 1990 and redesigned in 95, the 200 came out around 1985) did look more like a Civic. Either way it was a rebadged Honda as you say. And either way added nothing new to the market.

I'd see that as Rover's problem through out the 90s (keeping in mind that I don't know owt about engines) - they were the M&S of car manufacturing. Reliable-ish, a little overpriced but solidly British. Except for the design which was all basically done by other people and bought in. And most of all, boring. There might have been a place for Rover had they stuck with Honda and worked out some sort of non-compete marque-swap deal at different levels of the market (one of them might have to have gone posh). As it was they basically gave us all almost nothing useful or desirable. Obviously sad to see so many people likely to lose their jobs though.

lomb

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4423725.stm

bazz26

I think Rover were always doomed especially when BMW got rid of them.

They were in a catch 22 suituation. They needed a quality up to date product selling in large volumes in order to fund future projects yet what they had was a out dated model line up which could not compete with their rivals in the sales charts.

Looking back now Rover management made a big mistake ending it's partnership with Honda in favour of BMW. The mid 1980s Rover 200 and the 1990s Rover 600 were good cars based on Hondas and sales of these models were healthy even here in Ireland. Lets face it there were more Rover 200s around than the Honda Ballard/Concerto at the time.

My understanding at the time was that BMW bought Rover as they wanted to enter the small fwd car market and buying Rover was a cheaper alternative to engineering one from the ground up themselves.

lomb

from the consumers point of view it may be an oportunity of sorts....
u can buy a 1 year old rover 75 with full leather and climate for 8500 stg in the uk, and this for a car thats 18000 new. crazy depreciation for a lovely car thats basically a bmw under it all. how about 10grand stg for an auto version with all the bits.


revenue value it at 27grand so vrt would be 7grand.

all in u could have it for 22 grand, cheap car that. looking on carzone it would be 'worth' 30 grand. worth 39000 new with the options fitted, so 45% depreciation in the first year cant be bad.........

secret_squirrel

bazz26 wrote:

Looking back now Rover management made a big mistake ending it's partnership with Honda in favour of BMW.

Afaik it was BAe Management who screwed over Honda in favour of a sale to BMW, Rover's management were more or less helpless bystanders.