Rover shutdown ??

This site contains affiliate links for which LandyZone may be compensated if you make a purchase.
H

Hirsty's

Guest
What effect will the MG Rover shutdown and possible administartiomn ahve on
LR ? I wonder if they will be closed as well ?

--


" ..... it is the provenence of knowledge to speak, and it is the privelage
of wisdom to listen"


 
On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 15:10:23 GMT, "Hirsty's" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>What effect will the MG Rover shutdown and possible administartiomn ahve on
>LR ? I wonder if they will be closed as well ?


Since one is owned by Ford (LR) and the other is owned by John Towers
and his crew, none whatsoever.....

As for whether Solihull will be closed, that's a question all of its
own.


--

Tim Hobbs

'58 Series 2 88" aka "Stig"
'77 101FC Ambulance aka "Burrt"
'03 Volvo V70

My Landies? http://www.seriesii.co.uk
Barcoding? http://www.bartec-systems.com
Tony Luckwill web archive at http://www.luckwill.com
 
In message <z3c5e.513$%[email protected]>, Hirsty's
<[email protected]> writes
>What effect will the MG Rover shutdown and possible administartiomn ahve on
>LR ? I wonder if they will be closed as well ?



Why?

Ford own Landrover. Nothing to do with Rover anymore
--
Marc Draper
 
"Hirsty's" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:z3c5e.513$%[email protected]...
> What effect will the MG Rover shutdown and possible administartiomn ahve
> on
> LR ? I wonder if they will be closed as well ?


Wasn't the MG badge sold off seperately if I recall correctly? Or was that
just the Mini side of things that got split last time around? Whatever It
seems like the slippery slope for Rover , politics aside.

Lee D


 
This may cause a lot of subcontract manufacturers to go out of buisness in
the area.
This would mean that the subcontract manufacturers would posibly be in
competition with people supplying landrover, if they don't go bust, greater
competition, lower costs. This element of competition may prevent Land Rover
building vehicles abroad to save costs.

Regards JJ


"Hirsty's" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:z3c5e.513$%[email protected]...
> What effect will the MG Rover shutdown and possible administartiomn ahve
> on
> LR ? I wonder if they will be closed as well ?
>
> --
>
>
> " ..... it is the provenence of knowledge to speak, and it is the
> privelage
> of wisdom to listen"
>
>



 
Thought they want to build (Defender) abroad due to lower labour cost?
Richard


"JJ" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> This may cause a lot of subcontract manufacturers to go out of buisness in
> the area.
> This would mean that the subcontract manufacturers would posibly be in
> competition with people supplying landrover, if they don't go bust,
> greater competition, lower costs. This element of competition may prevent
> Land Rover building vehicles abroad to save costs.
>
> Regards JJ
>
>
> "Hirsty's" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:z3c5e.513$%[email protected]...
>> What effect will the MG Rover shutdown and possible administartiomn ahve
>> on
>> LR ? I wonder if they will be closed as well ?
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>> " ..... it is the provenence of knowledge to speak, and it is the
>> privelage
>> of wisdom to listen"
>>
>>

>
>



 
In message <z3c5e.513$%[email protected]>
"Hirsty's" <[email protected]> wrote:

> What effect will the MG Rover shutdown and possible administartiomn ahve on
> LR ? I wonder if they will be closed as well ?
>


It'll have no direct effect on LR, but the ineveitable
collapse of the supplier companies could well mean component
problems to the after-market (there's very little made in the
UK on new LR's).

No doubt we will now have endless days of so-called experts
pontficating on the reasons for Rovers failure, but like
Patricia Hewet (sp?) pretending to be sad on TV last night,
they will have just got out of their Audi. The real reason
for the failure is that we, unlike the French, Italians and
Germans absolutely insist on not supporting our own
industry. Personally, I'm waiting for the day that the
Stock Exchange is sold to Germany (on the cards by the way)
and the b**t*rds who think other peopes jobs going down
the pan is good business lose theirs.

Richard
--
www.beamends-lrspares.co.uk [email protected]
Running a business in a Microsoft free environment - it can be done
Powered by Risc-OS - you won't get a virus from us!!
Helping keep Land Rovers on and off the road to annoy the Lib Dems
 
On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 16:41:24 +0100, Tim Hobbs
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Since one is owned by Ford (LR) and the other is owned by John Towers
>and his crew, none whatsoever.....


The only thing that surprised me was how long it took for JT to asset
strip and kill Rover off altogether. The other bidder in the frame
when JT took over Rover for the massive ten quid was accused of
planning to asset strip the company, build MG and retire Rover - seems
quite odd that they may actually have had the better business plan.

The 'Chinese Deal' was always a small scarlet fish IMO.

The 'gang of four' have all personally done _very_ well out of their
ten quid, though.

>As for whether Solihull will be closed, that's a question all of its
>own.


Not really. There's no longer any question about it.

 
On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 12:13:07 +0100, Mother <"@ {m} @"@101fc.net>
wrote:

>On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 16:41:24 +0100, Tim Hobbs
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Since one is owned by Ford (LR) and the other is owned by John Towers
>>and his crew, none whatsoever.....

>
>The only thing that surprised me was how long it took for JT to asset
>strip and kill Rover off altogether. The other bidder in the frame
>when JT took over Rover for the massive ten quid was accused of
>planning to asset strip the company, build MG and retire Rover - seems
>quite odd that they may actually have had the better business plan.
>
>The 'Chinese Deal' was always a small scarlet fish IMO.


The plan, AIUI, was to design a car and build it cheaply and China AND
build it expensively in the UK. Yes, of course, makes perfect
sense....

>
>The 'gang of four' have all personally done _very_ well out of their
>ten quid, though.


Oh yes indeedy. the only good thing about the whole, seemingly
inevitable, collapse is that it comes at the worst possible moment for
Big Tony.

>
>>As for whether Solihull will be closed, that's a question all of its
>>own.

>
>Not really. There's no longer any question about it.


I don't think so either.

--

Tim Hobbs

'58 Series 2 88" aka "Stig"
'77 101FC Ambulance aka "Burrt"
'03 Volvo V70

My Landies? http://www.seriesii.co.uk
Barcoding? http://www.bartec-systems.com
Tony Luckwill web archive at http://www.luckwill.com
 
So Tim Hobbs was, like

>
> Oh yes indeedy. the only good thing about the whole, seemingly
> inevitable, collapse is that it comes at the worst possible moment for
> Big Tony.


Not much good to say at all (having been part of a mass redundancy myself
three years ago), but yes - agreed. My interest is not in watching them
squirm (although that will have some entertainment value), but in how they
will shift responsibility to someone else and come out smelling of roses.
If they can get away with Iraq, they should manage this one. Strangely,
they have been putting ministers on the radio to talk about it, which they
haven't done for years - usually a short statement blaming the Tories is
considered enough for the ignorant public.

>
>>
>>> As for whether Solihull will be closed, that's a question all of its
>>> own.

>>
>> Not really. There's no longer any question about it.

>
> I don't think so either.


On the Today programme this morning (UK radio), Patricia Hewitt said that
some of the engines made in the Rover plant were used to power Land Rovers.
Which would these be, then? Something little in a Freelander?

--

Rich

Pas d'elle yeux Rhone que nous


 
Richard Brookman wrote:

> So Tim Hobbs was, like
>
>>
>> Oh yes indeedy. the only good thing about the whole, seemingly
>> inevitable, collapse is that it comes at the worst possible moment for
>> Big Tony.

>
> Not much good to say at all (having been part of a mass redundancy myself
> three years ago), but yes - agreed. My interest is not in watching them
> squirm (although that will have some entertainment value), but in how they
> will shift responsibility to someone else and come out smelling of roses.
> If they can get away with Iraq, they should manage this one. Strangely,
> they have been putting ministers on the radio to talk about it, which they
> haven't done for years - usually a short statement blaming the Tories is
> considered enough for the ignorant public.
>
>>
>>>
>>>> As for whether Solihull will be closed, that's a question all of its
>>>> own.
>>>
>>> Not really. There's no longer any question about it.

>>
>> I don't think so either.

>
> On the Today programme this morning (UK radio), Patricia Hewitt said that
> some of the engines made in the Rover plant were used to power Land
> Rovers.
> Which would these be, then? Something little in a Freelander?
>


Powertrain are still part of Rover - the K Series blocks would be made by
Rover and are used in the Freelander (1.8s)

What this also does is screw up Lotus, Caterham, Westfield and a bunch of
other small manufactueres who are now going to have to find a replacement
small revvy performance engine to replace the K.

Add to this the fact that the PG1 gearbox is supplied to people like Honda
and you may well end up with a larger upset than it looked at first sight.

If I had the money I'd be inclined to try and buy out the production line
for the 75 and TF, ****can the 25, 45 and SV and concentrate on extending
the 75 up and down market. I'd also look at trying to recreate the design
concept that the "Old Firm" did for the Mini - They brought back all of the
still living design team from the origial Mini and had them do a treatment
that looked like quite a goer until BMW presented something that may as
well have been called a 1-series.

I have a suspicion that the finest car that the UK has made in a long time
(75) is about to die a horrible death.

Maybe Ford will buy out the IP and have the 75 become the S-Type Jag
replacement? Or maybe even the XJ. Not holding out any hopes.

P.

--
1992 200 TDI Disco - heavily modified
1982 V8 Range Rover - heavily corroded
2000 Rover 75 - heavily driven
1993 Lexus LS400 - just plain heavy on fuel
 
It was inevitable, you can't build cars in an uneconomic factory and there
is no point in keeping names alive for nostalgia only. Rover was always a
loss maker, kept alive by Land Rover until that morass known as BL took the
lot over.

There are just too many cars being built today and the market is
unsustainable.

I think Morgan or the only ones with the right idea.

As for Land Rover, they stopped building proper ones in the 1980's didn't
they :)


--
Larry
Series 3 rust and holes



"Marc Draper" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In message <z3c5e.513$%[email protected]>, Hirsty's
> <[email protected]> writes
>
> Why?
>
> Ford own Landrover. Nothing to do with Rover anymore
> --
> Marc Draper



 
In message <[email protected]>, Larry
<[email protected]> writes
>It was inevitable, you can't build cars in an uneconomic factory and there
>is no point in keeping names alive for nostalgia only. Rover was always a
>loss maker, kept alive by Land Rover until that morass known as BL took the
>lot over.
>
>There are just too many cars being built today and the market is
>unsustainable.
>
>I think Morgan or the only ones with the right idea.
>
>As for Land Rover, they stopped building proper ones in the 1980's didn't
>they :)
>
>

The history of this company is riddled with failure to rationalise and
kill of old names. Why they insisted on retaining Rover instead of
simply calling it MG I don't know - yes I do it's in the history of the
company.
--
hugh
Reply to address is valid at the time of posting
 
In message <[email protected]>, Paul S. Brown
<[email protected]> writes
>Richard Brookman wrote:
>
>> So Tim Hobbs was, like
>>
>>>
>>> Oh yes indeedy. the only good thing about the whole, seemingly
>>> inevitable, collapse is that it comes at the worst possible moment for
>>> Big Tony.

>>
>> Not much good to say at all (having been part of a mass redundancy myself
>> three years ago), but yes - agreed. My interest is not in watching them
>> squirm (although that will have some entertainment value), but in how they
>> will shift responsibility to someone else and come out smelling of roses.
>> If they can get away with Iraq, they should manage this one. Strangely,
>> they have been putting ministers on the radio to talk about it, which they
>> haven't done for years - usually a short statement blaming the Tories is
>> considered enough for the ignorant public.
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> As for whether Solihull will be closed, that's a question all of its
>>>>> own.
>>>>
>>>> Not really. There's no longer any question about it.
>>>
>>> I don't think so either.

>>
>> On the Today programme this morning (UK radio), Patricia Hewitt said that
>> some of the engines made in the Rover plant were used to power Land
>> Rovers.
>> Which would these be, then? Something little in a Freelander?
>>

>
>Powertrain are still part of Rover - the K Series blocks would be made by
>Rover and are used in the Freelander (1.8s)
>
>What this also does is screw up Lotus, Caterham, Westfield and a bunch of
>other small manufactueres who are now going to have to find a replacement
>small revvy performance engine to replace the K.
>
>Add to this the fact that the PG1 gearbox is supplied to people like Honda
>and you may well end up with a larger upset than it looked at first sight.
>
>If I had the money I'd be inclined to try and buy out the production line
>for the 75 and TF, ****can the 25, 45 and SV and concentrate on extending
>the 75 up and down market. I'd also look at trying to recreate the design
>concept that the "Old Firm" did for the Mini - They brought back all of the
>still living design team from the origial Mini and had them do a treatment
>that looked like quite a goer until BMW presented something that may as
>well have been called a 1-series.
>
>I have a suspicion that the finest car that the UK has made in a long time
>(75) is about to die a horrible death.
>
>Maybe Ford will buy out the IP and have the 75 become the S-Type Jag
>replacement? Or maybe even the XJ. Not holding out any hopes.
>
>P.
>

What you propose for the Rover models is roughly what the Chinese had in
mind.
--
hugh
Reply to address is valid at the time of posting
 
>
>Powertrain are still part of Rover - the K Series blocks would be made by
>Rover and are used in the Freelander (1.8s)
>
>What this also does is screw up Lotus, Caterham, Westfield and a bunch of
>other small manufactueres who are now going to have to find a replacement
>small revvy performance engine to replace the K.
>
>Add to this the fact that the PG1 gearbox is supplied to people like Honda
>and you may well end up with a larger upset than it looked at first sight.
>


It's not exactly an engine in the first flush of youth though and I
cannot imagine that the new Freelander (not far off now) would be
using anything other than the contemporary Mondeo / Focus lumps.

Lotus, Caterham et al won't really matter to anyone - Lotus are
already using other engines anyway - the Toyota unit in the 111R for
example.

So the problem is relatively short term for Ford / LR, so a deal with
the administrators should sort something out I should think.

>If I had the money I'd be inclined to try and buy out the production line
>for the 75 and TF, ****can the 25, 45 and SV and concentrate on extending
>the 75 up and down market. I'd also look at trying to recreate the design
>concept that the "Old Firm" did for the Mini - They brought back all of the
>still living design team from the origial Mini and had them do a treatment
>that looked like quite a goer until BMW presented something that may as
>well have been called a 1-series.
>
>I have a suspicion that the finest car that the UK has made in a long time
>(75) is about to die a horrible death.
>
>Maybe Ford will buy out the IP and have the 75 become the S-Type Jag
>replacement? Or maybe even the XJ. Not holding out any hopes.


It may be very good (never driven one) but it has lots of BMW in it
and hasn't really sold very well. It's also not a particularly fresh
model, which is the main problem Rover have faced since at least the
BMW days.



--

Tim Hobbs

'58 Series 2 88" aka "Stig"
'77 101FC Ambulance aka "Burrt"
'03 Volvo V70

My Landies? http://www.seriesii.co.uk
Barcoding? http://www.bartec-systems.com
Tony Luckwill web archive at http://www.luckwill.com
 
hugh wrote:

> In message <[email protected]>, Larry
> <[email protected]> writes
>>It was inevitable, you can't build cars in an uneconomic factory and there
>>is no point in keeping names alive for nostalgia only. Rover was always a
>>loss maker, kept alive by Land Rover until that morass known as BL took
>>the lot over.
>>
>>There are just too many cars being built today and the market is
>>unsustainable.
>>
>>I think Morgan or the only ones with the right idea.
>>
>>As for Land Rover, they stopped building proper ones in the 1980's didn't
>>they :)
>>
>>

> The history of this company is riddled with failure to rationalise and
> kill of old names. Why they insisted on retaining Rover instead of
> simply calling it MG I don't know - yes I do it's in the history of the
> company.


What difference do the names make really?

To be honest, I'd have used the brands as the model name.

The TF would have been the MG - traditional brit sportscar.

The 25 would be an Austin - decent family runaround. Nothing special, but
good enough

The 45 would be a Morris - bigger than the Austin - again nothing special,
but again good enough

The 75 would be the "Rover". It's a rover through and through.

The ZT280 would be a Riley - Sportier saloon car

The 75 Limo would be a Wolesley - bit more upmarket

The Streetwise would be a Triumph - slightly sporty version of the Austin

The Citycar would be a Leyland - No refinement, built by somebody more used
to trucks.

So - you'd bring back all of the old marques but as models rather than
distinct badge engineering as previously used.

I'd have loved to see what the minds who created the 75 would have done with
a bigger car - similar positioning to the old VDP 4000R.

P.
--
1992 200 TDI Disco - heavily modified
1982 V8 Range Rover - heavily corroded
2000 Rover 75 - heavily driven
1993 Lexus LS400 - just plain heavy on fuel
 
Tim Hobbs wrote:


>>If I had the money I'd be inclined to try and buy out the production line
>>for the 75 and TF, ****can the 25, 45 and SV and concentrate on extending
>>the 75 up and down market. I'd also look at trying to recreate the design
>>concept that the "Old Firm" did for the Mini - They brought back all of
>>the still living design team from the origial Mini and had them do a
>>treatment that looked like quite a goer until BMW presented something that
>>may as well have been called a 1-series.
>>
>>I have a suspicion that the finest car that the UK has made in a long time
>>(75) is about to die a horrible death.
>>
>>Maybe Ford will buy out the IP and have the 75 become the S-Type Jag
>>replacement? Or maybe even the XJ. Not holding out any hopes.

>
> It may be very good (never driven one) but it has lots of BMW in it
> and hasn't really sold very well. It's also not a particularly fresh
> model, which is the main problem Rover have faced since at least the
> BMW days.
>


I've been driving one for the last three years and the only problem they've
consistently had has been the engines which are uniformly weak - even the
2.5 KV6 isn't really up to hauling a 2 ton car around with any haste. The
V8 version is using the engine out of the Ford Mustang anyway.

As for a lot of BMW, the claims are that the only significant Beemerishness
it has is the Z-Axle which the V8 versions don't have.

The 75 really is a bloody good car, especially at the money. The main
problem it's had is the company selling it. BMW dissing it at the press
launch didn't help one little bit and since then Rover have been on such a
rollercoaster ride that nobody's felt safe buying one in case the support
for it vanished.

I don't know anybody who's had a 75 as a company car and then had it
replaced who is happy with the replacement. Just across four people the
replacements were an IS200 Lexus, X-Type Jag, Mondeo and Laguna and they
all want the 75 back.

The big problem it's always had is that the market it was really playing in
didn't dare buy it. It was always against the Mondeo/Vectra/Laguna in the
fleet market and those people are never going to buy from a potentially
insecure company.

P.

--
1992 200 TDI Disco - heavily modified
1982 V8 Range Rover - heavily corroded
2000 Rover 75 - heavily driven
1993 Lexus LS400 - just plain heavy on fuel
 
On 2005-04-08, Paul S. Brown <[email protected]> wrote:

> What this also does is screw up Lotus, Caterham, Westfield and a
> bunch of other small manufactueres who are now going to have to find
> a replacement small revvy performance engine to replace the K.


IIRC the chinese company who's name I can't recall have already bought
the engine-related parts of Rover, basically the decent parts of Rover
have been removed leaving just the **** cars.

> I have a suspicion that the finest car that the UK has made in a
> long time (75) is about to die a horrible death.


The UK has a mass of small sports car manufacturers like Westfield,
Caterham, Noble, Ultima Sports and many many others, we just don't do
mass-market cars very well. I can't think of a single decent car
produced by Rover in recent years. We make the best performing and
best value for money sports cars, it's the cruft that clogs the world
that we don't do so well.

--
For every expert, there is an equal but opposite expert
 
On 2005-04-08, beamendsltd <[email protected]> wrote:

> The real reason for the failure is that we, unlike the French,
> Italians and Germans absolutely insist on not supporting our own
> industry.


Our mass-market car industry's never really been viable as most of it
came from the BL bucket of rot, and never really escaped from the
rotten management that involved. So many decent car manufacturers
disappeared down that hole, previous to that we made excellent cars
and exported them around the world, but the rest of the world caught
up and overtook BL while the old boy network twiddled their thumbs.

As for the rest of our government-owned industries, successive
governments have sold off as much as they can to industry and then
bailed them out with masses of our cash, getting less and less in
return, it's pathetic. The politicians rarely refer to us as anything
other than "consumers" (a pet hate of mine) emphasising their view of
the country as a pool of cash to be shifted around from wallet to
wallet.

Us citizens meanwhile bicker amongst ourselves about 4x4s, yob
culture, religious bigotry, rants about travellers and so on. All
totally irrelevant.

I don't expect it's much different elsewhere, best thing to do is just
to ignore the mayhem and plough your own furrow, something I think
that people in this group can do better than many.

--
For every expert, there is an equal but opposite expert
 
Well it all comes down to badge engineering. BMW has the Rover Trademark
anyway.

It reminds me of the attempts to preserve the Triumph Motorcycle company at
Meriden back in the seventies. It was a noble effort, but ultimatly it was
just a name.

What is motoring heritage, it is more than a name,

It is the continous improvement of models drawing from the same engineering
heritage.

For all I do not like defenders you can see there heritage, likewise with
Ford owned Jaguars even, but Rovers no way.


--
Larry
Series 3 rust and holes


"Paul S. Brown" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> hugh wrote:
>
>
> What difference do the names make really?
>
> To be honest, I'd have used the brands as the model name.
>
> The TF would have been the MG - traditional brit sportscar.
>
> The 25 would be an Austin - decent family runaround. Nothing special, but
> good enough
>
> The 45 would be a Morris - bigger than the Austin - again nothing special,
> but again good enough
>
> The 75 would be the "Rover". It's a rover through and through.
>
> The ZT280 would be a Riley - Sportier saloon car
>
> The 75 Limo would be a Wolesley - bit more upmarket
>
> The Streetwise would be a Triumph - slightly sporty version of the Austin
>
> The Citycar would be a Leyland - No refinement, built by somebody more

used
> to trucks.
>
> So - you'd bring back all of the old marques but as models rather than
> distinct badge engineering as previously used.
>
> I'd have loved to see what the minds who created the 75 would have done

with
> a bigger car - similar positioning to the old VDP 4000R.
>
> P.
> --
> 1992 200 TDI Disco - heavily modified
> 1982 V8 Range Rover - heavily corroded
> 2000 Rover 75 - heavily driven
> 1993 Lexus LS400 - just plain heavy on fuel



 
Back
Top