Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
HomeAnnouncements
Discussion Groups
By Brand
BMWChevroletDodgeFordGMHondaLexusMercedes-BenzNissanPeugeotToyotaVolkswagenOther Brands
By Topic
4x4 CarsRVsDrivingMaintenance & RepairCar AudioCollectible Cars
Country Specific
Australian ForumsUK Forums
ArticlesAuto InsuranceBuyingCars & TechnologyMaintenanceMiscellaneousSafety
DMV Resources
Related Topics
MotorcyclesBoatsMore Topics ...

Car Forum / BMW Cars / May 2005

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Rover dead - no tears

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Dori A Schmetterling - 26 Apr 2005 19:51 GMT
http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,12529-1580901,00.html

Jeremy Clarkson's piece is a tad OTT -- as usual -- but I could not have put
it better.

DAS

           Goodbye, Rover. Sorry, I won't be shedding a tear
           By Jeremy Clarkson of The Sunday Times

                 Red Robbo, immortal face of Longbridge strikes; BL boss
Sir Michael Edwardes in 1979; and Graham Day greeting Margaret Thatcher in
the 1980s

           We're all supposed to be weeping over the death of MG Rover. But
this is not like the death of Concorde or the death of the Queen Mother.
This is not the death of a national institution.
           Of course it must be a very bleak time for the company's 6,500
employees and their families as they stoically face an uncertain future.
They are not to blame - they didn't choose the management. I dare say the
closure must also be worrying if you recently bought a Rover and now your
warranty is null and void. But this is your fault for buying a stupid car. I
have little sympathy for anyone who ignored the advice of every expert in
the land and bought a 45 "because it's British".

           There was a time when British engineering counted for something.
But unfortunately this time was 1872. Today the demise of MG Rover is being
blamed on a collection of businessmen, two of whom have face hair, who
bought the company from BMW for a tenner and then began what looked to some
like a massive asset-stripping operation.

           This isn't surprising. What is surprising is that after so many
years of utter and absolute hopelessness there might have been any assets
left to strip.

           Let's begin with Longbridge, which I think I'm right in saying
was once the biggest car factory in the world. Certainly it's the only
factory with a dirty great main road running right through the middle of it.

           In the glory days of BMC, cars were built in one part of the
factory and finished in the other. Which meant the unpainted, unprotected
shells had to be taken across the road no matter what the weather. As a
result many had rusted away before they made it to the showroom.

           Eventually a tunnel was constructed so the cars were no longer
exposed to the elements. Great. But sadly the tunnel was exactly 2in too
narrow for the Austin 1800, the so-called land crab, that was in production
at the time.

           Not that it mattered much because the paint shop in the bad old
days rarely had any paint anyway. Richard Littlejohn, who covered the
disputes that plagued Longbridge back in the 1970s, said he would regularly
go to workers' houses to find the bathroom was Allegro beige, the door was
Marina green and the sitting room was TR7 yellow.

                              When Volvo went all sporty, the weak and the
feeble had to look elsewhere. Most ended up in Rovers, dithering at
junctions and generally driving the wrong way down motorways. There's one
Rover that has been stationary at the double mini-roundabout in Chipping
Norton for 15 years, its driver paralysed with fear

                             Jeremy Clarkson

           When the Mini came along Ford was horrified, partly at the
clever design that made its efforts look old fashioned, but mostly by the
extraordinarily low price. Wondering how on earth this little car could be
sold so cheaply, they bought one and spent months analysing every last
component. Only when the work was completed did they uncover the awful
truth. Every single one was being sold at a loss.

           This, of course, is the plague that besets all British
inventiveness. It's always allowed to fester by idiotic management.

           We saw a similar problem when Rover and Honda teamed up to make
the 800. When it finally made it into production: disaster. Customers found
that the back window kept popping out. Of course this didn't really matter
because by the time the 800 came along Rover was already wearing margarine
trousers on its inevitable slide into oblivion.

           A slide that really began when British Leyland went bankrupt in
1975 and was nationalised.

           On paper it must have seemed like a good idea, bringing together
97 different companies to form BL. But in practice the workforce and
management at each plant were still fiercely proud of whatever it was they
were making.

           So, when Morris made the Marina, Austin came up with the
Allegro, which meant BL was competing against itself. And it was the same
story with Triumph. Remember the Stag? When it was being developed Triumph's
engineers had access to the Rover V8. It was light, frugal and powerful and
would have been ideal. But there was no way they'd use "Rover rubbish", so
instead they nailed together two Dolomite engines to create their own V8,
which overheated every time it was wet, dry, windy, cold, hot or grey

           And let's not forget BL's styling department. Today Ford houses
its design team in Soho, so that they're in the thick of the movers' and
shakers' action. In Italy the staff at Pininfarina and Ital are deliberately
made to work in exquisite towns with Renaissance architecture and many men
in sunglasses. Which brings us to the Metro. It could only have come from a
town that housed the Bullring.
           So, infighting, lousy design and a factory that was no more
suitable for car production than a stable. And to make matters worse the
company had been targeted by extremists who were determined to make sure
that no car made it onto the road. In his first six months as chairman
Michael Edwardes had to deal with 327 different industrial disputes.

           It's easy to understand the motivation for all this unrest and
hopelessness. It's much more fun to stand round a brazier shouting "scab" at
anyone in a tie than it is to spend all day bolting Prince of Darkness Lucas
components onto a car that wouldn't have worked anyway.

           What's more, it didn't matter. Back then, everyone still had a
sense that Britain ran the world, that Japanese cars were a joke and that
the Germans were a bunch of war-losing bastards. They were all so arrogant,
so far removed from the harsh reality of foreign competition, that they
refused even to look at the competition.

           And anyway Jim Callaghan would simply roll up the following week
with another skipful of taxpayers' cash. Over the years BL has cost the
British government £3.5 billion.

           This is my problem. Since I was old enough to read newspapers
I've
always perceived the British motor industry to be nothing more than a
fountain of woe, waste and doom. A park full of men in donkey jackets
raising their hands. A strike with a Birmingham accent.

           Yes, there were flashes of inspiration. The Mini, of course, and
the Rover SD1. Even the Maestro was clever; with lots of space and a light,
airy feel, it was years ahead of its time. But these were pinpricks of
light, no more noticeable than faint stars in the inky blackness of space.

           And there seemed no end to the problem. The factories couldn't
be closed because negotiations would have to include the sheet metal
workers, the metal mechanics, the draughtsmen, the technicians and half a
dozen unions, including the all powerful TGWU.

           On top of that, you have Harris Mann, who designed the TR7 and
the Allegro, and Red Robbo, who refused to make either. You have Lord
Stokes, who was an invertebrate, and Edwardes, who's much too small. Then
there's Graham Day, Mrs Thatcher, Jim Callaghan, me, apparently, Tony Benn,
Honda, BMW, the Shanghai Automotive group and British Aerospace who, in
1988, took the company off the government's hands, promising they wouldn't
sell it for five years.

           Five years later almost to the day, and having invested
virtually nothing, they sold it to BMW for £800m. And what did BMW do? Why,
they launched the wilfully old-fashioned 75, proving that they had no idea
either. Nobody did. Nobody ever has done. Never in the field of human
endeavour has so much been done, so badly, by so many.

           And then we ended up with the Phoenix Four, who cannot possibly
have dreamt even for a femtosecond that they had any chance whatsoever of
turning the company around. They needed at least four all-new cars, each one
of which would have to be at least as good as a Volkswagen.

           And in these days of emission legislation and crash protection
requirements, a new Volkswagen costs around £1 billion to design and
develop. I'm told Renault recently spent £25m on a new heating and
ventilation system.

           On that basis the Phoenix Four didn't even have enough for a new
door knob. They must have known that. They must. And they must also have
known that no car firm in the world would want to get into bed with them.
Not with all that face hair going on.

           Even so some people are saying the demise of MG Rover is my
fault because I failed to give the cars a good review and sneered at the men
in hats who drove them. I can't understand this reasoning; am I supposed to
recommend all cars that are made here irrespective of their price,
performance or quality? Because if I am, all of you must go out tomorrow and
buy a London cab.

           Even if I thought for a moment that anyone paid any attention to
anything I say - and I have figures to prove they don't - I'm sorry, I'm not
employed to think one thing and say something else.

           I didn't like the vast majority of Rover's cars when they were
being made and I won't miss them at all. What's more, I cannot even get
teary and emotional about the demise of the company itself - though I do
feel sorry for the workforce. In fact when I heard the news my first thought
was "good". Now we can move on and do something we're good at, like . . .
actually, I can't think what we're good at. But it definitely isn 't running
car firms.
           Think about it. The four coolest cars in the world are the Aston
DB9, the Rolls-Royce Phantom, the Mini and the Range Rover. British
ingenuity. Foreign investment. Foreign management.

           There is, however, one big problem with the collapse. Road
safety. I really do think that with no more Rovers we will see a dramatic
increase in the number of crashes.

           You see, in the 1960s and 1970s all the bad drivers who had no
interest in cars had Volvos. We knew to beware; just because a Volvo was in
the left-hand lane, indicating left, didn't mean it was going to turn left.

           Then Volvo went all sporty, forcing the weak and the feeble to
look elsewhere. Most ended up in Rovers, dithering about at junctions and
generally driving the wrong way down motorways. There's one Rover that has
been stationary at the complicated double mini-roundabout in Chipping Norton
for 15 years, its driver paralysed with fear.

           Now, with Rover gone, I'm worried because there'll be no advance
warning of a bad driver ahead. They could all be camouflaged in Fords or
BMWs. And you'll have no idea until the moment of impact.

           I do think that in the fullness of time they'll all end up in
Hyundais and Kias - hopeless, uninspiring, witless, soulless, gutless,
characterless white goods from the Pacific Rim. I'm sure they'll feel right
at home.

Signature

For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
---

marlinspike - 26 Apr 2005 20:33 GMT
Goodbye Rover. I'll never have driven any of you, but I'll miss you
sorely (Some lady at a hotel I stayed at in Germany had one. Looked
like it had potential).
Neil - 27 Apr 2005 13:45 GMT
> http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,12529-1580901,00.html
>
> Jeremy Clarkson's piece is a tad OTT -- as usual -- but I could not have put
> it better.

A tentative BMW connection, but shouldn't this be in alt.autos.rover?  Also,
it's preferable to post the link to the story with perhaps a short summary,
rather than both the link *and* the story.  You'll see why when someone
replies without snipping.  ::sigh::  Oh, and tut tut for all that white
space. :-|
Daniel Arrepas - 27 Apr 2005 16:37 GMT
>> http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,12529-1580901,00.html
>>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> A tentative BMW connection, but shouldn't this be in alt.autos.rover?

Actually there is a very strong BMW connection and pertinent to those of us
who are interested in not only BMW cars but BMW as a company. Particularly
given that Rover ultimately cost the company billions, caused them to rid
themselves of certain upper management and laid the groundwork for BMW's
current global strategies (building small sedans hatches and SUV's like the
1 Series and X3 under the BMW banner, rather than reaching for that market
share under a separate company and different moniker).

Thanks Dori, I for one enjoyed seeing what the British press had to say
about Rover and it's demise.

And I didn't mind you copying it here rather than including a link.
Dori A Schmetterling - 27 Apr 2005 16:55 GMT
You're welcome, Daniel.  (I did post a link in the OP, but I always post the
text as well in case somebody has access problems.)

Fortunately volume car manufacturing is in quite a healthy shape in the UK
and specialist car design is thriving (just about all F1 originates here;
even some Indy cars...), as well as the little manufacturers like Morgan,
Caterham et al.

DAS

For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
---

[...]

> Thanks Dori, I for one enjoyed seeing what the British press had to say
> about Rover and it's demise.
>
> And I didn't mind you copying it here rather than including a link.
TonyK - 27 Apr 2005 18:43 GMT
> You're welcome, Daniel.  (I did post a link in the OP, but I always post the
> text as well in case somebody has access problems.)
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
> ---

Don't for get TVR and Lotus... have you seen what that Russian guy is doing
to the new TVRs!
Dori A Schmetterling - 27 Apr 2005 17:00 GMT
I don't subscribe to a Rover newsgroup, I am not interested in Rover cars, I
am fed up with how much (tax) money I have poured into that company. There
is a strong link with BMW, given how much money BMW sunk in and what they
took with them (notably Mini), and there have been discussions on this
before here.

I posted the link, and I gave the full text for those that have access
problems (which have been reported in the past).

DAS

For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
---

[...]

> A tentative BMW connection, but shouldn't this be in alt.autos.rover?
> Also,
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> replies without snipping.  ::sigh::  Oh, and tut tut for all that white
> space. :-|
Neil - 27 Apr 2005 18:14 GMT
> I don't subscribe to a Rover newsgroup, I am not interested in Rover cars, I
> am fed up with how much (tax) money I have poured into that company.

So find a uk political or economic NG in which to post.  Or better still,
demand a refund from Tony Blair; I'm sure he'll care about your whinging as
much as the average subscriber here.

> There is a strong link with BMW, given how much money BMW sunk in and what
they
> took with them (notably Mini), and there have been discussions on this
> before here.

And the last Rover-related thread was started by whom?

So BMW once owned Rover.  Big deal.  If there are Rover owners that
subscribe to this group specifically to read Rover-related postings I can
see the validity.  But this still comes back to my original comment that an
article about Rover should be posted in alt.autos.rover.  Rover owners are
far more likely to hang out there don't you think?

> I posted the link, and I gave the full text for those that have access
> problems (which have been reported in the past).

I'm not sure what you mean by access problems, but I'll concede that point,
as you were doing a public service.
Harry - 28 Apr 2005 01:38 GMT
>> I don't subscribe to a Rover newsgroup, I am not interested in Rover
>> cars,
[quoted text clipped - 27 lines]
> point,
> as you were doing a public service.

Does being an anal-retentive w.nker come naturally, or do you need to work
at it Neil?
Badger - 03 May 2005 10:45 GMT
<snip>

Let's not forget though that BMW "got into" car production by "borrowing" a
design from Austin of England (who later became a part of what we eventually
called Rover) and changing bits here and there. The car design borrowed was
the Austin 7.
The same "copying trick" was also carried out by Jaguar, Jensen, Daihatsu
and no doubt many others.
So you see, there is a link to Rovers that is applicable in a BMW newsgroup.
Austin is BMW's historical ancestor, and part of it's heritage - like it or
not!
Badger.
R. Mark Clayton - 03 May 2005 14:06 GMT
> <snip>
>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> heritage - like it or not!
> Badger.

The track on my BMW is 4' 8.5" - should they be paying royalties to the
Stephensons (or the Romans even)?  Austin "borrowed" front wheel drive from
Citroen and synchromesh from Porsche (although they may have paid some
royalties through the military occupation authorities).

The reality is that car design evolves, and Rover didn't evolve fast enough.
Dori A Schmetterling - 03 May 2005 16:37 GMT
I think the contention is that Rover and BMW have a strong connection and
that it is reasonable to discuss Rover in a BMW newsgroup.  This does not at
all negate your point.  In fact, your last comment is also apposite.

There were a number of reasons why BMW wanted to acquire Rover and why (some
of) the management was loath to give it up, even when the writing was on the
wall.

DAS

For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
---

[...]

> The reality is that car design evolves, and Rover didn't evolve fast
> enough.
Dave Plowman (News) - 03 May 2005 20:28 GMT
> The track on my BMW is 4' 8.5" - should they be paying royalties to the
> Stephensons (or the Romans even)?  Austin "borrowed" front wheel drive
> from Citroen

BMC FWD (Mini - etc) wasn't the same as Citroen. It used constant velocity
driveshaft outer couplings.

> and synchromesh from Porsche (although they may have paid
> some royalties through the military occupation authorities).

The first Mini didn't have baulk ring synchro. Even although some BMC
gearboxes had had it 5 years earlier.

> The reality is that car design evolves, and Rover didn't evolve fast
> enough.

It suffered from the British disease of paying the shareholders too much
at all times thus starving investment when needed.

Signature

*A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it uses up a thousand times more memory.  

   Dave Plowman        dave@davenoise.co.uk           London SW
                 To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Frank Kemper - 09 May 2005 15:48 GMT
"Badger" <brianhattonnospammers@beeeteeeinnit.com> haute in die
Tasten:

> Let's not forget though that BMW "got into" car production by
> "borrowing" a design from Austin of England (who later became a
> part of what we eventually called Rover) and changing bits here
> and there. The car design borrowed was the Austin 7.

AFAIK BMW did not "borrow" the design of the Austin 7 ("borrow" in the sense of copying
a technical layout without permission), but they bought a license and paid fees for it.
After WW II they did the same with italian microcar maker ISO. ISO, who originally was
in the refrigerator business, had a small three wheeler, which was the source for the
Isetta. Although the BMW Isetta was deeply modified against its ISO predecesor, BMW
bought a license. IIRC the Dixi (the car BMW made from the Austin layout) was not sold
under the brand name BMW. A later, modified Dixi was the first genuine BMW car.

Before WW II BMW sold some licenses to bristol, where they built a modified 328 engine.

AFAIK the main reasion for BMW to buy Rover and Land Rover was the assumption that the
brand BMW would not be flexible enough to sell cars in the Golf class and SUVs with
propeller logo. Well, X3 and X5 are selling like hell, but I do not know if the 1-
series will be an enduring success.

Frank

Frank

Signature

please replace spam-muelleimer with fk-newsgroups for e-mail contact

Citroen - Made in Trance

Badger - 10 May 2005 12:00 GMT
> "Badger" <brianhattonnospammers@beeeteeeinnit.com> haute in die
> Tasten:
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> sense of copying
> a technical layout without permission),

Hence my use of the inverted commas.

> Before WW II BMW sold some licenses to bristol, where they built a
> modified 328 engine.

And the engine that we refer to as the Rover V8 was derived from a GM
(Buick) design, that in turn was a "copy" of a BMW engine of the time!!
Strange how these things go around.

> AFAIK the main reasion for BMW to buy Rover and Land Rover was the
> assumption that the
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> if the 1-
> series will be an enduring success.

I like the 1 series and wish it every success, but BMW's logic behind
purchasing rover was quite simply to gain access to the 4wd technology.
Badger.
Frank Kemper - 10 May 2005 12:49 GMT
"Badger" <brianhattonnospammers@beeeteeeinnit.com> haute in die
Tasten:

> I like the 1 series and wish it every success, but BMW's logic
> behind purchasing rover was quite simply to gain access to the 4wd
> technology.

I doubt that. If you are a technology company and hold shares of Magna Steyr, one of
the leading 4WD component suppliers of the world, and you have enough money to buy some
Range Rovers and take them apart for evaluation, you do not need to buy the entire
Rover group;-) IIRC the current Range Rover was developed mainly in Munich and Austria.
And the current X-models do not carry Rover genes.

Frank

Signature

please replace spam-muelleimer with fk-newsgroups for e-mail contact

Citroen - Made in Trance

Dave Plowman (News) - 10 May 2005 18:50 GMT
> And the engine that we refer to as the Rover V8 was derived from a GM
> (Buick) design, that in turn was a "copy" of a BMW engine of the time!!
> Strange how these things go around.

Eh? Have you some documentation to support this? I've got a Vitesse, and
have several books about the Buick/Rover V8, and have never read this.

BMW were advocates of OHC engines. Strange they should revert to a pushrod
design?

Rover at that time were a pretty small car maker in global terms. Their
own large engines were getting very long in the tooth. It made sense for
them to buy in a good design which wasn't suited to mass production in US
terms, but well suited to their production requirements.

> > AFAIK the main reasion for BMW to buy Rover and Land Rover was the
> > assumption that the brand BMW would not be flexible enough to sell
> > cars in the Golf class and SUVs with propeller logo. Well, X3 and X5
> > are selling like hell, but I do not know if the 1- series will be an
> > enduring success.

> I like the 1 series and wish it every success, but BMW's logic behind
> purchasing rover was quite simply to gain access to the 4wd technology.

Can't really see this. The Range Rover may have been the first AWD of that
type to use a centre differential, but Jenson used the idea much earlier
in an upmarket GT car. Harry Ferguson IIRC had the patent.

I think they just wanted a few well known brands. But after buying the
Rover group at a knock down price discovered that it just wasn't practical
to modernise it - despite making a fair fist of trying, and spending a
great deal of money in the process. The Rover 75 is an excellent car. But
to fund the replacement of the smaller Honda based models was simply
beyond them.

So to avoid being accused of asset stripping, they sold Land Rover to Ford
to recover some of their money, kept the Mini brand (and made their
version in the UK) then passed on the rest to Mayflower for nothing but
included a large dowry to the amount they'd have had to pay out in
redundancies.

I think they acted very honourably.

Signature

*Two many clicks spoil the browse *

   Dave Plowman        dave@davenoise.co.uk           London SW
                 To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Dori A Schmetterling - 10 May 2005 20:38 GMT
I finally looked at alt.autos.rover and there is a thread about this, where
a couple of people make some serious allegations about BMW behaviour.

I know too little about the detail but some remarks at least seem off the
wall.

I accidentally deleted all threads before 21 Apr and I cannot remember the
name.  However, there are (to me) surprisingly few threads discussing this
problem but I guess there isn't so much to say that can't be said in one
thread.

You don't want to have a look?

DAS

For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
---

[...]

> I think they acted very honourably.
[...]
Badger - 10 May 2005 22:03 GMT
>> And the engine that we refer to as the Rover V8 was derived from a GM
>> (Buick) design, that in turn was a "copy" of a BMW engine of the time!!
>> Strange how these things go around.
>
> Eh? Have you some documentation to support this? I've got a Vitesse, and
> have several books about the Buick/Rover V8, and have never read this.

Dave, sorry I can't remember what the book was that I read it in, it was a
book I was browsing through in the Haynes museum shop at Sparkford about 2
years ago.

> BMW were advocates of OHC engines. Strange they should revert to a pushrod
> design?

As far as I can remember, the book made mention of an experimental engine
that never made it into production, but the slightly later (couple of years,
just) buick ally v8 bore more than a passing resemblance to it.

> Rover at that time were a pretty small car maker in global terms. Their
> own large engines were getting very long in the tooth. It made sense for
> them to buy in a good design which wasn't suited to mass production in US
> terms, but well suited to their production requirements.

True.

>> > AFAIK the main reasion for BMW to buy Rover and Land Rover was the
>> > assumption that the brand BMW would not be flexible enough to sell
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> type to use a centre differential, but Jenson used the idea much earlier
> in an upmarket GT car. Harry Ferguson IIRC had the patent.

Yes, the old Formula Ferguson system. Landrover did produce a rangerover
with that system fitted for a very short while (in the late 70's, I
believe), with a rather crude abs system integrated into it. It wasn't a
success, and they dropped it rather quickly.

> I think they just wanted a few well known brands. But after buying the
> Rover group at a knock down price discovered that it just wasn't practical
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> included a large dowry to the amount they'd have had to pay out in
> redundancies.

Quite possibly, at least that's the version I feel they'd rather we all
believe, whether correct or not.

> I think they acted very honourably.

I think personally they were caught between a rock and a hard place with no
easy way out.
Badger.
fbloogyudsr - 10 May 2005 23:12 GMT
"Badger" <brianhattonnospammers@beeeteeeinnit.com> wrote in
>>   Badger <brianhattonnospammers@beeeteeeinnit.com> wrote:
>>> And the engine that we refer to as the Rover V8 was derived from a GM
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> book I was browsing through in the Haynes museum shop at Sparkford about 2
> years ago.

Try googling "oldsmobile v8 rover".  The 5th or so reference with title
"Olds FAQ -- Jetfire" which links to http://www.442.com/oldsfaq/ofjet.htm
has a nice precis.

Floyd
Dave Plowman (News) - 11 May 2005 09:59 GMT
> >>> And the engine that we refer to as the Rover V8 was derived from a
> >>> GM (Buick) design, that in turn was a "copy" of a BMW engine of the
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> > was a book I was browsing through in the Haynes museum shop at
> > Sparkford about 2 years ago.

> Try googling "oldsmobile v8 rover".  The 5th or so reference with title
> "Olds FAQ -- Jetfire" which links to
> http://www.442.com/oldsfaq/ofjet.htm has a nice precis.

Possibly, but makes no mention of a BMW connection.

It's also full of inaccuracies about the UK connection.

Just two examples. They said it was bought by British Leyland. It wasn't -
it was bought by Rover when still an independant company. Rover later
became part of Leyland.

They said it was fitted to the MG B which became the MG C. The MG C was an
earlier vehicle fitted with if you want the Austin Healey 3 litre 6. An
extremely heavy cast iron donk which spoiled the handling. There was,
however, an MG B V8.

*The* bible on the subject of the UK version of the engine and the quirky
way it was acquired is David Hardcastle's The Rover V8 Engine.

Signature

*Ham and Eggs: Just a day's work for a chicken, but a lifetime commitment

   Dave Plowman        dave@davenoise.co.uk           London SW
                 To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Daniel Arrepas - 11 May 2005 01:27 GMT
>> So to avoid being accused of asset stripping, they sold Land Rover to
>> Ford
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> Quite possibly, at least that's the version I feel they'd rather we all
> believe, whether correct or not.

If you consider that BMW lost billions on rover, one ends up understanding
that the jobs people had for the extra 5 or 6 years was almost totally
enabled by that acceptance of loss and infusion of capital. I think the
reality is that rover would have been gone a lot sooner had BMW never bought
in to it.

Whether one considers their departure honorable or not, I think the truth is
that while there, they behaved in a fashion that allowed people to work for
a longer period on the Rover dole than would have otherwise been possible
(unless there was another well-heeled suitor I am not aware of)
Dori A Schmetterling - 11 May 2005 12:50 GMT
Yes.  But not only BMW.  Rover and its predecessors have been zombies for
longer than I care to remember.  Mostly at my expense.  Ggrrrrrrrrr.

DAS

For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
---

> I think the reality is that rover would have been gone a lot sooner had
> BMW never bought in to it.
Dave Plowman (News) - 11 May 2005 09:40 GMT
> > Eh? Have you some documentation to support this? I've got a Vitesse,
> > and have several books about the Buick/Rover V8, and have never read
> > this.

> Dave, sorry I can't remember what the book was that I read it in, it was
> a book I was browsing through in the Haynes museum shop at Sparkford
> about 2 years ago.

Right. ;-)

> > BMW were advocates of OHC engines. Strange they should revert to a
> > pushrod design?

> As far as I can remember, the book made mention of an experimental
> engine that never made it into production, but the slightly later
> (couple of years, just) buick ally v8 bore more than a passing
> resemblance to it.

Of course it could be said near every pushrod V8 bears a passing
resemblance to each other.

<snip>

> > Can't really see this. The Range Rover may have been the first AWD of
> > that type to use a centre differential, but Jenson used the idea much
> > earlier in an upmarket GT car. Harry Ferguson IIRC had the patent.

> Yes, the old Formula Ferguson system. Landrover did produce a rangerover
> with that system fitted for a very short while (in the late 70's, I
> believe), with a rather crude abs system integrated into it. It wasn't a
> success, and they dropped it rather quickly.

The FF system was really just the centre differential. The anti-lock -
which did need FF due to being rather crude - was Dunlop Maxerat, as used
on aircraft which of course don't have driven wheels. So although it IIRC
needed AWD, the AWD could be used on its own without anti-lock.

> > I think they just wanted a few well known brands. But after buying the
> > Rover group at a knock down price discovered that it just wasn't
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> > nothing but included a large dowry to the amount they'd have had to
> > pay out in redundancies.

> Quite possibly, at least that's the version I feel they'd rather we all
> believe, whether correct or not.

> > I think they acted very honourably.

> I think personally they were caught between a rock and a hard place with
> no easy way out.

Yes. In some ways I'd have liked the UK government to have been allowed to
loan them the necessary capital to modernise the whole range and
production facilities. But given the over capacity in this area world wide
it would simply have passed on the problems to another maker - and
possibly one that also made similar cars in the UK - so at the end of the
day causing the same loss of jobs, etc. After all, Ford and GM seem
incapable of making a profit in this class.

Signature

*Do they ever shut up on your planet?

   Dave Plowman        dave@davenoise.co.uk           London SW
                 To e-mail, change noise into sound.

zerouali - 11 May 2005 11:32 GMT
Don't forget that BMW still own the rights to the Rover brand, so what
happens to the company is very relevant to BMW.

>> > Eh? Have you some documentation to support this? I've got a Vitesse,
>> > and have several books about the Buick/Rover V8, and have never read
[quoted text clipped - 61 lines]
> day causing the same loss of jobs, etc. After all, Ford and GM seem
> incapable of making a profit in this class.
Roger Matthews - 11 May 2005 22:38 GMT
Anyone who wonders why Rover is broke might consider a new Rover 25 that I
have taken delivery of on Monthly Hire - it is a nice looking car and drives
well but in the 1st 500 miles has had the following problems -
a) Gear stick knob came off in my hand
b) Locked me out in the supermarket car park, I had to set off the alarm to
get in
c) Has developed a metallic whine when driving
d) Boot only shuts if you slam it
e) Sony Radio Cassette doesn't receive Radio 4 properly - crackling all the
time (to be honest I suspect this is a dealer fitter option rather than the
standard Rover radio/cassette so maybe not their fault).

I suspect I will send it back shortly.

Roger
Dori A Schmetterling - 14 May 2005 14:05 GMT
That is TERRIBLE.  Change band or switch to World Service (648 khz) while
you wait.

DAS

For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
---

[...]
> e) Sony Radio Cassette doesn't receive Radio 4 properly - crackling all
> the time
[...]
Dave Plowman (News) - 14 May 2005 14:18 GMT
> > e) Sony Radio Cassette doesn't receive Radio 4 properly - crackling
> > all the time

> That is TERRIBLE.  Change band or switch to World Service (648 khz)
> while you wait.

Surprisingly, BBC World Service can be difficult to receive in the UK -
apart from on DAB.

But it isn't the same as R4, although there is some programme interchange.

Signature

*Stable Relationships Are For Horses. *

   Dave Plowman        dave@davenoise.co.uk           London SW
                 To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Dori A Schmetterling - 15 May 2005 11:07 GMT
1)  You are, of course, right (but in London area not too bad).  It's not so
surprising since it is not aimed at UK listerners.  However, now on Radio 4
frequencies 01.00 - 05.30 (I think) when Radio 4 is off-air.

2)  Also true, of course, but World Service (BBC World Service, that is, for
those not aware) still offers a good mix of current affairs and some light
entertainment and makes a good alternative to R4 and even R5.

Also a different perspective on news with a greater international content.

DAS

For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
---

[...]

> Surprisingly, BBC World Service can be difficult to receive in the UK -
> apart from on DAB.
>
> But it isn't the same as R4, although there is some programme interchange.
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.