I picked up something odd from the Nanjing's Oklahoma plant news coverage.

It is said that Nanjing plans to build three sedans in its Chinese factory. But Nanjing doesn't have rights to any of former MG Rover sedans; Rover 25 and 75 IP belongs to SAIC, while Rover 45 is a licended Honda Civic.

As I understand, Nanjing received Chinese government's permission to share SAIC's Rover 25 and 75 rights(to dismay of SAIC), but 45 is still off limit as it is a Honda IP. But if Nanjing proceeds withs its plans to build all three sedans, then it faces a legal battle with Honda. While I have no doubt that Nanjing will prevail any legal battle in China given China's history of disrespect for foreign IP rights, it will surely be banned in Europe and the US.

Will Nanjing really be the second Chery and illegally replicate another company's car?

You really like to jump to conclusions don't you buddy.

Do you mean these three vehicles?

Rover 25

http://www3.mg-rover.com/stellent/groups/public/@all/documents/htmlsnippets/mgr_030448.jpg

Rover 45

http://www3.mg-rover.com/stellent/groups/public/@all/documents/htmlsnippets/mgr_030517.jpg

Rover 75

http://www3.mg-rover.com/stellent/groups/public/@all/documents/htmlsnippets/mgr_030371.jpg


45 is still off limit as it is a Honda IP

I thought Honda had seized vital schematics and tooling from Longbridge after MG Rover went into administration, so how could Nanjing legally produce the Rover 45? Even though it would be IP infringement to produce the 45, how could Honda actually feel threatened by a vehicle that uses a Civic chassis that has not been in production for at least five years? After the purchase the MG Rover nameplate Nanjing had to have obtained some concept and prototype vehicles intended to save the company, so does anyone have any information on any possible vehicles?

Who says MG vehicles are of substandard quality?

Even though it would be IP infringement to produce the 45, how could Honda actually feel threatened by a vehicle that uses a Civic chassis that has not been in production for at least five years, produced by a company (MG Rover) that has established a reputation for substandard quality? After the purchase the MG Rover nameplate Nanjing had to have obtained some concept and prototype vehicles intended to save the company, so does anyone have any information on any possible vehicles?
Honda shouldn't be threatened, but they'd still protect their IP rights. It's just one of the things that corporations do.

The MGR car being developed was known internally as RDX60. There is information about it here (http://www.austin-rover.co.uk/index.htm?rdx60indexf.htm). I'm not sure that Nanjing actually owns this; it's possible that bits and pieces of the program are owned by their respective developers and program contractors.

I thought Honda had seized vital schematics and tooling from Longbridge after MG Rover went into administration, so how could Nanjing even produce the Rover 45?
But that's their announcement. As to how, I have no idea, but never underestimate Chinese's ability to clone things....

Even though it would be IP infringement to produce the 45, how could Honda actually feel threatened by a vehicle that uses a Civic chassis that has not been in production for at least five years?
Because it is the matter of principle. Rover 45 design is owned by Honda no matter how obsolete it maybe. Nanjing is stealing somebody else's property by choosing to continue producing Rover 45.

Continuing with Rover 45 production earns a bad reputation that is hard to shake off; an automotive pirate. When people hear the name "Chery", they recall an automotive pirate. The samething will happen with Nanjing if they choose to produce 45.

After the purchase the MG Rover nameplate Nanjing had to have obtained some concept and prototype vehicles intended to save the company, so does anyone have any information on any possible vehicles?
None of those went past development stage, so they are not ready for production without additional $500 million in investment.

LOL! again with your 500 millions!

LOL! again with your 500 millions!
Famously, Ford spent 6 billion developing the first Mondeo. It was designed to meet the demands of many countries, and be built in several plants around the world. That's the far and of the scale, but 500 million to develop a new car doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

I picked up something odd from the Nanjing's Oklahoma plant news coverage.

It is said that Nanjing plans to build three sedans in its Chinese factory. But Nanjing doesn't have rights to any of former MG Rover sedans; Rover 25 and 75 IP belongs to SAIC, while Rover 45 is a licended Honda Civic.

What SAIC don't have is the IP to the MG ZR, ZS, ZT and the ZT-T(estate or tourer of the ZT), which are now in the hands of the Nanjing people.

What SAIC don't have is the IP to the MG ZR, ZS, ZT and the ZT-T(estate or tourer of the ZT), which are now in the hands of the Nanjing people.

MG ZR = Rebadged Rover 25 owned by SAIC
MG ZS = Rebagded Civic owned by Honda
MG ZT = Rebagded Rover 75 owned by SAIC

MG ZR = Rebadged Rover 25 owned by SAIC
MG ZS = Rebagded Civic owned by Honda
MG ZT = Rebagded Rover 75 owned by SAIC

Real_I_Hate_China - you should check your facts more carefully before making accusing people of things they haven't yet done and have no intention of doing.

First, my understanding, which may not be entirely accurate, is that SAIC do not own the MG ZR or ZT, they simply have rights to build their own designs based on the old mark 1 Rover versions, the designs for the MG ZR and MG ZT as well as the Rover 25 and 75 are owned by Nanjing.

As for the MG ZS, Honda do I believe have some rights to certain parts since during the development of the Honda Domani and Rover 400, Honda and Rover worked together on the designs (starting from a Civic design as the base). However since Honda never stopped MG Rover building the cars why would they stop Nanjing making the cars. I have heared that Nanjing and Honda have had talks and come to an agreement about this.

The MG ZS looks like this: (Not much like a "Rebadged Honda Civic" to my eyes!)

http://www.austin-rover.co.uk/images/r40045_10.jpg

http://www.austin-rover.co.uk/images/r40045_12.jpg

http://www.austin-rover.co.uk/images/r40045_14.jpg

It doesn't drive much like a "Rebadged Honda Civic" either - I know, I have one.


Thanks to http://www.austin-rover.co.uk/index.htm?hhrzsgalleryf.htm for the images.

MG ZR = Rebadged Rover 25 owned by SAIC
MG ZS = Rebagded Civic owned by Honda
MG ZT = Rebagded Rover 75 owned by SAIC

The only fundamental difference between the models is that the MGs are more performance oriented, in contrast to the Rovers that had been tuned for comfort, probably somewhat like the Pontiac Buick relationship. Technically the MG ZS is a rebadged Rover 45, which was based on the Honda Civic.

Here are some pictures of the MG equilivants:

MG ZR:
http://www3.mg-rover.com/stellent/groups/public/@all/documents/htmlsnippets/mgr_026037.jpg

MG ZS:
http://www3.mg-rover.com/mg_GB_en/static/groups/public/@all/documents/htmlsnippets/mgr_024353.jpg

MG ZT:
http://www3.mg-rover.com/mg_GB_en/static/groups/public/@all/documents/htmlsnippets/mgr_020862.jpg

Because it is the matter of principle. Rover 45 design is owned by Honda no matter how obsolete it maybe. Nanjing is stealing somebody else's property by choosing to continue producing Rover 45.

My point is that the Rover 25, 45, and 75 are old designs in need of updates that where delayed by MG Rover’s finical situation, so Nanjing would probably either try to negotiate an agreement with Honda to obtain the rights to produce the old 45, continue MG Rover’s attempt to create a replacement based on the 75 chassis, or produce a entirely new product, rather than bothering to illegally replicate the 45 and develop a reputation as an automotive pirate.

The only difference between the models is that the MGs are tuned for performance, in contrast to the Rovers which are tuned for comfort.
Thats not the only difference, I have looked at the parts list for the Rover 45 and compared it to the parts list for the MG ZS, they do share a lot of parts but there are literaly hundreds of parts that are different. Engine, wheels, seats, suspension, brakes, stearing rack ... gear selector, bumpers, side skirts ... and of course the badges!

Engine, wheels, seats, suspension, brakes, stearing rack ... gear selector, bumpers, side skirts ... and of course the badges!
Surely, hundred parts out of thousand parts amount to only 10% difference, right? A classic badge engineering. Honda owns Rover 45/MG ZS, case closed.

My point is that the Rover 25, 45, and 75 are old designs in need of updates that where delayed by MG Rover’s finical situation, so Nanjing would probably either try to negotiate an agreement with Honda to obtain the rights to produce the old 45, continue MG Rover’s attempt to create a replacement based on the 75 chassis, or produce a entirely new product, rather than bothering to illegally replicate the 45 and develop a reputation as an automotive pirate.
Nanjing never licensed Rover 25 and 75 from SAIC(They just went to the communist party to shut SAIC up), so why do you expect Nanjing to license 45 from Honda???? Chinese consider paying a license fee for somebody else's design a waste of money.

Surely, hundred parts out of thousand parts amount to only 10% difference, right? A classic badge engineering. Honda owns Rover 45/MG ZS, case closed.

Out of all your thousands of parts, how many do you think Honda own? They certanly don't own the engine, or any of the others I listed. Maybe they just own 1 part - the bodyshell and maybe they don't even fully own that - remember it was a joint development with Rover? I don't know the answer.

I agree that most of the thousands of nuts, bolts, screws and other fasteners are indeed used in both models but I consider them irrelevant compared to say the engine - and the Rover 45 never had a 2.5litre quad cam 24 valve V6 with variable geometry induction system or the suspension system, braking system etc to cope with it. Most came with a simple 1.4L engine.

how many do you think Honda own?
Well, at least the chassis and suspension. Try to build the car without those.

Well, at least the chassis and suspension. Try to build the car without those.

Actually it's quite easy. The MG F had a different suspension to the TF (but is basically the same car) and the 75/ZT actually has 2 different floorpans (one RWD, the other FWD)....

To be fair to some people on here the MG Rover Situation has perplexed many people. When SAIC bought the IPR's to the Rover models, they did not buy the IPR's to the MG models. Bascally PVH (former owners of MGR) reserved the right to use all the Rover IPR's on MG's models. Essentially SAIC SHARE the IPR's with MG.....

To be fair to some people on here the MG Rover Situation has perplexed many people. When SAIC bought the IPR's to the Rover models, they did not buy the IPR's to the MG models. Bascally PVH (former owners of MGR) reserved the right to use all the Rover IPR's on MG's models. Essentially SAIC SHARE the IPR's with MG.....
That's not what I heard even from the administrators, hence SAIC's threat to sue Nanjing until the Chinese communist party's intervention.

Furthermore, Rover 45 IP was never sold to Shanghai because Pheonix never owned it in the first place anyway, and Honda reminded the administrators that they owned Rover45 rights by paying a visit and taking drawings with them. So how could MG ZS IP rights be sold to Nanjing when Pheonix didn't own it?

Nanjing is engaging in an automotive piracy by continuing to build MG ZS. Then why is Nanjing doing this? Because Rover 45 was the most valuable car to Nanjing in MG line up.

Nanjing never licensed Rover 25 and 75 from SAIC(They just went to the communist party to shut SAIC up), so why do you expect Nanjing to license 45 from Honda???? Chinese consider paying a license fee for somebody else's design a waste of money.

I don’t expect Nanjing to license the Rover 45 from Honda, I expect Nanjing to develop a replacement for the 45 from the 75’s chassis. Then again, judging from there current situations, it appears that Nanjing only acquired MG to gain a marketing advantage, in contrast to SAIC who acquired Rover’s engineering to accelerate there own R&D. So the reality is SAIC probably will develop a replacement for the 45 based on a shortened 75 chassis, while producing a slightly lengthened 75 to become more competitive in the market place. I hope Nanjing will realize that they are not only incapable of selling a proper vehicle under the current MG lineup, but are also incapable developing suitable replacements, making there best solution either a merger with SAIC, or a partnership to develop these vehicles.

I thought that I read somewhere on the MG-Rover.org forums that Nanjing would be able to build either the 4 or 5 door (I can't recall which) 45/ZS but that Honda had all the rights to the other bodystyle. Does anyone else (Windy?) remember this?

I thought that I read somewhere on the MG-Rover.org forums that Nanjing would be able to build either the 4 or 5 door (I can't recall which) 45/ZS but that Honda had all the rights to the other bodystyle. Does anyone else (Windy?) remember this?
Yes chabbu, it would have been the 4 door since as far as I know there never was a Civic saloon. Also a 4 door would also be what the Chinese people would want to buy, and I guess the people of the USA too. The 4 door is the red one I posted pictures of above.

I don't know if that story was true though - seems a little unlikely to me.

Once again, I have seen a report containing a statement from someone important at Nanjing saying that they have talked to Honda and there is no problem.

And by the way Real_I_Hate_China, Honda didn't take the drawings from Longbridge - they burned them!

SAIC spead a lot of gossip about who owned the IP, most of it was untrue.

That's not what I heard even from the administrators, ................

Don't you mean that's not what I read on the internet ?

I have seen a report containing a statement from someone important at Nanjing saying that they have talked to Honda and there is no problem.
Sure, as long as Nanjing doesn't produce Rover 45/MG ZS, all is well.

Honda's act of burning drawings and taking out critical equipment from the factory doesn't sound like an unconcerned party.

SAIC spead a lot of gossip about who owned the IP, most of it was untrue.
Some facts concerning MG Rover.

Rover Brand : BMW kept it, but licensed it back to Pheonix for a "free" use. A license of such nature is usually non-transferrable. SAIC is in a bid to buy it from BMW.

Longbridge Site : Pheonix sold it to some real estate firm then leased it back.

Rover 25/75 IP : They were sold to SAIC, then Pheonix was granted a license to use it for free. A license of such nature is usually non-transferrable.

Rover 45 IP : Honda licensed it to MG Rover ages ago. A license of such nature is usually non-transferrable. Honda terminated this license at the moment of MG Rover bankruptcy and no one shall reproduce them without taking another license. But Honda has no intention of aiding any Chinese firm.

Some facts concerning MG Rover.
If those are facts then you will be able to prove them...

Here is an example of a fact for you - The IP for BMW's first car belonged to Austin (Now Nanjing) and was licensed to BMW.

Continuing with Rover 45 production earns a bad reputation that is hard to shake off; an automotive pirate. When people hear the name "Chery", they recall an automotive pirate. The samething will happen with Nanjing if they choose to produce 45.


Talking about piracy? No one can exceed Koreans as Hyndai made its way through by copying from wheels to logo. :eek: