China Car Forums banner
1 - 15 of 15 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
297 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
:( A circular issued by the Ministry of Finance and State Environmental Protection Administration said yesterday that the Chinese government, including all it's institutions and organizations, will only be permitted to purchase vehicles from nine companies,according to Jinghua Newspaper.

These brands include DongFeng Peugeot, DongFeng Citroen, Nissan, Honda CR-V, Audi A6, Audi A4, Bora, Jetta, Caddy and Hyundai. All of these companies meet government environmental pollution mandates.
The circular also includes details of other "green" products such as printers, color TVs, board materials and furniture.

By People's Daily Online
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
561 Posts
now we know that chery and geely is not secretly running, or being supported by the chinese government. therefore you could buy a chery even if you dont like the communist government lol.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20 Posts
mgrovernut said:
Nanjing MG should get on there as I think they will be Euro IV compliant.

MG's engine is 1995 technology and doesn't meet Euro4 stds... but can be modified at extra costs!

Nanjing Motors is being led by a disillusioned man who's no longer in touch with reality. The bank loans or lines of credit that keep his business running should be removed. If his company stays afloat then it's all credits to him. Nanjing's CEO paid millions for what could have been bought for 1 pound sterling and he thinks he's smart because his daddy's got connections. He is a danger to himself, to China's banks and to China's nascent car industry.

China should consolidate its car industry because foreign companies are starting to find them ripe for the plucking. The loan financed price war will leave very efficient but weakened small companies that would be easily taken over by less efficient but much more profitable foreign companies. Everyone seems to want to make everything. China doesn't have enough specialists like Bosch(injection), ZF(gear box), Pininfarina(design), Denso, Impco(LPG sys).

The whole industry must be restructured with mergers, closures and the remaining ones should be grouped along purchasing, R&D, platforms development(engine, chassis & transmission), overseas expansion etc.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
83 Posts
MG's engine is 1995 technology and doesn't meet Euro4 stds... but can be modified at extra costs!
As with most engines today the technology dates from the time of the original Otto cycle 4-stroke engine. Forgive me if I am wrong here but to have been selling in Europe until 2005 the engines would have to be Euro3 compliant. If you care to look at the engine specification this continually evolved from the launch of the original K series engines in 1989 to include larger capacities, with changes to head design, cams and ignition etc to ensure compliance with ever tightening regulations on both emissions and drive-by noise levels.

The fact is, the factory were working on the final phases of the testing to get Euro4 certification along with a new G series diesel engine derived from the previous L series engine. The work involved for NAC will be minimal and if they are serious about their plans to get into the US and Europe, then the engines will have to be Euro4.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20 Posts
Thanks Martin!

I agree that the K series are Euro3 compliant. Although they were first developed in 1989, they're still decent engines. Most engines are not built from scratch everytime a new model is launched anyway. They evolve and are improved little by little.

I however think that NAC is just the party pooper. The MG brand and production facilities would have been in better hands with SAIC that already had the rights to the K-series, Rover 75 etc. And if they were really bent on buying those facilities, they could have formed a consortium to buy it instead of outbidding each other, don't you agree?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
83 Posts
In a capitalist sense, SAIC did what any business would do, they sat back and waited for MG-Rover to go bust and then hoped to get all the facilities for a song. Their buying the IPR prior to the collapse was probably a mistake, something they needn't have done as they could have waited until the collapse, although it no doubt gave them a lead to getting the Roewe 750 launched ahead of anything NAC-MG seem to have done so far (albeit NAC-MG have been busy transplanting assets and getting them set-up again).

Whether NAC were the Party-poopers remains to be seen. I am not fond of the Roewe 750s looks but still await the NAC version of the ZT. At least we have a choice, and choice is what Western society is all about. But, PR wise, many buyers will not like the attitude taken by SAIC and see NAC-MG instead as the heroes, especially with the fact that Longbridge is set to restart production of the TF next year with a large proportion of UK content. This is the kind of PR that the Chinese companies will need to be seen as acceptable in the UK, as the Japanese have done with Honda, Toyota and Nissan all producing cars here along European design offices.

In UK terms, if it had been a German company doing what either SAIC or NAC have done, there would be no issue, it would be seen as a good thing. But that is British snobbery, and the same negative attitude towards the Chinese ownership applies if either Proton or Tata had bought MG Rover - the perception that there is no quality unlike with German car manufacturers.

However, in the US, MG is a name that carries fond memories, despite the 26 yr absence of the marque, but Rover was a disaster, it was a car the US never took to heart and despite a name change to Sterling, it was a flop! To most US buyers, Rover is a Land Rover. With a change of name to Roewe, SAIC still face the same battle as any other Chinese brand, coming to the US market with a new name with Chinese origins. NAC-MG have the upper hand, not just the name, but the PR relating to the promise to build sports cars in the US, too. Whilst Americans may be more patriotic to their own branding, from what I have seen the average potential US buyer of the NAC-MG believes that the quality can be no worse than the British MGs of recent years. How bad is that!

With regard to your comments about the number of manufacturers, as a Westener, I fail to understand the magnitude of 1.3 billion people and what that means in marketing and sales terms, and it's relevance to the number of manufacturers, especially being used to a market of 60 million, and even the US seems small at 360million. Indeed, I often wonder why there are so many brands competing, even here in the Western world. I can understand branding such as what VW do with Seat and Skoda, but then again, that's a capitalist market and if a company is not delivering the goods, it will go under.

There's no room in business for sentiment and emotion in this business environment. Only the best will succeed - indeed, it's my belief that Jaguar and Aston Martin only exist today - as do Volvo, SEAT, Skoda, Rolls Royce, Bentley, Nissan and Saab etc because the larger parent companies thought branding was the way forward. Historically, there were 100s of companies that folded, or merged but they disappeared (eg. Riley, Wolesly, Morris, Triumph etc) but it seems today that a company must be rescued rather than being allowed to just close.

The same will ultimately happen in China, IMHO, the best will grow, others will fold - the government can't support them all. (Try telling that to the French car makers!) Of course, the enthuisasts of MG Rover all point towards the fact that the British government and councils did not buy MG Rovers - but then again, it's a free market! If the cars were not deemed suitable on a business case comparison, then they should not be bought. Patriotism has no place in business.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
469 Posts
Jackk said:
MG's engine is 1995 technology and doesn't meet Euro4 stds... but can be modified at extra costs!

Nanjing Motors is being led by a disillusioned man who's no longer in touch with reality.
Hi Jackk,

I think you will find that Nanjing MG's N Series engine (renamed K-Series) now has a Euro IV certificate.

I am not sure why you refer to their leader as "disillusioned"? I would be most interested to hear more about him if you have some more information...

I note that he has just been nominated for 2006 Chinese Automobile person of the year award! (http://www.njnews.cn/w/ca836674.htm )
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
33 Posts
Talking to a friend in Shanghai govt, they just received some new passenger cars for staff. They haven't heard of this rule, they had bought another brand. Surprisingly I was told the new cars were purchased based solely on price, nothing to do with any connections or that work units' 'investments'.

Any anecdotal evidence this rule is being followed anywhere in China? Or has it been pushed aside like so many other central government pronouncements.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
176 Posts
MartinW said:
In a capitalist sense, SAIC did what any business would do, they sat back and waited for MG-Rover to go bust and then hoped to get all the facilities for a song. ....
Holy Crap! A smart, concise, logical post!
 
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
Top