Is Nanjing Vs Honda war coming ahead?

10327 Views 25 Replies 10 Participants Last post by KING_OF_HILL, Aug 6, 2006

Real_I_Hate_China

Discussion Starter · Jul 14, 2006

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?

1 - 20 of 26 Posts

AXLE

· #2 · Jul 14, 2006

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

DOS

· #3 · Jul 14, 2006 (Edited)

3

Do you mean these three vehicles?

Rover 25

Rover 45

Rover 75

Real_I_Hate_China said:
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?

See less See more

AXLE

· #4 · Jul 14, 2006

Who says MG vehicles are of substandard quality?

proximal

· #5 · Jul 14, 2006

DOS said:
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. 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.

Real_I_Hate_China

Discussion Starter · #6 · Jul 14, 2006

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.

AXLE

· #7 · Jul 14, 2006

LOL! again with your 500 millions!

proximal

· #8 · Jul 14, 2006

AXLE said:
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.

Andy

· #9 · Jul 14, 2006

Real_I_Hate_China said:
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.

Real_I_Hate_China

Discussion Starter · #10 · Jul 14, 2006

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

Windy

· #11 · Jul 14, 2006 (Edited)

3

Real_I_Hate_China said:
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!)

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.

See less See more

DOS

· #12 · Jul 14, 2006 (Edited)

3

Real_I_Hate_China said:
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:

MG ZS:

MG ZT:

Real_I_Hate_China said:
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.

See less See more

Windy

· #13 · Jul 14, 2006

DOS said:
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!

Real_I_Hate_China

Discussion Starter · #14 · Jul 15, 2006

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.

Windy

· #15 · Jul 15, 2006

Real_I_Hate_China said:
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.

Real_I_Hate_China

Discussion Starter · #16 · Jul 16, 2006

how many do you think Honda own?

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

mgrovernut

· #17 · Jul 16, 2006

Real_I_Hate_China said:
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.....

Real_I_Hate_China

Discussion Starter · #18 · Jul 17, 2006 (Edited)

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.

DOS

· #19 · Jul 17, 2006

Real_I_Hate_China said:
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.

chabbu

· #20 · Jul 17, 2006

MG ZS rights

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?

1 - 20 of 26 Posts

This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.