Spy Photographs
- Status
1 - 20 of 20 Posts
I don't know who posted the pictures originaly so I did not put a link.
I got some from here:
http://www.carspyshots.net/zerothread?id=21436
and some from here:
http://fans.auto.sina.com.cn/user/showpicture.php?id=7297
http://fans.auto.sina.com.cn/user/showpicture.php?id=7302
http://fans.auto.sina.com.cn/user/showpicture.php?id=7307
http://fans.auto.sina.com.cn/user/showpicture.php?id=7330
I got some from here:
http://www.carspyshots.net/zerothread?id=21436
and some from here:
http://fans.auto.sina.com.cn/user/showpicture.php?id=7297
http://fans.auto.sina.com.cn/user/showpicture.php?id=7302
http://fans.auto.sina.com.cn/user/showpicture.php?id=7307
http://fans.auto.sina.com.cn/user/showpicture.php?id=7330
Joined
·
66 Posts
Yes, even as a Rover 75 enthusiast, I have to agree with that observation. The 25 and 45 were past their sell by date even before the company entered administration and I am not sure whether any true Rover enthusiast would even regard as them real Rovers. Rather, they were little more than Honda's cast offs that should have been rebranded as Austins.Puppetland said:
However the highly regarded 75 is a very different proposition and unlike the 25 and 45 was a real Rover. Given continued development of the car, I cannot see why the 75 cannot continue to be around in an updated form as a Roewe 75 or NAC-MG 7Z for many years and perhaps decades to come.
Regards
Pip
The 25 was NOT a Honda cast-off. It was developed in house by the Rover Group engineers alongside the MG F and was to be the Metro replacement. Because the Metro (by then badged 100) was still selling so well, they decided to call the new car the 200. This created confusion with the fact that previously the 200/400 was the same car but just in 5dr (200) and 4dr (400), so that when the 400 was replaced (yes, this was a Honda platform, and identical to the UK Honda Civic launched at the same time, not a cast-off) the 5dr and 4 dr models were both called 400.
The 200/25 shared switch gear with the 400/45 and the headlight and body styling was somewhat Honda looking but understandable given the family styling, but it had nothing whatsoever to do with Honda. A myth that is often perpetuated along with various other myths such as the 75 was based on an old BMW 5 series chassis which it was not, although it used a variation of the BMW Z axle, albeit in none drive format.
Surprisingly, BMW delayed the launch of the 75 by six months and added £1mill to the developement cost all because there was a seam visible when the sunroof was opened which went against their design principles, yet they let the bonnet shut-line issue go.
All this information can be found on Keith Adam's website, the Unofficial Austin-Rover.
As to the replacement of the 25/45, the Rover group were working on the 45 at the time but when BMW sold the business, they kept all the material relating to the work, and some suggest that some of this eventually found its way into the BMW 1 series as the styling is not dissimilar to the original proto-types. RDX60 was in progress but lacking funds, which SAIC had promised, it was unlikely that MG-Rover were in any position to put it into production. RDX60 was blighted by the fact the TWR went into receivership halfway through development meaning that the progress was set back by 6 months or more.
Given that BMW lumped the cost of development of the 75 in with the MINI and the new Range Rover, it's not surprising that the Rover Group was not making money in 1999, nor was the final year of the Rover Group helped in anyway, (or the success of the 75 with the delay at launch after the 1998 Motor Show) following BMW's threat of closing Rover if the UK Government did not provide assitance with estblishing new manufacturing facilities.
It's often forgotten that Rover were doing exceptionally well in the early/mid 90s, and today, it is more likely to see Rovers on the road in the UK from this period than any other make, inc. Ford or Vauxhall.
Frankly, though, the MG ZT was more of a true Rover than the 75. When the P6 was launched in the 60s it won Car of the Year as did the SDI in the 70s. This was because each successive Rover model broke new design boundaries and did not rely on any outdated image of what a Rover was. The 75 replaced both the 600 and 800 models (both of which were Honda platforms), but offered nothing more than some pastiche of retro design supposedly harking back to the days of the original 75, with more BMW parts in it than the 200/400 had Honda parts in them. In fact the sales of the 75 were probably hampered by this Gentleman Club interior, whereas the ZT turned that retro styling into a modern, sporting look with decent handling. I'd say even the 75 failed to be a proper Rover.
Despite all this, the 75 was developed on a budget that was less than what BMW spent desiging a back axle. That said, the 75 was a brilliant car and the best were the Cowley built models with regard to the attention to detail and and real wood dashboards, but the Longbridge cars have also been extremely reliable cars having topped reliability surveys ahead of the German manufacturers. What's more a recent What Car poll has also show the 25/45 to be one of the more reliable second hand buys.
The 200/25 shared switch gear with the 400/45 and the headlight and body styling was somewhat Honda looking but understandable given the family styling, but it had nothing whatsoever to do with Honda. A myth that is often perpetuated along with various other myths such as the 75 was based on an old BMW 5 series chassis which it was not, although it used a variation of the BMW Z axle, albeit in none drive format.
Surprisingly, BMW delayed the launch of the 75 by six months and added £1mill to the developement cost all because there was a seam visible when the sunroof was opened which went against their design principles, yet they let the bonnet shut-line issue go.
All this information can be found on Keith Adam's website, the Unofficial Austin-Rover.
As to the replacement of the 25/45, the Rover group were working on the 45 at the time but when BMW sold the business, they kept all the material relating to the work, and some suggest that some of this eventually found its way into the BMW 1 series as the styling is not dissimilar to the original proto-types. RDX60 was in progress but lacking funds, which SAIC had promised, it was unlikely that MG-Rover were in any position to put it into production. RDX60 was blighted by the fact the TWR went into receivership halfway through development meaning that the progress was set back by 6 months or more.
Given that BMW lumped the cost of development of the 75 in with the MINI and the new Range Rover, it's not surprising that the Rover Group was not making money in 1999, nor was the final year of the Rover Group helped in anyway, (or the success of the 75 with the delay at launch after the 1998 Motor Show) following BMW's threat of closing Rover if the UK Government did not provide assitance with estblishing new manufacturing facilities.
It's often forgotten that Rover were doing exceptionally well in the early/mid 90s, and today, it is more likely to see Rovers on the road in the UK from this period than any other make, inc. Ford or Vauxhall.
Frankly, though, the MG ZT was more of a true Rover than the 75. When the P6 was launched in the 60s it won Car of the Year as did the SDI in the 70s. This was because each successive Rover model broke new design boundaries and did not rely on any outdated image of what a Rover was. The 75 replaced both the 600 and 800 models (both of which were Honda platforms), but offered nothing more than some pastiche of retro design supposedly harking back to the days of the original 75, with more BMW parts in it than the 200/400 had Honda parts in them. In fact the sales of the 75 were probably hampered by this Gentleman Club interior, whereas the ZT turned that retro styling into a modern, sporting look with decent handling. I'd say even the 75 failed to be a proper Rover.
Despite all this, the 75 was developed on a budget that was less than what BMW spent desiging a back axle. That said, the 75 was a brilliant car and the best were the Cowley built models with regard to the attention to detail and and real wood dashboards, but the Longbridge cars have also been extremely reliable cars having topped reliability surveys ahead of the German manufacturers. What's more a recent What Car poll has also show the 25/45 to be one of the more reliable second hand buys.
Joined
·
66 Posts
At this age the cars origins are irrelevant. What mattered was that the R25 and R45 were passed their sell by date in 2000, never mind 2005. Car magazine claimed the R45 was the second worst car on sale - yet MGR still felt it necessary to charge for optional extras!MartinW said:
It has also been noted that BMW were increasingly concerned at Rover's ability to build an executive medium sized car - and had to help them in more ways than one, including a suggestion that the KV6 was substantially reworked before being fitted to the 75. Spending £1m to remove a sunroof seam must have seemed alien to a company that allowed cars like the Metro to be released with glaring faults, (like the fuel cap being too low!) The 75 bonnet shut line issue? Have you seen the MGR facelift R75s with that huge gap between the grille and bonnet - you could drive a bus through it! The MGR's facelifted models were not convincing and actually drove buyers away. Most agree that the early 75s were better in appearance as well.MartinW said:
Just how Phoenix thought they could keep Longbridge afloat without access to the work already done on the 25/45 replacement is utterly mind boggling. They had nowhere near the funds to create an all new car and even using a 'pretend' mule did nothing to convince the motoring press that a replacement was on the horizon. Sad, but MG Rover were doomed the minute that £10 was handed over. Even a mass undertaking of pre-registering new cars to bump up sales figures did not wash with the public. What they wanted was a new car, not a new badge. The launch of the CityRover was an insult on the British buying public. For sure, May 2000 seemed like a bright new era at Longbridge, but in reality it was the start of a journey through a very long dark tunnel. The K series HGF issues did nothing to help the company - but neither did its management's clumsy handling of the issue.MartinW said:
Well, they would have lumped the costs of the MINI and RR development into Rover Group. After all, and at the time, they were Rover Group cars. A little known fact is that using a like for like comparison (and removing goodwill payments and asset sales, and using a full 12 months etc.,) it could be argued that MG Rover lost more money in its first year of operation than BMW did with Rover Group in its last year. Also, adding up all the money MGR burned through over the five years is nothing short of eye watering and embarrassing. Do the sums yourself.MartinW said:
That is a matter of opinion, but Rover cars (75 aside) were not renowned for their durability.MartinW said:
The 75 was a proper Rover, trouble was the world had moved on while the Rover had not. Yes, the Cowley cars were superb, (I had one) but the later Longbridge models I sat in and drove were indifferent in quality and lacked the solidity of the earlier cars - quite the opposite of what was required in MGR's dire position. Even the quality of plastic had been cut to the bare minimum and lots of equipment was removed, the climate control sensor looked ugly and the the loss of vanity mirror lights on some models - to name two small mean examples.MartinW said:
And what did the loyal buyers of MGR cars end up with? Cars with no warranty cover, no dealer network, suspect parts supply, and more importantly a car that has no realistic trade in value.
Having said all that I congratulate SAIC on their version of the 75. They are first out of the blocks and have done exactly what they said they would. Now it is up to Nanjing to show what they can do.
To claim a 25 is a Honda cast-off has nothing to do with the age of the cars currently - I didn't suggest that, but it just highlights the usual ignorance of the many people that like to rubbish the cars.
So how come BMW allowed the bonnet shut-line issue to go but dealt with the sunroof seam - an option that most buyers did not opt to have? Seems a bit illogical to me!
I do seem to recall a proto-type at the 2002 Motorshow - maybe it was a pretend mule, but having just seen a new story today on RDX-60, it would appear that your comment on the bungling management is apt.
Given the success of the Range Rover and the MINI subsequently, weren't BMW a little short-sighted in getting shot of the business? Surely within the year it would have been looking much better? Why dilute their own brand with the 1 Series, why not use the Rover badge for that and FWD cars? Afterall, they lost millions over poor management on their part - perhaps they should have taken a closer watch on what was happening? And why demand support from the UK government to continue the business? Do any of the other manufacturers get such support apart from the French? Their management was no less bungling than MG Rovers if you ask me.
And to end this with fact!
So how come BMW allowed the bonnet shut-line issue to go but dealt with the sunroof seam - an option that most buyers did not opt to have? Seems a bit illogical to me!
I do seem to recall a proto-type at the 2002 Motorshow - maybe it was a pretend mule, but having just seen a new story today on RDX-60, it would appear that your comment on the bungling management is apt.
Given the success of the Range Rover and the MINI subsequently, weren't BMW a little short-sighted in getting shot of the business? Surely within the year it would have been looking much better? Why dilute their own brand with the 1 Series, why not use the Rover badge for that and FWD cars? Afterall, they lost millions over poor management on their part - perhaps they should have taken a closer watch on what was happening? And why demand support from the UK government to continue the business? Do any of the other manufacturers get such support apart from the French? Their management was no less bungling than MG Rovers if you ask me.
- different tune to what you used to post on Rover forums.
Funny, I thought you posted elsewhere that the car was rubbish for European markets and their decision to not export was a sensible one!
And to end this with fact!
Joined
·
66 Posts
I have never said the Cowley 75 was rubbish; it was, as you said, the best 75 built. My experience of the car turned sour when MG Rover dealers offered me peanuts for it, while at the same time trying to flog me a new one. I congratulated SAIC on their 75 because they were the first to have made something out of the ashes of Longbridge - and given the rear seat occupants more legroom as well!
If SAIC had launched the car in Europe (at this time) it would have bombed - the public would have realised it was a rehashed Rover and run a mile. Sadly, the biggest drawback you could currently have, in todays European car market, is to have a product that has ANYTHING to do with Rover. On the other side of the world, it doesn't matter that much. With this in mind, I just can't wait to see how Nanjing get on in the UK.
With regard to the sunroof seal. You may find it was also a possible corrosion issue and had to be removed.
I saw the pictures of the proposed RDX60, left abandoned in Longbridge. No wonder no other car manufacturer wanted to help them if that was all they could bring to to the negotiating table.
Maybe BMW did jump ship too quick, but with the imminent arrival of MINI, they simply could not afford to have their precious baby associated with other Longbridge products. They had to move quick, and they did.
If SAIC had launched the car in Europe (at this time) it would have bombed - the public would have realised it was a rehashed Rover and run a mile. Sadly, the biggest drawback you could currently have, in todays European car market, is to have a product that has ANYTHING to do with Rover. On the other side of the world, it doesn't matter that much. With this in mind, I just can't wait to see how Nanjing get on in the UK.
With regard to the sunroof seal. You may find it was also a possible corrosion issue and had to be removed.
I saw the pictures of the proposed RDX60, left abandoned in Longbridge. No wonder no other car manufacturer wanted to help them if that was all they could bring to to the negotiating table.
Maybe BMW did jump ship too quick, but with the imminent arrival of MINI, they simply could not afford to have their precious baby associated with other Longbridge products. They had to move quick, and they did.
Joined
·
66 Posts
1 - 20 of 20 Posts
- Status
Join the discussion
