Lost its grin factor.

spokey wrote: OK, first off, I am 100% certain that BMW were absolutely terrified of Rover. And well they should have been: an awful mashing of bland Japanese cars that we so well-built, they would fall apart if you f@rted in them. I can see that it was definitely worth the trouble of buying them, developing some new cars that weren't based on Japanese taxis and chucking huge amounts of money from a profitable business into a very unprofitable one. Those cunning Germans. Why take the development cars? Because they had paid for them. Hugely. If Rovers were awesome cars that sold themselves, we wouldn't be having this discussion, but they're not. I hate to sound even more cold and ruthless, but a large proportion of the problem with Rover is the perceived build quality, which is largely down to those same 6000 people whose jobs are in danger. BMW should never have bought Rover, it was a bad business decision. But you can't blame them for realising afterwards that it was a bad investment and offloading it. BMW are not in business to keep UK workers in a job; BMW are in business to make money for their shareholders. Rover wasn't making money for their shareholders.

A bad business decision to take the most iconic small car name so your company can finally build something that doesnt fit in with your corporate image? IE a small, front wheel drive car. A whole new market emerges.
A bad business decision to obtain Land rover?... a nice hoard of research from one of the pioneers of mass-market 4x4s to read through before producing your own off-roaders and then flogging it off for a tidy profit.
A bad business decision to kill off rover? to eliminate a direct competitor?

I would suggest is was an excellent business decision. BMW have diversified into new markets and strengthened the business as a result. I dont blame them for that, but I dont agree with kicking Rover, whose cars are ageing, and an easy target to ridicule, but actually pretty good considering.
 Even my mums metro is fully fartproofed ;p

spokey wrote: So, line astern, unable to shake off or overtake: Porsche Carrera 4, Porsche 968 Club Sport, M Roadster (with serious AC Schnitzer modifications), Z1 and then Z3 1.9 auto.

Obviously I wasn't there but I find it very hard to believe that a Porsche carrera 4, a 968 club sport and an M roadster couldn't shake off a 1.9 Z3 auto. While I agree that it takes quite a large difference in performance to overtake another car, if your in front of a slower car it is quite easy to pull out a good lead. 

However if all the drivers were of a similar abillity that might explain it since very powerful cars can take a lot more skill to drive quickly. My last car, a lowley Primera, was very easy to take by the scruff of the neck and really fly down a twisty road. Although my BMW is a lot quicker car it took me a lot longer to master.

A final thought though. If a car like a carrera 4 cannot pull away from a Z3 then it is down to the drivers abillity not the car.

Doive wrote: 100% agree Grobda. As I have stated earlier BMW came in like vultures to kill off Rover's aspersions of being Britain's answer to BMW (as some of the motoring press were saying back in 1991/2). What better way to take down an organisation than from the inside? Then when they had suitably starved Rover, they sold up taking everything worth taking, including most of the development cars. Why take the development cars?? Because if Rover had built them, they would have been able to pick up their market share and BMW are in the same threatened position in ten year's time. So invest all the inheritance in developing cars, then take them away with you when you leave. Cunning. As for Land Rover.... well we all know what happened there. BMW buys Rover group from BAe for £800m - sells Land Rover to Ford for £1.8bn. Nice tidy profit. Not to mention the marketing success the new MINI has been (can't stand the thing personally), think how much money Rover would have made from that? BMW also retain the rights to the name 'Rover', lending it out to Phoenix and with the power to take it off them at any point should they so wish. Why retain a brand name? I don't know. It does annoy me when I hear people saying 'Ah, they should have let Rover die', or 'Who cares?' Well I do, and so do 6000 people in the Midlands if MG Rover sinks or swims. I hope in ten years time that MG Rover will be strong enough to have sustained model development and new cars competitive against the big names. If a car company's success was rated on the spirit and heart of it's workforce and development team, then MG Rover would win every time. If I ever have enough money, I will buy an MG ZT or Rover 75 over any foreign competitor such as BMW, Merc etc etc.

Firstly I agree in that I think we need to care about 6000 people potentially losing their jobs. Job loses in this country have an impact on our economy which affects all of us in Britain.

However the reason Rover was in the position it was when BMW took over was because the cars it made were rubbish. Ok the original 200 and 400 had their good points, but in terms of build quality there were dreadful. The 800 was a joke. If the company and it employees had thought more about the competiton and less about themselves during the 70's Rover may well have been trying to buy BMW in the 90's. People complain about BMW but in reality the british car industry has no one to blame but themselves.

The point about BMW buying Rover to stop them becoming competition is just nonsense.  

Oh and I don't like the new Mini either. I don't like cars that are fashionable and I think it looks silly. Ok if your best mates called Big Ears.

Peter Fenwick wrote: Oh and I don't like the new Mini either. I don't like cars that are fashionable and I think it looks silly. Ok if your best mates called Big Ears.

I think it's a classic.  The perfect modern icon to replace the original one.  I'd have one tomorrow, any one of them.  Love them to bits.

I've driven a few too (a Mini One and a Cooper S) and they were absolutely fantastic.  If I could have as many cars as I wanted I'd have a Cooper S on my drive for the A to B blasts - it was one of the most fun cars I've ever driven.

spokey wrote: So you're saying a MINI is a Noddy Holder?

Oh god no!  Arghhhh! 

Please, no more, I give in, I give in!

spokey wrote: Peter Fenwick wrote: Ok if your best mates called Big Ears. So you're saying a MINI is a Noddy Holder?

Exactly, fine if your address is toy town, but otherwise.......

IMO it is a cynical attempt to cash in on the old Mini name. Sure it is a good car, but it has about as much in comon with the original as I do with the Pope  

I don't keep a car long enough for it to lose it's grin factor!!  that coupled with the fact I hardly get a chance to get out on the open road living in this bottleneck of a Southern capital, my average speed according to the OBC is 14 MPH, and has been in all other cars with OBC. Bah!!  so i still get the grin factor when I eventually get out!

Tonight will be it's first decent run in weeks!  get to take it to Kings Cross!!  Wow I here you say!!  exactly!

Mini's are great!!  I've got one of those too!  like a go-kart! 

It is a great car (other than how it looks IMO), but it has nothing at all to do with the Mini. 

In my view a large amount of the new minis success is down to it trading on the name and image of the old car. I would have had more respect for it if they had badged it a BMW and called it something else. At least then it would be pretending to be something it's not. 

The old Mini was a bit like the VW beetle, it was a cheap cheerful car that everyone could afford . Now, as VW did with the beetle, they have taken it and turned it into an expensive fashion accessory.

It don't care at all how good it is, because in a few years time, when it goes out of fashion, just like the new VW beetle did, it is going to look daft. 

You  may well be right Spokey.

I think it looks a bit like a Tonka toy, especially with big wheels on.