Rover dead - no tears

"Badger" > wrote in message
...

>> So to avoid being accused of asset stripping, they sold Land Rover to
>> Ford
>> to recover some of their money, kept the Mini brand (and made their
>> version in the UK) then passed on the rest to Mayflower for nothing but
>> included a large dowry to the amount they'd have had to pay out in
>> redundancies.
>
> Quite possibly, at least that's the version I feel they'd rather we all
> believe, whether correct or not.

If you consider that BMW lost billions on rover, one ends up understanding
that the jobs people had for the extra 5 or 6 years was almost totally
enabled by that acceptance of loss and infusion of capital. I think the
reality is that rover would have been gone a lot sooner had BMW never bought
in to it.

Whether one considers their departure honorable or not, I think the truth is
that while there, they behaved in a fashion that allowed people to work for
a longer period on the Rover dole than would have otherwise been possible
(unless there was another well-heeled suitor I am not aware of)

In article >,
Badger > wrote:
> > Eh? Have you some documentation to support this? I've got a Vitesse,
> > and have several books about the Buick/Rover V8, and have never read
> > this.

> Dave, sorry I can't remember what the book was that I read it in, it was
> a book I was browsing through in the Haynes museum shop at Sparkford
> about 2 years ago.

Right. ;-)

> > BMW were advocates of OHC engines. Strange they should revert to a
> > pushrod design?

> As far as I can remember, the book made mention of an experimental
> engine that never made it into production, but the slightly later
> (couple of years, just) buick ally v8 bore more than a passing
> resemblance to it.

Of course it could be said near every pushrod V8 bears a passing
resemblance to each other.

<snip>

> > Can't really see this. The Range Rover may have been the first AWD of
> > that type to use a centre differential, but Jenson used the idea much
> > earlier in an upmarket GT car. Harry Ferguson IIRC had the patent.

> Yes, the old Formula Ferguson system. Landrover did produce a rangerover
> with that system fitted for a very short while (in the late 70's, I
> believe), with a rather crude abs system integrated into it. It wasn't a
> success, and they dropped it rather quickly.

The FF system was really just the centre differential. The anti-lock -
which did need FF due to being rather crude - was Dunlop Maxerat, as used
on aircraft which of course don't have driven wheels. So although it IIRC
needed AWD, the AWD could be used on its own without anti-lock.

> > I think they just wanted a few well known brands. But after buying the
> > Rover group at a knock down price discovered that it just wasn't
> > practical to modernise it - despite making a fair fist of trying, and
> > spending a great deal of money in the process. The Rover 75 is an
> > excellent car. But to fund the replacement of the smaller Honda based
> > models was simply beyond them.
> >
> > So to avoid being accused of asset stripping, they sold Land Rover to
> > Ford to recover some of their money, kept the Mini brand (and made
> > their version in the UK) then passed on the rest to Mayflower for
> > nothing but included a large dowry to the amount they'd have had to
> > pay out in redundancies.

> Quite possibly, at least that's the version I feel they'd rather we all
> believe, whether correct or not.

> > I think they acted very honourably.

> I think personally they were caught between a rock and a hard place with
> no easy way out.

Yes. In some ways I'd have liked the UK government to have been allowed to
loan them the necessary capital to modernise the whole range and
production facilities. But given the over capacity in this area world wide
it would simply have passed on the problems to another maker - and
possibly one that also made similar cars in the UK - so at the end of the
day causing the same loss of jobs, etc. After all, Ford and GM seem
incapable of making a profit in this class.

--
*Do they ever shut up on your planet?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article >,
fbloogyudsr > wrote:
> >>> And the engine that we refer to as the Rover V8 was derived from a
> >>> GM (Buick) design, that in turn was a "copy" of a BMW engine of the
> >>> time!! Strange how these things go around.
> >>
> >> Eh? Have you some documentation to support this? I've got a Vitesse,
> >> and have several books about the Buick/Rover V8, and have never read
> >> this.
> >
> > Dave, sorry I can't remember what the book was that I read it in, it
> > was a book I was browsing through in the Haynes museum shop at
> > Sparkford about 2 years ago.

> Try googling "oldsmobile v8 rover". The 5th or so reference with title
> "Olds FAQ -- Jetfire" which links to
> http://www.442.com/oldsfaq/ofjet.htm has a nice precis.

Possibly, but makes no mention of a BMW connection.

It's also full of inaccuracies about the UK connection.

Just two examples. They said it was bought by British Leyland. It wasn't -
it was bought by Rover when still an independant company. Rover later
became part of Leyland.

They said it was fitted to the MG B which became the MG C. The MG C was an
earlier vehicle fitted with if you want the Austin Healey 3 litre 6. An
extremely heavy cast iron donk which spoiled the handling. There was,
however, an MG B V8.

*The* bible on the subject of the UK version of the engine and the quirky
way it was acquired is David Hardcastle's The Rover V8 Engine.

--
*Ham and Eggs: Just a day's work for a chicken, but a lifetime commitment

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Don't forget that BMW still own the rights to the Rover brand, so what
happens to the company is very relevant to BMW.

"Dave Plowman (News)" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Badger > wrote:
>> > Eh? Have you some documentation to support this? I've got a Vitesse,
>> > and have several books about the Buick/Rover V8, and have never read
>> > this.
>
>> Dave, sorry I can't remember what the book was that I read it in, it was
>> a book I was browsing through in the Haynes museum shop at Sparkford
>> about 2 years ago.
>
> Right. ;-)
>
>> > BMW were advocates of OHC engines. Strange they should revert to a
>> > pushrod design?
>
>> As far as I can remember, the book made mention of an experimental
>> engine that never made it into production, but the slightly later
>> (couple of years, just) buick ally v8 bore more than a passing
>> resemblance to it.
>
> Of course it could be said near every pushrod V8 bears a passing
> resemblance to each other.
>
> <snip>
>
>> > Can't really see this. The Range Rover may have been the first AWD of
>> > that type to use a centre differential, but Jenson used the idea much
>> > earlier in an upmarket GT car. Harry Ferguson IIRC had the patent.
>
>> Yes, the old Formula Ferguson system. Landrover did produce a rangerover
>> with that system fitted for a very short while (in the late 70's, I
>> believe), with a rather crude abs system integrated into it. It wasn't a
>> success, and they dropped it rather quickly.
>
> The FF system was really just the centre differential. The anti-lock -
> which did need FF due to being rather crude - was Dunlop Maxerat, as used
> on aircraft which of course don't have driven wheels. So although it IIRC
> needed AWD, the AWD could be used on its own without anti-lock.
>
>> > I think they just wanted a few well known brands. But after buying the
>> > Rover group at a knock down price discovered that it just wasn't
>> > practical to modernise it - despite making a fair fist of trying, and
>> > spending a great deal of money in the process. The Rover 75 is an
>> > excellent car. But to fund the replacement of the smaller Honda based
>> > models was simply beyond them.
>> >
>> > So to avoid being accused of asset stripping, they sold Land Rover to
>> > Ford to recover some of their money, kept the Mini brand (and made
>> > their version in the UK) then passed on the rest to Mayflower for
>> > nothing but included a large dowry to the amount they'd have had to
>> > pay out in redundancies.
>
>> Quite possibly, at least that's the version I feel they'd rather we all
>> believe, whether correct or not.
>
>> > I think they acted very honourably.
>
>> I think personally they were caught between a rock and a hard place with
>> no easy way out.
>
> Yes. In some ways I'd have liked the UK government to have been allowed to
> loan them the necessary capital to modernise the whole range and
> production facilities. But given the over capacity in this area world wide
> it would simply have passed on the problems to another maker - and
> possibly one that also made similar cars in the UK - so at the end of the
> day causing the same loss of jobs, etc. After all, Ford and GM seem
> incapable of making a profit in this class.
>
> --
> *Do they ever shut up on your planet?
>
> Dave Plowman London SW
> To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Yes. But not only BMW. Rover and its predecessors have been zombies for
longer than I care to remember. Mostly at my expense. Ggrrrrrrrrr.

DAS

For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
---

"Daniel Arrepas" > wrote in message
...

> I think the reality is that rover would have been gone a lot sooner had
> BMW never bought in to it.

"Badger" > wrote in message
...
>
Anyone who wonders why Rover is broke might consider a new Rover 25 that I
have taken delivery of on Monthly Hire - it is a nice looking car and drives
well but in the 1st 500 miles has had the following problems -
a) Gear stick knob came off in my hand
b) Locked me out in the supermarket car park, I had to set off the alarm to
get in
c) Has developed a metallic whine when driving
d) Boot only shuts if you slam it
e) Sony Radio Cassette doesn't receive Radio 4 properly - crackling all the
time (to be honest I suspect this is a dealer fitter option rather than the
standard Rover radio/cassette so maybe not their fault).

I suspect I will send it back shortly.

Roger

That is TERRIBLE. Change band or switch to World Service (648 khz) while
you wait.

DAS

For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
---

"Roger Matthews" > wrote in message
...
[...]
> e) Sony Radio Cassette doesn't receive Radio 4 properly - crackling all
> the time
[...]

In article >,
Dori A Schmetterling > wrote:
> > e) Sony Radio Cassette doesn't receive Radio 4 properly - crackling
> > all the time

> That is TERRIBLE. Change band or switch to World Service (648 khz)
> while you wait.

Surprisingly, BBC World Service can be difficult to receive in the UK -
apart from on DAB.

But it isn't the same as R4, although there is some programme interchange.

--
*Stable Relationships Are For Horses. *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

1) You are, of course, right (but in London area not too bad). It's not so
surprising since it is not aimed at UK listerners. However, now on Radio 4
frequencies 01.00 - 05.30 (I think) when Radio 4 is off-air.


2) Also true, of course, but World Service (BBC World Service, that is, for
those not aware) still offers a good mix of current affairs and some light
entertainment and makes a good alternative to R4 and even R5.

Also a different perspective on news with a greater international content.


DAS

For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
---

"Dave Plowman (News)" > wrote in message
...
[...]
>
> Surprisingly, BBC World Service can be difficult to receive in the UK -
> apart from on DAB.
>
> But it isn't the same as R4, although there is some programme interchange.
>
> --
> *Stable Relationships Are For Horses. *
>
> Dave Plowman London SW
> To e-mail, change noise into sound.