38 replies to this topic

[Nikolas Garth]

I believe BMW are selling part(maybe all) of Rover, as they obviously don't think they can turn around their losses.

What I'm wondering is, how did such a balls up occur????

1.)Was Rover that much of a poisoned chalice to begin with?

2.)What did BMW do wrong or fail to realise?

3.)If Rover was going to be so difficult to turn around, wasn't this obvious to the guys at BMW who decided to buy Rover in the first place?

I believe Wolfgang Reitzle and Piertscher(terrible spelling I know) got fired from BMW for being the "brains" behind the decision to buy Rover.

[This message has been edited by Nikolas Garth (edited 03-16-2000).]

[whiplash]

rover's problems stem from the 80s and early 90s. there wasn't enough government subsidy when it was nationalized and not enough private investment after.
the strong pound has kept rovers uncompetitive in terms of price both in the uk and abroad.
the new 75 seems to have an image problem - it's already considered to be an old man's car despite the marketing.
vw have done ten times better with skoda.

[Hooster]

1.)Was Rover that much of a poisoned chalice to begin with? Yes.

2.)What did BMW do wrong or fail to realise? The Rover facory site does not lend itself to mass production of cars. It is built on a slope (hill) that forces the building to exist on different levels. Making a production line go forward is a hard task. Making it go up and down too is almost impossible.

3.)If Rover was going to be so difficult to turn around, wasn't this obvious to the guys at BMW who decided to buy Rover in the first place? Maybe because the guys at BMW where overpaid couch potatoes with visions of creating an empire, who knows...

I believe Wolfgang Reitzle and Piertscher(terrible spelling I know) got fired from BMW for being the "brains" behind the decision to buy Rover

I laughed out loud when I read the word "brains", hahahahaha, what an oxymoron.

The net result of all this is that BMW has degenerated into a firm that builds overweight cars best suited to overweight couch potatoes. BMW is losing the sporting image it has been cashing in on these days. The sad fact is that funds BMW intend to use to develop at least one lighter, faster sportier car have been used to pay for the Rover debacle.

[Damop]

Add to that the fact that BMW seems intent on pricing themselves and Rover out of the North American market.

[davy boy]

Add also the fact that Rovers are just dull.

[This message has been edited by davy boy (edited 03-16-2000).]

[Todd]

Nikolas,

If you look at the number of times management has failed to make a viable car company out of Morris, Austin, British Leyland, Jaguar-Triumph, and more recently "Rover," it should really come as no shock. Those people couldn't even snap together Honda kits without producing unreliable shoddy junk. There is a long history of adversarial relationships between labor and management at Britcar Inc. and I can only imagine how bad it was when that management was made up of the most hated people in the eyes of lower class Brits.

In a world where seemingly any SUV can find a ready market of nitwits, the LandRover is such a poorly executed and assembled product that the sort of mamby-pambies that buy SUV's to compensate for their lack of balls in the first palace would never take the risk of buying one.

BMW fans wouldn't buy a Rover product because Rovers have FWD and V6's. If we liked that junk, we wouldn't drive BMWs in the first place. Anglophile former Rover buyers might not buy a product of a company owned by the country they hate. It was just folly to buy into this mess and the should have spent Reitzle and Piszetschrieder's option funds on hit men for those two jerks instead.

[BRG]

BMW really only wanted the Landrover marque, but had to buy the whole lot. But instead of being positive and turning it around, the way Ford has done with Jaguar, they have just chased their tails and let it slip away. So it was bad management by BMW - so much for German efficiency!

For instance, the new Mini should have been on sale by now, but Rover staff say that every time they finalised the design, BMW would change their minds. Rover was not a bad buy - if VW had been the buyer, it would now be booming. And even BMW couldn’t manage to make the MGF a market failure. Once Rover were making Hondas instead of their previous uninspired designs, they were making pretty good cars. The quality was good enough that they assembled cars for Honda before Honda got their Swindon factory on line.

So what went wrong? Well, BMW know nothing about building or marketing small and medium range cars - they are an executive and sporting car maker. So instead of developing a suitable image, they went after a pale copy of their own image. They should have let Rover go racing (eg in the BTCC after BMW pulled out) or rallying (a F2 kitcar for instance). Any investment was grudging and on the basis of how much can we milking the British government for. You have to speculate to accumulate, but BMW don’t have the courage of their convictions.

Don’t blame the workforce or the unions (both have been as good as gold throughout) or the poor factories (Ford got a real nightmare in the Brown’s Lane Jaguar factory, but hard work and investment have done the trick). The fact is BMW have failed, mainly because they never really tried.





------------------
BRG

"all the time, maximum attack"

[Nick]

Drive One! You'll know!

[Alex]

There's another problem...

As you probably know, most smaller and medium engines used in Rover's either come from Honda, or are based on Honda's. Now get this...BMW's are RWD, Honda's are FWD. But the main difference between Honda and BMW machines is that Honda engines turn their crankshaft in the opposite direction of most auto makers, including BMW!!! Bummer. That means that you have to use a Honda gearbox and clutch on a Honda engine, or redesign the engine to turn the other way. The cost are high of course if you must buy all that. BMW engines are mostly made for RWD cars, are incompatible with Honda's, and there you have it. Potential problems with production cost all around.

P.S. Honda recently announced that they would change their policy regarding rotation of their crankshaft. They will turn now in the same direction as other car makers.
That was started with S2000 engine and some V6 engines for American market only. As far as I know all of their other engines still turn the crankshaft counter-clockwise (my 1.6l Civic too).

[This message has been edited by Alex (edited 03-16-2000).]

[Todd]

What direction does the crankshaft rotate on a Rover "K-series"?

[Ursus]

Depends on from what end you look at it

------------------
Ursus
Trust me, send money.

[HartleyHare]

BMW failed because they did not have the commitment. Ford have turned Jaguar around and now are reaping the rewards. The investment has restored Jaguar's image as an object of aspiration.

Did BMW expect the UK govt to keep throwing cash while there was little real investment in Rover? One new car? A whole new range was needed. The takeover was a long term decision, the management has been (mostly) short term. Hence the 'failure'. But the failure is BMW's not Rover's.

A great shame.

[Todd]

HartleyHare,

How come every other management team has failed at Rover? Jaguar only "turned around" because Ford can afford to lose money on it from here to eternity. BMW had a stupid business plan from two idiots, one of whom now runs Jaguar. The failure was very much Rover's. The LandRover product didn't fail because of lack of investment, it failed because it is put together in a pathologically shoddy way. The design and components are certainly superior to the Japanese and Ford SUVs, but the build is anything but reassuring. No short cuts were taken for the Rover 75 either. The UK press and public rejected it because it was a symbol of their loss of the last UK managed volume producer.

[HartleyHare]

Rover was very successful for a time. Not all management failed.

Jaguar quality control was turned around quickly - BMW could have done the same with Rover if they had the commitment. They didn't. Are you implying that Ford quality control is inherently superior to BMW's? If not, how come the BMW managers could not overcome quality problems at Rover when their Ford equivalents could at Jaguar? Or is that simply a matter of resources too? And to say that build quality was THE reason for the problems is simplistic and naive.

BMW seemed to expect a constant stream of cash from the UK govt. When that was dammed, they immediately bailed out.

[Roland Fischer]

To get few things straight:

The British Government offered 240 Mil DM to support BMW in their aim to resurrect Rover. The EU was and is opposed to this (un-competitive advantage). BMW invested a few billion DM in the Rover adventure. Yes Pietschesrieder was the "brain" behind it. As far as I know Reitzle was not supporting it. By the way he didn't get fired, he didn't get the job as CEO at BMW because the German Automobile Workers Union was against it. He went to Ford.

BRG:

You are wrong, BMW was interested in Rover. BMW didn't have FWD technology. It was in their interest to get Rover going. Pietschesrieder even had the support of the Quandt Family.
Another reason why Rover failed is simply the price. The UK didn't join the EU currency union, the Euro dropped and the Pound climbed. Therefore the price of a Rover is about a 25% too high. With re-import into most European countries en vogue (you get a Ford Focus station wagon as re-import for 23.000 DM, while the official price at the dealer is 33.000 DM!!!) you can imagine that the quantity of Rovers produced and sold, made it an expensive car. Yes, when Rover made Hondas, it was OK, however, when Rover started making Rovers it became a disaster, but mainly for image reasons.

There were BMW inside problems, yes, e.g. the (German) CEO of Rover doesn't have the best reputation. If Reitzle had become CEO of BMW he would have discarded of him.

Finally: If BMW hadn't tried and succeeded in getting rid of Rover, BMW themselves would have been taken over by probably General Motors or VW (remember Rolls Royce and Bentley? That would have been one way for VW to keep both brands).

[Nomad]

When British Aerospace sold Rover to BMW in 1994 they were already on the way out. BAe were practically bribing employees to buy one or there Rovers and it still didn't work. When BMW took over the same miraculous deals were still being offer to BAe employees and their extended employees.
I know, I deal with the persistent junk mail for years.
Did I ever buy one? Not a chance, the fake walnut dashes....words fail me.

Rover doomed to go under.

[Cinquecento]

I understand BMW are keeping the LandRover
and are satisfied in its success.

IMO, Honda's aren't too good outside of
racetrack conditions. I've owned two Civics
and been unhappy with the chassis. Way too
short suspension for Finnish roads. Older
Hondas had good steering, but lately that's
been lost too. Rovers had similar qualities,
although I've driven only the 200 and 400 on
a test-drive. Very agile vehicles, nice
engines with better torque than in Hondas,
but nothing spectacular, nothing to set them
apart. 75 has taken off well in Europe, but
I'm not impressed. Good riddance.

[Peter]

BMW wanted to split up the Rover group and keep Landrover and the "new Mini".

Now there is strong talk of Ford buying LandRover.

I can't see the logic of hanging on to the new Mini as it is not going to sell well and would mainly appeal to previous Mini owners -who are likely to be British and resent what BMW have done to a British company!

BMW were never that interested in keeping Rover going - it is a pity they were allowed to buy it. But then, Rover was owned by an aircraft company before BMW - hardly surprising that it went to the dogs! And now it is owned by a Motor Bike manufacturer!

The high value of the Pound does not have a lot to do with it. All the car manufacturers are ripping the British off with prices ~30% higher than other parts of Europe. In fact many manufacturers are ONLY making good profits on their cars in Britain. So, selling a British made car in Britain is not going to be affected by the value of the Euro.

What really p***es people off is the fact that Rover export cars to other countries in Europe and sell them 40% cheaper there - even taking into account the strenght of the Pound!

I really hope that VW get to buy out BMW, so that the other great British car institution is preserved from any more of the same kind of farcical carving up. (OH yes, it was another British, aircraft related company who managed to "sell" Rolls Royce/Bentley to VW, but still manage to sell the Rolls Royce name to MBW.

The whole thing stinks! I cannot imagine Germany or France allowing their major motor manufacturers to be sold to foreign companies. (I've heard that there are laws in Germany that would prohibit BMW from being sold abroad!)

Don't read into this that I am a particular fan of Rover, I just think it is a shame that we seem powerless to protect our own car manufacturing industry and heritage.

Perhaps Ford will eventually buy the remaining parts of Rover, to go alongside Jaguar, Aston Martin, Lagonda etc.

On the bright side, the venture capital company that is buying rover says that it will move towards the MG name. It would be nice if they would liberate all those other names that Rover have been supressing (Riley, Wolseley, Morris, Austin...)

[DangerMouse]

Alex, Rover do not use Honda engines - even in the Honda derived cars (bar one or two), Most Rovers use the Rover K series engine which is a Rover design and is the most advanced mass production engine design in the world. Before the K series Rover used their O and S series engines in the Honda cars except for the V6s and the old type Rover 213.

BMW bought Rover to asset strip it, the reaon they keep pulling the Mini launch is because they do not want Rover to be in profit as it would be harder to justify their asset striping.

The Rover 75 is a in house Rover design with hardly any BMW input and has won awards all round the world, a fine product. Although I don't like the styling at least it's different.

Rover could easily succeed if left to their own devices as a private company, BMW wanted LandRover and have done their best to ruin the rest of the business ever since.
Since privatisation Rover has got stronger and quality control has improved (although it still isn't good enough.)

[Alfisti]

Let's take a look at 3 case studies. Recently we have had the attempted resurrection of Rover, Jag and Alfa Romeo.

Jag has been fairly successful, Alfa has been a stunning success for Fiat (despite the stupid FWD) and Rover has been a disaster. There are a heap of reasons why this has happened to the 3 makes but to me there is a fairly obvious reason why Rover failed and the other two were a success.

All three marques suffered from a lack of investment and as a result the quality dropped and buyers were scared off. Only two of the marques... Alfa and Jag, have a great history of emotive designs and success on the track. Rover is simply not in the same league as the other two badges. Alfa and Jag always had a loyal following who were just waiting for improved quality to start buying them again...... and have they ever.

On the other hand, Rover is "dull" as described in an earlier post and simply does not have the passion associated with it's badge.

Also... look at the new models.... the new jag was a ball tearer and looked good, the Alfa GTV coupe and Spider are dead set gorgeous and the engines are gems.... the Rover 75 is... well.. dull. It looks poxy and that's all there is to it.. and it cost a fair bit.

If you had $80,000 to spend the Rover 75 looks very weak compard to the Alfa 166.

[BRG]

Alfisti

Loads of people LIKE dull cars - that's why GM and Toyota sell so many cars. Those of us who like cars with performance and character are in the minority - most people see their car as simply as transport to work or the shops.

So making dull cars doesn't mean you are a bad manufacturer.

I could also say that buying a Rover 75 instead of an Alfa 166 at least means that it will start the next day and the door handles won't come off in your hand...but I won't, cos it might upset you ;)

------------------
BRG

"all the time, maximum attack"

[130R]

BMW was killed by currency fluctuations (British pound up, Euro dollar down) and blamed that as key to much of their loss. In my view, BMW gave up way too soon, but perhaps in turned into a much more formidable task than they envisioned.

[HK]

Hey
The handels On my Ford (falcon) were always falling off...the ones on me Alfa never did.

[Todd]

130R,

BMW wasted 2.6 billion dollars trying to save a manufacturer for a people who seem think that BMW was "asset stripping" that primitive shell of a quality bugaboo and looting the UK government coffers for a repeatedly sighted 240 million pounds. In the mean time, the fiasco that is Rover managed to tip BMW's balance sheet into the red during a period when every BMW product has been a critical and sales success. We still have to listen to this drivel about how BMW didn't waste enough money and I'd love to know what assets BMW stripped from the former Honda-kit-car builder.

[130R]

Hmmm, there is obviously more to this story than we'll probably ever know. I agree, nonetheless, that BMW must have done what it had to do -- especially in this market environment of delivering "increase shareholder value"!!

[HartleyHare]

'the fiasco that is Rover' has been in the hands of BMW for some time now. They knew what they were buying but failed to manage or invest properly - so the 'fiasco' is BMW's own doing.

BMW initially tried to fend off the big manufacturers by expansion (buying Rover), now it seems to be trying to do it by emulating Porsche and the like: staying small but keeping to a niche market and maintaining a desirable brand image. Hope they fail - for what they did to Rover they deserve to be subsumed into VW. Or even better, Ford.

And have you seen the build quality of early 1990's beemers, especially 3-series? They were rubbish! But BMW's reputation buoyed them through the dodgy period. And when Rover made an excellent car - the 75 - unfortunately it has been undermined by association with the dismal BL days and by a lack of support from the parent company.

Alfa make a few nice, but unreliable, cars and they sell pretty well. Despite much of the range being van shaped sh!t boxes for many years. BMW COULD have succeeded with Rover if they had the desire and competence. At least one factor was seriously lacking.

And I'd far sooner have a 75 than a 166, thank you very much!

[Todd]

Hartley,

Maybe they just didn't have the competence. BMW's core-competency isn't making mainstream cars for fleets and pensioners. They build driver's cars for the so-inclined. If you've spent decades defining your products as the best performing and least compromised in their class, how do you position another line that will fit in the same size/price class? Do you aim for 2nd best? Do you intentionally move away from what you do best to differentiate? I don't know if the 75's inability to attract sales stems from it being of inferior substance to a 328 or 523, or if it comes from just lacking a distinctive personality people feel strongly enough about to want to own. In the US, a reputation for quality will motivate people to buy the most boring and semi-roadworthy crap marketers can dream up. The Rover doesn't benefit from ignorant-consumer faith and it might not be a vivid enough product to attract the risk takers. The Alfa 166 may have a question mark hanging over it's durability, but it is beautiful and characterful. That is what it takes to get people to buy a car with a poor reputation. Audi has succeeded in recovering from the hatchet job done to their reputation in the 1980s through product. The Rover 75 was meant to be a good product, and it wasn't hampered by BMW in coming to market as sound as possible. From my limited exposure to the market it faces in the UK, which amounts to reading the BB, TopGear, and CAR, I get the impression that the press can't find enough reasons to knock it. How much of that is just anti-economic emperialism by the Germans? It seems that you want to say that the product isn't the problem, but do you know anyone that buys that product?

[DangerMouse]

Todd, as I've already pointed out the 75 has already one a hat full of awards mostly from the European and Japanese press, how can you say "or if it comes from just lacking a distinctive personality people" have you seen a 75? possibly one of the most distinctive designs out there, the reason the Brit press have not taken to the 75 is simple, our press are biased toward "sporty" handling cars - even if this means inferior ride qualify or refinement, the 75 was designed to ignore this British trait and be the most refined and comfortable car in it's class - which it is.

BMW have had major problems with most of it's new generation engines, the Ally 2.8 when it appeared self destructed with alarming regularity, I cannot remember the last Rover designed unit with such a trait.

The Alfa 166 is a pig ugly box with a nice nose - ditto 146, now if you were talking 156 - that's beautiful, a car I'd buy, and the only Alfa I could say that about for at least 30 years.

BMW failed with Rover because they were never committed to it's success in the first place, as HH pointed it was a upsizing exercise in an attempt to ward off buyouts.

Ford cared about and were committed to Jaguar, they turned around a company with world renowned engineering excellence but bad build quality into a manufacturer of one of the most reliable luxury cars in the world in 8 years flat, Jaguar are now more reliable than BMW or Mercedes, under the skin the car is almost 20 years old, Fords quality control fixed the problems Jaguar could never afford to fix, BMW habent made a dent in 6 years - were they trying or are they just incompetent?

The last time Rover were allowed to be Rover (before the BL lashup) they produced fantastic, reliable and technically advanced vehicles. The 75 and K series engine is an indication of what Rover are capable of - all the major manufacturers have flirted with producing a "thrubolt" engine designs and failed - because it's bloody difficult to do it in mass production, Rover managed it where Ford, Mercedes, BMW and GM have all failed.

[HartleyHare]

Lots of people bought the 75 - it has been doing moderately well. But problems have included the consumer's image and the overcritical British motoring press. Rover aimed for a different direction: plush ride, wood and leather ambience, and comfort and refinement over handling and outright performance. It was built to incorporate, at a much lower price, the kind of values that allow Bentleys and Rolls Royces to be sold at vast premiums.

It needed time to re-establish this approach and rebuild the company's reputation. But the motoring press seemed hell bent on making a big issue that all the facets that differentiated the 75 from the general market were all failings. This was/is patently not the case! But it seemed to spook enough people to undermine Rover.

But it is a shame that BMW did not persevere - there was a ready market available to be tapped for a characterful, distintive, medium priced quality car. The workers were very cooperative, the UK government was very supportive, but the BMW management just cut and run without making a decent fist of it.

It is odd that you, Todd, suggest that BMW management failed because they were incapable of builing bad enough cars. Have you ever driven a 316?

But, of course, the whole UK car business was undermined by the decision to give it to BAe along with loads of cash. They never wanted it, but the sweetners offered were too tempting to refuse. If Honda had been allowed to buy a 49% share, as they wanted to do, Rover could have survived and thrived.

Oh well - if ifs and buts were beer and nuts.....

[The Mirror]

This is honestly one of the most interesting threads I've read here in some time.

I just don't understand, I really don't, why the British car industry is so brilliantly capable engineering-wise but so dreadfully incompetent when it comes to manufacturing! It is a total mystery to me. I need enlightening as to why. British engineering has dominated motorsports for decades (aside from the odd Renault or Ferrari), yet the good Brits simply can't bolt a passenger car together for some reason. When friends ask me what I think of Range Rovers, my standard answer is "As poorly made as they are brilliantly engineered". Another example is the "Sterling" badged cars that appeared here in the States in the mid-eighties. They were perfectly good Acura Legends that were re-engineered with electrical do-dads and different interiors, amongst other things. In the local Mercedes-Benz dealership I worked in, which carried the new marque, the mechanics dreaded getting a Sterling to fix, as the parts that went in as replacements were as bad as the failed ones that were removed. They were hopelessly and needlessly complicated. Mystifying.....

Why why why? British motorsports engineering is the best in the world, brilliant cars like the Elise and TVR's are conceived, yet a standard brand like Rover sinks like a pound of lead in the ocean. I simply don't get it.

[DangerMouse]

Mirror, I think it's a matter of funding, American and mainland European car manufacturers seem to be able to run at huge losses for years and still gain decent funding/support, the British car industries have been left to rot without enough funding to keep the production methods or technologies up to date, maybe the problem with British cars in the last twenty years is the engineers were too ambitious given their funding? During the BL years, BL would have been better of spending their meagre budget on decent designers instead of wasting it on developing unproven technologies like hydrolastic suspension and unreliable over complicated electronics. BL cars were often technically advanced but ugly and unreliable, a pretty shell with more conventional underpinnings would have made better business sense and been easier to build given Bls ancient production lines.

The budgets British Leyland/Rover had to produce new cars wouldn't be enough money for BMW to produce a wheel nut. Unfortunately in British businessmen have continuously shied away from long term investment and relied of making a quick buck instead. On the whole American and mainland Europeans look toward longer term investments, which is what Rover were supposed to be to BMW but they lost their bottle half way through and asset stripped the company instead (selling the only profitable part of Rover (Land Rover) making a huge profit cannot be called anything other than asset stripping.)

[HartleyHare]

And if you look back to the fifties (and sixties even) British engineering was a by-word for quality. Land Rover made the most reliable and toughest cars in the world, Rolls Royce made the most refined and best constructed cars. Exports of all kinds of cars were huge. It all went wrong in the late sixties and seventies (as did so many things). It just seems that, with the advent of agressive and avaricious capitalism in the eighties, there was no way back for the faltering industry. Perplexing and sad, especially as I grew up watching it happen.

[Ricardo F1]

It's the great world shift, the British invent it, the Americans mass produce it and the Japanese refine it and make it cheap!

[Alfisti]

BRG,

you might find Rover's problem is they are in the same market as Alfa, Audi etc etc but the badge is simply not in that league.


HK,

If it is a 70's alfa try again.....the handles should come off...

Hartley,

does this look like a van shaped **** box??

http://www.geocities...lery_other.html
(hope that works... my first try)

Call them unreliable but not slow or ugly.

I think Todd has a point. The car has to have character if a brand is making a comeback.... the GTV and 156 have it in bucketloads whilst the 75 has the charisma of a plank of wood.

Dangermouse,

you have some serious Alfa education to do. There are some gorgeous models over the last 30 years..... go to my web page to see what i mean. I agree the 156 is nice but to me the GTV6 coupe is the best looking Alfa since the original GTV of the 60s/70s'.

Mirror,

i know what you mean. The Italians have the same problem really.... i just don't get why the English cars are so piss poor.

Riccardo,

i prefer this option.... get the Italians to design the looks (don't let the Americans ANYWHERE near it), the Germans to engineer it and the Japanese to bolt it together..... now that would be something.



[This message has been edited by Alfisti (edited 03-25-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Alfisti (edited 03-25-2000).]

[HartleyHare]

Alfisti,

I like Alfa. But it is strange to see a beautiful car like the 156 planted in a range of malformed van/car hybrids. Can't see your picture, so can't comment. But the 145 (is that the right model name?) is hideous. And the 166 is clearly a stretched 156, and the stretch job only serves to make it look ungainly and inelegant. But the old Guiliettas, etc, were magnificent.

I don't see how your affection for Alfa has to go hand in hand with a dislike for Rover. Rovers (despite a lean spell) have been traditionally characterful cars, but sometimes flawed, just like Alfas.

Rover made excellent cars through the fifties, sixties and seventies. They faltered when they were misplaced in the volume rather than quality market. BMW made a half-arsed job: Ford sorted out Jaguar, VW transformed Skoda, but BMW destroyed Rover.

Go on Ford, move BMW production away from the uneconomic German plants to Eastern Europe. Or just build them cheap and crap in the US....

I like the 156 and GTV (but not the awkward 166) and I like the 75. There are plenty of cars more worthy of your venom than the stylish and individual 75. I accept that we all have our own opinion on each car, but I fail to see how such a strong feeling can be aroused by such a competent car.

[Keith Sawatsky]

As I work for a dealer that sells the Land Rover product I can tell you from my perspective that the problem stems not from the extremely profitable Land Rover division....but rather from the Rover car group or the "English Patient" as it was often referred to by upper BMW management.

I have sold high end cars for 12 years now and have seen Rover cars fail in North America with the ill conceived "Sterling" (little more than a rebadged Honda) back in the late 80's to the ugly, saleproof vehicles they are trying to peddle in Europe today.

I've never seen a doctor who knew how to run a restaurant....or for that matter a lawyer who knew how to give a straight answer so I expect that the venture capital outfit Alchemy that has apparently bought the Rover car group will have it's hands full.

I'm glad that Ford has agreed to purchase the Land Rover division because of the impact that they have had on Jaguar.

[Alfisti]

HH,

I don't despise the 75 or feel that strongly about it... i just think if your re-launching a brand you need something that screams "buy me... buy me"... the GTV doesn't just scream this it almost grabs you buy the arm yourself and signs the cheque... whilst the 75 seems to write a note and pass it under the desk.... it doesn't sell itself.

As for Rover in the past. The cars look very ugly most of the time.... the body doesn't flow... they seem to have lots of over hanging bits and pieces on them.

As for the picture, it was an early Giulietta but i'd prefer to post a mid 70's GTV but i can't get ti to work.

[Nuno]

Ricardo F-1,

In fact it is generaly agreed that a German , Karl Benz , built the petrol ( gasoline) driven car in 1885. The first British car was a Lanchester in 1892 , actually a copy of the Damler ( another German car ).

[DangerMouse]

Alfisti, you miss understand me. I think many past Alfa's were beautiful, but rusted in weeks and were unreliable, of the current (finally reliable) Alfa's the 156 is a looker the others are dogs, so to sum, the 156 is the only Alfa I can think of which is good looking AND reliable enough for me to buy.