Was the 75/ZT over-engineered?

[nick nick]

Originally Posted by tourerfogey

QUOTE: The government did not do enough to protect the MGR workforce, and its many suppliers. Again, as in my previous posts the word corruption rears its ugly head.

Why should the Government support an ailing firm with Taxpayers money???

As for 'was the 75 over engineered', I don't think it was. One thing Rover did manage to do was build the car they actually wanted to build but in order to do that compromises had to be made - these of course were much more evident after 'Project Drive'

If its good enough for the government to support Nissan ( sorry renault)
why shouldn't MG ROVER expect similar support .

[red_rover]

Originally Posted by tourerfogey

QUOTE: The government did not do enough to protect the MGR workforce, and its many suppliers. Again, as in my previous posts the word corruption rears its ugly head.

Why should the Government support an ailing firm with Taxpayers money???

As for 'was the 75 over engineered', I don't think it was. One thing Rover did manage to do was build the car they actually wanted to build but in order to do that compromises had to be made - these of course were much more evident after 'Project Drive'

Please don't confuse Rover with the P4.

The 75 was an expensive car to build (because of the over-engineering that went into it) and after the P4 took control, they tried making savings on little things like removing a grab handle here and a leather gear knob there. The 75 was still costly produce and used very high grade steel in all the places it mattered. It still had an expensive suspension set up, still had high quality plastics, still had class leadingbody rigidity. And the V6s were the some of the smoothest engines in its class.

Does anyone remember the delay into production by about 6 months because they wanted to make the sunroof? Well here is the story by a-r.co.uk and gives a good insight to its development;

An example of this variance in philosophy was BMW’s insistence late in the programme that Rover should redesign the sunroof aperture of the R40, as there was a visible seam. In terms of development resources, the extra time and finance to effect this change (several months and over £1 million, not to mention an entirely new roof panel) were seen by Rover as being wasted – but BMW were insistent about this seemingly insignificant detail. The whys and wherefores of whether BMW or Rover was correct on this issue are less than clear-cut, however: on the one hand, Rover justifiably felt happy about allowing the design to make production with this compromise, whereas on the other, BMW with their obsessive attention to detail felt that this was not right at all – perceived quality could be affected and that was an absolutely fundamental part of the BMW marque’s core values.

In reality, neither party was entirely wrong or right – Rover were keen on cost engineering, BMW had no such constraints.

The end result: delays and further mutual suspicion between Rover and BMW. However, one happy benefit of the increased development budget was the fact that the R40 was a remarkably well-tested car prior to its launch. Many prototypes were built and test drivers clocked up millions of development miles in places as diverse as the USA and Germany’s ex-GP circuit, the fearsome Nurburgring.

[Departed]

Originally Posted by Mark A

The Mini project was paid for by Rover budgets, as it was Rover engineers and engineering being used on it with support from Munich.
With most of the work being carried out at Gaydon and Longbridge.

And where was the money to put into those Rover budgets from? It was money invested by BMW, which the overall project would have to pay back as ROI. The company wasn't making enough money from currrent production to fund that level of investment, proved by what happened after BMW left (almost zero new model development).

Yes, Rover Engineers were working on the project, but a significant amount of that work was taking already developed technology from BMW, and applying it to the Mini, just like 75. And those Engineers were being paid for by BMW, because they were being paid for by the project budget.

[Jürgen]

Originally Posted by lowedb

And where was the money to put into those Rover budgets from? It was money invested by BMW, which the overall project would have to pay back as ROI. The company wasn't making enough money from currrent production to fund that level of investment, proved by what happened after BMW left (almost zero new model development).

Yes, Rover Engineers were working on the project, but a significant amount of that work was taking already developed technology from BMW, and applying it to the Mini, just like 75. And those Engineers were being paid for by BMW, because they were being paid for by the project budget.

Good line of arguments.

[Frobs]

I agree with those sentiments. BMW gave the Rover engineers freedom they never had before. As someone involved in the supply base at the time though, it always puzzled me why they approved R40 anyway. Clearly the Rover 75 was going to be a size of car that was right in thier own market - in terms of size etc. It was clear that Rover needed a replacement for the old Metro (ahem Rover 100) - ie Mini - sort of - good decision. Land Rover also needed Tempest (Discovery 2) - good decison - Freelander to continue, and new Range Rover - good too.

But if it was me, and I said so at the time, they should have used the money put into the 75, to create a replacement for the 25/45 - a Focus sort of size, with a few body options to create a model that perhaps used some bits out of Mini to get some economies of scale going. All that stuff about Britishness and harking back to the good old days - tosh really. OK, you might say Mini is harking back to the good old days too, but it isnt really. Its not Britishness so much as Productness - a cool product.

But of course, if they had done that, we wouldnt be driving around in such nice cars !!.