Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Go  |
New |
Find |
Notify |
|
Reply |
|
Admin |
New PM! |
|
the money of the workforce is, and the money they then plough back into their local economys....
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Palmira:
They have had investor after investor, all of whom have lost all their money & ended up selling out for very cheap to cut their losses. One particular company sold Rover for £1.
Doesnt take a genius to work out why they couldnt make any success out of their cars.
The British public are not stupid. Rover assume they are. In 2006 with class acts like the new Golf around, no manufacturer can pass off an old 200 as something modern by giving it a tasteless bright yellow or hurt-your-eyes blue paint job, crass MG badges & enormous, garish spoilers.
Its the MG Metro, Maestro & Montego all over again! People laughed at those 20 years ago.
Some people never learn.
So here is a choice.
Youve got £15,000 to spend on a car. Do you buy a Golf/Focus/New Astra, or do you waste your money on a warmed over 200 with garish paintjob from a manufacturer which doesnt exist anymore?
If youve got £25,000 to spend, do you buy a Phaeton/BMW 3 series/Mercedes C-class/Top of range Passat or Mondeo/Audi A4 or an MG ZT with garish bodykit & ghastly color scheme from a manufacturer which doesnt exist anymore?
Sorry but I don't ever remember any ZT's with "garish bodykits" or "ghastly colour schemes" Have you ever seen the Monogramme range with more colours to choose from than you could shake a s****y stick at, plus those MG badges are far from crass ! Also how can you buy a car from a manufacturer who doesn't exist anymore - your buying it from a dealer who has paid for the car and needs some return and is selling at the cost price which makes them a bargain!Why spend 25 grand on a teutonic box that everyone else buys - paying for the badge usually. If you put a Phaeton,A8 and a Skoda Superb side by side and took off the badges Joe Soap would think they were all the same! BM's are everywhere and MB are overrated in my book. Now is the time to buy a bargain before the prices start rising again!!! |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by tesserb: quote: Originally posted by Lancer:
I work in the car industry and wish that more people would buy British where they can. It DOES help.
This is the main choice
Rolls Royce Phantom
Bentley Arnage, GT, Flying Spur
Aston Martin V8 Vantage, DB9, Vanquish
Jaguar XK,XJ, S, X
Land Rover Defender, Freelander, Discovery, Sport, RR
Nissan Primera, Almera, Micra (and some Renault based vans out of Dunstable)
Toyota Avensis, Corrolla
Honda Civic, CRV
Peugeot 206
Vauxhall Astra (and some vans)
MINI
Lotus Elise
Morgan
LDV Maxus
+ all the small sportscars such as Ariel, Caterham, Westfield, Noble
Not a bad selection.
Pardon me but except for Morgan and LDV all in your list are BRITISH BUILT but all owned by FOREIGN MANUFACTURERS so the money isn't staying in this country
Without the foreign manufacturers there would be no jobs for the British workforce employed in the factories. In the UK we DO have the skills to make good cars, but the companies were no good at getting it together & produced cr*p for the last 20 years, culminating in no true British companies anymore. So at least these FOREIGN companies are keeping factories in the UK and keeping some people employed in the car industry. If it were down to socialist UK management, the loony trade unions would have killed it all off by now... |
| |
|
|
Phaeton, A8, M-B and (although im not a fan) BMW are ALL leagues and leagues ahead of the lame duck 75. Im not sure which ZTs youve been looking at, but there are a ghastly assortment of lurid yellow, bright red and hurt-your-eyes blue ones around with horriffic bodykits. The 75 is in the dark ages, and absolutely is nowhere near other european models - like a Peugeot 407 or the Skoda Superb that you mentioned - let alone the finest of the luxury end of the market.
My job is to own, look after and drive (over a sky-high mileage) luxury cars. The 75 is so far down at the bottom of the motoring scale that it wouldnt even feature on mine or any of my clients lists.
I drive M-Bs and about to add a Phaeton to the fleet, all my clients drive Mercedes SLs, CLs, Bentleys, Astons, top line Audis, BMWs and Range Rovers. Not a SINGLE 75 in sight. We are talking about wealthy, intelligent people who research their decisions in depth. You dont see lurid yellow overgrown Montegos sitting outside manor houses, do you.?
|
| |
|
|
the original question was about spending a coupla grand or so palmy......makes the 75 a much more attractive proposition. personally i wouldnt buy a new one, but then i cartainly wouldnt buy a new merc or bmw either...its horses for courses, why cant ya just accept that some people like the shape, soporific ride quality, olde english charm and yes, value for money that the 75 now offers on the second hand market...it would be a boring world if we all liked the same cars/clothes/music etc...remember, one mans pink floyd and led zeppelin is another mans brittney lopez aguillera......
|
| |
|
|
...ya see a lot of manky old series landys and 20 year old volvo estates outside manor houses...they must be good cars then, right?
|
| |
|
|
Yes Id take the Pink Floyd option...
I do remember you mentioning it being about buying the 75 for cheap and yes for 2 grand it would be ok i suppose - but probably wouldnt last long.
This chap who is suggesting I buy a garish Zt over the german models at nearly new prices, is who i was responding to with vitriol, because that is a totally nonsensical thing to do.
500 quid is about right for a few-year-old 75.
|
| |
|
|
Even new the 75 was not a Phaeton or A8 sector car, but an A4 competitor.
To be fair some ZT colours were lurid, but I don't recall any bodykits other than a boot spoiler.
Remember the 75 was launched in 98 to nuch critical acclaim and has consistyently done well in customer satisfaction surveys.
As for not lasting long, well it all depends on use, but a 75 will last as well as an A4, 3 series, Omega, Mondeo etc.
|
| |
|
|
I wonder whether the average 75 gets subjected to alot easier life than the usual Mondeo/Passat etc.. As you rightly say, the 75 is NOT a luxury car market competitor, but a Mondeo/Passat competitor. I dont believe it to be as good as either a Mondeo or Passat....
Someone mentioned earlier in this thread that there are alot of baggy Lagunas & Mondeos around, which there are of the older variety but of course they are now very old & have had a hard life as a repmobile, then a family car.
Rover 75 drivers are often ancient & drive very low mileages very slowly and as they are usually retired often live in areas where they can garage the car & it goes out for short journeys.
No self respecting businessman would have one as a company car. As for the facelifted model... good grief its ugly. And looks even more fragmented and made up of several pieces than the original!
Im pretty convinced the reason the 75s dont look as well used as alot of Passats/Vectras/Mondeos etc is down to it being a pipe-smokers car whos seats have been sat in by crimpilene slacks & the pedals pressed by nylon slippers. - whereas the more dynamic & young professional chooses an A4/Mondeo/3 series etc for flying up & down the M4 going about their business. 75 would collapse if you tried to do that with it.
|
| |
|
|
My 75 was a business car, and the first thing I did with it was a 500 mile round trip. Then I used on my daily commute of 130 miles every day for months. 46,000 miles in no time. Stood up to it really well.
I know of many company 75s taking a similar level of use in their stride.
My neighbour had a 51 plate Laguna and treated like a baby. It fell apart.
Another neighbour did big miles in Citroen C5 (now there is an ugly car), and that too fell apart.
Mondeo and Passat (last generation) are both decent cars, but I prefer the 75.
In summary, and again I refer to JD power the 75 is a good tough car. Not perfect by any means but a good 2nd hand buy.
As for the styling I tend to agree the pre-facelift models were better looking.
|
| |
|
|
The R75 is not, under any stretch of the imagination, a luxury car. In 1.8 and diesal form it is a crude underpowered dog, the 2.0 V6 was dropped as it was pointless and slow and the 2.5 V6 is terribly asthmatic. The V8s were out of their depth at the price point they aimed at. The whole car from launch to end was a complete shambles.
The MG ZT is nothing more than a Rover 75 with an MG badge on it with some uncomfortable seats thrown in. The ZT, is to me, the most embarrassing cars on the road as they are a fine example of badged engineering that desperately failed. Even their drivers don't look convinced that their driving an MG, and always seem very self conscious when behind the wheel.
The long wheel base R75 has been called so many names that even the dealers don't know what to call the car. And it still didn't sell.
The fact remains, the Rover 75, made Rover history. And as the awful Metro, Montego and Maestro couldn't achieve that dubious honour, it just shows how badly wrong Rover got it with the R75.
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Palmira: Without the foreign manufacturers there would be no jobs for the British workforce employed in the factories. In the UK we DO have the skills to make good cars, but the companies were no good at getting it together & produced cr*p for the last 20 years, culminating in no true British companies anymore. So at least these FOREIGN companies are keeping factories in the UK and keeping some people employed in the car industry.
If it were down to socialist UK management, the loony trade unions would have killed it all off by now...
We now live in a global economy and most big firms would not class themselves as from one country. I could not give a hoot where the headquarters are based - if a firm wants to open a factory in this country to give jobs to people here, then I welcome them with open arms. I agree that management, the unions and a militant workforce more interested in their terms and conditions rather than the quality of the product were to blame for the decline of the industry in the 60's, 70's and 80's in this country, but that is fighting yesterday's battle. Regarding your comments about the Rover 75 being a lame duck etc, you are entitled to your opinion. But please don't present these views as facts, because they clearly aren't. For example, you state that no motoring enthusiast would buy a Rover 75. Have you spoken to every Rover 75 owner? Of course you haven't! So you don't know whether or not what you are saying is true. It is YOUR view. You're entitled to it of course, but presenting your opinions as fact totally wipes out your credibility. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Palmira:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by tesserb: Without the foreign manufacturers there would be no jobs for the British workforce employed in the factories. In the UK we DO have the skills to make good cars, but the companies were no good at getting it together & produced cr*p for the last 20 years, culminating in no true British companies anymore. So at least these FOREIGN companies are keeping factories in the UK and keeping some people employed in the car industry.
If it were down to socialist UK management, the loony trade unions would have killed it all off by now...
We now live in a global economy and most big firms would not class themselves as from one country. I could not give a hoot where the headquarters are based - if a firm wants to open a factory in this country to give jobs to people here, then I welcome them with open arms. I agree that management, the unions and a militant workforce more interested in their terms and conditions rather than the quality of the product were to blame for the decline of the industry in the 60's, 70's and 80's in this country, but that is fighting yesterday's battle. Regarding your comments about the Rover 75 being a lame duck etc, you are entitled to your opinion. But please don't present these views as facts, because they clearly aren't. For example, you state that no motoring enthusiast would buy a Rover 75. Have you spoken to every Rover 75 owner? Of course you haven't! So you don't know whether or not what you are saying is true. It is YOUR view. You're entitled to it of course, but presenting your opinions as fact totally wipes out your credibility. |
| |
|
|
The Rover 75 won many awards when it was launched - and if MGR had managed to get that 75 coupe concept launched then there might have been a better outcome to the whole thing.
The V8 75 was a bit of an odd decision, but somehow they managed to build a very good and entertaining car - according to Top Gear.
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Puppetland:
The R75 is not, under any stretch of the imagination, a luxury car. In 1.8 and diesal form it is a crude underpowered dog, the 2.0 V6 was dropped as it was pointless and slow and the 2.5 V6 is terribly asthmatic. The V8s were out of their depth at the price point they aimed at. The whole car from launch to end was a complete shambles.
The MG ZT is nothing more than a Rover 75 with an MG badge on it with some uncomfortable seats thrown in. The ZT, is to me, the most embarrassing cars on the road as they are a fine example of badged engineering that desperately failed. Even their drivers don't look convinced that their driving an MG, and always seem very self conscious when behind the wheel.
The long wheel base R75 has been called so many names that even the dealers don't know what to call the car. And it still didn't sell.
The fact remains, the Rover 75, made Rover history. And as the awful Metro, Montego and Maestro couldn't achieve that dubious honour, it just shows how badly wrong Rover got it with the R75.
You are spot on 100 per cent. Interestingly the montego/maestro etc is history repeating itself because when Austin Rover realized they couldnt compete with the Cavalier & Sierra, they made embarrassing and awful MG versions of those. Its obvious they didnt learn their lesson and have been churning out lurid yellow/red/blue abominations based on their ghastly saloons with MG badges on again. I dont know whether to laugh or cry when i see one. As for no motoring enthusiast buying one, they wouldnt. Tweed cap wearers doing 4mph on the middle lane buy them because back in the old days they probably had the 1950s Rover 75 and somehow think its going to be similar. The 1950s version was FAR better even though it was 50 years ago! |
| |
|
|
Palmira, I am not going to bother discussing the 75 anymore on here. It is a decent car, no world beater, but a welcome different take on todays motoring.
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Puppetland:
The R75 is not, under any stretch of the imagination, a luxury car. In 1.8 and diesal form it is a crude underpowered dog, the 2.0 V6 was dropped as it was pointless and slow and the 2.5 V6 is terribly asthmatic. The V8s were out of their depth at the price point they aimed at. The whole car from launch to end was a complete shambles.
The MG ZT is nothing more than a Rover 75 with an MG badge on it with some uncomfortable seats thrown in. The ZT, is to me, the most embarrassing cars on the road as they are a fine example of badged engineering that desperately failed. Even their drivers don't look convinced that their driving an MG, and always seem very self conscious when behind the wheel.
The long wheel base R75 has been called so many names that even the dealers don't know what to call the car. And it still didn't sell.
The fact remains, the Rover 75, made Rover history. And as the awful Metro, Montego and Maestro couldn't achieve that dubious honour, it just shows how badly wrong Rover got it with the R75.
2.0 litre V6 (manual) 0-60 9.6 sec, max speed 130. IT's no Ferrari but that doesn't seem too slow for a large saloon car. The crude diesel engine? That'll be the BMW M47 unit then. The 'terribly asthmatic' 2.5 V6 manages 0-60 in 8.2 sec. Now that's *really* slow isn't it? The ZT: revised styling & interior. Uprated power units. Uprated steering, springs, dampers anti-rollbars, solid subframe mountings. Then there are the 260 and larger models with redesigned chassis and rear wheel drive. Bit more than just an MG badge I think you will agree, if you are capable of rational thought. "Even their drivers don't look convinced that their driving an MG, and always seem very self conscious when behind the wheel." - What kind of subjective drivel is this? |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by reason:
What kind of subjective drivel is this?
The kind that is sadly becoming more and more common on this forum.  |
| |
|
|
75 is not a bad old bus...i'd have one..please stop presenting opinions as facts people....it is becoming tiresome
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Palmira:
Yes Id take the Pink Floyd option...
I do remember you mentioning it being about buying the 75 for cheap and yes for 2 grand it would be ok i suppose - but probably wouldnt last long.
This chap who is suggesting I buy a garish Zt over the german models at nearly new prices, is who i was responding to with vitriol, because that is a totally nonsensical thing to do.
500 quid is about right for a few-year-old 75.
With respect THIS chap is not suggesting you buy an MG as opposed to a Phaeton, but there are lots of good cars as well that people could choose all I'm suggesting is stop knocking the 75/ZT - OK so you don't like it but there are lots who do! You like German cars - fine, but not everybody has to think they are the best(for them) and once again I ask where are these "ghastly bodykitted and lurid coloured" ZTs you keep refering to? Yes Yhropy Yellow is bright! but most of the ZT/ZT-Ts iv'e ever seen are in Pearl Black, Xpower Grey, Starlight Silver or Solar Red plus the Throphy Blue and later Ignition Blue are fatastic colours similar to Ford's Performance/Racing/Imperial blue and a similar shade that I have seen on BM's Porsche's and Lambos etc so they are not 'lurid' and far from it. Give it a rest and just accept that no everyone has the same desires or cash to spend on their next motor(by the way - you can buy a new ZT for under 20grand - and thats for a non lurid 260 V8!!) |
| |
|
|
Buy a Mustang instead with same 4.6 V8.
It really surprises me there are any people who will stand to defend the 75, and even more surprising the garish & tasteless MG version.
They do have bodykits - honeycomb front ends & side skirts, garish interiors & loud colorschemes. For discerning motorists its too crass.
Of course you dont have to buy a German car - there are plenty of non-german cars that are FAR better than the 75 - even the Peugeot 407 or Alfa 156 are FAR better. And you can bag one of those for a very reasonable price these days. Alfa have not got the best reliability/build quality reputation but they are still alot better than rover and at least the 407 or 156 are stylish cars which drive properly and dont roly-poly all over the place.
|
| |
|
|
The Alfa 156 is a very fine car - attractive and a nice drive. But if you seriously think that it has a better reliability record than the 75/ZT then you really are living on a different planet - go and check the survey results.
As for lurid colour schemes. Well, that's down to the customer choice when they order the car from new - hardly a criticism of the manufacturer eh? I've seem some shocking banana yellow M3's and a Gaviscon-pink TT. Or how about the Polo Harlequin - that was pretty tastless so let's all slag off VW eh?
You won't find the ZT 'roly-poly'ing all over the place due to the tuning of the suspension.
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Palmira:
Buy a Mustang instead with same 4.6 V8.
It really surprises me there are any people who will stand to defend the 75, and even more surprising the garish & tasteless MG version.
They do have bodykits - honeycomb front ends & side skirts, garish interiors & l
| |
