Jump to content

Kenneth_Mc_Testes' ROVER 45 V6 JATCO JUS KICKED IN Y0


Mr_Bo11ox

Recommended Posts

Deleting the placca cap off the seatbelt bolt is so friggin stingy it's downright insulting to people who come into the showroom isn't it. If you start from a position of having it, then make a conscious decision to delete it thinking 'the customer won't give a shit' you clearly have a fairly low opinion of your customers. Wankers!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was quite a depressing read. I didn't browse through the several pages of replies but it left me with the impression that every month, the accountants sat down with the engineers and told them, "we're still unprofitable, if you want to be employed next month you need to find another way of saving 4p per unit".

 

I particularly liked how they binned off the second horn and boot release switch, but didn't get round to chopping the relevant circuits out of the wiring loom until a while later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of the stuff makes sense, like not having a Rover branded key when you're going to be making MG branded cars. But yeah, creating whole new cheaper things to replace stuff like sill plates, shaving 5mm off the width if bloody stingy.

 

How did you replace the rear light bulbs once they'd removed the access hatch?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

How did you replace the rear light bulbs once they'd removed the access hatch?

 

They had one of those crappy clip-in moulded carpet things that you have to unclip and pull away to reveal inside the wing. Before it would have been permanently mounted with a hole cut for the door.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I worked as a suppliers rep for a component supplier during the 90's and early '00's. All of this sort of activity is very familiar.

 

Although you look at that post and the baby was going out with the bath water. Project Drive looks like it must have been a rabid whirlpool of cost reduction activity.

 

Even in normal times,  manufacturers would be looking for an annual 5% cost saving on each part.  Delivering that made for quite a tense environment for the engineers on both sides of the table.

 

I remember a customer (not MGR) who insisted we reduce the thickness of the plating on a pulley. We did it - we were offered no choice if we wanted to remain as a supplier. The durability of the component was reduced. The saving was less than 0.5p per item and we had to do all the product verification tests again which even then cost tens of thousands to do. 

 

The punch line to this is that they were buying 10K per month of this item and continued to do so for another 3 years until the next major change.  So even after all the costs associated with the change they would have still made a net £100k saving. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think what gets me with that list is someone somewhere decided on the 'nice touches' to create a premium product in the first place. If you buy a Dacia you'd be impressed with the owners manual being given to you on a 3.5" floppy but people looking at a 75 in 2003 would have also sat in something that was at least properly finished?

 

Forgive my ignorance as I'm not a Rover aficionado by any stretch of the imagination, what were they selling them by this time for? Or more relevantly what could you have bought for the same money as a mid level 75 around this sort of time?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As ever they spent all the money on all the wrong stuff. Pursuing a dead end market of cars for a generation that was dying out, then pricing the product alongside cars it couldn't hope to compete with. If they had tried to appeal to the wider market things might have been different.

I wonder how many man-hours went into this sort of petty cost cutting, when the real efforts should have been going into designing a new generation of competitive motor cars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I worked as a suppliers rep for a component supplier during the 90's and early '00's. All of this sort of activity is very familiar.

 

Although you look at that post and the baby was going out with the bath water. Project Drive looks like it must have been a rabid whirlpool of cost reduction activity.

 

Even in normal times,  manufacturers would be looking for an annual 5% cost saving on each part.  Delivering that made for quite a tense environment for the engineers on both sides of the table.

 

I remember a customer (not MGR) who insisted we reduce the thickness of the plating on a pulley. We did it - we were offered no choice if we wanted to remain as a supplier. The durability of the component was reduced. The saving was less than 0.5p per item and we had to do all the product verification tests again which even then cost tens of thousands to do. 

 

The punch line to this is that they were buying 10K per month of this item and continued to do so for another 3 years until the next major change.  So even after all the costs associated with the change they would have still made a net £100k saving. 

 

I was involved in a design change (at prototype stage) that saved 1 million units x 6 years x 45p per unit.  We used a tool developed by Hull University and Lucas Industries called Design for Assembly, and a set of rules which defined parts into A or B parts.

 

In a week long offsite workshop we replaced a Brass Tube (42p) , a brass washer (2p) and 2 seals (3p each) with one Brass deep drawn flat ended "bullet" (2p)  and one seal (3p)

 

Total cost of this ? 8 engineers for a week and a set of tools costing £30K.

 

Also this increased the reliability/quality because it removed 1/3 of the O rings in the whole solenoid. so 1/3 less things to leak.

 

Boothroyd and Dewhurst still sell a similar design tool.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder how many man-hours went into this sort of petty cost cutting, when the real efforts should have been going into designing a new generation of competitive motor cars.

 

Indeed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They couldn't afford to design a new car on their own, they even looked to partner with automotive greats* like Proton. The Gen 2 could have been the new mid size Rover.

The worst thing that happened was the BMW buyout and losing their partnership with Honda.

 

Let's not dwell on the failures of MG-Rover, let's rejoice in the excellence of Ken_Testes' 45 V6, built at a time of guarded optimism, before joyless penny pinching.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Averaged 27mpg on my last tankful - not brilliant, but then I have been commuting to Derby in it which inevitably involves sitting in traffic for friggin hours and hours every day watching your life, and those of thousands of other losers like you, ticking away in a brightly coloured tin box surrounded by litter, identikit retail parks and streets of dilapidated 1930's semis with odd tiles missing off the roofs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...