BL/Rover What Went Wrong?

[AnthonyG]

I don’t think Volkswagen had a particularly good strategy in the mid to late 1960s, they were still wedded to rear-engines when practically everybody else (Fiat, Simca, Renault) had given up. The comically shit 411 could have easily come from BMC. It’s not often acknowledged that this stubbornness led to a near death experience for VW in the early 1970s.

Opels might have been cruder in concept but the Kadett and Rekord were very successful in the 1960s, the Kadett was often top seller. The cars that saved VW-the Passat/Golf/Audis were basically NSU designed concepts following on from the K70 (itself a rush job after the disaster of the R080). 

If Harriman thought that was a business model worth following it shows that he should not have been running Britain’s largest car company at the time. 

Advanced engineering is all very nice, but it rarely pays the bills. Lancia and Citroen were other examples of engineering-led financial disaster areas around this time. 

[JimH]

18 minutes ago, Motown said:

 I would even go as far to say if the partnership lasted Rover might still be here today and Honda wouldn't be in the shit they are in now.

Much is made of Rover's problems breaking up with Honda but there is little doubt that Honda suffered too. I am convinced that had they stayed together that shitstorm of the Darth Vader Civic would not have happened. I also believe that Honda would have been the first Japanese car company to build an interior that didn't make you sick .

[JimH]

It is also worth remembering that big chunks of BL are still with us today and are still doing just fine.

[AnthonyG]

2 hours ago, sierraman said:

I always thought the Rover 75 was a good opportunity but they insisted that it had to hark back to the 1950’s for some bizarre reason. Most of the people who had the archetypal Bank Managers Rover P5 in the sixties were either dead or about a hundred years old. I don’t know whether they actually did any market research or did it and ignored it but they felt they had to hark back to an age 40 years previously. All the target market for those type of cars were dying out. The customers wanted quality feel Germanic interiors and a dynamic ride. The 75 offered nothing in that respect.

This isn’t really a reflection of what went on, the 75’s concept and market positioning was very much led by BMW, whose top management had far too much nostalgia (Pitschreider (sp?) wanted to bring back the Riley brand FFS) and Rover were limited in what they could do in terms of not competing with the 3/5 series. So the retro styling and soft handling were German decisions. There was a Rover 75 sports concept that appeared in early 1999, which became the basis for the ZT.

The ZT and the ZR were probably the only good product moves by MGR, and even then they were really ‘skunk works’ stuff from engineers who were around during the BMW era.

Honda didn’t ascribe to any of this retro stuff, so under them Rover might have survived, but then MINI wouldn’t have happened.

MINI was the retro gamble from BMW that did pay off. 

[JimH]

Blimey, there is something to get upset about. Had Ronda stayed in existence we might have had a decent, properly packaged small car.

[Popsicle]

2 hours ago, lesapandre said:

This BL training film of the 70's gives an impression of the era. All so much more individual labour intensive than today.

 

I can't believe so many famous people worked for BL in the 70's, it was like watching Z Cars, Minder, The Professionals, Poirot and Only Fools and Horses all rolled into one.

[colino]

Post war (I know a very long time) neither the US or the UK in general gave a toss about quality, knit together anything that looked a bit new up top would find a buyer.  Quality control was an expense that only the Japanese would waste their money on and they could keep Dr. Deming.  Management was an old boys club and the fabled bean counters spoke a different language.  I like the story when Jaguar wanted to save money on units a bright spark pointed out that no one could see the carpet under the seats.  What they did mean was save a square metre of carpet in every car of expensive carpet, what they didn't mean was cut the bit of carpet out of finished cars.  The UK car sector has never been phenomenally profitable so saving money and sticking with what they knew counted.  Industrial relations were an issue, but so was lack of investment.  For every BL or Crazy K strike, there was outdated equipment churning out unwanted product and then leaving it to the buying public to carry out the final product testing.

[Dobloseven]

1 hour ago, JimH said:

It is also worth remembering that big chunks of BL are still with us today and are still doing just fine.

A valid point indeed. Ford haven't made a vehicle in the UK for many years, Rootes/Chrysler/Talbot/Peugeot are even longer gone. Just Vauxhall making some Astra models and Vivaro vans with the factories under regular threats of closure. 

[wuvvum]

7 hours ago, sierraman said:

A lot of the cars we were trying to sell to Europe simply didn’t appeal on any level to the buyers there. The Germans for example were not going to consider in any way shape or form a Maestro/Montego over a Golf. I can’t ever recall seeing one in anywhere but the U.K. 

My dad had a Montego Countryman (with air conditioning thankyouverymuch) as a company car in France in the early '90s, and there were a few of them over there at the time - almost all diesel estates obvs.  They were pretty much the most fuel efficient "large" car around at the time thanks to the direct injection Perkins Prima.  I recall seeing a few Maestros around too, but not as many.

[LoftyvRS]

3 hours ago, lesapandre said:

This BL training film of the 70's gives an impression of the era. All so much more individual labour intensive than today.

 

The poor sod who bought that Marina reminds me of Unlucky Alf from the Fast Show... "oh bugger"

 

[wuvvum]

1 hour ago, AnthonyG said:

This isn’t really a reflection of what went on, the 75’s concept and market positioning was very much led by BMW, whose top management had far too much nostalgia (Pitschreider (sp?) wanted to bring back the Riley brand FFS) and Rover were limited in what they could do in terms of not competing with the 3/5 series. So the retro styling and soft handling were German decisions.

The 75 actually handles very well.

I agree though that Burnt Fishtrousers (as Top Gear magazine used to call him) had some very funny ideas about what constituted a British car, which probably didn't do the 75 any favours in terms of market share (although I personally love an early 75 interior).

[goosey]

17 minutes ago, LoftyvRS said:

The poor sod who bought that Marina reminds me of Unlucky Alf from the Fast Show... "oh bugger"

 

I think it was the same guy who played the grumpy  caretaker in Grange Hill, 

it would explain why he was so pissed off all the time 

[crad]

i wrote my politics dissertation on this and pretty much said what has already been said

• government faliure to join the EEC when the british car industry was strong in the 50s and 60s
• government subsidising competitors when they shouldve made an effort with the british companies in the 80s
• management being generally pish
• BMW
• did I mention management being woeful

 

[willswitchengage]

2 hours ago, Motown said:

Finally BMW

Closing the door after the horse has bolted is a term often attributed to BMWs handle of Rover and i agree but we must not forget how BMW stripped Rover of its best assets... The mini... The 1 Series... so on and so fourth! 

Didn't BMW invest £billions in Rover and the company still failed shortly afterwards? I'd argue that they tried very nobly! They didn't exactly 'asset strip' - they'd bought the company, piled money into it, then kept a factory at the end which they subsequently poured even more money into. Mini wasn't even a brand until BMW 'created' it - just a line of cars which had largely run out of steam. Rover failed to realise the value of the brand, BMW invested wisely and were creative, and the rest is history. And if they hadn't, the Mini would have just died away and been just another cute old car like the Renault 4. BMW created a new 'British' global brand for us and rescued a factory. BMW did the best that they could with the assets of a failing company.

[JeeExEll]

I blame David Bache's controversial luxury fibreglass hair.  Many car buyers weren't used to seeing such technology, it put them off.

Some forward-thinking BL car owners requested imitation 'Dave Bache driving-helmets' but BL made a serious error in not offering any for sale in their 1970s accessories catalogues. 

His unwillingness to mime properly as alter ego Alvin maybe didn't help either, he couldn't have been more rubbish if he tried.  (Despite the Rover connection he still couldn't call himself 'Alvis' due to copyright).

To be fair, he was maybe distracted thinking about the design of the forthcoming SD1 at the time.

Fascinating BL fact, - SD1 stands for StarDust 1.

[lesapandre]

30 minutes ago, JeeExEll said:

I blame David Bache's controversial fibreglass hair.  Many car buyers weren't used to seeing such technology, it put them off.

Some forward-thinking BL car owners requested imitation 'Dave Bache driving-helmets' but BL made a serious error by not offering any for sale in their accessories catalogues.

Forced to resign from his post by newly installed BL chief Harold Musgrove in 1982 following disagreements over the yet-to-be-launched Austin Maestro.

Yup they sacked the guy who designed the Land Rover, Range Rover, P6 and SD1. 

[Spurious]

Am I guessing right that the writing was on the wall by the time the 25/45/75 came along? Or should I paraphrase, was it a salvageable situation by the time of the BMW era? 

[tommotech]

Most people in the motor industry, or even with a vague interest in cars, has an opinion on the demise of BL/Rover and the vast majority of comments here are near or on the mark. For me though I’d say look at the things that went right for BL / Rover, the Honda partnership for example (and most lament the fact that BMW owned the company instead) gave some pretty good cars, R8 being successful in sales terms (kettle issues aside). 
Even under BMW the 75 project gave a decent car, although I also believe their tenure was the beginning of the end. BMW totally misunderstood the organisation and UK car buyers (outside of the prestige market).  

[AnthonyG]

28 minutes ago, lesapandre said:

Forced to resign from his post by newly installed BL chief Harold Musgrove in 1982 following disagreements over the yet-to-be-launched Austin Maestro.

Yup they sacked the guy who designed the Land Rover, Range Rover, P6 and SD1. 

Have you seen the Maestro prototype before Roy Axe cleaned it up?

It was fairly abysmal, the early Montegos were bad as well. The reason for all the crappy plastic trim around the windows was because it looked even worse without it. Bache was way past his best by 1980. Designers often stay well beyond their time and believe their own bullshit - e.g. McGovern and the awful Discovery 5. 

BTW, Bache didn’t design the Land Rover or Range Rover, although he may well have taken the credit.

[AnthonyG]

25 minutes ago, Spurious said:

Am I guessing right that the writing was on the wall by the time the 25/45/75 came along? Or should I paraphrase, was it a salvageable situation by the time of the BMW era? 

To be honest I don’t think BMW quite knew what they were getting into.  The cars side was really only kept alive post govt ownership by the Honda collaboration (BAe invested fuck all) and Land Rover needed a lot of investment as well. Trying to drop the Honda stuff so quickly and invest in Land Rover and Mini as well as a whole new range of medium sized cars just required too much cash. 

Just before the Alchemy/Phoenix 4 shenanigans there was rumour VW were interested, probably for Land Rover/MG/Mini but they would have kept Rover going as well (or at least wound it down in a dignified manner).  

It’s an interesting might have been to add to the rest, VW certainly worked magic on Skoda, and Seat wasn’t much better for image or product when they took that on either - although it did have a nice chunk of its domestic market and some half-decent facilities with low labour costs. 

[AnthonyG]

I also question this ‘the 1 series was a stolen Rover 45 replacement design’ stuff.

There may have been some chassis bits and pieces re-used but ultimately the 1 series was a dreadful bit of packaging, with very little space in the rear.

If it had been a FWD car that would have been even more of a joke, as it wouldn’t even have had the excuse of being RWD with the ‘hump’ for the prop etc.

[lesapandre]

34 minutes ago, AnthonyG said:

Have you seen the Maestro prototype before Roy Axe cleaned it up?

It was fairly abysmal, the early Montegos were bad as well. The reason for all the crappy plastic trim around the windows was because it looked even worse without it. Bache was way past his best by 1980. Designers often stay well beyond their time and believe their own bullshit - e.g. McGovern and the awful Discovery 5. 

BTW, Bache didn’t design the Land Rover or Range Rover, although he may well have taken the credit.

Ah...I thought the bodies/architecture of the Range Rover and later Land Rovers were by David Bache - who were they by?  They are both certainly so influential.

[lesapandre]

I've not seen the David Bache iterations of Montego or Maestro - are there any verified pictures out there?

[mk2_craig]

BL/AR was late to the party on every major automotive trend:

1970s - took the entire decade to develop and launch a Fiat 127/Renner 5 competitor in the small hatchback sector

1980s - missed the boat completely on an Espace challenger (yeah I know you could get a 7 seater Montego estate, but…)

1990s - ditto Scenic

2000s - total absence of a competent Ka or Seicento type city car

Then it all went to ratshit. I don’t doubt that had the company somehow survived another ten years, they’d have comprehensively failed to come up with a Qashqai clone too. 

[AnthonyG]

To be fair to Bache, he did do the Series 2 in conjunction with a colleague named Tony Poole. 

Engineering -led by Spen King - did the Range Rover with help from a stylist named Geoff Cromption - the prototype was remarkably similar to the finished product apart from the front and rear ends - although the split tailgate was there from the start.

The interior was Tony Poole, who also tidied up the front and rear exterior - these were pretty truck-like to start with. 

The series 3 was Tony Poole and the 90/110 Paul Taylor.

Least you think I am the ultimate L-R anorak, all credit for the above facts is this book, which I picked up for £15 in a discount bookshop 

[JeeExEll]

14 minutes ago, mk2_craig said:

BL/AR was late to the party on every major automotive trend:

1970s - took the entire decade to develop and launch a Fiat 127/Renner 5 competitor in the small hatchback sector

1980s - missed the boat completely on an Espace challenger (yeah I know you could get a 7 seater Montego estate, but…)

1990s - ditto Scenic

2000s - total absence of a competent Ka or Seicento type city car

Then it all went to ratshit. I don’t doubt that had the company somehow survived another ten years, they’d have comprehensively failed to come up with a Qashqai clone too. 

Yes yes, but apart from that they were ok.

[AnthonyG]

@lesapandreThe Maestro/Montego, excuse the really shit pictures but the best I can do on a phone at the moment!

The first design, with the Allegro wheel trims, is credited to Ian Beech and dates from 1977, as ever there was not enough money to bring it out around the same time as the Metro, which was the original plan.

All are from the book ‘The Austin’ by Barney Sharrat, very well worth getting hold of if you are an Austin/BMC/BL/AR fan.

[willswitchengage]

28 minutes ago, AnthonyG said:

I also question this ‘the 1 series was a stolen Rover 45 replacement design’ stuff.

There may have been some chassis bits and pieces re-used but ultimately the 1 series was a dreadful bit of packaging, with very little space in the rear.

If it had been a FWD car that would have been even more of a joke, as it wouldn’t even have had the excuse of being RWD with the ‘hump’ for the prop etc.

...yet a commercial success. Quirky design (I like that era of BMWs, forget the name of the stylist, Banger or something similar) and opened a new market for the firm. I remember reading in an old mag that it had the least depreciation of any mass market car, it was so desirable. Look conversely at the first A-Class - a car for old people and wealthy city-dwelling non-drivers. Considering mechanically the original 1 series is mechanically a 3 Series, again one of BMWs most successful ever model generations, I can see absolutely zero 'plagiarism'. 

Sure, BMW may have taken a lot of Land Rover's 4x4 tech. But it also showed how it could do so much better. BMW's SUVs outsell Land Rover's, despite the latter having a head start. They gave the market what they want - the Disco 2 was more upmarket - the direction SUVs were heading at the time - whereas previously the Disco 1 was a bit of a confused Land Cruiser wannabe. The BMW Range Rover hit the market spot on. Since then at Land Rover things have just fallen apart again with market saturation and a turn towards the 'reduced brain capacity' segment with convertible SUVs designed by Victoria Beckham.

[AnthonyG]

Chris Bangle is the name you are looking for!

[sierraman]

Any company worth their weight would have done the same as BMW. You’d have binned Rover off and all the Morris, Triumph rubbish etc and took the merchantable names like Mini and binned the rest. BMW took what they needed and left the rubbish. It’s quite telling they left MG, a name synonymous with repeatedly awful come backs, the Chinese still using it when anyone over 30 was fully aware it was a brand that made joke cars. Despite this they are still going, hopefully this time when it turns to shit it’ll be put to bed permanently.