[PhilTheGreek]

I think this update is pretty much what could be expected after the 75 was updated - a new front bumper moulding and new integrated headlamps. Yet again, no sheet metal changes. Expect the same on the 25. I doubt there will be any sheet metal changes on any "facelifted" mainstream MG or Rover for the foreseeable future - they are just too expensive!

The interior has no-doubt been changed to answer persistent criticisms - just as the 75 rear seats were re-profiled for this reason. I don't see much in this facelift to get too excited or disppointed about. It is entirely predictable.

I also think Hulmeman is entitled to crow, especially as one person told him that this car "definitely wasn't" the new 45.

"Bulls**tters" was a bit harsh, though.

 

[Stephen K. Hone]

I think this update is pretty much what could be expected after the 75 was updated - a new front bumper moulding and new integrated headlamps. Yet again, no sheet metal changes. Expect the same on the 25. I doubt there will be any sheet metal changes on any "facelifted" mainstream MG or Rover for the foreseeable future - they are just too expensive!

The interior has no-doubt been changed to answer persistent criticisms - just as the 75 rear seats were re-profiled for this reason. I don't see much in this facelift to get too excited or disppointed about. It is entirely predictable.

I also think Hulmeman is entitled to crow, especially as one person told him that this car "definitely wasn't" the new 45.

"Bulls**tters" was a bit harsh, though.

A small point maybe but possibly the bonnet is new. It is tough to tell from that picture. Also the boot/hatch has new metal I believe so that could be two panels we are talking about. And once again I must point out just about everything is as was predicted, apart from the crease and the door handles!! So that is TWO errors.

 

[JohnSwitzer]

I don't see much in this facelift to get too excited or disppointed about. It is entirely predictable.

Well it's certainly predictable after you've had around 12 hours to take a good look at the picture.

I doubt there will be any sheet metal changes on any "facelifted" mainstream MG or Rover for the foreseeable future - they are just too expensive!

If you care to read the press release, you'll find there are sheet metal changes - notably the bootlid has been changed.

John

 

[MGROVERnut]

I don't see much in this facelift to get too excited or disppointed about. It is entirely predictable.

Well it's certainly predictable after you've had around 12 hours to take a good look at the picture.

I doubt there will be any sheet metal changes on any "facelifted" mainstream MG or Rover for the foreseeable future - they are just too expensive!

If you care to read the press release, you'll find there are sheet metal changes - notably the bootlid has been changed.

John

John, your cheery outlook always makes disappointments easier to bear. Cheers mate!

 

[king arthur]

If you care to read the press release, you'll find there are sheet metal changes - notably the bootlid has been changed.

John

Whoopee!

(Sorry, John!)

 

[Cranbrook]

Whoopee!

(Sorry, John!)

To be fair, it is more than was done when BMW was in charge, with a infinite budget.

In my opinion, MG Rover have done fantastically with the limited resources that they have. I think we will need to reserve judgement until we see the scale of the changes to the rear and also to the interior.

 

[< N I C K >]

For my own selfish reasons I am kind of pleased that the 45 wasn't completely rebodied because otherwise it wouldn't look like a 45 and therefore my 400 series would loose all resemblance with the modern Rover range

The 400 series was a great buy because if you brought a brand new 400 back in 1995/96 and kept it till today, you can claim that you have a car still in production!!

 

[PhilTheGreek]

I must point out just about everything is as was predicted, apart from the crease and the door handles!! So that is TWO errors.

I am glad to see that pettiness is not beneath you, Stephen.

 

[PhilTheGreek]

I don't see much in this facelift to get too excited or disppointed about. It is entirely predictable.

Well it's certainly predictable after you've had around 12 hours to take a good look at the picture.

I doubt there will be any sheet metal changes on any "facelifted" mainstream MG or Rover for the foreseeable future - they are just too expensive!

If you care to read the press release, you'll find there are sheet metal changes - notably the bootlid has been changed.

John

Well, you apparently had more than 12 hours knowledge of what it looked like, but it still surprised you! I don't think that you are particularly well qualified to play the smart alec on this topic.

When I said "predictable" what I meant was that it followed the same general parameters of previous MGR mainstream model facelifts, such as the 75 facelift and the creation of the Zeds - i.e. a reworking of the front end to change the "character" of the car, and re-worked interiors to either answer criticisms or create a different drivng image. Therefore this update follows a general pattern, save for the occasional flamboyant decadence of new doorhandles or re-shaped bootlids.

The reason this pattern will continue is that it is the cheapest way to change the appearance of a car without costly tooling changes and alterations to the vehicle architecture. I think this update to the 45 is pretty good for what has been done, and so is neither particularly exciting or disappointing.

I would guess that the ZS, ZR and 25 facelifts will also follow this pattern, though I could, of course, be wrong.

You, no doubt, already know better.

 

[satchman]

45 facelift

when i saw the facelifts it was the zs that looked a lot different to the existing model much more aggressive, any way i think with the limited resources that mg rover have got they have done a great job especaially with the interior which most knockers seem to always have a go at . Bear in mind,when you have only seen the old models day in day out for years,any changes are always welcomed,but then again if you dont work at longbridge then you probaby wouldnt understand what im talking about!!:lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[Stephen K. Hone]

I am glad to see that pettiness is not beneath you, Stephen.

And it would seem that sarcasm is not beneath you. Stating a fact hardly falls under the heading of pettiness. I was just trying to point out that the bulk of the predictions about the revisions turned out to be correct. Actually, Pettiness is pretty much personified by the title of this thread.

 

[Dr Dave]

Boys! Calm down!


....otherwise it'll be the glasshouse for you all :hyper:

 

[MGROVERnut]

Re: 45 facelift

when i saw the facelifts it was the zs that looked a lot different to the existing model much more aggressive, any way i think with the limited resources that mg rover have got they have done a great job especaially with the interior which most knockers seem to always have a go at . Bear in mind,when you have only seen the old models day in day out for years,any changes are always welcomed,but then again if you dont work at longbridge then you probaby wouldnt understand what im talking about!!:lol: :lol: :lol:

Satchman, apart from the ZS and the RD60 is there anything else that will feel like new metal?

 

[PhilTheGreek]

And it would seem that sarcasm is not beneath you. Stating a fact hardly falls under the heading of pettiness. I was just trying to point out that the bulk of the predictions about the revisions turned out to be correct. Actually, Pettiness is pretty much personified by the title of this thread.

Stephen,

If you were merely "stating a fact" I would have let it go.

What you were actually doing was highlighting another person's omissions ("so that is TWO errors") in the most humiliating way that you possibly could; rather in the way that an eight-year-old schoolgirl would highlight in the playground exactly who stole her skipping rope.

And, in my book, that merits a bit of sarcasm.

 

[Stephen K. Hone]

Stephen,

If you were merely "stating a fact" I would have let it go.

What you were actually doing was highlighting another person's omissions ("so that is TWO errors") in the most humiliating way that you possibly could; rather in the way that an eight-year-old schoolgirl would highlight in the playground exactly who stole her skipping rope.

And, in my book, that merits a bit of sarcasm.

EH??!!.. The two errors I was refering to, were those of the people who predicted the revised flanks on the car.... not on the part of author of this thread. I was trying to illustrate that the bulk of the speculation about the revisions to the 45 turned out to be true. Basically only "Two things" turned out to be incorrect. Perhaps you were so busy trying to find a nefarious subtext (that was not there no matter what you think) contained within my post, that you obviously got confused.


Btw. Don't you feel that your "eight-year-old schoolgirl" analogy is perhaps a trifle chauvinistic towards women??. Curious that you didn't use Schoolboys and stolen tennis balls as an example. You know what though?, that is just me looking for a misogynistic subtext that probably isn't there.

 

[< N I C K >]

This thread is unnecessarily heated. In my opinion anyone who buys a MG-Rover over another manufacture is held in higher regard than other mortals are. If an enthusiast, in good faith, makes a slight discrepancy or gives misinformation in a post it can be easily forgiven.

But any enthusiast who called the 400/45/ZS a Honda Domani is CROSSING THE LINE and deserves to be pulled over hot coals:irked:.

 

[king arthur]

Btw. Don't you feel that your "eight-year-old schoolgirl" analogy is perhaps a trifle chauvinistic towards women??. Curious that you didn't use Schoolboys and stolen tennis balls as an example. You know what though?, that is just me looking for a misogynistic subtext that probably isn't there.

And on that note Stephen, I think we need to draw to an end this particular argument.

 

[< N I C K >]

misogynistic

hold on...let me get out my Oxford dictionary for this one

 

[Stephen K. Hone]

And on that note Stephen, I think we need to draw to an end this particular argument.

I totally agree. Why don't we close this thread?

 

[SteveChilds]

Done, I can't see any point in keeping it open now.