Been thinking quite a bit about the 75 over the past few days, as a result of seeing several 75s on a car transporter, en route to be recycled into Ford Ka cylinder heads, tin foil or baked beans tins. Made me think though, is the 75 though really a Rover?
Whilst Rover nominally designed the 75, in reality he who pays the pipe calls the tune. So in this instance, BMW did the calling and the paying. If left to their own devices, Rover Group had however designed the car... it would most probably have been a very different car to the 75. In fact, in all probability there would have been a choice of 2 models (600 and 800 replacement), rather than the compromise which became the 75.
It is also worth remembering that Rover’s of the past featured some degree of innovation. Even the (unfairly) maligned 400 Mk 2 could justifiably claim to be ‘the world’s smoothest’ car, whilst the 200 Mk 3 effectively invented a new class of car, a couple of years ahead of the 206. Whilst the Rover Metro could claim to be a ‘class leader’ when it was launched. But where was the innovation in the 75?
Working on the ‘he who pays the piper calls the tune’ concept, the styling of the car was ultimately controlled by BMW and not Rover. If it had have been the latter, it would in all probability have looked very different. Perhaps as radically different as Spiritual was to the BMiniW. Previously and at worst Rovers were contemporary; at best positively futuristic e.g. SD1, P6B etc. Whereas, the 75 seemed to nod toward halcyon days that probably never were.
It also would have been packaged sensibly... rather than being effectively a ‘Tardis in reverse’. In fairness, Rover were generally something of an expert when it came to packaging. Hardly surprising, when you produce the Mini. But on this score, the 75 was a disaster... the length of a 5 series, with less interior space than a Ford Mondeo :wtf:
So in essence, is the 75 a ‘real’ Rover or is it a bit like the BMiniW... an interesting BMW styling exercise that happened to make production?
Regards
John
Whilst Rover nominally designed the 75, in reality he who pays the pipe calls the tune. So in this instance, BMW did the calling and the paying. If left to their own devices, Rover Group had however designed the car... it would most probably have been a very different car to the 75. In fact, in all probability there would have been a choice of 2 models (600 and 800 replacement), rather than the compromise which became the 75.
It is also worth remembering that Rover’s of the past featured some degree of innovation. Even the (unfairly) maligned 400 Mk 2 could justifiably claim to be ‘the world’s smoothest’ car, whilst the 200 Mk 3 effectively invented a new class of car, a couple of years ahead of the 206. Whilst the Rover Metro could claim to be a ‘class leader’ when it was launched. But where was the innovation in the 75?
Working on the ‘he who pays the piper calls the tune’ concept, the styling of the car was ultimately controlled by BMW and not Rover. If it had have been the latter, it would in all probability have looked very different. Perhaps as radically different as Spiritual was to the BMiniW. Previously and at worst Rovers were contemporary; at best positively futuristic e.g. SD1, P6B etc. Whereas, the 75 seemed to nod toward halcyon days that probably never were.
It also would have been packaged sensibly... rather than being effectively a ‘Tardis in reverse’. In fairness, Rover were generally something of an expert when it came to packaging. Hardly surprising, when you produce the Mini. But on this score, the 75 was a disaster... the length of a 5 series, with less interior space than a Ford Mondeo :wtf:
So in essence, is the 75 a ‘real’ Rover or is it a bit like the BMiniW... an interesting BMW styling exercise that happened to make production?
Regards
John