MG-Rover.org Forums banner

Is the 75 a 'real' Rover?

2.7K views 37 replies 27 participants last post by  < N I C K >  
#1 ·
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
 
#2 ·
I dont claim to know much about the history of Rover or the way they worked but here's my :2c:

Growing up I always saw Rover cars as being a cut above the run of the mill ford/vauxhall comparatives in terms of the quality and prestige that they offered.

The 75 encompasses this for me, in a 2nd hand buy, as it offers unparalled quality and prestige for your money.

For me its a "proper" Rover as it offers everything I thought the company stood for.

Adam
 
#3 ·
According to Keith's site, the 75's design, as we would know it in 1998, had already been finalized in 1994, either before the BMW takeover or very soon after. All BMW did was veto Rover Group's plans to base it on the existing 800 platform. If the original plan had been followed, we would have seen a car exactly like the 75 in appearance, but it would have been a rebody of the 800 rather than an all-new car, and probably would have been launched onto the market a few years earlier.
 
#17 ·
It would have been much more than a re-bodied 800, it was planned to use elements of the 800 platform just as the bubble shaped 200 borrowed elements from the R8 (most notably the bulkhead). And yes it would def have hit the market a lot sooner
 
#4 · (Edited)
Been thinking quite a bit about the ZS over the past few days, as a result of seeing several 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 ZS really an MG?

Whilst MGR nominally designed the ZS, in reality he who pays the piper calls the tune. So in this instance, Honda did the calling and the paying. If left to their own devices, and MGR had designed the car... it would most probably have been a very different car to the ZS. In fact, in all probability there would have been a real sports car, rather than the compromise which became the ZS.

It is also worth remembering that MG's of the past featured some degree of innovation. Even the (unfairly) maligned MGB could justifiably claim to be a sports car, whilst the RV8 (tho' really a Rover) took the world by storm on launch if not after. The MG Metro would claim to be a ‘class leader’ when it was launched. But where was the innovation in the ZS?

Working on the ‘he who pays the piper calls the tune’ concept, the styling of the car was ultimately controlled by Honda where the original Civic styling originated. Previously and at worst MG's were contemporary; Whereas, the ZS is just a Honda with a funny name..

In fairness, MGR were generally something of experts when it came to packaging but with the ZS it was a disaster... the shape of a Honda saloon built for the 50 plus market, with less interior space than a Ford Mondeo and claiming to be sporty - yet only half succeeding even when it was married to the superb KV6 engine designed and built for the Rover 75!

So in essence, is the ZS a ‘real’ MG or is it just a ronda.. an interesting MGR styling exercise that somehow happened to make production?

Questions, questions :lol:
 
#6 ·
John.

To my eyes - yes.

(Pre Drive) It combines classic styling with beautiful attention to detail, with the Rover hallmark of a distinctive, luxurious interior and a cosseting ride. The chrome, leather and wood it carries off with aplomb that some cars several classes above struggle with. Compare its lines to the slight 'wrongness' of the S-Type. Yes, its a Rover. Up until the final dark days it wore the longship proudly and with justification.

It may not be particularly innovative, but these days, when you get down to it, how many cars are? I would argue it re-wrote the rules for interiors in its class. Lets face it, Jag ripped it off blatantly for the X-type.
 
#7 ·
It's a hard question. I got rid of my fully loaded 75 for a very late Rover 800 because I could not stand to see BMW logo's inprinted on things. It could be said that the only two real Rovers from 1990-2006 wear the Mini due to Austin been merged and the Metro. Everything else borrowed from Honda in some way.
 
#19 ·
So where did the bubble 200 draw from Honda.

The MacPherson strut front suspension and front end of R8?

Nope, that was a RG design. Honda wanted double wishbone. In fact Japanese built Concertos did have double wishbone suspension. But Honda bowed to RG's knowledge on how to set the car up for Europe, hence MacPherson Struts on all Longbridge built R8s and Concertos.

The Engine? Nope Either a K series or L series.

The indicator stalks... Everyone says they are Honda.... But when replacing identical stalks on my MGF I found they were made by Lucas.

Looks like this is a real Rover then.
 
#8 ·
Rover with a history of good packaging???

I beg to differ.... P6 - medium sized car with a cramped interior into which I do not fit

SD1 - large car with even less interior room than the smaller P6.

I am an average height - 6'2 tall - and found the ZT I drove for a day to be far far better packaged than these two genuine Rover predecessors.
 
#34 ·
LOL, quite right Patrick. The P6 wasn't called a "4-door, 2 seater sports saloon" for nothing! There is definitely more room in the back of my 75 than there was in the back of my Dad's P6!

That said the SD1 seemed bigger inside than a P6 and certainly had a huge load area - I moved an 1100/1300 rear subframe around in the back of my SD1 and it laid flat on the floor with the rear seats down!
 
#10 ·
MikeM said:
Been thinking quite a bit about the ZS over the past few days
:fishslap: Nice rebuttal there MikeM.

Bobs said:
According to Keith's site, the 75's design, as we would know it in 1998, had already been finalized in 1994, either before the BMW takeover or very soon after.
I concurred. It is widely reported that the Rover 75 was the car Rover always wanted to make.
I suppose the question for you John is whether you agree with Richard Woolleys vision?

JohnSwitzer said:
It also would have been packaged sensibly... rather than being effectively a ‘Tardis in reverse’.
However, I do agree with your assessment of the Rover 75's sizing. But I think the 75 was always intended to straddle as many classes as possible to maximise sales ie A4 & A6, 3-series & 5-series.
Nice idea in theory, but not in practice. A buyer looking for a large car, say Opel or 5-series size, would feel the 75 is too compact. Where as a buyer looking for a compact saloon would feel the 75 is too big. I'm in the latter group.

You make the comment that the 75 doesn't have anymore space than a Ford Mondeo, but if you park next to a Mondeo saloon you'll see that the 75 & Ford are pretty much the same size - but some how the 75 manages to look bigger.

The boot on my old MK-II 400 was 460(?) litres, whereas the boot on my 75 is 432 litres. Also the engine bay of the 75 seemingly has less room than that of my Rover 400 (I realise the 75 has a double bulk head).

Despite the 75 size irregularities, she's a dam fine car.
 
#11 ·
Rover 75 is Most Stylish Rover EVER !

Hey, all you chaps casting aspersions on the most stylish and classy Rover ever to take the highways of these isles. If you can't see the beautiful cultured stylishness of the Rover 75 then you simply don't deserve to drive or own one. This motor is sheer class and it's a great pity to see that so few people appreciate it.
John-Of-Ireland
 
#12 ·
Hey, all you chaps casting aspersions on the most stylish and classy Rover ever to take the highways of these isles. If you can't see the beautiful cultured stylishness of the Rover 75 then you simply don't deserve to drive or own one. This motor is sheer class and it's a great pity to see that so few people appreciate it.
John-Of-Ireland
Hey john of ireland (north or south I wonder?) there is only one person not appreciating here -but I guess even he may be in two minds.................
 
#13 ·
I've had two 75's now and two ZT's.

I reckon the 75 is a real Rover.

Its lovely Richard Wooley lines echo the P5, P6 etc.

The build content increased in its British supply over the years and it didnt suffer.

A fine car and a real Rover. The ZT is a real Morris Garages MG. Totally different but totally superb.
 
#14 ·
I would say both the 600 and 75 are great Rovers (even though many power units were supplied by both Honda and BMW).

I think the style and class were above anything else on road. It just goes to underline how badly the workforce were let down. Ingore all the crap about strikes, unions etc. What really killed Rover was BMW threatening to pull out of Rover on the eve of the 75's launch. None of the papers and mags reported on what a great car the 75 was, but instead on the fact BMW were shortly pulling out.

Would you spend £25k on a new Rover with the prospect of the warrenty going up in smoke?
 
#23 ·
Of course its a real Rover. As much as any Rover has been since the demise of the SD1. It was designed and built in this country and its clear to see the inspiration of past Rovers in its style. At the end of the day its a good car and we should be proud of it, not question it. It should be remembered as the last True volume car from a British Manufacturer.
 
#25 ·
I'm sure I read somewhere that the 75 was designed in 1993/4, before and duringthe BMW take over, and the final car was pretty much identical in appearance to the one designed 5 years earlier. SO i'm guessing we would have seen the 75 as is regardless of BMW - whether it would have been as high in quality if a different matter.
 
#28 ·
If one was a purist, one might argue that the real Rover company still exists, still builds fine, distinguished automobiles, and in fact is going from strength to strength, building its cars as it has done for several decades, in a factory in Solihull, West Midlands. Indeed the products still carry the Rover name but have "Range" or "Land" in front of it. Meanwhile, it stopped building saloon cars in around 1980 when production of its last saloon model was moved to a BMC factory in Oxford. That was then replaced with a large front wheel drive family car, using Austin and Honda components but carrying a Rover badge.

Whether any car that is built now by any company other than Landrover can be considered a real Rover, is a moot question. The 800 wasn't really a Rover, any more than the Montego was. But are Citroens, built from Peugeot platforms in PSA factories, really Citroens? Are Audis, built from VW parts and platforms, real Audis? Are Bentleys, badge engineered from Rolls Royces for so many decades, real Bentleys?

Does it matter? If the cars are built to the same values with the same market in mind as the original cars were when the companies still existed independently, I don't think it does much.
 
#30 ·
Is the '75' a real Rover?

Hi Guys.....Thanks for the cheery welcomes. Shall do my best to abide by the rules but if someone bad mouths my beautiful Rover 75 CDTi too then just look out. Anyone know if there's a Haynes Manual on this chariot yet and if so where might I get one ?
John-Of-Ireland