Apparently this thread was about the 1.5 engine, I think its gone off topic enough now...

 

Hey Patrick you're not really Mel Gibson are you? There's a lot of negativity being aimed at the Brits there?

The worst modern cars for rust in the UK seem to be Vauxhalls and the early Astras and Corsa were dreadful.

The rust issue was simply a comment based on the fact that current cars are being shipped directly off Chinese lines for final assembly here as complete and fully painted shells. Are they galvanised and fully rust proofed to the same degree as European cars??

 

only some european cars forehead and that doesnt include fords which still rot (witness my 11 reg focus which is already rusting around the hatchback hinges and where its been stonechipped on the nose)

its mainly the italian brands that are mostly galvanised despite the stereotypical(and incorrect for about 15 years)of them.....

 

What's the corrosion guarantees like on the 6. Given jap imports are rot boxes due to their lack of rust proofing how do cars for the Chinese market stack up?

 

6 Years, regardless of mileage.

 

Not forgetting the fact that the 6 weighs a metric ****tonne due to the extra thickness of steel needed to counteract the low grade steel they have used.

 

SAIC uses the same steel they use to build GM and VW cars. It's also the same grade steel used by GM in the USA and by VW in Germany.

Does VW use low grade steel?

 

PS the R550 and MG6 how ever you slice it were designed by ex MGR staff.
The original MG3/5 (and all iterations) was started by a different set of ex MGR staff under NAC before the merger with SAIC.

So back to the original question, what have SAIC designed and bought to market on their own? (nothing)

 

The very pinnacle of automotive excellence there..

 

Bugger all. And what they have put out, they should have not bothered.

 

What have they copied off somebody else?

 

K series engine (Rover)
Roewe 750 (Rover)
New Roewe 750 (GM Epsilon 2)
Roewe W5 (SSangyong)
Roewe 550/MG6 (Continuation of MGR work)
Hybrid R750 (continuation of MGR work. In the TF200)
NV6 (reworked KV6)
Upcoming R950 (stretched Epsilon 2 platform)

Other than that, they are relying entirely on their own designs and IP.

 

As I've said previously, the RDX60 was based on a full sized 75 platform and retained the bulkhead and windscreen position. There were many problems with the TWR car and much work lost during their collapse. Very little engineering progressed from this part except for trying to save weight and work out packaging.

The green car showed to dealers and driven onto the stage circa 2003 was merely a fibreglass mockup built for MGR, items like the rear doors were fixed and C pillar windows false.

The only progression was in design, not engineering in 2004 after SAIC were underwhelmed with the car.

Peter Stevens design team worked on updating the design which would no longer retain the 75's bulkhead and windscreen position but would still ride on the 75's platform.

No test builds were completed, no tooling made and no running prototypes produced.


The Roewe 550 shares no similarities in it's makeup although not inconceivable that it may resemble some of the sketches produced earlier as they were produced to the ideals of SAIC anyway.

 

The sketches I was referring to were those that appeared in Auto Express (or Autocar?) early 2005 and were worked on during the later half of 2004. They WERE the RDX60 as was everything prior to April 2005, whether clean sheet or not. If you like there were a number of RDX60's. Engineering didn't just appear AFTER the basic design was set and 3 years after TWR collapsed.

SAIC didn't start again mid 05. They 'started' before MGR went under.

 

There is a lot of difference between an artist's sketch and the subsequent work by the development team to make a car that looks like it.

These sketches were released because SAIC had already rejected RDX60, sending the entire project back to the drawing board to essentially start all over again.

 

The original spec for the box was simply 10w/40 as did my old mans Acclaim.

If memory serves the MTF94 is used in the R65 and the PG1s but is only basically a 10w/40 oil with a few tweaks.

Its very odd since Pugs use 75w/90 GL5 in their latest boxes - all very strange.

 

You don't use 10/40 in a pg1 forehead. You use mtf94

 

R65 which the Ks used was bought off Peugeot and developed by Rover. Apparently they did such a good job of improving the dreadful Pug gear shift linkage Pug wanted to buy it back.

PG1 is a Honda box hence the 10w/40 engine oil used in it as did the box used in the Acclaim / Rover 213

The last Ks ran the Borg Warner IB5 which Ford use in the 1.25-1.8 Focus and Fester.

Magnetti Marelli for the Autos?? I didnt even know they made autos. BW Getrag ZF never heard of MM Which cars feature them at the moment?

 

Magnetti Marelli for the Autos?? I didnt even know they made autos. BW Getrag ZF never heard of MM Which cars feature them at the moment?

SAIC make it!

 

PG1 is a Honda gearbox, used in the likes of 200 VI/BRM ZR160/1.8/25GTI/1.8, and 200/25/ZR diesels, MGF/TF and I think 400/45 diesels had them. R65 is used in 1.4/1.6 200/25s/ZRs and a few others, it is a Peugeot box.

 

Oh yeah, power restricted also to stop it flying apart. Didn't Rover artificially lop off the torque curve of the T16 turbo for fear of obliterating the gearbox.

 

I agree, the Mito is a lovely looking car with cutting edge engines.
SAIC are being much too slow at releasing these products.

I believe that SAIC have the whole thing back to front: They need to be building European spec cars that are truly competitive, and then de speccing them to make them saleable in China.
Instead they are making Chinese spec goods and trying to modify them to be competitive in Europe.
It won't work. The European market is matured to the point where every purchase is researched and the information is available at the touch of a button.
The Chinese market is already matured to the point where European quality goods are readily available, so why not buy the better quality product?

 

I believe that SAIC have the whole thing back to front: They need to be building European spec cars that are truly competitive, and then de speccing them to make them saleable in China.
Instead they are making Chinese spec goods and trying to modify them to be competitive in Europe.
It won't work. The European market is matured to the point where every purchase is researched and the information is available at the touch of a button.
The Chinese market is already matured to the point where European quality goods are readily available, so why not buy the better quality product?

I think everyone has a strange notion that China is all small villages and dirt roads.

The reality of the matter is that in SAIC's core market - Shanghai - the level of market expectations, sophistication and consumer purchasing power makes London look like a decaying reminder of past colonial glories. Make no mistake - the Chinese car buyers SAIC targets with Roewe/MG expect the best and they expect it at a keen price.

 

My problem in all of this, is that based on facts given about new engines, the forthcoming model range, I keep feeling like the cars are already out of date?

MG3 for example, if you're after a small car, sporty looks, marque pride, sporty drive, quality and a world beating engine?

I give you:

http://www.evo.co.uk/features/features/243517/alfa_romeo_mito_multiair.html

And the MG3 isn't due for the UK until late 2012/13

Despite all our discussions, nobody has mentioned the key thing which is either going to make the MG3 a sucess story, or a flop. PRICE. If the MG3 is anywhere near cars like the Mito, it hasn't got a chance.

To be honest, I don't think it's going to compete well with the likes for Toyota for the small car market - amaizng common sense buys for less than £9K

The super mini market is tough as old boots, price will be everything. Engines aside.

 

Crikey the Alfa Mito is such an ugly pig of a car :rofl: I used to love Alfas but there new offerings well not much to say really :rofl: the MG3 looks miles better to me even if that is classed as pig ugly too :rofl:

Simon

 

Yes it is and yes it is.
The R550/MG6 started as the longer wheelbase RDX60 being designed exclusively for the Chinese.
This was part of the IP SAIC got hold of.

The R95 is a Ssangyong President.

 

The R550/MG6 started as the longer wheelbase RDX60 being designed exclusively for the Chinese.
This was part of the IP SAIC got hold of.

Part of the reason the SAIC/MG Rover JV talks collapsed was because SAIC saw RDX60 for the complete dog that it was. Do you really think they carried on developing a car they had completely rejected?

Also as I recall the RDX60 platform featured a new kind of leaf spring rear suspension - MG Rover obtained the UK patent for it in around 2004.

The R550/MG6 platform features a 5 link multilink independent rear suspension (note that it is NOT a BMW "z axle" even though both features 5 links - which happens to be the normal number in a multi-link IRS)

 

All these discussions go round and round in circles with all parties disagreeing.

As I said we all make points the other disagree with and no one is ever right or wrong.

Whats the point ?

"I say the MG6 was based on MGR tech you say it isnt."

How does anyone ever really know if anyone is ever right ?

Im sure there are parties here close enough to really know but they never let on so no one can ever really win.

 

All these discussions go round and round in circles with all parties disagreeing.

As I said we all make points the other disagree with and no one is ever right or wrong.

Whats the point ?

I say the MG6 was based on MGR tech you say it isnt.

How does anyone ever know it anyone is ever right ?

You're right, we will never know for sure, but SAIC have used bits of IP from everywhere else. I don't see why the RDX60 IP which they paid for and owned fair and square would be the one part they discarded when everything else in the portfolio was used.
If I was trying to bring a new medium sized car to market and had one 50% complete in my posession I would use that. Saves on time and money.

 

Late 2013 for the MG5... ouch

 

ouch indeed, I'd heard late 2012 / early 2013. Although that said, that is when the 3 is due, so perhaps its wise to spread the launches out by a few months.

 

PS PatrickT, I was responding to post 58.

 

Hi Rog, thanks for the very informative post - very useful when someone's got direct experience of a car and engine not available to most of us!

At least we found out the reasons behind the cast iron block and the info re: MG6 diesel sounds good - I've heard one running, but nothing more than that!

 

This is one of those emotive threads where much of the time innacuracy is posted and which can become 'fact' if repeated enough times, so I would like to add a couple of points from direct experience of this engine and driving the Roewe 350 in its Chinese market specification with a 5 speed manual gearbox.

The overall spec of the car was by European standards a povety model so that meant the interior plastics, and NVH levels were adequate but somewhat short of what would be expected for the European market, fine for its target audience. Even with this low level attention to NVH the mechanical aspect was clearly a very good base onto which the SMTC can Europeanise it for MG5 (same platform) and I am really hopeful that this could be the model to watch, if MG Motor is given the room from Shanghai it wants to create the models we want.

Remember the UK is a drop in a very big ocean as far as SAIC is converned, and the attraction of European sales from even a couple of years ago are now so subdued that there is no desire to rush in there and spend shed loads of money. They are still entering though.

It was very interesting parking the white 350 next to a white MG6 so the lines of each car could be compared. The 6 was tall and gangly with the 350 low and squat. The detail body pressings and panel gaps were sharper on the 350 (probably connected with the original development done by Ssanyong when SAIC owned them) and overall my view was to just think of what SMTC have achieved turning the 550 into the UK MG6 and what they could do to the 350 in making a UK MG5 if given leeway would mean we will have something to look forward too.

NSE engines. I have seen the 1.5 in fully stripped down form and its thin walled iron block is a 'work of art' and the fine details in the casting process and the material used leaves K series behind, even though initially I raised the same question as to why cast iron rather than alloy. The bottom line is added strength with a thinner casting that hardly affects weight, gives a cost saving, is not as susceptible to porosity and distortion under load. The head was another fine piece of alloy casting and this appeared to be better as cast than what I expect with K series, and I love the K series.

107 bhp and a reasonable amount of torque is adequate for its current market, but only acceptable for the 'shopping trolley' market in Europe, but then this will only work when there is a halo model probably using the 1.5 turbo model rated at 115kw, (153bhp) to do the job halo models always have, which is to give the model range the appeal, then sell shed loads of basic models that look the same.

I see references to the 1.8 turbo but I see little point in going this route, with the 115Kw 1.5 turbo engine other than a short term fill in, and with the NLE engine range in the background with 2.0, 2.4 and 2.0 turbo four pots in the background, with from memory 105, 130 and 165Kw respectively (approx 140 173 and 220bhp for those misreading the Kw figures and thinking these are BHP or PS)

The stripped 1.5 engine I examined had been under hot test for a huge number of hours (I can't remember how long) and the internal components were in an as new condition (which I would expect) and the information was that this 107bhp spec and the lesser 1.3 (China only if memory serves correctly) was at the bottom of their development ladder and this engine could climb quite alot.

As an aside I also see a great future for the new 1.9 diesel, which is sweet and impressively powerful in the development mode. This should light a fire under the MG6 in more ways than one and assuming it is allowed into the MG3 and MG5 then this should give the cars the performance to live up to MG expectations, but with appropriately sensible fuel returns and emissions.

We have to remember that whilst there is hundreds of years experience building current and leading edge cars in the SMTC, and they are still pushing to keep the leading edge as sharp as possible, there is a degree of reluctance and questions of 'why do we need that' from the paymasters in Shanghai, who perhaps understandably are more inwardly focussed.

Rog

 

Even with this low level attention to NVH the mechanical aspect was clearly a very good base onto which the SMTC can Europeanise it for MG5 (same platform) and I am really hopeful that this could be the model to watch, if MG Motor is given the room from Shanghai it wants to create the models we want.

That sums up in one paragraph every argument over MG as it stands... SAIC have to let the UK guys have the freedom they need to make cars that will sell and gain respect here, not be hamstrung by Chinese views on design and what they think we should be happy with.

If they can get their heads around this (fairly simple) concept then there's hope... if not... best thing I can say is no comment

 

Indeed, but if the tax stopped being based on CO2 emissions for whatever reason, noone would care about it. The only reason people care about emissions is because of tax bands.

The economy thing I agree with, but I remain unconvinced that the advertised figures are close to attainable in the real world (some magazine did a study on it and the results were pretty shocking), particularly with smaller 'eco' cars. With smaller cars (e.g. Clio 1.5 dCI) I struggle to come close to the urban figures, but with bigger cars (e.g. ZT160 V6) I'm managing the combined figures. Same driving patterns, routes (mostly M/A roads off-peak) and habits.

 

Power was not such an issue (I have that elsewhere) but the tax band is directly related to emissions. Whilst I don't care much for Co2 output it does dictate the running costs unfortunately .