MG-Rover.org Forums banner
1 - 20 of 67 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,733 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Well, the rumour mongers over the past few months have been predicting an MG SUV. Well, BMW and Porsche have both produced sports SUVs, and everyone thought they couldn't do it. Now Land Rover are about to launch their new sports SUV so maybe the time is right for an MG SUV as well?

So, what does the forum think? Should MG have an SUV, if so, what does it need to have to be an MG? Should it focus on performance? What sort of price point should it come in at? Would you buy one?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,662 Posts
Yep think its a good idea if its done properly. Would have to have a unit body construction to make it lightweight and handle properly (X5) and AWD. Could base it on the RD60???

Theres lots i would love to see but we dont even know whats up with the new hatch yet...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
446 Posts
If there is a market for them (yes) then they should supply that market.

Personally I woudn't buy one, nor any 4WD as I don't need one and I won't chuck extra cash away on something that is no use to me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
941 Posts
NO, in bold italics.

Can't abide the things. Given that MGs are supposed to centre on driving pleasure in a relatively affordable package, where does an SUV come in? Cumbersome, unwieldy, dangerous to drive in some situations. buggers up the environment........need I go on?

I can understand the argument that they are popular right now, and MG (and Rover) needs new metal that will shift. But that doesn't mean they should produce one of these monstrosities. Other types of car sell too.

And while we are on the subject, I don't think SUVs sit too well with what I consider Rover values too.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,662 Posts
Ian Senior said:
Cumbersome, unwieldy, dangerous to drive in some situations. buggers up the environment
In what way would a 2.0 diesel or 1.8 petrol (as in freelander) "bugger up the environment" more than a 2.5 V6 ZT, ZS, 75, ZT etc???

In what way is car with a length of 4.4m/width 2m more unwieldy and cumbersome than a 75 with a length of 4.75m/width 2m???

And why is it more dangerous?

If you dont like 4x4s and dont want MGR to make one fine but dont fall for this anti-4x4 stuff.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,119 Posts
Nope.

This would only show how desperate MG-R is to try and win some sales and the Public would see this. No matter how hard MG-R try they will never be able to keep up with their old room mate Land Rover.

Plus the fact as it has already been mentioned MG is not about big bulky 4x4's. Its about small Roadsters that handle like Gnats. Neither is Rover for this matter. O.K they may have already tried to enter the Volume producing phase, but this has backfired on them somewhat over recent years. Rover should be about small to large affordable luxury cars, and I dont think a 4x4 would fit snugly into there.

Plus the fact MG-R are already too late, the market for these vehicles has been flooded by German, American, Japanese, more recently Korean and soon to be French models, so there is going to be plenty of, if too much Competition for them.

If there was ever a diamond opportunity for them to have entered the Market then it would have been during the early Pathfinder/Oden project when Competition in this market was at its lowest.

Sad but true.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
446 Posts
StreetBoy said:
In what way would a 2.0 diesel or 1.8 petrol (as in freelander) "bugger up the environment" more than a 2.5 V6 ZT, ZS, 75, ZT etc???

In what way is car with a length of 4.4m/width 2m more unwieldy and cumbersome than a 75 with a length of 4.75m/width 2m???

And why is it more dangerous?

If you dont like 4x4s and dont want MGR to make one fine but dont fall for this anti-4x4 stuff.
First point: They are less efficient. For a given engine size, the heavier car (including stronger chassis, suspension component and diff gear) uses more fuel to carry out the same task. A Freelander 1.8 should be compared against a 1.8 any other car. A bigger engine is chosen for a given task. And then we come to shed-like aerodynamics......

Second point: Higher ground clearance = higher centre of gravity, plus weight.

Third point: In most situations the SUV is considered more dangerous, due to it's weight, structural strength (transmits impact loads to cabin), high C of G etc. They have a lot of weight to stop. In addition the high bonnet with its flat front does greater damage to pedestrians (and with bull bars even worse). The only situation where the SUV wins is in in favour of the SUV occupants in a collision with a normal car - in which case it is more dangerous than normal cars to the other driver/passengers. Not good.

I have nothing against people owning them by the way, don't take this post as anti-suv as I think people are entitled to spend their money however they wish. But I wouldn't waste mine.
 

·
Registered
other_rover
Joined
·
8,737 Posts
New SUV needed to save dealers...

For me it comes down to this. If a new SUV can be delivered quickly (via Ssangyong) then MG must take it, simply because the dealers need something badly. My local dealer (in LEAMINGTON SPA) has just closed. How many others will follow if MGR doesn't deliver some new good quality metal in the next 6 months. By new I don't mean the MG TF GT or Rover 75 Coupe. By quality I don't mean CityRover. I mean NEW and uptodate!

An SUV from Ssangyong, that has been "Z" ified fits the bill!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,428 Posts
NO.

I don't think it will sell many, since people don't associate SUV with MG. Best to leave it to the Koreans, IMO.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
446 Posts
andy said:
NO.

I don't think it will sell many, since people don't associate SUV with MG. Best to leave it to the Koreans, IMO.
I know it's a different animal but you could say the same about BMW before the X5 and Porsche before the Cayenne.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,119 Posts
But the thing is when people see one of them, they see solid reliable transport. If people see an old Ssangyong with a Rover badge on they will see cheap tacky Korean rubbish that Rover are trying to flog at a premium price. (again)

Which is Exactly what they don't need at the moment.

If they are going to make a 4x4 they need to make one of their own, with new technology and possible based on the R-60 Platform. Or even better make their own...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,733 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 · (Edited)
MGROVERnut said:
Yes! MGR need new metal and if a new SUV is good enough for Porsche....
Needing new metal isn't a good enough reason. Rover needed some new metal a couple of years ago, so they went and had a chat with TATA. They got some new metal, but not a lot else.

For my two-cents worth, if MG are going to produce an SUV, it has got to be sporty, with powerful engines and drop-dead interior. It has also got to handle well, but preferably capable of sopping up some of the bumps as well -difficult to achieve in a big, high up car. Just as Jeremy Clarkson what he thinks of the BMW X3.

Remember a few years ago, Porsche were associated with small sportscars that handled like gnats (not that I know what a gnat is like to handle), but they made an SUV and it works for them. It looks great - although I'm prepared to accept it is a little unusual in its looks - and sells in good quantities.

Same could be said of BMW. BMW have always been associated with sporting and executive saloons, not SUVs. But BMW have made it work very well for them.

But the market is starting to get crowded now. For MG to succeed, they have to produce something that is very different to what is available today. To me, that says go for a similar market to BMW, but at a lower price point: a fast, sporty, competent handling, good looking SUV.

We all know that MG can make a car handle. My worry is that an MG SUV won't have powerful enough engines. SUVs are big, heavy and aerodynamically as efficient as a double decker bus going sideways. To make a car that can live up to its nametag as a sporty SUV, you have to have engine options capable of taking an SUV and hurling it at the horizon at quite a rate of knots. You also need to have some level of fuel economy, which means having big, powerful diesels as well as petrol engines. On the petrol side, the 2½ litre KV6 has a reasonable pair of legs on it, but for people to take notice, a more powerful KV6, or even a V8, is going to be necessary. On the diesel side...errr...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,733 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
Bazzer_Mcbead said:
All in all, Money that need not be spend IMO...

Why? How much is it going to cost?

If it is based on the Rexton, why should it actually cost MG anything at all? Ssang Yong want sales, if they are prepared to build the car to MGs specification, the costs for actually putting it into production could be very low indeed.

Take one Rexton, replace the grille, headlights, front and rear bumpers, add side skirts, replace the fake wood on the interior with fake carbon fibre, rip out the seats and put in MG ZT sports seats and do some other MG-izing and you are half way there. Yes, I know, this all costs money, but how much? Surely theres change from a million for that lot? Not a lot to get a brand new car.

Since my last post, I've seen that the Rexton now comes with a 163bhp Turbo Diesel, which is half way towards being okay, and a 160bhp petrol derivative. That needs to be looked at, because it is no way enough, but would mean there are some mid-range options available already. That would mean MG-Rover and Ssang Yong would need to concentrate on a more powerful choice of engines - 187bhp KV6 would be a start. The car could be launched with those three engine options and the promise of a V8 in due course...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
446 Posts
boxwellm said:
To me, that says go for a similar market to BMW, but at a lower price point: a fast, sporty, competent handling, good looking SUV.
You are describing the turbo version of the Subaru Forrester.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,222 Posts
SUVs are bought by people that don't have a clue about cars, they're only interested in the image of the car (if they did have a clue, they would either buy an people carrier or a "real" 4x4 :D ). So they like to be seen in an Audi, BMW or Porsche SUV. I don't think a MG SUV will ever be a big succes.

Bazzer_Mcbead said:
MG is not about big bulky 4x4's.
Neither was Porsche ;).
 

·
Registered
other_rover
Joined
·
8,737 Posts
boxwellm said:
Needing new metal isn't a good enough reason. Rover needed some new metal a couple of years ago, so they went and had a chat with TATA. They got some new metal, but not a lot else.
QUOTE]

They also got the Rover 600 by buying the design off the shelf from Honda. I quite liked that car....
 

·
Registered
other_rover
Joined
·
8,737 Posts
I suppose there are 2 ways of looking at this:

1.) Do we want MG to make SUV's? (an enthusiasts view)

2.) Does it matter what we want, MGR and their dealers need new products yesterday! (a bank managers view)

Personally I go with option 2, because I fear the worst if MGR don't begin to make a profit soon.
 
1 - 20 of 67 Posts
Top