Rover R30 - The Car That Killed Rover

[@HarborLockRoad]

Even as an american, i feel your pain in losing your national car brands , myself having lived through the losses of studebaker, american motors, pontiac, oldsmobile, saturn, plymouth, mercury....

[@RobSinner]

We're about to lose Seat in Spain, I never had one but everyone around had or has Seat, it feels like it belongs to Spanish streets, I guess it's time for Cupra... (Which I love, but is just too expensive)

[@fortune300]

@@RobSinner But isn´t is so that Seat in practice only changes the name of the brand to Cupra? I think everything will be pretty much the same.

[@boboutelama5748]

Yes, and soon, Ford and GM will follow.

[@jaskajokunen3716]

@@fortune300 Yeah cupra is basically just souped up seat.

[@GFY127]

@@RobSinner you lost it in 1986 when the Spanish government sold it to VW

[@erikhesjedal3569]

Hey Rory, just want to say it's refreshing that you don't nag all the time for liking and subscribing your videos. They are so good that we dont need the prompt!

[@randomsttuffbrummie7374]

Definitely agree with you there! Can't stand the ones that start the video with the standard, "don't forget to hit like and subscribe" How can you like a video before you've watched it?!?!? Does my nut in!

[@DarkKnightwing75]

It’s Ruaridh

[@dannyDC2]

you say that, but ive been watching for a long time and just realised, from your comment, that I wasn't subscribed! the power of the algorithm

[@calum5975]

@@DarkKnightwing75 I love how on this reply Google auto translates it to Rory

[@geecars6263]

@@DarkKnightwing75 kzbin.info/www/bejne/f2KsfmZthL5jgck

[@bakaneiro]

Rovers and MG were super popular in Portugal back them. We simply loved this brand

[@restojon1]

The Rover story is an incredibly sad and multifaceted one, thank you for doing it justice. I'm still driving my 75. I love the old barge. I hope that you don't get the BL/ARG foemers coming here "counting your rivets" etc. It is possible to be a Rover fan without being unhinged, although a sense of humour is often required 😉

[@scabbycatcat4202]

When I first saw the Rover 75 I thought it looked sensational. I felt sure it would be a massive success. When I discovered they were making a Diesel model I just knew it was the car for me. When i went to look at it and sat inside it was flippin orrible. I wanted a car not a mobile mausoleum. I wonder how many others felt the same.?

[@freddieellis8449]

Whenever I see I Rover 75, I laugh and ask WHY?! 😂😂😂😂

[@wobblybobengland]

@@scabbycatcat4202 The German idea of how a British car should look

[@Simon-ui6db]

Scrapped my 75 connie se diesel last week due to spiralling costs running it. Shame as no other car ive owned comes close to the look and feel of driving them. Gone to a low milesage 56 plate vectra sri 1.8 petrol. Deffo a downgrade I know, but parts much cheaper and so much room under the bonnet to work on. Hope your 75 continues for many years to come. ( mine was on over 140k )

[@scabbycatcat4202]

@@Simon-ui6db Well i hope you like driving your Vectra as much as I like mine. 15 years old. 193000 miles , not a bit of rust. Wafts along the motorway at 70 doing 2000rpm with just a bit of wind noise, engine almost silent whilst returning 57mpg ( 1.9 cdti diesel ). I've kept the car longer than any other Ive owned because I like it so much. Also when its washed and polished it might have just come out of the showroom . Superb motor

[@BigCar2]

Fascinating Rory - thanks for delving into this one! It would be interesting to hear from BMW 1 engineers to see if the rumours are true.

[@jonathangray7374]

As a BMW technician the E87/E90 platform was quite an odd departure from the previous cars. It certainly seemed like it was designed by other people

[@1greenMitsi]

the rover looks way better imo

[@huleyn135]

@BM i mean he himself literally stated that especially with modern cars he just goes off what he can find on the internet since the people who made em are still working in the companies.

[@huwzebediahthomas9193]

K-series - used to drill four small 5mm holes in the thermostat top, so had water flow through radiator from cold. Stopped engine temperature overshooting until thermostat fully opened. Simple trick used by many.

[@roygardiner2229]

Wow! Does that have a downside? I am not a practical chap but simple fixes appeal to me.

[@denisohbrien]

@@roygardiner2229 yes it does, she over cools in the winter.. my preferred method was 1 3mm hole to allow some coolant flow, then put a hose barb on all the bleed points and route it to the header tank so as to alleviate airlocks. I drag raced a turbocharged k-series, so would regularly run to much boost, and pop a gasket, this setup allowed the car to be driven with a blown gasket and no overheating. I got a lot of power out the k-series but there no arguing the later wet liner engines were flawed. gaskets were a service item. thankfully a very easy job to do..

[@skylined5534]

The drilling holes in the 'stat was a crap solution to a problem that wasn't there. Fit a decent quality thermostat with a backflow valve for bleeding and make sure the IMG gasket is in good order.

[@macjim]

If it hadn’t been for the Metro, the rover group would have folded much earlier than it did. The story I’d like to hear is the one about Phoenix, who were the last owners. This is, as far as I’m concerned, a dark period in the story and one that wasn’t completely all above board… there’s a murky story to be found in that I think.

[@charlesmoss8119]

Less murky than you might think. Yes they paid themselves well but they could have taken far more - it was business and they got a fabulous deal. The principle issue is from day one the company was doomed, volumes were far too low and so it always had to be a find a buyer job - with mass market pricing and luxury brand volumes it was a losing battle from day one. There were some good people at the company, but you need volume and free cash to fund their ideas and there just wasn’t much, and yes the directors took a million here and there but the the investment needed was 500 not 5 million. There are some interesting parts to this though - so the possible replacements for the 45 saw cars from the Proton to the Fiat considered, but finding a partner at the volumes they could offer was also tough. Interesting times!!

[@Hairysnid]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/jJeafJaFmL1onbc

[@timbounds7190]

@@charlesmoss8119 Not sure I'm with you there. I recall that there was a bid from an organisation called Alchemy, which, if I remember correctly, was based around promoting MG as a sporting brand. This may have been nonsense, but at least they had a plan, of sorts. The Phoenix guys never seemed to have any plan for the future at all, apart from to stumble on much as before. I'm not a business genius, but even I could see this was going to fail. And then it transpired that they had organised the firm in the best possible to way to give themselves the maximum amount of money, whilst not investing at all. So...I'm with Mac Jim - I think Murky is one word for Phoenix, bordering on fraudulent.

[@grahamariss2111]

@@timbounds7190 The Phoenix plan I believe was to find a buyer, they had a 500 million loan from BMW (a deal from a north Carolina Bank but underwritten by BMW and notably written off by them on day 1, so they never expected to see their money again) which was expected (and ended up) being able to keep them alive for 5 years. Towers had been involved in the BAe days with Honda and most notably the PSA deals on gearbox and diesel engines. I think it was clear even before they bought it from BMW that Honda was not taking any calls, but PSA at that time were having a sales boom with the 206 and could not meet demand from their factories including Ryton, I think he thought he could broker a deal with PSA. When they did not bite then he was off to find a manufacturer in the developing world. He get a deal though in 2002, which is when Fiat approached MG Rover to do what they had done to the Accord to make the Rover 600 with the Fiat Stilo which despite being a decent enough car to go toe to toe with the Golf had failed to get traction in the market, so Fiat and its suppliers had plenty of capacity. I suspect with hindsight he regrets rejecting it.

[@2ndbaritone]

Indeed. But @Tim Bounds: they had a plan clearer than tap water: stealing a big fat pile out if it and let others clean up the debris left.

[@markdc1145]

As part of a BMW liaison team working in the UK in the late '90s, this video brought back many memories. Sorry the R30 never saw the light of day but glad the Mini became a big success despite the odds.

[@markdc1145]

@Wallace Carney With BMW it was...and still is!

[@martinwoodworth3715]

@@markdc1145 It might have 'Mini' badges & be a good car in itself but it really is not a mini. I don't know what Rover would have come up with had Bmw not took it, but I would like to think it would have been a much smaller car, not with a bonnet bigger than a Vauxhall vectra. Never understood how that could come about. Also the original Mini had small engines so cheap to insure. But the Bmw had a 1.6 litre engine, way way bigger than any engine in the original mini. Can't argue they're a success but I don't like them.

[@anthonytelford7876]

@Wallace Carney Mark DC didn't quite get the irony... the Mini was, of course, a success with BMC/BL/ARG and remained in production longer than any of its contemporaries.

[@anthonytelford7876]

​@@martinwoodworth3715 The 'BMW' Mini was already a Rover Group Mini before BMW bought into it. Certainly it benefitted from more engineering & development money since the takeover, but it was already largely designed by 1994. I know, because I was there in the 90's...

[@martinwoodworth3715]

@@anthonytelford7876 I did put that but the end result is nothing like a retro of the original mini. As an example of a retro car that is a good retro, the Fiat 500. .Ok if you were there but did the pre bmw rover (new) mini in 1994 have that massive bonnet bigger than a vectra bonnet? When the original mini was known for its small bonnet. Whats that about? Also the much wider bigger back end must have been down to bmw as they put there rear axle in it.

[@numbereightyseven]

That R55 mock-up at 8:55 is one of the most handsome cars I've ever seen.

[@ididntfindafunnyname]

That is indeed gorgeous and would have been a smash hit!

[@Inflator82]

It looked like a mini-Bentley and even better than 75. I would fuck it like crazy.

[@skylined5534]

Looks like an Americanised BMW... and no bad thing! Handsome beast indeed.

[@alterego7799]

A Chrysler 300 with 1st gen Skoda superb headlights and a Rover grille, hideous.

[@garyorchard4195]

@@ididntfindafunnyname until top gear pi55ed on it's chips as they did with anything built in britain

[@paullacey2999]

When Rover worked with Honda they made great reliable cars.Getting tied to BMW was a huge error.....

[@MybeautifulandamazingPrincess]

BMW kept Rover afloat to prevent bankruptcy. It's not their fault the brand failed, blame your own government for the fall of the car industry in the UK

[@walterhenderson2155]

BMWs are overrated, overpriced, and unreliable.

[@brycmtthw]

Rover had no say in what British Aerospace did with them, neither did Honda.

[@darrenmitchell5262]

The R30 never killed Rover. The Phoenix Four killed Rover. They had the chance to use the Fiat Stilo platform for the R30 but turned it down, with no other option on the table. They wasted millions on re-engineering the 75 to take a Mustang V8 to create a sporty flagship, wasted millions more on creating the XPower SV, then introduced the CityRover, a badge engineered Tata Indica made in India. They previewed many designs for the 25 and 45 replacements but failed to find a technical partner to make these cars a reality, and in all that time its range was dated and sales were dropping. The tie-up with Honda in the 80s was probably Rover’s most successful time. British Aerospace couldn’t make the brand work and neither could BMW, who failed it miserably. It was never going to work under the Phoenix Four, they spent too long dragging their heals on developing replacements for their core models, the brand’s demise was inevitable.

[@christophermorris4087]

Ruairidh, would be great if you did a video on the history of Dennis

[@JuanAlvarez-cw4yc]

I have a Rover 75, bought 3 years ago as Sunday car. Lovely to drive, smooth ride. But the rest of Rover lineup except for slow selling MG TF was aging on the early 2000s. By 2005 even their newer car, the 75, was old hat. Dated cars to compete against modern cars as Clios, Peugeot 307, Renault Meganes, etc

[@1BCamden]

Depressing is an understatement, eye opening episode, thanks for this insight

[@chucky2316]

Depressing if you ever owned the rubbish yes

[@lauriecooper8194]

The R30 could have been a world beater. Without doubt the most informative history of the final moments of the Rover group which I've seen. Thank you.

[@classic_britain]

@BM Indeed still a good video

[@huleyn135]

@BM then explain. You mentioned this everywhere.

[@studiocalder818]

Loved the Rover cars. I was really sorry when Rover was closed. The kidnapping of the brand is also very unpleasant. As a student my father wanted to give me a Rover SD1 because he liked it and thought it was a sturdy car, but I was Alfista and proud, so I bought an old Alfa GTj (which I still have) with my little money. The trader was baffled 😄

[@MINKIN2]

Thanks for this. Been looking out for a video on this car ever since I first saw the images in an old Big Car video.

[@-DC-]

Amazing Rover limped on as long as it did, They had some superbly talented staff and worked miracles on tiny budgets, The Labour Government have ALOT to answer for over this debacle.

[@stuarthart3370]

A lot of people forget their prototypes with gas turbine or jet engines. I really like the symbol of the ship on the badge!

[@GB_GeorgiaF]

Why would Labour care about Rover, when they were too busy trying to private 80% of the NHS.

[@conradmeinecke5861]

thatcher's government have as much of a case to answer, considering they started the whole sorry chain of events by selling arg to bae

[@ruipereira1143]

Thank You Rover❤

[@42krikkit]

The Rover story (as well as that of the entire British car industry) is an interesting one that has more than a few similarities with that of Saab cars. Too little, too late.

[@paulc9588]

Both were too small and lacking in resources to survive without major financial and technical support. The market share and level of profitability they could attain did not warrant such investment unfortunately. 'A strong brand but a weak business' has been used to describe Saab and it applies to Rover too.

[@RUfromthe40s]

@@paulc9588 the problem with SAAB cars was only when GM took over they ordered the SAAB engeniers to convert a vectra ,opel or vauxhall in a saab but there were problems and in the third body belonging to GM ,this because Vectras allthough they are good cars they can never achieve SAAB quality, the last time was related with the GM GPS service ,the amount of money given to built SAAB using the vectra as it´s base was spent only making more acurate the GPS system and that was the last SAAB and one can notice the bad quality on SAABs compared when SAAB was it´s own owner, i had a 900 turbo and a late 80´s 9000 turbo both were fast and great cars with wankel engine that was seen by saab mechanics that at the end of several thousands of km´s needs a new piston in the rotor and all owners try to run from that then there very good looking cars with the engine destroyd or working bad ,like those last 9000 turbo´s already in the 90´s that had not the big window in the back ,porshe 929 style or 944, i bought two in mint condition for what today is 1.500€´s and from two i refurbished one engine and kept the other for parts that weren´t sold anymore but like door handles and the seats. It´s a pitty that cars like saab and volvo are not as they used to be, unique in the world , i still own a 1962 volvo that sems to do not want to die it works till the end of days, the thing is that looks very old but when driving it it feels better than most of the new cars ,cheap ones

[@paulc9588]

@@RUfromthe40s No doubt what you are saying is true, but Saab would still have failed had it not become part of a larger group. GM was not a great partner and did not invest in the brand like they should have, instead cheapening it and effectively leaving it to wither on the vine. But at least they kept Saab going for a decade or so longer than would have been possible had the brand remained independent. Saab (like Volvo) was in the 'near premium' grey zone and gradually squeezed out of the market from above and below. The big 3 German premium brands expanded and began offering smaller and more affordable family cars that encroached on Saab territory. The mid-market brands were at the same time creeping upmarket by offering ever more desirable, technologically advanced and higher quality cars that left Saab (and Volvo to some extent) with an impossibly smal niche that was not economically viable. No point in trying to be different if the buyers are not there and you cannot make a profit unfortunately. I am a fan of both Volvo and Saab, in fact I drove Volvos for 24 years so understand what Swedish cars can offer. This though is more about the business than the cars. Saab was a small operation and did not have the capital, R&D, marketing, production capability, economies of scale etc. to compete with much larger and better financed competitors offering similar products. If they had found a better partner (like Volvo eventually did with Geely) then things might have been different. At least they left us with some great memories!

[@RUfromthe40s]

@@paulc9588 you say that their technology was inferior to german brands ,i think not they were as luxurious as others and in the 70´s were above any BMW wich i own a lot of them ,not comparable, both volvo and saab were only under the S´s from mercedes , i drove in the 90´s a 75 car from saab that was all luxurious very similar in shape with the 900 turbo but older ,everything inside was red suede ,the soud system was one of the most advanced and in the 70´s my father bought a huge volvo 3.0L V6 that was all luxury at the same time fast not comparable with the 5 series of those years that i own two a 74 and a 1980 this last with 3.5L injection engine but the body was the same of my 74 520 or similar, but luxury brands all failed starting with rolls royce/bentley and volvo had a model with renault engine wich was for a lot of years a partnership ,SAAB only ended because of Gm not wanting them to have a better car than the vectra but any saab released till then was very superior to a Opel, which i also owned the mid 70´s Senator and not as luxurious as SAAb or Volvo, regards

[@paulc9588]

@@RUfromthe40s I did not say that. Please re-read and try to absorb the valid points I make. This is not about the cars, it is about the impossible market position that Saab found itself in due to small size and lack of resources.

[@kevinjackson7340]

bmw had no intentions of keeping Rover going, they wanted the mini, range rover and land rover.

[@ChatterboxFM]

Excellent as always! There were so many “what ifs” that I could only dream of the collaborations.. BMW and Chrysler is something I would have loved to see..

[@daniellilly_]

What a brilliant documentary. A history lesson for those of us who have never known but always wondered. 👏👏👏⭐️

[@XantoS771]

BMW has a reputation of buying out brands. They did to Glas Cars (in the 60s) exactly the same thing they did to Rover (90s-00). They even sold Glas Cars with BMW badges in their last years of production.

[@pbgbr]

Missed opportunity that Rover & Honda could’ve teamed up and created a new mini during the early nineties.

[@grahamariss2111]

BAe were not interested (and probably not able) to invest the money necessary to develop a new mini, even using a Honda platform. They planned to let the Mini die in 96.

[@martinwoodworth3715]

@@grahamariss2111 I heard Rover were designing a new Mini. But Bmw took over those designs when they bought Rover so they ended with the massive non mini of today. I might be wrong though.

[@grahamariss2111]

@@martinwoodworth3715 There was a design study at BAe that envisaged taking the existing mini, replacing the A series with a 3 cylinder K Series, putting the fuel tank under floor of the rear seat to meet post 2000 crash regs and making the rear glass lift up like a Hillman Imp instead of a boot. It got as far as a non running mock up but BAe were not interested in taking it further, concluding that such an update was 10 years too late. When BMW came in and their design team was given a brief to look at 911 like evolution of the Mini they asked Gaydon what had been done over the years in the UK and they showed them this. BMW team then comissiined a team at Gaydon to do a wide mini using Rover 100 subframes and dashboard with a 1.4 K series engine and widening floor, roof etc. The German team were skeptical of its appeal when they first saw it, it was by modern standards crude and unrefined, until the Brits who had built it took them to Wales to play with it on the Welsh roads and then they got the point, it was that car that was said to be inspiration for the German studios proposal for the new MINI Cooper.

[@martinwoodworth3715]

@@grahamariss2111 Thanks for that, sounds interesting.

[@furness804productions]

If Rover were to have teamed up with another company to create a new Mini in say the mid 80s, it could’ve been VW. Think about it, the VW Beetle design was getting on in years, as was the Mini, so it would make sense that both companies would want to renew an older design.

[@richarddownes5762]

A very interesting video. I was working with BMW GB back then and was involved with some dealings with the guys from Rover. The culture at Rover was very different from BMW and I was never a believer in the 'hands off' approach. There were some good guys working there - and many not so good. One of the good ones and one that I recruited into my team is now the MD of BMW UK... Interesting times eh?

[@kriskalpa]

BMW don't get enough credit for saving MINI. MINI only exists today because of BMW vision and perseverance despite Rover. Thank you BMW!

[@charliebrown4573]

@@kriskalpa BMW is the reason Rover is no longer here they shafted us they only wanted the 4x4 tech we should have been sold to Honda

[@kriskalpa]

@@charliebrown4573 I agree that Honda would have been a better fit but they would also have made big changes. The Japanese work ethic and that of Rover are very different. I'm sad Rover perished as it had so much opportunity but I also don't think it would ever have been realised. The only reason I see MINI cars everywhere is because of BMW's investment and creative vision and I'm thankful to them for doing that. Rover's Mini vision would have followed Smart into the sales black hole. Don't overlook that BMW provide many jobs in the UK thanks to that ongoing investment.

[@garyhitchcock3828]

​@charliebrown4573 Unfortunately Honda didn't want to buy Rover outright they hadn't the money at the time they were approached by the Rover side (BAe) and refused to increase their 20% stake in Rover where as BMW did sad indeed 😢

[@charliebrown4573]

@@garyhitchcock3828 You are wrong. As someone who was involved in all of this I can tell you exactly what happened. The approach was made at a motor trades dinner, Honda was never involved ,they were upset when it all came out as they wanted to develop the engine plant. BMW were the only ones who were approached as they wanted Land Rover so they could have a vehicle to beat the g wagon

[@mikehindson-evans159]

Thanks for an informative and well-researched history lesson. Every time I go around the Gaydon Mausoleum, I see prototypes from the British stable (like the TR7 Lynx) and think "if only". My wife and I had a very enjoyable BMW 1-series, brand new on an 06 plate about 18 months into production, which served us well for a number of years and 91k miles. If only...

[@FrightfulAccountant]

The Rover 200 coupe is one of my all time favourites. Never understood all the hatred for the Honda co-designed cars. They were very trendy, well build and doing great in sales. Yes the fashion has changed but then this were cars on part with the taste of the consumer. The BMW era Rover 75 on the other hand, if it was an outfit we would call it Dark Academia. Nobody in 1999 wanted that car, it was so out of fashion at that time.

[@thedarkknight1971]

I agree. I LOVED my 1992 214 SLi... Frugal when driving steady, very nippy when you wanted to hustle, handled pretty well. And when I had a brief ownership of a 216 Coupe, I LOVED that too! (alas DVLA/VOSA took my coupe as I'd been ripped off by some twat who changed it's ID and advertised it, it all looked good, paperwork seemed all fine, but, I got screwed, £750 and no car, BASTARD! He got arrested though YAY! I soon learnt my lesson though). But anyway, I didn't suffer any of the known Head troubles with the Rover/Honda K engines...

[@RUfromthe40s]

@@thedarkknight1971 honda made Rover a great brand again and no matter how Bmw in mid 90´s anounced that had bought the brand but honda had not sell nothing that´s when in court of law it was decided that honda and bmw would share the brand ,as an example i owned a 600 with 1.8 turbo-diesel engine from BMW the ones who bought the 2.0L gasoline engine were still honda´s

[@RUfromthe40s]

i had a sport/coupé that i liked a lot but it had the early 90´s finishings of the 400 but called 220i ,targa type ,all built by Honda a low car or sportive one ,not the body of 3 doors called 214 instead of 414 coupé

[@thedarkknight1971]

@@RUfromthe40s That's interesting, I don't remember seeing one here in UK (just Google images it, looks cool). @Rui Cameira Yeah there some GOOD Rovers back in those days. Yeah there was the issue with the heads on K series, but, some basic maintenance could very well help with avoiding that. And, if encountered, a well machined head/barrel would stop that completely. It was a solid motor (hence a new Resurgence' in people looking for good K series for tuning and engine swaps nowadays. But in either case, I loved both my 214SLi 5 door and 216 Coupe, as they were both great to drive, handled well and we're both zippy and frugal (a bit of a contradiction I suppose lol). 🤔😏. 😎🇬🇧

[@markwanklyn4195]

I had a 1994 218SD Turbo - put around 85K miles on it in the six years I owned it and it never broke down once - was on the original clutch and exhaust when I sold it and I got 52K out of the front tyres (mostly motorway / A road trips). Friend had a 1995 214SEi and often used it as a builder's van (eg boot full of bags of cement & towing a small trailer) and again it never gave any problems. He also had a late 96 220SDi Turbo (one that came after the last of the wedge shape model) - that thing was quick for a diesel for that era and again very reliable

[@WitchyWhale]

I find the whole BMW-Rover saga so fascinating yet so tragic at the same time, it remains one of those great "What Ifs" had BMW had more patience on Rover.

[@woodrow_mayes]

They'd have both went down.

[@skylined5534]

@@woodrow_mayes Nope. There was a conflict of interests in BMW management. They mainly wanted the mini Brand along with fresh eyes on offroad tech. I don't believe BMW set out to asset strip Rover but I think they saw a more lucrative angle towards the latter part of them owning Rover. Regrettable but money talks.

[@grahamariss2111]

@@skylined5534 They must have been mightily disappointed then, because they had already signed off the X5 for production when they bought Rover. What would Rover had proposed, ditch that independent suspension for live axles? where is the ladder chassis? you need to widen up those panel gaps? As for the Mini brand, if that was all they wanted, BAe would have happily sold it to them as they were planning to end Mini production in 96 and with it drop the brand. The evidence points to the first time that anybody in BMW thought seriously what to do with Mini, it was after the takeover and they found that Rover's strategy was to just let it die. It was in response to this BMW asked its design team in Munich to do some proposals as to what the Mini would be like today had it been consistently developed like the 911 had been. The result of this work is what led to the MINI.

[@RUfromthe40s]

more like if they won in court of law the process that made them onwers of Rover when the brand had been sold 20 years ago from that time maybe 96 to Honda who made rover again a luxury car with honda engines and sold a lot of cars, maybe like it never had happen even my father had a 86 rover vitesse ,a big sedan

[@grahamariss2111]

@@RUfromthe40s BAe and the UK Government had been trying to get Honda to buy Austin Rover since the start of the XX/HX project in 1981, they were never going to buy it as by 1994, they were heading away from it seeing little to gain from developing common platforms with them, instead just licensing existing Honda technology and cars (with Rover restricted to cosmetic changes and tweaking the damping and spring rates). Honda quite simply had no interest in Cowley (in fact it was in the end not Cowley but the former PSF site opposite) let alone Longbridge, choosing instead to develop a green field site at Swindon.

[@Andrewjg_89]

My dad used to have a old Rover R30 car when he was quite young. Around 20 at the time and learnt how to drive whilst in the Army. And he said to me that it was very reliable.

[@Searly255]

Whats annoying about Rovers story is that the car that could of saved them was the 75, even the top gear crew at the time said it was good but it had a car for old people reputation which ruined its chances

[@e28forever30]

“Could have”

[@skylined5534]

The really sad thing is when BMW sold Rover to those rats of the Phoenix Consortium with careful management it still could have worked. Unfortunately they had a fun old developing uneeded super cars, Le Mans attempts and even an entry into the btcc when that money should have been plowed back into developing new models. A crossover mpv/suv type model would have been a great move for a start.

[@Searly255]

@@skylined5534 Yeah i always thought MG entering motorsport back then was a strange move, the MG/Lola lemans prototype cant have been cheap.

[@Zelielz1]

I freaking love the Rover 75, such a classy and refined design, interior and exterior.

[@paulc9588]

I remember that artist's impression of the Rover 35 and the usual 'imminent launch' guff appearing in Auto Express a few times ~2002. 'Shock new Rover', 'Ditch the Golf, forget the Focus' etc. I think the Rover PR team must have shared the AE office there was so much premature hype. As we all know, nothing ever appeared and they just kept on tweaking the existing tired 25 and 45 until the inevitable finally happened. A sad story.

[@RUfromthe40s]

those models were released to sell all the bodies already in production ,later they branded all MG but they ended anyway ,bmw could manage all English brands as they do today

[@drscopeify]

Fantastic video as always! I think the upmarket Rover was doomed to fail in the USA due to the arrival of the Japanese luxury names Lexus, Infiniti and Acura just unfortunate timing.

[@pilskadden]

Yet the Acura Legend is basically the same car as the Rover 800. The Legend was a bestseller in the US and always praised for its reliability. So how was the Sterling so much worse when it is basically the same car? British build quality?

[@drscopeify]

​@@pilskadden I think it all comes down to the UK pound sterling being much stronger than the Dollar and still is stronger today while Japanese Yen was much weaker than the Dollar and today it is almost at record low against the Dollar today so the same conditions still are around in 2022 funny enough... I think if you buy a cheap car and have issues it's a different mentality then an expensive car that has issues perhaps. Also the Japanese brands were very aggressive at opening their own dealerships all over the US so a customer can easily get the car repaired while UK brands I think only made partnerships with existing dealers like with Chrysler dealers but then are playing 2nd place to another car and maybe the Technicians at the dealers do a bad job of repairing a totally different car but I am just guessing.

[@skylined5534]

@@pilskadden Build quality was, despite what chunks of the Internet will tell you good on the 800.

[@davidkmatthews]

@@skylined5534 That's not quite true : when the Rover 800 was initially launched in the UK in 1986, models built for the first couple of years did suffer from a variety of reliability and build quality niggles. For example I seem to recall Top Gear was loaned a fresh-out-of-the-factory model for review only to discover that one of the door interior trim panels was falling off. Nothing major, in fairness, but annoying and entirely avoidable problems down to lax factory quality checking in those early days of the 800. However premature rusting was also an issue - particularly around the windscreen - that was due to poor preparation of body panels prior to painting. The Rover board held a meeting with their Japanese counterparts during 1987 to try to understand why the Honda cars had no such issues. The 800's did improve but their reputation was already tarnished and second-hand values plummeted. As a trainee on a pretty poor salary in 1991, I was astonished to discover I could afford a low-mileage, two-year old one from a Rover dealer! (Though I ultimately plumped for a Saab anyway). I think the Mark II version of the 800 came with substantial improvements around build quality and helped to restore some public confidence in Rover - but not enough to bump sales figures up to levels to sustain the company in the long-term.

[@35geordielad]

The whole Rover story is a sad one, but also very interesting with some initive concepts and ideas, but lacked financial backing or interest from both Tory and Labour UK goverments. Rover in the end was picked to the bone when BMW walked away and at that point, I was suprised it continued for a further 5 years and even then if the new owners The Phoenix 4 hadn't drained money from the company is massive salaries and expensive racing and hospitality, maybe Rover maybe here today. I would have loved to see what Rover cars would have looked like today if it had survived. RIP Rover

[@grahamariss2111]

To me the mistake made was not from the outset to position MG and Rover to complement the BMW brand. Whilst MINI was a great success it struggles now to adapt to the market because it is locked into making cars that look like a Mini. For this reason I would have made MG the focus for a sub BMW brand, using a Golf size fwd / awd platform to spin off MGs to sell against the Audi TT, R3 and premium Golfs through the BMW dealer network. Off the same platform would also spin off the Land Rover Freelander replacement and a "City" Rover family friendly compact MPV aimed at the Mercedes A series. Rover I would have put back into Land Rover dealer network, selling a "Road" Rover station wagon based on 5 series aimed in cooking derivatives at the Volvo V70 and a premium Mercedes E Series. A new Range Rover and Discovery would be spun in a similar way as more off road capable derivatives of the X5 platform. So only one new platform needed and no threat of cannibalising BMW's market share.

[@skylined5534]

It doesn't seem to be struggling from where I'm seated. The absolute opposite.

[@grahamariss2111]

@@skylined5534 Really, because their deliveries volumes peeked 5 years ago (2017) despite expanding their presence in the SUV sector.

[@exoroxx]

Wouldn't that "Road" Rover station wagon put the back then new X5 or the 5 series touring in danger? Cannibalism is only good, if you can share a lot of things to compensate that issue. I think, Rover was never ment to be that close to BMW, so BMW can still be BMW and nothing else. The Rover 75 e.g. fits right in between 3 series and 5 series, like the Volvo S60 did later on.

[@grahamariss2111]

@@exoroxx I don't think so, in styling terms it would take a lot of cues from the Discovery / Range Rover, so you are looking at something boxy, glassy like the first generation Volvo 70s with a much bigger focus on load carrying than BMW driver focused 5 series. The lower spec straight 4 / 6 would get a practical Discovery like "Fisher Price Ball Pit" family friendly interior whilst the V8 would get a Range Rover like wood and leather interior. Such a car will not take much way from the 5 series in sales whilst using its drive train and floor, but will take much away from Volvo and Mercedes who are selling cars aimed at customers that after something less driver focused that a 5 series. The Rover 75 may have sat half a size up from the BMW originally although that moved to a 1/4 a size as the 3 series sized up with E90 is 2005, but it was in the market at the same price point as the 3 series. The Rover 75 problem was it did not sell in anything like enough quantities to justify its development and tooling in part because in an attempt to distance itself from the 3 Series, in went too retro and succeeded in distancing itself from the nearly the whole compact executive car market.

[@exoroxx]

@@grahamariss2111 That boxy station wagon would nowhere near to be special in any way. You would take the Merc or Volvo for luxury or safety reasons over a fairly unknown brand. In the 90s there was also the Opel/Vauxhall Omega Caravan which was filling the gap - and it had some luxury options, even a V8 was planned. What could have Rover won here? The risk in making BMW less special, would be higher than the profit in creating Rover as an equal, but more 'robust' brand. Volvo had its own positive image, but it wasn't a big seller. The Mercedes E T was also focussing the 5 Series touring in many aspects. Cargo space alone isn't the point. The E90 from 2005 was bigger inside than the E46, but not much more than 4 cm longer than its predecessor. The Rover 75 was still (around 23 cm) longer than the BMW 3 Series - and even in 2022 that is the case. The Rover 75 was focussed on customers who are looking for luxury for a cheap price - and it had style. Retro was the game to match at that time. That was a profound idea in my opinion. There was enough space for the 3 and 5 Series. Even more, because the 75 was set on a FWB platform (except for the 4.6 V8). It didn't sell well, because it is... a Rover. It could never have worked out: Either Rover was too close to BMW or it is failing on its history.

[@DiRF]

The thought that my 128i potentially has some Rover DNA in it is mind-blowing :P

[@woodrow_mayes]

Look at the where the a pillar meets the roof, it's curved. No BMW has ever had this design feature, only the Rover 75 shares this..... you may come to your own conclusion.

[@bingbong1188]

@@woodrow_mayes Spot on.

[@simonroyle2806]

Rover were not the basket case described when BMW bought the company in 94. They had some good models such as the 200 which was doing well, even the Metro was on a 2nd life, the Discovery probably had the highest profit margin in the industry, plus there was a range of new cars (200, 400, MGF and Freelander)about to be launched. The press described Rover as the "British BMW" which is more likely the motivation by BMW as they feared Honda cars in drag for competition. The only BMW sponsored car to be launched was the 75 which they forced the retro image on to keep away from their core market, making Rovers uncool. Then in the end they took the 4x4 tech and sold Land Rover but kept the Mini and 3 UK factories, plus the development for what became the 1 series made in East Germany with Government backing.

[@Frenchie100]

Great video as always! What I don't understand: why was Rover not able to improve "significantly" during the time period where BMW dumped so much money into them and left them so much freedom? I've seen your (mindblowing!) video on how the BL leadership used to be really incompetent, but was that still the case in the 90s? The plans seemed to make sense, the cash was there (for some time at least), why did nothing change? The refusal of the UK government to grant financial support, certainly a significant nail in Rover's coffin, happened after that period of "non-progress despite so much money". I wish I understood that 1994-2000 Rover period better.

[@skylined5534]

They didn't 'dump money' into Rover. Rover were also very restricted in what BMW allowed them to do and that included performance models.

[@robinforrest7680]

I’m always impressed Mr McVeigh that whether presenting car or railway content, your knowledge and presentation skills are second to none. So sad that Rover disappeared this way. Like Saab RIP.

[@jerrybailey5797]

It beggars belief why a British car manufacture like Rover couldn't be saved after the disasterous effect British Leyland had on the British car industry. You'd have thought They had learned their lesson , but lack of government backing never helped. Back in the sixties the British car industry was doing so well until the 1970s when they put Austin, Morris, Rover, Triumph under the British Leyland banner , then it all started going wrong. Such a shame. If only things were different and British car makers like Rover put more pride in their product

[@maverickloggins5470]

It’s easy for this whole debacle to paint BMW in a bad light, but really I think it’s a lot more than that. The magnitude of industrial strife that has beset British carmakers is off the scale, it’s almost unbelievable how even after the 1970s, the nationalisation and then re-privitisation, Rover *still* couldn’t deliver cars on time or make them reliably. Maybe it was some sort of organisational inertia leading them to never accept a model due to advances being made around it. I know several Mini replacements were scrapped in the 1970s because as soon as a design would be just about finished, someone would decide it needed [insert new fad here] and the whole thing would need years more in the oven. They had to accept that nothing they’d make would ever be perfect and just finish the design. Some of the effort put into design and engineering could well have been spent instead on delivering a more reliable if less advanced car, and I think had that been the modus operandi at Rover they might still be around. It’s really interesting that they seemed to have the exact same problems in the 1990s that they had in the 1970s

[@Quebecoisegal]

Whilst residing in the UK I had a Montego estate, good for two large dogs and pieces of furniture I used to deal in. I had no outstanding bad issues with it.

[@Quebecoisegal]

@Wallace Carney I've had a French car, a Renault 4, frugal, comfortable and suited me just fine. Otherwise German, Swedish, US and Japanese cars have worked for me. Also a Morgan 4+4, if you know that vehicle. At least the French still have a thriving automobile industry. BTW having a French name doesn't mean I am French.

[@windyworm]

Such a shame to turn to a brand known as the "poor man's Rolls Royce", into a joke. I had a Rover 216 that had to be send back to Rover Group 3 times to identify a leak (normally about 3 inches of water on the driver's side each time it rained). Each time they found some leaks, including a windscreen that hadn't been glued. Eventually, on the 3rd visit to the atmospheric tank, they found a large rubber grommet in the rear wheel arch that had been 'forgotten'. So much for Quality Control. In the USA Sterling launch there was a permanent team of Rover mechanics on the quay-side to correct the faults on cars that had passed Rover's Pre-Delivery-Inspected (PDI). Approximately 50% of all vehicles were rejected by the US distributor PDI, and had to be corrected by the quay-side team before the customer would accept delivery. In 1985 my boss had a new Rover 3.5 litre which he managed to drive 10 miles before it broke down. An electrical fault which my boss described as making the car look like "a f##king Christmas tree". I grew up in a family that loved Rovers, my father had a 1936 Rover 14, and a 1953 Rover 75. These were wonderful cars. It's such a shame to see how poor management can destroy a brand.

[@chrisdevonshire2087]

It was the Phoenix Group who caused the demise of Rover. They embezzled money from the company fopr years, leaving it in financial ruin and caused it to perform cost cutting measures in the quality of their vehicles. BMW provided it a stay of execution when the obtained it.

[@huwzebediahthomas9193]

BMW were tearing their hair out with Rover-MG. And that deal in the 1980's with British Aerospace was daft. They were simply not interested in running it properly, just used it as a financial asset for building aircraft and aircraft equipment.

[@skylined5534]

They were never 'tearing their hair out' at Rover. Certain members of both companies had ideas which conflicted other's ideas.

[@mdleweight]

My favorite is the 1986 Rover 216. If it is good enough for Hyacinth Bucket it is good enough for me!

[@caeserromero3013]

I actually really liked the look of the Maestro my grandad had and I LOVED my Metro Vanden Plas. To drive a car with electric windows and leather seats as an 18 year old was a special feeling (even if it was 10 years old by the time I got it!) 😂

[@alecbrown66]

The r30 mock up was interesting. The 3/4 shot looks like today's skoda fabians and rapidly, and the profile looks remarkably like the mk1 citroen c4. Bmw only wanted rover for a pair of reasons:- the whole design and build philosophy in making a small car (later just a bit useful in their version of the mini), and the way to build a front wheel drive layout, and integrating a small gearbox. For the returns of investment, bmw really struck gold

[@andrewpreston4127]

And BMW also wanted the 4 wheel drive technology. Interesting that that the BMW Mini is notorious for it's unreliability, and atrocious mantenance costs. Not at all an inexpensive car to own and run. Basically, BMW asset stripped Rover.

[@MySteaming]

R30 'face' & particularly that grill looks shit. I never had a Rover but I did own 2 Minis. A 63 Mini Minor & a 65 Mini Traveller. Both cost an arm & a leg to buy. Both rusted through in 5 years. And like all cars of the period, the engines were grossly underpowered.

[@martinda7446]

This is something the British do very well. Tell a great story. Beautifully done. Can't see how these could be much better. The One Series revelation was quite something.

[@stuartparfitt2294]

"....Rover Group formed by the privatisation of British Leyland in 1986...". BL was rebranded as Rover Group in 1986, and Graham Day took over with the remit of making the Company saleable, but it wasn't until 1988 that it was sold to British Aerospace. And secondly. I've read (and believe it more likely) that rather than refusing to let Rover sell the MGF in USA, BMW were surprised to find that Rover weren't planning on doing so. This was, I suspect, down to the cost of getting the k-series approved and the fear of another "Sterling" episode.

[@Thecrazyvaclav]

Always thought they might have stood a chance if they’d stayed with Honda, could have maybe used them as an upmarket car like Lexus with Toyota

[@krisyeo]

Instead of becoming BMW's Skoda.

[@Thecrazyvaclav]

@@krisyeo Skoda have survived and got better, so don’t quite get your point there

[@herseem]

This is an interesting video (well, all yours are) because you cover the context so extensively. What was clearly a mistake was to keep such a hands-off management approach to Rover. A forensic approach to improving quality was required at the very least, so - for example - motoring journalists would have been able to recognise improving quality and that there was also a reason for it. As it was it seemed to have drifted downwards in quality, in some areas at least, and that is a death knell for a company.

[@herseem]

@Retired Bore Thanks for that insight

[@grahamariss2111]

The problem was that BMW was a relatively small and quite lean company having been managing increasing volumes through improved productivity. Whilst this gave them the money to sweep up Rover and contemplate poring all the money and more into it to make it work, it simply did not have the managers and engineers to put into a business that had spent the previous 15 years doing little more than light facelifts to Hondas.

[@albertotoledo920]

Rover its a Strong Engines I have one Rover whith 350.000 Km Its a Good Car 👍👏👏👏 Its a Rover 620 Sdi

[@albertotoledo920]

@Wallace Carney Hello Wallace No. Its a Serie L. Its Genuin Rover 20T2N

[@jonathankleinow2073]

Thank you for the detailed overview - and all in three sentences! In all seriousness, it may be a blessing in disguise that Daimler snatched up Chrysler before BMW had a chance to create a partnership for sharing Chrysler powertrains. Chrysler was in one of their momentary bright spots at the time, but who knows how long that would have lasted in an actual partnership.

[@RUfromthe40s]

daimler is the best car builder in the world ,the reason why mercedes with more than 50 years are running today like everyday cars,as an example the pagode ,or 230SL and from mid 60´s the 280SL was a new engine for the car ,the brand was daimler-mercedes till early 2000´s at least the ones developed in the 90´s

[@jonathankleinow2073]

@@RUfromthe40s That may be, but Daimler bled Chrysler for everything they could. If you drove a 2008-2010 Chrysler Town & Country or 300, you would not think it was one of the best cars available. You'd probably cut yourself on the sharp edges of the rough, cheap plastics on every surface.

[@rossdark713]

Nope, BMW wanted the Mini nameplate. The rest was excess baggage.

[@caseyjones1999]

I like the faster speech pace..I quite enjoy your style. Keep up the good work!

[@jamesh6535]

I wonder if things would have changed for the better if BMW had simply contributed older platforms it no longer produced of 3, 5, and 7 series, changed up the grill and headlights, cheapened the interiors, softened the suspensions, and pushed those out as stop gap models to give their engineers more time to develop new cars one at a time. Then make some sort of deal with a South Korean manufacturer who had competitive models of cars that otherwise needed replaced. They could have used the time to ease in new models while sending over some Germans to England to make sure things were getting done. It's not like any of their older cars from that period were bad (other than 1980's 5-series, but that was an engine thing, they could use Rover engines). They burned through an incredible amount of money to get Mini.

[@DaveSCameron]

I contracted at Longbridge installing the K Series engine train in 89/90.

[@scabbycatcat4202]

I believe every K series came with a guarantee. The cylinder head gasket was guaranteed to fail at around 70000 miles. Mine lasted till 75000. That engine kept many mechanics in gainful employment.

[@paulillingworth1242]

It’s a total shame, I had x2 Rovers (620) last had until it reached 21 years old, despite a lot of false stigma “unreliable poor build “ was nonsense, they were great cars and was super reliable, and never ever let me down, it was earlier cars that nailed the Fate and lack of funding , I can think of many modern car makers that are absolute 💩 and people still buy them 🤦‍♂️ interesting video 👍🏽

[@CChallinor]

BMW were only interested in two things, the Mini name and the Landrover 4x4 technology.

[@simonhodgetts6530]

There was some very promising work being undertaken at Rover Group, prior to the BMW sell-off. I have to say though, that the BMW acquisition always felt like an exercise in asset stripping - BMW looking to acquire front and all wheel drive technology. The MINI design was pure Rover in terms of body and chassis design - the fact that BMW retained the brand speaks volumes.

[@grahamariss2111]

This is well debunked myth. The FWD technology was all Honda's (apart from the PSA derived gearboxes), if you look at the Rover 75 and the MINI (R50/52/53) they are in the way they are built and engineered BMWs, because Rover had not designed their own gearbox since the Metro and the Montego (not the estate that was done by a 3rd party) was the last bodyshell they engineered from the ground up. So they were entirely dependent on BMW engineering to replace Honda's (why both the 75 and Mini had MacPherson struts at the front and BMW patented Z axle at the back, just like a BMW). The MINI design came from a study done by BMWs styling team to consider what the Mini might have become had it been developed in the way the Porsche 911 had been instead of allowed to wither away. Rovers proposal for a Mini replacement was the Spiritual & Spiritual 2 which envisaged a Smart rear engine design. As for AWD technology, the BMW X5 had already been signed off and BMW had no interest in ladder chassis and live axles that Defenders, Discoveries and Range Rovers were using (nor the giant panel gaps that came as standard). The third generation Range Rover that was developed during BMW ownership (and sold as part of the deal to Ford), follows BMW design philosophy because it was the result of a project that had originally been started before the takeover, to develop what had been envisaged to be the X7. There is only one bit of Rover technology BMW can be said to have gained from Rover and that was the hill descent system they developed for the Freelander.

[@huleyn135]

No matter how hard you try to hype up rover, all you said is wrong. Rover just sort of deserved to die. Just accept it. So much coping going around with rover fans.

[@Inthemixmedia]

@@grahamariss2111 Brilliant. They inherited a fked up car company (the English patient) with some good brands.

[@anthonytelford7876]

@@grahamariss2111 It is no myth. BMC/BL/Austin/Rover group was a specialist in FWD since the late 1950's. Look at their portfolio from the Mini onwards... and what BMW 'kept'.

[@grahamariss2111]

@@anthonytelford7876 Yes, but the Ado16 (BMC 1100/1300) of 1963 was the high point, after that it was the Ado17 (BMC 1800/2200) that bombed in market, Allegro that bombed in the market and took with it the European sales network that the Mini and Ado16 had allowed them to establish, the Princess that bombed what was left and the Ambassador that they did not even bother to export it was that bad. They then did the Metro, which was just a reskin of Allegro and Mini bits and so with its in sump gearbox and A series engine was already behind the curve as was shown when just 3 years later the 205 and UNO moved the super mini market two steps away from them. Then they did the Maestro and Montego and this where we see the game is up, because there they abandoned the BMC technology and reverse engineered the VW Golf, to such an extent they abandoned their plans to copy the VW end on gearbox instead buying them in from VW. That was the last car they led the engineering on as after that they used Honda platforms and licensed gearboxes from Honda and PSA. With the MINI BMW bought a brand name and an iconic look, bodyshell structure and suspension design including the a dead Z axle follow BMW practices as does the assembly process, it is a small fwd BMW that looks like a Mini and has a MINI badge on it.

[@eveultra2821]

I owned both a MG ZR and an MG ZS with the V6 engine. Great cars and briliant fun but they were quite unreliable though. My ZR had constant head gasket issues and my ZS developed bizarre electrical faults. I kept them limping on though.

[@markm-ci6rj]

Yes the Rover products were not great especially in the 70s and 80s, but they were no worse then offerings from the French and Italians yet they are still around. I owned a Rover 825 Sterling and it was a super car! At the time my sister owned a Mazda 323 that rusted to bits. I know have an Alfa Romeo and that too is a great car!

[@moonbaby6134]

Had a 1991 Rover 216GTi(130bhp). It was basically a Honda. But it was a fantastic motor. Kept it until 1999.

[@everykenyan]

Hey, thanks for fixing the Mic (better than the last previous two videos). Appreciate all your work, Everything you make is just up my lane of interests :)

[@geecars6263]

There was also a plan to assemble Chrysler products alongside the new (Rover) Mini at Longbridge, and a joint venture to produce vehicles for both companies in Central America for that market, part of which was the Tritec engine deal. The purchase of Chrysler by Daimler Benz put an end to this, along with the Tritec engine, which was originally scheduled to be used by the new MINI brand right up until 2010, but which had to be hastily replaced with the Prince unit developed in conjunction with PSA

[@AR-dn6kh]

I had a rover 25 ,the worst car i have wvwr owned, only came with a 12 month warranty, which spoke volumes and head gasket went after 30k miles . Could build better myself with a lego set.

[@ianclegg9572]

I owned a 1998 Rover 200 for 16 years never a days trouble, the head gasket was still its original from the factory best car I've owned if I could buy it back now I would

[@ondrejnecas4975]

Well, I admit your 30k miles isn't much, but it is rather exceptional. Other than that, the head gasket failures on Rover K-series engines are well known and it is also well known that it helps to replace these head gaskets every 50-60k miles before it fails. Basically, these engines work very well with the right maintenance. And they are incredible engines -- at that time of the early 1990s nobody else was able to make such a great power of the same sized engines (except for Alfa with their twin sparks but they had to have two sparks per cylinder and the consumption was much higher). I still have several of these cars, including one 25. It is a 2001 model with 1.8 liter engine and CVT transmission. Every day on the road for short drives through and around the city, serves as the second family car. Obviously, it requires some maintenance from time to time, it is a 22 years old car, but nothing unexpected or too expensive. Love it for its smooth drive, low operating cost, and it is still well equipped even in comparison to nowadays cars if the same segment. Perhaps, it works so well because it has the right color -- British Racing Green! 🙂

[@davesclassicgaragetours]

Another great film Ruairidh though I have to say, the amount of series I and II Discovery's here on the streets of Melbourne makes a mockery of the notion that its reliability failings killed off Land Rover down under. I even know of three SI three doors in the northern suburbs. SII's are relatively common.

[@ethanlittle776]

I’m a strong believer that this car at least influenced the 1series. Seeing how that did I don’t feel it would have saved the company no matter how much I hope

[@huwzebediahthomas9193]

The K-series engine was a warranty nightmare. Too low water cooling capacity, before thermostat opened to radiator, temperature in block and head went too high, and cylinder head to block joint unreliable - head gaskets blowing left right and centre after very short mileages.

[@applejuice5272]

Re-site the thermostat, MLS head gaskets and reinstate the original design's steel dowels and it's a perfectly fine engine. Ricardo went further for SAIC and went through the K Series & its production process with a very fine toothcomb to create the Kavachi engine, which has not had a single breakdown. Moreover, VGK Racing make a reliable 2.0-litre (1,996cc) K Series for motorsport / road applications with up to 205 kW (279 PS). It's not as terrible as armchair experts make it out to be.

[@philiptownsend4026]

@@applejuice5272 You are totally right. I Did those things to my Trophy 160 and BRM. I went further and fitted improved flow exhaust manifolds and sport catalysts to get heat out faster and on the MG a proper 13 row oil cooler mounted in front of radiator with exhaust holes at top of radiator box to reduce pressure behind radiator and therefore flow through it. This last free mod also, as a bonus, much improved front downforce and therefore stability at higher speeds. The reasoning with the oil cooler was to provide an additional cooling system totally separate from water cooling system and so take some workload from it. I also fitted a second radiator cooling fan ala auto MGF but this proved to be unnecessary. One thing I did notice was that when I took front bumper off to fit oil cooler was that the top half of the radiator was clean outside while the bottom half was dirty, I concluded that the top half of the radiator had very little airflow, hence the pressure relieving holes mentioned above. We must remember that the MGF/TF was only fitted with a Metro radiator, ie from a car of only slightly more than half the cubic capacity and about a third the power and then only effectively used half of the radiator. Any cooling system must have air flowing through it, something MG seemed to have forgotten when designing MGF and so exacerbated the K-series early difficulties with heat. By the way, I left water cooling system totally standard, just fitting a new thermostat and water pump as a precaution. Never had any problems at all with engines on either car even on >40C days in summer in E Europe while all French and Korean etc cheap cars had fans screaming in town my MGF fans stayed silent. Oh and both cars had VVC removed and Piper 270 solid cams fitted with appropriate remaps.

[@paulhawkins6415]

I worked as a mechanic for the police, I have never seen one have a head gasket or fail. I have never seen the inside of a K series. They did weep a bit of oil, but nothing like A or B series

[@skylined5534]

When someone like myself who worked on cars for a living ends up reading this regurgitated nonsense it does annoy me a little. The water capacity was just fine if none was lost though I will say the elastomer coated gaskets were only a problem when fitted with plastic dowels, a doubtful cost saving exercise and much to the chagrin of engineers at Rover I'm sure. The MLS is still a better option fitted along with steel dowels. The biggest source of water loss on these engines is the rubbery green gasket fitted in the inlet for models which featured plastic inlets, which was most of them. This item should ideally be changed around every 3 to 4 years due to degradation. Not ideal but cheap and easy to do. The metal inlet manifold cars didn't have this issue. The 'thermal shock' thing was only applicable to cars with longer exchange pipes like the MGF but even then if the cooling system was kept in tip top condition it wasn't an issue.

[@philiptownsend4026]

@@skylined5534 If you are taking issue with H Z Thomas then I agree with you. My road engines all used the MLS gasket but it did reduce the compression slightly as was thicker. Even with a turbo the MLS with steel dowels was fine. For race purposes the standard gasket is better as it does not reduce compression, for racing this matters as anything sub optimal is bad. Racers change the head gasket a few times through the season as a precaution.

[@owainjohns2815]

I had a 220 coupe turbo and it was great. it could hold high top speeds for extended periods and get from A to B in quick time. it was light and handled pretty good but torque steer was a problem especially low speed low traction. this thing flew down the road :)

[@zeewin]

Design-wise Rover was very ahead of the time, my KV6 75 did not look old in any sense comparing to my SUVs. Too bad that the director board did not couple well with BMW. R55 is indeed stunning and a typical example showing how talent the design team was, it could overkill Jag easily with that appearance, it could be a legend if the project was materialised.

[@MervynPartin]

I would not regard the Metro as a bad model. I had the 1.4 Auto and it was not only stylish (in my view), but it had great performance, it was very comfortable, it was economical, and it was surprisingly spacious inside- Driving to Gatwick with my wife and our two kids plus luggage for a fortnight, and room for souvenirs on the way back. It was also much more reliable than the German made Ford Escort GL that I had previously bought new (a dreadful piece of junk) Although BL had some serious industrial trouble, there were also issues with designers going off at a tangent with resulting bad publicity- The Austin "Agro" with its square steering wheel, the Mk 2 Marina with its dashboard angled to the left to the benefit of the passenger, not the driver (the Mk 1 Marina was good- should never have been changed) and its derivative, the Ital rightly treated contemptuously as nothing but a name change. The R30 shown here is ugly. I would not have bought one. This was, however, a good insight into the situation and politics of the time.

[@chrisdavidson911]

Was it genuinely impossible to manage Rover? They could never do it themselves, and even when owned by a company that could successfully manage itself, still couldn't be managed.

[@skylined5534]

It wasn't as straightforward as that. And as for the Phoenix shower of 'soot' they were the final insult, sadly.

[@RUfromthe40s]

they only stop making Rovers for the street because they still are sold everyday new, like the Land-Rover and the Range-Rover, there are more, this because when Honda left the brand in agreement with BMW they were not capable of exploring ,mini´s, rolls-royce, bentley, Jaguar and aston-martin and also Rover city cars but dirt road cars from Rover are still being released

[@anthonytelford7876]

@@RUfromthe40s Indeed, Rover survives as a 4x4 brand with Jaguar -a sister company from the 70's anyway.

[@gaffer1993]

BMW let Rover manage itself rather than have it managed by BMW, think that was one of the many mistakes that happened with this partnership.

[@anthonytelford7876]

@@gaffer1993 That is simply not the case, Tony. I was surrounded by BMW people when I was a junior manager at BMW Group UK from 1998 and had others on the phone every day. The problems of the Rover group were BMW's fault, pure and simple -they had the control and decided on the strategy (not always well). Stopping production of some BAe-era models prematurely without immediate replacement models was one bad idea and having a poor relationship with Honda was also a bad idea. It was said that the BMW boss was pretty much 'escorted out' of the Honda HQ in the latter 90's, which shows how poorly they handled foreign relations... The success of the Mini and the success of LR showed that the Rover Group still had plenty of promise, but poor decision-making and vacillating by BMW HQ surrounding the 'volume brand' Rover cars was what led to the cost overruns. The 75 should have been more modular, with a C-segment off-shoot launched first to replace the Honda-shared cars. Both should have been less 'retro' and more akin to the contemporary style espoused buy the previous-gen cars. The Rover Group was doing the same in the early 80's with the Maestro, Montego and what would have been the non-Honda 600/800, so BMW was simply a bit old-fashioned in its processes. VW has since taken the modular strategy to the ultimate expression... why couldn't BMW?

[@BOABModels]

I recognise that model from the British Motor Museum. It was a shame how things ended up as the 75 was a good car. My mum's 400 was the first thing I ever drove also.

[@RUfromthe40s]

those were perfect cars built by honda

[@stumo8681]

I'm not so sure about the suggestion the 1 series was a rover. The under pinnings are straight from the E90 3 series.

[@demus8757]

The car did not kill Rover, the people responsible for the car killed Rover.

[@hydorah]

There was no car that killed Rover... Not even the City Rover (although it was an error of judgment). Clarkson killed Rover aided and abetted by his sycophantic minion, May, the other one gave the 75 a very fair review but never stood up for Rover when the other two were doing their thing. They perpetrated a concentrated campaign using that TV show they used to be on (A TV show the British public paid to have made) to dissuade people from buying Rovers. Yet both of them carry on like they are super patriotic

[@runforit4203]

I was thinking about the RDX60 the other day and now you made a video - thanks!

[@brianhaygood183]

The MINI R50, 52, and 53 first gen new minis are just delightful cars. I'm really glad I've been able to have one.

[@lg_believe333]

I don’t think BMW really wanted Rover to be successful, especially in the United States with the MGF because it would become a direct threat to BMW sales. BMW took from Rover what it needed, including the MINI and the Rover teams design department ideas. Rover, despite its lack of success was a innovative company, capable of designing cars as good, if not better than BMW, but it’s miss-management, and lack of investment in new cars was always appalling.

[@RS-vu3df]

Thank you for these very thorough series. One remark about the pronunciation of the name of mr. Bernd Pischetsrieder. I allways had it wrong also, but is name is really spelled rieder. Wikipedia also learned, he was related to Isigonis.

[@bitsbobs8613]

All that money spent on Iraq and Ukraine but no money to save a car company just as they were making improvements, I can only image what cars they’d be making now , I still have a diesel and v8 75s

[@MikeyJG]

Enjoyed this thanks. Any chance of a class 47 episode?

[@fredk3710]

15:36 The front of the car, especially those rectangular shaped headlights, looks a lot like the first generation Skoda Fabia

[@skylined5534]

I thought the same! The side on front to rear quarter shot puts mecin mind of the last generation of Scirocco and the rear Peugeot-esque. I think it would have done well.

[@philhealey449]

This is certainly interesting, although when watching it is easy to get distracted, by the absence of full stops in the narration, or "periods" as they are known by Americans, the latter fact having little to do with the focus of my observation, but the result is that the continuous dispersal of information, fascinating though it is, leads one to suddenly drift thoughts to a recent YT video by John Cadogan, an Australian ex automotive journalist, who both specialises in the supply of new cars, much in the same way as CarWow and in uploading frequent rant videos including one recently containing an interminable sentence in a press release by a vehicle manufacturer which I have to say is eclipsed in every one of this channel's pieces of narration and I have probably now mildly exceeded the length of one of these, suggesting it's time I brought this epic to a conclusion in politely requesting that it would be beneficial to consider the aural tastes of most channel fans, who would probably appreciate narration using sentences of perhaps ten to fifteen words and this might prove to extend the average view time per channel visitor, with a positive effect via KZbin's baffling algorithms.

[@davidchant5550]

Great documentaries, presentation high class and very watchable. This subject brings back rose tinted Nostalgia and horror memories. My father was the boiler inspector for these car plants in the 70s, he did not have a good word to say. You have to look behind the product and look at the organization, people and culture. Much of this evidence has been destroyed as it is a political embarrassment. I have also worked in British manufacturing for 38 years and blimey, the British cultural organization issues that get hidden by the brand and product. The difference with the success stories, is where an organization understands the business without being greedy and near fraudulent. The other big problem holding back British industry is investment, that also means in people too. Bring back technical and business apprenticeships, plus local colleges that do not charge degree fees. The cultural issues ran so deep the factory had to go, whole departments with 90% all family related. Today, UK does not make ships, commercial aircraft, trucks, vans and only cars under license. The good memories are working on my 2 allegros and a Mini. Thank you to Austin and BL for training me on how not to design and build in the happy hours spent at the weekend in my rented garage, carparks and roadside to keep my cars running.

[@tomy5885]

While this is just a minor detail, you‘re factually wrong in saying Volkswagen Group had a premium offering with the Porsche brand. Porsche didn’t belong to Volkswagen until 2009. So arguably they didn’t have a premium offering at the time since Audi was just slowly gaining traction as akin to BMW and Mercedes in the 90s.

[@AmigaA-or2hj]

Could you imagine if Rover brought out a new Morris Minor to compete with the Beetle?

[@johnbrereton5229]

It's so sad that Rover was broken up and destroyed. Because they were actually one of the truly great car makers and long before the upstart BMW. BMW only survived themselves after being saved by the Quandt family who made their money in WW2 with Nazi slave labour camps. While Rover themselves not only helped to defeat Nazism they also made great quality cars at an affordable price and also technically advanced ones too. Even the Queen and Prime Ministers used Rovers, and that's why they were know as the poor mans RR. However, they also made cutting edge cars like the worlds first jet powered road car, Jet 1. Which led to the BRM jet powered racing cars. The problem for Rover, was like so many British companies that were starved of cash after WW2 they ended up merged with Austin at their outdated Longbridge plant and with Austin's poor quality control. BAs had already asset stripped the company and that's exactly what BMW ended up doing too. By the time they were sold for £10 there wasnt much left and they were therefore doomed. All their new profitable models were kept by BMW and only the 75 was included in the deal. However, that had already been jinxed by BMW at its launch, and in any case it was just not enough. Yet if Rover had kept all their new models they would now be profitable and secure. Fortunately the Land Rover subsidiary is still doing well, which BMW sold for more money than they originally paid for the whole Rover group. Also Landrover has been reported to be launching a new Road Rover. So will Rovers subsidiary be actual resurrecting their own parent company ? I hope so, Rover was far to good a company to die.

[@tonyduncan9852]

The nightmare is over.

[@DavidCurryFilms]

7:27 - that new mini concept is arguably better looking than the production version - it honestly would look good today 🤔 instead it's become a bloated cross over type car.

[@gssf.gr29]

Good video, although it's a bit of a stretch to say one model, especially one that was never made, "killed Rover". I think they were well on the way out anyway long before that. Many people wanted the cars but didn't want to risk the potential reliability problems, especially at a time when Ford were highly rated for reliability at that time and were constantly updating their models, on top of the endless list of new models coming over from Europe and Japan. Shame the R30 became the 1-Series (actually known as the Baby Beemer AFAIK, I've never heard it called the baby BMW). The R30 looks a lot nicer than the ugly 1-Series to me, and the original BMW didn't ride well either, but there was a lot more to Rover's demise. Personally I don't think BMW were ever interested and only bought it because they wanted to acquire the Mini brand. Look on the bright side, at least Land Rover hasn't ended up as a BMW brand.

[@MOSSFEEN]

Strikes and Brutal Quality were up there as well We had a bought a brand new Rover 25 in 2000 and it was Plagued with Electrical problems, Head gasket failures and RUST at only 4 years old What a HEAP never bought a British car again

[@deanosaur808]

Would you like a refund? 😂

[@marshalllucky]

my friend davis he has these old rover 30 , he use to worjk in there delerships and they have send there full size models of these car, always they have no engine so they are no real goo on there road :-(

[@leoroverman4541]

Yup fear of competition was the whole raison of BMW's takeover. Oh and the leverage to join the Euro. Otherwise as ever excellent.

[@ishz3260]

Rover should have stayed with honda. Montego was a very popular car. So I don't know where these guys get there information. Bmw only wanted rover because of the mini brand. And used land rover ideas for x5

[@VDPEFi]

Not only did we give away the crown jewels, we paid someone else to take them away for us. I grew up in Solihull and my parents were rover and land rover drivers for years, until it became silly to do so, they bought German after that, BMW and Audi. Now finally have a mini back but it's not because it's British, it's because it's brilliant. We could have owned that, not just built it.

[@jamesgraham814]

BMW’s arrival was a catastrophe for Rover.