MG to return to Longbridge & SLR recalled because of Fire fears

[Pebb]

I could not find any topics like this.

----

Source: AutoCar

Chinese firm Nanjing Automotive has confirmed that it is to go ahead with car production at the former MG Rover factory in Longbridge, which closed last year with the loss of around 6000 jobs.

Nanjing, which has a 33-year lease on part of the Longbridge site, will also build cars in China.

The firm is believed to be keen to keep Longbridge because of the paint shop there - an expensive facility which is difficult to move. It is thought that the TF roadster is the most likely candidate for production.

The managing director of Nanjing, Yu Jianwei, is to release full details of the firm’s plans at a press conference before the British motor show later this month. Log on to Autocar.co.uk for the latest developments.

-----

Source: AutoExpress

McLaren SLRs recalled over fire risk

Mercedes has issued a recall for a 1000 McLaren SLR supercars because of a fire risk

There’s hot news for McLaren Mercedes SLR fans – the £314,000 supercar is being recalled over fears it could catch fire!

Mercedes has discovered that under extreme conditions, the high temperatures generated by the SLR’s electrics can put undue strain on the alternator, with the risk of an engine bay blaze.

As a result, the firm has recalled all 1,000 SLRs produced between 2005 and 2006. Owners of the exclusive coupé – which is powered by a 626bhp supercharged V8 and has a top speed of 208mph – are being told to return their cars to their dealers, who will replace the alternator and fit a modified electronic control unit (ECU).

No fires or accidents have been reported yet, but owners should be on their guard. Mercedes says the problem occurs when the ECU automatically shuts down non-essential electrical items, such as the air-con and radio, to reduce strain on the alternator. If this happens, owners should turn the engine off and contact their dealer immediately.

 

[amp88]

Bad news for SLR fans. I'm surprised that got through McLaren's and Mercedes' combined high standards. I wonder why it didn't show up when Tiff was hammering it round the track sideways on Fifth Gear. Doesn't get much more extreme than that, but I suppose the car they tested could have been built outside the window.

 

[Dave A]

It's just a good thing that they're using the prevent it before it happens approach.

Good news that MG could return to Longbridge, just let's hope they don't get too ambitous and start talking about introducing mad new models. Just stick to a low production and a small lineup if not just the one model for a while to re-stabilise the name and then move forward slowly until they have enough to fall back on should something not go to plan.

 

[YSSMAN]

I'm happy to see that MG is sorta there, but I think I would rather have a small group of investors or a big-name automotive company working out the kinks of the reborn MG.

...Too bad they never ended up selling thier cars in the US, as I had herd many times that there were plans for them to do so. There could have been some money to be made here, particularly with the TF and SV.

 

[Kylehnat]

I'm happy to see that MG is sorta there, but I think I would rather have a small group of investors or a big-name automotive company working out the kinks of the reborn MG.

...Too bad they never ended up selling thier cars in the US, as I had herd many times that there were plans for them to do so. There could have been some money to be made here, particularly with the TF and SV.

It's really a shame that Americans tend to keep an image of an auto manufacturer. We associate MG with the broken down jalope that only runs properly when the ambient temperature is between 60 and 61 degrees. Hence, few people here would ever consider buying one, even though it's a completely different company with completely different cars now. Ditto for Peugeot and Renault.

 

[YSSMAN]

In Michigan, MGs are quite popular, as I often see more than many new cars these days. The MGB was obviously the most popular model sold here, but I see some rare models every once in a while. A friend of mine's family owns the local MG repair shop, so I get to see some nice ones once in a while. He had an MGB-GT in high-school, and what a sweet car that was.

I think Americans fell in love with MGs for the same reason why the Brits have always liked them. Cheap, fun-to-drive sports cars that were easy to maintain and held up pretty well over time. Granted, not every model lived up to that legacy, but it still has an outstanding reputation as a car company that is still missed by the US market.

 

[Poverty]

hardly anyone wanted to buy a mediocre roadster before MGRover collapse, so who would buy on now that theyre reputation lies in tatters?

 

[YSSMAN]

...Well, thats the problem. What benefit are we going to have with their Chinese overlords running the show? Atleast in America, that would be another reason not to buy one.

I'd like to see a GM or VAG swoop in and pick up whats left of MG before the brand becomes even more tarnished as a whole. That way they can have some serious engineering funds, and given the deep pockets to fish in, they wouldn't have to be a high-volume company either.

 

[Dave A]

hardly anyone wanted to buy a mediocre roadster before MGRover collapse, so who would buy on now that theyre reputation lies in tatters?

It wasn't a lack of popularity that killed them off or providing crap models, it was bad managment. MG's were selling well, but then the bosses decded to start spending too much money on developing models that either would never see production or that they wouldn't make money on such as the SV, the V8 engined models which never arrived, and then they gave us the City Rover which was described by many as the worst car on sale in the UK. Until they started messing things up with putting money in the wrong places they were coming back well enough to have made it. And the TF was often descrbed as being a good car.

 

[ExigeEvan]

hardly anyone wanted to buy a mediocre roadster before MGRover collapse, so who would buy on now that theyre reputation lies in tatters?

Are you telling me you don't see MG TFs left right and centre? That was a very popular model, I also see quite a few ZRs and ZTs.

Like L4S said, useless models killed them. The Streetwise was my favourite. It had bodywork resembling a Scenic 4x4 or XC70 and yet was named the streetwise making people assume it was a city car

And once word got out that the City Rover was a rebadged car from India it was doomed.

 

[Poverty]

It wasn't a lack of popularity that killed them off or providing crap models, it was bad managment. MG's were selling well, but then the bosses decded to start spending too much money on developing models that either would never see production or that they wouldn't make money on such as the SV, the V8 engined models which never arrived, and then they gave us the City Rover which was described by many as the worst car on sale in the UK. Until they started messing things up with putting money in the wrong places they were coming back well enough to have made it. And the TF was often descrbed as being a good car.

so what your saying is that MG rover went bust, because they didnt develop new core vehicles, but instead carried on trying to sell us rehashed models from the 90's which were mediocre back then.

So its what I said, what killed them off is because they sold **** cars.

Are you telling me you don't see MG TFs left right and centre? That was a very popular model, I also see quite a few ZRs and ZTs.

Like L4S said, useless models killed them. The Streetwise was my favourite. It had bodywork resembling a Scenic 4x4 or XC70 and yet was named the streetwise making people assume it was a city car

And once word got out that the City Rover was a rebadged car from India it was doomed.

The city rover was doomed regardless because it was so bloody crap and ugly, and its basically a cheap car for OAP's.

And nope in london there arent many MG's, we prefer quality cars such as BMW's and Audi's and if one cannot afford or wished to spend that amount of money VW, Vauxhall and ford rule the roost, and the french have what could be considered and iron fist on the supermini market.

MG Rover cars were crap and I dont think anyone could dispute that unless theyre british bias clouds theyre judgment.

 

[Poverty]

double post

 

[ExigeEvan]

MG Rover cars were crap and I dont think anyone could dispute that unless theyre british bias clouds theyre judgment.

Do you read Evo? One of the staff has just bought a 75 and he thinks it is great for it's purpose. An easy to drive commuter.

 

[Danny]

Source: AutoExpress

McLaren SLRs recalled over fire risk

Mercedes has issued a recall for a 1000 McLaren SLR supercars because of a fire risk

There’s hot news for McLaren Mercedes SLR fans – the £314,000 supercar is being recalled over fears it could catch fire!

Mercedes has discovered that under extreme conditions, the high temperatures generated by the SLR’s electrics can put undue strain on the alternator, with the risk of an engine bay blaze.

As a result, the firm has recalled all 1,000 SLRs produced between 2005 and 2006. Owners of the exclusive coupé – which is powered by a 626bhp supercharged V8 and has a top speed of 208mph – are being told to return their cars to their dealers, who will replace the alternator and fit a modified electronic control unit (ECU).

No fires or accidents have been reported yet, but owners should be on their guard. Mercedes says the problem occurs when the ECU automatically shuts down non-essential electrical items, such as the air-con and radio, to reduce strain on the alternator. If this happens, owners should turn the engine off and contact their dealer immediately.

Oh, I'll take it back then.

 

[Poverty]

Do you read Evo? One of the staff has just bought a 75 and he thinks it is great for it's purpose. An easy to drive commuter.

For the price you can pick them up for now its a good deal. It wasnt before.

 

[Danny]

The 75 was hailed as having a pleasant drive, and the RWD V8 MG ZT was fun.

 

[Dave A]

so what your saying is that MG rover went bust, because they didnt develop new core vehicles, but instead carried on trying to sell us rehashed models from the 90's which were mediocre back then.

No that's not what I said at all.

So its what I said, what killed them off is because they sold **** cars.

No it isn't.

The city rover was doomed regardless because it was so bloody crap and ugly, and its basically a cheap car for OAP's.

Yes it was.

And nope in london there arent many MG's, we prefer quality cars such as BMW's and Audi's and if one cannot afford or wished to spend that amount of money VW, Vauxhall and ford rule the roost, and the french have what could be considered and iron fist on the supermini market.

We've been thorugh this in the past and I'm pretty sure it just boiled down to you not liking MG's. There's not going to be as many MG's as Renaults or VW's simply because there wasn't nearly as many built, but the ones that were, got sold except for thoes made towards the end of MG's life when peopel didn't buy them because they wouldn't be able to get proper servicing and parts would be harder to come by if MG didn't make it.

MG Rover cars were crap and I dont think anyone could dispute that unless theyre british bias clouds theyre judgment.

Then why did they sell so well? And why did they get good reviews?


MG Rover went bust because the managment spent too much money on developing models that never made it into production or turned up too late ie the V8 engined ZT and ZS models and cars that would never turn a profit ie the SV. And then they panicked and made a deal to bring the City car over here badged as the City Rover which was just crap.

 

[Poverty]

If that is the case why is GM still running and MG Rover went bust?

What your saying doesnt make sense. Developing a new car wouldnt make them go bust, if they were still making profits on the rest of theyre line-up.

 

[Danny]

Thank goodness you've driven them all and can cast fair judgement...

 

[Dave A]

MG Rover and GM arn't in anything like the same situation, GM is a much, much bigger company than MG Rover was, and MG Rover had only just come back, that means it had to stabilise it'self, but the managment didn't let that happen for the reasons stated. What I'm saying does make sense, what your saying doesn't, if no-one was buying the cars then why were they being bought, if they were crap then why were they given good reviews. Sure the City Rover WAS crap, but that's one model and that was only brought in near the end as a kind of last resort to try to bring stability, when the reality of the matter is, thety didn't need the SV, they didn't need the V8 engined ZS and ZT that took so long and cost so damn much to develop, all they needed was the regular models and then to update them every 2 or 3 years and then maybe a few years down the line look at doing expanding the range.

They spent a lot on purchasing Qvale so that they could build and sell the Mangusta, but instead of doing that they scrapped the Mangusta and developed the Mangusta based SV which was then scrapped in favour of a new SV which by then had so much spent on it, it was never going to be profitable. While it ended up being a good car, it was vastly overpriced. They spent literal years developing the V8 engiend rwd, ZS and ZT models, and were always saying they'd be out next year. Then next year came and they said "they'll be out next year" and so on it went. And they spent a small fortune on thoes too. The City Rover was ment to be a cheap car for people that just wanted 4 wheels and some seats, but the reality of it is, we already have plenty of better cars than the City Rover for that. All the other models were good.

MG Rover failed because money was wasted on ventures that wouldn't bring enough of a return rather than letting the company stabilise and then sensibly work out how much money they could afford to lose on a venture if it wasn't a success. Instead they straight away, embarked on several ventures, none of which were handlied the right way or started at the right time and then when they didn't pay off the company wen't bust.

 

[Danny]

They spent a lot on purchasig Qvale so that they could build and sell the Mangusta, but instead of doing that they scrapped the Mangusta and dveloped the SV which was then scrapped in favour of an all new SV which by then had so much spent on it it was never going to be profitable, so it ended up being a good car but vastly overpriced. They spent literally years developing the V8 engiend rwd ZS and ZT models, and were always saying they'd be out next year, then next year came and "they'll be out next year" and so on and they spent a small fortune on theoes. The City Rover was ment to be a cheap car for peopel that just wanted 4 wheels and some seats, but the reality of it is we already have plenty of better cars than the City Rover for that. All the other models were good.

MG Rover failed because money was wasted on ventures that wouldn't bring enough of a return.

And supposedly the build quality and reliability were shocking.

 

[Dave A]

On the City Rover, V8 models or the SV? I don't know much about the V8's or the SV other than initial reviews, but the City Rover was crap all round.

 

[Danny]

The SV/R I think.

No-one would spend 80K on a poorly built (supposedly), overpriced, underpowered(for the weight), overweight (for the power) and with the media coverage of MG Rover going A over T.

 

[Dave A]

Exactley, it was too expensive, for £40k it might have sold, it would have been a much more appealing offer, but MG had spent so much on making it they left themselves little choice.

 

[Poverty]

Thank goodness you've driven them all and can cast fair judgement...

Thank goodness that I havent got rose tinted spectacles and a biased judgment. The rest of europe never rated modern MG.

 

[Dave A]

Prove it. It is you with the rose tinted spectacles on. You fail to accept that the cars were given good reviews and that they were well recieved by the public, instead taking simple fact the you personally don't like them and twisitng it this idea that they were all crap. By all means, you're allowed to not like them, but that's all it is, you have absolutely nothing to base you expanded argument on because there's nothing there that supports it.

 

[Poverty]

wiki mg rover affairs, and theyre chassis makeup, then you will see why I dont rate them.

 

[Dave A]

then you will see why I dont rate them.

I don't care why you don't like them, freedom of personal opinion is a good thing. The chssis works the cars handled great, I liked them just like a hell of a lot of other people did and do, if you don't then so be it. It's when you try to expand you're personal dislike to put the company down and make false claims while doing so, claims like "hardly anyone wanted to buy a mediocre roadster before MGRover collapse" which is false becuase the TF was a massivley popular model relative to MG production numbers.

 

[Scaff]

Damn nearly missed this one, people getting worked up left, right and centre about MG Rover.

OK some very valid points being made here and as much tosh as well.

Now I will say in advance that I have had a lot of experience with MG Rover, my brother in law and another friend worked for them in Swindon (before the plant became BMW MINI), I have also trained a lot of MG Rover dealers and staff, and have driven most of the 'last' model range.

Now while the last management team at MG Rover made some serious mistakes, we have to be clear that they are not the only reason why MG Rover went under. Firstly the company has always had 'major' issues with build quality, reliability, a poorly supported dealer network and an at time very militant workforce (and not just in the 70s & 80s). These were problem so ingrained that even BMW was unable to turn them around (and if anyone mentions that BMW screwed MG Rover - do your homework - they left MG Rover in about as sound a state as they could have).

The managment teams lack of clear focus on model replacement was a very big issue, simply developing the existing models was well beyond the point of no return.

However the existing model range was not selling well and the factories were producing far more cars that could be sold, I mean you can still buy 'new' MG Rovers to this day. Fields of unsold cars could be found around the UK, sales in Europe had hit a low and the UK market was not much better.

In terms of reviews, the 75 did get resonable to good reviews (depending on which version), but the cars were styled in a very old school manner and the interiors required the mandatory donning of string back driving gloves and a pipe.

The 25 was OK, but outclassed on nearly every front by its competitors, the 45 was a pile of junk and the City Rover an insult to customers given the laughable price tag. To be honest the public would not have cared where the car was made, if it had been set at a realistic price point, but at the price they sold it for (or rather failed to sell it for) it was a no brainer for the consumer. Much better cars could be bought for much less.

Now in terms of reliability MG Rover have always had an issue, this did not change up to the point they shut the door. Consumer surveys, such as JD Power always showed that the owners of these MG Rovers did not rate them much. The dealer network was always very strongly critisised by owners, and while in some cases the dealers were at fault, I how first hand that a lot of these problems at dealer level originated from poor back-up and support from MG Rover themselves. Particulalrly in the areas of warranty and parts supply (in the last months of MG Rover a switch of parts distribution company resulted in MG Rover actually stopping productiuon to get parts to dealers).

I'm sorry to say that very few of MG Rovers cars were much more than mediocre performers when compared to direct rivals, they were unreliable (IIRC when they were producing the Freelander it was the car with the most product recalls on the UK market), with a poor dealer network, a problematic workforce and an inept mangement team.

Its a shame to have witnessed the dying days of a British car manufacturer, and even more so when you consider the number of people who lost jobs.

Regards

Scaff

 

[Poverty]

I don't care why you don't like them, freedom of personal opinion is a good thing. The chssis works the cars handled great, I liked them just like a hell of a lot of other people did and do, if you don't then so be it. It's when you try to expand you're personal dislike to put the company down and make false claims while doing so, claims like "hardly anyone wanted to buy a mediocre roadster before MGRover collapse" which is false becuase the TF was a massivley popular model relative to MG production numbers.

Just because it was one of the better selling MG Rovers doesnt mean its good. People buy crap cars all the time, why do you think Fiats still with us to this day, and the same goes for alfa romeo, which is probably the least reliable manufacturer to ever exist.

If MG rover made good cars, they would have never gone bust, its as simple as that.

Also do you have sales figures of MG rover vehicles, because I hardly ever see any.