Is the Giulietta an Alfa Romeo Rover 75? February 16, 2010
Posted by richard in : History , 4commentsALFA Romeo will show the sexy Ford Focus-rivalling Giulietta in public for the first time at the Geneva Motor Show in March.
It’s a make-or-break car. Lordy, how many times have we heard that before?
Thing is, how many times has it been proven right..?
Fiat Group boss Sergio Marchionne has already gone on record to say Alfa Romeo is currently not cutting the mustard. It’s the weakest brand in the giant Fiat Group portfolio – and, when you consider that also includes Chrysler and Lancia, it’s quite a dubious honour to hold.
Alfa Romeo is unbowed, though. It’s going to take its final chance and damn well make the most of it – with a product-led recovery that will be centred around the Giulietta.
But can Alfa do it? My mind swifts back to another ill-judged pronouncement of leadership intent to drive the PR guys up the wall. Yes, Bernd Pischetsrieder, on the eve of the Rover 75 launch at the British Motor Show back in 1998.
Forget the car, muses Keith Adams on the brilliant AROnline: Bernd ensured that, with pronouncements such as ‘short-term actions are required for the long-term future of the Rover Group,’ the chat of the launch was not of 75, but of the health of the firm building it.
So recounted motoring writer good guy Steve Cropley to Adams; ‘…we were all a bit stunned,’ he said, ‘both by the content and timing of what Bernd Pischetsrieder said. We had all been feeling pretty enthusiastic about the 75 and the unveiling had gone well… it seemed bizarre, even grotesque, that the company’s top man should choose to undermine the moment so thoroughly.
‘He deflected the media from praising the car the way they would naturally have done, deflated the workforce who must have been on a high, and introduced a degree of buyer uncertainty that could have been avoided.’ No wonder the reaction in the firm was one of gobsmacked amazement.
Shoot forward a decade and a bit, to the Giulietta, to Marchionne saying ‘Alfa has been underperforming for some time’ and ‘it’s our problem’ and we ‘have to rethink our objectives and be realistic with ourselves,’ to cue many pairs of eyes on Alfa in Geneva.
Will he complete his ‘doing a Bernd’ in Geneva? I’ll join the throngs during the press conference next month and find out…
How Ford would have made a Rover
5 facts on the MGF January 17, 2010
Posted by richard in : History , add a commentAUTOCAR man Steve Cropley interviewed the team behind the MGF back in 1995.
His piece is full of fascinating findings: 5 of them caught my eye, which helped show that the MGF was much more than just a rebodied Metro.
Such as:
1 Europe-first EPAS system
MGFs weren’t initially to have PAS. Late implementation meant a simple solution was required. Enter electric power steering – which Rover initially only was to fit on Japanese-market cars, to help with parking. Speed-sensitive, it had then never before been seen in Europe.
2 Trick adjustments to Metro rear suspension
Metro rear suspension anti-dive caused the MGF’s tail to rise and toe-out under braking, and squat under power. Bad. So, to the existing subframe, engineers junked the bottom A-arm, in favour of 3 new lower bits:
• Bottom link
• Track control arm
• Brake reaction rod
These were anchored in different places on the subframe, for optimal geometry. The result was one ‘as pure in practice as that of a uniquely designed system’.
3 Subtle changes to Metro front suspension
Well, just one – the steering arm was shortened, to speed up the steering ratio and improve the Ackermann effect
4 Posh Hydragas units
These were more expensive, with less inbuilt ‘stiction’. They moved at lower loads than in, say, the Metro. Richard Parry-Jones would be proud. That’s why Dr Alex Moulton wanted to see them on the Rover 100 – but Rover couldn’t justify the expense on a low-end car.
5 BMW-spec windscreen frame strength
BMW gave the MGF the final green light. German input was minimal, though: the only contribution was the adoption of the BMW roadster’s specification for windscreen frame strength. Does this mean the MGF has the same windscreen surround as the Z3?
Any more insider facts on the MGF, please share them here!
Land Rover’s ride quality secret
How Ford would have made a Rover
How Ford would have made a Rover January 8, 2010
Posted by richard in : History , 2commentsFORD finally won ownership to the Rover brand name in 2006. But it was providing aid for the brand even before then.
Secret talks in the late 90s were conducted, to sidestep then-chief Bernd Pischetreider’s plans to invest £1.7bn in Rover. Instead of spending so much to develop two new platforms, a future mid-range Rover would have been developed with Ford.
The plan was to take the Focus and develop it into a Rover. BMW engineers, said Car magazine’s Hilton Holloway back in 1999, went so far as to evaluate the Ford Focus.
Their verdict? The VW Golf, which was initially to have formed the base of the Rover, is a fine car… ‘but the Focus is better – almost as good as we envisage the next Golf being.’
And how would they have turned it into a Rover? Easy: ‘new rubber mountings, springs and dampers.’
This has to rank up among the biggest opportunities missed in the entire history of Rover. Despite an insider telling Holloway ‘on a 1-to-10 provability scale, we’ve reached 8 with Ford’. The Mk1 Focus is brilliant. It could have made a superb Rover 200 replacement.
Volvo proved as much by taking the Mk2 Focus platform and creating the Volvo C30. Which is brilliant. Looks nothing like a Focus, neither outside nor in. Indeed, the more I think about it, the more it pains me: seems the ‘unforeseen’, which would have scuppered the deal our insider expected by March 2000, did indeed happen.
Groan…
Land Rover’s ride quality secret
Rover 200 makes the 95 news December 13, 2009
Posted by richard in : History , 2commentsROVER’S unveiling of the 200 made for a fascinating news report by Julian Rendell back in ’95.
He was reporting from the London Motor Show, at which he spoke to the car’s designer, David Saddington. There, the Rover man explained the internal soul-searching that had been preoccupying all at Longbridge for months.
Apparently, it was a question of grille or no grille. They tried all sorts, eventually setting on a body-colour version of the chrome grille. This would appeal to the younger buyers Rover was targeting – while remaining ‘recognisably Rover’.
‘We’re stretching the perceptions of Roverness so the grille is very important to establish the Rover credentials.’
Younger buyers? Apparently, then-boss John Towers wanted 20s and 30s, rather than 40, 50 and 60 year olds. People like me, then: had I been older, I’d have been receptive to this ‘significant message in a new era of Rover products’.
People such as me are the reason why Rover fitted extra-long seat runners: boosting it for those up front, and sacrificing rear space. Mind you, a properly shorter wheelbase than the 306 Rendell compared it with was also a factor here. Also led to a small boot.
As we know, the R3 project cost £200 million, through using bits from the parts bin, and making sure 3dr and 5dr use lots of common bits: front end, roof, rear hatch and glass are the same for both. Only the side pressings and doors are different.
Rendell also pointed out the front bulkhead forwards was the same as the R8; new press tools built an all-new floorpan.
Suspension, he explained, was modified 200 struts at the front, and a H-frame rear torsion beam we now know is from the Maestro. Despite grannies driving that, the firm tuned it for handling: project chief Bill Owen told Rendell it ‘just turns in and grips.’
Neutral rear steer tuning for the rear combined with ride comfort ’very similar’ to the 400 over smaller bumps. Over bigger bumps, it was just behind. Roll bars make an interesting comparison, tool
• Standard: 19mm f, 16mm r
• Diesel: 23mm f, 16mm r
• Vi: 25mm f, 18mm r
Why the big jump for diesels? To counter the extra weight of the engine: unlike the all-alloy K Series, the then-new L-series was decidedly ferrous. Diesels came in 86hp or 105hp: electronic control for the injection system gave the more powerful one its boost.
More tech: the 1.6-litre got a CVT, from Belgians VCST – the same chaps who made it for the Metro CVT. Impressive example of scaling-up here: indeed, it would also later appear on the 1.8-litre MGF Steptronic.
Overall, Rendell was most impressed with the 200. Should see queues forming outside dealers, he reckoned. See: even as late as ’95, Rover could still do it.
A decade later, alas, it would be no more.
Land Rover’s ride quality secret
The more things change… November 21, 2009
Posted by richard in : History , add a commentTWO decades ago, the car industry was in a recession, too. 1991 was a year of depression, sales shrinkages and dealer drama.
Sound familiar? Well, looking at the news of the day, the parallels extend far further than that. Yearly sales were around 1.8 million, well down on the all-time record of 2.3 million in 1989. Rather similar to this year’s prediction, too.
This led, explained Autocar & Motor’s David Sutherland, to ‘plant idling’ – shutting plants down for weeks and months on end. Honda, Nissan and MINI will be familiar with this.
He also looked at a few individual brands, rating their performance over the year.
Ford used to claim 30 percent, but the maker was suffering, mainly because of the rubbish Escort. 25 percent was the total experts said it would have to put up with (today, Ford commands 17.5 percent. There’s a difference).
Rover (remember them?) was still doing well – the Brit-built Metro was brilliant, as were the 200 and 400. Even the archaic Maestro and Montego were finding homes in large lease and daily rental fleets, albeit with massive discounts.
Citroen was on the up, with the ZX bringing market share up to around 3.5-4 percent. Again, oddly similar to what it holds today. Funnily, expert Garel Rhys noted the firm’s pricing throughout the ‘80s was competitive, ‘and it will have to beep up the aggressive marketing strategy’…
BMW was pleased: here is where the 3 Series really started its shift to the mainstream, with the launch of the E36. Sutherland reckoned the biggest problem would be getting enough right-hookers.
‘It’s a good time to launch a small car because in this recession a lot of people are considering down-sizing,’ said a BMW GB chief.
Lest we forget, Japanese makers were still selling under quotas, meaning they were cushioned against the recession. Nissan was the largest: it could sell 6 percent of the UK market total. Interesting, and not long to last.
But, today and quota-free, is there really that much difference in volumes? Toyota has 5 percent, Nissan has 3.2 percent, Mazda has 2.3 percent…
There were differences, though. In 2009, it’s been scrappage-boosted private buyers who have kept the market up. Company car drivers did that in 1991 – retail sales were knocked by price rises and high interest rates. The latter isn’t a factor now, and scrappage has reduced the impact of the latter.
18 years ago seems like only yesterday, yet you’d still think there would be huge changes in the UK market. And, with no Rover and more makers eating into Ford’s share, there have indeed been.
Still, though, the framework remains intriguingly familiar…
If Ford played chess, don’t take it on
Why scrappage is now inevitable
Ford gloom hides people carrier revolution?
Rover rides with NASA July 2, 2009
Posted by richard in : Technology , 3commentsIT was Rover that introduced the UK to the Pandora’s box of secondary ride quality considerations.
Secondary what? Yes, indeed. Edit the above to insert (non too successfully).
But, there it was. In the 1995 national ad campaign for the Rover 400. Best secondary ride comfort in its sector, didn’t you know.
Rover did bless it up a bit, by headlining it ‘long distance ride comfort’. But you didn’t have to snib that much further to see this mysterious new term mentioned.
What is it? The ability of a car to soak up sharp surface imperfections – you know, high-frequency, low amplitude stuff. Potholes and the like. The noisy, harsh and unpleasant stuff.
As opposed, of course, to primary ride quality. That’s how well a car controls its body motions over bigger road undulations.
Rover did this by using something space-age and cool-sounding: NASA’s official ‘comfort coefficient’ for ride comfort.
Apparently, the Rover 400 had an excellent 2.06 rating. Much better than contemporary Vauxhall Cavaliers, Peugeot 405s, Ford Mondeos and even – get this – traditionally fine-riding motors like the Citroen Xantia and Renault Laguna.
That was in the small print, of course. Communicating this was the canny ‘land speed record’ ad campaign. And, at the time, while few really understood what it was on about, they still remembered it.
If they also remembered something about space, NASA, ride and Rover, then it was job done. Let’s just hope the old HH-R didn’t disappoint too many who were expecting a Rolls-Royce when they got to showrooms.
Because there, they’d discover the interesting revelation about primary ride. That the Cavalier beat it – by its own NASA-sanctioned coefficient, no less. Harsh and knobbly the old Cav 3 may have been (I know – my dad had one), but it couldn’t half control its body motions well.
And the other Rover-beater? The Citroen Xantia.
Whoosh.
A NASA rocket? No, theories about wallowy hydropneumatic Citroens, flying out the window.
BMW X5 – reviewing the 2007 launch
MINI John Cooper S Works Photostream on Flickr
Why Ford Econetics break the rules
Mini brochure makes fascinating reading April 20, 2009
Posted by richard in : Minutiae of cars , 1 comment so farSTUDYING new car data is something I do every day at Motoring Research Ltd.
Torque figures, combined fuel consumption, CO2, weights, boot capacities, the whole shooting match.
So it was with fascination that I flicked through the classic Mini brochure I dug out recently.
That’s Mini Classic – as in, the 1997 Rover-BMW model, by then differentiated from the forthcoming new MINI by yet another name change (and the retention of correct capitalisation).
Looking at it with today’s eyes, it’s truly fascinating. For example, engine power output of 62bhp is no great shakes by modern 1.3-litre standards: a Peugeot 107’s 1.0-litre triple yields 68bhp.
However, 70lb/ft of torque IS much more like it – particularly as it’s generated at an almost diesel-like 3000rpm. I read into this, lots of low-rev sluggability.
Performance figures still stack up, too – for a tiny city car, 0-60mph in 12.2 seconds is pretty decent, even if aero effects ultimately does limit the maximum to 90mph.
This is, alas, why economy is less than glittering. That modern Peugeot 107 returns well over 60mpg. The Mini? 43mpg combined.
That equates to CO2 emissions of circa 155g/km: compare this, for example, to something like a BMW 320i. Which emits 146g/km (and the diesel 320d puts out just 128g/km).
Still, at least modern car service intervals were quoted. After an initial 6000 mile check, you’d only have to take it to the Rover dealer every 12,000 miles, or 12 months.
That’s probably all for the better, mind. For the dealer’s sake. At the back of the brochure, a finance example is quoted. Yes, a Mini could have been yours, for just £2715 down, then £169 a month for two years.
Great!
Sure, you’d have a final payment of £3800 on the PCP scheme, but a minimum guaranteed value of £4700 would easily cover that.
All good? Well, no. See, this £9000 Mini would actually, by that stage, have cost you £10,572. Why? Average APR of 15.9 percent, that’s why.
To modern eyes of 0.5 percent base rates, and car dealers not bothering to get out of bed if they can’t do 0 percent finance, that seems somewhat rich…
More insights on my brochure studies to come!
Can you help me buy a Mini in 2009?
How Chevrolet today became cool
Have I (again) solved the great Mini search? March 29, 2009
Posted by richard in : Minutiae of cars , 4commentsSo, as you know, I’ve been looking back at old road tests in Autocar. The Mayfair one was revealing. While the 1997 Cooper one properly got me going.
I asked the question, wonder if the Mayfair’s still on the road? Tom Rowan answered it – probably not. He did a canny registration search, and discovered the potentially bad news.
Well then, I thought… if it worked for that, why shouldn’t it also work for P 752 KWK, the 1997 Rover press fleet car?
To the DVLA link I duly went. Whence, I got back some very interesting news.
The car still exists.
But it’s currently declared SORN.
Why? What’s it doing? Where’s it living? Has it been crash-damaged, and is currently being repaired? Is it a restoration project? Has the owner discovered its famed provenance, and is keeping it safely stored in a lockup somewhere?
I don’t know! But I would love to… see, if this is a car in ill health, that the owner wants to move on for minimal bucks, I’d definitely be interested. Hey – owning an ex-press car… what a thrill!
It could even be the same car my boss Peter Burgess had down here on loan all those years ago. It could be the same test car my mates at Autocar thrashed around the track. Providing me with the delights to pour over a few weeks later.
It’d be nice to find out. Anyone out there recognise it, and can help? If so, let me know.
Because, staring at the images, a metallic orange Rover Cooper on 13”s would do the job quite nicely, I think…
Can you help me buy a Mini in 2009?
Mini search over already? If I’m lucky
What can I expect from a Mini?
