The Rover P5B is still seen by many as the quintessential Rover. What the company needs now is to produce the modern equivalent, and base the range upon it.
Niall King discusses what qualities are essential in a Rover, and why some of the current range is missing that ideal.
This is a highly personal perspective and we invite comments from those who have read this piece...
The Rover P5B is still seen by many as the quintessential
Rover. What the company needs now is to produce the modern equivalent, and base
the range upon it.
t is becoming
ever clearer that ever since the Mk1 Rover 200 was introduced Rover’s
various owners, managers and marketers have had little or no idea how to build the
Rover brand. One can hardly blame them, with all the various changes of management,
owner and direction, but badge-engineered Austins, Hondas and Tatas have diluted
the brand ever further, dragging it downmarket even as the marketing men have
tried to sell the brand as upmarket. This basically stems from the foolish decision
to merge almost all of the previous British Leyland company and its ill-perceived
product range into a single Rover entity, thus instantly endowing Rover with
all the poor reputation of all of the British Leyland behemoth, rather than
carrying Rover on as a separate brand as had been done with Land Rover and Jaguar.
In terms of market value, Rover has become little more than a Ford equivalent
with a bit of walnut and chrome, and a plastichrome grille. Unfortunately for
the company that simply is not good enough any more.
Rover is, I am told, almost run by the marketing men, rather than the engineers. It is a common mantra, especially amongst marketers and advertisers, that nothing is more important than the brand. This is, of course, absolute rubbish. The product is far more important. Twenty years of Rover brand mismanagement have shown us that you cannot apply an upmarket brand to an inadequate product without damaging that brand. MG Rover’s marketing people don’t seem to realise this, and are still rebadging budget imported city cars as Rovers and trying to sell them at the same dealers, with the same positioning and strategy as barnstorming V8-powered luxury cars.
 |
In terms of market value, Rover has become little more than a Ford equivalent with a bit of walnut and chrome, and a plastichrome grille. Unfortunately for the company that simply is not good enough any more |
 |
Ford realised this was no longer possible, which is why they dropped the Scorpio and bought Jaguar and Volvo. Today’s buyers expect exclusivity as standard with their expensive cars. There is light at the end of the tunnel: the relaunch of MG is inspired. The image is great, the products (even the older ones) have been re-engineered to back up the image, and the sales are rising. Rover needs to become exclusive again if the brand is to survive, but how should this be done? What should a 21st Century Rover be? Starting from a position of almost no brand capital means that Rover must rebuild the brand image from scratch, and be thoroughly focused on a specific type of car, until such time as the brand is strong enough to sell a diverse model range again.
It’s probably easier to start by stating what Rover should not be. A Rover should not be based on an existing car and rebadged. It should not be a base model dressed up with tacked on plastichrome and fake walnut. It should not be slow. It should not be front-wheel-drive. It should not have an engine with fewer than 6 cylinders and a capacity of less than 2 litres. Basically, with the exception of the 75 V8, all the Rovers from the 800, to the CityRover fail one or more of these criteria. But Rover still has some upmarket cachet, especially outside the UK, and the reason is that until the 1980s every new Rover launched was a market-beating success. It makes sense to analyse these products and see what qualities made the cars so good.
What a Rover should be is British made. The fact that it is British is central to the identity of the company and the brand, and should never again be sacrificed on the altar of short-term financial gain. A Rover should be clever and innovative where necessary, but never too clever for its own good. If conventional engineering solutions do a better job they should be used in the pursuit of reliability. The P6 had an innovative base unit construction and a De Dion rear axle, but the SD1 had a stronger, lighter, stiffer and less rust-prone monocoque construction and a live rear axle which though on paper was a less sophisticated solution than the De Dion rear, was in practice so well located that it beat its predecessor on the road.
A Rover should be capable of taking the driver and at least three passengers from Calais to Calabria in superb speed, style, comfort and convenience. This means the ride must be cosseting, the handling surefooted and the chassis superbly capable. A Rover should beat its competition dynamically, and in practice this means a Rover should handle and ride better than a BMW; difficult, but not impossible. Rear-wheel-drive is an absolute must, and the front:rear weight distribution should be as close to 50:50 as possible.
A superlative chassis must be matched by an impressive engine range. A Rover should be fast – from fairly quick to staggeringly fast, and a range of engines should be specified that are refined, smooth powerful and tuneful. Good emissions and economy are things one should expect on any car these days, but true thoroughbred refinement is a rare and splendid thing. No four-cylinder engine is adequate. If BMW doesn’t consider anything less than a six in its upper-segment cars then neither should Rover. Engines from 2-litre sixes to 5-litre V8s are what a Rover needs. These engines should have fat and flat torque curves to make power available from anywhere in the rev range. After all, you should never need to thrash a Rover to make progress! These engines should be coupled to smooth automatic and manual transmissions – fripperies like paddle-shifts and CVTs are not yet adequate for this market.
Rover Vitesse: still revered today, and with good reason.
It was a car that struck fear into the heart of Munich and showed that a fast
Rover had a character all of its own.
|
A Rover should be capable of taking the driver and at least three passengers from Calais to Calabria in superb speed, style, comfort and convenience |
|
A Rover should be big outside and in. A small car such as the 25 cannot really offer the kind of refinement a Rover should have, and the combination of parsimonious compact styling with upmarket heavyweight interiors can spill over into the ridiculous far to easily. Small cars are at their best, not to mention most profitable, when they are basic, cheap, unpretentious and simple. The superminis can be Austins and the medium cars can be Triumphs (or at least they could if MGR could buy the brand back from BMW). The current 75 is as small as any Rover should be, and there should be one a sector larger to complement it. The styling should be modern and exciting, without being overly flash.
The lines ought to be very modern and forward looking, but the proportions and overall impression should lean towards the classic rather than the avant garde (which is a French phrase for a very good reason!). Rovers should avoid going too heavily into the retro look – that is Jaguar’s territory, and it puts off as many buyers as it attracts. Making references to older models in the design language is fine, but aping them wholesale is a mistake. The car should look magnificent and imposing, and should send a clear message as you bear down on the outside-lane BMW driver that he had better pull in and get his nasty German heap out of your way. The styling should look as at home driving the Prime Minister to meet the Queen as it does taking a 1-2 finish at Silverstone. Although the car should be capable of great performance we are looking for a Q car, not a Max Power special. Any brightwork should be subtle, not flashy, and should be stainless steel, not chrome or (shudder!) plastichrome.
The interior should invite, cosset and entertain the passengers. It should make them feel very special. Clever details and careful selection of materials, colour and surface texture should combine to give the occupants a tremendous sense of well-being. The driver’s station should be as clean and purposeful as possible, leaving him or her to concentrate on the act of driving rather than be distracted by iDrives and the like. Everything should work in the conventional manner and it should work extremely well. Leather should be real and of high quality.
The design should be elegant but not retro, perhaps taking more inspiration from modern luxury hotels and bars than other motor cars. Wood, if present, should be real and look it. Matt or satin finishes and straight grains can help Rover move away from its pipe-and-slippers image without losing the sense of occasion people enjoy. Wood should be used in such a way that it looks designed in from the start. Leather seats must be just that, not merely leather-faced seats. There are few things more disappointing than supposedly luxurious leather seats with cheap vinyl down the sides and back – especially if they cost extra.
Rover’s management at the moment seem confused by the message that Rover as a brand should convey, harping misguidedly on about value and equipment levels and other such irrelevant rot. MG Rover will be doing its job properly when MG is a byword for a barely-contained high-octane hotrod scaring the sheep and the Subarus, and Rover is a byword for a supremely efficient and luxurious autobahn missile, capable of crossing continents without drama or fuss. I look forward to the day this happens.
Isn't it ironic that the Rover which most closely fits
this ideal carries an MG badge?
| Have your say... |  |
Please let us know your thoughts - and what do YOU think makes a Rover?
Keith Adams:
In the Sixties, when Rover was at its absolute zenith, the company's products stood for speed, solidity, engineering excellence, quality and security. Where has this gone? Rover now seems to be nothing short of a laughing stock... the company needs to work out what it is and then build a strategy around this. I think that Niall's ideas for Rover's future are good ones, I just worry that it might already be too late.
Jon Mower:
I have just spent an enjoyable 15 minutes reading and digesting this article and agree wholeheartedly with the all points. Rover doesn't stand for mass market appeal, that's Ford's and Vauxhall's territory. Rover stands for "Respect", "Quality" and "Pleasure", respect for the drivers that own them, as in the past Rovers were associated with bank managers and doctors and these people were very well respected in their day.
If other marques can use real wood and leather why can't Rover? The pleasure of owning a respected, quality car, the pleasure of wafting down motorways (when there are no hold-ups), getting out of the car and looking back at it and smiling, knowing that your car is BRITISH, and one of the best around, being proud to boast to the world that you own a ROVER, not hiding under the sheets when you are asked, as in the Škoda days.
The days of all the above WILL be back; when this is I know not, but with there ingenuity, funding from China (hopefully) and a little patience this WILL happen, and sooner rather than later, I hope.
Mike Bushell:
A real Rover has to have:
Style. It has to be modern, but different. Not "me too" – Audi make the best Audi, so if you want an Audi, buy one, don't buy a Ford. The Rover 75 looks more individual as time goes by. However the P5 is a tall saloon car which could be a key Rover style feature for the future. I like the big-wheel look that Rover are pursuing.
Power. Rolls-Royce used to talk about "sufficient" power. That is what a Rover needs. I totally disagree with Mr King's view on 4-cylinder engines. The 131PS CDTi is the best engine in the range. We would all like a V8, but the current climate does not support that view. Whilst BMW, Mercedes are producing ever more powerful engines, the models that sell are the small 4-cylinders (BMW's top seller is now the 320d; Jaguar suffered in Europe without a diesel). That being said a Rover must have the best engines, so we should be looking to developing or acquiring class-leading power plants. You will always need a V6 or V8 to aspire to, but just remember that they will only be small sellers. I would always want Rover to consider hybrids (and of course return to a tradition of alternative power-source research).
Interior. Probably the most important part. We all spend more and more of our time in cars – quite often going nowhere. Obviously we need top seating (try a Saab 9-5 to know what good seating means). Quality of materials I agree is key. Good leather everywhere, not PVC. Trouble is, not everyone likes leather or can afford it. How about working with home furnishing experts to look at interesting textiles that feel inviting and not second best? Wood is tricky. I quite like the "black oak" look in my car, but I am sick of traditional walnut. I always felt that Triumph 1970s satin wood was more attractive. Alternatives to wood a thin on the ground – everyone is going aluminium these days and it now looks cheap. How about coloured, stained wood (eg: blue, yellow, green?). We need the best technology – hi-fi, sat nav, DVD, i-Pod connectivity, Bluetooth, the lot (and for God's sake dump the cassette players – no-one uses them these days!).
Why rear drive? What about four-wheel-drive? When do any of us really get into positions where we can tell which wheels are driven these days?
British made? Absolutely. However Rover must not rule out collaboration on component development of bringing in the right parts (eg: the V8 from Ford). Why not collaborate with other British-based (if not owned) companies, such as TVR?
Neil Seymour:
I'm sorry but Niall's view for Rover are completely misguided – well-meaning, but misguided. Rover the company simply doesn't have the sales to support multiple brands. It needs to look at Mercedes or Toyota or Honda who understand that the brand is secondary to producing quality reliable product across all segments. That's the issue – put the money into quality products that people want – the brand & the image will look after itself.
Jonathan Carling:
I think Niall's probably right. The next Rover will have less competition, and needs to last longer in the market, if it is bigger than the curent 75 rather than smaller. Think Lancia Thesis. Front-wheel-drive is inevitable though, as it will have to be based on the 75. But Keith's right too – it is already too late.
Ian Nicholls:
I absolutely agree with what Niall King has written. A Rover should be a class apart from the FWD Euroboxes. I suspect that if the brand is to be resurrected, it won't happen until MGR financially collapse and the marque names are sold on. MG could be sold to someone like TVR who could use it on smaller engined cars. Rover could become the quality brand of a mass market manufacturer.
I saw those 1-2 finishes at Silverstone, and I know a Rover ain't a sub-2-litre car. Many of those consumers who told Graham Day they wanted to drive a Rover not an Austin are now retired. They remembered when a Rover was a special car. A newer generation has come along and only know a Rover as a re-badged Austin, with an Austin's faults.
Mike Humble:
Come on now folks and lets not try to kid ourselves. The current Rovers on sale now are nothing short of embarrasing, tired re-hashes of tired and re-hashed cars, with the exception of the 75. Very recently, I visited a large North Midlands MG Rover dealer. The salesman I spoke to for 20-30 mins had sold the same brand of car for 28 years. In so many words he told me that he had " nothing to compete with".
The CityRover is excactly what Rover does not need, its of low quality, too expensive and woefully under selling. What Rover need is QUALITY COLLABORATION not EuroAsian cast off rubbish. To see this small car in the same floorspace as a top of the range 75 tourer almost had me in tears. Long established dealers know the potential is there to really produce some bloody good cars. Rover are highly skilled at producing "silk purses" like the old 200 & 400 ranges. These 2 cars had EVERYTHING a Rover should be. They were reasonably well built, had tasteful trim, looked good and had those two magical touches "feel good factor" and "Japaneese efficiency".
Rovers should be cossetting, smooth, tasteful and confidence inspiring. They should make you feel important and different from the rest of the pack. The chrome, the leather and the right splash of chrome is everything the Rover should be. Ford have proved they have no idea what luxury motoring is by scrapping the Scorpio and buying up any badge with Kudos, 75 or Mondeo its your choice. But as for future events, i think there is life in the old dog yet, but NOT without new investors and new lower range models. I want it, the dealers want it and if its right, the public will want it too!