(first posted 2/29/2016) From the formation of British Leyland in 1968 onwards, at almost every car launch we were told that the product was either central, critical, or crucial to the future of the company. From the mid-1970s onwards, these warnings got stronger. By the time the Rover 75 was first shown in 1998, even BMW had to admit it was the last chance saloon.
From 1988, BL had been owned by British Aerospace (or BAe, now BAE Systems), in a rather surprising and not entirely obvious tie-up. In fact, the suspicion that BAe saw something in Rover’s cash flow and property assets together with a decision to work supportively with the Thatcher government has never been convincingly disproved.
These years were marked by a low level of product investment, with the new models being either already in the Rover pipeline – the Rover 200/400 and 600 series (in partnership with Honda), the Rover Metro based on the 1980 Austin miniMetro, and the MGF sports car, for which Rover’s marketing wouldn’t let the engineers say how much had been spent, because it was so little. Two projects in the mid market – the 1995 Rover 200, based on the Honda Civic, but with Rover engines and an Austin Maestro rear suspension, and the Rover 400 series, based on the Honda Domani – made it to market, shortly after the BMW takeover. But there was still a clear issue at the top of the range.
Rover 800 series II.
The Rover 800 shared had been reskinned in 1991, but was still based on the 1985 Honda Legend and had been left behind by its Honda twin. The smaller 1993 Rover 600 was merely a reskinned fifth generation Honda Accord – all very nicely done and arguably better looking than the Honda – but it came with hefty royalty obligations and a limited model range.
Rover 600.
Rover were building a case for BAe approval for a replacement for the Rover 800, and by the end of 1993, Rover had an outline for a product that would replace both the 800 and the relatively new 600 around an ambition to not build it on a Honda platform. All that was needed was the investment, and under BAe that was going to be the challenge.
But, in February 1994, to the astonishment of Britain, never mind Germany or anywhere else, BMW bought the Rover Group – Rover, MG, Land Rover and Range Rover, in full and for cash. Shock and awe don’t come close.
Perhaps even more surprising was the degree of freedom BMW subsequently gave Rover, allowing them to continue development with the 75, then known as Project R40, in terms of the type of car, its style, its marketing emphasis and pricing. Rather than basing the car on the platform of the then outgoing BMW 5 series (the 1986 E34) as was suggested and even expected by many, or on a major re-engineering of the 800, BMW gave Rover the investment funds and confidence to go ahead with a new platform for the R40, backing this up with access to some BMW technology such as the multi-link rear suspension and class leading diesel engines.
The car also featured the Rover K series engine, originally seen on the 1989 Rover 200 in 1.4 litre four cylinder twin cam guise, but now offered in 1.8 litre four cylinder and as a V6 of 2.0 and 2.5 litres, again with twin cams. From BMW came a lot of contemporary electronics, such as sat nav and TV monitor, even reversing sensors and various control systems, all of which were at least a generation ahead of anything on the Rover 800.
BMW’s standards drove closer attention to detail in the engineering of the car than Rover had been accustomed to, and it showed on the finished product. Details like a sunroof aperture without a visible seam, the standard of the door seals and the feel of the door closing were all examples of this. With these standards came increased thoroughness in testing processes as well, which also showed its benefit.
Rover P5 and P4
Rover developed a very traditionally styled comfort oriented car, complete with the only dashboard in the business that appeared to use wood structurally, and a whole sequence of historic British and Rover styling cues.
The styling was full of references to previous Rovers – the grille from the P4 and P5, the curvature of the sides from the P5, the four light saloon format from every Rover from the 1930s to the 1963 P6, the rear profile was P4 with bigger lights, the dash was suggestive of the P5, the seats were even shaped to look like the P6, the door trims were from the P5, the list goes on.
Rover P5 interior.
In a nerdy sort of way, it was quite interesting, but to anyone who wasn’t a rather sad student of car styling, the subtlety of it all passed by and it became an arguably dated and maybe even contrived looking car.
The interior was almost like the 1950s with seat belts and a digital clock – the instruments looked like they were from the set of Poirot. Factor in the high technology features BMW were able to provide and it ended up as the automotive equivalent of putting a colour TV in a walnut cabinet with folding doors in case the neighbours saw it.
Rover P4 and P5.
Stylist Richard Woolley told of the impression the Rover P4 had made on him in the 1950s, and it showed.
This is quite a startling transformation in just two generations and twenty years since the SD1 had been the “modern” car in the sector, as had been the original P6 before it. For over twenty years, Rovers had been modern with a sporting performance emphasis if luxurious, and were now offering a car seemingly named after the average age of the target customer.
Also noteworthy is that Rover hailed the styling of the 75, taking a name for a P4 variant, as being the “new direction” for Rover. But, squint a little, ignore the chrome detailing and put on rectangular, instead of the four round, headlamps and you get something very close to a larger Rover 400 series saloon, and a clear evolution from the 600.
The front wing cutout for an HH-R 400 or 600 style headlamp and indicator assembly is clearly visible.
There is another view of the origins of the styling though. The link to the Honda-based 400 was plausible, but remember the styling of that was effectively dictated by the car’s Honda Domani origins. In 1993, Aston Martin presented the Lagonda Vignale, styled by Moray Callum at Ghia, as a luxury saloon concept to sit at the top of the Ford-owned Aston Martin range.
It never made it to production, but I suggest you can see the influence. Reduce the size and temper the dramatic rear deck, add some Rover cues and you’re pretty close.
1959 Rover 3 Litre P5.
There is no evidence that there was any instruction from BMW to Rover on the style of the car. Indeed, this model (below) is dated 1993, prior to the BMW takeover.
Photo from www.aronline.co.uk
Whilst it is unlikely Rover would have tried to blatantly complete with BMW 3 Series or 5 Series for various reasons, the choice of the classic British grille, wood and leather style was all Rover’s. There was no restriction from BMW that prevented Rover offering a car in the manner of the SD1 or the 1963 Rover 2000 P6 which could have competed more directly on with Audi and Volvo on a stylish, modern basis but which would not have been a direct competitor to the sport oriented rear wheel drive BMW 3 series.
As has been noted in CC many times, Rover (and the British industry in general) had spent a long time trying to define British in a way that worked at home and aboard, and almost always opted for the (seemingly default) position of prominent grille, wood and leather interiors and a strong emphasis on a style a returnee from the 1950s would recognise, as if modern Britain is something that has been imposed on us and that we must accept in public if not in private. This from the country that gave the world the Mini, the Range Rover, the new cathedral in Coventry, Concorde, the Intercity HST125 and the Dyson vacuum cleaner. The Rover 75 was the apogee of this fashion, and personally I concur with (a younger) James May about it.
To some, undoubtedly the retro theme was attractive; to some others not and to many others it was confusing. Who was the car aimed at? Older conservative buyers? Patriots? Was the British vibe expected to be attractive in the way the German sports car saloon vibe was? Was it supposed to be a comfort offer, and never mind the consequences on handling?
There was also the matter of its size – the car was too small to be a convincing BMW 5-Series or Audi A6 class rival, but too big to be considered alongside the 3-Series. To be fair, it was designed to replace two model ranges; but in the minds of executive car buyers, the Rover 75 simply did not seem to fit in easily to any single pigeonhole.
Its closest competitors, if you accept it had a premium badge, were probably the Volvo S60, SAAB 9-3 and 9-5, Audi A4 and the (slightly smaller) Alfa Romeo 156. The Volvo was another difficult-to-pigeonhole car, on size and passenger space, whilst the SAABs were handicapped by the stigma of its Opel/Vauxhall Vectra origins. The Alfa and the Audi have a distinct image of modernity and style. The Alfa was an Alfa – the stylish Italian who might arrive late, but light up any party.
In reality, in the UK market its main competitors were the Ford Mondeo, VW Passat and Honda Accord, not the BMW and Audi.
There was also the matter of the handling set-up – selling a car so obviously set-up for comfort above handling was always going to be a harder sell, if only because the motoring press would not rank it highly purely based on comfort-biased road manners. The market, in the UK at least, fairly quickly labeled it as a car for the older buyer.
One of the facts of life in the car market (among others) is that an older buyer will buy a car with a younger image, but not the other way round. For a compact executive car, that was always going to be a problem, as that market has long favoured more sports-oriented set-ups. Some may have considered the Rover 75 as a good, maybe the best, front wheel drive executive car, but many passed it by on the basis of its handling set-up and the image it may confer on the driver. And that’s before you get to the image issues the Rover name had in its own right.
The Rover 75 then, it seems, was set to be a good car, well and thoroughly engineered, equipped to meet the competition, and built by a company that was feeling more confident, but with some serious questions over the execution in terms of market positioning.
It was, however, BMW that directed the failure of the launch. For obvious reasons, BMW were keen to show some new Rover product as early as practicable and used the British Motor Show in October 1998 rather than at Geneva in March 1999 as originally planned, and also to match the launch of the Jaguar S type (another “retro” styled car that did not go as well as hoped).
The first issue was the simple one that the car was not ready, but had never been expected to have been. It went on to the UK market in June 1999, as originally planned. However, this was never explained properly and rumours took hold that the car was suffering from unspecified “quality issues”. Such rumours still took hold in the public conscience easily concerning Rover, and repudiating such rumours is not easy.
The second reason is almost the definition of “shooting yourself in the foot”. Bernd Pischetsrieder hosted a press conference to announce the new model and addressed the assembled journalists, mostly motoring not business specialists, and announced that Rover was in the midst of a deep cash crisis and that action was required, from the British government to secure the future of the group and specifically the Longbridge factory in Birmingham.
All true, but not the right time to say it! You can only imagine what the papers led on the next day.
The 75 went into production at Cowley in Oxford in the spring of 1999 and was properly launched into the UK in late spring 1999 and into Europe later that year. It did get favourable reviews, focussing on quietness, comfort and general refinement, not handling or excitement. It never went to North America, which had become a pipe dream for Rover unless BMW were to share their distribution network and the buyer uncertainty never went away. The highest annual production of the 75 was 53,500, in 1999. In 1994, Rover built 74,000 600 and 800 models, which did not have “engineered by BMW” stamped on them.
A year after the car went on sale, BMW effectively broke up the Rover Group. Land Rover and Range Rover were sold to Ford, re-joining Jaguar. BMW kept the MINI project and the Cowley factory, while the Rover and MG brands and the Longbridge factory were sold, with a substantial dowry, to a management buy-in team led by John Towers, a former Rover Chief Executive, under the name MG-Rover Group.
One consequence of this sale was that production of the 75 had to be moved, just a year after it had started, from Oxford to Birmingham, as Cowley was retained by BMW to assemble the MINI.
That is by no means as simple as it sounds, as each factory had production line equipment specific to not just the product, but also the supplier network, the source of the body shells and other pressings, the paint shop processes and the internal processes. It meant, for example, an 11 week break in production of the Rover 75, at a time when MG-Rover would otherwise, naturally enough, have wanted to be building up production of their newest model as the company’s future was settled. So stocks had to be built up, not just of finished cars, but bare bodyshells as the press tool transfer would not be complete until early 2001.
In 2001, the new owners proudly showed Rover’s first estate car, known as the Tourer. This had always been in the BMW plan and was credible competitor in the style-over-capacity premium estate market, although it was subject to the same observations about comfort as the saloon.
MG-Rover had bigger plans for the car, though, which utilised the MG name. Announced in 2001, but not on sale until 2002, the MG ZT and ZT-T Tourer were fairly typical comfort to sports conversions, with firmer suspension bushes, stiffer dampers, lower profile tyres, thicker anti-roll bars (sway bars) together with cosmetic changes, featuring bright colours, spoilers, wide wheels and a version of the classic MGB grille. MG-Rover offered similar makeovers of the smaller 25 and 45 at the same time. The engine range was much the same, so you could now have a diesel engined MG estate car if you wished.
Think Grand Marquis to Marauder, or Caprice to Impala SS.
There was one other variation to come – a rear drive V8 version the MG ZT and later the Rover 75. MG-Rover through its BL ancestry had form in this. Back in 1968, Rover had put a 3.5 litre Buick V8 into the P6 and three years later Triumph had converted the front drive 1300 to the rear drive Toledo and 1500. This conversion was in some ways a blend of both, as the transverse four and six cylinder engines would be replaced by a longitudinally mounted Ford Mustang V8, with around 260 bhp.
MG-Rover had little in-house development capability, so the conversion was managed by rally car experts Prodrive. Although announced in early 2002, the process seems not to have been a particularly happy one, and it was late 2003 before the cars were on sale. They got a warm reception, with the caveat that they were very definitely niche products, with a very small market.
Indeed, after 18 months of production, to April 2005, the chassis number of the last MG ZT V8 was 883. It was a project which prompted many to ask why, and question the priorities of MGR.
There was a Rover version of the V8 as well, shown at the Geneva Motor Show in March 2004, which must have appealed to an even smaller market. Given they were powered by a low-revving, straightforward American V8 engines, MG-Rover were undeniably optimistic in seeking comparison with cars the Audi S6, AMG Mercedes or a BMW 530 or 540. Such cars might have been the target but their engineering was significantly different.
There was a plan for a 385bhp version, which in the event never made it to the market, as the relationship with Prodrive turned sour, the project went over budget and was terminated, with the work incomplete. The MG Owners’ Club now owns the only completed car.
There was one facelift for the Rover 75 and MG ZT in 2004, with new bumper profiles and revised headlights and grilles. There was also a process of cost reduction with items like anti-roll bars being removed from low powered cars, wood replaced by simulated veneer and unseen items like sound deadening being removed or placed with cheaper materials.
MG-Rover had an on-going programme to develop a new range of mid size cars off the platform of the 75, similar to the process Alfa Romeo followed to get the 147 from the 156 (or AMC used many times), though this never came to market. Various prototypes and concepts have been seen, but there is little evidence that anything was even approaching ready for production by 2005. (One day CC will have the full story, I promise.)
In April 2005, MG-Rover entered its final death throes. Supplies of bumpers for the 75 were withheld, production was suspended and three days the later the company filed for administration. The Last Chance Saloon had closed.
Sales of the car continued from stocks and cars completed after the administration, and the red car above was registered in September 2005 and the black MG below in June 2006.
Indeed, some cars were registered as late at 2008. It is also an example of many of the 75s still on the roads – it is a ten year old car but the standard of presentation is fairly typical of many which have either stayed in the same (caring and mature) ownership for several years or been adopted by an MG or Rover enthusiast.
The Chinese groups SIAC and Nanjing each acquired part of MG-Rover’s assets in the sell-off – SIAC got the 75 and the engines, Nanjing got the ZT and the MG badge.
We’ll no doubt cover the full Chinese story another day, but suffice to say SIAC and Nanjing are now one, and the Roewe 750, with a longer wheelbase and revised rear styling, and MG7 are both available on the Chinese market, and some have been exported within Asia.
The platform has been used as a basis for the MG5 and 6 hatchback and saloon, and these are nominally available in the UK, though sales have been in the hundreds only. SIAC do have a technical centre in the UK, and UK input into the design of these cars is substantial.
Rover built around 210,000 75s and ZTS, and there are still over 60,000 on Britain’s roads. Looking for something with a difference, but able to hold its own objectively, you could do a lot worse than select a nicely cared for 75 or ZT, and the MG in particular is entering the classic car community with respect.
This is the last Rover 75, and the last Rover, at the British Motor Museum at Gaydon, south of Coventry. Truly, the Last Chance Saloon.
things that always come to mind:
bad panel fit at the front
HGF
VX Commodore lights
to clarify, HGF is head gasket failure, some thing the K series had an extreme weakness for
during the early oughts the goto place on the web for me was the MGrover forums. It was always just ‘HGF’ there.
I think Ford found a cure for the 1.8 K series in the Freelander?
Freelanders could be had with Peugeot diesel power
Sad story. The idea that a distinctively British near luxury executive sedan has no place in even the British market is a big come down. I have yammered incessantly here that cars should reflect where they come from, but this car is a pretty powerful counterpoint. Well at least the Chinese were able to salvage something from it.
One minor correction Roger in an otherwise great read. It was sold new by Rover in Mexico, so it did make it barely to North America.
A car should look like where it comes from, but nowadays they come from everywhere…designed by people from other countries, built from parts produced around the world, assembled by manufacturers who buy and sell each other across national boundaries. Any effort today to make a car look like a product of its original country is bound to produce artifice or affectation. It’s the same unfortunate reality in my field of architecture.
And yet the reborn Mini was successful, as was the New Beetle. Perhaps the message is sedan buyers are less interested in fashion than coupe buyers?
The reborn Mini success is really the elephant in the room. I wonder if the younger market is more in tune with certain nostalgia.
Hmmm, from the looks of it, you would think the 75 was (strongly?) intended for the U.S. market. It looks like what designers in Great Britain thought a U.S. buyer expected of a British luxury or near luxury sedan.
Considering how well it was NOT received in it’s home market, I can’t imagine what made Ford think the nearly identical concept would work at Jaguar….particularly with the X-type.
From my reading of this write-up, my idea is that BAe and BMW were both looking at their respective purchase of Rover as a “bridge” into the British Treasury with better than favorable loan rates or even grants, which considering what BMW “paid” for Rover, they did get.
Beautiful cars, have seen 1 or 2 of the V8 MGs for sale here in the U.S. over the years.
It will be interesting to see how far the Chinese take MG. As I understand it from short articles in CAR, the latest MGs are…..reasonably decent drivers and value for the money.
I’ve always been curious about these cars but never really looked into them. I can understand some of the reasons BMW purchased Rover Group, but it is definitely somewhat odd that BMW invested so much into this car, as I can’t really see the potential for it.
Regardless, I see a lot of Jaguar S-Type in it. The exteriors are strikingly similar and to the untrained eye, the interiors look virtually identical. Both also projected a stodgy image that might be partially responsible for their lack of astounding success.
Also, are Coffee/Wine Bars common in Europe? I love coffee and I love wine, but not together 🙂
Some places wil sell both, but the combination in a title would be unusual.
Starbucks et al will not have an alcohol licence
Great article, Mr. Carr, on one of my favorite designs. I’ve never even seen one [I saw a Plymouth Cricket {I know, not a BL or Rover when they first came out and one in a car show here in the States a few years ago], but I’ve followed Rover’s story for a long time, especially since the 75 was introduced.
I went further than your clip featured above and saw both Clarkson’s take on the 75 and another YouTube test of the 25, 45 and 75. The second review mentioned all the awards the 75 got at the time, including a COTY from Japan. He liked the 75 and everything Clarkson hated: the chrome, etc. But his Brit on the street interviews all said the same thing: “Old man’s car”.
That was followed by “The Long Goodbye” from BBC4, also on YouTube. Pretty sad story. I will have to read “End Of The Road” again.
Currently finishing up “Chronicle Of A Car Crash: British Leyland 1968-1978” and there are a whole list of videos lined up on my watch list related to the British Motor Industry. I am a regular reader of Austin Rover Online and find the cars from the UK and their back stories fascinating.
Thanks for a great write up. That 75 suits what I’d like in a car. If I lived in the UK I’d be one of those traditional British buyers I think. But I don’t smoke a pipe or wear tweed.
Best to you.
Somewhat ironically, what today’s British motorist is more likely to buy is a BMW. With a BMW product at nearly every price point (for the “average” British motorist) and pretty much every body style needed (a small MPV has recently been intoduced into the model lineup) there isn’t much reason to purchase….or more importantly, lease, any other brand.
However overpriced and no longer premium they may be!
I’ve lost many evenings to such Youtube as that as well.
If you haven’t already found them, try http://www.aronline.co.uk and the British Leyland Chronicle on Facebook
P5B shall rule forever.
I drove a P5B sedan in 1972/3 and thought it was a beautiful car.Photographs of the sedan and coupe don’t really show just how large those cars were.Rovers were such advanced cars,P6,but it is a shame it came to an end.
Am I the only one who thinks that the 2010-2019 Ford Taurus looks more like a modern reinterpretation of a P5 coupe’ than the 75 does?
Lovely interior. I particularly like the contrasting piping on the seats, though I’ll admit that does give it a 1950s look. What other car could offer that in 2005? (the ‘trad’ style interior was kept as an option after the facelift IIRC). Also it isn’t black or grey – colour inside is something several people here have said they miss. I agree the exterior may be a bit too retro (personally I prefer the Rover 600 in that regard) though I do like those neatly incorporated door handles. I have a feeling those two preferences are mutually exclusive though.
Regarding the Aston Martin Vignale: does it not look like a modern take on Gerald Palmer’s classic Riley Pathfinder? http://www.uniquecarsandparts.com.au/images/car_info/Riley/Pathfinder/Riley_Pathfinder_2.jpg
And those rear lights may have influenced the current Jaguar XJ, a car that is, superficially at least, far from retro.
I thought of getting a job at SAIC US in Birmingham, Mi, the current owner of MG but the the current situation doesn’t show they are going to enter the US anytime soon, and there isn’t indication of any larger newer saloon from them neither.
Correction, the Rover/MG 75/ZT did come to North America, in México, which is also part of North America…
Thank you.
I guess we have a tendency to say North America when we should specify the USA.
Indeed; thanks for the correction
I’ve always like these. That interior is gorgeous.
+1.
I loved the concept and style when they came out. A 75 would have been ideal for us. But being a sub-Rolls-Royce British product, I was very very wary. Even though Rover was under BMW control, we’d had BMC and BL cars when I was young, and I hadn’t forgotten. No sale.
I still see several 75s around here they sold fairly well new and quite a few arrived used from Japan, the Rover agency my BIL worked at imported several used JDM 75s to bolster second hand stocks many survive.
What the article doesn’t touch on, but several posters have, is the inadequacy of the rest of the Rover car range – the Metro / 100 dated back to 1980, the 1995 200 (then 25) was a reworking of the 1989 200, and the 1995 400 (then 45), well, less said the better, but for the record based on something Honda couldn’t otherwise get rid of.
Which begs 2 questions that have never been satisfactorily answered – why spend all BMW’s cash at the low volume end of the range, and not on a Golf competitor, and why take so long to do it to obsessive standards? Surely a decent Golf competitor in 1996 would have been commercially and industrially more useful for Rover?
Then you get to the contrived style, odd market position and devalued brand, and wonder why anybody hoped for a better outcome.
Forgive me I’m still panting over that blue/green interior…
HAVE MERCY! That’s what I want!
You are not alone. I understand perfectly.
There’s a documentary that I occasionally watch, you can find it on Youtube if you haven’t heard of it. But its called “Rover: The Long Goodbye” that was done by the BBC a year after Rover closed its doors, its a really good documentary that really highlights the problems of what went wrong in the brand, both inside and outside. When they came to the Rover 75, one of the interviewers, Quentin Wilson from the old Top Gear series, said this about why the car wasn’t successful.
“The critical mistake was, that the world had done so many revolutions that they just didn’t understand, about Beyoncé, about Destiny’s Child, about Eminem, and about ‘bling bling’. You could never call the Rover 75 bling bling, and that’s the problem. If they had kept pace as BMW as Mercedes, then it would’ve been fine. But, it just stood there in it’s triple welted brogues, and its yellow corduroy trousers, and its sports jacket with elbows with patches on and said, doffing its hat and straightening its cravat, ‘I’m British! I’m gonna stay like this, and I’m gonna sell’. Hopeless, absolutely.”
That quote always stuck with me, and in many ways, I can’t blame him for saying that. My experience with Rover is limited, they went bust when I was eight, and I only heard about them after I started watching the rebooted Top Gear. But, in my eyes, no matter how good the Rover 75 was, it would still be just a Rover. I remember seeing Ate Up With Motor comment on this site that Rover was essentially the British version of Buick, and to extend that, the 75 was like the first generation Park Avenue. In many ways, it embodied all the traditional aspects of the brand that it made it successful, and it was a nicely styled, reasonably good car, but the problem was, no matter how good it would’ve been, it would only still attract the traditional clientele the brand had always attracted. The Buick Park Avenue was a really attractive and very good car, but it would’ve still just been a Buick, which meant it still would’ve attracted the traditional elderly clients. Same with Rover, the 75 would only appeal to the customers who remembered Rover’s glory days.
But the bigger problem I see, is that, the 75 was doomed to fail. Not because of its faults, but because of the toxicity that had gained around the Rover brand when it was introduced. I’ve tried to read as much as I can, but by the point the 75 was introduced, no one would touch a Rover with a 10 foot pole. The brand had gotten such a bad reputation for being so poorly built, having so many faults, so many problems, that the relationship to the general British public was ruined. The 75 could’ve been the best saloon ever that could’ve given the Germans a run for their money, but it would still be associated with all the baggage the company had gained over the years.
For what its worth, I think the 75 is an appealing car. The styling has grown on me over the intervening years, and from what I read, it might not have been a brilliant game changer, but it was a decent car all around. If this had been Rover’s last car, I think the brand would’ve been closed on a somewhat okay note, rather than the embarrassment of the Tata made CityRover.
A very interesting (if sad) read, Roger. The British motor industry ran under the radar of we in the U.S., because it had been so long since anything British got sold here. The last one I remember was the (Rover) Sterling, which had not been a good experience for buyers.
Thank you for another fine read Roger. Once again Rover so nearly makes a good car but too little too late. There’s still a few left on UK roads. I’ve yet to see the V8 version in the metal
I never understood the odd “shut-lines” around the headlights, and always hated the egg-shaped egg-coloured instruments. Nevertheless, when I sat in the 75 we had on the company fleet I was impressed by the “feelgood” factor. Alas that changed when I turned the key. Pedal weights were odd , the pedal box was too narrow so that the footrest was beyond the clutch pedal rather than next to it. Visibility was poor, with overly thick pillars before this became fashionable. “Our car was a 2.0 V6 so it was less than reliable ( the BMW engined diesel was the only sensible choice).
I once drove the car over a mountain road in convoy with “our” 2.0 V6 Nissan QX and struggled to keep up, even though the Rover produced a (very muffled) competition car sound-track. I had driven the QX myself and it had more space and better visibility than the Rover, though without the classy interior. Naturally the Nissan never gave any problems, unlike the Rover.
Early model with leather and BMW drive train if you can get them.. Now a bloke with a 2.5 V6 it never let him down on a weekly commute from Windsor to Northamptonshire. Its his retirement car and will properly see him out.. Best sedan Rover nearly didnt make… Tours came along cheapened it ..Didnt want to spend any money on range as he was an assist stripper like John Deloran wasnt. Imagine GM selling out to a crock who then runs it into the ground whilst taking public money..
That Lagonda Vignale…wow! Now that would have been a jaw-dropping car of the ’90s.
Lovely car, really. Sad story though.
Owned one for two years (03 Conni 2.5 V6, white gold over beige leather).
Overall , I’ve never had a car so comfortable or so stress-less in traffic. There was always another detail to find in that highly designed interior. It did need to be babied, but because it was there was never a problem.
Always reminded me of the Titanic in a way- both story wise (great white hope turned tragedy) and how it felt (utterly first class (pre project drive and in conni spec).
Most certainly would own another.
This is a really well-proportioned sedan, considering that it is fwd. The interior design is very odd: the materials appear to be self-consciously classy and old-style, yet the many of the shapes would be more appropriate in the oval-from-hell Taurus. This doesn’t apply to the dashboard, of course, but look at those door panels and secondary controls.
Very nice, well-written piece, Roger. I had to read this entry in two parts, finishing on my evening commute home. I was hoping against hope for a better ending to the MG-Rover story…all in vain. I actually like the retro vibe of the 75 – I think it was executed better than the Jaguar S-Type. Loved the zingers in this piece (“…perhaps named for the age of the average target customer). Your writing has given me an education on some cars I wouldn’t have heard about otherwise.
Great article!
75´s lack of success shows again how difficult things are when you choose to think out of the box.
There´s a lot to be said for a quiet, relaxed, comfortable near luxury sedan that puts special emphasis on ride quality (something that everybody uses) rather than handling (something that only enthusiasts use). But people buy cars on image…
Great article – very informative and enjoyable. I’ve always been a Rover P-series fan but this model left me a little underwhelmed. As noted, I thought the exterior styling was a little disjointed.
Count me on James May’s camp: out with the retro style. I never understood why after so many advanced cars (even crap like the Maestro), all of a sudden, everything coming from England had to look “old” to be considered “authentically” English. In reality, that probably put off quite a few more people than it attracted. Same goes for the 1986-2007 Jags (XJ40 until XF): very much an acquired taste. Retro can sell if it recalls youthfulness, see the success of the MINI. Too bad Rover went for the kind that evoked Hyacinth Bucket’s favoured world. Under all that chrome and wood sits a car that would look good without it, too.
Another thing: as shown in the pictures and frequently seen in the UK around the time the 75 was new, many came with a custom-sized rear number plate. Was this something specific for this car? And do UK number plate regulations allow for custom fitted plates?
I recall seeing 1970s XJ6s with huge plates too. If the car started life in USA/Australia/somewhere else with different sized plates, you can use plates which are too small which necessitates wrong sized fonts too.
Our plates are not issued by the government, you buy them privately – so if you lose your plate you go to the dealer or auto accessory store or buy one online. I see lots of illegal plates which the cops obviously turn a blind eye to (usually). They might have a strange font or be incorrectly spaced or have a bolt strategically positioned to make a digit look like something else. (You can’t just choose a vanity plate, it has to fit within the standard format which leads to tomfoolery)
Yesterday I saw a UK plate half of which was taken up with a stylised Spanish flag.
As far as I know it’s the size and style of the lettering that is regulated; there’s probably a minimum size for the overall plate but no maximum. You’re right, most 75s have it filling the entire base of the recess.
That’s right. Many of Jaguar’s S-Types (a more PT-Cruiser approach to retro) had giant ovoid number plates to fit the gap on the back.
We rented one of these and drove all over England in 2003. To an American who hadn’t driven an Accord since 1981, and who hadn’t driven an English car newer than maybe a late-60’s MGB and perhaps a similar vintage Austin America, but had driven many contemporary American and Japanese rentals (Corolla, Cavalier, Taurus, Malibu etc) it was very nice. Comfortable for our family of four, with a nice powerband and shifter/clutch feel, decent handling both at motorway speeds and on twisties in the Midlands … the Cat and Fiddle pass, and various Peak District back roads. I liked it!
Really enjoyed reading this piece, Roger, in a bitter-sweet way. I nominated the 75 as my 1990s jaw-dropper last week for all the reasons you cite.
The extent of the retro detailing was extraordinary – more suited to restoring an old P4 75 than launching a brand new model. I have just realised that Rover even used the same advertising strapline from the 1950s. Free stringback gloves and a full tank of National Benzole…
Imagine Ford reintroducing the Three Graces (Consul, Zephyr, Zodiac) in 1998 – that’s how absurd it all was.
Great write-up. You are one of my favorite contributors at CC.
75’s are really cheap in Denmark now. If they are just decent cars, you can get a good deal, but I just cannot bring myself to thoroughly research it. Despite the car fittting only a specific niche, it still manages to be utterly unintersting to me.
Hi mads,
thank you for the feedback.
Having seen Danish design close up, I’m not surprised the Rover 75 leaves you cold. It is a strange mix of cliche old and some new, some details that are too obscure to worth repeating, and I don’t like wood in modern cars, Rolls excepted.
Spent a while with a MG ZT 2.5 V6 manual. Can’t say I liked it much. Interior felt a bit cheap and the design and layout of it poor yet dull. Huge pillars obscured vision to a point of annoyance with me. Performance nothing special, engine bay crammed with plastic contained an engine that should have made 20% more power and the whole car could of done with being 20% lighter. Only positives I can think of is that it handled pretty well and the minor exterior differences made it look a lot better than the Rover versions in my opinion.
These seemed to me as a car you wouldn’t touch as a new vehicle, but could be a fun retro car, like a Nissan S-Cargo,ten years down the track.
Now it just seems like a mildly updated version of the old Hyundai Grandeur….
I realize all the things this car got wrong, but I still can’t help but like it. I think its appeal is in the traditional British-ness of it all, or at least what I as an American perceive as tradtional British-ness. Based on style alone, it might have notched quite a few sales over here. Never realized quite how small they were though–I had always figured these to be at least as big as, if not bigger than, a 5-series/A6/E-Class. Evidently I was erring on the high side by quite a bit!
The performance side of the ZT V8 appeals to me in particular, but I’d prefer it with the traditional 75 interior and grille shell. That green leather interior with tan piping, all that wood, and those watch face gauges—good night, that’s breathtaking!
I owned a Rover 75 for two years and whilst it was the comfiest car I’ve ever driven, it was an absolute disaster of a car during my second year of ownership. In the space of twelve months my 50k mile car needed: airbag sensors, seat weight sensors, two new rear springs and an exhaust. Then the passenger window failed, the airbag light on the dash wouldn’t go off even after replacing the sensors, the boot started leaking every time it rained and then there was the overheating. It decided to fry the engine so comprehensively that it never sealed properly again. I had to use it for another few weeks as we had a new car on order. When I traded it in, I was offered £150 as a trade – in. If the engine was as durable as the bodywork and trim were, I might have used it for another year. It got replaced with my wife’s old Nissan Note which didn’t go wrong once.
In 2012 I bought a 2002 Rover Connoisseur in a beautiful moonstone green and the 2 litre diesel engine for £1400, it had 88k on the clock, now has 180k. It has been thrown around Welsh roads with abandon so it’s not fair to say they don’t handle, just that that they don’t crash and bang around like other cars, I have surprised quite a few German saloons when they could not outpace it on our winding roads. It is important to have 205 tyres not 195s though for the ride and grip, I feel the car is too heavy for stupid 195s
Nothing electrical has failed and the Connoisseurs come well optioned. The body is totally rust free. Mechanically I have replaced rear lower suspension arm bushes that took all of ½ hour to do. It had a common fault with the thermostat sticking open, It’s in a dastardly place so pushed a Renault one into the top rad hose, a known fix and it’s been fine. I also had to replace the rear silencer.
At 180K the engine is still very strong, I always give it regular oil changes, 180k for that diesel is nothing , and the gearbox could crush rocks. It is a very rugged car and the diesel is bulletproof, thought it does have a few well known faults , sticking Thermostat on the diesel, electric fuel pumps ( 2 of), but quite easy to fix, worst is the concentric Clutch slave do fail requiring the gearbox to come out, like many machines since. Who decided Concentric clutch slaves were a good ideas?
The car has a very high feel good factor with an exceptional ride , interior ambiance and massive solidity , the body structure is immensely strong, giving nothing away to the Jags, Mercedes, Audi and Volvos I have owned previously. Like all turbo diesels it cruises effortlessly at very illegal speeds returning great MPG
The styling is a bit like Marmite, you love it or hate it, personally I find many new cars quite ugly and the Rover 75, with its chrome and moonstone paint gleaming looks great. That does not mean I do not like futuristic cars , but for the reliable everyday long distance transportation and pleasure the Rover has given me for the minimal purchase and repair costs, it has been hard to beat.
Time for a change now and I purchased a Peugeot 406 Pininfarina coupe in Arianne blue and dark red leather, arguably one of the most beautiful cars on the road, but I will not part with the Rover, it sits in the garage costing nothing and ready to put back on the road when I feel like it
This was a beautiful car, fatally compromised by all of Rover’s owners. BMW were paranoid about it taking sales from their own brand, so you only ever got ye olde wood and walnut version from them, and it was launched with a ridiculous steering ratio, about 23 turns lock to lock. The Phoenix thieves fixed the steering and brought out the MG versions, but asset stripped the company and decontented the car almost from day one of their ownership. It had a couple of design faults with water drainage, those for the sun roof blocked up and caused smelly interiors and under the scuttle leaves could blow in and block the drains causing flooding of the very expensive ECU. Neither company owner ever fixed it.
That said, properly sorted, they were great cars. I had an early black diesel auto, BMW’s nice reliable engine, without the detachable swirl flaps, very economical and quick. Mine had been a bishop’s wheels, fully loaded including a pop-up venetian blind for the back window, surely a unique selling proposition. If you like ye olde walnut and leather, and what true Englishman doesn’t, you were delighted by the lovely vintage-looking instruments as well and the cossetting armchairs. A triumph of retro engineering and style, much more convincing than Jaguars contemporary S-type.
Then Bernd sabotaged the launch on top of everything else. Yet still people bought loads of them, despite Rover’s appalling reputation by then. Most companies would be pleased to have a car which appealed to affluent older drivers and if the MG version had been available from the start who knows how things might have turned out.
It must have been hard for BMW to know what to do with Rover – which makes it all the more surprising that they even bought them in the first place!
They couldn’t have a brand in direct competition with their own cars. Fair enough. But previous big Rovers had moved to distance themselves from pure luxury cars with the P6, even more so when they bought the ex-Buick V8, and styling and interiors had become increasingly sporty. The wood and leather treatment was available, but the style was still modern. Cue the SD1 – totally unlike today’s subject,
Meanwhile, rebadging prior Austins and kinda-Hondas as Rovers, along with quality issues had been pushing the brand name firmly downmarket into previously uncharted territories. Did the brand still have the cachet to stand as a viable luxury contender with BMW at the helm? As it turned out, no.
BMW couldn’t let the big Rovers continue in the sporty vein, or they could face in-house competition. But it looks like they tried to position Rover as an alternative take on luxury, if you didn’t want the overt BMW sportiness – which sort of pushed Rover back to its fifties position, I guess. A well-engineered FWD platform was quite viable for a large-ish European luxury car, but not a BMW. Done! Problem solved?
As it played out, no.
Great story, Roger, but I’m left with some questions…
To really make a dent in the luxury class, they needed to tackle quality. Even down here in Australia, we knew that Rover wasn’t what it used to be. Didn’t seem to happen.
Why did MG get a version? Surely they didn’t have the luxury cred to take on this market segment? Unless I’m forgetting something, MG hadn’t had anything like this since the thirties. The Farina Magnette wasn’t in the hunt.
Why the effort in introducing a rear-drive setup for the V8 versions? Being done by Prodrive there’d have been no question about engineering quality, but it was still a Rover after all – with all that the name implied, which wasn’t good.
For that matter, why was there even a V8?
While I like the body styling, the interior is just too puffy, overstuffed and confining-looking for my tastes. But I wonder whether something less conservative/more modern would have made any difference. Probably not.
You ask good and valid questions.
To really make a dent in the luxury class, they needed to tackle quality. Even down here in Australia, we knew that Rover wasn’t what it used to be. Didn’t seem to happen – You’re right to flag quality as a basic necessity, and to record that Rover’s quality performance through the SD1 and 800 had been poor, to say the least. Likewise, some of the smaller cars (not really Rovers in some eyes) – the Rover 100, Rover branded Montegos, rusty Honda based cars etc did not help in that regard. Neither did Land Rovers and Range Rovers, sadly. But a poor reputation can often lag reality, and the 75 was better than the image it inherited, and FWIW no one talks about MINI suffering quality issues any more than any other BMW. Regional and national perceptions differ also – in the UK VW is perceived as a “good quality” car but that does not always come across in CC comments for example.
Why did MG get a version? I guess to try to catch a more performance oriented (younger?) market, to compete with Alfa and BMW as well as a Mondeo Ghia, smart Vauxhall Omega or Peugeot 605. MG ZT sounds more credible than a Rover 75 Sport or GT, I guess. After the 2000 BMW getaway, MG-Rover did MG versions of the 25, 45 and 75, all essentially cosmetic apart from stiffer suspension. These were started, reportedly, under BMW’s radar and were not exactly high investment exercises.
For that matter, why was there even a V8? – Frankly, God only knows. Image building etc, but surely MG-Rover had more pressing demands on their limited resources. An interesting bit of automotive engineering, but mostly it either passed people by or just showed up MG-Rover against the Germans, quite frankly.
BMW quality and BMW engineering without the snob factor of the BMW badge, or even BMW dynamics, does not sound like a roadmap to success. As for the heritage styling, what happened to putting faith in a talented designer to capture the imagination of real live current car shoppers? Were they really trying to recapture the stigma of the Aunty Rover? Bizarre.
Surviving 75s have a tough time staying on the road now there arent any parts backup anywhere, Kiwis are used to that though, theres very limited parts for all those ex JDM cars we buy by the shipload,
What a beautiful interior.
Those gauges are stunning!
It’s amazing how they’re just so ugly
Knowing that it is the last, definitive British designed and engineered car from a respectable make makes it hard to resist ads that sometimes still come to light in my country. Even now it is possible to buy a very well maintained, often one or two careful owners, 2.5 V6 in great condition for very little money. The first two years were the best in my opinion later examples had fake wood and were cheapened everywhere (“project Drive” was the name for the cheapening process – https://www.the75andztclub.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=34369).
In a couple of years time I will probably curse myself for not picking up a smart example when they were still affordable and mint.
I have even made test drives. They drive lovely, quiet, comfortable and fast enough. I like the refined styling and that 2.5 engine. The thing that keeps me from buying one is the too busy dashboard and interior. Just a bit too retro.
I was in the market 7 years ago, looking at a few examples including the Station Wagon. In the end I choose a similar aged (2004) 3.0 V6 Jaguar X-type station wagon which I still have and do not regret buying.
Never knew about these before. It is a shame to see the last independent car company from what was once a great auto producing nation fail, but did they really try here? It seems like it was targeted to buyers who were already well into Middle Age when the Beetles debuted.
So why did England fail at keeping its own auto companies while France, Italy and Germany all kept theirs? Bad quality control? Too small and odd a market and not good at exporting?
Or the attitude “us” and “them” – on both sides.
A car designed and produced by a quality impaired underfunded UK company and over-fussily engineered BMW, with styling looking as if it were British as interpreted by Daewoo… what could possibly go wrong? lol At least the MG version was interesting.