[Zeuss101]

I would have quite liked to have seen Rover been able to do more with the HHR platform, like the R8. Imagine a freer hand to restyle it, and have updated Tourer and Coupe versions. The ZS after all proved that there was a good car in there somewhere!

We all like to blame BMW and rightly so but let's not forget by this point Honda were already being very restrictive with what Rover could do with their platforms. It's almost like they were jealous of R8.

[CoupeFan]

The Allegro looked "strange" because there was almost nothing else that looked like it at the time, one only has to think of the angular looks of the Ford Escort. I'm not saying the Allegro's styling was perfect, but it did its job, and the 1748cc engined models, which were the ones that I had, were fun to drive. Scroll on a decade or two and many very successful small cars such as the Peugeot 206 looked like it. Arguably BL and Harris Mann were too far ahead of public opinion with the Allegro.

Back on topic, I was talking to someone the other day who recounted a story to me of one of their customers who had an R8 and having traded it in for an R3 then complained that the rear seating area was not as spacious as the R8. I Seem to remember reading that had been the choice made by Rover between the rear seating area and bootspace. This person may not have been alone in their view of the R3 being "too small" which for me supports the view that it should have been branded as the replacement for the Metro/100 after all which had reasonable rear seat room at the expense of boot space. The public may not have accepted that quite so readily at the time but models from all manufacturers do have a tendency to "grow" with each succeeding generation.

[BlairHobson]

The Allegro looked "strange" because there was almost nothing else that looked like it at the time, one only has to think of the angular looks of the Ford Escort. I'm not saying the Allegro's styling was perfect, but it did its job, and the 1748cc engined models, which were the ones that I had, were fun to drive. Scroll on a decade or two and many very successful small cars such as the Peugeot 206 looked like it. Arguably BL and Harris Mann were too far ahead of public opinion with the Allegro.

I'll beg to differ. The original Harris Mann styling for it was certainly very good, but then having to fit the E series engine and new large heater completely ruined it. Although it may look like later car's shapes it isn't, it was just a poor compromise. Those later cars were aerodynamic, as are modern ones, hence the "blob" shape virtually every car has these days, but the Allegro, whilst it may look like it has those flowing curves, it doesn't. Don't get me wrong I do have a soft spot for them, Dad had one of the first and a later Series 3 which was light years different, but still had "that" body. Had Harris Mann been allowed to produce the original design they'd have been onto a winner, but he wasn't.

"In 2002, Harris Mann explained the process: ‘We wanted to make a far more modern version of the 1100/1300, keeping the long, sleek look. Then a lot of other things affected it. A heater was developed at astronomical cost which was very deep. That had to go in. Then we had to put in the E-Series engine, which was more suitable for putting in a Leyland truck."

[Evil C]

I would have quite liked to have seen Rover been able to do more with the HHR platform, like the R8. Imagine a freer hand to restyle it, and have updated Tourer and Coupe versions. The ZS after all proved that there was a good car in there somewhere!

We all like to blame BMW and rightly so but let's not forget by this point Honda were already being very restrictive with what Rover could do with their platforms. It's almost like they were jealous of R8.

Rover could have done more, indeed Rover and Honda together could have jointly developed a complete new car built on a new platform had the money been available. The reason they didn't is because British Aeropspace (who had severe financial problems elsewhere within its business) severely restricted the funds available to Rover for new model development. The result was that any full joint development programme for the 400 replacement was out of the question, and Rover were reduced to licence building the replacement car which Honda resorted to developing from an existing car (Domani). If Rover had been financially able to participate fully in the development process, they would almost certainly have had more scope for making aspects of it more Rover specific.

If you want to blame any one party for being restrictive, you need to look at the way BAe hamstrung Rover by restricting the development cash available.

[Evil C]

......I was talking to someone the other day who recounted a story to me of one of their customers who had an R8 and having traded it in for an R3 then complained that the rear seating area was not as spacious as the R8. ......

That seems like a breakdown at the dealer end of things - the R3 was never intended to be a direct replacement for the R8 - the aim was to part the R8 200/400 definition into a smaller and larger car. If the customer wanted a direct replacement for an R8 200, he needed to be directed to HHR, not R3 as R3 was intended to be a smaller car - and the front seating area was also smaller (narrower) than R8.

Whilst badging it as a 100 would seem to make sense from a view a quarter of a century down the line, the reality is that at the time the Metro had become the 100 and was still selling well enough to persist a while longer, and whilst cars in the Metro/Fiesta/Corsa bracket have become much larger since the 1990s, at the time the R3 was very considerably bigger than any of the Metro/100 competition and would have been discounted by most potential buyers in that sector as being too large for them. When you look at the sales for R3 when the Metro/100 was eventually dropped, Rover pushing the R3 as the alternative really didn't work - not only did they not gain the ex-Metro/100 owners because it was too big, they lost a considerable number of potential R3 customers because the advertising was giving them the idea that it was a Metro sized car which was too small for them. Sales for R3 in the late 90s fell off a cliff as a result.

Too many people continue to latch on to the R3 development starting off as a Metro/100 replacement project, but then conveniently ignore the fact that Rover very quickly dropped that idea (at least in part because of size constraints imposed by starting with the R8 platform) in favour of developing a new car more in keeping size-wise with such as the contemporary Mk3 Astra (which seemed cramped inside compared with R3) or Golf, for which the R8 200 had been too big to compete.

I think (with the benefit of hindsight) that the R8 should never have been badged as a 200 to start with - it wasn't really a comparable replacement for SD3. My Father replaced an SD3 with an R8 - the R8 was huge by comparison!

[Evil C]

There's a slightly different up on ARO too now - https://www.aronline.co.uk/facts-and-fi ... te-equity/

That seems a more realistic take on the possibilities to be honest (perhaps benefits from better internal knowledge of Rover Group?)

[Zeuss101]

I would have quite liked to have seen Rover been able to do more with the HHR platform, like the R8. Imagine a freer hand to restyle it, and have updated Tourer and Coupe versions. The ZS after all proved that there was a good car in there somewhere!

We all like to blame BMW and rightly so but let's not forget by this point Honda were already being very restrictive with what Rover could do with their platforms. It's almost like they were jealous of R8.

Rover could have done more, indeed Rover and Honda together could have jointly developed a complete new car built on a new platform had the money been available. The reason they didn't is because British Aeropspace (who had severe financial problems elsewhere within its business) severely restricted the funds available to Rover for new model development. The result was that any full joint development programme for the 400 replacement was out of the question, and Rover were reduced to licence building the replacement car which Honda resorted to developing from an existing car (Domani). If Rover had been financially able to participate fully in the development process, they would almost certainly have had more scope for making aspects of it more Rover specific.

If you want to blame any one party for being restrictive, you need to look at the way BAe hamstrung Rover by restricting the development cash available.

I like this positive view of the Honda relationships prospects, and it does tie in nicely to BAe being the ultimate villains. After all, a lot of the mess BMW inherited was a result of BAe's underinvestment previously.

I wonder then, whether the decision to go with the Domani was a direct result of Honda being annoyed that they'd lost the opportunity for their usual joint project. The HHR is a good car (I had one), but its undeniable that it is a bit phoned in by Honda standards.

[GTiJohn]

I wonder then, whether the decision to go with the Domani was a direct result of Honda being annoyed that they'd lost the opportunity for their usual joint project. The HHR is a good car (I had one), but its undeniable that it is a bit phoned in by Honda standards.

Honda were, and still probably are, a conservative company when it comes to manufacturing. It's a good trait when it comes to consistent quality but it can be a problem, as it was here.

With the Swindon plant coming online in 1994/5, Honda felt that they need to build a known product but one that was complimentary to their existing sales offering in Europe, which was basically Civic and Accord.

They chose the Domani, a JDM product which had been on sale since 1992, and was rebadged as the Civic 5-door and sold alongside the 5th generation Civic 3-door. These 2 cars have different styling, so even Honda customers could be confused.

My understanding is that Honda offered Rover the Domani as a 'take-it-or-leave-it' basis, knowing that BAe would not fund any alternative programme. This was the least cash-intensive option, even though it was obviously not the product Rover required.

Rover knew the 5-door was compromised and tried to limit the consequences by announcing the better looking 4-door at the same time as the 5, even though it was not available for a further 9 months. I'm not sure how much 'down' or 'up' selling Rover dealers may have done to get R8 200 and 400 customers into a 5-door R3 200 or 600s if they didn't fancy the new 400.



For Honda, the Domani was planned as a short-term product to bed-in Swindon and so was replaced in 1997. For Rover it was a longer problem...

[crepello]

I like this positive view of the Honda relationships prospects, and it does tie in nicely to BAe being the ultimate villains. After all, a lot of the mess BMW inherited was a result of BAe's underinvestment previously.

I tend to home in on George Simpson specifically. Although he came from Leyland trucks and reorganised A-R it wasn't long before he was on the board of BAe. He was instrumental in the sale of Rover to BMW, then went on to join Lucas Industries as CEO and engineered their demise in a merger which turned out to be a reverse takeover by Varity, a US company. Next up was GEC who he joined as managing director. He sold part to BAe, then renamed the rest Marconi, frittered previous MD Arnold Weinstock's war chest on telecoms acquisitions, and watched it all crumble in the Dotcom crash of 1991. More sell-offs into foreign ownership ensued.

This stellar career helped him gain a life peerage in 1997.

[Zeuss101]

Ah, that's the level of upper management success in big British business we've come to know and love in the UK.