Citroen & Peugeot to shortly go the way of Rover?!?!

This is the place for posts that don't fit into any other category.

Moderator: RichardW

User avatar
blackbeard
Posts: 24
Joined: 13 Jan 2013, 17:54

Citroen & Peugeot to shortly go the way of Rover?!?!

Post by blackbeard »

The French media (links to follow) are reporting that troubled car maker PSA are to write down 4.7 Billion Euros in losses ON TOP of the several Billion Euros lost last year!

PSA is now officially insolvent and could be forced into administration if they cannot secue funding of at least 200 Million Euros - not just as a one off but each and every month from the French Government!

The French Government have apparently already been asked to provide PSA with this bailout. If it is not granted PSA will have to immediatly lay off most of its workers and shut factories. This would be the second bailout in just 4 months by the way!

PSA have already announced that they intend to lay off 8000 workers, yes I did write 8000 workers, and mothball the Aulnay-sous-Bois factory even with a bailout.

Could PSA go the way of Rover? Looks like its got a very good chance.......................

Northern_Mike

Re: Citroen & Peugeot to shortly go the way of Rover?!?!

Post by Northern_Mike »

I don't think they will. Too big, make decent products, sell lots of them. Rover had none of these attributes. The 75 was a decent enough car, but it came way, way too late to save the company. It was dead by 1980 in reality, and just kept on the life support machine by Honda, BAe and then BMW, but binned by them all as they realised they were flogging a dead horse.

ashy90
Posts: 236
Joined: 22 Oct 2010, 13:51

Re: Citroen & Peugeot to shortly go the way of Rover?!?!

Post by ashy90 »

Northern_Mike wrote:I don't think they will. Too big, make decent products, sell lots of them. Rover had none of these attributes. The 75 was a decent enough car, but it came way, way too late to save the company. It was dead by 1980 in reality, and just kept on the life support machine by Honda, BAe and then BMW, but binned by them all as they realised they were flogging a dead horse.
Hmmm, I wouldn't say thats quite right to be fair. The late 1980's, certainly the early to mid 1990's the company was on the up - making some very decent products, and selling pretty well. In fact, hard to believe, but the early to mid 1990's Rover was making some pretty desirable products - all those 220 GTI turbo's, 420 GSI Turbo, 800 Vitesse's, Coupe's etc. It was BMW who de-valued the brand - they stopped the production of all the fast/sporty GTI and turbo Rover's, and prevented the new models that where released from having a sporty/fast version. By the time BMW finished with Rover, Rover's market share had halved, they was producing far far fewer cars, and none of them where very desirable. Rover had many plans - to put V6 engines in the new 400 and 600 series, to produce a more powerful 620 and 820 turbo. All sorts.


I dont think the French Government would let Peugeot/Citroen go bust. However much trouble they are in, I just cant see it happening.

Hell Razor5543
NOT Alistair or Simon
Posts: 10838
Joined: 01 Apr 2012, 09:47
x 1095

Re: Citroen & Peugeot to shortly go the way of Rover?!?!

Post by Hell Razor5543 »

When BMW managed to get their mitts on Rover, my Mother was living in Germany. She said at the time that all BMW was after was Land Rover (as they didn't have an acceptable 4X4), and possibly MG or Mini. She then said that once the time limit had expired, BMW would drop the rest faster than a burning potato, and (if they could) move the good bits to Europe. I think that she wasn't far off the mark.

Northern_Mike

Re: Citroen & Peugeot to shortly go the way of Rover?!?!

Post by Northern_Mike »

ashy90 wrote:
Northern_Mike wrote:I don't think they will. Too big, make decent products, sell lots of them. Rover had none of these attributes. The 75 was a decent enough car, but it came way, way too late to save the company. It was dead by 1980 in reality, and just kept on the life support machine by Honda, BAe and then BMW, but binned by them all as they realised they were flogging a dead horse.
Hmmm, I wouldn't say thats quite right to be fair. The late 1980's, certainly the early to mid 1990's the company was on the up - making some very decent products, and selling pretty well. In fact, hard to believe, but the early to mid 1990's Rover was making some pretty desirable products - all those 220 GTI turbo's, 420 GSI Turbo, 800 Vitesse's, Coupe's etc. It was BMW who de-valued the brand - they stopped the production of all the fast/sporty GTI and turbo Rover's, and prevented the new models that where released from having a sporty/fast version. .
The fast and sporty models weren't even that fast or sporty compared to properly fast cars of the time. A 220 Turbo was more expensive than the far more capable Impreza Turbo of the time - and that's what people started to buy. Rover had already stuck the knife in their own back with the Kettle series engines before BMW came along. It doesn't matter that the Kettle series are perfectly reliable if the coolant if checked and changed on time, or after they've been repaired properly - it was the fact they kettled when new and low mileage that gave them an horrific reputation which caused them a lot of problems. The 4 Series was ok, as long as it didn't use a Kettle. Indeed, we had a 416GSi Auto for some years, but, even though it was a reasonable car, it still causes us a couple of scares - the autobox cooler pipe letting go on the M40 spewing oil everywhere (74k miles, 6 years old) and then the headgasket failing at 91k, despite it being a Honda engine, that was serviced as it should have been. Not impressive at all really. Oh, and the ignition fault that no one could fix, even the dealer. It had a bad habit of refusing to start when remotely warm. Much time and effort was spent tracking it down. New crank sensor, cam sensor, distributor and more. Made no difference. Gave up and sold it, bought a Mondeo.

The 800s I drove were staid and dull compared to their competitors, and the handling was woefully inadequate. I drove 4 or 5 of them, 2.0, 2.7 and a diesel. All were nasty in comparison to the BMWs we had in the car park, and I really am not a BMW fan at all. Even the 75, which was an ok car, was so badly put together in many cases - a friend of mine bought one new, it was so badly built the dealer took it back and swapped it for another, which was also so terrible he ended up with another - which he was very happy with for 8 years, so they *could* build decent cars, they just seemingly couldn't be arsed. That's what killed them off, the same old story harking back to the 70s. Reasonable product, poor design. Think SD1. Great car, so shoddily built...

wheeler
Posts: 4392
Joined: 21 Sep 2002, 19:07
x 165

Re: Citroen & Peugeot to shortly go the way of Rover?!?!

Post by wheeler »

ashy90 wrote: The late 1980's, certainly the early to mid 1990's the company was on the up - making some very decent products
Really ?? Are we talking about the same Rover ??

ashy90
Posts: 236
Joined: 22 Oct 2010, 13:51

Re: Citroen & Peugeot to shortly go the way of Rover?!?!

Post by ashy90 »

Northern_Mike wrote:
ashy90 wrote:
Northern_Mike wrote:I don't think they will. Too big, make decent products, sell lots of them. Rover had none of these attributes. The 75 was a decent enough car, but it came way, way too late to save the company. It was dead by 1980 in reality, and just kept on the life support machine by Honda, BAe and then BMW, but binned by them all as they realised they were flogging a dead horse.
Hmmm, I wouldn't say thats quite right to be fair. The late 1980's, certainly the early to mid 1990's the company was on the up - making some very decent products, and selling pretty well. In fact, hard to believe, but the early to mid 1990's Rover was making some pretty desirable products - all those 220 GTI turbo's, 420 GSI Turbo, 800 Vitesse's, Coupe's etc. It was BMW who de-valued the brand - they stopped the production of all the fast/sporty GTI and turbo Rover's, and prevented the new models that where released from having a sporty/fast version. .
The fast and sporty models weren't even that fast or sporty compared to properly fast cars of the time. A 220 Turbo was more expensive than the far more capable Impreza Turbo of the time - and that's what people started to buy. Rover had already stuck the knife in their own back with the Kettle series engines before BMW came along. It doesn't matter that the Kettle series are perfectly reliable if the coolant if checked and changed on time, or after they've been repaired properly - it was the fact they kettled when new and low mileage that gave them an horrific reputation which caused them a lot of problems. The 4 Series was ok, as long as it didn't use a Kettle. Indeed, we had a 416GSi Auto for some years, but, even though it was a reasonable car, it still causes us a couple of scares - the autobox cooler pipe letting go on the M40 spewing oil everywhere (74k miles, 6 years old) and then the headgasket failing at 91k, despite it being a Honda engine, that was serviced as it should have been. Not impressive at all really. Oh, and the ignition fault that no one could fix, even the dealer. It had a bad habit of refusing to start when remotely warm. Much time and effort was spent tracking it down. New crank sensor, cam sensor, distributor and more. Made no difference. Gave up and sold it, bought a Mondeo.

The 800s I drove were staid and dull compared to their competitors, and the handling was woefully inadequate. I drove 4 or 5 of them, 2.0, 2.7 and a diesel. All were nasty in comparison to the BMWs we had in the car park, and I really am not a BMW fan at all. Even the 75, which was an ok car, was so badly put together in many cases - a friend of mine bought one new, it was so badly built the dealer took it back and swapped it for another, which was also so terrible he ended up with another - which he was very happy with for 8 years, so they *could* build decent cars, they just seemingly couldn't be arsed. That's what killed them off, the same old story harking back to the 70s. Reasonable product, poor design. Think SD1. Great car, so shoddily built...

Hmmmm, no figures to quote, but a quick google search shows the Subaru Impreza TURBO cost up to £30k. If so that is not just a little more, but considerably more than the £16k or £18k the Rover 220 Coupe Turbo cost. Yes the 'lesser' Subaru Impreza's cost less money......but they where the bog standard 1.6 and 2.0 Naturally Aspirated models - nothing special at all.


You are incorrect regarding the K series. Rover had NOT stuck the knife in their own back with the K series before BMW came along. No. The ORIGINAL K series engines, launched in 1989 was a superb engine, and did NOT suffer any head gasket problems ~ well, no more so than any other engine (as you pointed out with your Honda engines HGF any engine can suffer a HGF). It was after BMW took over the company (1994) that the K series engined had been re-designed in order to expand the capacity to 1600 and 1800cc. THIS is when the head gasket issues started. Anyone that has compared the original 'closed deck' pre-1995 k series with a later post-1995 'damp liner' k series engine will have an understanding of just how much stronger the original engine was.

Just out of interest was the 800 series you drove MK1 or MK2? Either way the rear wheel drive BMW's are kind of not comparable.

Do you know what was so poor with not one, but two of your friends Rover 75's that meant they had to be sent back? What do you or they mean by 'badly put together'? I have never heard any story's like that with the 75. Have only ever heard praise regarding the quality. Although it was rumoured that the early BMW built cars at Cowley where in acutal fact NOT as well built as the first Rover built cars at Longbridge.
Last edited by ashy90 on 19 Feb 2013, 02:08, edited 1 time in total.

Northern_Mike

Re: Citroen & Peugeot to shortly go the way of Rover?!?!

Post by Northern_Mike »

ashy90 wrote:
Hmmmm, no figures to quote, but a quick google search shows the Subaru Impreza TURBO cost up to £30k..
Yes, the 22B versions or many of the special editions could cost up to £31k. Most were built-to-order only and you got £31k of performance, but the standard production Impreza Turbo 2000 with 214bhp and 4wd - the "common version" - cost less than £18k, cheaper than the Rover 220 Turbo Coupe. I think mine , which is a Japanese import (but isn't) cost around £23,000 when new in 1994, but it does have rather more power and other options.

Northern_Mike

Re: Citroen & Peugeot to shortly go the way of Rover?!?!

Post by Northern_Mike »

ashy90 wrote:
You are incorrect regarding the K series. Rover had NOT stuck the knife in their own back with the K series before BMW came along. No. The ORIGINAL K series engines, launched in 1989 was a superb engine, and did NOT suffer any head gasket problems ~ well, no more so than any other engine (as you pointed out with your Honda engines HGF any engine can suffer a HGF). It was after BMW took over the company (1994) that the K series engined had been re-designed in order to expand the capacity to 1600 and 1800cc.
I'm not incorrect at all. The K-Series was enlarged before BMW bought out the company for the updated 200/400 series. It was Rover's own doing that they made a hash of it. There's plenty of information about it floating around in various places.

Northern_Mike

Re: Citroen & Peugeot to shortly go the way of Rover?!?!

Post by Northern_Mike »

ashy90 wrote: What do you or they mean by 'badly put together'? I have never heard any story's like that with the 75. Have only ever heard praise regarding the quality. Although it was rumoured that the early BMW built cars at Cowley where in acutal fact NOT as well built as the first Rover built cars at Longbridge.
Yes, I do.

The first one started eating tyres very quickly after he bought it. It was sent back for a thorough check . The check showed that there was misalignment on the rear offside wheel and that the KPI' (king pin inclination)was out on both front wheels. The KPI is the angle between two imaginary lines - one drawn through the front strut and one vertically through the front hub. It is not adjustable but is a setting 'built-in' to the front suspension. To correct this problem both front struts were replaced under warranty. At the same time, a second 4-wheelalignment check was carried out and adjustments made to bring all settings within tolerance.

Unfortunately this was not the end of the matter because already the further evidence of 'feathering' on the new front tyres and the rear nearside tyre has just required replacement because the outer edge was worn bald despite stacks of tread left on the inner edge. A third 4-wheel alignment check was carried out and this showed that everything was within tolerance with the exception of the KPI which was again out by a massive amount (measurements of 5 degrees and 7 degrees against a target of 12 degrees!).

So, it was put together completely incompetently, with all 4 wheels pointing in differing directions, and it could not be corrected, so they swapped it out for another one. Shocking really.

Not to be deterred, the dealer bought it back off him, and gave him a demo mileage CDT Tourer, which he was happy with for some years.

ashy90
Posts: 236
Joined: 22 Oct 2010, 13:51

Re: Citroen & Peugeot to shortly go the way of Rover?!?!

Post by ashy90 »

Hmmm. Seems odd.

Northern_Mike

Re: Citroen & Peugeot to shortly go the way of Rover?!?!

Post by Northern_Mike »

ashy90 wrote:Hmmm. Seems odd.
The rear beam alignment was a common issue with the 75 saloon. There is a wealth of info about it on the web.

Paradoxically, the people I know with CDTourers think they're brilliant, and have had no problems at all with them. That, to me, just typifies Rover (and the rest of the British mainstream car industry) over the years. Good products, often shockingly built, though one can't really call the Marina a good car in any respect.

ashy90
Posts: 236
Joined: 22 Oct 2010, 13:51

Re: Citroen & Peugeot to shortly go the way of Rover?!?!

Post by ashy90 »

Northern_Mike wrote:
ashy90 wrote:Hmmm. Seems odd.
The rear beam alignment was a common issue with the 75 saloon. There is a wealth of info about it on the web.

Paradoxically, the people I know with CDTourers think they're brilliant, and have had no problems at all with them. That, to me, just typifies Rover (and the rest of the British mainstream car industry) over the years. Good products, often shockingly built, though one can't really call the Marina a good car in any respect.
Oh right, not heard of that - nor looked in to it. It is a BMW rear suspension set up IIRC? - BMW 'Z' axle....

Thats good to hear that the people you know with 75 tourers havn't had any problems. Although to be fair, if a car has one or two issues throughout its life time it doesn't necessarily make it a bad car IMO. Certainly a large/executive type saloon, which is getting on a bit, I would almost expect to have a couple of repair bills. Infact its one thing that has put me off upgrading to a 75 from my 45. I am sure that a 75 is a better car than a 45 in many respects - smoother, better built, more refined, more toys etc. However with things such as dual mass flywheels, centrifugal slave cylinders which require gearbox removal to replace, in tank fuel pump issues on BMW diesels etc. they have the potential to land you with some large repair bills - something my much simpler 45 does not.


I must say, I GENUINLY have not experienced a 'shockingly built' Rover as you put it. My parents have owned a few - mum had an old 'wedge shape' L reg Rover 214SLI for just shy of 10 years (bought it after being pleasently suprised by our family friends H reg Rover 214Si), dad then bought a 1998 Rover 416S - which was eventually passed down to me. Dad now owns a 2004 MG ZS 180.

I myself have owned the following Rover's. Note, a lot have been 'project cars' (hence why theres so many!);

-2x 'bubble shape' Rover 214's when I first started driving. A 214i 8v as my daily ride - it was a bit ropey and rattly, but was neglected. Then a newer 214 Si 16v project - bought with a snapped timing belt, repaired it...had fun in it, was fantastic.....and then crashed it! =D>
-My parents Rover 416 as mentioned above was then passed down to me. Was driving 100 miles a day for work, clocked up like 10k miles in about 4/5 months. Great car and very comfortable.
-Then I bought my Rover 45 back in 2009, which I still own today. Now on 151,000+ miles.
-Had a brief 'fling' with a MK2 820 Vitesse turbo - only bought it as it was so cheap I couldn't turn it down. Was the 200bhp model, a lot of fun but very tatty and a bit rattly inside. Ended up scrapping it as it was in such a poor state.
-1998 Rover 414 SI which required a replacment (french :lol: ) gearbox. Repaired and sold on.

NONE have been poorly built at all. HOWEVER....I currently have a 2004 Rover Streetwise project ~bought on a repair and sell on basis. Which, is deffinately not as well built as the older cars. Materials are of a lower standard/quality, a couple of trim bits have come unclipped etc. But its not THAT bad....my girlfriends Peugeot 206 was just the same. She sold her 206 and bought a yr 2000 Rover 25 instead, which being honest is much better than her old 206 and the Streetwise, not quite as good as the older 214SI that I crashed though.


Also, before you say/think that I have not had any other cars to compare the Rover's too, dont...as I have. I have owned a Vauxhall Astra, Citroen Xantia and an Audi A4. The Rover's were hit and miss in comparison - one or two of the Rover's were very solid feeling and well built in comparison to the other cars, one or two were a bit rattly - but NOT terrible, a few just average - not poor, but not exceptionally brilliant either.

KP
Posts: 3981
Joined: 10 Jul 2006, 12:11
x 7

Re: Citroen & Peugeot to shortly go the way of Rover?!?!

Post by KP »

Having witnessed 2 meastro's eat thru their own bodywork and they were red to start with its no surprise really.

My dad moved from a 1.3 meastro city to his first ever chevron machine. a BX 19TGD Hatch in red on a 92J plate.

Being diesel it was miles miles cheaper than meastro anyway but the ride and quality of it swayed him very quickly and when we took it over to northern ireland a lot of the family loved it as well, even my nan and she was a rover fan moving to a 114gti ;) it took us to cape wrath, north france and anywhere that was asked of it in comfort and the meastro never did that. My dad often had a small toolkit in the back (like i do with the L322!) and occasionally had to fix it going onto a ferry or coming off :)

The bx only ever once and i really mean once! let us down.

Coming up to larne a section of road had been cheaply resurfaced, think bitumen then crud thrown on top, and something caught a hydraulic pipe in the engine bay at some whack. Left a small dent and hole it it which then dumped lhm out and some onto the exhaust...

Quick replacement from a scrappers by the lovely AA people and we were on our way :) was on the road for many years after my dad sold it until i guess someone stuffed it into a tree or suchlike :(

ashy90
Posts: 236
Joined: 22 Oct 2010, 13:51

Re: Citroen & Peugeot to shortly go the way of Rover?!?!

Post by ashy90 »

Hmmmm, I can't really speak for the Maestro's as I do not really have any experience of them. I did go in one a couple of times as a child - a mate of mines parents had one. All I remember is that it was an improvment over their previous Mazda but thats it. I know my Uncle had a couple of Maestro's too, my Aunti said she liked them. Lots of cars rusted in the 1980's though - Ford especially, but Vauxhalls and also Japanese stuff. Maestro's are Austins anyway, not really Rover. I was talking of Rover only, and from the late 1980's - particularly the MK2 200/MK1 400 launched in 1989 which were very good cars.


Anyhow. Peugeot/Citroen - will they survive? As said, I can't see the French Government letting them go bust tbh.
Last edited by ashy90 on 22 Feb 2013, 00:40, edited 2 times in total.