BMW and Range Rover

[Carbon]

My mom has the Range Rover BMW made, and I hate it. The navigation system is awful, the interior ergonomics are crap (so many things are placed awkwardly), and I just plain don't like most SUVs.

 

[Merc1]

I do think that Land Rover was taken from the ditch and put on the road when BMW took over. BMW suffered the grunt of the problem's such as finances, but now LR is a better company than it ever was.

This is true, but Ford is now having problems so I'm not sure if the roll will continue for Land Rover.

M

 

[Merc1]

It wasn't Land Rover that was the real problem, it was Rover + strenght of the pound.

Same Difference. They couldn't afford to keep Rover was the point!

1. X5 is based on the existing four-wheel drive 5-series 'X', the only technical transfer is the lifting of Hill Descent Control.
(Which, incidentally, Toyota now offers a copy of on the Land Cruiser)

If you think that is all they took from Land Rover then you're even more blinded by that propeller than I ever thought.

2. The X5 was a diferent thing from the Land Rover.
- X5 = SAV = hybrid between SUV & Sport Car = King On-Road
- Land Rover = real deal = real SUV = King Off-Road

You're kidding? Didn't know this, gee do I remember saying that BMW built a Land Rover or vice versa? Uhh...nope!

The X5 was build and sales started during the Rover ownership.
BMW was going to beyond cars anyway.

Again, I don't see the point of this statement.

M

 

[Imhotep Evil]

Same Difference. They couldn't afford to keep Rover was the point!

True.

If you think that is all they took from Land Rover then you're even more blinded by that propeller than I ever thought.

It's you who are blinded by the 3-pointed star and again have no historical knowledge.
Get your facts straight and stop BSing.

You're kidding? Didn't know this, gee do I remember saying that BMW built a Land Rover or vice versa? Uhh...nope!
...........................
Again, I don't see the point of this statement.

M

The point is that these were diferent products, build diferently , not made to canibalize each other, and that the idea for BMW to build the X5/go beyond cars was made before any de-merger tought had come to mind.

 

[PanterroR]

I'm smelling a WAR here...

 

[Merc1]

It's you who are blinded by the 3-pointed star and again have no historical knowledge.
Get your facts straight and stop BSing.




The point is that these were diferent products, build diferently , not made to canibalize each other, and that the idea for BMW to build the X5/go beyond cars was made before any de-merger tought had come to mind.

Look who is talking, the undisputed the BS king! Anything and everything is a some lame , idiotic even, history lesson about a bunch of stuff that is usually totally irreleveant to the conversation. You came up with all that nonsense just to say what I already said about BMW not being able to support/keep Land Rover. Tell me how many Mercedes threads do you enter and get accused of being nothing more than a BS artist? Nearly any and all of them and most other MB fans don't even both dealing with your nonsense anymore because they know where you're coming from.

Me with no historical knowledge, dude you're the one with nary a clue about what is happening TODAY. As far as historical knowledge anyone can google all the old info like you do.

This conversation had nothing to do with Mercedes to start with, but since that is your job- to bash Mercedes - you couldn't help but mention MB anyway. Pitiful really.

Lastly, why is that you always feel compelled to answer a question that nobody asked. Did I say anything about Land Rover and BMW doing anything to "canibalize" each others products? No I didn't.

M

 

[Beemer B773ER]

Wow... dudes, calm it down. We don't want none of this bashing here. If either one of you wants to start bashing each other go over to the autospies forum.

Keep it cool, keep it clean...

 

[Imhotep Evil]

Look who is talking, the undisputed the BS king!

Well I've always tought that was you.

Anything and everything is a some lame , idiotic even, history lesson about a bunch of stuff that is usually totally irreleveant to the conversation.

Coming form someone who hasn't got a clue, I take that as a compliment.

You came up with all that nonsense just to say what I already said about BMW not being able to support/keep Land Rover.

That was never my point. Sorry if I wasn't specific or maybe you just never get it, or don't read my posts carefully.

1. My point was that the X5 was diferent from Land Rover.
2. And that the problem was the Rover car division.
3. Land Rover was sold to get back some of the money lost (mostly by the Rover car division).
4. The engineering and money BMW put in Land Rover will never be recovered.
5. The point was not BMW couldn't suport Land Rover.
It was that BMW couldn't suport anything, not the E65, E60, E90, MINI, RR Phantom etcetera, without borowing and/or selling (at least some of) its shares (losing its independence).

Tell me how many Mercedes threads do you enter and get accused of being nothing more than a BS artist? Nearly any and all of them and most other MB fans don't even both dealing with your nonsense anymore because they know where you're coming from.

To them, and you, I say, look at the BMW 7 series & Z9 concept interior and then look at W221 interior.

Me with no historical knowledge, dude you're the one with nary a clue about what is happening TODAY.
As far as historical knowledge anyone can google all the old info like you do.

That if it's that simple, that why don't you don't verify certain things first instead of coming up with this biased BS posts.

This conversation had nothing to do with Mercedes to start with, but since that is your job- to bash Mercedes - you couldn't help but mention MB anyway. Pitiful really.

The only thing I said, was that you are blinded by the 3-pointed star, after you said I was blinded by the propelar badge.
So I was just returning a "compliment".
BTW even I tought at a certain point that the Land Rover had a major influence on the X5 and so on...
But then I learnt certain things.
So you see, even the "undisputed BS king" had the same opinions/toughts as you have now about the X5/Land Rover thing.

Lastly, why is that you always feel compelled to answer a question that nobody asked. Did I say anything about Land Rover and BMW doing anything to "canibalize" each others products? No I didn't.
M

Then sorry mate, Mea Culpa here.

 

[Michael]

This is to both Imhotep Evil and Merc1:


I read over all of your post's. It seem that Merc1 had a snappy attitude but was followed by some attitude from Imhotep Evil. Look, I understand where Imhotep Evil was coming from. Merc1, you shouldn't have responded in such a snappy way. Nevertheless, I suggest that both of you discuss this via PM, PM me if you have a problem, or change the way you are speaking to each other. Please. Thank you

 

[Imhotep Evil]

I think someone should lock before it degenerates even further.
Admin, Mods !!!

 

[Michael]

I think someone should lock before it degenerates even further.
Admin, Mods !!!

No. I do not think that this thread needs to be locked. I think that if things go smoothly from this point on, we are fine. If not, then it can be locked. Let's see how it goes...

 

[Merc1]

Well I've always tought that was you..

Likewise!

Coming form someone who hasn't got a clue, I take that as a compliment.

This from a person who compares the SL55 AMG to a Rolls-Royce and who thought it was or should be more Rolls-Royce like because of a Mercedes 600 that was built eons ago. You being clueless couldn't be anymore blissful than that. Sorry, but anyone who says that a SL55 AMG going around a track faster than a M6 is like a Rolls-Royce beating a Ferrari around a track is the most clueless person is captivity.

That was never my point. Sorry if I wasn't specific or maybe you just never get it, or don't read my posts carefully.

1. My point was that the X5 was diferent from Land Rover.
2. And that the problem was the Rover car division.
3. Land Rover was sold to get back some of the money lost (mostly by the Rover car division).
4. The engineering and money BMW put in Land Rover will never be recovered.
5. The point was not BMW couldn't suport Land Rover.
It was that BMW couldn't suport anything, not the E65, E60, E90, MINI, RR Phantom etcetera, without borowing and/or selling (at least some of) its shares (losing its independence).

Again a lot of nothing that doesn't pertain to what was being talked about here.

1. Who said that the X5 and Land Rover were similar? I mean where in the world did I say that? You're responding to a viewpoint that was never stated or posed.

2. Never mentioned the Rover car division. Really, go back and read what I said. You, as usual mentioned something totally irrelevent like the Rover Car division. I said Land Rover, not the whole of Rover.

3. Who cares? More importantly who said anything to the contrary?

4. Ditto

5. That was exactly the point. They got rid of it because it was costing them money. You should know that BMW is a small company and couldn't stem those type of losses as long as a larger company like Ford. You're likely the most confused person here because what in the world does all those BMW models and Rolls have to do with this? Nothing. I didn't say anything about any of that. The point was the Land Rover was costing them too much money so they junked it not that BMW couldn't go on with their own models they had in the pipleline. Jeesh. Again, you're responding to something I've never, ever stated. I said that they couldn't afford the loses Land Rover was heaping upon them.

To them, and you, I say, look at the BMW 7 series & Z9 concept interior and then look at W221 interior.

And this has what to do with anything here?

That if it's that simple, that why don't you don't verify certain things first instead of coming up with this biased BS posts.

Barely readable what you're trying to say here. Where was the bias in the Land Rover and BMW discussion? Where? Did I say anything negative about BMW? No.

The only thing I said, was that you are blinded by the 3-pointed star, after you said I was blinded by the propelar badge.
So I was just returning a "compliment".
BTW even I tought at a certain point that the Land Rover had a major influence on the X5 and so on...
But then I learnt certain things.
So you see, even the "undisputed BS king" had the same opinions/toughts as you have now about the X5/Land Rover thing.

By all means I didn't realize that you worked for BMW and have the clearance to be able to tell us what BMW learned from Rover. Clearly the interviews and articles about what BMW learned from Rover that were posted back in the day were wrong because of what you're not "learnt". Specious argument at best.

You're going to sit here and have us believe that BMW took nothing, not one piece of SUV know-how from Land Rover, arguably the best of the best when it come to SUVs, when BMW set out to build their own? That sir is being blinded by the BMW propeller. The two SUVs don't have to be just alike for BMW to gleam the basics about SUVs which was my point, not that BMW set out to build a mud-plugging SUV like a Land Rover. Is that more succinct?

M

 

[Zafiro]

Its pure entertaining. Merc and Imhotep are fighting, once again

 

[PanterroR]

I'd rather say it's sad to see two members with great knowledge doing this... They're both great mebers, imo...

 

[SDNR]

Personally, I'm glad BMW ditched Land Rover, because there's some overlap between the two ranges.

That is precisely true Osna ....they were developing there own SUV models ....so Land Rover seemed superfluous -- unlike VAG, BMW seem to believe in keeping things simple and more focused.

 

[SDNR]

The story begins in 1952 with the creation of BMC (british motor corporation).

Now this company had problems since the begining, and despite (hal-hearted) atempts to rationize/modernize it all eventually failed.

BMC merged Jaguar to become BMH and later in 1968 merged with Leyland to became British Leyland Motor Corporation, the 3th largest automaker in the world.

This monstruosity incorporated the majority of previously independednt british auto makers and beyond that.



The bankrupt company is nationalized in 1975.

And the ship is sinking fast now, some of their car are sinonimous with lack of reliability, and combatant unions make things worse.

The company is renamed British Leyland, then Austin-Rover group and later the Rover group since the Austin, Morris and Leyland brands have negative conotations.

The group is choped to pieces and privatised by the Thatcher goverment.

BAE getting the Rover group witch is sold to BMW.

But thing are not as expected, the Rovers (some) are by now rebaged Hondas, and the curent range is far from metting expectation.

BMW poors a lot of money in Rover, saving Mini and LR/RR, and helping to create the fine Rover 75.

But this was a comany starved for decades, witch probably need it more.

Even, BMW partner Chrysler was bought by Daimler-Benz.

By now BMW was a divided company.

Wolfgang Reitzle and Bernd Pischetsrieder were on 2 diferent baricades.

But in 1999 the situation is a mess.

The loses were afected also by the strenght of the pound.

By now BMW no longer has money.

There is talk of a merger or buy out of BMW by Ford, GM and even Fiat.

Not since 1959 was BMW in such a mess.

While the BMW division/brand is still profitable problems can be found here too.

The E39 5 series and FL E38 7 series are taking a serious punch from MB E and S klasse.

BMW has lost its position to MB in USA and to Audi in Europe.

By now the pilon of BMWs posible future is the E46 3 series, and there is also hope of a succesfull X5.

But for now sock terapy is need it.

So after 4 billion euro loses in 2000 the de-merger takes place.

To obtain the need it cash BMW sells LR/RR to Ford and recovers some of its loses.

This was done to avoid borowing money from a bank and/or selling at least partially BMW (= to keep BMWs independence).

1. LR/RR wasn't actually profitable, it becamed so only recently under Ford.

2.

What a great post Imhotep Evil.

The situation BMW was in shows just what a big risk BMW took with Bangle's design of the 7er .....it was a huge gamble -- luckily it paid off -- my God, I can only imagine how things might have Been if Ford, or even worse, Fiat!, had taken control of BMW.

 

[Imhotep Evil]

What a great post Imhotep Evil.

The situation BMW was in shows just what a big risk BMW took with Bangle's design of the 7er .....it was a huge gamble -- luckily it paid off -- my God, I can only imagine how things might have Been if Ford, or even worse, Fiat!, had taken control of BMW.

Actualy the idea behind bangle design was more like,
what else do we have to lose ?!
Because:

The E39 5 series and FL E38 7 series are taking a serious punch from MB E and S klasse.

Now to Merc1 all my posts were intended to give a bigger picture and let people make connection.

For example when you said

They couldn't afford to keep Rover was the point!

I replied:

BMW couldn't suport anything, not the E65, E60, E90, MINI, RR Phantom etcetera, without borowing and/or selling (at least some of) its shares (losing its independence).

And the reason for all this:

the problem was the Rover car division.

you said:

BMW is too small of a company to have a loss leader like Land Rover draining their already strained finances.

I said:

the problem was the Rover car division

The Rover car division was the loss leader, not Land Rover.
But LR/RR wasn't profitable either.
In theory when the Rover group should have becomed profitable somewhere
2000-2002 the LR should have becomed its most profitable division.

When ever you atack me with, "what's that has to do with everything", I'm simply trying to give the bigger picture to make all the conections.
I don't agree with your isolated/restricted/limited views.
I'm sorry if you don't understand that.
And I never compared SL55 AMG to a Rolls-Royce.
(Altough once upon of time the SE was suposed to take on the RR Corniche)

 

[Merc1]

The Rover car division was the loss leader, not Land Rover.
But LR/RR wasn't profitable either.
In theory when the Rover group should have becomed profitable somewhere
2000-2002 the LR should have becomed its most profitable division.

When ever you atack me with, "what's that has to do with everything", I'm simply trying to give the bigger picture to make all the conections.
I don't agree with your isolated/restricted/limited views.
I'm sorry if you don't understand that.
And I never compared SL55 AMG to a Rolls-Royce.
(Altough once upon of time the SE was suposed to take on the RR Corniche)

And if you got the bigger picture you'd see that it didn't make a bit of difference as to whether or not it was Land Rover or the Rover car division because they got rid of the whole mess. My point. Secondly if Land Rover wasn't profitable either then there was no point in mentioning the car divisioin because the whole thing was a losing operation as far as BMW was concerned! I meant loss leader as far as BMW's holdings are concerned, not which part of the Rover Group was Rover's loss leader. It didn't matter to BMW which is why they sold it off.

You said that a SL55 AMG being able to lap a track faster than a BMW M6 was like a Rolls-Royce beating a Ferrari around a racetrack - that was your comment then and it made no sense. It still doesn't. Then we got a history lesson about Mercedes, like I of all people would need that, with that you implied that a Mercedes is never supposed to be able to handle as good as or better than a BMW. That is a "restricted" or "limited" viewpoint.

You act as though you're brought some vital or key information to the table about Land Rover and BMW when the end result was just like I stated, they sold it because it didn't make money and was in fact losing money. There is nothing more to it. You thinking you've come down from uphigh to correct everthing I said about LR and BMW is where the problem began.

You are in no position to call anyone's views isolated, restricted or limited when you think Mercedes should be building Rolls-Royce competitors in 2006 because of what they built years and years ago! That is limited and very restricted and of the utmost in isolation!

This whole Land Rover and BMW deal needed no further "explanation".

M

 

[LaArtist]

OMG its to much to read..
enjoy your discussion boys

 

[Imhotep Evil]

And if you got the bigger picture you'd see that it didn't make a bit of difference as to whether or not it was Land Rover or the Rover car division because they got rid of the whole mess. My point.
Secondly if Land Rover wasn't profitable either then there was no point in mentioning the car divisioin because the whole thing was a losing operation as far as BMW was concerned! I meant loss leader as far as BMW's holdings are concerned, not which part of the Rover Group was Rover's loss leader. It didn't matter to BMW which is why they sold it off.

It did matter, that was just the main thing.

LR/RR had the biggest potential (revenues and profits for the future).

They didn't sold it because they wanted to, they sold it because it was the only thing they could sell and get a lot of money for.

It was either Land Rover or BMW they had to sell.

And that was after both Wolfgang Reitzle and Bernd Pischetsrieder were gone from BMW.

You said that a SL55 AMG being able to lap a track faster than a BMW M6 was like a Rolls-Royce beating a Ferrari around a racetrack - that was your comment then and it made no sense. It still doesn't. Then we got a history lesson about Mercedes, like I of all people would need that, with that you implied that a Mercedes is never supposed to be able to handle as good as or better than a BMW. That is a "restricted" or "limited" viewpoint.

Not never, but generaly.
Your thinking that MB was always just a step or two behind BMW is limited/restricted/false.

You act as though you're brought some vital or key information to the table about Land Rover and BMW when the end result was just like I stated, they sold it because it didn't make money and was in fact losing money. There is nothing more to it. You thinking you've come down from uphigh to correct everthing I said about LR and BMW is where the problem began.

Nope they didn't sold it because it lost money, they sold it because after the BMW car division this (LR) had the biggest potential.

And since they couldn't sell BMW, now could they, they sold Land Rover.

IT was the Rover car division that was "sold" because it lost money.

You are in no position to call anyone's views isolated, restricted or limited when you think Mercedes should be building Rolls-Royce competitors in 2006 because of what they built years and years ago! That is limited and very restricted and of the utmost in isolation!

God allmighty now you're putting words in my mouth.

This whole Land Rover and BMW deal needed no further "explanation".

M

Well until some people get some facts straight, it will probably continue.