I've spent too much time this weekend pouring over a Rover (Austin etc.) history web site. Really in-depth stories about the development and prototypes of the cars like the Allegro, Montego, Marina and other ugly/dull cars from the past. Some of them weren't designed ugly (I'm looking at you, Allegro), but became ugly in the development process. Maybe it is all hindsight, but it seems so clear what should have happened in the 70s...market research, rationalisation, more (any!) quality control.

The history goes right to the end of Rover and then turns into a news site on goings on with SAIC. Anyway, on the site I found this, and I felt sad.

Looks familiar? It was Rover's replacement for this:

But BMW had a different idea, which we all know about:

The difference between them is simple. Rover wanted an economic city car, and BMW wanted a sports car. Rover wanted something radical and BMW wanted something pastiche. The last point is what makes me sad, the question was, should the mini look like an updated MINI, or should it be a re-interpretation the ideas and ideals of the Mini? Well pastiche sells, clearly.

But that Mini prototype was really radical. It had hydragas suspension, a sub-floor rear mounted 3 cylinder k-series engine, rear-wheel drive and 4 seats in the same space as the old Mini (the new MINI is not really a mini car). The MINI on the other hand is conventional and has a brazillian engine. Does the MINI progress car travel in the way the Mini did back in the late 50's? Does it address the issues of today: emmisions, fuel prices, space constraints?

Ah, the witterings of a lefty greeny. But I think it's a real shame, although at least it's certainly keeping those Cowley workers in jobs. Ironically, it is other German cars that do seem to address the modern agenda, but the Smart is too small and the A-Class too big. Oh well.

In other news, check out this '86 version of the Police's 'dont stand so close to me'. I really like it:

Tags: Rover