I have to agree with Bill on this - Austin-Rover is an oxymoron! In the
heyday of the English auto industry after WWII (the big one, per Archie
Bunker!), when I was a young lad growing up in England, Austin, Morris,
Ford, Vauxhall and Hillman were the "popular" cars; Riley, Sunbeam,
Wolseley, Singer were more "up-market", sporty saloons; Rover, Humber,
Daimler and Jaguar were even more up-market "gentlemen's carriages", with RR
and Bentley at the pinacle. Triumphs, MGs, A-Hs were popular-priced sports
cars and, of course, there were the exotica of Aston-Martins, E-Types, etc
etc. The point of this is that a driver expected a certain level of
quality, performance and equipment to be associated with these names, just
as we do in the US with Chevy, Pontiac, Buick and Cadillac. If BMW
continues with this tradition when they bring back such names as Triumph and
A-H, and eschews the concept of badge-engineering as practised so diligently
by BMC/BL in the 60s and 70s, then more power to them. I, for one, would
love to see an appropriately styled and equipped Wolseley 6/200, based on,
say, a 5-series platform, or a Riley 2.0 based on the 3-series. And what
about a revived Triumph Dolomite? The possibilities are endless...
-----Original Message-----
From: William Davies <w.davies@virgin.net>
To: Triumphs List <triumphs@autox.team.net>
Date: Tuesday, October 13, 1998 4:27 PM
Subject: Re: Re-emergence of Triumph and Austin Healey names
>
>Oh Boy!,
> I've been trying to avoid getting dragged into this thread. Rovers are
>NOT manufactured in the same way they have always been. Until the
1970s-80s,
>Rovers had always been sturdy, high quality gentlemens carriages. The Rover
>name was applied to the Ex-British Leyland groups produsts (originally in
>combination with Austin) once the Leyland name had been irrevocably
>tarnished by the dreadful vehicles of dreadful quality produced during the
>late 1970s! (I even include the Triumph range here because by that time
>their quality was dreadful). To see Rover badges on Metro variants makes my
>flesh creep! I have no problem with continued use of the Rover name (or any
>other), I would just like to see it applied to appropriate vehicles.
> I guess I'd really like to see the Triumph name revived for one
specific
>reason - I think it's sad that the Acclaim is considered the last of the
>line.
> Trying not to get too emotional and irrational,
> Bill.
>
>Joe Curry wrote:
>
>> The Rovers
>> however are still being manufactured in the same way they have always
>> been and since their production has never been allowed to lapse, it has
>> remained a continuation of pretty much the same type vehicles. So I am
>> OK with that.
>>
>
>
>
>--
>-------------------------------------------------------------
> This Message sent by:
> ^================^
> / \ William Davies
> / \ Total Triumph Enthusiast
> __ __________________ __
>/ \ ______ ______ / \ 1959 Herald 948 Coupe 1st Batch!!!
>\__/ \ || / \__/ 1959 Herald 948 Coupe
>| A \____||____/ A | 1960 Herald 948 Saloon Export
>| = H H = | 1964 Herald 1200 Saloon
>=====U==============U===== 1966 Herald 1200 Convertible
>\________________________/ 1959 Standard Atlas Pickup
> | | | | 1973 Spitfire MkIV
> |_| |_|
>
|