Talk:Rover Company

rover
Move two first lines into new article Belgian man 13:33, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Any additional info on the source or origin of that "OVER" logo at the bottom of the article? Otherwise, it makes it seem like a biased article. --Logariasmo 03:22, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Here is the logo, in case we want to keep it for posterity. I have removed it from the article. If someone wants to re-insert the logo, please give a good reason for doing so, such as maybe: "This modified company logo appeared in ... after ..."

--Logariasmo 03:43, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

the 'over' badge was posted on www.b3ta.com, a graphics-editing site [British] after the first news. No link, but that's what it is - a joke, and not a serious badge.

Can somebody date the last use of the licenced 215 at Rover? (I believe it was replaced by a BMW around 1990.) Am I right it was bought from GM 1962? And is it still in use at Morgan? Trekphiler 07:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Formerly listed on the London Stock Exchange?
Was "Rover" actally ever listed? I take it that if it was it was previous to the firm becoming part of British Leyland? Otherwise it would be a group listing and so shouldnt be on this page. Ian3055 15:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

clarification needed
quote:(Similarly, in Australia, the Honda Quint and Integra were badged as the Rover Quintet and 416i.) what is a honda quint? Im from Australia and never heard of it, I was pretty sure the honda named accord and the rover quintet were the same but need to check this out. (to confirm the honda quint never exsisted in australia its not listed at http://www.redbook.com.au either)

Freewheel
Worth mentioning? Prewar models had a freewheel device operated by a knob on the dash board. 81.156.82.34 10:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Gas Turbines
Rover continued to develop the gas turbine for automotives purposes until the seventies. One of its uses was in the ground starting trolley for Avro Vulcan MkII air craft. Another was to power the APT-E 81.156.82.34 10:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Rover logo.jpg
Image:Rover logo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 10:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Rover logo new.jpg
Image:Rover logo new.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 10:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

rover
there is nothing wrong with this document. it is great.

Timeline
I think that the timeline at the bottom of the page should be modified somewhat. The Rover 400 & 45 should be moved to "Mid-size car" and the 75 should be moved in-between "Large Family" and "Executive car" or at least down to "Exectutive car".

Can this even be done? Dominar_Rygel_XVI (talk) 10:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Rover logo new.jpg
Image:Rover logo new.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 15:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Parent Company
Ford had acquired an option of first refusal to buy the Rover brand as a result of its purchase of Land Rover from BMW in 2000.

In March 2008, Tata finalised a deal with Ford Motor Company to acquire their British Jaguar Land Rover (JLR) business, which also includes the Rover, Daimler and Lanchester brand names. The purchase was completed on 2nd June 2008

If that's the case, it makes Tata the parent company of the now defunct Rover. It is true Tata owns the brand name and hence the rights to the company.

Hence making Tata the parent company.

--User:prasanaik 19:58, 29th July 2008 (UTC)


 * This article is about the company named Rover Company Limited which was founded in 1904, and which was acquired by Leyland Motor Corporation (its first parent) in 1967, and absorbed along with them into British Leyland in 1968. Rover Company retained its separate identity within British Leyland (its second parent) through its transition to BL plc, but when BL changed its name to Rover Group in 1986, the old Rover Company became defunct, ceasing to be a separate legal entity, and so is defined in this article as a company which became defunct in 1986.  The Rover brand however, as opposed to the by now defunct Rover Company, was used as the main car brand of Rover Group, and continued to be used by them after they were privatised in 1988 (by being sold to British Aerospace), and after they were sold again in 1994 to BMW.  In 2000 BMW retained ownership of the brand, although they sold much of the Rover Group company to Phoenix Venture Holdings.  Phoenix, however, used the Rover brand, under licence from BMW, for some of the cars they produced until their demise in 2005.  SAIC bought the rights to build the "Rover" cars in 2005, but did not get the right to use the brand, which BMW subsequently sold to the Ford Motor Company to go with the Land Rover brand (and company) which they already owned.  When Tata Motors bought Jaguar Land Rover from Ford in 2008, they also bought the Rover brand , but as you can see, by then, it was a long way removed from the Rover Company (the subject of this article) which had ceased to exist in 1986.  Tata certainly own the brand, but they are no more parents of the Rover Company which went defunct in 1986 than they are of the numerous other companies which have owned or used the brand since then. -- de Facto (talk). 22:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * In the absence of any further comment, I'll assume that the 'dispute' is resolved and remove the template. -- de Facto (talk). 13:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Rover Company
The article is about Rover Company, now it has marques etc in infobox, should the page renamed? --&mdash; Typ932 T  21:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Better not, as various pages, such as Rover (cars), Rover brand), Rover Company wikilink to this page. Due to the complexity of industrial history of this company, and the fact that also Rover Company Ltd. ceased to exist in 1986 but continued to be around as a Rover Company as part of Rover Group and later MG Rover, the umbrella term of Rover Company with details about marque, cars and corporate history while making clear in the text how that meaning of "company" changed over time, would be the best way to go. Leave it. Furthermore, the disambiguation page for Rover is already very long, and a further splitting of Rover Co., Rover Cars, Rover marque as additional entries to the already disparate BLMC, BL, Austin Rover, RG, MGR etc would make a reader not familiar with the history of "Rover" essentially unable to grasp the entire context.

The best way to go ahead is to have this as a hub focused on the Rover Company synonymous with its marque until 1986, and then describe the continuation of Rover Company assets within Rover Group and finally MG Rover, and now, as a final point, a dormant marque of Tata. This would be similar to the procedures used on Wikipedia for Jaguar, Bentley, Rolls-Royce, MG and Land Rover which have seen similar disruptions in continuity, though not on the scale and complexity as Rover did.

Rover's history must probably be one of the most complex in automotive history. Let's make this a reflected in an intelligible wiki article. -SocialScienceLondon —Preceding unsigned comment added by SocialScienceLondon (talk • contribs) 01:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Rover Group logo.jpg
The image File:Rover Group logo.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --14:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Merge Rover (motorcycles) into this article
Rover Company started out making the Rover Safety Bicycle and then moved on into motorcycles and cars. The Rover in the article Rover (motorcycles) is the same Rover as the one in this article. There should not be a separate article about the same company. I propose that the motorcycle article be merged into this one. No signature (talk) 19:52, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have moved the information from "Rover (motorcycles)" into a section of this article. I have kept "Rover (motorcycles)" as a separate article so that any significant additions to the topic can be added there for development as a branch article.  If needs be, the section in this article may be summarized more concisely than it is now. No signature (talk) 10:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Leyland Cars
In the post-war era of mergers (i.e. not the pre-war Leyland cars), was it ever true to say that Rover was ever part of "Leyland Cars" (rather than "British Leyland" or "BLMC")? Is this diff correct?


 * Rover was initially purchased by Leyland, which owned Triumph at the time. Leyland then merged with British Motor Holdings (itself a merger between British Motor Cars and Jaguar Cars) to form British Leyland.


 * Interstingly enough, the only BMC marque to make it to the end was MG. Wolseley and Riley were killed off early and then Morris and Austin were killed off in the '80s.  Triumph was also discontinued in the '80s; BMW still owns the Triumph automotive marque. Jaguar somehow gained its freedom from BL for a few years before being bought by Ford.  No signature (talk) 21:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * In the 1970s British Leyland made not only cars, but trucks, vans, tractors, fork-lifts, buses, earth moving and road-making equipment, fridges, etc. Leyland Cars was the car making division. -- de Facto (talk). 23:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Rover sponsored a short film The Burning of the Boyd
We would like to purchase this film can you help with an outlet selling this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.93.40 (talk) 08:55, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Missing information
There were two vehicles, one not metioned and one very little information about that was a turning point for Rover. First being the introduction of the Range Rover in 1969 which was a drastic change in design for Land Rover at the time. Second was little mention about the SD1 or 3500 and how it boosted sales and changed the image of Rover cars and was the last British designed and British built Rover.There is also no mention of Spencer King who played a huge role in Rover's long history —Preceding unsigned comment added by YankeeRover (talk • contribs) 05:00, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

late 1920s reorganization
The Wilks brothers deserve all the credit they have always received but they were found for the job by a relative, Frank Searle, who was very much more than the manager of a bus company (as suggested elsewhere).

There is mention of Weymann being a coach-builder for Rover. Certainly not so but as Rover were Weymann champions, early-adopters and (very) late droppers, it might be that the subsidiary, Midland Light Car Bodies, was a licensee of Weymann. Eddaido (talk) 21:08, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

CAR
HI I HAVEA ROVER25CAR AND THE FOD IS NO GOOD CAN YOU TELL ME WEAR TO GET A NEW ONE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.206.177.121 (talk) 17:05, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rover Company. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20031004182313/http://www.austin-rover.co.uk/ to http://austin-rover.co.uk/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:03, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

The scope of this article
The Rover Company (the subject of this article) vanished into Leyland Motors/British Leyland in 1966/67, so this article should not be concerned with anything that happened after that date. The continuity of the Rover brand is covered in the Rover (marque) article and the history of the various successor companies that used that brand should be covered in the articles dedicated to those companies (such as British Leyland, Rover Group, MG Rover, Land Rover, Jaguar Land Rover. For that reason I have tried to remove post-1967 information from this article. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:23, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Horsepower
There have been different definitions of horsepower over time, measuring system, use, etc. Are you sure you are converting the right units? Are you trying to convert taxable horsepower (almost meaningless) into an actual measurement? Just a thought. Sammy D III (talk) 17:04, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * From reading the article again I see "hp" mentioned twice, nothing about taxable horsepower and this sounds like the power output of the engine. This was a motorcycle introduced in 1902 when internal combustion engines were not very efficient at producing power. The Rover 12 motorcar further down the page talks about the Rover 12 which is probably the name of the car and probably the actual horsepower. Did the British tax vehicles on fiscal power? If it is indeed horsepower then according to the manual of style it needs to include the power in watts as well for the benefit of English speakers who use the modern SI.Avi8tor (talk) 17:28, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I personally didn't see what horsepower measurement is used, only the word. I would like you to check this out. I think (but am not sure) that you may be trying to convert this Olde English gibberish into a scientific measurement. Sammy D III (talk) 18:17, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link, I'll see what I can figure out. If it's the Taxable horsepower then it should state that fact. Avi8tor (talk) 17:21, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * ( interpolation Fiscal is an adjective meaning the subject relates to the public revenue, that is to say tax. Fiscal horsepower calculated by the same formula approved by the RAC was also used in the early 20th century by most if not all US states for tax purposes. Whenever they stopped doing that will depend on the state. Eddaido (talk) 22:11, 13 December 2020 (UTC))
 * Damn, I forgot to ping you. Sorry. Sammy D III (talk) 22:37, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * From research, this was a one cylinder 496 cc engine with a bore of 85 mm, the simple formula for fiscal HP is engine displacement in cubic inches divided by 0.625π, then divided again by the stroke in inches. So 30,26777 cuin x0,625π =3,141 /stroke 3,35 = ~17 HP (fiscal) does not sound correct. if I use the other formula it comes to one. Neither is near 3,5. So I'm assuming it's the actual power. Everyone refers to the engines as 2,5 or 3,5 HP https://cybermotorcycle.com/euro/brands/rover.htm.Avi8tor (talk) 18:05, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm only talking about the unit. That is impressive math, but it isn't the same equation as RAC horsepower. I don't know what (fiscal) is but it doesn't seem to be the same as "Taxable".
 * I can't believe this. I count on my fingers and care nothing about English cars and I think I have found two math errors in one section. Is D2 multiplied by 2/5 or divided by 2.5? Somebody got a "/" and a "." confused? And right below that "This is equal...inches" is false, correct? (EDIT: I changed them).
 * Chevy small-blocks were available as 302cid (4.0" bore x 3.0" stroke), 327cid (4.0 x 3.25), and 350cid (4.0 x 3.48) in ratings from 185 to 370 SAE gross horsepower at 4,000 to 6,000rpm, have compression ratios of 8.0 to 11.0:1, and had 2, 4, or 8 barrels of carburetor (plus crude FI). All, with any rating in any application with any options in any year, had 51 (EDIT: "AMA") taxable horsepower. From stripper pickup truck to high-dollar Corvette.
 * It's a tiny subjective thing but someone at project autos may care if you ask. You like math, I like machines, nice talking. Sammy D III (talk) 22:11, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Cars and motorcycles of this era were generally categorised by their 'RAC horsepower', an index value calculated using a formula from the RAC based on the engine bore diameter in inches and number of cylinders. Without any evidence that the hp figure given for this motorcycle is based on engine power (rather than the unrelated RAC hp formula value) then it does not make sense to convert it into a power unit. BTW, the formula is DxDxNx0.4, where D=bore diameter in inches and N=number of cylinders. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:23, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: I think that is a current formula, not the 1910 one (divided by 2.5?). That may be useful in Horsepower and Tax horsepower, neither have caught the difference. Sammy D III (talk) 11:24, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , they are all exactly the same formula: (D x D x n) / 2.5 = D x D x n x 0.4. And there is no "current formula", this method of taxation was abandoned in the UK in the 1940s. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:44, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * (that's a new ping-trick) Gotcha, I just don't know the arithmetic. 1940s, huh? I looked up those small-block numbers because it was a common joke in the 1970s when we still used them here (not any more). Thanks. Sammy D III (talk) 12:23, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

If you think this is fiscal horsepower then this needs to be stated in the article, otherwise everyone is being misled. The formula you give would equal 4,5 (4,489) fiscal horsepower. Real power is a higher value, so where does the 3,4 HP come from? Unless it's the power of the engine and not the fiscal horsepower. Avi8tor (talk) 14:11, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you source what measurement you are converting? Is it a formula (and thereby useless) or does it measure output, and if so, how? Two of us think it might be and one knows that it is some formula. You are trying to convert an unknown into an exact measurement without a ref. You seem to have OR math, fine here but not there. Sammy D III (talk) 14:52, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , I don't know whether it is actual horsepower or the calculated tax index, so wouldn't feel comfortable changing the article. The output from the formula relies on us knowing what the engine bore is to input into it. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:07, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Too much missing information to figure it out, I found the bore and stroke of the 2.5 HP single cylinder but not this one. Best to leave it until we have more information.Avi8tor (talk) 16:17, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , I hope I'm not rude, but does knowing the exact stroke change anything? No formula is a measurement, is it? This RAC is an easy one, only two dimensions. The horsepower is set from the first piece of blank paper, you don't even need to build the engine.
 * If it is RAC horsepower then would you want to just link it instead of converting it? EDIT: Maybe a footnote? Possible RAC horsepower is used without explanation in other places, too. Sammy D III (talk) 22:45, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * This source also states 85mm bore, which would make it 4.5 RAC HP as pointed out by Avi8tor above. Which suggests that 3.5hp is the actual rating. Anyhow, 3 1/2 HP is a marketing name so it could mean anything it wants. Moto Révue tested one in 1919, but the last time a back issue sold was for 1,313 Euros two years ago...  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  18:42, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

We've moved to Talk:Horsepower if you care. Sammy D III (talk) 23:00, 16 December 2020 (UTC)