<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>foolhandy.com &#187; cars</title>
	<atom:link href="http://foolhandy.com/tag/cars/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://foolhandy.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 25 Jul 2010 22:59:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Social Death By Rover Ownership</title>
		<link>http://foolhandy.com/2009/06/22/social-death-by-rover-ownership/</link>
		<comments>http://foolhandy.com/2009/06/22/social-death-by-rover-ownership/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Jun 2009 19:57:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>foolhandy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[foolhandy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cars]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[reviews]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://foolhandy.com/?p=1685</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[When Rover died in 2005 I was one of those who thought the company, had it been managed properly, could have been a success. It had heritage of sorts, a competent (if overpriced &#38; aged) product range, and the MG badge. Rovers for old people and MGs for young people. Simple. They were just charging [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://foolhandy.com/site/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/rover200.jpg"><img class="alignright size-full wp-image-1686" title="rover200" src="http://foolhandy.com/site/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/rover200.jpg" alt="rover200" width="517" height="307" /></a>When Rover died in 2005 I was one of those who thought the company, had it been managed properly, could have been a success. It had heritage of sorts, a competent (if overpriced &amp; aged) product range, and the MG badge. Rovers for old people and MGs for young people. Simple. They were just charging too much for them. And implementing dodgy face-lifts. But it could have worked surely?</p>
<p>Four years on my search for a sensible car to replace my Smart Roadster and two Mazda MX-5s has, by complete chance, led me to a Rover 200 Convertible. And now, in the month that I&#8217;ve now owned it, I know why the Rover marque died and why it never really had a chance.</p>
<p>If I tell people I own a metallic red convertible with new power roof,  new 17&#8243; alloys fitted with new Pirelli tyres, tinted windows, upgraded stereo including bass box in the boot, tinted rear lights, an engine bay so meticulously looked after that it&#8217;s probably cleaner than new and an interior that&#8217;s spotless they look impressed. Then they ask what it is, and I tell them it&#8217;s  Rover, and the reaction is always a variation on a theme. The theme of ridicule &#8211; of me, of the car, of Rovers, and of the people who drive Rovers.</p>
<p>Children mock and look with embarrassed pity, adults are confused and dismissive. Those who know know only of the brand&#8217;s image mention the tacky grille and ask me when I&#8217;m getting the cushions for the rear parcel shelf. Those who know of the cars themselves mutter about the K-Series engine&#8217;s tendency to cook itself. Everyone looks surprised that I&#8217;m that age already and asks if I&#8217;ll be driving everywhere at 35mph from now on. Whatever the reaction it&#8217;s almost never positive and almost always utterly negative.</p>
<p>Compared to the Mazdas and the Smart, to the VW and even our Picasso, the Rover isn&#8217;t a great drive. The steering is light and vague, the body flexes (especially with the roof down), the gear change is woolly and the handling is typical front-drive hatch ordinary. It&#8217;s does nothing special, but it&#8217;s whilst it lacks dynamic greatness it is perfectly acceptable and  it&#8217;s in great condition and above all &#8211; it&#8217;s a convertible with <em>four</em> seats so there&#8217;s somewhere to put the forthcoming baby. It does the job that a car was always intended to do, and when the sun&#8217;s shining and the roof&#8217;s down it&#8217;s fine by me.</p>
<p>Maybe I&#8217;ve been spoiled. Three 2 seater roadsters and a VW Camper and people expect something flash from me. Maybe <em>I</em> expect something flash from me and the vibe I give out when I announce it&#8217;s a Rover sets it up for a mental beating. What is certain is that driving a Rover (and even a convertible one that&#8217;s been &#8216;enhanced&#8217;) is social death. Simple. And therefore in a world where image is all important the Rover brand had to die.</p>
<p>Just as you never realise how much you depend on something until it&#8217;s gone, I never realised how much Rover was hated until I owned one.</p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><script type="text/javascript"><!--
google_ad_client = "pub-1929490396689242";
/* 468x15, shylock internal */
google_ad_slot = "2772483746";
google_ad_width = 468;
google_ad_height = 15;
//-->
</script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js">
</script></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://foolhandy.com/2009/06/22/social-death-by-rover-ownership/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
