Filed under: Etc., Ford, Mazda
Could Rover be Mazda's Lexus/Acura?
So yesterday, amidst all the overly dramatized speculation about an 'alliance' between the Blue Oval and the General, Rover's name came up for sale. Ford, who had the right of first refusal, bought the mark in an effort to quell the possibility of confusion between Range Rover and Rover. Easy enough, now what do they do with it?
Most likely, it will sit in a drawer collecting dust, but Edward Lapham, executive editor of Automotive News, thinks there may be a better use for the storied mark.
Back in the 90's Mazda toyed with the idea of having a luxury division, much like ToMoCo's Lexus and Honda's Acura. The Amati brand never took flight due to financial woes and the idea was shelved. With Mazda currently experiencing an up tick in perception and sales, Lapham contends that using the Rover badge to launch an upscale Mazda may be the best way to expand Ford's luxury cache and profit from Mazda's upwards trajectory.
We think it's a novel idea that will probably never see the light of day; we're interested in your thoughts though. Find a voice in 'comments.'
[Source: Automotive News - Sub. Req.]
_opt_thumbnail.jpg)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
_O ^ O_ 9:28AM (9/19/2006)
Nah, Ford is gonna let it sit; money well spent to avoid the confusion to consumers.
And, Mazda sells less than 300k unit a year in the US (closer to 250k); which is about the same as the upmarket BMW. Why the heck would they need a luxury division ..to sell an extra 20k cars?
Besides, Ford would never go for it.
Reply
Nick 9:28AM (9/19/2006)
This is an interesting idea, but would it work for the US market? In all likelihood, IF such an idea was taken seriously, it would probably only work for overseas markets where the Rover name is still known and still has some semblance of brand recognition.
But consider, the old Rover Group (Pre-MG Rover, Ltd.) had a Japanese connection. Back in the late 80s/early 90s Rover had a technical tie-up to Honda. The recently burried Rover 45 and MG ZS were direct decendents of that cooperation and were distant relatives to the Honda Civic.
What's more, when the Rover Group/BL pulled out of the US in the mid-80s, they returned with the Sterling nameplate (it was only for the US market -- Sterling as a car maker didn't exist anywhere else, though Sterling truck is currently a division of DCX). It didn't last long, but Sterling vehicles were all basically Acura rebadges for the most part. It started off rather well for Sterling, but they eventually folded and went back to the UK.
Point is --- there is a precedent here as Rover has cooperated with Asian car manufacaturers before. Seeing Mazda make Rover into a semi-upscale brand along the lines of Acura or Saab might work out well for them and make sense.
But as you point out, it will probably never happen -- and even if it did, does Ford have the room in the North American market for yet ANOTHER brand to crowd their dealer networks?
Just thinking out loud on this one...
Reply
D-Dog 9:32AM (9/19/2006)
Rover? Isn't that the name of a dog?
Reply
Jeff Crew 9:32AM (9/19/2006)
This would be a waste of time for Ford. Fix what is broken, don't add to the problem.
Reply
Hamud 9:33AM (9/19/2006)
I have a good feeling about this...
Reply
Antoine 9:34AM (9/19/2006)
How exactly do you merge "Rover" and "Zoom-Zoom"?
Join us over at Mazdas247.com and discuss!
http://www.mazdas247.com/forum/showthread.php?t=123646734
Thanks for the tip AutoBlog!
Reply
JC Whitless 9:37AM (9/19/2006)
The Rover MX5 touring coupe. An all weather car with roadster capabilities....
/featuring Rovers exclusive $5,000 mark up
Reply
rwdmtparkingonly 9:39AM (9/19/2006)
Ford only owns 33% of Mazda, so if Mazda is willing to buy Rover from Ford then good for them. However, Mazda has no large rwd platforms or V8s, and Ford is already pushing a Mazda 6 low luxury derivative with the Lincoln MKZ, which I'm sure Ford doesn't want to give up, so there really isn't much that Mazda could do with the brand.
I joked yesterday that Ford should rebadge the X-Type as a Rover, but that car is too old, they just need to kill it. People bought X-Types to have a poser Jag, but Ford would be nuts to take on Acura now with a new brand.
Keeping knock off Chinese "insert word similar to land" Rovers from being sold in Europe and Asia is one thing, Ford attempting to launch a new brand is another.
Reply
MK 9:46AM (9/19/2006)
It's a terrible idea. Besides the obvious confusion over the Land/Range Rover brand, Rover wasn't exactly known for its quality. If Mazda wants to get into the luxury brand game, then it needs to get in the way Acura, Lexus & Infiniti did...pay its dues and build the brand, instead of buying the rights to some extinct Euro brand.
Reply
SteveinVT 9:50AM (9/19/2006)
I hope Ford is doing the right thing and just buying the Rover brand to avoid confusion. The last thing Ford needs at this stage in the game is more brands. What they need is a more consistent product line across 3-4 (Ford, Volvo, Mazda - maybe Aston IMHO) brands, rather than an uneven line won across 8+ brands with overlapping markets.
Reply
Steven T. 9:51AM (9/19/2006)
A truly dumb idea, e.g., how on earth can Ford afford the care and feeding of yet another brand? Look at Toyota and Honda -- they have done very well with few brand offerings.
Reply
akatsuki 10:14AM (9/19/2006)
Rover is a much better move to fill in under Jaguar. And who cares about "confusion", why not just merge Range Rover and Rover into one car company? Have Rover build cars from $20K-$50K and the LR3 and Range Rover. Then have Jaguar have $50K-$100K, with Aston on top of that...
Reply
Tim UF 10:19AM (9/19/2006)
Mazda tried this once with the Millenia (which was meant to launch a millenia brand, not just be an avalon fighter).
Hopefully this may signal a return of another quirky mazda engine: the Supercharged Miller Cycle (see millenia S)
though, i dont see how japanese engineered sporty luxury cars fit with the Rover name... (and would this not directly compete with volvo, and lincoln?)
Reply
pedro 10:23AM (9/19/2006)
I was thinking that perhaps in order to save Jaguar, they could broaden out the Rover, Land Rover and Jaguar fold, so that Jaguar could be exlusively upmarket, with Rover taking the "mid luxury" segment with platforms shared among the two.
However, a Rover Mazda axis might also be pretty nice, although Rover would need a pretty substantial change in perception to fit with Mazda. Considering that Mazda has primarily 4-cylinder engines with a few V-6's and their rotary, I don't see how those would scale up to Lexus/Acura leagues.
Reply
Leon 10:47AM (9/19/2006)
If Mazda wants to have their own luxury brand, they could arguably just bring back the Amati/Eunos/Xedos. They had a V12 in development for the Amati flagship, or alternately just re-create the Eunos Cosmo's 3-rotor rotary, do a Renesis version... the possibility just goes on.
BUT the main reason Mazda fell under Ford ownership was because they had 20+ models in Japan, and effectively 4 brands, with no other capacity to match (say marketing). It took them a long time to refocus, and by consolidating to one brand, perpetuate that image and make it memorable (as bad as zoom-zoom is). That's why Mazda is doing so well today.
The Millenia (meant for Amati) will always be one of my favorite cars - I think it demonstrated just how much depth Mazda had over every other Japanese make. The "storytelling" aspect of a luxury brand, which Lexus and others only begin doing at marketing, Mazda was already doing from the engineering side. They would be great for creating a luxury division
-- except it's simply not practical for Mazda's size, and there's no reason for them to do it. If Ford really wants to use the Rover brand (what happened to Mercury?), they would do it on their own money, and only ask Mazda to engineer.
yep Mercury, and we've got Jaguar and Lincoln and Volvo -- so I'll have to say this editor guy doesn't know what he's talking about, Ford's already got more brands than they know how to differentiate :P
Reply
MK 10:47AM (9/19/2006)
#11, I agree with you 100%! Ford's (and GM's) product line is just too broad. It worked 50 years ago when they had clear definition between brands and price ranges. Companies like Toyota, Honda, Nissan, VW & to some extent DCX (see Plymouth) have adopted the clear-cut brand distinction idea...with Toyota's Lexus/Toyota/Scion being the textbook example.
GM needs to drop Buick & Pontiac. Streamline the brand to go from Saturn to Chevy to Cadillac. GMC & Hummer fill their niche markets, and as long as "Saab-aru" makes money, keep it.
Similarly, Ford needs to get rid of Linclon & Mercury. Trim the line from Mazda to Ford to Volvo. Leave Aston, Jaguar & Land Rover in their niche.
I don't understand the fixation Ford & GM have with symbiosis competition.
Reply
Yaroukh 10:56AM (9/19/2006)
#10: that is exactly what came to my mind when I read the title: image of the "Rover" badge is nothing desirable for something that aims to be "upmarket"
Reply
Jim in Tampa 11:06AM (9/19/2006)
Poor Rover. Let it die in peace. Rover used to partnered with Honda before it's takeover by BMW. Now to be kicked around again as a Mazda is just plain mean.
Hyacinth Bucket had a Rover that looked like a Honda Civic.
Reply
me 11:12AM (9/19/2006)
Sell Volvo, Jaguar, Aston, and do this! Great idea!
Ford cannot do it at the moment though, not enough cash. An alternative might be some low volume sports cars to keep the mark going - i.e. based on the Ford GT chassis (don't they already have several designed?)
Reply
Hank 11:13AM (9/19/2006)
Perhaps if Ford sells Jag it will use the Rover name for a "British" luxury car line?
Reply