Roewe 350 production model spotted out
The Roewe 350 compact sedan was derived from the Roewe N1 concept car that we saw early last year at the Shanghai Auto Show. The development of the car appears to have happened at a break neck pace in which to boost the Roewe line up from two to three cars, the production 350 is reported to be carrying a 1.5L engine, but a 1.5T is apparently in the works as well. A production model of the 350 was recently out testing and it looks like a tester fired off a few sneaky photos which eventually ended up on the internet:
The final production model really does look like a fine vehicle that is likely to give the 80,000rmb – 100,000rmb auto segment a fright when it finally launches later this month, certain websites are saying that a February 28th launch date has been set in stone.
Inside SAIC, the 350 sedan is codenamed AP11, with A meaning A-Platform, the AP12 is set to be the hatchback version whilst AP13 will be the estate version and AP14 the crossover version. These models are more than likely to be in production in the UK in early 2011, with the Roewe 350 set to be come an MG model very soon.
Tweet This
Share on Facebook
Digg This
Save to delicious
Stumble it
RSS Feed
This could kick Hyundai’s ass. Roewe, start selling your cars in western markets!
@ Roger
> This could kick Hyundai’s ass.
Well, it’s a Ssangyong W161 after all and Ssangyong never could.
> Roewe, start selling your cars in western markets!
Chinese cars built to western safety and emissions standard aren’t cost competitive, this is very obvious with Hover pricing in Australia which is like AUD1000 cheaper than Kia Sportage.
Even BYD F6DM and E6 are being quoted around $30,000 and more than $40,000 in the US.
This is not a Ssangyong w161. This is a lot smaller than that.
@ gt dolly
> This is not a Ssangyong w161. This is a lot smaller than that.
Ssangyong S161, sorry. My memory’s failing because of code similarities.
Ssangyong S161 = Roewe 350.
It’s not anything like a Ssangyong, idiot. Stop connecting everything to Korea and making it seem as if Korea is the best in everything. It’s not. This can certain kick Hyundai and just about anyone else’s ass based on the price.
BYD has not started saleing in the US yet, therefore, there is no final price. Even if they are somewhere around $30000 to $40000, they are still cost competitive with their technology and value.
Ed you are getting ahead of yourself there. BYD still hasn’t proven that car can do what they claim and it can’t prove it over night. They will need it out testing in China for a year or more with great success before they can move it to another country for sales. Other countries don’t buy cars like China. Any car can be put out in China and sell very well even if it is a piece of crap. Roewe would not be a huge success anywhere without it under cutting everyone in price by quite a bit. It isn’t a known brand. Brand recognition takes years to create in the auto industry. China i just such a new market that all the brands are new in China so the reputation and brand recognition is way less important.
@ Ed
> It’s not anything like a Ssangyong,
It’s hilarious you are insisting that a Ssangyong is not a Ssangyong.
Here is the Chinese language article on how Ssangyong S161(Roewe 350 and MG5) contributed to the demise of Ssangyong, because Ssangyong was too busy engineering Roewes on the behalf of SAIC instead of Ssangyongs. http://chn.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2008/12/30/20081230000029.html
> Stop connecting everything to Korea and making it seem as if Korea is the best in everything.
Korea is not the best in everything. But Roewes are mostly rebadged Ssangyongs, this much is true.
> This can certain kick Hyundai and just about anyone else’s ass based on the price.
Price matters little outside of China in auto purchase considerations. It’s the maintenance cost(You can easily spend $1000~2000 per visit to a repair shop) and insurance premium(less safe cars cost a lot more in insurance premium) that’s the biggest ownership cost, not car price. Plus the resale value.
> Even if they are somewhere around $30000 to $40000, they are still cost competitive with their technology and value.
Seriously, would you buy a $40,000 Nissan EV or a $40,000 BYD EV?
and if you can’t read Chinese, then I suggest you don’t. The article said a few engineers went to SAIC to help with the development of this car. Which is completely different from what you’ve said. Plus, I can find sources that tell you the Roewe 350 was an original car. So how do we know which one is accurate?
@ Ed
> The article said a few engineers went to SAIC to help with the development of this car.
Not a few. Enough so that Ssangyong’s own model’s engineering was put to an halt.
> Which is completely different from what you’ve said.
S161 is a Ssangyong platform.
> Plus, I can find sources that tell you the Roewe 350 was an original car. So how do we know which one is accurate?
S161 testimony came from the people who worked on it. Of course Roewe 350 is an original car, engineered by Ssangyong.
That just shows how weak Ssangyong is. If one development of a car can halt Ssangyong’s own production, (which isn’t very impressive in the first place)then they will have some more troubles. The article says nothing about the platform other than that SOME engineers went to help. It does not say whether this car is a S161, adn almost half of ti is about Ssangyong moving its company to China.
Hover fully featured with leather 4WD on road $23990 drive away.
Kia sportage base model no leather and only 2WD $24990 plus on roads, dealer delivery $26500 drive away. http://www.redbook.com.au/new-cars/details.aspx?R=550173&Cr=0&__Ns=p_Make_String|0||p_ClassificationType_String|0||p_Family_String|0||p_Year_String|1||p_SequenceNum_Int32|0&__N=2994%202951%204294954241%204294843347%204294783556&silo=1301&seot=1&__Nne=15&trecs=4&__sid=1262590CFAB2
i dont think your facts are accurate
@ jezza
> i dont think your facts are accurate
Not at all, you confirmed the $1,00 MSRP difference of Kia Sportage and Great Wall Hover yourself.
100? Can you read? It’s 1000. Plus, one is fully featured, and one is a base model. Yet, the Hover is still cheaper, not to mention better looking too.
@ Ed
> 100? Can you read? It’s 1000.
Well, my reply missed a zero. Should have been 1,000 but 1,00 instead. Nonetheless, my original statement remains valid.
> Plus, one is fully featured, and one is a base model.
Fully loaded doesn’t mean anything.
Right. Fully loaded and 4WD with a cheaper price all means nothing. Great logic, you should be the next Confucius.
They haven’t proven they are competitive with their technology and what value are we talking about here?
it have a very similer front ending with the new Kia Cerato (look at the grille shape)
Roewe is a very known brand in EU. it was Rover after all and we know it.
i am an ex-Rover dealer in my country.
so succes in EU is not that easy even if you have all the standards & price competitiveness.
although i support BYD for entering EU markets with its Electric Cars but not with those Toyota & Chevrolet(Daewoo) clones…
Rover was well known. Roewe is still an infant. Yes people know where it is from in Europe but they also know it is in new hands. That brings it back to no real reputation. Not only that but they are riding on old platforms with old technology. All other cars are being designed new and this is something old with new lipstick being put on it. Something also that won’t help for long term reputation.
@ Kerem
> it have a very similer front ending with the new Kia Cerato (look at the grille shape)
Blame Ssangyong stylists for this.
> Roewe is a very known brand in EU.
I doubt this. You and those in the auto industry know Roewe; general European consumers don’t. Heck, European consumers are less aware of Toyota than US consumers do.
> so succes in EU is not that easy even if you have all the standards & price competitiveness.
So I take that the consumer perception of Rover was negative, a damaged brand.
> although i support BYD for entering EU markets with its Electric Cars but not with those Toyota & Chevrolet(Daewoo) clones…
No one in the US seem to be concerned by BYD’s entry. BYD can come, but it’s highly unlikely they would succeed.
Yes, Rover had a very bad reputation, but Roewe doesn’t
@ Ed
> Yes, Rover had a very bad reputation, but Roewe doesn’t
Roewe is just a Chinese copy of Rover to European consumers.
No it isn’t. I don’t think Rover beat some of the world’s best car makers on the JD Power Reports. It didn’t even come CLOSE. Roewe is new brand with so much difference from Rover.
Yes much to early for them to have destroyed their reputation since the majority of sales have been in the China.
Do you live in Europe? How would you know?
@ I __ H a t e __ C h i n a
Rover is know by its unreliable products and poor finishing quality.
i can tell you amazing stories about Rover cars, like AT transmissioned cars coming with a CLUTCH!!! pedal on it lol
or K-series engines undersized watercoolers causing engine deaths(heath sensors can not provide info at time because of their positioning)
very poor plastic quality, spongy brakes, feelingless steering, absurdly hard dampers and incredible running costs…
i can assure you that public perception about cars is far more deep than we presume. they know Roewe = Rover
as for BYD,
i am hoping that they will use their knowledge about electronics & batteries on their cars and will play a major role in the EV sector.
the main problem is China MUST have his own fleet of transportation.
today as far as i know car transportation sector is in the hands of Japanese. so one cars transportation cost was around USD 1200 for my country. considering the cars price was around USD 7500 FOB it is a huge amount to add to the price (think that all other taxes will be added on that amount) so a car around USD 7500 costs 27 000 TRL(key at hand) in here (USD 1 = 1,517 TRL)
after all the world need cheaper cars with reasonable quality.
EU & US forgot this…
@ I __ H a t e __ C h i n a
as for being aware of Toyota in EU.
EU is a Diesel world,
Toyota realised too late this fact.
even today you can not compare a VW Golf TDI DSG with a Toyota Auris DI-D A/T.
they may be in the same segment and very close pricing but Auris’s finishing & overall quality is not attractive at all…
EU concentrate on Diesel bcos is practical , better performance(torque) and better miles that you will get. Hybrid is a sin .. imagine every 100000km you will dump a very big battery ..this is Toxic waste. Here hybrid only save more gasoline but will create another problem which has no solution yet. In addition, just imagine the hybrid car need to carry such a heavy battery system every where you go about 100kg .. whereas Diesel don’t have such problem .. I think the ultimate solution for automotive industry is to how to use water to run a car !
In the first place Rover does not have a bad reputation in the whole of Europe only in the UK it has.
Second buying Ssangyong was very stupid from Saic because if there is one car company in the world that no one likes and never ever produced a decent car it is indeed Ssangyong. If Saic was looking for first class engineers they could have contacted Lotus or even bought it for a fraction of the costs it did pay for Ssangyoung.
The 350 is based on the MG ZS nothing to do with Korea
Saic has engineers in the UK first with Ricardo and now working at Longbridge.
Roewe is not for Europe all the cars will have the MG badge.
Ssangyong’s Musso & Korando (Musso based one) were more than decent cars especially when i think about their contemporaries.
and Rover HAS a bad reputation thats why they couldnt manage to survive…
No the main reason Rover did not survive was the lack of new models. They simply did not have the money to develop new cars. You need to bring out something new every two or three years.If Saic joint MGR in 2000 things would looked very different today.
serge you are wrong. With bmw they spent 450 million pounds to establis a new factory and a new model which was 75 at the time. It was a big lap for rover but too much “jaguarish” with also a too much “jaguarish” price tag. So why buying a rover instead of a jag? No they had the money but their reputation did not help them when 75 “a prestige car” hit the showrooms. They invested wrongly. They should make reliable exciting british compact cars with reasonable prices not jag-like ones.
Kerem,
The 75 was never in the Jag price range only the Mondeo based X type was near and we all know that this was not a huge seller. The 75 was choosen as the most reliable car many times. Do not speak about BMW they destroyed Rover. Take a look at the sales figures before BMW took over it was 300000+. BMW did nothing for Rover except for the 75. They stole the Mini and made a big profit when they first took the technology from Land Rover and then sold it to Ford. Wrong investments indeed but all thanks to BMW !
The biggest investment BMW made, was the factory for the Rover 75. Now they use it for making Mini’s. BMW made 3 times more money by selling Land Rover to Ford, than buying the whole Rover group incluiding LR and Mini from British aerospace. The new Rover 45 that BMW was buzy is now calling BMW 1 series.
Serge,
Mondeo based X-Type at least is a Jag and is a better seller than Rover 75. sometimes in auto market it happens. a model can prevent others sales only by its presence especially when we talk about brand recognition.
for exemple Hyundai i30 is no bad car but it is not a best seller around here because of its price tag which is only 1k TRL lower than Subaru’s Impreza 1,5.
its sales were decreasing btw. (i am an ex-Rover dealer)
BMW did nothing? 450+ millions pound is nothing?
yes wrong investments but there was new models…
http://www.reviewcentre.com/review110831.html
“As for reliability ?? absolutley terrible I owned mine for 1 year and the problems were never ending with the most expensive being the head gasket, which by the way is a very common fault as the gasket fitted to the turbo is known to be faulty. Youll be hard pressed to find a 220 turbo without a oil leak on the right side of the head!! In the end it had too go as I was too scared to drive it quickly without wondering what was going to break next. On the good side the interier is nice and they are a good looking car. They dont need much in the way of accessories to make them look good and on the performance side putting a magnex full system on it really helps. But I would’nt go any further than that (other than an induction kit) as this cars engine is already up to it limit anymore performance upgrades like bleed valves / boost controlers are asking for trouble.”
link above
Kerem,
We can have this discussion for hours or days and I think after that we still don’t agree. But lets agree about one thing that we both hope that Saic can bring back MG as a first class high regarded brand that both the Chinese and the Brits can be proud of.
Serge,
agreed.
Rover was my first start to the business 14yrs ago so actually i like Rover brand.
Enough of the Ssangyong bashing aswell. There wouldn’t be too many that would know whether they are any good or not, because you would not have owned or even driven one. I have one and I can tell you it is a very well made, economical vehicle, with quite good handling, and good turn of speed for two tones of 4×4.
To Kerem
“Rover is know by its unreliable products and poor finishing quality.
i can tell you amazing stories about Rover cars, like AT transmissioned cars coming with a CLUTCH!!! pedal on it lol
or K-series engines undersized watercoolers causing engine deaths(heath sensors can not provide info at time because of their positioning)
very poor plastic quality, spongy brakes, feelingless steering, absurdly hard dampers and incredible running costs…
i can assure you that public perception about cars is far more deep than we presume. they know Roewe = Rover”
I have owned 2 Rovers. The first a 2001 Rover 25 1.4 Petrol. The Cylinder head Gasket broke after the first year of ownership (By this time 4 years old), other than that no issues. The quality was far better than my friends 2005 registered Clio!
I then replaced it with a 2004 Streetwise 2.0 Turbo Diesel. Great Car, loved it, the steering was far more responsive than my 25 (but my 25 was fine), fuel consumption was far better than the 25, but due to being in an accident I couldnt get parts (According to my insurer!)
I now own a 2002 Fiat Punto, brilliant car BUT its far more inferior than any Rover.
The Rovers running costs were non-existant in comparison to the Punto, better to drive than the Punto, more comfortable than the Punto, everything better than a Punto.
It is people like you Kerem that gave Rover a Bad name!
I had no issue with my Rovers I was aware of the Gasket issues for years before I bought one, but other than that I never had any issues over the 6 years of combined ownership. I have more issues with the Fiat!
But I will say, it wont put me off buying a new or newr Fiat in the future, its a nice car, just not as nice as my Rovers!
Chris
oh btw,
you, as an individual owner, can not have any deal with their aftersales department,
i had this experience,
so i know their attitude towards warranty issues,
you can NOT compare any of Japanese & Korean brands warranty policy with Rovers.
no offence but you probably have no idea about it beside your 2 Rovers…
Chris,
1- in 2001 it was already 4th year of production of the same 200 chassis so the gasket problem should be the solved long ago,
2- 1,4 ltr was its best but still had problems
3- 25 is a heavily re-engineered by BMW people, so actually you did not drive any cars that i mentioned above
4- people like me put Rover in my country within the same row with BMW & Merc. i sold hundreds of Rovers & MG’s and received much more feedback from my customers in almost 4 years so i know what i am talking about.
so i suggest you to be more careful before talking people like me.
you had 2 Rovers i had hundreds of it…loving a brand is a thing but being realistic is another.