Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <t24581$b7s$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:02:09 on Thu, 31 Mar
> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>
>>> The still-born joint project could have been Rover badging a largely
>>> Honda design, but that doesn't detract from an initial ambition to
>>> explore a joint project, and the two independently developed vehicles
>>> sharing much of that original concept.
>>
>> I don't doubt that Rover would have been very interested in licensing a
>> Honda small SUV model, had one already existed at the time. But Honda would
>> not have considered collaborating with Rover to design any of its own
>> models.
>>
>> So there was no still-born joint development project.
>
> I originally posted:
>
> "It started as a joint development with Honda, but the teams soon
> split"
>
> You are simply disagreeing about "how soon".
>

No, I'm saying the 'joint development project' was purely a figment of your
imagination. No such project would have been contemplated by Honda.

In message <t29617$qta$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:46:15 on Sat, 2 Apr 2022,
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <t24581$b7s$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:02:09 on Thu, 31 Mar
>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>
>>>> The still-born joint project could have been Rover badging a largely
>>>> Honda design, but that doesn't detract from an initial ambition to
>>>> explore a joint project, and the two independently developed vehicles
>>>> sharing much of that original concept.
>>>
>>> I don't doubt that Rover would have been very interested in licensing a
>>> Honda small SUV model, had one already existed at the time. But Honda would
>>> not have considered collaborating with Rover to design any of its own
>>> models.
>>>
>>> So there was no still-born joint development project.
>>
>> I originally posted:
>>
>> "It started as a joint development with Honda, but the teams soon
>> split"
>>
>> You are simply disagreeing about "how soon".
>
>No, I'm saying the 'joint development project' was purely a figment of your
>imagination. No such project would have been contemplated by Honda.

What came over them with the Honda Crossroad?

And apologies for repeating it: "how soon".

While Honda clearly didn't want to proceed with it at the start, they
must have dusted off the concept for the CRV (I didn't suggest the
Freelander was going to be a badged CRV, maybe that's what is confusing
you).

According to the book you cited, Rover courted Hyundai instead, working
with pre-production Honda Shuttles (must require some form of
co-operation) as the platform. CB40 was *then* set up to take that
'Cyclone' onward.

The Freelander development programme pre-dated CB40, and while CB40 went
on to court Saab, the CRV was independently developed.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <t29617$qta$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:46:15 on Sat, 2 Apr 2022,
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <t24581$b7s$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:02:09 on Thu, 31 Mar
>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>
>>>>> The still-born joint project could have been Rover badging a largely
>>>>> Honda design, but that doesn't detract from an initial ambition to
>>>>> explore a joint project, and the two independently developed vehicles
>>>>> sharing much of that original concept.
>>>>
>>>> I don't doubt that Rover would have been very interested in licensing a
>>>> Honda small SUV model, had one already existed at the time. But Honda would
>>>> not have considered collaborating with Rover to design any of its own
>>>> models.
>>>>
>>>> So there was no still-born joint development project.
>>>
>>> I originally posted:
>>>
>>> "It started as a joint development with Honda, but the teams soon
>>> split"
>>>
>>> You are simply disagreeing about "how soon".
>>
>> No, I'm saying the 'joint development project' was purely a figment of your
>> imagination. No such project would have been contemplated by Honda.
>
> What came over them with the Honda Crossroad?

That was simply a re-badged Disco. It wasn't a co-develooed car, and nor
was it made by Honda.

>
> And apologies for repeating it: "how soon".
>
> While Honda clearly didn't want to proceed with it at the start, they
> must have dusted off the concept for the CRV

There was no joint project to proceed with.

> (I didn't suggest the
> Freelander was going to be a badged CRV, maybe that's what is confusing
> you).

I'm not the one who's confused!

>
> According to the book you cited, Rover courted Hyundai instead, working
> with pre-production Honda Shuttles (must require some form of
> co-operation) as the platform. CB40 was *then* set up to take that
> 'Cyclone' onward.
>
> The Freelander development programme pre-dated CB40,

No, the CB40 project led to the Freelander 1.
<https://www.carthrottle.com/post/dol9jql/>

> and while CB40 went
> on to court Saab, the CRV was independently developed.

Yes, of course it was. It's what I keep telling you.

In message <t2h0ln$g76$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:03:51 on Tue, 5 Apr 2022,
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <t29617$qta$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:46:15 on Sat, 2 Apr 2022,
>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <t24581$b7s$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:02:09 on Thu, 31 Mar
>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>
>>>>>> The still-born joint project could have been Rover badging a largely
>>>>>> Honda design, but that doesn't detract from an initial ambition to
>>>>>> explore a joint project, and the two independently developed vehicles
>>>>>> sharing much of that original concept.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't doubt that Rover would have been very interested in licensing a
>>>>> Honda small SUV model, had one already existed at the time. But
>>>>>Honda would
>>>>> not have considered collaborating with Rover to design any of its own
>>>>> models.
>>>>>
>>>>> So there was no still-born joint development project.
>>>>
>>>> I originally posted:
>>>>
>>>> "It started as a joint development with Honda, but the teams soon
>>>> split"
>>>>
>>>> You are simply disagreeing about "how soon".
>>>
>>> No, I'm saying the 'joint development project' was purely a figment of your
>>> imagination. No such project would have been contemplated by Honda.
>>
>> What came over them with the Honda Crossroad?
>
>That was simply a re-badged Disco. It wasn't a co-develooed car, and nor
>was it made by Honda.

"Honda was, and is, a proud, fiercely-independent, Japanese company
that had no interest in any collaboration with a failing old British
company."

>> According to the book you cited, Rover courted Hyundai instead, working
>> with pre-production Honda Shuttles (must require some form of
>> co-operation) as the platform. CB40 was *then* set up to take that
>> 'Cyclone' onward.
>>
>> The Freelander development programme pre-dated CB40,
>
>No, the CB40 project led to the Freelander 1.
><https://www.carthrottle.com/post/dol9jql/>

The CB40 project wasn't the beginning of the development, there had been
a prologue.

>> and while CB40 went
>> on to court Saab, the CRV was independently developed.
>
>Yes, of course it was. It's what I keep telling you.

Indeed, but only after the prologue and split. LR continued their half
of the project with CB40, and Honda with the CRV.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <t2h0ln$g76$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:03:51 on Tue, 5 Apr 2022,
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <t29617$qta$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:46:15 on Sat, 2 Apr 2022,
>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <t24581$b7s$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:02:09 on Thu, 31 Mar
>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> The still-born joint project could have been Rover badging a largely
>>>>>>> Honda design, but that doesn't detract from an initial ambition to
>>>>>>> explore a joint project, and the two independently developed vehicles
>>>>>>> sharing much of that original concept.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't doubt that Rover would have been very interested in licensing a
>>>>>> Honda small SUV model, had one already existed at the time. But
>>>>>> Honda would
>>>>>> not have considered collaborating with Rover to design any of its own
>>>>>> models.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So there was no still-born joint development project.
>>>>>
>>>>> I originally posted:
>>>>>
>>>>> "It started as a joint development with Honda, but the teams soon
>>>>> split"
>>>>>
>>>>> You are simply disagreeing about "how soon".
>>>>
>>>> No, I'm saying the 'joint development project' was purely a figment of your
>>>> imagination. No such project would have been contemplated by Honda.
>>>
>>> What came over them with the Honda Crossroad?
>>
>> That was simply a re-badged Disco. It wasn't a co-develooed car, and nor
>> was it made by Honda.
>
> "Honda was, and is, a proud, fiercely-independent, Japanese company
> that had no interest in any collaboration with a failing old British
> company."
>
>>> According to the book you cited, Rover courted Hyundai instead, working
>>> with pre-production Honda Shuttles (must require some form of
>>> co-operation) as the platform. CB40 was *then* set up to take that
>>> 'Cyclone' onward.
>>>
>>> The Freelander development programme pre-dated CB40,
>>
>> No, the CB40 project led to the Freelander 1.
>> <https://www.carthrottle.com/post/dol9jql/>
>
> The CB40 project wasn't the beginning of the development, there had been
> a prologue.
>
>>> and while CB40 went
>>> on to court Saab, the CRV was independently developed.
>>
>> Yes, of course it was. It's what I keep telling you.
>
> Indeed, but only after the prologue and split. LR continued their half
> of the project with CB40, and Honda with the CRV.

Yet again, the only joint development project was between Rover and LR.
That didn't last long, with Rover dropping out and only LR continuing with
what became the original Freelander.

In message <t2jkte$pie$2@dont-email.me>, at 09:01:34 on Wed, 6 Apr 2022,
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:

>> The CB40 project wasn't the beginning of the development, there had been
>> a prologue.
>>
>>>> and while CB40 went
>>>> on to court Saab, the CRV was independently developed.
>>>
>>> Yes, of course it was. It's what I keep telling you.
>>
>> Indeed, but only after the prologue and split. LR continued their half
>> of the project with CB40, and Honda with the CRV.
>
>Yet again, the only joint development project was between Rover and LR.
>That didn't last long, with Rover dropping out and only LR continuing with
>what became the original Freelander.

I know you are never going to agree, but the development project started
before it became CB40.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <t2jkte$pie$2@dont-email.me>, at 09:01:34 on Wed, 6 Apr 2022,
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>
>>> The CB40 project wasn't the beginning of the development, there had been
>>> a prologue.
>>>
>>>>> and while CB40 went
>>>>> on to court Saab, the CRV was independently developed.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, of course it was. It's what I keep telling you.
>>>
>>> Indeed, but only after the prologue and split. LR continued their half
>>> of the project with CB40, and Honda with the CRV.
>>
>> Yet again, the only joint development project was between Rover and LR.
>> That didn't last long, with Rover dropping out and only LR continuing with
>> what became the original Freelander.
>
> I know you are never going to agree, but the development project started
> before it became CB40.

Anyone with a nostalgic interest in the Freelander may want to look at the
6-page Autocar retrospective feature on the three generations since it was
launched 25 years ago. It's in the current (4 May) edition, pages 44-49,
and includes comments from Dick Elsy, who led the original programme.

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <t2jkte$pie$2@dont-email.me>, at 09:01:34 on Wed, 6 Apr 2022,
>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>
>>>> The CB40 project wasn't the beginning of the development, there had been
>>>> a prologue.
>>>>
>>>>>> and while CB40 went
>>>>>> on to court Saab, the CRV was independently developed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, of course it was. It's what I keep telling you.
>>>>
>>>> Indeed, but only after the prologue and split. LR continued their half
>>>> of the project with CB40, and Honda with the CRV.
>>>
>>> Yet again, the only joint development project was between Rover and LR.
>>> That didn't last long, with Rover dropping out and only LR continuing with
>>> what became the original Freelander.
>>
>> I know you are never going to agree, but the development project started
>> before it became CB40.
>
> Anyone with a nostalgic interest in the Freelander may want to look at the
> 6-page Autocar retrospective feature on the three generations since it was
> launched 25 years ago. It's in the current (4 May) edition, pages 44-49,
> and includes comments from Dick Elsy, who led the original programme.
>
>

Conveniently Autocar is available on the Readly app so I’ll take a gander.

GH