The language you're using here displays emotional irrationality.
this will be the last CHEAP NASTY CHINESE CAR i will own and i wont consider another EV until the Petrol ban officially takes affect!
You use language like
cheap nasty chinese car (with or without the commas between the adjectives), people will discount your opinion (because that's
all it is) as irrational ranting. Like I suggested before, less emotional, more objective language will be more persuasive.
Cheap and nasty are often used together, but there are plenty of less expensive products made in China (usually because of the economy of scale) which are superior in quality. E.g. DJI drones.
This applies to many of their cars, too.
So deciding not to buy something because it is cheap is irrational.
These cars have NOTGHING to do with Rover/MG. China bought the company for the badge to dodge EU import laws and that's as far as it goes
Here’s the breakdown of what we
do know — and why that claim is almost certainly false.
What we do know about SAIC and MG Rover / MG
- In 2004–05, SAIC negotiated a joint-venture deal with MG Rover, but the agreement collapsed and MG Rover went into administration instead. Wikipedia+2National Audit Office (NAO)+2
- After MG Rover collapsed, Nanjing Automobile Corporation (NAC) bought the MG brand, the Longbridge plant and tooling in 2005 — not SAIC. Wikipedia+2Wikipedia+2
- In 2007 SAIC merged with NAC, thereby obtaining the MG brand and the Longbridge heritage assets. Wikipedia+2SAIC Motor+2
- SAIC retained intellectual property it had earlier acquired — including Rover 25 & 75 & the K-series engine rights — but not the “Rover” name itself. BMW retained (and later sold) the Rover trademark. Wikipedia+2CarNewsChina.com+2
- Because SAIC could not legally use “Rover” as a brand, they created a new Chinese-market brand called Roewe for those former Rover-derived models. CarNewsChina.com+2Auto Retail Online+2
- For export markets (outside China), SAIC revived the heritage MG name — leveraging its nostalgic and brand equity value for global sales. Autocar+2Wikipedia+2
Bottom line: SAIC’s control of MG today stems from its takeover of NAC (which had bought MG post-Rover collapse), not a direct rescue of MG Rover — and the branding choices followed legal and marketing logic, not a scheme to dodge import laws.
Why the “badge-buy to dodge EU import laws” theory doesn’t hold up
1. SAIC never owned MG Rover at the time of collapse
The collapse ended with NAC, not SAIC, buying MG Rover’s assets — though SAIC later absorbed NAC. So SAIC didn’t “buy Rover to dodge import laws,” SAIC inherited MG.
2. “Rover” trademark was unavailable
Even if SAIC had wanted to use “Rover,” the trademark was held elsewhere (BMW / later Ford / now Tata-owned JLR).
Wikipedia+1
That forced SAIC to invent “Roewe,” demonstrating that branding was constrained by legal realities, not import laws.
3. Import-law dodge doesn’t make sense historically
- When SAIC took over MG via NAC, China was not yet producing large volumes for global export. Their early strategy was domestic-first (Roewe). CarNewsChina.com+1
- Export-market MG cars only emerged later with SAIC’s new global ambitions — well after the legal/ownership shuffle. Autocar+1
- EU import laws (tariffs, emissions, safety) apply equal to domestic or foreign-made cars, so switching ownership alone wouldn’t automatically give “dodge” advantages.
4. SAIC’s publicly stated goal was global growth
Reports from 2023 show SAIC positioning MG as a global brand, exporting from China to many markets under its own manufacturing — not as some workaround to import restrictions.
Autocar+1
Conclusion: The statement is misleading
The story behind MG’s resurrection under SAIC is one of corporate acquisitions, asset transfers, brand restructuring, and global marketing — not a contrived dodging of EU import laws.
Calling SAIC’s acquisition a “badge-buy” ignores the facts that NAC first took MG and that SAIC could not use the “Rover” name. The switch to MG branding for exports was a legitimate brand strategy rooted in heritage appeal and legal limitations, not regulatory evasion.
And I still do that 
