Stodge

[egg]

Triumph Mayflower
Standard 10
Lanchester LD10
Rover P4(5?)
Counties Austins
Morris Oxford (MO)
Vauxhall Wyvern
Singer 1500
Ford Popular(?)
Standard Vanguard(?)
Armstrong Siddeley's(?)
Jowett Javelin(?)

Any Rileys? Wolseley?

[Angrydicky]

My A40 Somerset definitely qualifies. Quality British Stodge at its finest.

[egg]

I'd either never known or forgotten about the A40 sports - stodgy sports car?!

 

[Matty]

@egg you're talking yourself into this bit by bit.

[Angrydicky]

4 minutes ago, egg said:

I'd either never known or forgotten about the A40 sports - stodgy sports car?!

 

They’ve got a bit more of a following due to that fancy Jensen body but it’s just a Somerset under the skin. The jury is out on that, personally I don’t consider them Stodge.

[egg]

6 minutes ago, Matty said:

@egg you're talking yourself into this bit by bit.

I want to be in the cool kids club. Stodge is where it's at.

[mk2_craig]

I’ve realised I know very little about this era of car. My neighbour was still running a Riley 1.5 when I was a kid in the eighties, does that count? Was probably a sixties car rather than fifties. 
 

How far up the luxury scale can we go here? Humber Imperial? 

[barrett]

1 minute ago, egg said:

I want to be in the cool kids club. Stodge is where it's at.

If you actually want a silly 1950s car for pottering about in I'd definitely buy a Standard Ten (or Eight). Loads of them left, rock-bottom values, smallish engines so not expensive to run, okay parts support etc etc. The steering is pretty lethal but otherwise fairly pleasant to drive. Probably the cheapest car mentioned in this thread so far (apart from maybe a Mayflower but... just don't). I'd have another!

[Matty]

8 minutes ago, barrett said:

If you actually want a silly 1950s car for pottering about in I'd definitely buy a Standard Ten (or Eight). Loads of them left, rock-bottom values, smallish engines so not expensive to run, okay parts support etc etc. The steering is pretty lethal but otherwise fairly pleasant to drive. Probably the cheapest car mentioned in this thread so far (apart from maybe a Mayflower but... just don't). I'd have another!

Does putting spit mechanicals in them invite certain assassination?

[D.E]

21 minutes ago, egg said:

Jowett Javelin(?)

Would be my choice. I think. Interesting engine, fairly neat design with that beetleback. How bad are they?

Talking of Beetles, does only the British stuff of the era qualify as stodge in this thread? According to my grandad who drove several of them back in the 50s, the original (split window) Beetle was a noisy, thirsty, slow bastard of a car...

[barrett]

Just now, Matty said:

Does putting spit mechanicals in them invite certain assassination?

No, a Herald/Spit engine is just a development of the Standard lump and I think 'bolts in' without too many mods. Changing the diff would probably help but that's easy enough too. The issue is there's no easy way to put the Herald RnP steering in without making fairly major modifications to the structure so you sort of have to live with moar power and the dreadful old steering box with miles of play in. I think the Standard club has recently started a scheme for exchange/refurb steering boxes which will probably be a big improvement, but still not brilliant.

3 minutes ago, D.E said:

Would be my choice. I think. Interesting engine, fairly neat design with that beetleback. How bad are they?

I've never driven one, but they're high on my 'must own' list. A rare example of an actually interesting British car of the period and whilst I think there were some reliability issues when new by all accounts they're brilliant cars. Again, still cheap purely because they're misunderstood I think. Massive club support too.

[Asimo]

27 minutes ago, egg said:

stodgy sports car?

Has to be that woeful Triumph thing that Bergerac entirely failed to impress Cecile Paoli with.

[Matty]

2 minutes ago, barrett said:

No, a Herald/Spit engine is just a development of the Standard lump and I think 'bolts in' without too many mods. Changing the diff would probably help but that's easy enough too. The issue is there's no easy way to put the Herald RnP steering in without making fairly major modifications to the structure so you sort of have to live with moar power and the dreadful old steering box with miles of play in. I think the Standard club has recently started a scheme for exchange/refurb steering boxes which will probably be a big improvement, but still not brilliant.

I've never driven one, but they're high on my 'must own' list. A rare example of an actually interesting British car of the period and whilst I think there were some reliability issues when new by all accounts they're brilliant cars. Again, still cheap purely because they're misunderstood I think. Massive club support too.

I'm getting my farina where I want it bit by bit. Biggest limiting factor is the steering box though mine is in good order. There are a few have converted to rack and pinion (mk1 astra rack is popular for reasons best known to the convertors) but involves doubling up on idlers to bridge the gap from the bulkhead which, to me, negates the point of the conversion somewhat

[artdjones]

Different generations of the same model can show different levels of stodginess.

This generation of Minx, definitely stodgy.

The Audax generation, much less stodgy,with actual (Loewy influenced) styling.

[Angrydicky]

2 hours ago, mk2_craig said:

I absolutely love what you’ve been doing with the Hampshire and can’t wait to see it being driven around again. I think a lot of us feel the same way; don’t assume there needs to be loads of likes and comments on the thread for your hard work to be appreciated by many. 
 

I would certainly like to see an update with what you’ve been doing lately. Does it have to get an MOT before seeing use again? 

Thank you.

No, it’s MoT exempt. I’ve been right through it though. It’s already got new brakes all round,  new balljoints and bushes and I’ve got a new set of tyres and inner tubes to fit. Steering box overhauled. All the electrics gone through. Plus all the welding. I have a four post lift so nice and easy to inspect the underside.

[Angrydicky]

20 minutes ago, artdjones said:

Different generations of the same model can show different levels of stodginess.

This generation of Minx, definitely stodgy.

The Audax generation, much less stodgy,with actual (Loewy influenced) styling.

My dads got an Audax Minx and it’s a nice enough thing, but I personally prefer the Mark Minxes for having much higher Stodge points. The early prefacelift ones look better, but later ones have an OHV engine so more usable on modern roads. My favourite are the immediate postwar Minxes, which are incredibly stodgy, with a wheezy side valve engine and boring styling. The best one is the 1947 facelift/tart up of the pre war styling to bridge the gap before the new body style came out. They’re also extremely rare. I’d love one.

I’ll definitely buy an earlier Minx when one comes along at the right price.

[Angrydicky]

28 minutes ago, D.E said:

Would be my choice. I think. Interesting engine, fairly neat design with that beetleback. How bad are they?

Talking of Beetles, does only the British stuff of the era qualify as stodge in this thread? According to my grandad who drove several of them back in the 50s, the original (split window) Beetle was a noisy, thirsty, slow bastard of a car...

I like Javelins but they’re not that stodgy. They have stylish styling and are interesting mechanically.

[RayMK]

On 3/30/2023 at 10:16 PM, artdjones said:

Different generations of the same model can show different levels of stodginess.

This generation of Minx, definitely stodgy.

The Audax generation, much less stodgy,with actual (Loewy influenced) styling.

In 1960 I was 10 and getting over Dad selling our dear old 1933 Austin 7 which was his first car, bought in 1954 (I cried). The replacement was a 1954 Hillman Minx. It was the facelift version of the short booted, side valve predecessor i.e. same engine but bigger boot.  Me and my brother goaded Dad to put his foot to the floor in the Minx to see how fast it would go (on a straight road near Oxford).  The answer was an indicated 72mph. The engine sounded terrible at that speed but we were impressed as it was over twice as fast as the A7.  Photo of the A7 in 1955 and the Minx, Dad, Mum and brother in 1961: 

[Angrydicky]

7 minutes ago, Angrydicky said:

 The best one is the 1947 facelift/tart up of the pre war styling to bridge the gap before the new body style came out. They’re also extremely rare. I’d love one.

Check out the Stodge!

[Angrydicky]

2 hours ago, Matty said:

Actually @vulgalour as creator and curator what are the guidelines? Can we put a bracket of years on it or are we classing 1800s maxis and the like?

I would define Stodge as immediate pre and postwar British saloons and vans/estates. Up to the late fifties. With extra points awarded for dowdy, conservative styling, wheezy sidevalve engines, or half-arsed facelifts intended to tart up dated prewar models when car production restarted after the war.

[RayMK]

Probably regarded as Stodge now, but grandad's Vauxhall Velox seemed a cut above our Minx.  When he became too ill to drive,  Dad was asked to take the Velox out for a spin (early 1960s). I went with him.  The engine was silky smooth and it felt powerful at first but even dad was surprised when it ran out of steam at around 70mph.  Like our Minx, it was happier cruising with the masses at 40-50mph.  Dad swapped the Minx for a Riley 1.5 at around that time.  That did not seem to be at all stodgy despite it  being just a twin carb Minor in drag.  Strangely, neither Dad nor the rest of us liked the Riley.  He only kept it for a couple of years.  Photo: Grandad's Stodge.

[AnthonyG]

On 3/29/2023 at 6:57 PM, sierraman said:

Without getting drawn into a ‘what went wrong at BL’ debate, they didn’t have the assertiveness to sack Issigonis off when he became a nuisance. Unbelievably they kept him on as a consultant until something like 1987, sense would have said to have given him a one way ticket by the early sixties.

As soon as the Austin 1800 failed to sell 300,000 a year or whatever the mad original projections were, Issigonis should have been shown the door. 

Although I suspect by 1965/6 the financial rot had already set well in. 

[AnthonyG]

2 hours ago, egg said:

Triumph Mayflower
Standard 10
Lanchester LD10
Rover P4(5?)
Counties Austins
Morris Oxford (MO)
Vauxhall Wyvern
Singer 1500
Ford Popular(?)
Standard Vanguard(?)
Armstrong Siddeley's(?)
Jowett Javelin(?)

Any Rileys? Wolseley?

I don’t think an Armstrong Siddeley can really be included, although they did try a fairly woeful ‘more affordable’ effort in the mid 50s called the 246 which failed miserably in the marketplace. But a Sapphire was a lovely car, almost on a par with a Bentley or an Alvis, and very definitely not stodgy. 

Some of the Nuffield Rileys can probably be included, the Pathfinder wasn’t dubbed the Ditchfinder for nothing. The 1.5 though, I wouldn’t call that stodge. 

The first generation Ford Consul was also very stodge, for all the technical sophistication* of the front suspension. My grandad had one inbetween a Wolseley 15/50 and a Rover 100, and my mum said it was a real let down after the Wolseley, all vinyl, early plastic and various bits of bent tin inside. She said the Rover was like a Rolls to get into after the Consul!

[vulgalour]

@barrett and @Angrydicky have the Stodge definition down.  It's one of those things where you know it when you see it and there's some things - like @Matty's A40 - that are borderline.  It's a spectrum, I suppose, with an A40 Farina being one end and a Palladium being the other with a Rover P4 probably about in the middle.

It's one of those "if you have to ask, then I can't tell you" situations.  Some cars are more Stodge than others.  If you start at Rover P4 and work outwards, you'll soon figure out what level of Stodge you're at.  The older you go, the less Stodgey things become.  Post 1960 likewise, cars start getting very modern looking even if they're decidedly stodgy underneath the flash bodywork.

Stylistically, it should look like the safe choice within the context of its era.  It should look like the sort of thing that's made entirely of natural materials, all wood and steel and aluminium.  It shouldn't be aspirational, per se, it should be comfortably middle class at best.  It knows its place.  It's not necessarily a cheap car, nor an expensive car, it is merely a well made car.  It can be technically advanced but in a way that only an engineer would appreciate.  Top speeds and 0-60 figures are inconsequential.  The most important things you need to know are whether or not it will get you to your destination and how comfortable you will be for the duration.

For pre-war cars, they automatically fall into Stodge generally, with some exceptions.  Many pre-war cars have proportions that make them look heavy and awkward compared to things at the other end of the Stodge timeline and as a result, many do look slow even though they aren't.  The Palladium is perhaps an unfair pick here because in the context of its day, it's actually quite a smart thing.  But then so is the Rover P4 so...

Here's some words to help you identify Stodge, words that come to mind when you see it:

• Matronly
• Ungainly
• Comfortable
• Steady
• Dependable
• Slow
• Heavy
• Old-fashioned
• Traditional
• Austere
• Ponderous
• Antique
• Wayward

When you get into the 1960s, Stodge seems to drift from cars to being a better descriptor of commercials.  The Commer PB/Dodge Spacevan would be a prime example of Modern Stodge, if you like.  But it's not Peak Stodge, it's not the thing that comes to mind in the same way as an MG B GT does when someone says Classic Car.  Also, there are other terms - Shite - that fit newer stuff better since styling and tech have (usually) moved on a good bit.  An Allegro isn't Stodge by dint of it being a 1970s car, it's just Shite (and I love them for it).  By the time you get into the 80s, with the exception of weird outliers like the Citroen 2CV (itself borderline Stodge, bit of an odd one that), Stodge has basically gone extinct.

[AnthonyG]

3 hours ago, vulgalour said:

Pininfarina styling in the Stodge thread?  That's a yellow card!

We can thank the late Duke of Edinburgh for BMC turning to Pininfarina. The story goes that Phil the Greek was being proudly shown some super new prototypes for Austin’s circa 1956, by Leonard Lord and the then head of styling Dick Burzi (who was Italian himself).

Phil was apparently rather underwhelmed and commented along the lines that they might want to have a look at what the Italians were doing styling wise. Lord was obviously polite to Phil but apparently furious, and minions were sent to Italian styling houses promptly to suss out a new look. Burzi was also pensioned off fairly quickly after embarrassing the boss with his stodgy designs! 

[LightBulbFun]

50 minutes ago, vulgalour said:

Here's some words to help you identify Stodge, words that come to mind when you see it:

• Matronly
• Ungainly
• Comfortable
• Steady
• Dependable
• Slow
• Heavy
• Old-fashioned
• Traditional
• Austere
• Ponderous
• Antique
• Wayward

alright then, I present the Stanley Argson  im going to get totally lynched for this probably, but I mean for fucks sake its got Landau bars that are actually there for a purpose/functional and are not just ornate... thats gotta be worth some points all on its own surely? LOL

it also fits all of those definitions and looks it too (see aforementioned Landau bar comment)

 

however if  wheels fewer than 4=not stodge then how about another one for debate, the FX4 taxi? its both IS stodge by what it is/the definition of stodge, but in someways not, because it was very successful in the job that it was made for, and is generally seen as old fashioned looking in a good way way, rather then the bad way stodge is/was/sometimes looked upon

theres also the FL2 Hire car variant which is probably a bit more stodge then the FX4 just based on the extra chrome and fact it died on its arse a bit

[sierraman]

7 hours ago, AnthonyG said:

As soon as the Austin 1800 failed to sell 300,000 a year or whatever the mad original projections were, Issigonis should have been shown the door. 

Although I suspect by 1965/6 the financial rot had already set well in. 

He should have been shown the 1800 doors that he insisted were fitted to the Maxi 🤣

[PhilA]

On 3/29/2023 at 4:09 PM, barrett said:

Not all postwar British cars were necessarily bad, but most of them abolutely were worse than what was being built in Europe. There was essentially no development of British cars from 1935-1960

American cars, the same. 1935-1954 if you peel away the exterior you find the very same pieces underneath.

It's not a lack of development so much as consumer demand. Only post-war did European vehicles make any kind of hit; I think the TR2 sold better here than it did in the UK and that's because no American mass manufacturer was making anything remotely small and sporty at the time.

Look at my Pontiac. "For 1951, a luxury car for affordable money". How? The engine design dates to 1934, it's an old commercial chassis modified to accept Chevrolet's standard body pressing that had been in use since the mid forties, with new, stylish lines and aerodynamics. In reality it has none of those things but it fit what people wanted. 

Return your view to post-war Britain. Arrive on a dank coal-mining street in Alfa-Romeo style and see how popular you were for sympathizing with Musso. Buy British! Even if it's terrible in comparison! It's known, understood, simple engineering that you can fix with a minimum of fuss or budget. Anything more and you're just a flash so-and-so with obviously questionable morals.

Thus, the stodge persisted. Don't forget that American styling started to get wild in '57 because the economy was hitting a recessive crash and there needed ever more reason to buy the current model year vehicles. That was achieved by glam and glitz, aerospace and wild dreams of the future being something like the Jetsons.

As said, the UK achieved the same by producing the right cars at the right time with just enough change to be wild. For UK standards, at least. 

[artdjones]

If a car has any genuine sporty pretensions it's not stodge.

Sapphire 236 Stodge 

Sapphire 234 Not Stodge

 

 

 

 

[PhilA]

10 hours ago, barrett said:

I think as a general rule 1959 was a turning point in 'modern' car design with the Mini, Anglia and Herald, with most things that came after that essentially being indistinguishable from one another (with a few exceptions) and therefore equal parts less interesting and easier to live with.

1959 also yielded the ultimate stodge removal tool. My father recalled how many people discovered their thermo-siphon side-valve propelled vehicles, running through a 5.6:1 rear axle would last when subject to the M1.

The answer was: Not Very Long. 

High speed commuter travel (at a sustained 50+ mph) ushered in a new era of design, just as Eisenhower flushed a lot of babbitt/splash-lube designs out in the late 40's. Chevrolet were selling their "budget six" into the fifties, which wasn't full pressure lubrication and long journeys at 45-50 mph through the mountains or in the desert just cooked them into oblivion. 

Long distance travel mechanically improved the stodge, in many ways.