Too big to fail? Bailouts, banks and British Leyland...

[Guest EccentricRichard]

I know that this forum wouldn't normally be concerned with stuff from Autocar, but I thought that this made interesting reading:

http://www.autocar.co.uk/blogs/autocarconfidential/archive/2010/11/02/too-big-to-fail.aspx

[Mr H Sceptre]

Interesting.

 

So BL got a total of around £10-12bn in todays money but still ultimately went under. I guess it just showed how inefficient they really were, as, despite critisism, their cars did sell pretty well.

[Station]

Two things I remember from the 80's was the recession thing on the news, and a string of BL and Ford/Rootes cars (an Ambassador, an SD1), my dad had that never started in the morning, and always broke down. Having a shitey economy paired with a shitey workforce and unions garnering more power than management probably didn't help the future of the country much. I'm surprised it's doing so well.

[Mr H Sceptre]

Yeah, I guess it was a culmination of several issues - recession, unions, unreliable products, 'invasion' of better value cars from Japan etc etc

[HillmanImp]

The problem is when they keep bunging them money and not sorting out the root of the problem, which was probably bad management, they are just putting off the inevitable.

 

In exchange for the money did the government put people who had a proven track record of being able to manage a copany of the size of BL?

[warren t claim]

To go off at a slight tangent why did Ford thrive in the 1970's leaving a legacy that still makes it a major player in the European market today and BL fail? Both companies had their union problems.

[Guest EccentricRichard]

Problem was, BL was too bloody big. Wolseley had been watered-down to little more than a posh Austin, Riley had died, having abandoned its sporty roots, Morris was doing nowt much that Austin wasn't doing too (except the Marina, and that wasn't exactly a paragon of good design or engineering), Triumph was treading on the toes of both Rover and MG, Rover was getting in Jaguar's way too, Alvis had had to be killed off as it was too close to Jag and Rover... Frankly, while a Rover-Alvis partnership would have worked, getting Standard Triumph into the same bed was going to cause friction... and most of BMH's brands were dying and should not have been put on life support. If BMH had been prepared to swing the axe and stop the badge-engineering, allowing Morris to die while piling investment into Austin, using the Riley brand to make replicas (with modern running gear) of those fabulous pre-war sports cars (or selling it off/letting it die), using Wolseley to take on Rover while Jaguar pushed upmarket, and getting MG to make some really good sports cars (not that the Spridget or B was bad, they just weren't THAT brilliant), then they could surely have stayed afloat business-wise, so they wouldn't have needed Leyland to bail them out? That way Leyland could also have maintained some level of brand separation between its three principal brands...

[seth]

To go off at a slight tangent why did Ford thrive in the 1970's leaving a legacy that still makes it a major player in the European market today and BL fail? Both companies had their union problems.

 

I suspect because they weren't competing with themselves internally. Even in Europe where there were distinct Taunus cars, from what I can tell running gear was pretty much shared around. I think there were simply too many platforms/engines etc in the BL camp.

[Pete-M]

I think the reason Ford flourished was down to intelligent parts sharing and simple vehicles. Kent engines in the Fiesta, Escort, Capri, Cortina and Transit. Pintos and Cologne lumps in an equally large amount of stuff.

 

Then there is Fords ability to mix and match stuff and make it work, and the fact it was all done as one brand. VW do it similarly now, but under the guise of too many brands.

 

BL let every department do things their own ways, without caring about the practicalities. They also let the unions have too much power, which screwed up production and quality of an already overcomplicated and under developed range. BL had lots of very talented engineers who couldn't do their jobs because of management interference.

 

The SD1 could have taken Rover to where Bmw is now, but they blew it massively by only building them occasionally, using cheap bits and not getting them sorted until the range was 6 years old. Using the Triumph based 6 pot was a mistake too.

[Volksy]

Also, I would have thought that with Ford & Vauxhall/GM being true multinationals, with huge sales and markets in the US and Australia, would have been able to bolster up any deficit in the essentially minor UK market.

[Station]

BL in the 70's/80's was like starting a game of Jenga by only pulling out the bottom bricks.

[Guest EccentricRichard]

I think the reason Ford flourished was down to intelligent parts sharing and simple vehicles. Kent engines in the Fiesta, Escort, Capri, Cortina and Transit. Pintos and Cologne lumps in an equally large amount of stuff.

 

Then there is Fords ability to mix and match stuff and make it work, and the fact it was all done as one brand. VW do it similarly now, but under the guise of too many brands.

 

BL let every department do things their own ways, without caring about the practicalities. They also let the unions have too much power, which screwed up production and quality of an already overcomplicated and under developed range. BL had lots of very talented engineers who couldn't do their jobs because of management interference.

 

The SD1 could have taken Rover to where Bmw is now, but they blew it massively by only building them occasionally, using cheap bits and not getting them sorted until the range was 6 years old. Using the Triumph based 6 pot was a mistake too.

 

What was wrong with the Triumph straight-six? People I've spoken to who had 2000s/2500s/2.5PIs liked it...

 

But yeah, I get your point. So many engines... the A-series, the B-series, the Triumph slant-four, the smaller Triumph 1.3/1.5 litre lump, the Austin 1500/1750 engine, the old 2.1 litre from the TR4, the Land Rover 2.25 litre... the Rover 2/2.2 litre... later the O-series... then, on the six-cylinder front, the Alvis, Triumph, Jaguar AND C-series straight-sixes... the E-series... the old Rover P5 lump still being used in the Land Rover... and the Daimler, Rover and Triumph V8s... not to mention the Jaguar 60-degree V8 that never made it to production... far too many engines! Would have made so much more sense to rationalise the range - let's say the A-series, the Triumph slant-four, the small Triumph straight-six and the Jaguar XK (which would then be replaced by the AJ6), then the Rover V8 for most V8 applications, plus the Jag V12.

[scruff]

What about the Land Rovers?

[Pete-M]

The Triumph six pot was ok in the 2000/2500, but the Rover version suffered from camshaft problems caused by a valve in the oil feed to the head. Lack of proper development in the same manner as the Stag V8s cooling issues. A bit more time and care and they'd both have turned out ok. Stag V8 was a bit of a lame duck anyway. Sounded great but not a great engine. Pointless when they had the Rover V8 anyway, a better engine already sorted.

 

The Land Rover motor isn't a P5 one, it's a 2.6, same as the P4. The P5 was a 3.0 with a better head. IOE engines are good for smoothness and torque but they were an old design in the early 60's and very very heavy. I had a Mk1 P5 last year and the engine was the only thing I didn't rate. Quiet and smooth but next time I have a P5 it'll be the V8. The V8 is as smooth, better on fuel, torquier and a lot more effortless. Straight sixes are good for mid range but they're no match for a V8 if low down grunt is the name of the game.

[scooters]

the UK car industry was destroyed by the nationalisation of the industry in the 60's...

 

government should not bail out any business in a market economy - it should incentivise business by creating opportunity and encouraging investment. Every time the government has interferred there has been disaster -

 

BL

the bank bailouts of last year

the scrappage scheme

 

when are the government going to realise that service economy is all very well but unless you Make and Export Things then you do not have any real wealty.....look at Ireland

 

they are content to bail out banks but have not ensured that those banks pass on the capital in the form of operating capital to businesses and in particualr businesses in the manufacturing sector.

 

we, have become a nation of spivs....

 

the comments after this autocar article are indicative of that fact

[Mr Lobster]

BL / Rover died a long death for many reasons.

 

As scooters says, government shouldn't get involved in business. Succesive governments of all flavours did and all got it wrong.

 

BL was running a ridiculous number of plants (46? IIRC) and producing a vast range of cars from an assortment of marques some of which competed with each other to a certain extent. There were just too many marques, some of them (most of them?) should have been culled sooner, then they could have concentrated on building a decent, sensible range of cars to compete with Ford, Vauxhall etc.

[Pete-M]

The government bailing out BL was indeed a bad idea. If they had been left to sort it themselves then I'm sure a few of the companies would have survived. I suspect Austin and Morris would have died as they were close to crippled by the restrictions of their late '60s range. The mini was expensive and labour intensive to build, the 1100/1300 rotted for fun and used mini mechanicals anyway. The Landcrab was a good car in a dowdy body, and the 3 litre was a commercial failure. The farina stuff was old and looked it.

 

Triumph had some great cars, but madness like the fwd/rwd Toledo needed sorting, as did the Lucas injected stuff.

 

Riley and Alvis were dead by the end of the 60s anyway.

 

Rover had the 3 series of the day with the P6, but they weren't making much money. The Land Rover saved their bacon. They screwed up by not continuing to move things forward. The P5 lasted 14 years, as did the P6. That's a long time. Ford were changing the looks of their range every 4 years.

[Guest EccentricRichard]

the UK car industry was destroyed by the nationalisation of the industry in the 60's...

 

government should not bail out any business in a market economy - it should incentivise business by creating opportunity and encouraging investment. Every time the government has interferred there has been disaster -

 

BL

the bank bailouts of last year

the scrappage scheme

 

when are the government going to realise that service economy is all very well but unless you Make and Export Things then you do not have any real wealty.....look at Ireland

 

they are content to bail out banks but have not ensured that those banks pass on the capital in the form of operating capital to businesses and in particualr businesses in the manufacturing sector.

 

we, have become a nation of spivs....

 

the comments after this autocar article are indicative of that fact

 

On the other hand, the Government give/loan Tata £800m to take JLR into the future with green technology, and the first thing to emerge is an impossibly beautiful near-1000bhp jet-powered electric supercar that is close to being a production reality, and, if/when it does get made, will be both truly innovative and a brilliant 'halo car' for the resurgent Jaguar company. Brilliant, eh?

[Guest EccentricRichard]

The government bailing out BL was indeed a bad idea. If they had been left to sort it themselves then I'm sure a few of the companies would have survived. I suspect Austin and Morris would have died as they were close to crippled by the restrictions of their late '60s range. The mini was expensive and labour intensive to build, the 1100/1300 rotted for fun and used mini mechanicals anyway. The Landcrab was a good car in a dowdy body, and the 3 litre was a commercial failure. The farina stuff was old and looked it.

 

Triumph had some great cars, but madness like the fwd/rwd Toledo needed sorting, as did the Lucas injected stuff.

 

Riley and Alvis were dead by the end of the 60s anyway.

 

Rover had the 3 series of the day with the P6, but they weren't making much money. The Land Rover saved their bacon. They screwed up by not continuing to move things forward. The P5 lasted 14 years, as did the P6. That's a long time. Ford were changing the looks of their range every 4 years.

 

Alvis only died because there wasn't room for them and Jaguar in BL. Had the BMH/LMC merger never happened, Alvis would have continued to move forward... there was, I believe, going to be a brand-new modular family of OHC inline sixes for Rover and Alvis (possibly Triumph as well), using the same 5-speed ZF 'box as the TF21 did, Alvis was also going to get the Rover V8, and the Rover P8 unibody, all-independent coil-sprung platform was going to be made available to Alvis, the fabulous Rover P6BS/P9 was going to be badged as an Alvis... that firm had a future. Anyway, now it's back, making the old 4.3 litre from the 1930s... fabulous cars!

[Mr H Sceptre]

I've always thought that the demise of BL would make a great film.

[Guest]

Er, where did my comment go?

[Pete-M]

Alvis designed their own V8 in the late 50's, and Issigonis did them a car to put it in as well. The TA350.

 

One problem they had in the '50s was the Jaguar Mk1, which was fast, cheap, and looked fantastic. Things got worse for them with the launch of the Mk2. The Alvis was never going to be able to compete and make money, which is the name of the game. The Mk1 / Mk2 Jag killed a lot of its competition. Another was that Alvis had been building rather old fashioned and expensive cars for a long, long time. Pretty much every company that had done that had already died out, Rover had gone all modern with the P6, and Jaguar brought out the XJ6 in '68. What did Alvis have to compete with? They had nothing in the cupboard, and the old TF was a development of a car from 1950, in a body designed by MPW on their behalf and based on a Graber design anyway.

 

Alvis were making far more money building military stuff, their involvement in the car game was already over.

 

Riley couldn't have pulled anything out of the hat to compete with the P6 / 2500 PI / XJ6.

[Cavcraft]

Alvis have been about for years, though have concentrated on military stuff.

[Guest EccentricRichard]

Alvis designed their own V8 in the late 50's, and Issigonis did them a car to put it in as well. The TA350.

 

One problem they had in the '50s was the Jaguar Mk1, which was fast, cheap, and looked fantastic. Things got worse for them with the launch of the Mk2. The Alvis was never going to be able to compete and make money, which is the name of the game. The Mk1 / Mk2 Jag killed a lot of its competition. Another was that Alvis had been building rather old fashioned and expensive cars for a long, long time. Pretty much every company that had done that had already died out, Rover had gone all modern with the P6, and Jaguar brought out the XJ6 in '68. What did Alvis have to compete with? They had nothing in the cupboard, and the old TF was a development of a car from 1950, in a body designed by MPW on their behalf and based on a Graber design anyway.

 

Alvis were making far more money building military stuff, their involvement in the car game was already over.

 

Riley couldn't have pulled anything out of the hat to compete with the P6 / 2500 PI / XJ6.

 

Yep, the TA350, fabulous car... seem to remember it had Hydrolastic/Hydragas/something like that all-independent suspension on a monocoque body? Maroon in colour, too... and the engine was OHC. So short-sighted that they didn't put it into production. Would have made the Rovers, Humbers and even Jags of the time look old-fashioned.

 

From what I've heard, the Mk1 Jag, with its 2.4 litre engine, was anything but fast... though yes, it was quite cheap and looked great. Problem was, the Alvis still had a Hotchkiss rear axle, plus a ladder chassis with a coachbuilt body on wooden formers, plus an OHV engine... Alvis were going to get the production version of the P6BS, and there was talk of a shortened two-door version of the Rover P8 too.

[Guest EccentricRichard]

Alvis have been about for years, though have concentrated on military stuff.

 

Disappeared into BAe Systems, actually, the brand had been dead for years. However, earlier this year, it was revived to produce replicas of the old 4.3 litre...

[warren t claim]

Alvis have been about for years, though have concentrated on military stuff.

 

Disappeared into BAe Systems, actually, the brand had been dead for years. However, earlier this year, it was revived to produce replicas of the old 4.3 litre...

 

I'm guessing here but with info like that you must be a hit with the ladies.

[Guest]

Alvis have been about for years, though have concentrated on military stuff.

 

Disappeared into BAe Systems, actually, the brand had been dead for years. However, earlier this year, it was revived to produce replicas of the old 4.3 litre...

 

I'm guessing here but with info like that you must be a hit with the ladies.

 

Word. Nowt pulls pussy like a Graber TF21.

[Pete-M]

 

Disappeared into BAe Systems, actually, the brand had been dead for years. However, earlier this year, it was revived to produce replicas of the old 4.3 litre...

 

I'm guessing here but with info like that you must be a hit with the ladies.

 

Word. Nowt pulls pussy like a Graber TF21.

 

Straight six, y'see.

[Guest]

 

I'm guessing here but with info like that you must be a hit with the ladies.

 

Word. Nowt pulls pussy like a Graber TF21.

 

Straight six, y'see.

 

That's some inherently well balanced cock.

[seth]

OOOoooo. Leg rubbing at Graver Alvises