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

[Pete-M]

Neither. And why/how the bloody hell have you got a picture of my cat Rosie in my front room window?!

 

[Guest EccentricRichard]

 

Is that just a random smug, knowing smile, or am I supposed to know who that is?

 

Anyway, I've worked it out... he's nicked it off of Street View!

[Pete-M]

That, my friend, is a picture of the man who invented Autoshite. Mr E.Leyland himself. He's watching, y'know.

[scaryoldcortina]

Neither. And why/how the bloody hell have you got a picture of my cat Rosie in my front room window?!

 

 

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,

Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

 

How does the autofocus work on an olympus E-3?

[Guest EccentricRichard]

How does the autofocus work on an olympus E-3?

 

Not a fucking clue, old chap. Digital, see. Work of the devil, y'know. Stick to good old manual focus and 35mm film, wot.

 

Speaking of which - I've got to do some thinning out of my lens collection. Every time I grab the camera, I end up taking something like 20 lenses with me...

[trigger]

I don't think I've ever seen two threads go so far off topic with utter drivel.

 

ER, Go to bed and stop posting!

[Guest EccentricRichard]

I don't think I've ever seen two threads go so far off topic with utter drivel.

 

ER, Go to bed and stop posting!

 

For once, Trigger, I agree with every word you say...

[scaryoldcortina]

This thread makes no sense, and meets autoshite's criterea for swift mickey-taking

 

edited for lack of sense (literally)

[HillmanImp]

This was a good thread until 2/3rds of the way through when it just turned to shit. I realise i am not helping by posting this so am going to pop on a picture of my BL chod to restore the balance.

 

 

It has BL pedal covers FTW which I will take a photo of tonight if I can be arsed.

[seth]

This thread was flippin' hilarious when I went to bed, what with Hirsts spreadsheet solution to a problem that existed 40 years ago. Shame it went to shit again soon afterwards (the thread and BL)

[garethj]

Right.

 

 

Any problems, I will chin you.

Bump for where this was a real thread

 

I think the sooner Hirst is made CEO of a car company, the better. He also does the used car salesman with a Brooklyn accent well, so the two should be combined.

 

People buy a new car once, but when it’s used it’s bought several times. Hirst’s expertise should be leveraged (you can tell I’ve been speaking to Americans all week) so perhaps all cars are sold as used. Loads are offloaded to employees, and dealers, just make them and fleet managers the final stage of the production line. Then the entire production could be sold as ‘used’ where cars make much better sense.

 

This is the kind of thinking that could make BL great again; it’s the next big step after leasing, or whatever they call it nowadays.

[Guest EccentricRichard]

This was a good thread until 2/3rds of the way through when it just turned to shit. I realise i am not helping by posting this so am going to pop on a picture of my BL chod to restore the balance.

 

 

It has BL pedal covers FTW which I will take a photo of tonight if I can be arsed.

 

Love the GT6. Always been one of my favourites - especially in Mark III form. Would have loved it if they'd produced a Dolly Sprint-based monocoque-bodied MkIV that looked like the MkIII but had much better torsional rigidity... Though I'm not sure if the staight-six could have been made to fit the Dolly platform...

[eddyramrod]

Though I'm not sure if the staight-six could have been made to fit the Dolly platform...

 

Anything can be made to fit anywhere if you have the tools and the skills. The tools, you could buy in a weekend with enough money. The skills take years... One thing you have to consider with things like engine swaps is: is it worth the effort? The Dolly had a 2.0 which was, and still is, highly respected, so there wouldn't be a lot of point in going to a longer, heavier 2.0 that requires considerable rearranging of the sheetmetal. Having said that, if you already have the tools and skills, but little cash, and a six hanging around, then maybe it's viable; "use what you have" is a perfectly valid "green" philosophy. I still wouldn't attempt it until the Dolly's original engine was finally confirmed dead though.

 

I've sometimes wondered why Triumph themselves went the six-pot route with the GT6 instead of using the four from the TR4A. Maybe because it was an older design they wanted to pension off, but since I was in primary school at the time, I didn't have access to the boardroom. It doesn't matter, because they made a sparkling little car.

 

Why something was done the way it was 40 or 50 years ago is completely unimportant now. What matters is that someone preserves such things for future generations to enjoy. I love shite, as I don't believe in overpolished trailer queens. Cars are made to be driven! And if they're driven, ok, wear and tear is inevitable, I don't mind seeing evidence of normal life on a car, though it does lower my already-subterranean opinion of my fellow human when I see a) deliberate ratlook and the sort of damage you can get in supermarket car parks, from carelessly-opened doors and carelessly-driven trolleys .

 

Wow, look, actual car-related opinions formed from genuine experience! This thread must be soooooooooooo far off-topic now!

[ChinaTom]

E-R, it is easy. Just put it in diagonally and cut some bevel gears - just the J O'Beasky.

[flat4alfa]

Ah. But by the mid-seventies the hatchback sector took off, due to the barrage of Foreigners coming over.

So ditch both Allegro and Marina and develop/reclad the Maxi so it looks and feels sleek and saleable. Morris Maxi, aka 250, poss. looking at a taller, less snouty Pininfarina BMC-1800? Or not.

 

* ouch! got chinned *

[Pete-M]

I'd have killed Austin, Morris and Wolseley, kept Mini as a separate brand, added a Dolomite estate (Killed the Toledo) and concentrated on building the good cars more carefully.

 

After a quick google, it turns out that Triumph were having a go at building a Dolly Estate. Carbodies did this one;

 

 

And there was also "Project Sherpa" which could have been fun with the Dolly Sprint lump;

 

(Both pics nicked from Keith Adams' site, hope you don't mind Keith)

 

I think if they had concentrated on the quality end of the range, and built it all properly, they could have survived. I'd have junked the Stag V8 in favour of the Rover one, stopped them building a 2.0 SD1, improved the quality of Jags and Range Rovers and tried to get exports to the US / Sith Efrika / Aus back running again. Can't have been that hard to make a Land Rover reliable, or make paint stick to an SD1.

[Guest EccentricRichard]

Yep, seen that Dolly estate before. Hadn't seen the hatch, though - a sort of British BMW 2002 Touring?

 

Wandering through AROnline, one is struck by the huge number of opportunities missed by BL, its predecessors and successors...

[morris_ital_lover]

As with Pete-M, I would have killed off many of the brands, leaving triumph (the one brand that had a relatively good reputation for cheaper cars towards the end) as the lower end, rover in the middle producing your p6-sd1 range of motors with Jag/Daimler for the high end. And of course landy/range rover for the best 4x4xfar range. I would have also killed of the triumph sports car range and focused MG's resources on being the sole sports car manufacturer.

 

Whilst I would have dearly loved to have of seen Morris, Wolseley, Riley and Austin continued they just created the ridiculous situation where the company competed with itself and are subsequently dead wood.

 

If you look across european car manufacturing of the period, there was little if ANY internal cross over amongst the companies that survived to this day and those that did have cross-over eventually rectified it, peugeot-talbot range's being the example I can think of. BLs problems were due to the two key players;

1. Unions; made cutting departments etc a nightmare, drove down the quality of the cars since the work patterns were irregular etc (Im not really going into this one though) and drove up costs.

2. Management - often made seemingly bizarre decisions didnt seem to force their hand (surely any sensible man would have seen the triumph v8 going into the stag and slapped them on the wrists and forced the rover v8 on them) and were possibly too sentimental/blind to their problems going back to self competition, the sign of a disorganised and completely useless corporation.

 

IMHO, despite the background needs/causes for BMC/BLMC/BL and Rootes group, the british motor manufactuirng trade would be in a MUCH better condition if we hadnt allowed the merger of so many companies. This would have lead to the loss of some big british brands but, I believe if it hadnt proceeded Austin Group or Nuffield would still be around in a major way today.

 

m0rris

[RedSparrow]

I agree about Triumph being about the only marque left with a decent reputation.

 

I still think they should have persued this project: http://austin-rover.co.uk/rovsd2f.htm

 

Much better and more modern looking than the later Maestro.

[garethj]

Is it a bit wrong to compare BL to Ford and Vauxhall? They always seemed to have a smaller development budget, anyone know if they employed similar number of people?

 

If that's the case, then perhaps they shouldn't have been competing with Ford etc, but with niche markets?

[morris_ital_lover]

Yeah probably is fine to compare them, but going back to my key point... BL was Austin/Morris/Rover/Jag/Wolseley/Triumph/MG/Landrover etc, whereas ford was ford and vauxhall was vauxhall. It meant that when they wanted to create a new 4 door exec saloon it was going to be the ford ... or the Vauxhall ... not the Austin/Morris/Rover ... . If they had rationalised then Im sure they would have been able to pool their resources to create one great car of xyz typefor one brand as opposed to making 4 lame different cars (obviously there was the other option of rebadging but that was a similarly wasteful excercise). Think about a true combination of morris/austin/triumph/rover's expertise pooled into one modern (with a modern drivetrain etc of course) car to take on the world.

 

m0rris

[trigger]

Just a random BL road test for you.

 

Austin Allegro Equipe Road Test 1979 (1) by Trigger's Retro Road Tests!, on Flickr

 

Austin Allegro Equipe Road Test 1979 (2) by Trigger's Retro Road Tests!, on Flickr

 

Austin Allegro Equipe Road Test 1979 (3) by Trigger's Retro Road Tests!, on Flickr

 

Austin Allegro Equipe Road Test 1979 (4) by Trigger's Retro Road Tests!, on Flickr

[Guest EccentricRichard]

As with Pete-M, I would have killed off many of the brands, leaving triumph (the one brand that had a relatively good reputation for cheaper cars towards the end) as the lower end, rover in the middle producing your p6-sd1 range of motors with Jag/Daimler for the high end. And of course landy/range rover for the best 4x4xfar range. I would have also killed of the triumph sports car range and focused MG's resources on being the sole sports car manufacturer

 

Frankly, I'd have killed MG instead and used the Triumph sports car range as a marketing tool to put room between it and Rover in terms of brand identity... ideally, I'd have kept both, but life ain't always like that... maybe make the Triumph cars six-cylinder only while the MGs were four-cylinder only?

[Jozza]

I'd agree with the various 'brand bonfire' ideas.

 

I've always reckoned that an 'ideal' post-war British motor industry would have looked something like:

 

BMC: Axe Austin, Riley, Austin-Healey and Vanden Plas and make the whole thing based around Morris. Most of the decent ideas from BMC were rightfully Nuffield Group ones anyway- Morris Minor, the Mini etc. Morris handles the volume models and light commercials. There's nothing wrong with innovative FWD, transverse engine, Hydrolastic/rubber cone suspension and so on provided it's done right and it's reliable. Have Wolseley as BMC's premium brand for large luxury saloons. MG (Morris Garages originally, of course) deals with its staple of low cost semi-sporting models. Use the Nuffield name for tractors, heavy commercials, industrial engines and so on. Keep the Austin Gipsy, call it a Morris and keep the Flexitor suspension.

 

Rover-Alvis and Standard-Triumph should have merged as you then get four complementary brands that can each support the others. Standard for volume, normal saloons/estates and light commercials. Triumph for sports saloons and roadsters based on Standard platforms, Rover for mid-volume executive saloons and Alvis for the handbuilt luxury tourers, heavy commercials and military vehicles. Keep the Land Rover but put it in the Standard light commercial division to keep it away from Rover. Standard looked at a tractor to compete with the Ferguson that they used to build- in this situation the Standard tractor could be sold alongside the Land Rover in the developing world.

 

I don't really know enough about the Rootes group to suggest what could have improved things there but from what I gather it seems that closure of all the factories spread around the country and a 'doing a Ford' and putting everything under the Hillman name (maybe with Sunbeam as a performance spec rather than a brand in its own right?) might have improved things.

[scruff]

Hey Trig don't suppose you have the CAR roadtest of the MGB V8 from 1973??

 

It really is a good sum up of all that was starting to go wrong with BL. In those days the letters pages were full of tales of woe, I remember one from a 1977 issue I read, a bloke who was a salesman 'somewhere in Europe' and at his wit's end. Minis were being delivered full of faults ranging from black tar fingerprints all over the headlinings to missing gearbox bearings. Jags had been virtually blackmarked in his area after a millionaire's new XJ6 conked out (a common problem) under his portcullis-style gate and was crushed, spewing neat petrol all over the road. They couldn't get Rangies fast enough to keep interest and ditto with SD1s - which were well-liked but unreliable.

[trigger]

Hey Trig don't suppose you have the CAR roadtest of the MGB V8 from 1973??.

 

Sadly not Scruff but is this of any intrested to you?.

 

Costello MGB GT V8 Road Test 1972 (1) by Trigger's Retro Road Tests!, on Flickr

 

Costello MGB GT V8 Road Test 1972 (2) by Trigger's Retro Road Tests!, on Flickr

 

Costello MGB GT V8 Road Test 1972 (3) by Trigger's Retro Road Tests!, on Flickr

 

Costello MGB GT V8 Road Test 1972 (4) by Trigger's Retro Road Tests!, on Flickr

[scruff]

Fabulous - I'll have to try and scan the CAR version. They had a rather different verdict on BL's 'official' version

[barrett]

Some interesting stuff

 

I have to agree with most of what you said, although the Austin-Healey name still carried a lot of weight, hence why they were building them way after their sell-by date in the late 60s. It had the same sort of appeal as Morgans did, proper old-fasioned sports cars for hairy chested blokes. If BMC had worked on a proper replacement for the 3000, rather than just shoving the engine in an MGB, then they probably could've kept the relationship going with the healey family, and the world would've been spared the Jensen-Healey, which effectively killed any cachet the Jensen and Healey names had, and almost did the same to Lotus.

 

In regards of Standard-Triumph, that idea wouldn't have worked for the very reason the Standard name died in the 60s. The meaning of the word had changed, going from 'the standard that things are measured by' to 'basic'. Triumph were wise to kill the brand when they did, even in the 50s Standards were exported as Triumphs because the name carried no weight abroad.

[Negative Creep]

On the subject of the Equippe, is it true it was bought out to be a Golf GTi and RS2000 competitor? I ask because if true it's pretty sad that the higher ups thought a few stick on stripes would do the trick. However it may just be a Top Gear pub quote

[scruff]

Here you go.

 

 

 

 

Oh bugger sorry about the second one.