Allegro Equipe

[iSore]

wag2 said:

There was a trend in those days of BL for new models to be worse than the ones they replaced. Biggest tragedies were rubber bumpers on MGs and the TR7.

I remember standing in the workshop of a main Jaguar dealer and watching a man touch up the paint around the door closure of a brand new XJ6.

Some of the management’s decisions were dire. They discontinued the Mini Cooper (because of a small royalty). Look what BMW have done with it.

But they replaced it with the 1275GT that sold in even bigger numbers and made more money. In around the same 10-12 year lifespan it outsold the Cooper and S combined. The later Cooper thing was just nostalgia.

The Allegro's only saving grace was it's refusal to rust away in the usual 5-10 years and it was easy to fix. Just as well!

They weren't all bad, but nowhere near as good as it could have been. The E Series versions were a waste of time - the 1100 and 1300 were enough. The E Series was outdated on launch, a heavy cast iron lump that wasn't powerful, rev or anything else. It suited the Maxi though - now there was a genuinely good and useful car. As even, BL's decisions to try and save money close them dearly in the long run. By 1973 they really should have had a really good short stroke 1100 - 1600 OHC unit and a five speed box stuck on the end like the Fiat 128.

[Uggers]

I can almost see the appeal of the Equipe in a historic sense. Great to see rather unloved cars in fine fettle, but glad it's not me doing the fettling.

My dad used to tow a rather large caravan with a 1300 Allegro. It was comically slow and as another poster alluded, spent a lot of its time with the wheels lost somewhere inside the wheelarches. Eventually changed to a 1750HLS Maxi which was a great car in comparison.

[rallycross]

Uggers said:

I

. Eventually changed to a 1750HLS Maxi which was a great car in comparison.

Maxi’s for all their rusting problems and crunchy gearboxes and oil burning issues made excellent tow cars and in the 1970’s/early 80’s most race circuit paddocks had dozens of horrible maxis on trailer towing duties - and being one or the first hatch backs with a flat Load area many were used for sleeping in ! (as well as carrying a huge load of race spares.l),

[2xChevrons]

Piersman2 said:

I watched an old episode of May's Cars of the People last night where he did a 10 minute segment on the Allegro and the various contributions to the downfall of the British car industry. He had the original designer on the show to explain what happened. Apparently the basic design was mainly compromised by the need to raise the bonnet line to fit in an off-the-parts-shelf heater as BL decided it was too expensive to design and build a new heater which would have allowed the original design to be produced. Not the only issue obviously, the decision to NOT build it as a hatch-back also helped to limit it's appeal against the Golf's, etc... of the time.

Anyways, the interview ended with May offering the designer a lift in May's Allegro, which was gently refused by the designer!

I've had the good fortune to chat to Harris Mann about his time at BL (and his preceding years at Ford and his post-staff work at BMW).

I think he has (quite understandably) run a good 'PR campaign' for himself over the years re: Allegro. It's easy to look at his design sketch of the sleek, low-nosed, Kamm-backed thing and think what might have been. Except that every car starts off as an outlandish conceptual sketch on a designer's drawing board. Mann's original sketches for the Princess and the TR7 (which both made it to production largely in the form he intended) still look like something built up for an episode of Space:1999 by comparison the production version. You can find the original sketches for the Golf and the Fiesta which also look far more impressive than what actually made it to the showrooms. And some of the Allegro's most problematic design features are right there in Mann's sketch - especially the inset headlamps with bodywork between them and the sidelamp/indicator units which rob the car of a 'face' and made it look all jowely and overweight. People who say that the Allegro could have looked like an Alfasud if Mann's design hadn't been altered are pushing the point far too far.

Mann's sketch began as a proposal for a simple reskin of the 1100/1300 (which, in retrospect, would probably have been a far better car). As such it was only intended to have A-Series power units. The nose line had to be kicked up to accomodate the preposterously tall E-Series power unit. Pretty much the only thing that was new on the Marina was the heater unit, which had to be used on the Allegro to amortise its production costs. That pushed the scuttle height up and robbed interior space. Then the marketing department decreed that the Allegro had to be more luxurious and comfortable than the 1100/1300, so they specified thick, bulky seats. Which meant that although the Allegro was bigger in each dimension than the 1100/1300, it actually had less cabin space. So they added more tumblhome to the door panels to create extra width in the cabin, which meant redrawing the rear quarters and front wings to match, so the whole thing looked like a space hopper with facial features and wheels. It was the exact opposite of the Issigonis approach. Issigonis always designed cars from the inside out, deciding how much passenger/luggage space was needed and how much volume the drivetrain would take up and then designing the bodywork around that. The Allegro inadvertently went backwards - they took a styling proposal for a completely different car and ended up distorting it around an ever-changing structural and mechanical package. No wonder the result was so pig-ugly.

That said, I think it's unfair to blame the Allegro for its lack of a hatchback. The design process began in 1968 and it was signed off in 1971. This was when there really were no small family hatchbacks - the Renault 4 was a utility car and the Maxi was a larger car which if anything suffered in the marketplace due to the hatchback's functional image. The Marina wasn't a hatchback either. Vauxhall were still making the Viva HC, Ford the Mk1 Escort, Rootes the Imp. The Honda Civic Mk1 was a small saloon, as were the Alfasud, the Citroen GS, the Datsun 100A Cherry. While the Allegro was in development only the Simca 1100 and the Fiat 127 were really representing the hatchback class and they were superminis, not 'C-segment' cars like the Allegro. The Renault 5, another supermini, would launch right before the Allegro. Britain wouldn't get anything that could be classed as a supermini until the Chevette in 1975 and a proper FWD/hatch small family car wouldn't arrive until the Maestro. It was the new water-cooled VW range (Golf and Polo) which really cemented the hatchback as the bodystyle of choice for the modern small family car in the 1970s. Development of those didn't begin in earnest until 1972 (when the Allegro was gearing up for production) - as late as 1969 VW were still looking at rear-engined proposals for the 'Golf' - and wouldn't be launched until 1974/75. And both the VWs retained saloon body options for those that wanted them. So the Allegro really just happened to be the last small family car that wasn't a hatchback, rather than it being a case of BL lacking foresight - this is the same company that not only produced the Maxi but also the Rover SD1 which was a very early example of the 'executive hatch' and, under BMC, had produced both the Austin A40 Countryman and the MGB GT, both of which were conceptual hatchbacks.

[Norfolkandchance]

2xChevrons said:

Piersman2 said:

I watched an old episode of May's Cars of the People last night where he did a 10 minute segment on the Allegro and the various contributions to the downfall of the British car industry. He had the original designer on the show to explain what happened. Apparently the basic design was mainly compromised by the need to raise the bonnet line to fit in an off-the-parts-shelf heater as BL decided it was too expensive to design and build a new heater which would have allowed the original design to be produced. Not the only issue obviously, the decision to NOT build it as a hatch-back also helped to limit it's appeal against the Golf's, etc... of the time.

Anyways, the interview ended with May offering the designer a lift in May's Allegro, which was gently refused by the designer!

I've had the good fortune to chat to Harris Mann about his time at BL (and his preceding years at Ford and his post-staff work at BMW).

I think he has (quite understandably) run a good 'PR campaign' for himself over the years re: Allegro. It's easy to look at his design sketch of the sleek, low-nosed, Kamm-backed thing and think what might have been. Except that every car starts off as an outlandish conceptual sketch on a designer's drawing board. Mann's original sketches for the Princess and the TR7 (which both made it to production largely in the form he intended) still look like something built up for an episode of Space:1999 by comparison the production version. You can find the original sketches for the Golf and the Fiesta which also look far more impressive than what actually made it to the showrooms. And some of the Allegro's most problematic design features are right there in Mann's sketch - especially the inset headlamps with bodywork between them and the sidelamp/indicator units which rob the car of a 'face' and made it look all jowely and overweight. People who say that the Allegro could have looked like an Alfasud if Mann's design hadn't been altered are pushing the point far too far.

Mann's sketch began as a proposal for a simple reskin of the 1100/1300 (which, in retrospect, would probably have been a far better car). As such it was only intended to have A-Series power units. The nose line had to be kicked up to accomodate the preposterously tall E-Series power unit. Pretty much the only thing that was new on the Marina was the heater unit, which had to be used on the Allegro to amortise its production costs. That pushed the scuttle height up and robbed interior space. Then the marketing department decreed that the Allegro had to be more luxurious and comfortable than the 1100/1300, so they specified thick, bulky seats. Which meant that although the Allegro was bigger in each dimension than the 1100/1300, it actually had less cabin space. So they added more tumblhome to the door panels to create extra width in the cabin, which meant redrawing the rear quarters and front wings to match, so the whole thing looked like a space hopper with facial features and wheels. It was the exact opposite of the Issigonis approach. Issigonis always designed cars from the inside out, deciding how much passenger/luggage space was needed and how much volume the drivetrain would take up and then designing the bodywork around that. The Allegro inadvertently went backwards - they took a styling proposal for a completely different car and ended up distorting it around an ever-changing structural and mechanical package. No wonder the result was so pig-ugly.

That said, I think it's unfair to blame the Allegro for its lack of a hatchback. The design process began in 1968 and it was signed off in 1971. This was when there really were no small family hatchbacks - the Renault 4 was a utility car and the Maxi was a larger car which if anything suffered in the marketplace due to the hatchback's functional image. The Marina wasn't a hatchback either. Vauxhall were still making the Viva HC, Ford the Mk1 Escort, Rootes the Imp. The Honda Civic Mk1 was a small saloon, as were the Alfasud, the Citroen GS, the Datsun 100A Cherry. While the Allegro was in development only the Simca 1100 and the Fiat 127 were really representing the hatchback class and they were superminis, not 'C-segment' cars like the Allegro. The Renault 5, another supermini, would launch right before the Allegro. Britain wouldn't get anything that could be classed as a supermini until the Chevette in 1975 and a proper FWD/hatch small family car wouldn't arrive until the Maestro. It was the new water-cooled VW range (Golf and Polo) which really cemented the hatchback as the bodystyle of choice for the modern small family car in the 1970s. Development of those didn't begin in earnest until 1972 (when the Allegro was gearing up for production) - as late as 1969 VW were still looking at rear-engined proposals for the 'Golf' - and wouldn't be launched until 1974/75. And both the VWs retained saloon body options for those that wanted them. So the Allegro really just happened to be the last small family car that wasn't a hatchback, rather than it being a case of BL lacking foresight - this is the same company that not only produced the Maxi but also the Rover SD1 which was a very early example of the 'executive hatch' and, under BMC, had produced both the Austin A40 Countryman and the MGB GT, both of which were conceptual hatchbacks.

Well argued and exemplified. Excellent post.

[BigMon]

Norfolkandchance said:

Well argued and exemplified. Excellent post.

+1

It really does make you feel sad for what could (and should) have been.

[2xChevrons]

BigMon said:

+1

It really does make you feel sad for what could (and should) have been.

The key problem BL made when it came to its 1970s range was an over-eagerness to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Of course this isn't uncommon in buisness when there's a takeover or a change of managment - the incoming regime wants to make its mark and implement a vision. This is especially the case when, as with BL, a healthy firm (Leyland) is effectively coming to the rescue of an ailing one (BMC). As far as the Leyland men (and many in the government and DT&I) were concerned, BMC had got itself into a mess of its own making and they were the ones to sort it out, which meant they were going to grab BMC (or the Austin-Morris Division, as it then was) by the scruff of the neck and show them how it's done.

Except that Leyland wasn't really as brilliant as it believed itself to be, with far more engineering and development black marks to its account than BMC (whose problems were mostly of a management and accounting nature) and certainly didn't have the financial clout to support BMC (which was hemorrhaging cash) and finance the development of new models. There was also an air of panic at BL because, as far as the new (Leyland-sourced) management were concerned, BMC had committed major neglect by not updating its mass-market RWD models for over a decade and it needed new products NOW. So the development and testing times were rushed, finances were limited and no attempt was made to properly consolidate or amalgamate any parts of the new business.

The result was a string of cars from Austin-Morris that were no better, or worse, than those that they replaced- Mk3 Mini/Clubman, Marina, Allegro, Princess.

It is often claimed that the Marina was 'just a reskinned Minor'. The thing is it would almost certainly have been a better car if it had been. There was little wrong with the way a late Minor 1000 drove when compared to a Ford Escort 1100 or a Viva HC - in some way the Morris was superior. If they had plonked the Marina body onto the Minor floopan, drivetrain and running gear they could have got the simple, inexpensive RWD family car they felt they needed. Fit the front disc brakes, the 1275cc engine and the 1789cc B-Series, fit telescopic dampers to the front suspension but retain the lovely Minor steering and the BMC four-speed gearbox (much stronger and smoother than the awful Triumph 3-rail). BL spent £21 million on the Marina - if they'd invested all of that in new tooling for the carried-over BMC/Minor parts instead of trying to reinvent the wheel the end result would probably have faired much better. They could then have invested the savings into accelerating the O-Series project to give the Marina a modern engine long before it actually received it. As it was they spent a small fortune taking a 'parts bin' car but then slightly changing everything they used: It cost as much to produce the 'updated' version of the Morris Minor's front suspension/steering system than it would have done to design and build a brand new MacPherson strut arrangement...and the new version provided massively inferior handling/roadholding than the proven 20-year old system it replaced. The Minor platform had been given B-Series power way back in the 1950s (Morris Major/Austin Lancer/Wolseley 1500/Riley 1.5) and they handle just as well as a standard Minor. Yet the B-Series Marina is a nose-heavy pig.

Same with the Allegro. The initial proposal was to reskin the 1100/1300. There was very little wrong with that car other than it needed a major stylistic refresh and some work on the suspension and mechanical refinement. It was still incredibly spacious for it size, offering handling and roadholding far better than the average for a small car in the early 1970s and was a trusted and known quantity. 1100/1300 sales peaked as late as 1972, just two years before it was replaced and it was the UK's best selling car for 10 of the 12 years it was on sale. BL spent around £15 million developing the Allegro (less than it spent on the cheap-and-cheerful Marina!) - for that they could have restyled the 1100/1300, fitted it with Hydragas to improve the ride, carried out the same improvements to mechanical refinement that eventually surfaced on the Metro 10 years later and still had money left over to renew key bits of the tooling. Perhaps use some of the money to accelerate the K-Series engine programme (not the 1980s one, the original one which was a partner to the O-Series with the aim of producing an OHC update of the A-Series) which could have benefitted both the 'Allegro' and the 'Marina'.

The only car which BL actually did this with was the Princess, out of financial neccessity and recognition that the old 'Landcrab' had very little wrong with it as a car beyond its challenging looks. The Princess is mechanically and structurally identical to a Landcrab, save for Hydragas suspension, but has Harris Mann's futuristis wedge-shaped body on top of the same old subframes. And the Princess was a very good car - not quite as immediately desirable or aspirational as a Cortina/Granada, but spacious, incredibly comfortable, refined and well-equipped. Its problems were in the confused marketing (Austin, Morris and Wolseley versions then a complete relaunch under a brand new badge) and horrific quality/production problems in the factory where it was built.

It's also key to look at why BMC had got itself into the mess that Leyland felt it needed saving from, and why had no new RWD saloon cars been introduced since 1960? Since its creation BMC had operated on a high-volume/low-margin business model ("stack 'em high and sell 'em cheap") and this became even more crucial one Issigonis' complicated and advanced but brilliant FWD cars came into being. The Mini was priced lower than the utterly conventional Ford Anglia, so the only way that BMC could make a profit of it was to sell it in huge volumes. The same went for all the FWD products, which cost significantly more to build and maintain but were priced at the same as their conventional rivals. And initially worked - the Mini and the 1100/1300 were the best-selling cars in British history and also drummed up crucial export sales. The 1100/1300 especially was truely a global success to an extent that often isn't appreciated today.

But to generate enough profit to be sustainable (and to develop new FWD models when the time came) BMC needed to sell more cars. It needed to make and sell one-million cars each year and in the early 1960s it only had the capacity to produce about 700,000. BMC invested millions in increasing its production capacity towards that 1m goal and the way it was going to sell those extra cars was in Europe - a market largely untapped by British makers but much more open to the advanced and forward-looking Issigonis products than the conservative British market, where around two thirds of buyers simply refused to consider a BMC FWD car. And in those times of trade barriers and import quotas, to sell those 300,000 cars a year BMC needed to be inside the Common Market. It had its plants in Italy and Belgium (plus Spain, which was also outside the EEC but on the right side of the Channel) but they weren't enough. BMC's future was predicated on the UK joining the EEC in 1963, something which BMC executives were assured was a 'done deal' by the Macmillan government. But De Gaulle's veto of the UK's application not only shocked Macmillan but dealt a killer blow to BMC, which found itself over-extended with no viable way of recouping the millions it had invested in production capacity. With its future profitability dealt a death blow, BMC also found itself unable to properly fund replacements for its core models.

This explains BMC's aging model range in the late 1960s, especially the RWD models - the Minor (1948) the A40 (1958 on a 1951 platform), the Farina-B (1959) and the Farina-C (1960). With its focus and future on FWD models, BMC had deliberately put the RWD cars on the back burner. The idea was that a good chunk of BMC's existing customer base would swap to the FWD models, plus a sizable chunk of new customers from other manufacturers. Those that did not want a FWD car would be happy with the proven, conservative RWD models which would remain in production without major change during the 1960s. It was expected that demand for those models would dwindle as buyers either 'caved in' and went to the (clearly superior) FWD models or went to the likes of the Ford. RWD production could be drawn down, adding crucial capacity to build those one-million-plus FWD models that BMC confidently expected to be producing by 1968. In the meantime those tried-and-trusted RWD models with their 1950s engineering would produce useful profits for BMC due to their low production, warranty and development costs. You can see this thinking in the development of the Minor during the 1960s, which remained essentially unchanged but gained small improvements (1098cc engine, better heater, revised instruments, modern steering wheel, modern light units) which were all actually developed for the FWD 1100/1300 model and fitted to the Minor to provide commonality of parts as Minor production was slowly wound down.

The flaw with this plan, aside from the UK's entry to the EEC being delayed by a decade, was that BMC's accounting methods were so slapdash that the 'thin margins' for the FWD stuff were usually direct losses, and any margin that was there was wiped out by warranty claims due to poor build quality. And the RWD stuff wasn't anything like as profitable as BMC thought (and hoped) - the Austin Westminster was sold at a loss throughout the 1960s, as was every Morris Minor Traveller and every Mk2 Austin A40.

[Balmoral]

Wow!

Many thanks for that.

[iSore]

BMC's main problem was that it concentrated on cars where there was little profit (Mini, 1100), clogged up potential Mini and 1100 production lines with cars that were not selling enough to justify the unique platforms (Minor, A40) and royally cocked up the cars that should have made the real money - the 1800 was outsold about 3-1 by the inferior A60. They also neglected the two marques that should have been nurtured and improved, Riley and MG. The last proper Riley - the Pathfinder - was so close to being a proper Jaguar competitor and the Z Magnette won a lot of friends, only to be replaced by that terrible Farina version. Two profitable marketing opportunities flushed down the bog.

BMC/BL never learned. The 1800 was too big to compete at Cortina level but too slow to mix it with the V6 Granada. They replaced with a car that had exactly the same problem.

Interesting what you say about the Mini. The best British version was the Mark II where they retained the fabulous Hydrolastic and the sliding windows - you don't know how good they were in a Mini until you try. The Mark 3 with rubber cones and those awful wind up windows that created an appalling draught was nowhere near as good.

I had a 1974 Golf 1100N 20 years ago, a two owner car I rescued. A very crisp thing, very nice handling and it just felt like a proper design. The revvy little OHC engine, slick 4 speed box and a ride that was far better than coil springs should be. You can see why they sold so many. The Alfasud was the same. It's so far ahead of the Allegro in all driving dynamics and mechanical durability that it doesn't bear comparison. Try driving a 1300 Allegro at 90 mph for a couple of hours on end and see what happens. Well, AA Relay is a prerequisite.