Land Rover concept designs from the 60s and 70s
Discussion
I have owned a copy of James Taylors 'The Land Rover' 1948-88 for many years. The book contains reproductions of a couple of interesting concepts which might have taken the company down a very different route to the evolution not revolution product design it was eventually forced to take with it's utility vehicles. Unfortunately the first coincided with a recession and the takeover by British Leyland in 1966 which led to a business model which stifled long term product development in favour of short term profits, which were then ploughed into propping up less successful arms of the business empire.
It is interesting to note that the new Defender is the first clean sheet design in this model's history, whereas these date back to over 50 years ago.
The 111 or One Double One concept of 1966, which was envisaged as having a choice of the Rover 3 litre straight six or a 2.2 V6 adapted from the 3.5 litre V8 that Land Rover had recently acquired from America.
The Mark 4 or SD5 concept of 1973, also intended to use the V8 engine, which made it as far as a running prototype.
It is interesting to note that the new Defender is the first clean sheet design in this model's history, whereas these date back to over 50 years ago.
The 111 or One Double One concept of 1966, which was envisaged as having a choice of the Rover 3 litre straight six or a 2.2 V6 adapted from the 3.5 litre V8 that Land Rover had recently acquired from America.
The Mark 4 or SD5 concept of 1973, also intended to use the V8 engine, which made it as far as a running prototype.
I have the same book - an interested read given that it was written at a pivotal time in Land Rover's history just before it went 'modern and mainstream' with the Discovery.
SD5 never made it to the running prototype stage. All that existed was a full-size 'mule' on a chassis with dead axles and a V8 in the engine bay to test the packaging. This was fitted with various types of wood-frame bodywork to try out bodystyles, seating configurations and interior mock-ups. It couldn't drive under its own power.
Project 111 is an interesting thing to consider, since it was essentially the Defender a decade or so ahead of schedule. Rover's product plan for the 1970s pre-Leyland takeover is alluring - they were planning a reskinned and updated P6 (far more comprehensive than the Series II P6 that we actually got), the P8 (basically a big P6 to replace the P5, with styling to match the facelifted P6), the P9 (mid-engined three-seater sports car that looked a bit like a Lancia Stratos), the Range Rover and the 'Series IV' P111 Land Rover.
The ideas were all good, but independent Rover simply didn't have the budget or the production capacity to design and build all these cars. That was always their problem and is an often-overlooked issue when people look at the history of the Land Rover - even if it had been the best design in the world built to Merc G-Wagen levels of quality and reliability, Rover only had one factory which was also engaged in building cars. If the P6/2, the P8 and the P9 were as successful as they were predicted to be, Solihull would have quickly run out of space to build 4x4s (Range Rover production was always curtailed by the lack of capacity, hence why there were waiting lists until everything was rationalised in the early 80s), even if you assume that they would have rebuilt/expanded Solihull in a similar way as they did with the North Works to build the SD1.
A lot of the reasons for the Land Rover's international decline had little to do with the merits or failings of the product. They were to do with global politics and economics, and the sheer fact that Rover was a minnow of a company when up against Toyota and Nissan, each of which could produce four or five times the number of 4x4s that Rover/BL could. That was one of the things that got Toyota a toehold in the Australian market - a market where LR had 90-plus percent of 4x4 sales. But there was often a waiting time of several months between ordering a Landy and getting one because of the restricted supply of CKD kits from the UK to the local assembly operation. Toyota offered buyers the chance to walk into a dealership and drive out in a Land Cruiser there and then. That was enough to get a few crucial early sales and then the superiority of the Cruiser became obvious and word of mouth did the rest.
I suspect that Rover would have had identical problems in an alternative history where they remained independent and/or implemented Project 111. As a smaller company with more limited financial reserves and (presumably) without access to government coffers they may have been even more ruthless and just decided to quit the utility 4x4 market altogether in the late 1970s to focus on their cars, which were always seen as the company's 'real' buisiness even if the Land Rover was the breadwinner. Although with the P111 in production they would have been better-placed to perhaps use it as the basis for a 'Discovery' type vehicle and essentially do what BL/Rover did in the 80s - push the Range Rover upmarket and introduce a mid-range 'comfortable workhorse' 4x4 to fill the original RR gap in a smaller, cheaper package. But they'd be doing it 5-10 years ahead of reality.
There were other Land Rover concept/prototypes in the 1960s - they built a Series II 88-inch with the independent front suspension from a Rover P4 because they were worried about the Austin Gipsy and wanted to see if they could build a 4x4 with similar ride/comfort levels. Of course the Gipsy proved flawed so that never went anywhere. There were also the 129-inch prototypes which were built in realisation that even back then the LR was too small and flimsy in comparison to things like the Dodge Power Wagon and the Chevrolet 3800 with one-ton payload ratings, big, lazy V8 engines and axles that didn't break every time you went over a mid-sized rock with a half-full loadbed. So the 129"s were on an American scale and most of the prototypes used the 3.0-litre IOE six-cylinder engine from the P5. One had an experimental 2.5-litre turbo-intercooled diesel which was basically the 200Tdi 25 years ahead of time. But the age-old problem returned in that Rover calculated that it couldn't build 129"s in great enough volumes for the prices to be competitive with the established American products. So they did the Forward Control Series IIA and IIB models and the conventional 'One Ton' Land Rovers instead.
SD5 never made it to the running prototype stage. All that existed was a full-size 'mule' on a chassis with dead axles and a V8 in the engine bay to test the packaging. This was fitted with various types of wood-frame bodywork to try out bodystyles, seating configurations and interior mock-ups. It couldn't drive under its own power.
Project 111 is an interesting thing to consider, since it was essentially the Defender a decade or so ahead of schedule. Rover's product plan for the 1970s pre-Leyland takeover is alluring - they were planning a reskinned and updated P6 (far more comprehensive than the Series II P6 that we actually got), the P8 (basically a big P6 to replace the P5, with styling to match the facelifted P6), the P9 (mid-engined three-seater sports car that looked a bit like a Lancia Stratos), the Range Rover and the 'Series IV' P111 Land Rover.
The ideas were all good, but independent Rover simply didn't have the budget or the production capacity to design and build all these cars. That was always their problem and is an often-overlooked issue when people look at the history of the Land Rover - even if it had been the best design in the world built to Merc G-Wagen levels of quality and reliability, Rover only had one factory which was also engaged in building cars. If the P6/2, the P8 and the P9 were as successful as they were predicted to be, Solihull would have quickly run out of space to build 4x4s (Range Rover production was always curtailed by the lack of capacity, hence why there were waiting lists until everything was rationalised in the early 80s), even if you assume that they would have rebuilt/expanded Solihull in a similar way as they did with the North Works to build the SD1.
A lot of the reasons for the Land Rover's international decline had little to do with the merits or failings of the product. They were to do with global politics and economics, and the sheer fact that Rover was a minnow of a company when up against Toyota and Nissan, each of which could produce four or five times the number of 4x4s that Rover/BL could. That was one of the things that got Toyota a toehold in the Australian market - a market where LR had 90-plus percent of 4x4 sales. But there was often a waiting time of several months between ordering a Landy and getting one because of the restricted supply of CKD kits from the UK to the local assembly operation. Toyota offered buyers the chance to walk into a dealership and drive out in a Land Cruiser there and then. That was enough to get a few crucial early sales and then the superiority of the Cruiser became obvious and word of mouth did the rest.
I suspect that Rover would have had identical problems in an alternative history where they remained independent and/or implemented Project 111. As a smaller company with more limited financial reserves and (presumably) without access to government coffers they may have been even more ruthless and just decided to quit the utility 4x4 market altogether in the late 1970s to focus on their cars, which were always seen as the company's 'real' buisiness even if the Land Rover was the breadwinner. Although with the P111 in production they would have been better-placed to perhaps use it as the basis for a 'Discovery' type vehicle and essentially do what BL/Rover did in the 80s - push the Range Rover upmarket and introduce a mid-range 'comfortable workhorse' 4x4 to fill the original RR gap in a smaller, cheaper package. But they'd be doing it 5-10 years ahead of reality.
There were other Land Rover concept/prototypes in the 1960s - they built a Series II 88-inch with the independent front suspension from a Rover P4 because they were worried about the Austin Gipsy and wanted to see if they could build a 4x4 with similar ride/comfort levels. Of course the Gipsy proved flawed so that never went anywhere. There were also the 129-inch prototypes which were built in realisation that even back then the LR was too small and flimsy in comparison to things like the Dodge Power Wagon and the Chevrolet 3800 with one-ton payload ratings, big, lazy V8 engines and axles that didn't break every time you went over a mid-sized rock with a half-full loadbed. So the 129"s were on an American scale and most of the prototypes used the 3.0-litre IOE six-cylinder engine from the P5. One had an experimental 2.5-litre turbo-intercooled diesel which was basically the 200Tdi 25 years ahead of time. But the age-old problem returned in that Rover calculated that it couldn't build 129"s in great enough volumes for the prices to be competitive with the established American products. So they did the Forward Control Series IIA and IIB models and the conventional 'One Ton' Land Rovers instead.
neutral 3 said:
The leaf spring Austin Gispy series 1V ( 1962 -68 ) was a far superior vehicle in most respects to the Series 11 Land Rover. But it couldnt be produced in sufficient numbers.
I don't know much about these, although I wish I did because they look really cool and rather more interesting to my jaded eyes than yet another Land Rover. I thought the reason it disappeared was that British Leyland didn't see the need to produce two off road vehicles in competition with each other and backed the older more established brand.
warch said:
I don't know much about these, although I wish I did because they look really cool and rather more interesting to my jaded eyes than yet another Land Rover.
I thought the reason it disappeared was that British Leyland didn't see the need to produce two off road vehicles in competition with each other and backed the older more established brand.
The Gipsy was killed off mostly because it had basically sunk without trace on the market - they only sold an average of 2000 per year, at a time when the Landy was selling over 20 times that. With both products under the same ownership canning the Gipsy was one of the sensible rationalisations that BL made in its early days. I thought the reason it disappeared was that British Leyland didn't see the need to produce two off road vehicles in competition with each other and backed the older more established brand.
But it's a shame because the Gipsy had a lot of improvements over the LR; it was slightly bigger in each dimension, had a much more sensibly and usefully sized/shaped loaded and tailgate, had a welded pressed steel body tub so it didn't rattle, flex and leak like a Landy, had a gearbox and axles from BMC's light commercial range rather than a 1930s mid-size saloon and was generally a much more polished and less agricultural-feeling machine. The Flexitor suspension on the early examples was also a bold and far-sighted attempt to build a utility vehicle that was also comfortable.
Unfortunately that suspension system robbed the Gipsy in the ground clearance/wheel travel department. That would probably have been fine as plenty of buyers never used the LR's capabilities to the full but would have loved a more car-like ride. But the Flexitor units weren't durable enough, were difficult and expensive to repair due to their unique design (unlike leaf springs that can be welded up in a campfire if needed) and the Gipsy had a tendency to smash open its diff casings on rocks.
The all-steel body was badly prone to rust and didn't weather dents and scrapes like the LR's Birmabright panels. Like the Landy the Gipsy was also let down by a lack to truly powerful engines. The later leaf-sprung ones were/are much tougher but by then the damage had been done. The Gipsy was always something of a sideshow for BMC and once it stumbled in the marketplace they never bothered really dedicated the resources to building and selling it in the numbers it deserved.
Ideally what BL would have done is force Rover to adopt the good parts of the Gipsy (its dimensions, its body design and its transmissions) and combine them the good bits of the LR (aluminium construction, tougher suspension, slightly better engines and a much more effective sales network) to produce a much-improved 'Series III' rather than the half-hearted facelift we actually got. But that sort of cross-breeding wasn't how BL wanted to run things in 1968, it was all about self-contained divisions under a single top-level management...stuffed with ex-Leyland execs...
Gassing Station | Classic Cars and Yesterday's Heroes | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff