Morris Marina - was it really that bad?
Discussion
cardigankid said:
They were different days in the 60's, and different aspirations and different standards applied. The British car industry had been on top, and the concern was about the threat of weaselly foreign manufacturers importing their cars in increasing numbers and putting the British manufacturers out of business. There was something a little traitorous about buying a foreign car. There was a perception that the British industry, like the rest of the country, was going to fight its way back to world supremacy. We were to be treated to a series of embarrassing disappointments. British cars, particularly Rootes, were seen in the mid 60's as quality products. The American car industry produced cars that were of a scale which made them irrelevant in the UK, though you saw a few around. BL didn't exist as such and those models were still known by the constituent brands, Austin, Morris, Triumph, Rover, Jaguar, Land Rover. Ford, tainted by association with its American parent, was seen as 'a big pennyworth', and generally more cheaply constructed. Italian and French cars were seen as best used in Italy or France, and little more than eccentric rustbuckets when used in the UK.
finlo said:
The fast back Hunter was the Rapier.
Everyone's a winner, because there were two versions of the fastback Arrow/Hunter - the basic single-carb Alpine and the twin-carb Rapier (and the tuned Holbay H120 version as well, I suppose)cardigankid has very nicely summed up what most people wanted and expected of an ordinary family car from a mass-market name like Morris at the time the Marina was designed. It really was a different world. It's also good to see it mentioned that Rootes used to have a real reputation for above-average quality and design - which they absolutely did before a combination of the Imp, the Linwood plant, the BLSP strike and the Chrysler takeover torpedoed their business model and financial foundations.
In some ways the Marina's poor reputation is (only partially) down to the fact that it was designed for a world that very swiftly ceased to exist. Had it been launched at the same time as the Mk2 Cortina in 1966 it would have been a solid contender. But by 1975 it was already passe.
BL knew this - sort of. Hence the two-pronged attack with the conventional, boring, RWD Marina and the high-tech, advanced, avant-guard FWD Allegro. Except they managed to balls up both of them and the likes of the Honda Civic, Datsun Cherry, Renault 5 and VW Golf showed that the motoring world had stopped being an either/or choice between cutting-edge FWD and reassuring RWD. By the end of the decade even GM and Ford had embraced what had been pioneering ten years before. The Marina was in many ways the last of the old order, and it wasn't even a fine example of that dying breed.
2xChevrons said:
Being born a good few years after the Marina/Ital left the showrooms..
Hang on, stop right there. You never drove any of these in period, or even for decades afterwards. So let's put your textbook analysis and drives of fastidiously preserved enthusiast examples aside and instead listen to anecdotal tales of those who suffered them back in the day.hiccy18 said:
finlo said:
The fast back Hunter was the Rapier.
Sunbeam Alpine GT was the US name for the Rapier. I also recall there was a French Chrysler on the same shell with a 2.2l engine?I worked as a lad at Peter Cannon’s Chrysler showroom in Coatbridge in that era and I remember having quite a hair raising trip in a Holbay H120 model which was a bit scruffy. It was driven by one of the salesmen, George Douglas I think. I mentioned I thought the steering seemed a bit slack.
“Yes”, he says,”the track rod ends are a bit worn.” And seeing my face turn pale as we opposite locked round these country roads, added,”but it’s not in a dangerous condition.”
Edited by cardigankid on Thursday 14th November 23:12
austinsmirk said:
my memory of that street is every single BL car, parked on those drives had oil pans catching the drips. Or ever other driveway had a set of home ramps out and a car being endlessly fixed.
.
I can't remember everybody who owned a BL car having an oil pan underneath or every BL owner having a set of ramps, oil pans under British motorbikes might of been more common..
The majority of cheap cars at the time had flaws irrespective of which country they were built in, Pierberg carbs on VWs, cheap thin metal on Jap cars, and lets not even mention Italian cars of the time, I had the misfortune of owning a Citroen Pallas and would take one of the Morris Marinas I owned over that.
Sticks. said:
Back then, people who'd bought Morris Minors and Oxfords later bought Marinas. The same 'tried and tested' or dated, uncomplicated machanicals appealed. You could do a basic service simply, set up the carbs, points, timing without expensive equipment and EU cars often had much more expensive parts and even worse reputation for rust.
As a skint youngster my dad sold me his 78 Mk2 1.3 saloon for so much a month rather than let me waste money on one banger after another. I had a few years' cheap motoring from the Marina sold it for more than I'd paid (£1100).
A friend had a Mk2 Escort of the same age. He loved it but it was tinny by comparison, albeit more modern. All the paint faded though. And a friend was given her parents' Chrysler Alpine, not because they were over generous, but at 6 years old the trade in value was nil.
I bought a 1.7 at auction. Didn't make anything on it but traded it in for the same money after 6 months' motoring only costing me petrol.
I agree SticksAs a skint youngster my dad sold me his 78 Mk2 1.3 saloon for so much a month rather than let me waste money on one banger after another. I had a few years' cheap motoring from the Marina sold it for more than I'd paid (£1100).
A friend had a Mk2 Escort of the same age. He loved it but it was tinny by comparison, albeit more modern. All the paint faded though. And a friend was given her parents' Chrysler Alpine, not because they were over generous, but at 6 years old the trade in value was nil.
I bought a 1.7 at auction. Didn't make anything on it but traded it in for the same money after 6 months' motoring only costing me petrol.
I forgot to mention my 1976 MK2 Escort 1600 Sport that at four years old was rotten on both sides on top of the front suspension, the bottom of the doors were rotten where water had got in.
My favourite car book is 'A-Z British Cars 1945-1980' by Graham Robson.
Apart from a family connection, I love the way he is fairly partial about the cars. This is summary of the Marina:
Apart from a family connection, I love the way he is fairly partial about the cars. This is summary of the Marina:
Book said:
...it is chiefly remembered for its poor handling, a complete lack of character and doubtful build quality. It's hard to see these cars as candidates for restoration.'
cardigankid said:
You are right of course, I remembered it but I couldn’t remember the name, except that it wasn’t Tiger. There was the slightly cheaper model with the same body shell called the Alpine. Of course the Rapier had the more powerful engine, exactly as Two Chevrons says.
My cousin had a road-rally prepared Hunter GLS in the late 70's, and then after writing it off bought a one lady owner immaculate Alpine, and transferred all the GLS running gear and rally bits into the Alpine effectively creating an Alpine H120 
That didn't last long either
I had two, a 1.3 Coupé from new; rubbish drum brakes, but comfortable and far superior to the 1300 Escort (also from new), which preceded it. During a thankfully short, impoverished spell some years later, a 1.8 TC saloon for which I paid £80, not a bad car at all, and I made a profit on it.
As has been suggested, the general quality of cars wasn't great, but Austin Morris wasn't doing a great deal to move things forward, whereas the German manufacturers were. All the Brits did was to rebody existing technology, like the Land Crab with the Austin Princess, or the TR with the TR7, both supposed to look futuristic over very old fashioned mechanicals. In addition, build quality was poor across the board. New car buyers generally sold their cars after two years before things started to go wrong, as they did. After five or six years a car would be a clapped out rustbucket and ready for scrapping.
Now these immaculate low mileage examples seem to creep out of obscure barns, which strikes me as suspicious, but most of these old things consigned themselves to the scrapheap very very quickly.
Anyway, I don't see much value in them, or the Morris Minors, and I think they would be best forgotten.
Now these immaculate low mileage examples seem to creep out of obscure barns, which strikes me as suspicious, but most of these old things consigned themselves to the scrapheap very very quickly.
Anyway, I don't see much value in them, or the Morris Minors, and I think they would be best forgotten.
Taking of barn finds, here is one that turned up some years back. it is now on the road and in good condition. I have no idea of the cost to restore it, but doubt it was really worth the cost. Certainly, in the case of "peoples" cars, the cost cannot be really justified. One marque that has virtually disappeared is Humber, yet they were the upper middle class car of the day. I would imagine impossible to restore today due to lack of parts.
lowdrag said:
Taking of barn finds, here is one that turned up some years back. it is now on the road and in good condition. I have no idea of the cost to restore it, but doubt it was really worth the cost. Certainly, in the case of "peoples" cars, the cost cannot be really justified. One marque that has virtually disappeared is Humber, yet they were the upper middle class car of the day. I would imagine impossible to restore today due to lack of parts.
Ah, the famous Marina E-Type..cardigankid said:
As has been suggested, the general quality of cars wasn't great, but Austin Morris wasn't doing a great deal to move things forward, whereas the German manufacturers were. All the Brits did was to rebody existing technology, like the Land Crab with the Austin Princess, or the TR with the TR7, both supposed to look futuristic over very old fashioned mechanicals. In addition, build quality was poor across the board. New car buyers generally sold their cars after two years before things started to go wrong, as they did. After five or six years a car would be a clapped out rustbucket and ready for scrapping.
Now these immaculate low mileage examples seem to creep out of obscure barns, which strikes me as suspicious, but most of these old things consigned themselves to the scrapheap very very quickly.
Anyway, I don't see much value in them, or the Morris Minors, and I think they would be best forgotten.
Not quite. The TR6 was a facelifted TR5 which was a re engine TR4 what was (IIRC) essentially a rebodied TR3. But the TR7 was a new car, albeit not leading edge. Now these immaculate low mileage examples seem to creep out of obscure barns, which strikes me as suspicious, but most of these old things consigned themselves to the scrapheap very very quickly.
Anyway, I don't see much value in them, or the Morris Minors, and I think they would be best forgotten.
The issues with it were 1) Pseudo mid engine styling, 2) Initially typical BL levels of quality control and 3) Marketed as the latest in the TR sports car line, but wasn't that sporty and wasn't originally available as a convertible.
Fundamentally not a bad car at all. Could have been the Mercedes SLK of it's time.
Dr Jekyll said:
Not quite. The TR6 was a facelifted TR5 which was a re engine TR4 what was (IIRC) essentially a rebodied TR3. But the TR7 was a new car, albeit not leading edge.
The issues with it were 1) Pseudo mid engine styling, 2) Initially typical BL levels of quality control and 3) Marketed as the latest in the TR sports car line, but wasn't that sporty and wasn't originally available as a convertible.
Fundamentally not a bad car at all. Could have been the Mercedes SLK of it's time.
Off topic I know but... Funny how the styling of the TR7, which was derided at the time ...... but now looks almost 'fashionable' - particularly the swage line down the sides (my God, they've put one on this side as well).The issues with it were 1) Pseudo mid engine styling, 2) Initially typical BL levels of quality control and 3) Marketed as the latest in the TR sports car line, but wasn't that sporty and wasn't originally available as a convertible.
Fundamentally not a bad car at all. Could have been the Mercedes SLK of it's time.
Frankly, in the flesh, a 1976 TR7 has aged better than a 1976 Porsche 924!
They almost got the car right but spoiled it at the end by lack of a convertible 'performance' version from the off.
The TR7 was a huge leap forward over the TR6 (safety/comfort etc) let down by (comparatively) gutless performance - presumably down to penny pinching by BL.
A good concept, wasted in the execution. Probably a suitable epitaph for the whole of BL.
alfaspecial said:
The TR7 was a huge leap forward over the TR6 (safety/comfort etc) let down by (comparatively) gutless performance - presumably down to penny pinching by BL.
Its not as if they hadn't looked at putting the 16v Spint engine from the beginning, and the works rally cars soon got the Rover V8, so quite why they dithered so long before building the factory TR8's, by which time it was too late, is bizarre..........other than just typical "That'll do" BL mentality of the day.Dr Jekyll said:
Not quite. The TR6 was a facelifted TR5 which was a re engine TR4 what was (IIRC) essentially a rebodied TR3. But the TR7 was a new car, albeit not leading edge.
The issues with it were 1) Pseudo mid engine styling, 2) Initially typical BL levels of quality control and 3) Marketed as the latest in the TR sports car line, but wasn't that sporty and wasn't originally available as a convertible.
Fundamentally not a bad car at all. Could have been the Mercedes SLK of it's time.
On the 'wasn't that sporty' line - correct, but the TR7 only ever existed in what was supposed to be its base model. It was supposed to be a brand new BL sports car platform that would replace all the existing Triumph and MG models. The TR version was supposed to have the 2.0-litre slant-four (the one we actually got), a 2.0-litre 16V Sprint (built only in very small pre-production batches for rally homologation purposes) and a 3.5-litre V8 version (which emerged as the TR8 with 2200-odd built after numerous delays to production and nearly all to North America). A convertible version was always going to be there, but was going to be launched as an MG (with slightly different styling and an O-Series engine). Once the MG version had settled down the convertible option would be offered on the TR7 and a breadvan/shooting break coupe body would be introduced on the MG to replace the 'B GT.The issues with it were 1) Pseudo mid engine styling, 2) Initially typical BL levels of quality control and 3) Marketed as the latest in the TR sports car line, but wasn't that sporty and wasn't originally available as a convertible.
Fundamentally not a bad car at all. Could have been the Mercedes SLK of it's time.
It's not that BL thought that a four-pot fixed-head coupe with 105bhp and a 0-60mph time of 12 seconds was the be all and end all of a TR sports car - it's that all the other (better...) variants were canned when Michael Edwardes made good on his threat to close the Speke plant. That meant that the good-to-go TR7 Sprint and the 2+2 V8 liftback coupe intended to replace the Stag - the Lynx - which were all gearing up for production had to be sacrificed as part of the greater plan to wrest control of BL from the unions and secure the future of the core mass-market car division.
So TR7 2.0 production was shifted to wherever there was room - first Canley and then Solihull - which did nothing to improve the availability of the TR7 in markets which were suffering long waiting lists and unsatisfied demand for what was a strong-selling car. All the other variants were canned, except a belated introduction of the convertible to the TR7 range. Then Edwardes realised that the BL sports car line-up (still making the Spitfire, Midget and MGB alongside the relatively modern TR7) would need far more investment in new models and facilities than it could conceivably ever return in profit while the high-volume car division was still struggling for its very existence so in 1980 he shut down the entire sports car side of the business.
2xChevrons said:
... than it could conceivably ever return in profit while the high-volume car division was still struggling for its very existence so in 1980 he shut down the entire sports car side of the business.
Had he not destroyed these 'halo' products I wonder if things might have been different for BL? The TR8 could have been a great rally car. Admittedly it would have had to go head-to-head with a new german rally car, itself being used as a halo product to hoik its brand up to the big league. Gassing Station | Classic Cars and Yesterday's Heroes | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff