Morris Marina - was it really that bad?

Morris Marina - was it really that bad?

Author
Discussion

Tyre Smoke

23,018 posts

262 months

Sunday 17th November 2019
quotequote all
aeropilot said:
This is the thing. The one and only redeeming feature of the TC that I can remember from my ownership is the old B-series lump was a lusty old hector........but as everything else in the drivetrain and chassis was so crap, it wasn't really a serious challenger.
I had my TC Coupe after my 2nd RS2000, and a Mex, (all 3 were standard) and the TC just wasn't in the same league - at all, by any measure.
It could have been.....but in usual BL fashion, they blew it.
Or did they?

There was always the Dolly Sprint.

s m

23,243 posts

204 months

Sunday 17th November 2019
quotequote all
Tyre Smoke said:
aeropilot said:
This is the thing. The one and only redeeming feature of the TC that I can remember from my ownership is the old B-series lump was a lusty old hector........but as everything else in the drivetrain and chassis was so crap, it wasn't really a serious challenger.
I had my TC Coupe after my 2nd RS2000, and a Mex, (all 3 were standard) and the TC just wasn't in the same league - at all, by any measure.
It could have been.....but in usual BL fashion, they blew it.
Or did they?

There was always the Dolly Sprint.
Dolly Sprint was a much better car than the Marina TC - very much keep up with a 2002tii or RS2000

The handling was pretty awful on Marina TC - they tended to really understeer

The engine sounded good though

Rozzers

1,742 posts

76 months

Sunday 17th November 2019
quotequote all
These were th oldest of the works vans when I started work, they oversteered, understeered, were really boomy and absolute crap.

The Maestro was miles ahead, only really having the understeer.......although the Marina’s heater was better, a lot better.

LuS1fer

41,140 posts

246 months

Sunday 17th November 2019
quotequote all
The TR7 suffered because of America where proposed rollover regs meant the TR had a roof added. Hence the later convertible. It also had to comply with bumper safety and height so the original design was compromised.

The fact is that it became a compromise. It could have been better, stylistically. It might have fared better if it had a targa, like the X1/9 and GM F-bodies.

hilly10

7,151 posts

229 months

Sunday 17th November 2019
quotequote all
Touring442 said:
finlo said:
aeropilot said:
smile

Brian Culcheth in a works TC on the '71 RAC




and....good old CCC, those were the days.

Non TC grill's, which one has the indicators the wrong way around;)
It's a 1.3...
I thought Marina wheels only ever left the ground on Four post lift

lowdrag

12,899 posts

214 months

Sunday 17th November 2019
quotequote all
I wonder if this might help to settle a few arguments and enable us to put away those rose-tinted specs? The 1.3 0-69 in over 17 seconds, and the 1.8TC in 12.1 seconds. At the end of the road test, you'll note the heated rear window was an option and cost £13. I didn't have one of course. And note the fuel consumption too.










mrmender

108 posts

193 months

Sunday 17th November 2019
quotequote all
Don't post on here often.
I had 3 Marinas! 1x 1.8TC 1XEx gas board van x 1.7 HL estate
However as has been said by many folks. They were not particular unreliable, gearboxes were weak, Every MOT would need ball joints.Ask any old school Unipart stores worker! They rusted no worse than any other bread and butter cars of the time
The driving experience was dreadful without exception. The more powerful the engine, the worse they were. By modern standards they were borderline dangerous


Gojira

899 posts

124 months

Sunday 17th November 2019
quotequote all
Thanks for the roadtest info, Lowdrag - the paragraph about the performance increase going from an A40 to the 1.3 Marina is positively scary eek

Dr Jekyll

23,820 posts

262 months

Sunday 17th November 2019
quotequote all
lowdrag said:
I wonder if this might help to settle a few arguments and enable us to put away those rose-tinted specs? The 1.3 0-69 in over 17 seconds, and the 1.8TC in 12.1 seconds. At the end of the road test, you'll note the heated rear window was an option and cost £13. I didn't have one of course. And note the fuel consumption too.
Fascinating read, to see what was normal in the early 70s as much as about the car itself.

Fitted with 'a wide range of options' but apparently they drew the line at fitting a radio.

s m

23,243 posts

204 months

Sunday 17th November 2019
quotequote all
lowdrag said:
I wonder if this might help to settle a few arguments and enable us to put away those rose-tinted specs? The 1.3 0-69 in over 17 seconds, and the 1.8TC in 12.1 seconds. At the end of the road test, you'll note the heated rear window was an option and cost £13. I didn't have one of course. And note the fuel consumption too.
Cheers lowdrag - saved me going up the loft to find the TC test

Sprint, 2002tii and RS2000 were all noticeably quicker to 60 - think 3/3.5 seconds which is a fair gap

LuS1fer

41,140 posts

246 months

Sunday 17th November 2019
quotequote all
Dr Jekyll said:
Fascinating read, to see what was normal in the early 70s as much as about the car itself.

Fitted with 'a wide range of options' but apparently they drew the line at fitting a radio.
Surprisingly, in this day and age, it became a big issue when Japanese cars like the Datsun 120Y and Corolla fitted push-button radios as standard and British cars were forced to follow suit.
That said, even prestige cars like BMWs never had radios as standard, it was all an options game.
Thinking back, even stuff we take for granted now, was often an option, like wing mirrors or passenger door mirrors. A digital clock? Only in Japanese cars.

Escort3500

11,919 posts

146 months

Sunday 17th November 2019
quotequote all
I went from the 1.8 TC saloon to my Mum’s cast-off Mk ll Escort 1300. It was only a bit slower than the Marina and build quality and corrosion issues were comparable. However, the Escort’s handling was a revelation after the Marina; it was predictable and induced confidence, and the gearbox was lovely.

lowdrag

12,899 posts

214 months

Sunday 17th November 2019
quotequote all
Could you imagine buying a 1.8 family saloon today with an average consumption of 22 mpg, or a 1.3 at 28 mpg. And on the latter, not on your Nelly. I never got anywhere near that.

LuS1fer

41,140 posts

246 months

Sunday 17th November 2019
quotequote all
lowdrag said:
Could you imagine buying a 1.8 family saloon today with an average consumption of 22 mpg, or a 1.3 at 28 mpg. And on the latter, not on your Nelly. I never got anywhere near that.
My first car was a 48hp Austin A40 farina which had to be thrashed to get any go out of it. It would do 34mpg on average and 37 if you took it slower - so about the same as my 215hp Fiesta ST. I remember having an Alfetta 2000 which averaged 22mpg, 26 on a good day.

No wonder fuel injection and computers took over.

Shezbo

600 posts

131 months

Sunday 17th November 2019
quotequote all
Etypephil said:
Quicker (in TC guise) than a BMW 2002tii, and 100 times more reliable.
Oh stop - my sides are killing me!

aeropilot

34,670 posts

228 months

Sunday 17th November 2019
quotequote all
lowdrag said:
Could you imagine buying a 1.8 family saloon today with an average consumption of 22 mpg
I only used to get 18-19mpg out of my MK3 Cortina 2.0GT laugh


s m

23,243 posts

204 months

Sunday 17th November 2019
quotequote all
Escort3500 said:
I went from the 1.8 TC saloon to my Mum’s cast-off Mk ll Escort 1300. It was only a bit slower than the Marina and build quality and corrosion issues were comparable. However, the Escort’s handling was a revelation after the Marina; it was predictable and induced confidence, and the gearbox was lovely.
Back in the early 80s when my friends and I had this sort of stuff and chopped and changed cars every couple months, one lad bought a Mk1 1300GT. Bit of a cheap buy back then when you could get Mexicos and Mk2 1600 Sports for not much cash. It seemed particularly quick at the time even for a 1300 and can remember him tagging along with the Marina TC pretty well one late evening run up the Berwyns.
You could buy the 1.3 Coupe Marinas pretty cheap back then and a couple of us had them as runarounds when doing engines up for our ‘best cars’ which we’re off the road for a month or two

Yertis

18,061 posts

267 months

Sunday 17th November 2019
quotequote all
Shezbo said:
Oh stop - my sides are killing me!
I must admit to having checked up on 2002Tii performance and it’s not as sparkly as I thought. I can easily imagine the injection system was tricky to maintain back then, compared to a couple of carbs.

lowdrag

12,899 posts

214 months

Monday 18th November 2019
quotequote all
Anyone who has ever driven a Tii will tell you how scary it is though. "Big Burly" John Burton, as he was known, the scrambles and trials rider, had one in Lutterworth and let me drive it one day in the 80s. I came back white-faced having nearly wrecked it on a damp road. The turbo was fitted with an invisible on/off switch and when it cut in - watch out!

Etypephil

724 posts

79 months

Monday 18th November 2019
quotequote all
Yertis said:
Shezbo said:
Oh stop - my sides are killing me!
I must admit to having checked up on 2002Tii performance and it’s not as sparkly as I thought. I can easily imagine the injection system was tricky to maintain back then, compared to a couple of carbs.
No, it wasn't very quick, like many cars of the period, its reputation is far better than the reality, and they were rarely on song.

lowdrag said:
Anyone who has ever driven a Tii will tell you how scary it is though. "Big Burly" John Burton, as he was known, the scrambles and trials rider, had one in Lutterworth and let me drive it one day in the 80s. I came back white-faced having nearly wrecked it on a damp road. The turbo was fitted with an invisible on/off switch and when it cut in - watch out!
The 2002 Tii and 2002 Tii Turbo are quite different cars in much the same way as an E36 328i is different from an M3 of the same period.