Tell me about British Leyland
Discussion
P5BNij said:
A rare exception Toni!
A mate a to work used to work at Browns Lane from '86 to '92 before he came on the railway, he was on the XJS line for a while and fitted the dashboards in, when boredom took hold he and his mates used to leave allsorts of rubbish in them, food, screwed up bongo mags etc.
I hate to think what he might have left in this TR7 thenA mate a to work used to work at Browns Lane from '86 to '92 before he came on the railway, he was on the XJS line for a while and fitted the dashboards in, when boredom took hold he and his mates used to leave allsorts of rubbish in them, food, screwed up bongo mags etc.
If he’d known where it was going. ...
Ali G said:
Had a series 3 XJ12 some years ago, pretty car and very nice but my God did it drink 
But, have to say I've always had a massive hankering for the coupe.... My two favourite ever Jags, the XJ Coupe in its various guises, and the early 3.8 E type coupe.... although I did like the '60's S type muchly too... 
The convertible E type never did it for me for some reason....swisstoni said:
P5BNij said:
A rare exception Toni!
A mate a to work used to work at Browns Lane from '86 to '92 before he came on the railway, he was on the XJS line for a while and fitted the dashboards in, when boredom took hold he and his mates used to leave allsorts of rubbish in them, food, screwed up bongo mags etc.
I hate to think what he might have left in this TR7 thenA mate a to work used to work at Browns Lane from '86 to '92 before he came on the railway, he was on the XJS line for a while and fitted the dashboards in, when boredom took hold he and his mates used to leave allsorts of rubbish in them, food, screwed up bongo mags etc.
If he’d known where it was going. ...
I can remember walking into the NEC in 1978 seeing a red TR7 mounted on a podium near the entrance, turning to my Dad and almost begging him to buy one, despite him not having passed his test. Sigh...! I soon lost interest in the Triumph though when my eyes alighted upon the Mk2 Granadas on the Ford stand, yet strangely forty years on it's the BL stuff I look at with a view to wanting to own now, a nice usable Stag, another P6 maybe or Series 1 XJ.
Edited by P5BNij on Wednesday 21st February 19:46
I first went to the NEC (sadly missed) in 1982. My abiding memory is having to queue up for 15 minutes to get onto the Jaguar stand and sit in a couple of XJ's. The Egan era Series 3 really was a pretty and well finished car. There was a BRG metallic 3.4 and I can still smell the Connolly leather. Jaguar really got this stuff right.
By comparison the BMW and Merc stands were empty. I still think the W126 S Class is a bland and ugly thing. Time has not been kind. Ditto the slab sided E23, a well made shed on wheels.
By comparison the BMW and Merc stands were empty. I still think the W126 S Class is a bland and ugly thing. Time has not been kind. Ditto the slab sided E23, a well made shed on wheels.
iSore said:
By comparison the BMW and Merc stands were empty. I still think the W126 S Class is a bland and ugly thing. Time has not been kind. Ditto the slab sided E23, a well made shed on wheels.
I currently own all of those cars (well actually 3 W126 V8's and a parts car, plus an 85 BMW 745i as well as the 75 XJ12C). Some of us like they way they look 
. The two German models are a delight to drive. Especially the turbo charged 7 series. From a drivers perspective, It's a really nice place to be and technically more advanced than either the Jaguar or the Mercedes.
The Mercedes W126 is beauty in simplicity. Very straight forward car to work on and made from the best materials.
I've cut many W126's into little pieces and have not experienced a better made car, other then maybe a Rolls Royce or Bentley. This is why you still see cars with 300k miles on the road today that look like they have 100k miles on them.
As a schoolkid I was asked where I wanted to go for work experience. "Something to do with engineering" I said. Easy enough back in the 1990s living in the Black country on the edge of Birmingham. I was sent with one other lad for a couple of weeks to Longbridge.
The place was vast. I recall them using the Rover 200s to get around the site. The CAD dept. seemed so futuristic. Full of computers (a big deal in the '90s) with schematics of all sorts of car components on the screens. Pretty awe inspiring to 15 year old.
One day, a guy who worked in the section I was overseeing in was taken away for a telling off. It seemed to last ages. When he came back I asked him what had happened.
He had (forgive my ignorance here of the process) set up the conveyor or robot that carried car doors around - up incorrectly and as it moved them, it dented 100 doors in a row.
I said. "that sounds bad".
He said, "Nah. It's nothing. Just them making a big song and dance over nothing as usual".
I was pretty shocked by the lax attitude even as a kid.
The place was vast. I recall them using the Rover 200s to get around the site. The CAD dept. seemed so futuristic. Full of computers (a big deal in the '90s) with schematics of all sorts of car components on the screens. Pretty awe inspiring to 15 year old.
One day, a guy who worked in the section I was overseeing in was taken away for a telling off. It seemed to last ages. When he came back I asked him what had happened.
He had (forgive my ignorance here of the process) set up the conveyor or robot that carried car doors around - up incorrectly and as it moved them, it dented 100 doors in a row.
I said. "that sounds bad".
He said, "Nah. It's nothing. Just them making a big song and dance over nothing as usual".
I was pretty shocked by the lax attitude even as a kid.
2354519y said:
As a schoolkid I was asked where I wanted to go for work experience. "Something to do with engineering" I said. Easy enough back in the 1990s living in the Black country on the edge of Birmingham. I was sent with one other lad for a couple of weeks to Longbridge.
The place was vast. I recall them using the Rover 200s to get around the site. The CAD dept. seemed so futuristic. Full of computers (a big deal in the '90s) with schematics of all sorts of car components on the screens. Pretty awe inspiring to 15 year old.
One day, a guy who worked in the section I was overseeing in was taken away for a telling off. It seemed to last ages. When he came back I asked him what had happened.
He had (forgive my ignorance here of the process) set up the conveyor or robot that carried car doors around - up incorrectly and as it moved them, it dented 100 doors in a row.
I said. "that sounds bad".
He said, "Nah. It's nothing. Just them making a big song and dance over nothing as usual".
I was pretty shocked by the lax attitude even as a kid.
Hand build by Robots The place was vast. I recall them using the Rover 200s to get around the site. The CAD dept. seemed so futuristic. Full of computers (a big deal in the '90s) with schematics of all sorts of car components on the screens. Pretty awe inspiring to 15 year old.
One day, a guy who worked in the section I was overseeing in was taken away for a telling off. It seemed to last ages. When he came back I asked him what had happened.
He had (forgive my ignorance here of the process) set up the conveyor or robot that carried car doors around - up incorrectly and as it moved them, it dented 100 doors in a row.
I said. "that sounds bad".
He said, "Nah. It's nothing. Just them making a big song and dance over nothing as usual".
I was pretty shocked by the lax attitude even as a kid.
Oops that was Fiat, this was BL
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FU-tuY0Z7nQ
This always amused me, as my next door neighbour was called Bob and he worked on the track at Triumph in Coventry.
Back then so many people worked for BL. Of the 10 nearest neighbours in my street 8 of the men and 2 of the women worked for BL either at Triumph or Jaguar. The other two men worked at Chrysler's Ryton plant. No wonder the loss of the car industry hit Coventry hard.
A memory etched in my mind is travelling on the train to Brum and seeing what seemed like achres of BL product in a compound just north of the runway at Birmingham International, TR7s, Princesses, SD1s, Dolomites, Stags, Minis, Allegros etc, all in various shades of yellow, green, brown or orange.
blueg33 said:
Back then so many people worked for BL. Of the 10 nearest neighbours in my street 8 of the men and 2 of the women worked for BL either at Triumph or Jaguar. The other two men worked at Chrysler's Ryton plant. No wonder the loss of the car industry hit Coventry hard.
Then there were all the suppliers. AP (Automotive Products) in Leamington employed 8,000 or so in the early 70s, including my dad (draughtsman), gran (clerical) and grandad (machine operator). It made loads of stuff for BL including the Mini's automatic gearbox,which I think it invented. A bit of the old factory survives, having been sold on many times, but now employs only a few hundred people.The press were particularly unfair to Leyland and their products and in large ruined their reputation There were some appalling cars no doubt but I think its important to have some balance in the argument. Heres my take on a few things
Fact is, many BL cars had the potential to be quite brilliant but were hugely compromised by poor decision making and poor quality control - Examples:
The Maxi:
The Maxi was a genuinely clever car and something of a trail blazer alongside the Renault 16 being one of the first mass produced hatchbacks. It had clever packaging, a good chassis and suspension, an OHC engine, could do 40+mpg and was leagues ahead of some of the more trad competition.
Several things booted the Maxi into touch though, one was the anemic performance from the entry level 1500 despite its good economy it was too slow, secondly it was far too utilitarian. Even the HL and HLS models looked meek inside thanks to issigonis' obsession with function over form. Thirdly it look utterly hideous in all forms.
Forced to use the Much better proportioned Austin 1800's doors they simply didn't look right and ended up making too bloated looking. Infact when it was rebodied as the Aquila design study it looked really good. Now i'm in no doubt that to productionise etc would have been too expensive etc but it just goes to show you what a difference it can make:
The Allegro:
The Allegro like the Maxi was a clever car in many respects. Despite what people say, it had a good chassis and the hydragas suspension actually worked pretty well, despite it's ancient origins, the 1300 a-series models performed really well, it also featured standard disc brakes and radial ply tyres - both novelties at launch.
Reasons for failure are all too similar, the need to fit that hopelessly asthmatic 1500 and 1750 E-series engine from the Maxi again gave the high end models crumby performance but also contributed to the worst thing about the Allegro - its looks. The E-series is a very tall and deep engine, this combined with the need to fit a heater unit from the dreadful Morris Marina meant the bonnet line had to increase. The whole car became bloated to and too blobby to look good and became more and more distant from the original very striking design (see below). Couple this to poor initial build quality - the press didn't help here by greatly exaggerating the problems, making it a saloon rather than a hatchback and it was doomed to fail. Towards the end of its production, the last Allegro 3 models were actually really well sorted cars but they were too old and jaded by then to be taken seriously - Ironically, for all the build quality myths, Allegros are actually pretty tough and rust resistant compared to many other cars of the time.
Princess and Ambassador:
This car's main problem other than hopeless marketing and branding was it was just too ahead of it's time to be taken seriously. Again, the Princess had loads going for it, a super smooth straight 6 engine, a very compliant chassis and ride quality better than just about any other car on sale. It also had a very spacious and comfortable interior.
The reasons the Princess failed are slightly different. First problem was its confusing brand identity, originally it was called the Austin Morris 18/22 Series. This mouthful basically meant it was offered as either an Austin or a Morris or a plush top of the line Wolsely 2200 model. The confusing being, other than the lights, there were hardly any difference between the Austin and Morris models. Everyone refers to the car as an Austin but it actually became brand in its own right - confusingly "Princess". Secondly, given its shape, you'd think it would be a hatchback? no - its a saloon and it took BL nearly a decade to correct this problem. Thirdly, that performance again. Sure the E6 2.2 litre was smooth but it was also gutless as was the ancient B-series 1.8. The car lacked any sporting pretenses and this harmed it's image. The styling detailing was shabby and didn't the shape justice. Indeed, when styled nicely its a great looking car. The Ambassador replacement addressed nearly all of the short comings and by the eightiesthis sort of shape and style of car was widely more accepted but it was too late in the day and the car still had poor performance in its class.
That said, I think it has matured into a great looking car - especially the Ambassador.
Austin Maestro/Montego
Again, although widely slated these two were actually half decent cars - well on paper anyway.
Both these featured, a very spacious and well appointed cabin, a very competent chassis, amazingly for a BL car, very good performance in its class and overall were generally very up together and well thought out cars.
The problems as per usual from BL were rushed development, poor quality and poor image. Early cars had awful build quality and fit. Engine running problems, poor panel fit and squeaks and rattles all abound. The R Series engine like the E-Series it was based on was a mess and it took a few years for them to modify it into the much better S-Series. Indeed the later fuel injected 2.0 models were very well sorted cars – The Montego estate was particularly well like as was the super frugal and good if somewhat noisy performing Perkins Prima Diesel models. Rust and again a perhaps unjustified poor image harmed the sales but really they were a pretty decent shot at the Cavalier and Sierra – both of which too, had their faults.
There were many more, The Triumph Stag, The Triumph TR7, The Rover SD1, the MGC, the list goes on…
Finally if anyone is still reading, I think its important to note the successes they have had.
The Rover P5 and P6 were fabulous machines
The Land Rover, The discovery and the Range Rover were all great
The mini although never made any money was a design master piece
The Austin 1100/1300 was a best seller and much loved
The MGB was a great roadster
The Jaguar Xj6 was a brilliant creation, the Xj12 for quite some time, considered to be the worlds best luxury car
Its easy to bash BL but occasionally when they weren’t b
ksing things up they made some fabulous cars.
Fact is, many BL cars had the potential to be quite brilliant but were hugely compromised by poor decision making and poor quality control - Examples:
The Maxi:
The Maxi was a genuinely clever car and something of a trail blazer alongside the Renault 16 being one of the first mass produced hatchbacks. It had clever packaging, a good chassis and suspension, an OHC engine, could do 40+mpg and was leagues ahead of some of the more trad competition.
Several things booted the Maxi into touch though, one was the anemic performance from the entry level 1500 despite its good economy it was too slow, secondly it was far too utilitarian. Even the HL and HLS models looked meek inside thanks to issigonis' obsession with function over form. Thirdly it look utterly hideous in all forms.
Forced to use the Much better proportioned Austin 1800's doors they simply didn't look right and ended up making too bloated looking. Infact when it was rebodied as the Aquila design study it looked really good. Now i'm in no doubt that to productionise etc would have been too expensive etc but it just goes to show you what a difference it can make:
The Allegro:
The Allegro like the Maxi was a clever car in many respects. Despite what people say, it had a good chassis and the hydragas suspension actually worked pretty well, despite it's ancient origins, the 1300 a-series models performed really well, it also featured standard disc brakes and radial ply tyres - both novelties at launch.
Reasons for failure are all too similar, the need to fit that hopelessly asthmatic 1500 and 1750 E-series engine from the Maxi again gave the high end models crumby performance but also contributed to the worst thing about the Allegro - its looks. The E-series is a very tall and deep engine, this combined with the need to fit a heater unit from the dreadful Morris Marina meant the bonnet line had to increase. The whole car became bloated to and too blobby to look good and became more and more distant from the original very striking design (see below). Couple this to poor initial build quality - the press didn't help here by greatly exaggerating the problems, making it a saloon rather than a hatchback and it was doomed to fail. Towards the end of its production, the last Allegro 3 models were actually really well sorted cars but they were too old and jaded by then to be taken seriously - Ironically, for all the build quality myths, Allegros are actually pretty tough and rust resistant compared to many other cars of the time.
Princess and Ambassador:
This car's main problem other than hopeless marketing and branding was it was just too ahead of it's time to be taken seriously. Again, the Princess had loads going for it, a super smooth straight 6 engine, a very compliant chassis and ride quality better than just about any other car on sale. It also had a very spacious and comfortable interior.
The reasons the Princess failed are slightly different. First problem was its confusing brand identity, originally it was called the Austin Morris 18/22 Series. This mouthful basically meant it was offered as either an Austin or a Morris or a plush top of the line Wolsely 2200 model. The confusing being, other than the lights, there were hardly any difference between the Austin and Morris models. Everyone refers to the car as an Austin but it actually became brand in its own right - confusingly "Princess". Secondly, given its shape, you'd think it would be a hatchback? no - its a saloon and it took BL nearly a decade to correct this problem. Thirdly, that performance again. Sure the E6 2.2 litre was smooth but it was also gutless as was the ancient B-series 1.8. The car lacked any sporting pretenses and this harmed it's image. The styling detailing was shabby and didn't the shape justice. Indeed, when styled nicely its a great looking car. The Ambassador replacement addressed nearly all of the short comings and by the eightiesthis sort of shape and style of car was widely more accepted but it was too late in the day and the car still had poor performance in its class.
That said, I think it has matured into a great looking car - especially the Ambassador.
Austin Maestro/Montego
Again, although widely slated these two were actually half decent cars - well on paper anyway.
Both these featured, a very spacious and well appointed cabin, a very competent chassis, amazingly for a BL car, very good performance in its class and overall were generally very up together and well thought out cars.
The problems as per usual from BL were rushed development, poor quality and poor image. Early cars had awful build quality and fit. Engine running problems, poor panel fit and squeaks and rattles all abound. The R Series engine like the E-Series it was based on was a mess and it took a few years for them to modify it into the much better S-Series. Indeed the later fuel injected 2.0 models were very well sorted cars – The Montego estate was particularly well like as was the super frugal and good if somewhat noisy performing Perkins Prima Diesel models. Rust and again a perhaps unjustified poor image harmed the sales but really they were a pretty decent shot at the Cavalier and Sierra – both of which too, had their faults.
There were many more, The Triumph Stag, The Triumph TR7, The Rover SD1, the MGC, the list goes on…
Finally if anyone is still reading, I think its important to note the successes they have had.
The Rover P5 and P6 were fabulous machines
The Land Rover, The discovery and the Range Rover were all great
The mini although never made any money was a design master piece
The Austin 1100/1300 was a best seller and much loved
The MGB was a great roadster
The Jaguar Xj6 was a brilliant creation, the Xj12 for quite some time, considered to be the worlds best luxury car
Its easy to bash BL but occasionally when they weren’t b
ksing things up they made some fabulous cars.A good summary, although I think you were rather too kind on the Maxi. It's undeniably very spacious, very comfortable, surprisingly sharp to drive, the first five-door, five-speed, five-seat British car etc. etc. etc. etc. but it was just completely, and utterly *wrong* for what BMC should have been making and what they asked Issigonis to design.
I've driven an Allegro 1100 and a Ford Escort Mk2 1100 back to back and the Allegro was superior in a number of ways - much crisper and well-geared steering (basically like a big Mini), hugely better ride quality in every way, much higher roadholding limits and generally felt it had around twice the amount of metal and soundproofing in the structure. The Escort felt livelier in terms of performance (although the Kent engine was nowhere near as smooth as the A-Series at the top end) and was much less squashy and roly/poly in terms of body control, although the Allegro is rather like an old Citroen in that the amount of body movement is a factor of its suspension design and in no way means it grips badly. Of course the Escort felt a lot more conventionally 'sporty' (these things all being relative with 1.1-litre base-spec 70s small saloons) and had a hugely better gearchange but the Allegro is not a 'bad' car, in itself. It just looks unforgiveably ugly and in-period suffered from appalling build quality.
And it's noteable that this list:
And the Mini did make money - it wouldn't have survived for so long if it didn't. The famous 'reveal' following the cost analysis by Ford only proved that Ford couldn't make the Mini profitably. Now, it's not a stretch to say that if a business as tightly-run and business-driven as Ford couldn't make a car profitably there's a very good chance that the shambles that was BMC couldn't either. But the two firms had very different production and cost bases and George Harriman always insisted that the basic Austin/Morris variants of the Mini did make money, albeit on very small margins, and that BMC made considerable profit by selling higher-spec models such as the Deluxe and Super Deluxe models, then followed by the (very profitable) Coopers and the variants such as Riley/Wolseley twins, the estates and the commercials. The Mini's very high warranty claims almost certainly undermined all the (slim) profit margins in the early years, and BMC could (and should) have priced the car much higher than they did, but it was almost certainly a money-maker.
It was absolutely a money maker after the BL revisions to make the Mk3 and the introduction of the Clubman and 1275GT versions. In the 1980s it was expected that the Mini would be wholly replaced by the Metro but BL realised that, with the Mini's tooling costs paid off years ago, they could stick some of the Metro's upgrades (A+ engines, front disc brakes, bigger wheels) into the Mini for virtually no cost and keep making it as an entry-level model. Then they hit on the idea of all the funky special editions and leaning heavily on the Mini's heritage and the fact that all the (objective) flaws were (subjectively) part of its character as 'a Mini' and sales (and profits) started climbing again. Then the Cooper returned and it made consistent profits right until the arrival of the BMW replacement.
I've driven an Allegro 1100 and a Ford Escort Mk2 1100 back to back and the Allegro was superior in a number of ways - much crisper and well-geared steering (basically like a big Mini), hugely better ride quality in every way, much higher roadholding limits and generally felt it had around twice the amount of metal and soundproofing in the structure. The Escort felt livelier in terms of performance (although the Kent engine was nowhere near as smooth as the A-Series at the top end) and was much less squashy and roly/poly in terms of body control, although the Allegro is rather like an old Citroen in that the amount of body movement is a factor of its suspension design and in no way means it grips badly. Of course the Escort felt a lot more conventionally 'sporty' (these things all being relative with 1.1-litre base-spec 70s small saloons) and had a hugely better gearchange but the Allegro is not a 'bad' car, in itself. It just looks unforgiveably ugly and in-period suffered from appalling build quality.
And it's noteable that this list:
morgrp said:
Finally if anyone is still reading, I think its important to note the successes they have had.
The Rover P5 and P6 were fabulous machines
The Land Rover, The discovery and the Range Rover were all great
The mini although never made any money was a design master piece
The Austin 1100/1300 was a best seller and much loved
The MGB was a great roadster
The Jaguar Xj6 was a brilliant creation, the Xj12 for quite some time, considered to be the worlds best luxury car
Its easy to bash BL but occasionally when they weren’t bksing things up they made some fabulous cars.
Contains only cars that were all designed (and nearly all launched) by companies before they became part of BL. The Rover P5 and P6 were fabulous machines
The Land Rover, The discovery and the Range Rover were all great
The mini although never made any money was a design master piece
The Austin 1100/1300 was a best seller and much loved
The MGB was a great roadster
The Jaguar Xj6 was a brilliant creation, the Xj12 for quite some time, considered to be the worlds best luxury car
Its easy to bash BL but occasionally when they weren’t b
ksing things up they made some fabulous cars.And the Mini did make money - it wouldn't have survived for so long if it didn't. The famous 'reveal' following the cost analysis by Ford only proved that Ford couldn't make the Mini profitably. Now, it's not a stretch to say that if a business as tightly-run and business-driven as Ford couldn't make a car profitably there's a very good chance that the shambles that was BMC couldn't either. But the two firms had very different production and cost bases and George Harriman always insisted that the basic Austin/Morris variants of the Mini did make money, albeit on very small margins, and that BMC made considerable profit by selling higher-spec models such as the Deluxe and Super Deluxe models, then followed by the (very profitable) Coopers and the variants such as Riley/Wolseley twins, the estates and the commercials. The Mini's very high warranty claims almost certainly undermined all the (slim) profit margins in the early years, and BMC could (and should) have priced the car much higher than they did, but it was almost certainly a money-maker.
It was absolutely a money maker after the BL revisions to make the Mk3 and the introduction of the Clubman and 1275GT versions. In the 1980s it was expected that the Mini would be wholly replaced by the Metro but BL realised that, with the Mini's tooling costs paid off years ago, they could stick some of the Metro's upgrades (A+ engines, front disc brakes, bigger wheels) into the Mini for virtually no cost and keep making it as an entry-level model. Then they hit on the idea of all the funky special editions and leaning heavily on the Mini's heritage and the fact that all the (objective) flaws were (subjectively) part of its character as 'a Mini' and sales (and profits) started climbing again. Then the Cooper returned and it made consistent profits right until the arrival of the BMW replacement.
2xChevrons said:
A good summary, although I think you were rather too kind on the Maxi. It's undeniably very spacious, very comfortable, surprisingly sharp to drive, the first five-door, five-speed, five-seat British car etc. etc. etc. etc. but it was just completely, and utterly *wrong* for what BMC should have been making and what they asked Issigonis to design.
I've driven an Allegro 1100 and a Ford Escort Mk2 1100 back to back and the Allegro was superior in a number of ways - much crisper and well-geared steering (basically like a big Mini), hugely better ride quality in every way, much higher roadholding limits and generally felt it had around twice the amount of metal and soundproofing in the structure. The Escort felt livelier in terms of performance (although the Kent engine was nowhere near as smooth as the A-Series at the top end) and was much less squashy and roly/poly in terms of body control, although the Allegro is rather like an old Citroen in that the amount of body movement is a factor of its suspension design and in no way means it grips badly. Of course the Escort felt a lot more conventionally 'sporty' (these things all being relative with 1.1-litre base-spec 70s small saloons) and had a hugely better gearchange but the Allegro is not a 'bad' car, in itself. It just looks unforgiveably ugly and in-period suffered from appalling build quality.
And it's noteable that this list:
And the Mini did make money - it wouldn't have survived for so long if it didn't. The famous 'reveal' following the cost analysis by Ford only proved that Ford couldn't make the Mini profitably. Now, it's not a stretch to say that if a business as tightly-run and business-driven as Ford couldn't make a car profitably there's a very good chance that the shambles that was BMC couldn't either. But the two firms had very different production and cost bases and George Harriman always insisted that the basic Austin/Morris variants of the Mini did make money, albeit on very small margins, and that BMC made considerable profit by selling higher-spec models such as the Deluxe and Super Deluxe models, then followed by the (very profitable) Coopers and the variants such as Riley/Wolseley twins, the estates and the commercials. The Mini's very high warranty claims almost certainly undermined all the (slim) profit margins in the early years, and BMC could (and should) have priced the car much higher than they did, but it was almost certainly a money-maker.
It was absolutely a money maker after the BL revisions to make the Mk3 and the introduction of the Clubman and 1275GT versions. In the 1980s it was expected that the Mini would be wholly replaced by the Metro but BL realised that, with the Mini's tooling costs paid off years ago, they could stick some of the Metro's upgrades (A+ engines, front disc brakes, bigger wheels) into the Mini for virtually no cost and keep making it as an entry-level model. Then they hit on the idea of all the funky special editions and leaning heavily on the Mini's heritage and the fact that all the (objective) flaws were (subjectively) part of its character as 'a Mini' and sales (and profits) started climbing again. Then the Cooper returned and it made consistent profits right until the arrival of the BMW replacement.
Yeah I thought that after I placed the list! I've driven an Allegro 1100 and a Ford Escort Mk2 1100 back to back and the Allegro was superior in a number of ways - much crisper and well-geared steering (basically like a big Mini), hugely better ride quality in every way, much higher roadholding limits and generally felt it had around twice the amount of metal and soundproofing in the structure. The Escort felt livelier in terms of performance (although the Kent engine was nowhere near as smooth as the A-Series at the top end) and was much less squashy and roly/poly in terms of body control, although the Allegro is rather like an old Citroen in that the amount of body movement is a factor of its suspension design and in no way means it grips badly. Of course the Escort felt a lot more conventionally 'sporty' (these things all being relative with 1.1-litre base-spec 70s small saloons) and had a hugely better gearchange but the Allegro is not a 'bad' car, in itself. It just looks unforgiveably ugly and in-period suffered from appalling build quality.
And it's noteable that this list:
morgrp said:
Finally if anyone is still reading, I think its important to note the successes they have had.
The Rover P5 and P6 were fabulous machines
The Land Rover, The discovery and the Range Rover were all great
The mini although never made any money was a design master piece
The Austin 1100/1300 was a best seller and much loved
The MGB was a great roadster
The Jaguar Xj6 was a brilliant creation, the Xj12 for quite some time, considered to be the worlds best luxury car
Its easy to bash BL but occasionally when they weren’t bksing things up they made some fabulous cars.
Contains only cars that were all designed (and nearly all launched) by companies before they became part of BL. The Rover P5 and P6 were fabulous machines
The Land Rover, The discovery and the Range Rover were all great
The mini although never made any money was a design master piece
The Austin 1100/1300 was a best seller and much loved
The MGB was a great roadster
The Jaguar Xj6 was a brilliant creation, the Xj12 for quite some time, considered to be the worlds best luxury car
Its easy to bash BL but occasionally when they weren’t b
ksing things up they made some fabulous cars.And the Mini did make money - it wouldn't have survived for so long if it didn't. The famous 'reveal' following the cost analysis by Ford only proved that Ford couldn't make the Mini profitably. Now, it's not a stretch to say that if a business as tightly-run and business-driven as Ford couldn't make a car profitably there's a very good chance that the shambles that was BMC couldn't either. But the two firms had very different production and cost bases and George Harriman always insisted that the basic Austin/Morris variants of the Mini did make money, albeit on very small margins, and that BMC made considerable profit by selling higher-spec models such as the Deluxe and Super Deluxe models, then followed by the (very profitable) Coopers and the variants such as Riley/Wolseley twins, the estates and the commercials. The Mini's very high warranty claims almost certainly undermined all the (slim) profit margins in the early years, and BMC could (and should) have priced the car much higher than they did, but it was almost certainly a money-maker.
It was absolutely a money maker after the BL revisions to make the Mk3 and the introduction of the Clubman and 1275GT versions. In the 1980s it was expected that the Mini would be wholly replaced by the Metro but BL realised that, with the Mini's tooling costs paid off years ago, they could stick some of the Metro's upgrades (A+ engines, front disc brakes, bigger wheels) into the Mini for virtually no cost and keep making it as an entry-level model. Then they hit on the idea of all the funky special editions and leaning heavily on the Mini's heritage and the fact that all the (objective) flaws were (subjectively) part of its character as 'a Mini' and sales (and profits) started climbing again. Then the Cooper returned and it made consistent profits right until the arrival of the BMW replacement.
Yeah I think I was a bit too kind on the maxi, Issigonis took the concept way too far and it was too utilitarian when the Cortina was trying to push up market and the Renault 16 had a far quirkier and dare I say it, sportier pretentions. The maxi tried to be quirky but it was like an awkward British bloke pretending to be a cool european type character - same can be said for the allegro really in the looks department
I guess the ones to look at were the Leyland developed could have been great but they blew it list:
Triumph Stag,
Rover SD1
Triumph Dolomite Sprint
etc etc
Two that in my opinion that have aged really very well indeed are the Triumph TR7 drophead - looks great these days as does the good old Jag XJS
morgrp said:
I guess the ones to look at were the Leyland developed could have been great but they blew it list:
Triumph Stag,
Rover SD1
Triumph Dolomite Sprint
etc etc
Two that in my opinion that have aged really very well indeed are the Triumph TR7 drophead - looks great these days as does the good old Jag XJS
The Stag was really a pre-BL product as well, but was kyboshed by the corner-cutting engineering practises, lax manufacturing standards and non-existent quality control that was endemic at Triumph of the time (and of course all the other bits of BL soon fell to nearly the same level). Triumph Stag,
Rover SD1
Triumph Dolomite Sprint
etc etc
Two that in my opinion that have aged really very well indeed are the Triumph TR7 drophead - looks great these days as does the good old Jag XJS
The SD1 is a real sad case of a truely great car whose only flaws were in the execution. Same with the Dolly Sprint, although I don't think it stands out as such a great inherent design as the Rover - it's basically just a British BMW Neue Klasse with more highly-strung mechancials and worse build quality. But still a very good car.
The interesting thing about the TR7 and the XJS isn't so much that they've aged well, but that after 40 years they've finally been accepted. When they were new they split opinion - 'casual' buyers liked them because they modern and trendy but enthusiasts raised on the E-type or the Michelotti TRs hated them. Then when the aerodynamic, straight-edged wedge look fell from favour in the 1980s they became incredibly dated very quickly and were essentially worthless. Now, due to the passing of time, the issuing of rose-tinted spectacles to that generation and the soaring price of 'proper' Jaguar and Triumph sports cars they've suddenly been rehabilitated as 'design classics' and 'period icons.'
I personally don't particularly like either of them - the TR7 drives nicely but I find the XJS very hard to like. It does nothing that an XJ wouldn't do as well (or better) and the saloon is more practical and better-looking. And if you want a slinky two-door XJ on a shorter wheelbase then there's the XJC, which is surely one of the most beautiful cars ever made. And was also released well into the BL years so probably deserves a place on the list.
My uncle bought a Maxi when they were first sold. he could never get the gear he wanted first time, as the cable linkage wasnt "adjusted".
I remember mid 70s looking at the Princess, horrible thing, lots of sharp unfinished edges and an interior that looked like it was from a different car, nothing fitted.
I remember mid 70s looking at the Princess, horrible thing, lots of sharp unfinished edges and an interior that looked like it was from a different car, nothing fitted.
I disagree about the Princess. Compared to cars of its era - Cortina Mark 3/4, Renault 20, Alfetta 2000 etc I still think it's a good, sharp looking thing. They are quite colour sensitive - black with black and gold coachlines always looked smart, but Tara green was good too.
The 2200 was a waste of time but the 2000 O Series packed enough torque to whisk it along very well. The Princess 2 put right a lot of the ills of the original (especially fit and finish) and ours was exceptionally reliable.
The 2200 was a waste of time but the 2000 O Series packed enough torque to whisk it along very well. The Princess 2 put right a lot of the ills of the original (especially fit and finish) and ours was exceptionally reliable.
Gassing Station | Classic Cars and Yesterday's Heroes | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff