Evolution of the Crustacean

107 thoughts on “Evolution of the Crustacean”

1. Good morning Eóin. I’ve been pondering just what it is that made the 1800 so ungainly and wilfully odd. There are strong clues in both the ADO and Pininfarina proposals you illustrate above. Both share a light and airy glasshouse that, unfortunately, did not make it through to the production car, thanks to “those doors”. However, another issue is, I think, the unusual angled tail, a Pininfarina idea that attempts to reprise the same nice detail on the 1100, but just doesn’t work on the larger car.

   I’ve mocked up an alternative reality 1800 with a different DLO and tail treatment. The DLO I’ve drawn is not as slim as the (unrealistic?) arrangement on the ADO proposal, but is intended to be feasible for production:

   

   Here’s the same mock-up with the production DLO for comparison:

   

   While no beauty, I think the modified DLO and rear end looks considerably more palatable than the production car. With a nicer front end and better equipped interior, I think it could have sold much better than than the 1800. What do others think?

   Reply

   1. Hmmm. Certainly more imposing, and rather Germanic. Would the powertrain be turned round 180 degrees to place the final drive in front, like a Peugeot 204?

   2. Hi Robertas. I keep seeing the Volvo 144 in the DLO. The front and rear ends are both fractionally longer than the production 1800 to improve the proportions, so room for some mechanical alterations up front. Issigonis would have been horrified, of course!

   3. The proportions here are certainly more conventional, but I’m not sure if that really helps. It tries to make something odd appealing for mass tastes, which is rarely a success. Better in my eyes to fully play on the oddity.

      I think what makes the car still look a bit strange is the relation of door, windows and rear axle. The latter is pushed very far back from the C-pillar, due to ‘that rear door’ with very little cut-out. The impression is reinforced by the seemingly forward-fleeing cabin: upright windscreen, forward sloping rear pillars and a low back part of the roof. I don’t know if all these features are trying to mimick the DS, it’s quite similar in this respect. However, the latter has highly unusual, but also highly correct proportions, something the various BMC proposals do not achieve. I don’t know what’s the secret behind it – maybe the long sloping front acts as a visual counterweight, maybe the covered rear wheels play a role…

   4. I think that’s plausible. (Why am I thinking Hongqi CA72?)

   5. Simon – I think you’re on to something, but there’s still something that’s not right / really odd about the design. I took a look at the Rover P4 which has a long wheelbase and short overhangs – fairly similar proportions, I think (others at this site have a better eye for this sort of thing than I do). The P4 still manages to look a lot better.

      I then looked at the Volkswagen ID3 to see if there were any similarities with ADO17 (long wheelbase, short overhangs), but I don’t think there are.

      I think Daniel’s rework is very interesting – better, probably, but there’s still something that “doesn’t flow” – I can’t express it better than that.

   6. I’ve edited the comment above, adding an image with the production DLO but altered tail for comparison.

   7. Charles – I had a look at the P4. Indeed it has short overhangs, but the rear still is a bit longer (optically) than on the 1800. The rear axle is also set back relative to the C-pillar, an impression that might also come from the wraparound windscreen. It’s hard to compare the two cars, however. The P4 is very upright, and generally still carries a pre-war air about it (due in part to the narrow doors and small windows). In this period, long wheelbases and short overhangs were the norm, that’s why it probably looks more appropriate here.

      Now the ID3 is a completely different matter altogether. It has a very upright hatchback, where there almost has to be a short rear overhang, and the axle also seems to be rather in front of the C-pillar and cuts into the rear doors. Nothing unusual here, thus.

   8. Thanks, Simon – yes, you’re right. I think part of my problem with ADO17 is the length of the roof, including the very separate rear quarter light and shortness of the boot – features which are different on the P4. The ADO17 rear quarter light is quite unusual. Mind you, the Austin X6 / Kimberley, which doesn’t have it, still looks a bit clumsy.

      Having said all that, I actually don’t mind the ADO17’s design – it’s just odd.

      Daniel, I prefer your second version and I think it makes it more acceptable. I also think it pushes it upmarket, though, and renders the 3-Litre completely redundant.

   9. Looks a bit like the Austin 3 litre !

   10. Hi DGatewood. Yes, that was my starting point, as it already had the tail I wanted. I shortened both it and the nose to roughly ADO17 dimensions before I altered the DLO.

       It’s had rather mixed reviews here, but I quite like it and think it would have been a good complement in design terms to the 1100. It also solves another 1800 shortcoming, inadequate boot space.

       Still, it’s all academic now…

2. I was thinking of another contemporary car, closer to the 1800’s home.

   The Triumph 2000 arrived a year earlier, and is dimensionally very close to ADO17: same 106″ wheelbase, around two inches narrower in tracks and width, and seven inches longer.

   The Mk.1 Triumph was also 120lb lighter than the BMC car.

   Standard-Triumph were therefore selling less metal for more money, and demand exceeded their ability to supply.

   In sales numbers BMC did better, 387,283 from 1964-74 as against Triumph’s 324,652 from 1963-77.

   So who was the winner? Probably Pressed Steel-Fisher…

   Reply

3. Can understand the brief for ADO17 was to replace the Farina B with what was originally intended to be a more Austin Maxi-sized 1300-1600cc+ model, what is not clear are the causes of why the project drifted into a larger car.

   Was it down to the heavy B-Series being enlarged to 1800cc that together with “those doors” made ADO17 into a larger car then it needed to be or other reasons such as ADO17 appearing prior to the 3-litre / ADO61 instead of the other way round?

   While cost was probably a motivating factor for BMC, why was the mass adoption of “those doors” treated as inevitable (particularly with the 3-litre / ADO61 and Maxi) and would BMC have really been a worse position had they resisted the temptation to use “those doors” on a number of models from ADO17 / X6, 3-litre / ADO61 and the Maxi?

   If the B-Series engine’s enlargement played a role and the 1600cc OHV engine was viewed as not being powerful enough in ADO17, could an early 1960s B-OHC conversion of the 1600cc+ (before the tooling was completely worn out by the early 1970s when the O-Series was initiated) have remedied the issue or was it during this point that BMC could have really benefited from an early properly-developed E-Series fast-tracked into production by some 5-7 years in place of the V4/V6 project?

   Did Issigonis use those factors with the engine and doors, etc as the excuse he needed to develop the DS challenging car he really wanted or merely looked to the DS in a badly-executed attempt to salvage the project as it grew in size? The Vanden Plas 1800 X6 prototype gives some insight into how with a bit of work and some enlargement to 2-litres+ from the outset, ADO17 could have been a pretty viable FWD challenger to the Rover P6 and Triumph 2000/2500 especially when considering both Rover and Triumph also looked at FWD for their 2-litre saloons during development.

   The styling is another issue yet also question the necessity of it being FWD when the original prototype that evolved into ADO17 was RWD and drew from Issigonis’s time at Alvis on the TA175 / TA350 project, along with utilizing the Mini’s in-sump when the engine bay was large enough for an end-on layout (as was ADO16).

   Returning back to the ADO17’s styling, guess how the exterior could have been improved depends on whether it could have appeared earlier than it did as well as if the 3-litre / ADO61 is introduced prior to ADO17. Styling trends were greatly shifting from the early to mid 1960s and for whatever reason neither BMC nor Pininfarina thought to have ADO17 embrace more modern styling trends that could have easily filtered down to the mk2 Mini and mk2 ADO16 facelifts, despite other carmakers managing to use Pininfarina much more effectively during the 1960s.

   Reply

   1. I think you’ve reversed the order
      Issigonis design ADO17 be a larger car ，so we get “those doors”

   2. oliver – There were two proposals one by Pininfarina resembling enlarged ADO16 powered by a 1.5-1.6-litre B-Series engine or in other words approximately Maxi-sized and a larger in-house proposal by BMC that was ultimately chosen because it was believed the bigger car would make better use of the upcoming enlarged 1.8-litre B-Series engine. – https://www.aronline.co.uk/cars/bmc/1800-2200/

      Had the smaller proposal been chosen instead and been equipped with 1300-1600cc or 1300-2000cc engines (with end-on gearbox) as well as a suitable X6-like saloon variant, it may have been a more competitive proposition.

      There is also the notion that the 3-litre / ADO61 could have potentially appeared before ADO17 since the styling of the former was set by 1963 – a year before the launch of the latter. – https://www.aronline.co.uk/opinion/austin-3-litre-a-bungled-launch/

   3. Bob-the ADO 16 is very close to production in 1963，It developed in 1960-1962 https://www.aronline.co.uk/facts-and-figures/development-codes/development-codes/

   4. ADO16 was envisaged as more of a 1100/1300 car, whereas the original intention for ADO17 was a 1500-1600 car (maybe even a 1300-1600 car) with a possible wheelbase of around 100-inches without “those doors” before BMC chose a larger proposal out of expediency.

   5. Sorry for my input error，I menas ado17

   6. Prior to Suez what was later known as ADO17 was viewed as a higher priority before the development schedule was switched around placing the Mini and ADO16 as higher priorities.

      The article seems to have the development schedule in mind for envisioning a way the 3-litre / ADO61 could have preceded ADO17 for the benefit of the later and place “those doors” in a better light (assuming they are not butterflied away).

   7. 1.3-1.6/1.3-2.0 means a contrai fighter，which ADO17 never designed to be.In the late 1950s，the market is divided into 3 segment. 1.0、1.5、above 2.0，the ado17 is designed to replace the Cambridge/Oxford，Over the same period，Ford Corsair was 176.75 in length with 1.6/2.0 engine ，Vauxhall Victor 177 in length with 1.6/2.0/3.3 engine.I think BMC the forecast this segment vehicle will become lager. They are right，but the whole segment was shrinking because the Ado16 and contrina

   8. IF 3 liter launched in 1964 and ADO17 launched in 1968，the ADO17 should be a different size.
      But it is impossible.ADO17 wad designed to replace the Cambridge/Oxford，which was bmc’s Bread and Butter，It’s far more important than the 3 Liter.

   9. In my point of view,the mistake was n’t the ado17，But the ado14.
      Ado17 was not success. but BMC can’t forecast changes in the market when it developed during the 1960-1962.
      The ado14 was designed as a cortina fighter when the ADO16 was competed with the cortina in the same place.
      Even if the aod14 could success，It were steal sales form the ado16 and ado17.
      A brand new platform was to0 expensive fo such a narrow market，not to speak of the new engine and new transmission in a new factory .
      They should just give ado16 a 1.6 B-series and boot，which could launched in 1968，the same time with the cortina mkII.

   10. Sorry for my mistake，I means 1966.

   11. While ADO17 was never intended to be a Cortina fighter as such, the smaller Pininfarina proposal would have been close enough to be placed in Maxi territory to be small and light enough to have been equipped with a entry-level 1.3-litre engine had BMC made an effort to productionise the 1275cc A-Series earlier on or fast-tracked a similarly-sized E-Series for introduction in the early-mid 1960s.

       A better approach would have been for BMC to realise early on the need for a new inline-4 engine inline-4 between the A-Series and B-Series, which would have allowed the latter to grow to 1.8-2.0-litres before the tooling was completely worn out (along with a possible OHC conversion) and provided a way for the company to eventually replace both the alternate 1.8-2.0-litre B-Series and 3.0-litre C-Series with a 1500-2000cc 4-cylinder / 2000-3000cc 6-cylinder engine. As well as additionally productionise the 1275cc A-Series early on, maybe even update it via a composite of the 970-1275cc South African A-Series OHV / A-OHC with common 70.6mm bore along with early A-Plus.

       Since the E-Series was created from an experimental 1300cc prototype engine with belt-driven overhead camshaft that was said to have been developed in parallel to the unbuilt V4/V6 project secretly initiated as early as 1956 under Leonard Lord before it was canceled in late-1962, given ADO14 was initiated in mid-1964 with engines being tested from March 1966 before finally reaching production in 1969 there was plenty of opportunity for them to develop a new conventional OHC engine without needing to produce the Maxi.

       The 6 year or so gap that was occupied by the ill-fated V4/V6 engine could have been better utilized not only developing an early-mid 1960s E-Series to replace the B-Series and C-Series, it could have been been used to develop a suitable update or even evolutionary replacement of the A-Series (looking to Nissan to see how to the latter improved their Austin-derived engines with the Nissan A OHV / Nissan E OHC).

       Agree on ADO16 featuring a three-box body, however the bulky heavy B-Series would have been very unsuitable without undergoing extensive revision along the lines of the weight reduction programme attempted with the revised C-Series to the experimental all-alloy A-Series engines along with a possible OHC conversion. With the amount of work required effectively creating what amounts to an early O-Series, which inevitably leading back to a fast-tracked E-Series engine being developed in place of the experimental V4/V6 engines, either way no matter how one looks at it an earlier historical point of divergence would have been needed.

       A case could have been made for ADO17 to have been slightly larger than the large 1.8-litre in-house proposal chosen by carrying over the X6 three-box rear and a 2-litre engine or even merging ADO17 and ADO61 into a compact 2-3-litre RWD saloon along the lines of the Rover P6 and Triumph 2000/2500, on the basis the original ADO17 prototype was itself RWD.

       As it is while ADO17 and the 3-litre / ADO61 were no lookers by any means, it is possible with a bit of work an earlier introduction of the latter would have reflected better on the former being launched not longer after as well as allowed the latter to gain more sales before it was completely outclassed by the impact created from the Rover P6 and Triumph 2000/2500.

   12. Even 1.5L E-series maxi was Considered to be lack power，nothing to say the 1.3L.
       And it will just steal seals from the ado16.Force it to compete with the Anglia.This is not acceptable that will make a huge drag on profits.
       Cortina was selling well，but ado16 was enve selling brtter in the same price.All that needs to be done was Further develop it.
       Agreen on the B-series was unsuitable，but it’s just a stopgap. They can replace it in 2-3 years.

       There is no doubt that ado17 is a big failure,but It’s hard to avoid it.ADO17 It is planned to be used for 10 years. The size of Maxi will make it quickly fall behind competitors.In fact the Ford Corsair and Vauxhall Victor was not smaller then the ADO17,If not larger.They just didn’t predict that the segment will shrinking because the Ado16 and contrina.

       Harriman should be aware that the distance between ADO 16 and ADO 17 is too big in 1963.Especially when ADO16 was compete with the Cortina.That would allow the 1.6LADO16 launched in 1966.
       When Harriman thought BMC need a Contrina fighter in 1965,It should be a rwd.which allow it Enter a different markets which don’t accepted the fwd.That means a ado77 launched in 1970.

       That ADO17 and ADO61 was in totally different Segment.All the Ford、Vauxhall and Rootes has two different car in1963.Don’t count on merged them.

   13. Adopting earlier historical differences，the point where not be the car. The BMC should take over the BORGWARD in 1961.Which was the fourth biggest car company at that time.
       The BORGWARD is a semi premium brand above the Fford、Opel and VW，Which means Bmc could easy charge more for there advanced FWD Trio.
       It will also be a big chance for the ado17，Germany has a much bigger market for large cars. Opel sells over 250K Rekord per year and Ford sells 150K Taunus 17M per year in the second half of 1960S.ADO17 was just a proper size in the Gremany market.
       The German market has almost doubled in 1960S,It’s easy to expandt BORGWARD to about 300K annually production in the late 1960,Which means a huge profit can avoid be acquisited by leyland.
       With BORGWARD’s Mature sales network，BMC could expand very soon in europe during the 1960S.They can has the Pan European lineup before the Ford and Opel/Vauxhall.Which means a lot for in the 1970s.
       The right car could avoid the Birtish leyland.But have no chance to defense Japanese ,Especially overseas market.UK exported 40% production in the 1960S，which were collapse in the 1970s.
       Even if BMC could made every models perfect，It’s still hard to compete with Ford in the 1970s.The Ford eurpoe was bigger than the Austin Morris actually.Nothing to say the production efficiency and lineup.
       Without the europe factory,The shares will collapse in the late 1970s becaus of the Strikes.
       Even if everything goes well，the BMC could have abou 600-700K sales in the begine of 1980s，What’s the use of that。Renault、PSA 、Fiat has triple，let alone the VW.

   14. It will also make a profit for the Premium brand.Fans awalys said Rover/Triumph could be better，but there is no chance for a mature birtish luxury brand in a country produced 80K executive car when greman produced 800K.

   15. To building a viable automotive industry
       BMC should take over the Borgward in 1961 and become a mian play in europ in 1960s.and take over rover in the late 1960s.Rover could use BMC’s sales network in the europe expand themself.
       The 1970s would be a Tough times,with a huge factories in europe，BMH could do better.
       In the begine of the 1980s，BMH could have a market share at about 100K peryear If everything goes well，which was not viable for a european mass market.But they had enough resources to build Rover as a Mature Premium brand and abandon the Austin at last.
       Diffrent from the OTL，It will be a longer process.
       In the 1980S,Austin leave the D-Segment to Rover,And Rover has a C-Segment Sedan in the price of Sierra/ cavalier.
       In the 1990S, abandon the Austin，use rover200 in C-Segment both the hatchback and Sedan，and use mini replace the supermini in the price of Premium brand.
       Now we got a Mature Premium brand which has scale economy to combat German three head to head.Which can take the advantage of SUV best.

   16. Sorry for my mistake，I meas 1 million in 1980

   17. For the other parts.

       Leyland should Live away from the car. They should changeover to metric in the 1960s，which was expensive and extremely important. In the OTL，Leyland spent the profits of the truck to subsidising the car in the 1960s，which cause the truck business collapsed in the 1970s and become a heavy burden for the Longbridge and Cowley.
       I konw it’s tempting to become the Daimler，but even Volvo had to sells car business.Leyland could never do better.

       Sorry for Triumph，but the Triumph2000 Should never have been born.The Standard sould merge with Rover or Rootes In the late 1950S.
       Triumphh never Premium engouh,The Triumph 1300 was the same price with the ado16 and the Triumph2000/2500 was cheaper than Granada.It’s just in the place of VW today. They would never got a scale economy to lives.Triumph where be a another saab even every thing goes well .It’s just wesat of time and overstocked the breathing space of Rover and Jaguar.
       For the Rootes-Strandard，It would eliminating the need of Linwood and spake，also the Imp，which could ease overcapacity across the country. They could do well in the 1960s,and resist the entry of Chrysler.
       It’s hardly to let Rootes-Strandard lives in the 1970s,It’s better to be nationalized and build connections with Honda.As an opportunity for Japan’s three set up the factory in UK.

       At last,for the Jaguar. They can survival even in BL，which means they can survival in any case.
       There are two options.
       First was remain independent.BMC were use their money on Expand the factory of Borgward rather than buy the Pressed Steel、
       The MarkX should get the DaimlerV8 and succeed in Americ，The 420 should launched in 1963 instead of S-type,Which means Jagaur could developed the XJ by themself. Raise the output of XJ to 50000 and using the the profits to modernizing the Brown Lane before 1973. They can well done even in the 1970s and Jion the BMH in the 1980S/1990S.
       Also jaguar could jion in the Rootes-Strandard，and develop a second line produced in Canley or Ryton. Which will allowd government close the Hilman and focus on the Jaguar（Maybe With Triumph sportcar）and sold to the BMH in 1980s
       In any case, the key is exclusivity and snobbery.Jaguar could never become BMW.Jaguar should be a“Exotic which can be use”，a four door Porsche like jaguar use to be,also what Porsche is to be today.

   18. First of it all it was certainly within BMC’s capability to properly develop the E-Series as the B-Series and C-Series replacement it was originally intended to be much earlier than when it was ultimately launched as a compromised underdeveloped engine, featuring the shorter-block of the later S-Series and Downton tuning as well as no siamised bores and 88.5mm bore centres to allow for enlargement to 2-litres (and 3-litres in E6 form) and make it more akin to the Volkswagen EA827/EA113.

       Second of all, you are overlooking the fact the Maxi was to originally feature a much shorter wheelbase of around 99-100-inches had “those doors” not been foisted upon it and was likely the case with the original Pininfarina ADO17 proposal before the much larger in-house proposal with “those doors” was chosen. Which would have made the car much lighter and more along the lines of not only the Simca 1100 in terms of wheelbase and length, but also the later Austin Maestro both of which were equipped with 1.3-litre engines and in the case of the Maestro even a 2-litre.

       One can argue about possible overlap between ADO16 and a Maxi-sized ADO17 / Maxi with 99-inch wheelbase, yet it is easy to forget ADO16 was a much smaller car than people realise and besides using the Simca Alpine / Solara as a rough guide for a three-box saloon version of a Maxi-sized ADO17 / Maxi with 99-inch wheelbase would roughly equate to a length of almost 165-inches.

       It was a mistake for BMC to throw all their eggs in the FWD basket, without creating an early 1960s RWD Marina-like duo / trio as a stop-gap to prevent conservative buyers suspicious of FWD from switching to rivals followed by an early 1970s ADO77 successor. Morris could have been used for such a role, while FWD is reserved for Austin in a more Citroen-like role (albeit with hatchback from the outset and end-on gearboxes in ADO16 and above) until the early 1970s when Morris gradually embraces related FWD models that unlike Austin feature more conventional styling as well as conventional suspension.

       The Mini becomes ADO20 – now essentially Project Ant with hatchback and end-on gearbox, ADO16 (already with hatchback and end-on gearbox) is updated to ADO22, the Maxi-sized ADO17 / Maxi is in turn similarly updated with the latter two eventually being replaced by a mid/late-1970s analogue of the Maestro and Montego that also turn spawns a smaller more ADO16-sized supermini.

       A-Series is thoroughly updated with a composite of early A-Plus as well as 70.6mm common bore 970-1275cc South African OHV and A-OHC (with possibility of a productionized 1372cc unit), before being replaced by a new evolutionary successor displacing 1000-1600cc akin to the how the Renault B/C-Type engines evolved into the Energy and K-Type as well as the Nissan A OHV / Nissan E OHC / Nissan GA / Nissan QG engines and how the B-Series itself would spawn various petrol and diesel powered successors.

       Rather dubious whether Borgward would have been more of an asset to BMC or Chrysler with the former Borgward together with Rootes (if they end up being part of Chrysler) providing a counter-weight to the dominance of Simca.

       Both BMC and its Morris and Austin precursors could have certainly done a better job in expanding their presence on the continent as well as elsewhere. With Morris acquiring Cottin & Desgouttes or others instead of Leon Bollee Automobiles. Austin meanwhile could have done much more with American Austin / American Bantam to not only expand production capacity (likely via a new site), but also in turn benefit from being able to produce the Jeep prototype – first developed by Karl Probst at American Bantam (albeit equipped in this alternate timeline by the “D-Series” aka reverse-engineered 2nd gen Chevy Straight-6 used by Bedford – http://chicagolandmgclub.com/history/pdf/ab+d_austin_engines_t+cc_feb85.pdf).

       That is not even mentioning an earlier collaboration with BMC Turkey to also produce cars, along with factories in Hamilton – Ontario and Madras – India (both considered by Austin) as well as in markets where Volkswagen was successful such as Brazil and Mexico instead of the small markets chosen by BMC.

       Do agree on BMC acquiring Rover, which would also open up the possibility of gaining Santana and merging it with Authi as well as Innocenti, BMC Turkey and other alternate continental sites to integrate them.

       A case could also be made for further collaboration between BMC and Nissan or at minimum Austin (later BMC) rather altruistic license agreement with Datsun / Nissan includes an optional clause stipulating any improvements by the latter to the former’s licensed A/B-Series engines (including any related descendants) can potentially be utilized at Austin’s later BMC’s own discretion.

   19. Leyland is another matter entirely though of the view they could have become much bigger in the right circumstances via collaborations with Saab-Scania and Isuzu without merging with BMC to form British Leyland.

       Also understand Jaguar, Standard-Triumph, Coventry Climax and IIRC even Rootes already had pre-existing ties with each other.

       POD 1 – Rootes and Isuzu’s license agreement and collaboration goes much further from a similar strings-attached deal as between Austin and Datsun / Nissan, where the former benefits from the latter’s developments and their Minx-derived engines as well as up to at most commonization of the Super Minx with the Bellett and the Arrow/Hunter with the Florian along with other ties to prevent Isuzu being acquired by General Motors (and Rootes in turn surviving being acquired by Chrysler).

       POD 2 – Rootes walks away from debt-ridden Singer and follows Rover’s example in telling the government to take a hike when the latter proposes they build a new factory in places like Linwood for the Imp instead of expanding their existing site at Ryton as originally intended.

       POD 3 – Without the distractions of building Linwood and being able to swiftly put down the Communist planned and directed Acton Strikes (e.g. Honeymoon Strikes) at British Light Steel Pressings during the late 1950s to early 1960s (that was disclosed in an inquiry) that happened during the company’s biggest phase of expansion in their history. Rootes are able to focus on sorting out the Imp’s problems and even expanding the range along similar lines to the Fiat 850 / Simca 1000 as well as featuring tall-block 999-1150cc engines, etc.

       POD 4 – Leyland ends up acquiring Jaguar as well as the alternate Rootes Group, with the latter slotting below Triumph as Leyland badged models with the Triumph 1300 replaced by an alternate Avenger while the 1300/1500/Toledo/Dolomite-replacing Bobcat project is merged with the Rootes C car, with the Triumph Puma platform forming the basis as a replacement for the Arrow/Florian.

       POD 4 – Leyland / Triumph’s ties with Saab are further expanded beyond the Slant-Four / V8 engine project such as a smaller common model below the Saab 99, even after the Saab merged with Scania to form Saab-Scania with the Rootes Group’s ties to Isuzu potentially leading to much bigger things.

       A properly developed enlarged 4-5-litre version of the Triumph V8 more along the lines of the later 4-litre Saab V8 prototype would have been a suitable replacement for the Daimler V8 to slot below the Jaguar V12, additionally there is some room for some potential commonization between a Jaguar V12-based 60-degree V6 and the Avenger-based 60-degree V6 prototype engine.

       POD 5 – There is a remote possibility of reuniting Triumph’s automobile and motorcycle division via correspondence between Sir William Lyons and Edward Turner in 1942 to form a motorcycle business as soon as WW2 ended with Jack Sangster selling Triumph motorcycles to Jaguar instead of BSA in the early-1950s (followed by Jaguar also acquiring the Nuremberg-based Triumph aka Triumph-Werke Nuremberg / TWN motorcycle company a few years later) as well as possibly retaining the Swallow Sidecar Company / Swallow Coachbuilding Company (that would successfully produce the Swallow Gadabout and Swallow version of the Rainbow Joyrider prototype to become the British version Vespa/Lambretta).

       POD 7 – No British Leyland in this scenario also means that Reliant upon acquiring Bond Cars eventually becomes increasingly intertwined with Leyland, which is kind of poetic given the all-alloy Reliant OHV engine that replaced the Austin Seven-derived SV engine in late-1962 was essentially a shrunken reversed-engineered version of the 803cc Standard Eight unit that was discontinued in 1959.

   20. MG in particular could have probably benefited from playing a more sporting junior role to Rover in an alternate BMC while the Rover itself goes further upmarket.

       Rover in this scenario would feature styling that is an evolution of the Rover P6’s, 32-valve DOHC fuel-injected V8s (carried over from the 16-valve DOHC fuel-injected P10 prototype engine) and sophisticated anti-roll suspension like on the P8 that is loosely akin to hydrolastic.

       MG meanwhile would feature MG ADO21 (aka Triumph TR7/TR8/Broadside/Lynx) and Rover SD1 like styling and Rover-derived RWD platforms with all-independent suspension for its sporting saloons and sportscars, with the possibility of commonisation with ADO77 effectively making the latter an early-70s TM1.

       The ideal for MG would have been for the B-Series Twin-Cam engine to be properly-developed in 1.6-2.0-litre form with Gerald Palmer remaining at BMC a bit longer and even working on the unbuilt 2.6-2.0-litre C-Series Twin-Cam (assuming the latter is not replaced by a Blue Streak B-Series 6-cylinder variation), which would then be carried over to the MGB/MGC and any related RWD MG saloons featuring IRS originally intended for the MGB yet spread out to other RWD models.

       At minimum however a 1.6-2.0-litre B-OHC and 3-litre C-OHC that are both replaced by early alternate E-Series 4/6-cylinder engines would suffice in place of properly-developed reliable B/C-Series Twin-Cam engines.

   21. Sorry for my words，but It’s just weast of time.
       The most important thing for automobile indstry always be economies of scale.
       Triumph+Rootes sold less than 300k peryear in the late 1960s，when europan mass manufacturers sold over 1million peryear.Triumph rootes can never campore with them.

       It’s meaningless to expland the Reyton.Also the Imp.
       They will never sold such a many cars，and the Imp will just dsetoryed by the mini.
       Rootes need imp because they are not in the 1.0 segment，Strandard sold most of their cars in 1.0 segment.
       Rootes would sold enough “Imp”（herald actully）

       Merge the Rootes and Strandard is just for cut back on capacity.
       Both of them try to expland 150k in the late 1950s，merge will make it never happen.
       They can never use the additional capacity.

       Rootes-triumph was doomed to failure，meger them was to avoid Chrysl ergetting involved in the 1960s.
       They should bankruptcy in the the right timeand to warning Union and leave more breathing space to BMH

   22. Forget the Sloan ladder.It works because GM sold over 5million peryear and each brand sold only one car.
       When each bland sold a series of car，Sloan the ladder just breakdown.
       It’s meaningless for the BHM who sold less than 1 million peryear，let alone the rootes-strandard sold about 300K peryear.

   23. Leyland must go away.Not because the OTL BL，but because they readly don’t have enough resources
       Firstly，They need a lot of moneny for Metric conversion，they can’t weast on the car business.
       Secondly，There is no economies of scale between cars and trucks.As your konw，Scania and Volvo sold the the car business，Renault sold the truck business.Daimler’s success was just because they successed in both car and truck.
       Third，The Rootes-Strandard will go bankrupt in the 1970s，it will just a drag.

   24. Please recognize this fact that UK Support so many brands.
       In the late of 1960s
       Italy produced more cars than，More than 90% belong to FITA
       France produced about 1.8 times，Which where belong only two company in the 1970s
       Birtish has 4，and 2 of them belongs to the most powerful automobile company in the world.
       Rootes-Triumph have no chance，Not at all.

   25. What you want was no different from the OTL BL.
       About 40% products for export in the 1960s，It well collapse in the 1970s
       Empire was disintegrated，America market don’t need birtish mass car any more.
       The overseas market will captured by Japanese，also the British territory very soon.
       Birtish market was stagnated in the 1960s.
       With means the europan competitor will has greater economies of scale than the BMC in the 1970s
       Also your can’t be avoided the strikes in the 1970s
       They only same is to strengthen the strongest brands and kill others the sooner the better

   26. Renault、OPEL（Vauxhall）、Ford.
       Both of them has bigger size than the bmc in the 1970s，and they only has one brand（Apline wasn’t a real brand）
       VW had two（in that days）and they are the biggest
       Three layers？ It’s just repeat the Austin Morris-Triumph-Rover in the OTL
       The MG will just squeezes the breathing space of Rover.
       Rover should follow the way for audi in the OTL
       It should share the D-Segment with Austin-Morris by a basically the same car in the 1970s，and monopoly it in the 1980s.
       The MG should be strictly limited to the cheaper sportscar，leave upmakter sportscar to the Rover.
       Retain a Sloan ladder while let everyone can’t do their better,It’s being proved by the GM and OTL BL Itself

   27. The Rover did n’t being seems as a Premium out of the Birtish.
       Rover should prove themself as a Premium ，The same with the Audi do in 1980s
       The only role of MG is support the Sales network in Usa
       Pot all the excited thing on the Rover，they need It.

   28. Chrysler try to take over the Borgward in 1955，and was rejected.
       When Borgward close to bankruptcy in 1961，BMC was the only company who was considered interested.
       Chrysler had a big trouble themself at that time.
       BMC can take over the Borgward very easy,also very cheap

   29. It’s hard to imagine that alliance with the Nissian
       They are much bigger than the Honda in the 1970/1980s
       Also they were important players in the Birtish market
       What could they get？
       I konw they have Important connections in the history
       But business is just business.

   30. BMC had created the RWD trio.The Farina was launched in 1959，the same times with the mini.

       Agree on It’s better to keep RWD，but not a brand，just sevel models
       The FWD Asutin/RWD Morries was just commit suicide.
       BMC retain two seals network just because the Brand loyalty.
       Your are forced the Morries man who what FWD and Asutin Man who what RWD.
       The FWD trio were very dependent on economies of scale，provide them in half the network will never reap profit.

       The Farina should base on the Oxford chassis reather than the Cambridge. That’s the all same.
       BMC didn’t have the resource to develop the competitive RWD at the sametime with FWD trio.
       The only thing the can do is to reparting.
       According to your proposal，the Austin were never have enough economies of scale，and the Morries were be humiliated by the ford.
       It’s were be worse because both the FWD trio /RWD trio were catastrophic underdevelopment
       You just move up the BL to the early 1960s

       BMC wasn’t the biggest company in the world.
       They even hardly to competed Ford UK hand to hand
       Harriman choice Issigonis because BMC can’t afford to replace the model quickly.
       And you are now proposal do this by half the BMC
       What do you think bmc was？the GM？

   31. Both the Cottin & Desgouttes and the American Bantam has no make no sense.
       Birtish went bankrupt after the war，The whole country was ordered to concentrate on exports
       Nuffield would had no energy to rebuild the french subsidiary，Also the french the government will not help him.
       The American subsidiary should compete with the big 3，which was Impossible.
       Both the Authi and BMC Turkey was out off the EEC and didn’t have a big market.
       The Innocenti was too little, too late. Can’t be a strong base.

       The whole point is，BMC had to have a Huge factory and mature sales network before the 1970s
       Which were allow them to paly the same game with the Ford europe and Opel/Vauxhall.
       They had larger scale economy in the OTL，It should be change in the ATL.
       Also your can’t afford the the collapse of overseas markets and the frequent strikes
       It is far away beyond the scope of automobile manufacturers and specific models.

   32. We seem to agree on a need for UK automotive marques to be rationalized, though not on how to go about it nor could help notice the lack of non-linear thinking and ignoring the butterfly effects that mitigate or remove most of the issues.

       In the case of alternate BMC am operating from a point of divergence beginning in the early-mid 1920s, with Morris either acquiring Cottin-Desgouttes (with average sized works), Rochet-Schneider (suffered from under-investment though at least had sizeable factory and good reputation) or even De Dion-Bouton (with an acceptable and conveniently situated factory at Puteaux for which the Marquis de Dion was known to be seeking a purchaser) instead of Leon Bollee Automobiles (source: Jon Pressnell’s Morris: The Cars and the Company).

       Either of the better alternatives above would have marked the beginning of Morris later BMC’s presence on the continent (followed later by a Seneffe plant that builds rather than assembles cars with Borgward being a possible option in the event it is not acquired by Chrysler if not BMW during the latter’s darkest period). The ideal of the alternate successful Morris subsidiary would have been for it to be to Morris what Simca was to Fiat to some extent.

       Morris would also have the option of resisting the temptation to acquire Riley Motors, with the latter either fading away or being acquired by another company. At the same time it would have probably been advantageous for Nuffield to authorize a Riley Big Four-based V8 engine for use in the post-war North American market in a Pathfinder or Pathfinder-based model until the mid-1950s.

       Austin meanwhile would move in to acquire American Austin / American Bantam in the early/mid and move the latter from its than existing site at Butler, Pennsylvania to the former Locomobile Company of America factory in Bridgeport, Connecticut as well as another site in Hamilton – Ontario. Both of which are further expanded to increase production capacity whilst American Bantam style changes to the American Austin design were approved along with the development of the original Jeep (with support of Austin).

       The changes allow Austin’s Bridgeport factory to produce the necessary production capacity for the original Jeep (featuring 4/6-cylinder OHV “D-Series” engines) on the scale needed by the United States Department of War, who awarded the bulk of the orders to both Austin as well as Willys-Overland (with the pair coming to an agreement with on the latter building their own version of both the Jeep as well as the 4/6-cylinder “D-Series” units). The Austin Jeeps would eventually be replaced by Land Rover / Range Rover upon BMC’s acquisition of Rover.

       Austin would also bring to production the 1.2-litre A40-derived 2-litre 6-cylinder prototype that originally used the “C-Series” name before it was later used on the Morris designed 6-cylinder and prior to the later Australian built Blue Streak engine.

       Miles Thomas manages to successfully implement a similar investment and modernization programme in the Nuffield Group as was done by Leonard Lord at Austin. The Post-War Nuffield engine family is reduced to two:

       1- A version of the 918cc Wolseley Eight OHV that was enlarged up to around 1500-1600cc (instead of the planned 950-980cc update) along similar lines as Ford Germany’s OHV conversion of the Ford Sidevalve engine and remained in production until 1964 in the Taunus P3 in 1498-1758cc form (with Alta and later Weslake updating the engine prior to being replaced by the alternate early/mid-1960s E-Series). The Ford Sidevalve quite unashamedly plagiarised by Leonard Lord for the 918cc Morris Eight / Minor Side-valve and 918cc Wolseley OHV during his time at Morris.

       This engine would be used to power the post-war alternate Morris Minor plus related models such as the Wolseley 1500/Riley 1.5 and Morris Major albeit now with an MG badged in place of the former and styling from the Gerald Palmer prototype resembling a downsized Magnette ZA/ZB (with the Minor receiving all-independent suspension) and MG Midget T-Type as well as possibly the early MGA (again ideally with IRS) prior to the latter receiving a 1.6-1.7+ B-Series.

       2- An OHV version of the 1.5 Morris Oxford MO and Wolseley 4/50 as well as an OHV version of the 2.2 6-cylinder in the Morris Six MS and Wolseley 6/80. There are curious titbits in Jon Pressnell’s book on Morris ranging from the above engine being capable of enlargement up to 3.25-litres to 4-litres in the Viceroy/Imperial project and the later C-Series potentially being an OHV conversion of the above, to the Oxford II potentially being powered by an 1750cc OHV version of the 1.5 Oxford MO SV engine that in light of the C-Series connection would equate to a displacement of 1759cc were one to take away two cylinders from the 2.6 C-Series 6-cylinder. Not to mention Abingdon themselves wanting a 2-litre 4-cylinder version of the 2.9 C-Series during the development of the MGB.

       Despite the success of Miles Thomas however, William Morris would still plot with Leonard Lord to bring about the formation of BMC.

       Result: The formation of BMC is a merger of near equals instead of Morris being the weaker partner, with a much larger presence in various markets compared to real-life to further expand on its original status as the World’s 4th Largest Carmaker upon its formation.

       Alternate BMC has 5 engine families from Austin’s A-Series, B-Series and unofficial “D-Series” and Morris’s Wolseley OHV and early C-Series OHV.

       A early/mid-60s fast-tracked yet properly-developed (Volkswagen EA827/EA111 meets S-Series) E-Series 4/6-cylinder engine ends up eventually replacing the alternate Wolseley OHV, B-Series, C-Series and “D-Series” engines, with the A-Series either being thoroughly updated to A-Plus meets South African and A-OHC prototype engines (with possible scope for enlargement to 1372cc) or replaced by a slightly enlarged 850-1600cc engine based on A-Series principles as accomplished by Nissan as well as Renault with the similarly-sized C-Type engine whose descendants are produced up to the mid-2000s to even the present day in the case of the distantly related Renault K-Type.

       BMC undergoes a process of rationalisation with Wolseley being discontinued and the alternate Farina family being based on the Minor/Oxford/Isis along with elements from the Magnette ZA/ZB, etc prior to forming the basis of an early-60s Marina-meets-ADO77/TM1-like duo/trio with some influence from Gerald Palmer (who was involved with the Viva HA and Victor FB/FC) that at minimum features telescopic front dampers and parabolic rear springs plus anti-roll bars from the outset or some updated version of the Minor’s all-independent suspension up to the all-independent suspension arrangement planned for the MGB or the hydrolastic EX234 as well as some elements from Nissan including Pininfarina styling as on the Bluebird 410, President H150, Cedric 130 and Sunny B10.

       Whatever the case for the Marina-like duo/trio regarding the suspension. It would essentially be a stop-gap to retain conservative RWD buyers until a new generation of FWD models appears from the 1970s featuring 9X and Volkswagen Polo/etc-like MacPherson struts at the front and a torsion beam axle at the back (a similar layout was apparently considered for the Metro). Which one could argue would warrant Austin and Morris being fully merged by that point.

       The above would be roughly around the time the UK joins the EEC, yet there was also a chance the UK could have joined the EEC in 1963 as a result of Charles de Gaulle (who vetoed the UK entry) being assassinated in 1961 when his car was hit by a bomb near the village of Crancey in the Pont-sur-Seine district (instead of surviving that attempt on his life). A late EEC entry would have been an asset to alternate BMC’s stop-gap conventional RWD models, whereas an early EEC entry would have helped the company both domestically as well as on the continent (especially in light of BMC having an earlier and significantly larger presence in Europe in this scenario as well as in other countries) either way the company benefits.

       The Issigonis FWD cars would appear under the Austin name with Vanden Plas versions denoting three-box saloon variants whereas the Austins would be hatchbacks from the outset, with increased component sharing with the alternate RWD models and BMC’s research department being tasked early on to reduce the costs and increase the profits of the FWD trio – Thanks to Joe Edwards rather than George Harriman succeeding Leonard Lord in 1961. The basic spec Vanden Plas models would resemble a composite of Wolseley/Riley while the top-spec Vanden Plas models would be similar to real-life to even including expensive coachbuilt one-offs for the celebrities / well-heeled akin to an in-house analogue of Radford, Wood & Pickett and Pavesi to bring some extra money back to BMC’s coffers. The presence of Rover would later reduce Vanden Plas to a trim level.

       The alternate ADO16 and ADO17 would feature end-on gearboxes, whereas the Mini would have until the alternate ADO20 meets Project Ant / Barrel Car (albeit properly de-seamed) to receive an end-on gearbox as well as R6-like Hydragas suspension. Worth mentioning though the starting point of the Maestro/Montego was said to have been the Austin Allegro, with experimental Maestro’s featuring Hydrolastic suspension being tested.

       Rover rather than Jaguar would end up joining BMC, with MG being the junior partner to Rover for future RWD models while Morris gradually embraces FWD or is simply merged with Austin. With BMC ranging from Austin/Morris or BMC (replacing both), MG and Rover/Land Rover/Range Rover.

       Nissan was also considered an option for real-life British Leyland as well as Chrysler Europe before Honda was chosen. Unlike the latter though the previous history between the companies opens other further opportunities and while business is business, Japanese culture tends to operate on an honour/shame dynamic leading to Nissan potentially being inclined to repay Austin/BMC for the post-war role they played with the license agreement (that in alternate scenario further expanded).

   33. Leyland had a desire to get in the car business by producing cars under their own name. After acquiring Standard-Triumph and discontinuing Standard, an alternative Rootes Group that resolved most of their issues via a point of divergence from the early/mid-1950s up to the 1960s would have been a good enough starting point for the range to be renamed Leylands and slotting below Triumph and Jaguar.

       Rootes ties with Isuzu could have also extended to the latter getting involved with the Imp project to slot below the Bellett/Super Minx and Florian/Arrow – equating to more sales (loosely akin to the Alfa Romeo versions of the Renault R8 though with more involvement by Isuzu), after all Hino Motors (along with Kawasaki via the same Keiretsu – who produced the sub-Imp Kawasaki KZ360 prototype) was originally part of what we know as Isuzu and produced the Renault-derived Hino Contessa that featured styling by none other than Michelotti.

       Expanding at Ryton is certainly better than the logistically costly 600 mile round trip between Ryton and militant-strike prone Linwood, while of the view the Imp was salvageable until a FWD replacement can be developed.
       The Avenger platform was said to have been very versatile being not only capable of the SWB Avenger Liftback later Sunbeam Hatchback but also a FWD Alpine/Solara proposal derived from the Avenger Estate, meaning there was plenty of unexploited potential that could have extended production life before needing replacement with the likes of Saab and Isuzu getting involved – The former with a sub-Saab 99 model and the latter an Avenger-derived Gemini/Piazza (with possible Lotus variants akin to the Lotus Sunbeam and Lotus tuned Isuzu Piazza).

       From Bill Gunston’s book Fedden – The Life of Sir Roy Fedden. It mentions during his time at Leyland in the 1950s that Leyland should have heeded his advice on investing in building a larger commercial diesel engine for a wide range of applications as well as a new Leyland development laboratory beside the London Transport Depot at Borehamwood, which would have benefited the company though despite leaving he remained on good terms with Sir Henry Spurrier.

       William Lyons was another who was on good terms with Sir Henry Spurrier as mentioned in William Lyon’s bio: “According to Bill Heynes, Lyons respected Spurrier and he thought that Lyons would have voluntarily joined up with Leyland had Spurrier not retired in 1963. After all, John Lyons had served his apprenticeship at Leyland, which was also a major supplier to Jaguar of XK engine castings.

       As recorded, the two companies had worked together briefly in the US in the 1950s when Donald Stokes had be Sales Director. Now, at 52, Sir Donald Stokes (he had been knighted in 1965) was the Leyland Motor Corporation’s Chief Executive. Lyons, however, described Stokes to Heynes as being ‘only a salesman’, not a manufacturer. From the start it appears there was little empathy between the two men.”

       It seems Leyland would have been better off with the significantly more competent Stanley Markland taking over from Henry Spurrier instead of Donald Stokes.

       Saab-Scania as well as Isuzu would have had better opportunities to reduce costs with further involvement with alternate Leyland Motors, whether the car divisions of Saab-Scania and Isuzu are sold off to Leyland is another matter.

       Alternate Leyland Motors would have the following engine families:

       Triumph = 803-1493cc SC / 1598-2498cc I6 that is replaced by the alternate Slant-Four / V8 engine family co-developed with Saab and Jaguar using an enlarged version of the V8 as a starting point to replace the Daimler V8.

       Rootes = 875-948cc/998-1150cc Imp that is replaced by ~973-1396cc 3/4-cylinder (essentially an alternate version of the Triumph influenced K-Series), Minx-derived 1.3-2.0 Isuzu G engine that is replaced by an 1.1-2.0cc Avenger 4-cylinder / Avenger-based 2.0-3.0 60-degree V6 (the latter with possible commonization with the Jaguar V12)

       Jaguar = 2.6-3.0+ all-alloy short-stroke XK6 that is possibly replaced by Avenger-based 2.5-3.0 60-degree V6 or 3.0-4.0 90-degree V6 derived from Jaguar’s enlarged version of the Triumph/Saab V8, 2.5-5.0 Daimler V8 that is replaced by Triumph/Saab V8-derived 4.0-5.0 V8 and 5.3-7.0 Jaguar V12.

       The above engines would have be rationalised down from the 1980s onwards to the:

       – ~973-1396cc 3/4-cylinder (essentially an alternate version of the Triumph influenced K-Series) that may possible be used by Isuzu and Saab

       – If desired an enlarged version being a 1600-2000cc 4-cylinder / 2000-3000cc 90-degree V6 / 3000-4000cc V8 half-relation of the former (essentially what Rover and Kia were planning with a K-Series half-relation in real-life) with merged elements of the Isuzu X 4-cylinder / Isuzu V V6 / 3.5-4.2 V8 (in the Chevrolet Beretta-based Feretta V8 prototype and Isuzu 4200R) modular engine family

       – A production version of the modular AJ12 / AJ26 concept of which ultimately became the Jaguar AJ-V8 though also included a 3-litre V6 as well as a 2-litre 4-cylinder, a 5-litre V10 cylinder and a 6-litre V12 family engine.
       The alternate version of modular Jaguar engine would also include a 90-degree V6 with either the former or a 60-degree V6 being used in non-Jaguar applications. – https://ralphhosier.wordpress.com/2011/12/01/the-genesis-of-the-jaguar-v8/

   34. See the rationalisation of alternate Leyland Motors unfolding as follows:

       -Leyland (formerly Rootes)/Triumph-

       Imp = replaced either by a Triumph influenced ADO74 analogue (since it was headed by Harry Webster) or what can only be described as a Michelotti-styled (akin to Michelotti proposal for Innocenti 750) Metro-sized 875-1150cc Imp-engined Pseudo-9X-like successor*.

       *- Envision a scenario where a disgruntled Alec Issigonis after clashing with BMC head Joe Edwards who held him on a tight lease (to alternate BMC’s benefit) and having his revolutionary 9X/10X replacements for the Mini/ADO16 rejected in favour of the evolutionary ADO20 (aka Project Ant) and ADO22, along with a few others moves to Leyland in the late-1960s to early-1970s and works together with most of the Hillman Imp design team such as Mike Parkes, Tim Fry, Adrian West, Leo Kuzmicki, etc with both using the Autobianchi A112 as a template (with precursor elements of the Fiat Panda in terms of practicality and minimalism, etc).

       However despite working with people some of whom he viewed as his peers and even friends from his time at Alvis to create a composite successor to outshine both the Mini and Imp, Alec Issigonis never managed to get his 9X/10X engines produced (including Leyland variations) and believed not meriting to design a complete clean-sheet car down to the engine offended his purity as a designer and spoils his legacy compared to his rival Dante Giacosa at Fiat.

       Super Minx/Bellett and Triumph 1300/1500/Toledo/Dolomite = replaced by merged Avenger/Triumph Bobcat/SD2

       Arrow/Florian/117 Coupe and Triumph 2000/2500/Stag = replaced by merged Rootes C Car/Triumph Puma

       Asp/Alpine/Spitfire = replaced by Avenger/Bobcat/SD2-based sportscar as the Triumph Spitfire II

       Tiger/TR6 = replaced by alternate C-Car/Puma-based Triumph TR7/TR8/Lynx/Bullet/Broadside with styling resembling Michelotti’s proposal for Project Broadside

       -Jaguar-

       Jaguar’s models meanwhile are in some respects little different from real-life apart from largely following a version of Jaguar’s future project plan for the period (albeit with some adjustments) including XJ21 aka direct E-Type successor.

       That is thanks to Jaguar being in a secure position under alternate Leyland Motors instead of having to constantly fight their corner at the expense of other in-house marques competing projects or undermining perceived rivals during the chaos of British Leyland.

       https://i1.wp.com/www.aronline.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Jaguar-XJ21-2.jpg?resize=768%2C916&ssl=1
       https://i1.wp.com/www.aronline.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Jaguar-XJ21-5.jpg?resize=650%2C311&ssl=1

   35. To be honest, I don’t see from your thoughts that you think the Birtish automotive industry needs to be rationalized.
       Birtish Leyland has been criticized for trying to keep five brands in a four tier structure.
       You’re trying to keep seven brands on two three tier structures.
       Yes, they belong to different companies，but they’re in the same market.The success of one company inevitably leads to the failure of another.The UK will never be able to support so many brands to succeed.

       Let’s see what happened.
       Now in the early 1970S.
       Leyland had at least 9car（It depends on the brand project） and 7platform
       ADO74+SD2+Puma+XJ+DS420+Spitfire+TR+XJS+XJ21
       The price range covers the whole market，competes directly with Ford, Mercedes and Porsche in the same time
       Ford Europe sold over 1million peryear by 5car and 3platform
       Mercedes sold 350k peryear by 4car and 3platform
       Now, please tell me, how many cars does Leyland in your ATL sell peryear

       For the BMC，You plan to use MG as a mid-range brand，At the same time, FWD is used in mass brands.
       Now，we have two car in the D-Degment;a fwd and a rwd MG.How many do you think could sell peryear for each？
       In that period，Ford Sold 200K Cortina peryear，BMW Sold 150K 3 series peryear and 200K Audi.

       It’s twice crazy to the Leyland
       Bob，Please be realistic.
       The most important is economies of scale.
       Where could they sould such many car？

   36. Joining EEC in 1963 would change everything. That would make a whole history different.
       I think it’s too much to adopt. Otherwise, why not assume that Hitler was killed in a car accident, without the nazi ，the World War II in a different way and that the Empire still existed?

       First, let’s set the goal
       What we need was a competitive company, a market leader, not just alive. Lancia still alive，But that doesn’t make sense.
       The leaders of the whole industry are Toyota and Volkswagen，Which’s impossible for the British auto industry.
       Ford Europe、Opel、Renault、PSA、FIAT are still alive.But obviously, they are not in a good position.
       Mass brands in Europe is on the decline，This should not be what we are seek.
       Obvious，The goal should be the German Troika，The Mercedes，Bmw，Audi，Who In fact, is JLR’s main competitor.
       Support one premium brand，It’s achievable for the UK.What we want should be a stronger JLR，Which have the same size
       with the German Troika，Owend by Birtish.
       Do you agree with me？
       I just don’t see the possibility of developing a Volkswagen

   37. The FWD Austin with RWD Morris was Complete madness
       BMC production 660K in the 1960，Ford UK production 600K and had More profits，in fact.They are competitors of equal strength.
       The ATL are not enough to make BMC become twice as much as Ford UK.Also，why they want to merge if Morris become Stronger？
       If BMC need RWD，they’d better use the Oxford chassis as the
       basic of Farina，and offer it in both two seals networks.That’s the all they can do.
       BMC will never get twice the size of Ford UK，even in your ATL.
       The FWD Austin with RWD Morris means three things
       1.The RWD Morris has half of Ford’s scale economies.Which means they were always be too expensive or unprofitable.
       And the FWD Asutin has half the scale economies compared with OTL.As we only even in OTL，they are not very profitable.
       Now，we have get two series of loss leaders
       2.You’re forcing the loyal customers for who want a RWD Austin or a FWD Morris.
       These means the fwd trio will had half the develop resources than the OTL，which were known for their failures in the OTL.Also，the Rwd trio will be destroyed by Cortina MKI easily.Both the FWD and RWD Will be disastrous by the catastrophic underdeveloped.

       These just what BL done in the 1970s prove to be ridiculous.
       Even they are less crazy than you.I can’t understand why you think it works

       If you don’t have confidence in FWD,there are several ways to hedge the risk
       1.Enter a segment that was not there before.Just Like Mini and Fiesta
       2.Launch a low-capacity niche model,maybe use it in Sub brands,Like Fiat
       3.Limit the change in one segment and keep others，like escort
       Nobody which Launch a FWD trio with a RWD trio in the same time.

   38. Moreover, rationalization and equal merge will never happen at the same time.
       If Austin does merge with a stronger Morris.Corporate politics will be rampant.
       They will keep their own models for a long time.
       I really can’t see that you think rationalization is necessary，All you do is make it harder to rationalize.
       You’re really just bringing everything that happened to BL out in the ’50s

       You can’t assume that everyone will become more successful, while deceiving yourself that they will merge harmoniously and cooperate well, which is totally contrary to human nature.
       Not to mention that even if they can cooperate well,there were not enough market to accommodate the brand and model you want

       Don’t indulge in fantasy.
       Rationalization means reduction and elimination.
       German does will beacause Volkswagen simply killed NSU, BMW killed Glas, immediately
       PSA tries to keep Talbot，they are almost bankrupt.
       Fiat had to keep Alfa and Lancia，as a result, neither can be developed
       What’s more, brands like triumphal and Mg have never had the prestige of alfa and Lancia

       Bob, the market is limited, and the resources are also limited.
       Sloan’s Sloan ladder can’t honor each other, only let everyone can’t do their best.
       Even GM with millions of shares can’t maintain it, let alone BMC or Leyland.

       MG will always be considered as the lower end of the BMW3, because without the brothers of the 5 and 7
       Rover will be forced to be cheaper than BMW , so as to avoid price break
       Similarly, the Triumph SD2 will not become upmarket because it is the junior brother of Jaguar
       The secret of the German Troika expansion is to attract customers to buy entry-level cars with expensive flagship and halo. The halo of Jaguar will never shine on Triumph

       Rationalization means elimination，You have to kill the weak as soon as possible
       So many brands mean that no brand can be developed, and no one will be regarded as prestige, except for the omnipotent Jaguar/Land Rover

   39. oliver – You need to take into account the butterfly effects from not only the factories outside of the UK, but also that this scenario would also account for existing factories in the UK likely being expanded to further increase capacity in ATL 1960 and place it on a closer level to rivals on the continent though the decline in car production compared to other countries is not inevitable in this scenario. At best we are probably looking at a more managed decline that is not immediately perceptible.

       At least we appear to agree the UK would have benefited hugely had it been admitted into the EEC in 1963, it is just the other changes are also significant in themselves to place the UK automotive industry in a comparatively better position compared to real-life.

       William Morris was becoming disillusioned with running Morris and it would have likely been the case in ATL with Miles Thomas preventing him from basically neglecting the company with his parsimonious investing and doing his best to sabotage the post-war Minor/Oxford/Six/etc. So he would have eventually wanted to merge Morris with Austin with his old rival. The former in this scenario would have a larger presence in Europe, while the latter would have a larger presence in North America and other markets compared to real-life to create a much larger company and a suitable starting point for further expansion earlier on. A more equal merger combined with proper development of Nuffield Cars pre-merger would have also prevented the Farinas from being Austin-derived (leaving just the IMO lackluster overly-tailfin Pininfarina styling to deal with).

       BMC using the 1960s low-cost stop-gap RWD Morris Marina-like duo/trio to establish a presence in the conservative fleet / company car market as well as the taxi / minicab market, is not so much about competing directly against and even beating Ford as to help recoup the costs of the alternate Austin FWD trio to be invested in a new generation of BMC (Austin/Morris) FWD models for the 1970s in the scenario of a later UK EEC entry as well as helping to differentiate Morris and Austin from each other before they are merged from the late-1960s to early-1970s (essentially a slightly larger scale RWD Fiat = Morris and FWD Autobianchi = Austin).

       Whereas a successful UK entry into the EEC in 1963 would have pretty much butterflied away the conservative RWD fleet / company car market in the UK to the disadvantage of Ford and others as well as accelerated the discontinuation of the Morris marque in favour of the FWD Austin/BMC. Duncan Stuart and BMC’s research department would also be tasked with helping to take the cost of the Mini and other FWD cars earlier on to make them more profitable (along with a slight increase in price) with the ATL ADO15 Mini essentially being more like an ADO20 with a hatchback, all of which equals a more profitable BMC compared to real-life.

       Ideally the likes of BMC should have also established factories in Mexico and Brazil, not so much as to beat Volkswagen (though that is no bad thing) but rather to eat into a significant chunk of the millions to tens of millions of sales that came from Volkswagen’s dominance in such markets (some OT though surprised the British never retained a small stake in the company given their role in helping to restart production). Speaking of Volkswagen they came very close to going under in real-life, likely even more so had Ford approved the Cardinal/Redwing project for the US from the early-60s together with General Motors giving the 1st generation Corvair a front anti-roll bar from the outset – thereby leaving Volkswagen’s rear-engined models the target of Ralph Nader’s alternate book.

       Obviously it sucks for those customers who want a RWD Austin or FWD Morris (even though FWD was viewed with suspicion), yet such an approach is arguably the best interim compromise where BMC does not put all its eggs in one basket until the domestic market has grown to accept FWD which they did from the 1970s.

       The present day situation and the decline of mainstream brands in favour of premium marques over the 2 or so decades as well as the increase in collaboration and joint-ventures between carmakers to reduce costs is another issue, yet this scenario also allows for not only a more equitable joint-venture/collaboration between alternate BMC and BMW (compared to what actually unfolded in real-life) but also alternate BMC being in a position to save the likes of Nissan instead of Renault with alternate BMC having ties to two companies whose histories with Austin extend to the pre-war era with the Austin Seven-derived models.

       Obviously Leyland Motors would also not be immune from embracing various joint-ventures and collaboration with other carmakers, which in this scenario was largely the case with Saab / Scania-Saab and Isuzu. It is possible they would collaborate with the likes of Honda for Leyland (formerly Rootes models) with someone like Roy Axe or William Towns taking over from Michelotti upon the death of the latter (perhaps Honda also opts to take over Saab instead of establishing Acura).

       In the case of alternate Leyland Motors, the amount of platforms is possibly closer to about 3-4 though it depends to what extent the Jaguars are already related to each other as well as whether the likes of Roy Haynes is involved to implement his plans at alternate Leyland or BMC.

       MG would shift from using Morris-derived RWD platforms/etc (albeit with all-independent suspension) to using Rover-derived RWD platforms, similar to real-life Triumph and Rover with the TR7/TR8/Lynx/Broadside and SD1 though with different styling and possibly different suspension.

       Rover would have more upmarket P10 and P8 saloons with styling that resembles an evolution of the P6 with possible exterior elements influenced by the successful Range Rover. MG’s related sporting saloons would resemble the real-life SD1, with the sportscars featuring similar styling at the front with the rest being like Broadside. It is a toss top as to whether the P9 would be a Rover given the lack of sporting reputation or work better as a range-topping MG.

       Jaguar wanted to retreat from the 6-cylinder segment and move upmarket to the V8 and V12 segments, thereby creating a void that could have easily been filled by Triumph.

       Sure Jaguar was certainly capable of moving back to the 4-cylinder segment via a 2-litre XK4 model to anticipate the rise of the 2-litre compact executive cars of the 1960s had they chosen to with a smaller sub-Mk1/Mk2 model, yet they obviously thought they would have better success remaining with the XK6 engines models before pushing further upmarket.

       If Rover had a significant post-war history with sportscars beyond the short-lived Rover P4-based Marauder Cars 2-seater and the Rover P9 prototype, then by all means would have had them supersede the likes of MG. However like Jaguar, Rover also had plans of moving further upmarket and its pre-existing lack of sporting reputation to begin with also creates a void for a sporting marque MG to easily slot into.

       Triumph playing a junior role to Jaguar and MG a junior role to Rover, recognizes the fact the likes of Triumph/MG are to Jaguar/Rover what Alfa Romeo/Audi are to Maserati/Bentley and play a complimentary role that takes into account Jaguar/Rover’s upmarket ambitions.

       Speaking of Audi, as with post-war Triumph and even post-Volkswagen Skoda we basically have examples of either otherwise defunct marques coming from basically nothing to establish a good reputation to even having the potential to be British BMWs (regardless of your opinion on whether Triumph could take that next step) or a carmaker with an infamously bad reputation that was successfully rehabilitated.

       Of the view Triumph could have gone further despite being constrained by Jaguar to be a 4/6-cylinder marque in this alternate scenario, which is no bad thing considering BMW was also known for building 4/6-cylinder cars. The same goes with MG as of the view it had the ingredients to move further upmarket closer to Alfa Romeo/etc (via Twin-Cam/etc) despite facing bad management in real-life and could have easily been rehabilitated from its previous reputation for slightly sporty rebadged models.

       Anyway it has been a good discussion and appear to have established some common ground, obviously not going to convince each other on other areas yet there are ideas worth taking into consideration.

   40. Join the EEC in 1963 will help a lot，but it’s just too much.
       There is no point in building an idea on such a basis

       Maybe Nuffield could be more successful
       But you really can’t count on they can get rationalization after a equal merger
       Just look what had happen in the Biritsh Leyland

       RWD Morris really can’t recoup the costs，I’ve repeated it several times
       It just make the FWD more expensive，because half the scale economy
       Also it can’t be a low-cost choice，Half of your sales network will only provide them.
       You can’t just launch a heap of rubbish，You have to develop them and make them competitive.
       Of couse，they were much expensive than the comparable Ford，because the scale economy.
       Provide some rubbish and think that customers will buy unconditionally out of loyalty was just BL did in the 1970s，It destroyed the BL

       Maybe the BMC better to keep some RWD to hedge the risk
       But I just can’t understand why do you insist on providing it throughout Morris .
       It’s half the Sales network ！You have to provide some proper rather than placeholder
       Why just call it Cambridge/Oxford and provide in both Austin and Morries？
       I’ve explained the consequences over and over again.
       Can you give me a reason to insist on distinguishing Austin from Morris

   41. Why just call it Cambridge/Oxford and provide in both Austin and Morries？→Why not just call it Cambridge/Oxford and provide in both Austin and Morries？

   42. 3-4 Platform was too much for the leyland ，You let them compete with Ford Fiesta 、Mercedes S-class and 911！
       You can’t just conceive of a car and said it can compete with thing.
       You need scale economy！

       At that days
       Ford was in B-E Segment ，also the VW
       while Mercedes in E-F
       The only one in B-F Segment was OTL BL，So they went broke
       And your ATL leyland will much smaller than OTL BL
       Answer me, How much car do you the ATL Leyland could sell in 1973
       When Mercedes sold 340000 and the cheapest one was expensive than all the Triumphs

   43. Regardless of whether the UK joins the EEC in 1963 or 1973, the fact is in this scenario the likes of BMC already have a significant presence on continental Europe in this scenario.

       The original brief for the Marina was an Escort-sized Minor rebody before it was enlarged to a Cortina-sized car, it is just a matter of preceding the idea by almost a decade when it mattered the most and launching both in the early-1960s as the RWD duo (or trio via a larger Corsair-like variant of similar length and width to the Oxford III by way of early-60s 100-inch ADO77 prototype), clothed in Pininfarina styling and spun off of pretty much one RWD basic platform at best to being at most mechanically similar at worst to atomize costs. Basically a version of Roy Haynes idea.

       What was considered uncompetitive and rubbish in your view in the 1970s (which am not disputing) would have still been more than adequate for the 1960s to serve as a low-cost stop-gap with the RWD Morris Duo/Trio either featuring telescopic front dampers and parabolic rear springs plus anti-roll bars from the outset or some updated version of the Minor’s all-independent suspension.

       The related Rootes Audax Minx / Rootes Super Minx family (plus ATL commonized Bellett) as well as the related (as in mechanically similar) Ford Anglia (105E/123E) and Ford Consul Classic / Ford Consul Capri, also provide another useful template for the early-1960s Marina-like duo/trio to follow as well as the related mk1/mk2 Cortina, Corsair and Capri.

       With regards to hedging bets, there would have probably been some value in BMC having a common RWD platform to have a presence in the 1-litre Vauxhall Viva HA / Datsun 1000 B10 segment (in place of the Elf/Hornet) as well as the mk1/mk2 Cortina segment in 1300-1600cc form between ADO16 and ADO17 (the latter given a 2-litre+ engine).

       One of real-life BMC’s issues was the proliferation of badged engineered models and the lack of differentiation between Austin and Morris in terms of identity and layout (whilst maximizing as much component sharing as possible beneath the surface).

       One could argue Wolseley and Riley should have been discontinued (no argument there) and that Austin and Morris should have been merged to either one of the marques or to just BMC, yet there is value of BMC taking a short-term approach by embracing a Fiat-like solution with Fiat (RWD) and Autobianchi (FWD) meets real-life BL-derived solution with Morris (RWD) and Austin (FWD) or in alternate BMC’s case something like Morris/MG (RWD) and Austin/Vanden Plas (FWD) – prior to the arrival of Rover.

       Of the view alternate Leyland Motors (plus a successful Rootes) would do relatively ok given the butterflies and ties to Isuzu and Saab / Saab-Scania (up to a potential takeover of both car divisions), not perfect by any means yet Leyland Motors in real-life was said to have been a growing and thriving concern before they were forced to take over the much larger BMC to form British Leyland that would have continued to thrive had they decided to walk away.

       Alternate Leyland Motors (with expanded ties to Saab / Saab-Scania) acquiring a successful Rootes Group (with expanded ties to Isuzu) would be much easier to integrate in comparison as well as prompt this expanded Leyland Motors combine to follow alternate BMC in also establishing a presence on the continent via a takeover DAF Cars / Trucks (another company that Michelotti worked with) plus NedCar site before Volvo. Whether that necessitates completely discontinuing much of the Rootes range in favour of just Triumph and Jaguar in this alternate scenario is something else.

       Believed have answered your questions, if there is anything else we will just have to agree to disagree.

   44. I’m curious what you means about upmarket ambitions？
       The Price of XJ was between the 5 and 7 or E and S,the V12XJ-S was 60% the price of the V8 SLC，even cheaper than the
       Eeve jaguar was a lot cheaper than the Mercedes and BMW，let alone the Rover
       The P8 was designed for replace both the P5 and P6，and upgraded by Stockton to a “Mercedes beater”
       The upmarket ambitions means try to compete with Mercedes.
       Maserati/Bentley？It’s just totally crazy
       There is no doubt that the place of Rover was much lower than the Mercedes at any second since was invented.Even reaching BMW’s position is almost impossible
       Rover’s goal is Audi，which Relying on the strongest car companies in Europe（or in the word for today），they spent half a century to arrive where they are today.
       Even the Mercedes sold 80% 4cylinders cars in 1970S，and they while entry the D-segment in 1981.Rover had to get in there befor Mercedes
       It never existed a space of a so call middle end brand

   45. Maybe It is ture that Jaguar was unsuited to D-segment
       but a compact executive Triumph while squeeze the space of Rover

       There is no time to waste for rover when bmw sold 15K 3series peryear and audi sold 20k 80 peryear
       and the mercedes will enter the segment within a decade.

   46. The meaning of criticizing the badge project is to kill the redundant brands Instead of distinguishing them
       BMC’s badge project is criticized because it reduces economies of scale, and you just lower it even more

   47. Triumph sold 20K 2000 and 20K dolomite peryear.
       They have a production capacity of more than 150k ，the can produce more cars.
       They just can’t sell more upmarket cars.
       I agree that they’re going to get stronger in ATL, but they need to be 10 times stronger and I can’t see how to do it.
       Don’t forget, Triumph and MG Rover compete with each other in the same market, one side’s rise will succeed in the other side’s sales

   48. Jaguar planned to move from the XK6 and otherwise neglected Daimler V8 (that allegedly had some fundamental flaws) to the V12 and related 60-degree V8 prototype, alternate scenario has Jaguar moving in same direction though instead with an enlarged 4.2-5-litre development of the Triumph/Saab V8 as a starting point that possibly carries over some of the architecture of the V12-based 60-degree V8 but at the correct 90-degree angle.

       The Rover P8 was indeed conceived to replace both the Rover P5 and Rover P6, though the former would also form the basis of an alternate downsized P10 analogue instead of the simplified P10 that evolved into the SD1 in this scenario. The latter P10 analogue platform would also form the basis of SD1-like saloon as well as smaller sportscar and MG SD2 analogue.

       Seem to recall on a few Rover forums that suggest Rover had plans to commonize both the P10 prototype 4-cylinder that was built from P6 4-cylinder tooling and the Rover V8, with the latter carrying over the P10’s 16-valve DOHC fuel-injection for a 32-valve Quad-Cam fuel-injected V8.

       Together with unrealised plans for an all-alloy Rover V6 as well as the previous P6 engine also forming the basis of experimental 5/6-cylinder engines and alternate BMC+Rover would have about 3 or so engine families.

       Eventually this would be reduced to two engine families, since BMC would be looking to go in a modular direction earlier on to replace both the alternate E-Series (that reputedly shared elements with the later Volkswagen EA827/EA113 – itself forming the basis of petrol and diesel 3/5-cylinder, V6/V8/V10 plus VR5/VR6/W8/etc) as well as this alternate Rover P10/V6/V8 engine family, with a rough alternate E-Series petrol/diesel-derived analogue of the real-life Rover Group’s L-Series derived Project Storm that eventually became Td5 (that was to spawn a dieselized family of 2-litre 4-cylinder / 2.5-litre 5-cylinder / 3.0-litre 6-cylinder engines).

       This alternate scenario still has a more successful British Automotive Industry involved with joint-ventures and collaboration with other carmakers outside of the UK, which is pretty much inevitable in any case. At the same time how the UK automotive industry fares in this ATL would be an aberration from the usual and avoidable real-life post-war British declinist narrative that was present in a number of industries and fields in the UK.

       At the same time of the view that with the right historical points of divergence, the UK in ATL is able better support two indigenous domestic combines over a number of decades up to the present compared to real-life yet with the caveat they would seek to become involved with joint-ventures/etc that would not be unusual given how common it has become over the past few decades even in continental Europe.

       Obviously alternate Leyland Motors (former Rootes, Triumph/Jaguar/etc) being the smaller combine of the two and its rather prescient willingness to expand ties with other carmakers earlier on, would lead it to be more inclined to engage in more joint-ventures and collaborations with other carmakers compared to alternate BMC (despite the expanded ties with the likes of Nissan and BMW).

       One thing that has not been touched upon with an expanded earlier US presence by Austin/BMC (that cemented its status as the world’s 4th largest carmaker in alternate scenario if not encroaching on closer to 3rd due to earlier PODs), would be that it also opening up the possibility of the former getting more involved with Nash Motors later AMC beyond the Austin-derived Nash Metropolitan (and Donald Healey’s short involvement with the Nash-Healey) to further expand their presence in the US via a partnership/alliance (as prelude to a later takeover), instead of AMC entering into a partnership with Renault (and plans for a takeover until Renault Boss Georges Besse was assassinated) before being sold to Chrysler.

   49. It is true that Jaguar plans to abandon the XK and use the modular V8 / V12, but it has nothing to do with becoming Bentley. It’s just that the XK is too old to be a 6-cylinder derivative of V12 was to small
       V12 Jaguar was a lot cheaper than the V8 Mercedes,even some 6-cylinder Bmw 6/7.

       As for Rover，It’s no more upmarket than Audi at the time.Audi’s development in OTL is exactly what Rover should pursue in ATL.

   50. The argument that OTL lyeland can develop well with out bmc was just a dream talk with rose glasses.
       Triumph has been in the red since 1970，The share of Leyland trucks collapsed in the 1970s，Because they failed to complete the metric conversion.

       If you get rid of self deception, you can find that Leyland Motor rather than BMC has more problems.

       Leyland must stay away from the auto industry and concentrate on the truck business, a market that Britain took the lead in the 1960s and collapsed in the 1970s.
       Leyland must go all out to meet the challenge of Daimler and Volvo.
       Putting money into the auto industry is a waste of time and will eventually kill the British truck industry

   51. Necessitates completely of the Rootes？
       I never meant that，What should be given up is Triumph
       In fact, as Rootes and strandard merged in the late 1950s，Triumph2000 and Triumph1300 would never happen in the first place.They will Marked as Hilman/Sunbeam

   52. As I told you before, the triumphal 1300 and austin1100 are roughly the same price, and the V8 stag is cheaper than the V6 Capri.
       Triumph never had a real premium. It was only a little more expensive than Austin and Ford, and hillman was always more expensive than Austin and Ford!
       It was only in 1959 that Triumph was seriously built as a car brand because the Standard was considered too low-grade It does not have enough pedigree to become a premium brand, and it does not have Market penetration to become a mass brand. It is a niche brand with narrow space from beginning to end
       Rootes sells 150k arrow when Ford sold 200K
       Cortina, Arrow was much more expensive than Cortina. It competed with Corsair and zephyr.
       On the other hand, Hillman did not enter the 1.0 market before imp. 
       These means Hillman already be a Semi- premium brand what Triumph efforts to become
       Compared with the Triumph had annual sales of 20K 2000 and 20K 1300，There is no doubt that Hillman is the brand with more potential
       It is far more difficult to improve market penetration than to upgrade brand level，especially in the 1960/1970s.

   53. Joint-ventures?
       XX/HX ，It’s almost the first car joint developed by the two companies
       You can’t expect auto companies to do that in 1970 s, it’s about globalization

   54. Let me tell you some cruel facts
       Sold 303,345 SD1in 10 years，an average of 30,000 a year,
       It is a failure compared with 329,066 P6 models were built in 14year and 316,962 2000/2500 in 14year,an average of over 46,000 per year.
       But It has always been the second best-selling Executive car，the share was taken by Granada.
       This means that there has never been more than 80K left for British executive cars(We consider Granada sold in the UK as a British brand to calculate the size of the market, although it is made in Germany)

       Over the same period，Renault sold 780K 20/30 in 9year means 86K average and Citroen sold over 100K CX peryear in 1970S，This means even the French spend twice as much as British executive cars.

       As for Germany，they build Over 800K executive cars peryear in 1970S.

       There is not even room for a viable Premium British brand, let alone four.

       Agreen on UK automotive industry fares in this ATL would be better，But much better？Even if it is twice as good, it can only support one Viable premium brands.

       Please be realistic
       You really can’t come up with lineup and just say there’s going to be a market
       There will never be

   55. The the automobile industry is highly dependent on the industrial and social development of the whole country.
       The decline of the British automobile industry is only a concentrated manifestation of the destruction of British industry

       It’s impossible to imagine that Britain can become the leader of the world’s automobile industry in such less different
       The only thing that can be done is to keep as valuable brands as possible and make them strong enough.

       In order to realize your wish, what you need is not EEC, but the empire that never sets

   56. MG does have a sporting reputation, a reputation for cheap sportcars.
       Rover’s prestige is significantly lower than Mercedes
       It has to work very hard to get into Mercedes Benz and BMW’s territory, also it is almost unknown outside the UK

       Now you tell me that you plan to upgrade mg to a competitor of Mercedes Benz and BMW,
       and let Rover enter the field of Maserati and Bentley, which is totally crazy

       On the one hand, it is impossible to achieve such a large rise in brand
       On the other hand, Bentley sells thousands of cars a year, which is nothing in the auto industry

       If you want to be vain, Birtish already has RR and Bentley.
       which are undoubtedly the most prestigious brands in the world，Aston Martin can also compete with Ferrari .
       Add a few more meaningless. They can’t survive alone and can only be Sold to Germany

   57. Indeed, Rover lacks a sporting reputation, so you need to bring it to them
       You need to give them all the performance and passion like Audi did in the 1980s
       Only in this way can Rover enter the territory of Mercedes and BMW and establish its own brand all over the world
       To represent the sporting to Mg, Rover will never be sporting, which is fatal not only today, but also in the 1970s
       How do you convince others that Rover is a premium brand?
       Leather and wood? V8？ SIZE？
       Ford LTD has more leather and wood, a bigger and more powerful V8, countless high-tech configurations, and much larger sizes
       Except Rolls Royce, any upmarket brand has a prominent race pedigree, raceing shapes the pedigree, not the reverse

       In addition, your lineup concept itself has fully demonstrated how absurd the idea of mid-brands is. The mid-brands were humiliated by the German Troika because of their range was set to an upper limit, and Top brands cannot get enough scale because of their range is set to a lower limit.
       When you have a good model, you have to weigh between putting it in mid-brand or top-brand. Any choice will damage the other
       Even at ATL, the UK can support four upmarket brands，Even Mg and Rover can be promoted to such a prominent position，which was both impossible.Use two brands to cover the German Troika was just total stupidity.

       It seems that you just want more models and brands, and you don’t really care if they develop well
       You really need to be realistic, Bob

   58. The cooperation between Scania Saab and Leyland was absolutely impossible.
       Leyland is Scania’s main competitor, Saab stopped using the engine made by Triumph because it merged with Scania
       If you want Saab, it should before it merges with Scania
       In addition, Saab used the 96 platform until 1993, and used the front wheel drive to bulid large vehicles,which means that there is nothing to cooperate without engine

       It is also meaningless to keep in touch with Isuzu.
       They are developing in completely different markets and have completely different vehicle demands.
       Daimler’s failure has fully demonstrates that it is meaningless to try to tie “small companies” such as Chrysler and Mitsubishi, let alone Rootes and Isuzu.
       Besides, why do you think they’re willing to keep a relationship with Rootes rather than be independent？
       If you think they will, why not just make BMC a vassal of GM or Volkswagen If you don’t willing, there’s no reason they will
       They had to become the vassal of GM，Because they can’t survive.If you have to be a vassal，Why choose Rootes instead of GM？
       GM was the world’s largest and strongest auto company since 1920.GM’s European subsidiaries has several times the size of even your ATL Leyland.

       Also you can’t dream that there will be a long-term alliance between automobile companies just because of some cooperation. It’s totally impossible.
       Business is just business.

       If Post beneficence can affect anything, then the world should belong to Britain until now.
       Obviously, the relationship between Britain and the colonies is much stronger than asutin and Nissan / BMW. Why not just assume that the United States is still loyal to the queen

   59. It is your right to disagree and present narrow-minded cherry picked data as something approaching cruel facts as well as to be hastily dismissive and vastly underestimate the chances of success on a whim, just as it is my right to call BS on your constant deliberate omission of the many PODs, butterfly effects and increases in production both domestically and internationally presented that undermine the same data which does not account for the above changes nor pre-existing potential production capacity of real-life factories.

       Your proposal to embrace segment retreat, catering to an upmarket clientele earlier on instead of moving downwards in appealing to a wider audience and pursuing low volumes (due to bad decisions leading to being unable to compete against rivals that would be mitigated / butterflied away in ATL) was in fact followed by one UK industry during that period, the UK motorcycle industry with predictable results befitting of the very British declinist narrative my rough scenario at least attempts to mitigate and delay by a few decades for the British Automotive Industry (whilst benefiting from a significantly increased presence outside of the domestic market).

       It is hardly perfect by any means and inevitably entails acceptable compromises along the way that in some respects depends on how other events play out, yet it at least takes them into account instead of presupposing a nihilistic – complete waste of time status quo is god point of view where nothing ever changes despite the previous changes (beginning in the early/mid-1920s) and their significant knock on effects which says otherwise.

       No automaker even the larger ones are immune from engaging in joint-ventures / alliances / collaboration / etc that have happened over the past 20+ years or so, the PSA/BMW Prince engine, PSA HDi/Ford Duratorq Diesels, Fiat/GM JTD diesels, GM/Fiat platforms, Mercedes-based Infinitis and countless others are just a few of the examples that an ATL British Automotive Industry would likely participate in on an equal and mutually beneficial footing that would not make it unique by any means instead of what unfolded with Honda and BMW.

       Ultimately it seems to come down to a fundamental disagreement on whether the British Automotive Industry could have thrived or not compared to real-life. Am of the view they could have fared significantly better than what actually happened in the right circumstances (even more so with earlier PODs up to a significantly better post-war managed decline and early-1960s EEC entry), you seem to believe otherwise, that things would remain as they are and be better for it without concern or considering other factors and a better solution would be to simply accelerate the process of decline by either ignoring or dismissing any significant changes and their butterfly effects that would have mitigated, delay or even butterflied away such a scenario. You really need to take off those blinkers oliver.

       You do not account for how the Jaguar V12 could have been improved during development (whether via SOHC with rockers or managing to remedy the flaws of the DOHC layout) but assume things would somehow remain static and be largely the same with this scenario disabusing of such notions, which was certainly feasible and would have had other positive effects on other V12-based variations.

       As for Leyland have already brought up suitable PODs for both the automotive as well as commercial divisions, there was also much potential for Leyland to leverage the relationship it had with Saab that would be further complemented by Leyland acquiring the DAF Truck / Car division.

       The ATL Triumph 1300/1500 would be RWD from the outset that would have made it significantly cheaper to build, work on FWD at Leyland would be delayed til the 1970s with Leyland/Saab/Isuzu ADO74 analogue as well as either Avenger-based FWD that would also underpin ATL Gemini / sub-99 models or a jointly-developed Escort-sized sub-99 longitudinally-mounted FWD platform for Leyland/Saab (in place of Lancia-based 600)/Isuzu roughly akin to the mk1/mk2 Toyota Tercel that is eventually followed in the D/E-segment by an Anglo-Swedish-Japanese analogue of the Type Four platform.

       Now you tell me your solution of how things could be improved in intricate detail.

   60. I never agreed that Britain joined EEC in 1963
       I agree that this will take the entire UK automotive industry in a different direction
       That would make the whole history very different
       The discussion deviated from the objective of “How the birtish automotive industry could do better.”
       The EEC doesn’t what the auto industry can do decisive
       If this is permissible, it would be much easier to assume that the United States remains loyal to the queen
       We will have more than 10 million domestic markets

       But I didn’t ignore the butterfly effect
       I followed your ATL and assumed that the share of the UK automotive industry would increase by 50% – 100% in ATL
       But I still can’t see the feasibility of keeping four upmarket brands in such a share
       I ask you to give the expected sales volume, but you just said “there will be enough market”,
       you never give the number, which makes it impossible for me to discuss the possibility with you

       Of course, the automotive industry has had a lot of joint ventures in the past three decades,but it didn’t happen 60 years ago
       It’s componentof the process of globalization
       you can’t said it could happened at 60 years ago just because it’s going to work in 30 years

       what do you mean about“You do not account for how the Jaguar V12 could have been improved during development ”？
       It has nothing to do with what I’m talking about
       I’m just saying there’s no relationship between giving up the 6cylinder XK and Jaguar want to move to Maserati’s position
       The V12 Jaguar was also priced much cheaper than the S and 7
       Jaguar try to take advantage of their expensive fully automated production line
       the V12 based 6 cylinder is not big enough to replace

   61. Now, I will present my plan.

       Roots and strandard should merged in the late 1950s
       They did discuss merging in OTL, which would immediately wipe out Linwood and Speke
       Another result is that triumphal will be strictly used for sports cars.
       The standard usesd it on their sedan because they have no choice. Rootes has a mature brand portfolio.
       Of course, it’s best to avoid take over Singers.

       The standard series can supplement the lack of Rootes in the 1.0 market, which will avoid the rear engine Imp.
       The car called Triumph Herald wiil sould as Hillman Imp

       It’s not entirely certain what Rootes-Standard will chioce for other technology roadmap, but there is no demand for new small cars, and they probably follow the RWD road
       They will have 300000 years of sales by the end of the 1950s

       William Lyons’ only son, John Lyons, did not die in a car crash in 1955
       I don’t get to know him
       But I just assume that he is a talented person and let him become the reason why Jaguar change in of the ATL.

       1960s
       BMC take over Borgward in 1961
       Borgward has over 100000 annual sales in 1960, which means they had considerable production capacity and mature distribution network, BMC can rapidly expand its share in EEC

       On the other hand, Borgward is a semi-premium brand above the Opel、Ford、 VW，which means is suitable for charging higher fees for BMC’s high-tech FWD vehicle.
       The car would be sold under the brand Borgward in Germany and Austin in other EEC countries, Which let Asutin become a slightly upmarket brand on the continent.

       Cars are always in short supply in the EEC market. Also advanced FWD are suitable to sold in Europe. It didn’t take long the factory full load operation 
       After the UK be refused to join EEC in 1963
       BMC decided to expand its Germany subsidiary，as the result BMC did not acquisited the Pressed Steel.

       Because BMC focuses on FWD
       Roots-Strandard is able to capture the market for conservative users and  fleet market which was ignored by BMC
       Without Linwood、Imp and the extended of strandard，means Rootes -Strandard now have a better financial position and not be taken over by
       Leyland or Chrysler
       The OTL triumphal 2000 replaced the big Strandard in roughly the same size.
       Which means The Triumph2000 may not happen.I think they’re more likely to replace the big Humber.

       This is a good opportunity to expand the sales of Rover P6，Although Rover seems to have been stuck with capacity,So it is also possible that sales will not rise significantly

       But at least Jaguar can be much more comfortable Mark 2 will continue to sell well in the 1960s.
       With the advice of John Lyons, a few changes have taken place in the Jaguar lineup
       In 1963, Jaguar launched Mark3, which basically a OTL 420 use S-type engin，It replaced Mark2 in USA and sold with Mark2 together in UK.The sells take over.
       In 1964, Jaguar launched the markx with a 5.0L Daimler V8，saved the sales decline and hit new highs。

       In addition, John Lyons, who had a professional management education, disagreed with William Lyons’s pricing strategy, He convinced his father gradually increased the price of Jaguar，sales were almost unaffected, which greatly increased the profits of Jaguar, enabled Jaguar to use better quality parts, eased the unreliable reputation of jaguars, start the US sales Continue to rise
       Which means Jaguar could remain independent and have the resources to develop the xj4 and V12 engine.

       In the 1960s, Opel sold 250000 Rekords a year and Ford sold 150000 17M a year, which means that the market share of large cars in Germany was much larger than that in the UK.
       It also means that ADO17 doesn’t go beyond the central market because it’s too large, which gives customers more opportunities to understand its advantages, The landcrab obtained moderate sales.

       However,ADO17 indeed too large for the British market after all.
       Before the launch of ADO 17, BMC realized that the gap between 1100 and 1800 was too big, so they put 1.6lb-series in ado16 and gave it a Boots.The Austin1600 launched at 1966，the same year with the CortinaMKII,As an expedient measure, it effectively helped ado16 to hold the top of the sales list.
       The Cortina MKII finally made Harriman realizethat BMC need a Cortina fighte.As the ADO17 sales fairly well, he did not ask for the use of “those doors” to save costs.

       The new car is scheduled to go on sale around 1970, when the ado16 has been on sale for 8 years and will face a replacement. A new FWD will inevitably be close to the size of the replacement ADO 16.
       In addition, Only RWD could become a Cortina fighter,which is also a strong demand of overseas subsidiaries

       Isignonis was dismissive of a new RWD,just walk away nad focusing on developing a replacement for mini
       As time and development resources are relatively sufficient，
       As the development period is not urgent and the development resources are sufficient, ADO 18 has been carefully developed and can be used as the basis of many models, such as New MG

       BMC decided to expand the size of the Cortina MKII, which would still make the ado18 smaller than the Cortina MkIII, but much larger than Marina, which was originally designed as a Escort fighter

       Harriman thought that the ADO18 would bring about 200000 additional sales per year for BMC.Which means there was not enough engine production, so he decided to develop a new environment friendly OHC engine and build a new factory to produce it.
       Harriman thought that this would bring about 200000 additional sales per year for BMC, and there was not enough engine production, so he decided to develop a new generation of environmentally friendly OHC engine and build a new factory to produce it.
       Engine engineers determined the design of modular 4 / 6-cylinder engine to replace the B-series and c-series engines. Isignonis required to provide an engine with a displacement of at least 2.0 for his ado17, which made the new D-series engine finally determined to be 1.6-2.0, or 2.4-3.0 for 6cylinders

       Launched in 1967, the ado61 undoubtedly failed and did not even attempt to produce it in Germany. Fortunately, BMC has acquired Rover and has a premium brand.
       The two sides compared their own development plans and found that ADO30 and P6BS will be located in the same market. The ado30 was more closer to production, but Rolls Royce has cancelled the FB60 engine, while Rover is not willing to give up the opportunity to bring more sports flavor to itself.

       The final decision was to use the Rover V8 for the ADO30 and mark it as Rover. This caused the Hilly family to end their cooperation with BMC
       The ADO30 became P9 and launched in 1969，2year before the P8.

       Riley and Wolsley have lost their meaning with the addition of Rover. In order to replace the high-end mini, BMC launched the MINI Clubman in 1969.Which has a new body on the LWB chassis of the Mini countryman, with a longer front end to facilitate engine repair, also a hatchback.

       In the 1960s, German’s car production almost doubled，which showed the great potential of the German and EEC markets.
       BMC’s German factories seized the opportunity to expand production capacity to 300000 per year.

       The credit crunch in 1966 brought a lot of troubles to BMC, but the extra profits from EC market made them smooth through

       By the end of the 1960s, BMC produced 1 million vehicles a year and had a strong distribution network in the European community. It is the World’s fifth largest car company, after the USA big three and Volkswagen.

       The early 1970s were an exciting time
       Range Rover launched in 1970. The next year, the lightweight P8 came into the market, replacing P5 and p6. The failed ado61 was also replaced and the production line was moved to Australia.

       The P8 uses a clean European style design with a 6-cylinder D-series and Rover V8, which makes it no doubt at the top of the E-segment. Even Mercedes has only V8 for their F- segment!
       All three new Rovers were taken to the United States

       In addition，With a powerful V8, P8 has actively joined ETCC, and has been fighting with BMW for Nearly 20 years, established the reputation of the sport together.

       In 1970, with the birth of the long-awaited new generation of Cambridge / Oxford, the fleet market and conservative BMC buyers finally got RWD.
       ADO18 has a 1.3 A-series and 1.6、2.0 D-series engine.
       In 1972, based on ADO18 platform, MGD launched with a L6 D-series engine .It would had a long-term sales competition with the Z-car.
       Isignonis 9x has been formed, smaller and more spacious than Mini, equipped with conventional suspension and cheaper to manufacture. However, isignonis has designed a new modular engine and gearbox, which even Harriman thinks is too expensive, especially the Mini still has strong sales.

       Finally, isignonis was asked to give priority to replacing ado16, and isignonis was indignant. However, according to the requirements of bean counter, ado24, which is larger than ado16, was developed according to the 9x template. However, at least he got a new gearbox. Unfortunately, it is not end-to-end, but no longer using the oil pan layout means that at least the oil is no longer shared and the five speed can be used simply.

       In 1972, ADO24, the successor of ado16, came into the market with 1.1, 1.3 A-series and 1.6 D-series engine with a 5-speed gearbox，also the hatchback .
       Both of them sold like hot cake, ADO18 awalys been the thrid most popular car in the UK all year round.The ADO24 and Cortina MkIII at the top,often swap positions.

       However, Ford expanded the size of Cortina and changed the rules of the fleet market, which always put ADO18 at a disadvantage. Ford weaves the fleet market with all its assets. Even BMC can only follows.They plans to update the midline around 1976.
       On the other hand, ado17 is close to the replacement life. Despite modest success in Europe, sales figures are not sufficient to justify the cost of replacement.
       due to the proximity of time, BMC has no resources to develop two vehicles at the same time. Finally, it was decided to merge and replace the two vehicles.

       Replacing Austin/Morris’s flagship to RWD will be seen as a lack of confidence in FWD. On the other hand, more than 10 years have passed since the launch of Mini, FWD has gradually been regarded as routine. BMC is ambitious and decides to use a FWD to redefinition the fleet market.

       In hindsight, it may be too aspiring. FWD ado32 with 1.6 / 2.0, 5-speed transmission and h-suspension may be too much for the fleet market, But UK was allowed to join EEC in 1972. BMC believes that moderate losses in the fleet market can be made up by continent sales.
       To avoid price gaps, Rover developed the P10 based on the ado32 chassis, but used a completely different look – like a four door Ferrari Daytona. Both share a five speed transmission and L4 D-series engine, but Rover will retain the L6 exclusively, without using an end-to-end gearbox, which allows it to place the L6 engine laterally.

       P10 will be available in 1975 to replace ADO17 in German factories, while ADO28 will be produced in Cowley in 1976.
       At the same time, a plan to replace Mini was made, which was basically a slightly enlarged 9x which could A-series engines.

       So far, everything seems well.
       However, no one expected that the sudden change of fate was so sudden.
       In 1973, first oil crisis broke out, and in 1974, the Heath government announced the three-day working.
       The unscheduled attack caught the expanding BMC by surprise, resulting in a sharp decline in the financial situation. Of course, a much stronger BMH will not go bankrupt like BL in OTL, but it does mark the beginning of a decline in BMH.

       With the labor government coming to power, trade union strength reached its peak, hyperinflation and successive strikes have dyed the world grey.
       At the same time, the overseas market was completely occupied.
       With the exception of Mg and Range Rover, it’s hard to sell anything in the U.S. market.
       BMH Australia bankrupt.

       European countries have given great aid to their auto industry, but BMH can’t. in the face of Tony Benn’s threat, BMH had forced to raise funds themselves to avoid being nationalized.
       Pulled out the Authi which awalys unable to get a profit.Sold Innocenti, which had been on strike for a long time, only the German subsidiary remained successful.

       BMC hastily launched the new generation of Cambridge / Oxford to ensure cash flow.
       For such turbulent times, ADO32 is many years earlier.
       Tool makers’ strike seriously interferes with the launch of ADO32. Cowley’s radicalism often interrupts production.
       Intensive technology means two things:
       1.Unreliable, especially when the manufacturing line workers are absent-minded. 2. Higher prices.
       These two make ADO32 sink, sales plummeted. The team market did not hesitate to choose the cordina MKIV.

       There was more bad news, the Japanese came to Britain to redefine the European perception of reliability.With the reduction of tariffs, imports from EEC poured into the British market

       Fortunately, ado24 has keep sales, and it’s made in Longbridge and Bremen at the same time, which allows BMH to import from Germany to make up for the damage caused by the strike.The same trick as Ford and Vauxhall—naturally, the quality of the German made ADO24 was much better.

       The real good news comes from Rover
       The P8 got a 2.0 engine to expand its appeal in the French and Italian markets. As the UK has entered the EEC, P8 can be sold in Europe at competitive prices, and its sales are several times better than its predecessor.
       P10 undertakes the price space between ado32 and P8, competing with Opel rekod and Ford Granada. Of course, there is also the BMW 3 series, which together created a market segment for compact executive cars, followed by Audi in 1978（Audi80 start at1972，But become a compact executive car in the second generation）, and then Mercedes Benz in 1981.
       The handling was not as good as the 3-Series, but P10 is superior in space, practicability and comfort, and often has power advantages. Having said that, the 3 series sold better.
       In the UK, the P10 is not as popular as Granada because of its smaller size. The fact that P10 was made in Germany was also criticized by the public, although Granada was also made in Germany. But the betrayal of British companies seems to stimulate the public even more.

       On the other hand, the market for this price is very small in UK.
       A simple calculation shows that OTL P6 and Triumph2000 together sell 45000 vehicles a year, and the average annual sales volume of SD1 is 30000. Even if the Granada sold in the UK is counted as the Birtish executive car, the market has never exceeded 80k.

       During the same period, the German made Audi 100, BMW 5, Mercedes Benz W123, Opel Rekord and Ford Granada had an average annual output of over 800K. In addition, there were 180k Audi 80 and 170K BMW 3-Series every year.
       I don’t have accurate export data, but I’m sure the majority of them are sold in Germany.
       of which more than 60% were sold in Germany.
       Although the Jaguar XJ and Mercedes Benz S-class need the rich in America.
       But for executive cars and compact executive cars, which are sold to the middle class, the germany market was the much larger than others European countries. That’s why the German Troika has been able to overwhelm other upmarket brands.
       economies of scale are always the answer for anyting in the automotive industry.

       Although BMH has a well-established distribution network in Germany, Rover is ultimately regarded as British – patriotism applies to Germany as well.
       The average annual sales volume of P10 has always been around 100K, exceeding the much cheaper ado32. Also P8 got a average annual sales of about 100K.
       Comparing the P6 for 20K、SD1 for 30K，Allegro of 71K，we can see what an amazing achievement this is
       However, compared with BMW and Audi, which have more than 300K annual OTL sales, more efforts are needed.let alone Mercedes, which has an annual sales volume of 400000,Both fo them in the E or F Segment.

       Then，What about the new Mini？
       This involves a point of disagreement
       It’s hard to succeed IF the launch as planned – isignonis designed vehicles launched in the mid-1970s and built in longbridge, You can imagine how much trouble there is with these words.Also it’s too small to be in the center of the market.
       The good news is that this will allow the next generation of C-segment hatchback be launched before 1980.

       But for two reasons, I don’t want to take this route
       1.This will definitely stop the production of mini, and I want to keep it a span.
       2. I hope to get a link with Honda, which will be very useful.
       So I chose another route.

       With regard to the replacement of mini, BMC has experienced complicated corporate politics
       Renault 5 and Fiat 127 define new market centers, new Mini is too small.
       Issigonis refused to magnify his engineering miracle unnecessarily, and the dispute caused serious delays in the development.

       In the end, Issigonis failed, and King was appointed as the engineering leader of the whole BMH. He decided to turn to the end-to-end gearbox, and put the replacement of supermini and ado24 on the same platform, which was scheduled to be launched in 1978 and 1980 respectively.

       In the process of development, it also experienced the problems of styling change and cash shortage caused by the failure of ado32, which eventually delayed the launch time of the two to 1980 and 1982 respectively. By then, ado24 was already 10 years old.

       To make up for the gap, an agreement was signed with Honda in ’78 to license the production of the Honda Ballade

       On the other hand, under the leadership of the government,decide to jointly developed a executive car with Jaguar，which wiil launched in 1982 to replace the P8.

       If the ’70s were gloomy for BMH, they were completely destroyed for Rootes-Strandard.
       Because of the adherence to RWD, Rootes’s model is not attractive to the continent and can only rely on the domestic market.

       Like BMH, they failed to predict the size of Cortina, and the new generation of Minx fell between Cortina and Escort. Unlike BMH, they do not have the financial resources and market penetration of BMH.

       When ADO18 and Cortina MkIII competed for sales in the fleet market, hiliman’s share first collapsed. The same thing happened to the Triumphal TR6, when MGD and Zcar are fighting.

       Triump hastily launched TR7, trying to avoid bankruptcy, and the under developed models caused sour taste.
       In 1975, Rootes-Strandard went bankrupt and nationalized, becoming Tony benn’s experimental field, and then rapidly sank in the form of BL in OTL.
       In 1978, Royton was shut down and production was decided to focus on triumphal sports cars, which became unprofitable as the pound rose.
       In 1979, the Tories won the election, and Thatcher pulled the plug in 1981， Speke shut down.

       In any case, the turbulent 1970s have passed and the passionate 1980s have arrived
       In February 1980, the Supermini，Asutin Metro, which had been waiting for a long time, was launched and sold in the integrated sales network
       Because it has the same platform as Meastro, it is much larger than the supermini at that time, and set a new Standard for B-segment 3 years before the 205.
       In June of the same year, Asutin Allrgo launched, which was a Honda Ballade with Asutin brand.
       Both of them have no Morris trademark, which declares the fact that Morris is is about to end
       In 1982, C-Segment Meastro and E-Segment Rover 600 launched
       All four vehicles have achieved instant success, permanently guaranteeing the future of BMH.
       At this time, the company’s annual sales volume reached 1.2 million, three times that of OTL.
       But looking around, BMH finds itself the weakest player.
       Opel, Ford, Fiat, Renault, PSA, Volkswagen. Everyone’s sales more, and Renault, PSA and Volkswagen reached more than 2 million.

       Of course, BMH owns Rover, which has huge profits, but that also means more models and more expensive R & D.
       Scale economy is the eternal theme of automobile industry

       The turbulence of the 1970s has caused irreparable damage to BMH, which will be forced to fight as the weakest player.

       Having said that, it is still too early for BMH to abandon the mass market
       In 1983, Rover 400 replaced P10
       In1984，the Rover800 launched as a coupe version of the 600
       In the same year, Ausitn Montego replaced Cambridge / Oxford and declared the end of Morris.
       Objectively speaking, Montego is a good car. Based on the Rover 400, it is more exquisite than its competitors at the same level.

       But it came too late.
       The mk2 Cavalier was launched in 1981, redefined the Fleet Market.1982，Ford launch serria,then a fierce price war broke out.
       The well constructed Montego is at a disadvantage because of its high cost, and the fact that the ADO32 disaster still envelops the fleet manager does not help.
       On the other hand, the real killer of Montego may be the Rover 200 released in the same year, which is the first time that rover has entered the C- segment.

       BMH was so impressed by Asutin Allrgo’s superior quality and record low warranty costs that they renewed their contract to sell the second generation Honda Ballade as the Rover200.

       Although it’s an Orion, Jetta class model, but Rover brand ensures that it can be priced at Montego prices, with less discount.
       Surprisingly, sales of both the rover 400 and the rover 200 have taken off rapidly, far surpassing Montego.

       The 1980s was the time of yuppies.A lot of British became rich. They don’t care about higher prices,just didn’t want a sales representative’s car.

       On the other hand, the Rang Rover is over ten years old and has hardly changed since the addition of a four door version in 1974. But it is still unstoppable.
       ATL’s BMH has the money to make more updates, add more leather and luxury equipment, and raise its offer. Surprisingly, sales are rising because of rising prices.
       In order to compete with the newly rising Japanese SUV. In 1984,Land Rover released the midline model Dsicovery based on the Rnage Rover.
       And renamed the Land Rover to Defender.
       SUVs are becoming more and more popular in the United States, and Land Rover takes full advantage of demand.

       By now, the way has been shown to BMH, and BMH has firmly grasped it.
       By taking on more of the R & D costs, BMH convinced Honda to jointly develop and produce the R8 for the European market.
       In 1988, the second generation Rover 200 sedan was launched, replacing the first generation Rover 200 and Montego. In 1989, the new Ausitn Meastro（R8）was launched as a hatchback in the C-segment.
       Apart from the boot, the biggest difference in styling is that the rover has a huge grille.
       Both cars are sold like hot cakes. Although the price keeps rising, the sales volume is not affected at all

       In 1990, Metro was renovated
       and the second generation of Rover600 was launched in the same year
       In 1992, the second generation of rover400 launched
       and converted from FWD to RWD, sharing the platform of rover600.

       At some point, Jaguar joined BMH due to higher and higher R & D costs. Let BMH have the top prestige, and can bring outstanding engineering talents together, face-to-face with the German Troika

       Land Rover continues unstoppable
       In 1992, Range Rover got a new generation.
       Also for discovery in1994，based on the platform of new Range Rover
       In 1993, Freeland was launched based on the rover400 platform
       The U.S. market is crazy about SUV. As the only luxury brand build SUV, Land Rover owns everything

       On the other hand, Nissan established a factory in the UK in 1985, and Honda decided to follow up.
       With Honda’s decision to open a plant in the UK in 1992, the cooperation between the two companies appears to be on the countdown.
       Rover updated the meastro and Rover 200 moderately in 1992 and 1993, instead of following Honda.
       But accidents change everything forever.
       In the early 1990s, With Japan’s economic crisis, Honda was in trouble. Mitsubishi tried to Hostile takeover Honda in 1992 and 1993.

       BMH seized the opportunity to enter the arena as a White knight.
       Reach a full alliance with Honda and acquiring 20% of each other’s shares.

       Now, BMH can fully implement its move up plans.
       In 1995, the rover 100, based on the shortened R8 platform, replaced Metro.
       In 1996, a new Civic based Rover 200 was launched, including hatchbacks and sedan.
       In this way, Austin is finished.

       Perhaps because it was too radical, BMH’s upward movement is finally in trouble.
       Sales of hatchback Rover200 and Rover100 are down compared with their predecessors. Coupled with the continued rise of the pound, to the export-oriented BMH caused a lot of trouble.

       This made BMH unable to buy RR and Bentley in 1998 and could only see them split up by BMW and Volkswagen.
       The good thing is that the trouble is over soon.
       The Rover600 in 1998, the rover 400 and the third generation Range Rover in2000 were all successful.
       But the most important thing is Mini

       After 40 years of continuous production,Mini was finally replaced.
       Differ the overpriced Rover 100, the new mini has been almost fanatical.The fact is that the price of the mini is higher than that of the 100.just no one cares.

       In the new millennium, BMH has completed the transformation to a upmarket manufacturer and has an annual sales volume of 1 million.
       If we add all the brands together, it will even surpass Mercedes Benz. Although Mercedes Benz has sold more large cars, and Daimler now owns Chrysler.

       In any case, Rover is now an equal competitor to the German Troika and has a strong friendship from Honda.
       Most importantly, they hasthe most prestigious brand in the SUV sector – which will soon prove to be the future of the automotive industry.

       In the first few years of the 21st century, Rover entered China almost at the same time as Mercedes Benz and BMW, and established joint venture factories with SAIC , making full use of the huge potential of the Chinese market.

       Now, there is little essential difference between the Rover and the German Troika. All of have similar lineups and prices.
       But thanks to Britain’s cultural influence, as well as what Volkswagen and BMW have done for Bentley and Rolls Royce.
       British brands have become synonymous with luxury products all over the world, especially in emerging markets. Rover are widely considered to be more elegant and exclusive than the German Troika.

       As I am a fan of Jaguar, there will be another article on how they tried to remain independent in the 1970s and 1980s and develop into a more exclusive and Exotic brand than the German troika, share the territory of Porsche in OTL with Porsche. Given that Jaguar relies mainly on the U.S. market and sells to the really rich. Rover, on the other hand, relies on Europe’s middle class, and both can flourish at the same time.

       Leyland hadn’t get a chance to enter the auto industry
       That’s good news, which means they won’t starve trucks to death by spending money on cars at the critical moment of metric conversion.
       Since its merger with ACV in 1962, Lyeland has been the world’s largest commercial vehicle company, at least one of the largest.
       They have been in contact with Ashok Leyland, acquired DAF and Belford at some point, and Daewoo Commercial Vehicles in 2002, which have allowed them to dominate the commercial vehicle sector with Daimler and Volvo.

   62. In other words the TL amounts to hand-waving the deep personal issues, arguments over the notional value of each company’s shares as well as the number of personalities to be allotted posts to create the resulting Rootes/Standard to be little more than some sort of sacrificial scapegoat to appease the likes of Tony Benn and become the latter’s make-work/ers-paradise chew toy.

       With Rover essentially becoming Acura after a drawn out decline. While you are hoping John Lyons becomes some Marty Stu expy of John Egan decades before his time upon eventually assuming control of Jaguar (as opposed to Lyons simply poaching Egan at the earliest opportunity), instead becoming ineffectual like George Harriman, insecure like Henry Ford II or dissatisfied enough to seek out his own path in breaking out of his father’s shadow along the likes of Mike Parkes (if the characterization of John and his time within the company prior to his death as mentioned in his father’s biography is any indication – in which case John Lyon’s chances of building on the his success of his father is about the same as William Morris siring a heir)?

       At least Joe Edwards and Stanley Markland were renowned for being very capable with records of turning around the fortunes of the Pressed Steel / etc and Triumph respectively, with it being commonly assumed both would have been similarity capable of properly running BMC in the case of Joe Edwards* (from Leonard Lord in place of George Harriman) and Triumph (as well as by extension ATL Rootes post Leyland takeover) in the case of Stanley Markland (from Henry Spurrier in place of Donald Stokes) had they assumed control from the early 1960s.

       *- Particularly pages 148-149 in Walking in the Shadow of a Political Agitator – Book 1 Apprentice by Richard Etheridge

       If you are looking for an UK automotive sacrificial scapegoat to save the rest of the British Automotive Industry, you would be better off laying the groundwork for one of the UK’s people’s car project to get off the ground as the likes of Stafford Cripps and Miles Thomas had some role in a few as mentioned in the Battle for the Beetle. With a few PODs involving:

       – An alternate 1944 US election that results in the UK receiving an outright gift instead of a loan as suggested by Robert A. Taft

       – Combining the efforts of Roy Fedden (albeit with a viable boxer engine instead of a dead-end radial engine) and Denis Kendall’s later (Jean-Albert Gregoire-derived proposal that became the Aussie built Hartnett) People’s Car projects.

       A Hartnett/Panhard FWD or Volkswagen-inspired RWD path is down to preference with aluminum or other bodies being temporarily used to circumvent post-war steel shortages, the following Spanish Orix Beetle clone meets BMW 600/700 precursor providing another interesting idea for a rear-engined Beetle-like car with Hartnett Flat-Twin. – https://jalopnik.com/this-is-not-a-volkswagen-beetle-1821524080

       – Featuring with a Wolfsburg-like works town somewhere in Gloucestershire (as suggested by Fedden) that is part nationalized and co-operative owned (the latter being Kendall’s idea)

       – Plus additional factories in “Enterprise Areas”* similar to the Macmillan Government’s plans though with Fedden/Kendall being favoured for expansion and also absorbing the likes of British Aluminum as well as smaller concerns such as Villiers and others, while the rest of the carmakers are left alone and allowed to expand their existing factories largely free of government interference.

       – The free services of Ferdinand Porsche with later ties to his son Ferry (who could provide this nationalized UK carmaker with the designs for the Studebaker Porsche Type 542 and Type 633 proposals)

       You basically have a nice large Volkswagen/BL/Renault-like sacred cow for the likes of Tony Benn to reduce into hamburgers and leather, before Thatcher puts it out of its misery (after many farcical yet entertaining twists and gripping turns involving Renault/Fiat-like Action Directe / Red Brigade influence, Clause IV being amended/removed, in place of Strife being passed into law earlier on, British years of lead with Aldo Moro and Georges Besse moments plus Delorean-style partying at the finale) and sell off the more profitable factories on the cheap to the rest of the relatively unscathed UK automotive industry for much needed extra capacity (particularly whoever gets the UK’s Wolfsburg-like factory).

       One can even be particularly callous and have one of the UK carmakers simply appropriate the tooling and plant as war reparations if not take it over completely, though that is a rather trite solution.

       -Notable Positives-
       – ADO18 sounds a bit like Roy Haynes vision meets ADO77. Regarding MG, at least in terms of the ideal in terms of RWD platforms. The benchmarks in terms of longevity would have to be the Mazda SA/FB/FC platforms in the 1978-1992 RX7 that also served as the basis for the NA/NB platform for the 1989-2005 Mazda MX5, the 1969-1989 Nissan Z-Cars (S30 to Z31) and the 1976-2002 Nissan S platform.

       – The ATL Mini Clubman pretty much sounds like Project Ant, the 84-inch wheelbase also potentially provides scope for a 5-door hatchback based on the 84-inch wheelbase 4-door prototype. The overall length is just 2-inches short of the original ADO88 length of about 126-inches and provided the ATL Mini Clubman has been thoroughly developed along Project Ant cheaper and easier to make lines, it should be possible for it to form the basis of the ATL Austin Metro akin to the Nissan Mira K10 and related Figaro, Be-1 and Pao as well as the 1976-2003 (-2011 outside of Europe via Ford Ikon) Ford B platform.

       – The idea of a Maestro-based supermini at the larger end of the segment (assuming Maestro is similar to OTL), with the Mini / etc occupying the lower supermini segment.

       -Notable Negatives-

       – B-Series too large for ADO16, basically creating the same issue as the B-Series in the Marina but in a smaller FWD car.

       – So ADO24 is essentially a 10X-like Allegro.

       – ADO30 was notorious for its inferior handling, the only positive is its styling which could have at minimum been carried over for ATL MGC or enlarged EX234/etc-derived MGC analogue to help differentiate it from MGB along the lines of similar plans by Aston Martin to eventually rebody the MGB with William Towns styling (that later appeared on the Towns-styled Reliant Scimitar SS2/SST) had they managed to acquire the rights to the MGB.

       Instead of delving into complete clean sheet fantasy at least try to remain grounded with some butterfly nets regarding the historical basis and inspiration for the later projects and engines are, the E-Series for example was itself originally derived from an experimental engine (just a matter of seeing what was available, developing / developed or what direction the designers were going in OTL and modifying/mitigating any flaws accordingly under on the basis it was within their capability to remedy).

       Additionally what real-world projects were the likes of ADO18, “D-Series” (that was already used for the Chevrolet/Bedford-derived Austin 4/6-cylinder engines), ADO32, Honda-derived Mini, etc.

   63. I do place my hopes on competent individuals and right decisions

       Because it’s easy to achieve, there are a lot of people who have the ability, may be thet just got the right position
       To make Harriman a man of ability and vision, it only needs to change him
       How many people will need to be changed to keep Rootes and Saab cooperation?

       This requires not only the agreement of the decision makers of both companies to cooperate, but also the willingness of generations of decision makers not to change

       In fact, more is needed. The joint venture between automobile companies is the result of globalization. It is impossible to simply move forward 20 years

       Not to mention international relations
       De Gaulle’s rejection of Britain’s accession to EEC is France’s national will, which involves the interests and ideas of many people
       It can’t be simply said that it would be different without de Gaulle.

       The engineering inspiration of D-series comes from B-series
       It can be regarded as o series without damage by had to use old tools
       I know about the D series was a stillbirth, but it’s just my quirk
       I want the code to be more linear and orderly, so I change they only give the letter to the production model to make sure that every letter is filled in.Using another set of naming rules for R & D models.
       The size of the laboratory E-Series is 1.3, which means that a properly developed E-Series will not cover either 1.0 or 2.0, both of which are really needed by the market
       So I used B-series ADO16 as a place holder to postpone the start of new car and engine development,
       When learning that the 1275a series can be produced in large quantities,The new engine will certainly be designed to replace the B series, rather than between the a series and the B series

       With the help of hindsight
       We can konw that what the market needs is two four cylinder engine families to cover the 1.0-2.0 range.People at that time couldn’t know, but we could make it happen by coincidence

       The prototype of ADO 18 is one of the five platforms in the Hayes project
       I know Hayes joined BMH in 1967
       However, the relevant design of medium-sized RWD was very mature, which only requires the management to decide that a medium-sized RWD Was needed

       There is no real prototype for ado32
       Models have been divided for more than a decade, and the demand for new models has been quite different.However, all parts are ready-made and can be easily assembled

       The manoeuvrability of ado30 is criticized because it is regarded as sportscar and is expected to be the big Healy

       There will be very different expectations for Rover. Rover only needs a GT to provide style, power and civilization
       In fact, it was not just the ado30 that was criticized, Most all upmarket sportscar was criticized as overweight and not as flexible as his predecessors
       But what customers want was air conditioning
       On the other hand, the mid engine P9 is unlikely to be launched before the oil crisis, which means it is doomed to fail
       Launched in 1969 had at least a chance to make money and not waste the development of ado30
       In addition, it is also a means of amortizing the certification fees of Rover V8 in the United States to ensure that Range Rover could in North America from the start

       Don’t understand why ADO 24 is similar to Allegro with 10x，Hood line?the gearbox is behind the engine, not the directly below，This means that the height is lower.

   64. I’m not looking for a scapegoat, it’s just roots strandard who happens to be the scapegoat
       Tony benn was able to nationalize BL because BL went bankrupt and Tony benn demanded shares as compensation for the bail-out
       ATL’s BMH is could cope with, Tony benn has no chance

       What I want to do is eliminate excess capacity and redundant brands
       There are too many car brands in the UK and there has been a serious overcapacity since the 1960s, which is the root cause of all the problems
       If there was only one car company in the UK, they would have survived anyway, like Fiat
       The merger of roots strandard eliminated 300000 expansion capacity, and their failure eliminated another 300000, and corresponding market share
       Ford UK and Vauxhall are part of two of the world’s most powerful car companies, meaning they cannot disappear
       BMC is the hope of building a viable automobile industry, which can only be achieved by eliminating other parts

   65. If Rootes strandard and BMH are both in good financial shape, Tony benn can’t actually do anything, and he’ll be transferred soon

       However, the good operation of Rootes strandard represents 150000 d-segment market share and 150000 C-segment market share, which means that BMH is in bad condition

       I know you would like to say that the Germans can succeed at the same time, but they do have a larger domestic market. The export of EEC countries to each other is only about 20%, which means that even joining EEC in 1963 is not enough

       It doesn’t help to let Vauxhall fail. It will only let Opel take over and bring more competitive models,

   66. In addition, there is no similarity between ATL Rover and Acura. Rover only shares the platform with Honda in segment C, and the RWD platform shared with Jaguars is used for larger models. However, Acura did not have C-segment models until 2012. ATL has not even mentioned this time period

       Only when Nissan and Renault reach an alliance can they share most of the platforms. Renault holds more than 60% of the voting rights of Nissan, and 20% means only limited sharing.

   67. That is not how things work, focus on the historical tangibles of what was known as opposed to the speculative and wishful thinking.

       Harriman was known to be a yes-man of Leonard Lord while Donald Stokes was a glorified salesman whose rise was the result of appropriating Stanley Markham’s achievements in turning around Triumph, both were eventually over-prompted to the top only for their deficiencies to soon be exposed, at least Harriman belatedly conceded he was not up to the top job by having Joe Edwards return to take over though by that point it was too late for Edwards to turn things around and upon seeing through Stokes (whom he viewed as little different to Leonard Lord) opted to resign after presciently seeing where the newly formed British Leyland was going. John Lyons meanwhile comes across as someone who would not be up to the job at best and could still see Jaguar being acquired by either GM or Ford in such a scenario with both finding it in a similar sorry state as real-life that disgusted the likes of Bill Hayden.

       If it were that easy to change people like Harriman, than one could also say the same of Issigonis with regards to having an unexpected talent for building engines and being grounded enough to see the broader picture of BMC’s range even those projects that were outside of his own narrow interests (with a similar distain for luxury cars like his rival at Fiat).

       At least in Issigonis’s case while there is little that could be done about his other flaws, there are solid historical tangibles that would have easily led to a much better outcome. He did develop a FWD Minor with an end-on gearbox, the ADO16 and ADO17 engine bays were large enough to accommodate an end-on gearbox (the Mini would probably have to wait for the ATL 84-inch successor), while for better and worse he was said to have had less influence on both ADO16 and ADO17 as they were assigned to other cells – where the radiator of ADO17 for example was mounted at the front instead of the side as originally planned, which taken together would have had a positive knock-out effect on the inchoate development of an alternate E-Series with larger bore-centres, no siamised bores and a shorter-block to create an engine family potentially capable of lasting until the present unlike the O-Series inspired route that at most could only reach Euro 4 at best had BMW been willing (also doubt a related O-Series inspired 6-cylinder could be mounted in a FWD layout).

       Even with the limitations of the bore-centres and siamised bores as well as the fact its botched development (that could have been remedied with Downton Engineering upgrades being standardized) meant was it not US emissions certified as originally planned, 1800cc versions of the E-Series were being tested without issue before being reduced to 1750cc in order to not overlap with the old heavy 1.8 B-Series that was US emissions certified and had a bit more torque (the B-Series itself could have been enlarged to 2-litres in the early-1960s with the introduction of the MGB and ADO17).

       Also subscribed to the O/M/T-Series (Perkins/L/G-Series/Project Storm aka Td5) inspired route, before thinking about it further and eventually coming around to the idea of an alternate E-Series like route on the basis of its similarities with the Volkswagen EA827/EA113 (launched in 1972 powering Audi 80 B1 and US emissions compliant, reputedly originating as a 45 hp 1198cc unit in the 1967 Volkswagen EA235 prototype that is still built in present day in EA113 form) as well as a shorter block in S-Series form and taking it to its logical conclusion. Since such a solution would have provided BMC with an engine family possessing the necessary longevity up be built for many decades, the mk3 Golf A59 prototype is even said to match 2-litre M/T-Series turbo’s maximum reliable output of 275 hp before extensive mods are required (were the latter’s gearbox not the limiting factor).

       Renault’s evolution of the similarly-sized C-Type into the K-Type via the E-Type provides a more linear evolutionary template for how the A-Series (more specifically distantly related successor with larger displacement) could have evolved into a sort of British Renault K-Type that like the ATL E-Series could have been built in the present in both petrol and diesel forms, etc.

       One thing in the P9’s favor would be it the fact it was said to have carried over quite a bit of the P6’s mechanicals, that would suggest there was a way for the ATL P8 and/or ATL RWD P10 to spin off both traditional front-engined sportscars and range-topping mid-engined sportscars.

       Both Vauxhall/Opel and Ford UK/Germany could have probably benefited from earlier integration from the 1960s though that is another subject.

       It is difficult to shake off the Acura comparisons with ATL Rover, the only potentially positive outcome of a more equal relationship with Honda would be finally persuading the latter to develop a related V8 version of the Honda C-Series V6 engine (or having Rover build it instead) as well as possibility slotting the Honda E0 3-cylinder (if not Honda EH 2-cylinder) unit into the Mini specifically for the Japanese Kei Car segment and at the very bottom of the UK/European range (in the event the distantly related A-Series successor or ATL E-Series is unable to form the basis of a suitable 3-cylinder).

       Though it may ultimately only help a little bit at best, some like to draw some comparisons between ADO61 and the Gordon Keeble at certain angles with the latter possibly providing a way to improve the exterior of the former to some extent.

   68. When you say several capable individuals was speculative and wishful thinking
       How would you evaluate this following assumptions
       1. The UK was allowed to join EEC in the 1960s
       2. The auto industry overcame the principle of full employment of the British government and expanded its factories in Midlands
       3. Set up a subsidiary in the United States to compete with the three most powerful automobile companies in the world and make profits，who BMC Crushed by their European subsidiaries in the Europe.
       4. Two automobile companies that span half the world established a long-term alliance in the 1950s
       5. Hope that the competitor will form an alliance with you, because of an engine project which paid by them,or because of past favors , also it is established at the same time with4, which means that it is a complicated tripartite alliance

       The fundamental difference between you and me is that
       In your eyes, historical tangibles means several engineering prototypes. Something like corporate culture, national policies, international relations are such trivial that can be changed in a few words

       On the other hand，the historical facts for me means market ,economic growth,social environment，Upstream and downstream industrial chain
       At the same time, engineering was what would affected by the butterfly effect. As long as an ATL model appears, it will affect the demand of all subsequent models and disrupt the replacement in OTL. Why do you think that the actual engineering prototype will still appear?
       When you accused me of ignoring the butterfly effect,I wonder why you think the similar prototype car will appear in a different enterprise, with different lineup and replacement requirements, and also need to estimate the needs of allies half a world away.

       In addition, if you look at my solution carefully
       you will find that I did not really make Harriman a capable person.
       I just used him as an example to show that there are more possibilities that let Harriman become Savior than your ATL
       When you accuse me of neglecting the butterfly effect, you should at least give the annual sales of the relevant companies and models in each period.

       Morris and Austin’s dealer network didn’t appear until 1980, which means he made little contribution to rationalization
       The D-series and ADO 18 are not developed because of management visionary which foresee the needs of the next few decades, just because their development time were delayed.
       The message that 1275 a-sereis can be mass-produced determines that the E-Series will be between a and B, which means that E-Series would overlaps,This has contributed to replaced the B-Series Direct
       In 1966, when the midline project began, Issigonis’s magic faded because of the failure of ado16 and the Cortina MKII, which made it possible to choose RWD. BMC lure away Hayes in OTL, indicating that this idea was possible.

       OTL Issigonis resigned for engineering director at 1967 and Start developing the 9X. If the top management wants a Cortina fighter with RWD, He was likely to be one year ahead of schedule
       Moreover, Harriman in OTL also stressed that it would not give 9x any production commitment, which means that it is natural that 9x cannot enter production

       Therefore, the real change is only due to the release of B-series ado16 in 1966. In view of the huge difference between ADO 16 and ADO 17, it does not take much foresight to conceive of a low-cost expedient, it only needs some coincidence to facilitate. In addition, I chose B-series ado16 only because when BMC decided to need it in 1963，it was the time when Issigonis ‘s halo was at its peak, so it was difficult to switch back to the RWD route.

       If you think it is possible to turn the entire Morris into a RWD brand, then I can simply give a new body to the medium-sized fanali, which is certainly bad, but in 1966, BMC still had enough brand loyalty to achieve moderate consumption.The most important thing is, become the place holder I need.

   69. Jaguar is another story, which I will elaborate on later
       As I admitted at the beginning, I had to assume that John Lyons was a gifted person to carry out my process
       But I have to explain that I didn’t ask him to do too much work
       What you should realize is that Ford’s unfortunate situation with the acquisition of Jaguar is actually very close to what I want them to be. In 1989, the reserve price and average price of Jaguar were higher than those of Porsche, and more cars were sold.
       Although the price of XJ has always been far lower than that of S-Series, it should be recognized that XJ6 is the cheapest car for Jaguar. When Mercedes Benz sells most cars through C-class and E-class, this in itself makes Jaguar widely considered as a more exclusive brand
       While Mercedes Benz has become one of the most powerful car companies in the world through its own success, Jaguar has become more exclusive and upscale through its own failure.
       Ford improved the quality of jaguars in the 1990s and raised the price of XJ to close to S and 7, the sales rose sharply. This means that Jaguar is already the Porsche of today.
       Ford hopes that Jaguar become a BMW fighter and so they ask for a three-tier model for it. This exposed the fact that Jaguar has always been cheaper than comparable Mercedes Benz and BMW, making it easy for Porsche to occupy the niche that belongs to Jaguar.
       In the case of BMH, because Rover has become a competitor of BMW, there will be different expectations for Jaguar

       I didn’t expect how great John Lyons would be
       I just needs him, as the successor of the family business, to have enough will to keep the company independent until the BMH revived in the late 1980s to ensure that it is taken over by the British, not by the Americans
       He doesn’t need to be John Egan. He can hire John Egan
       I do need he had talent because I need Jaguar did better in the 1960s to have the resources to develop the XJ6 independentIt
       Also I hope Jaguar expand the production in 1969 and revamp the line with XJ’s profits (which jaguar really want to do in 1973)，which could ensures Jaguar survived the turbulence 1970s and enjoy the prosperity of the 1980s
       In other words;I need an earlier Robinson rather than Egan
       It doesn’t even require him to have leadership, because these changes are under the control of William Lyons.
       What he needs is a different business philosophy and try to convince his father, which is much more realistic than most Pod in this thread

   70. Sorry for my mistake, two replies appear at the bottom of this page

4. Strangely, the person who introduced me to the 1800 – he drove an Austin, his wife the plusher Wolseley – had previously been a DS owner ( his and hers models naturally ). I always thought the DS needed more rear overhang, and the rendering of the 1800 with stretched rear looks an improvement to me. A slight stretch at the front to re-locate the radiator would have been an improvement – there was no room on the 1800 for my Kenlowe fan.
   But hang on, one of the posts above compares sales figures of the 1800 with the Triumph 200/2.5 models. If I was choosing my preferred make of car in the 60s, Triumph would come below Riley but above Sunbeam and MG. I would never spend my own money on an Austin or Morris – too mundane – and Wolseley were almost as stodgy as Rover ! Where were the MG and Riley 1800s ? Surely they missed a trick !

   Reply

   1. Think the likes of MG and Riley really needed a completely different approach altogether from ADO16 and ADO17 even had the pair received the heavy Lancia-inspired 18-degree V4 / V6 engines, which despite the proposed Triumph 1300-like gearbox layout would together with the hydrolastic suspension system have created a unique Lancia/Citroen-inspired combination had a feasible way been found to bring the engines into production.

      Both needed something along the lines of a related family of RWD saloons and sportscars using the MGB or an analogue version as a starting point with suitable IRS being approved (due to the high costs of the IRS proposed for the MGB now being spread out to other RWD models), yet somehow still feature significant component sharing with BMC’s other models beneath the exterior.

      Essentially an early-60s upmarket version of ADO77 (including EA234-like replacements for the Midget and MGB) as well as the SD1/SD2/TR7 (plus TR8/Lynx/Broadside/etc derivatives) like model family from the 70s in a no-BL scenario (the latter pretty much an MG SD1 variation of this old article minus the Supermini). – https://driventowrite.com/2016/09/16/triumph-tr7-alternative-design-styling-harris-mann-british-leyland/

      Of the two marques MG has the brand recognition, pre-existing reputation for sportscars and the large volumes required for it to be rehabilitated from the badged-engineered humdrum Nuffield/BMC models into an aspirational post-war luxury sporting marque like Triumph and Audi given the right circumstances as opposed to Riley.

   2. The connection between Scania Saab and Lilan is just dream talk
      Leyland is Scania’s main competitor, and Saab stopped using the engine made by triumphal because it merged with Scania
      If you want Saab, it should be before it merges with Scania
      In addition, Saab used the 96 platform until 1993, and used the front wheel drive in large vehicles,
      which means that there is nothing to cooperate with other than the engine

      It is also meaningless to keep in touch with Isuzu.
      They are developing in completely different markets and have completely different vehicle demands.
      ATL Leyland is not GM, but a small company with an annual output of less than 500K

5. A Riley ADO17 came very close to production, around the same time as the Wolseley 18/85. A supplier’s advert showing the car appeared in one of the UK motoring weeklies , possibly the a 1967 London Motor Show issue. I’ve seen the picture and it’s not dissimilar to the Wolseley, in the pattern set by the Farina cars, although the re-brand styling of these was the work of Dick Burzi and Sid Goble.

   As early as 1962 this Riley front end had been mocked up for the ADO17, looking more like a Humber or Singer.

   

   By 1967, the Riley brand was in managed decline, for many years before the Riley formula had been a Wolseley with twin carbs and some extra instruments. Sustaining four upmarket saloon brands in the 1960s made no sense even in the pre-BMH era, but rationalisation was another matter that never got high enough on George Harriman’s to-do list.

   Reply

   1. Agree on Riley, the only chance they have of both surviving and thriving would have been for someone else to acquire the marque during the interwar period as well as being able to produce a Big Four-based V8 to give Riley something that would have been well-received in the US until at least the mid-to-late 1950s.

      As it was under BMC both Riley and Wolseley should have been absorbed into Vanden Plas, at least MG was able to play a junior role behind with the likes of Jaguar with the latter having ambitions of moving further upmarket and potentially leaving the sub 3-litre 6-cylinder segment to MG.

6. Funnily enough, the strange proportions of the 1800 proved no impediment whatsoever when my ex-pat father decided in May 1965 to purchase an early copy in Nova Scotia, Canada. An avid reader of the Daily Telegraph overseas airmail edition, printed on tissue paper, he had been alerted to the genius of Issigonis. On the test drive at the nearest dealer 80 miles from home, he was taken with the quiet, roominess and ride, while the bus like steering wheel appealed to him in an eccentric way. It bounded over poorly maintained frost-heaved highways in its Hydrolastic way quite well, and proved rather good on the gravel road we lived on – the authorities having decided to run out of money to asphalt it two miles from our house after widening the road from a rural lane. Funny looking foreign cars tended to all be lumped into a single category by the rural conservative locals, and hey, what was the local regional psychiatrist supposed to drive, anyway? Dad put on his driving cap and gloves and acted the part!

   I daresay I’ve personally put on quite a few more thousand miles on the Land Crab than anyone else here on DTW, judging by the remarks of people who seem to think it was over-engined. I can close my eyes and remember conducting it along arms akimbo, hoping I didn’t have to do much overtaking on the short straight stretches of our main roads back in those far-off days, because it was a bit of a slug, and farmers in old pickup trucks were a constant impediment to reasonable journey times. Full use of the gearbox and revs, as Motocar used to say, was necessary to get by anything. I was so enthusiastic about driving that I volunteered for all sorts of ferrying about duties, so rolled up a fair few miles. Anything that had an engine I was game to drive, and a few months in a VW Beetle around the same time led me to complete disdain for that thing.

   This excellent series on Issigonis has opened my eyes a fair bit on his top down approach and “I know better than you what you need” outlook on the teeming masses of motoring dolts supposed to unquestioningly buy his creations. The other thing that has been mentioned is the fact that no overseas testing was performed, a fact that came to haunt my father eight months later when winter really set in. It would not start until the midday warming. But at the time of purchase, we all assumed it was a professionally developed product. Ours turned out to be rather less than than what is termed in our jurisdiction — merchantability, suitability and fitness for purpose.

   Not only did Issigonis know or care nothing about market research or styling, he apparently assumed that whatever was good enough for the temperate damp climate of the Britain of those days, would be more than adequate for other far-flung reaches of the Empire. Not that he was alone in that snobbish outlook, it survives to this day, but at least Ford and Vauxhall seemed to adhere to development and durability standards imposed by their owners. Issigonis remained aloof to such modern frippery and any notion of accountability. A back of the envelope sketch was enough upon which to gamble millions.

   Those doors!, for example, used what I later discovered (by smell) was Bostik to stick the leatherette to the hardboard door cards. It let go after a summer and winter, so that folds of vinyl hung forlornly down into the door bins. The contrast in quality between the lumbering beast and my mother’s new Volvo bought just three months later for the same money, was striking. The Volvo looked like a refugee from the 1940s, but it was bolted together and painted to a far higher standard and had a decent modern engine with some get up and go.

   Ah yes, the 1800 was British engineering, both design and production, at its very best. Oblivious.

   Reply

   1. A very fair assessment, Mr Malcolm. And yet, although I was never a fan of Mr Issigonis, I find myself beginning to warm to the man. There is a certain logic to his uncompromising approach to the question of purpose. And as the only real purpose of a motorcar is to transport people from one place to another, the space occupied by the passengers the prime consideration. Put them in as spacious a box as possible within the footprint of the vehicle and stuff the oily bits into as small a space as possible. Add a wheel at each corner for maximum stability and job done. All else is just decoration. Who needs stylists? And as for market research – absolute waste of money!

   2. Eh?

      Oh, I get it…irony…you nearly had me there, JTC!

7. One can but try!

   Reply

8. Sorry for my mistake，I means fourth biggest in the german.

   Reply

9. The E series of 1.3-1.8 series illustrates the following things
   1.The midline would be humiliated because had’t 2.0 engine
   2.So, they might keep the production of 2.0b-series and roverl4, which means producing four l4s at the same time
   3.This means that the technical department has the power to ask for a new engine
   This could be a 5-Cylinder e-series, which appeared in the late 1970s with unnecessary complexity and cost.
   It may also be a clean paper engine developed to integrate Austin, Mg and Rover’s requirements. Since the E-Series can reach 1.8, in order to reduce overlap, the new engine would be a big 4 at 2.0-2.4, which is contrary to the technological trend of the 1980s.

   In view of BMC’s consistent management confusion, they may even develop B-ohc and DOHC roverl4 at the same time, and then cancel one of them
   4. If 3 happens, it means that the replacement of a series will be affected, which may lead to the expedient aplus, and finally the K series will appear

   When you talk about a company famous for its preference for clean paper engines, if you want them to use an engine for a long time, you should make sure that the engine perfectly covers the demand, so that the financial staff can suppress the pursuit of new engines in the technical department.

   On the other hand, follow my D-series route
   It means that BMH got the advanced 2.0 engine in 1970
   It can be used in ado18, MGB, and Rover, and in 1972, it provided 6 cylinders of 2.4-3.0 for MGD and Roverp8. Although the U.S. market prefers V8, after the oil crisis, the focus of luxury car marketing had become economy, which means it will be meaningful.
   Rover can develop the 2.0 Dohc-16v engine based on D-series, which is meaningful for Italian and French markets
   It can also be used for diesel in the late 1970s and for turbines in the early 1980s, each time in time
   In addition, the one-time replacement of the B / C series means that BMH has more resources to replace the A-Series, which will allow a 1.0-1.4 “E-Series” OHC engine to arrive in the mid-1970s and, if properly designed, will be used with the D-series until the end of the century.
   This allows Rover to launch two new engines in the new millennium, an all aluminum 1.6-2.0 engine, and a diesel developed jointly with Honda, jusr using Honda’s L series to fill the lower end.

   Unable to pass Euro IV? Even if it was replaced at Euro I, it has been in use for 20 years
   What’s the real meaning of decades of continuous engine production?
   Tool life depends mainly on the number of times it is used, which means that it is either severely ground long ago and needs to be replaced,either they don’t sell much and suffer from high assembly costs because the the production line is outdated.
   “The engine has been used for decades” is not likely to become a marketing highlight, it will only scare away customers
   In particular, as a Premium brand, Rover needs more USP to prove its price

   My objection to the E-series is not engineering, but market coverage. VW can define the centre of gravity of the German market, but the British market had be defined by Ford
   In addition, failure to cover 2.0 at a company like BMC could cause confusion about engine development

   Reply

10. If it’s hard to get rid of the comparison with Acura
    which means it’s harder to get rid of the comparison between Mercedes and Infiniti,who not only shared the C-segment platform, but also shared the D-segment platform with Infiniti
    Also Infiniti is sold in Europe, while Acura is only in the United States

    It’s no shame to share the C-class platform with mass manufacturers. Mercedes and Nissan share it, While A3 is just a cosmetic Golf
    The larger Rover based on BMH RWD platform only share digital entertainment system, which can benefit from larger R & D funds and procurement quantity

    Rover doesn’t need a c-series based V8. A properly developed Rover V8 can serve well in the 1980s, while in the 1990s they will get a modular engine from Jaguar.
    Of course, excluding 4 cylinders, Jaguar is a very small company, which needs to put all engines on one production line. BMH has enough scale to allow 6, 8 and 12 to generate enough economies of scale. There is no need to add L4 to increase complexity and compromise

    Reply

    1. No, historical tangibles can be summed up as a wide spectrum of what was historically known, the rationale behind what was developed behind the scenes (on the basis similar thinking would still be present) as well as potentially beneficial events that with the right PODs had the potential from an alternative history POV (of which there are many permutations) to put plausibly place the British Automotive Industry in the right direction whether all or only a few are adopted.

       One thing that is a constant in the British Automotive industry, would be of a whole litany of missed opportunities that plausibly could have avoided many of the problems it faced to be about as competitive as other European carmakers at best (with a decent presence in North America behind the Big 3) to at least allow it to decline more gracefully at worst.

       A US gift in place of the Anglo-American loan would have also allowed the British government to provide a cash injection to the newly formed BMC, which would have pushed the latter in a more positive direction at minimum regardless of whether Miles Thomas is able to succeed in his post-war investment and modernization programme of Morris or not.

       BL in real-life were on the verge of supplying A-Series engines to Wartburg around the time they went bankrupt, and that is one of countless examples where such PODs would have had a positive impact in other circumstances and taken together could have become something much more.

       Regarding national will and the notion of Gaullism somehow surviving de Gaulle, with the likes of Antoine Pinay being elected following Gaston Monnerville as interim presidency at the Élysée in the early-1960s – The Gaullists are likely to implode due to the void created by de Gaulle’s demise, France will be staying in NATO integrated command and the French will be too distracted by other events in the aftermath to even bother vetoing the UK’s membership of the European Community (resulting in NATO membership being a requisite for joining the EEC). Though the British (as in the government) can certainly be guaranteed squander their oppotunity to fully capitalize on the sitatuion to NOT live up to de Gaulle’s fears of British EEC entry with their Dad’s Army / Yes Minister style of incompetence.

       Of the view a B-Series ADO16 was very implausible without extensive modifications and a weight reduction programme, even the similarly-sized Nissan Sunny B10 required a smaller engine. At best the B-Series could have been enlarged to 2-litres (and been all the better for it), converted to OHC or even been made reliable in twin-cam form had Gerald Palmer managed to stay for another year or so to thoroughly guide its development though neither possibility allows for the large balky engine to be able to fit into ADO16. What would have been even better would be BMC producing either an early alternate E-Series capable growing to 2-litres or a new mid-sized engine based on A-Series principles that eventually replaces the A-Series.

       Ford’s period of ownership of Jaguar and the development of the X-Type is something else really. The dim view regarding Jaguar’s ability to remain independent stems from them reputedly relying on old second/third hand tooling amongst other things, on top of that even with the likes of Geoffrey Robinson and John Egan where exactly will they be able to get the money to put their future models into production from the 1960s onwards since it was only due to their influence within BMH/BL that they were able to push much of it into production (albeit at the expense of other marque’s critical projects)? Colin Chapman has a better change of taking over Jaguar based on the latter successfully acquiring Lotus (as was reputed to be the case in real-life) and allowing Chapman to take over while Lyons steps down.

       A need is not enough to use someone as a vehicle or author surrogate to push a scenario towards a certain end, what is needed is a record of competence or demonstration of ability from which to build upon hence the citing of Joe Edwards and Stanley Markland.

       Am aware of the existing E-Series engine’s limitations as entered production in real-life, however am simply highlighting it could have gone in a very different trajectory to easily evolve into a 1.3-2.0-litre 4-cylinder / 2.0-3.0-litre 6-cylinder with crossflow head (plus other developments) during its path towards production from an experimental 1.3-litre with belt-driven OHC engine. Which as a consequence would have eliminated the reason for the O-Series or related analogue to exist and allowed BMC to cover the 2-litre sector with an alternate E-Series engine, while providing the alternative SD1 analogue with a better 6-cylinder (as was said to be the case with the OTL E-Series SD1s compared to the PE146/PE166) now properly-developed with the bonus of a 4-cylinder.

       Fwiw Rover could have also gone in a more P7 5/6-cylinder direction with the P10 engine have they been inclined where the latter also forms the basis of related 5/6-cylinder engines that are significantly lighter than the experimental P6 4-cylinder derived inline-5/6 engines (now with the benefit of fuel-injection).

       For all the previous comments on comparison between Rover and Audi, the latter using the common EA827/EA113 engines in 4/5-cylinder and even related V6/V8/V10 forms over the past few decades certainly did not tarnish the reputation of Audi at all (without having to carelessly brag about how related the engines are to other cars within the Volkswagen Group). In fact a more modular EA827/EA113-like alternate E/S-Series would have eventually been able to replace the Rover V8 as well as provide a related 90-degree V6.

       Anyway it is has been a long and interesting discussion.

11. Automobile industry is highly dependent on the overall industrial situation and economic development level of the country
    You can’t develop the world’s leading automobile industry in the historical facts of the collapse of British industry
    If the auto industry performs well, it may survive today, but it must be a minor player
    In addition, many problems in the automotive industry are also the manifestation of social problems in Britain, which can not be eliminated simply

    Can’t agree with most “missed opportunities”
    I can only agree with the pod about individuals and models
    Pod involving social situation and international relations is just wishful thinking
    I’ve conceived dozens of ATLS, and what I’ve shown you is the one with the best results, which can only be achieved by a lot of coincidence and luck

    Reply

    1. We can agree to disagree as have brought on PODs that bolster the industrial and economic development of the country, from the BMC merger receiving a cash injection from a portion of the US gift to Britain (in place of the Anglo-American loan) up to Joe Edward’s good relations with the unions mentioned in Richard Etheridge’s book.

       While other PODs might not seem much on their own though taken together lead to a more positive outcome, whether on a small scale confined specifically to the automotive industry to PODs outside of it that proves advantageous (and are plausible enough to not be wishful thinking).

       It can be said however that the UK falling behind Germany and the US during the Second Industrial Revolution largely led to things being as they are now, yet it was not inevitable it would have still fallen behind with the right PODs even if the British would not be able to retain their empire.

       One of the few ideas that potentially has some merit in what you have conceived would be Rootes adopting a more conservative solution to their lack of a small car upon the breakdown of talks between it and Standard-Triumph by developing what amounts to a Raymond Loewry styled small car (roughly resembling Super Minx or a mixture of Minx and the Loewry-styled Triumph Torch proposal for Zobo) powered by a slightly enlarged reverse-engineered version of the SC engine with a stronger bottom end and featuring no recessed bores (nor floppy crank equivalents). Essentially Rootes would be roughly following the real-life example of Rover and Reliant in copying/reverse-engineering the Wet-Liner to create the Land Rover engines and more or less shrinking the SC then casting it in all-alloy to create the Reliant OHV respectively, yet cannot see how that would have improved Rootes’s position.

       Will call time from hereon.

    2. I start with business, not engineering
       I first assume that all models are correct to estimate the company’s possible output, and then consider what model is correct and how to implement it

       Unfortunately, according to my calculation, even if all the models of BMC are correct, they will fall far behind Volkswagen, Renault and PSA in scale in the early 1980s. As you can see, they are basically the lower limit for European manufacturers to survive

12. My education has been broadened considerably – but I still don’t understand what is wrong with “those doors”! As the opening illustration clearly demonstrates, they are perfectly positioned for ease of access. More than can be said for many contemporary vehicles. 1800s in particular made very good taxis…..

    Reply

13. That’s why I hope to move to the upmarket
    But it’s also a pity that upmarket brands are hard to survive in the 1970s

    I used to imagine that Strandard and Rover would merge in 1959 to create a viable upmarket manufacturer in the early 1960s with a coherent lineup, which was an optimized version of Leyland Motor

    And I found that they had little chance of success
    1. Rover triumph could not and would not seek access to EEC in the 1960s, which meant that they could not establish a mainland distribution network and could not take advantage of the European market in the 1970s
    2. This means that RT can only rely on the domestic market, but as I have repeatedly explained, this market is very small
    3. A successful Rover triumph will inevitably lead to Jaguar joining BMC and using BMC’s resources to compete in E segment market

    4. The UK will be allowed to join EEC in 72, which means that Rover triumph will not acquire DAF automotive division, but will only increase production capacity in the UK, which means Speke or Eas Solihull . You know what that means

    Reply

    1. In general, the British car companies either collapsed in the 1970s because of expansion,
       or they could not survive in the 1980s because they did not expand

       So my final conclusion is that
       Bring Rover and BMC together to take advantage of BMC’s resources and distribution network
       And let Rover gradually replace BMC to build a premium brand with leading scale
       This required Rover to succeed in the ’70s and BMC to fail in the’ 70s
       That’s why my project needs so much coincidence and drama

       But for a European car company, failure to take the lead in scale means a reprieve

14. Finally, if you do pursue the success of two British car companies and intend to use pod, which has a profound impact on society, to create the conditions for their success
    I have a few suggestions
    1. Keep leyland away from the automobile industry. I know you want to play Markland’s ability, but the truck industry needs his ability more
    In the 1960s, the UK leads the world in commercial vehicles and does not have the market size problems encountered by the automotive industry, which means that British trucks have an opportunity to stay ahead and let Markland achieve it
    2. Don’t tie Rootes with premium brands. There is no opportunity for mass market manufacturers of this scale ，it can only drag down luxury brands. If you want to keep Rootes, give them to BMC

    3. Rover triumph, not Jaguar triumph
    There is no match between jaguar and triumph. There will be a huge price gap between D-segment triumph and E-segment Jaguar, which makes it impossible for Jaguar to price comfortably
    D-segment Triumph and E-segment rover can form a continuous price
    If Rover and strandard merged in 1959, triumph could be defined as a brand with the same premium as Rover but used for more sporty vehicles, rather than a half premium brand with no hope of survival

    4. Jaguar and BMC can match, Volkswagen and Audi share D segment to form a consistent price, and Jaguar and BMC can share e segment
    Since you are ready to expand the living space of British enterprises, there is no reason why Austin can not be in E-segment when Opel, Ford, Peugeot, Citroen and Renault are all in.

    Reply

    1. Following this route, you can have two successful companies
       As a mass production brand manufacturer, BMH owns the top luxury Jaguar, which is more exclusive than the German Troika. Mg can be used in sports cars and halo models, such as Ford RS and VW R
       Rover and German Troika direct competition, triumphal has been gradually replaced by Rover
       The premise is that you create enough space for British manufacturers

    2. Still have own ideas on where to go with regards to ATLs (as am operating from much earlier PODs e.g. early metrication, etc), that said am interested in what Leyland Trucks could achieve beyond remaining in contact (if not later acquiring) Ashok Leyland as well as DAF Trucks, Bedford Vehicles and Daewoo Commercial Vehicles as well as possibly developing the Leyland O.680 engine along the same lines as DAF Trucks.

       As am not particularly well-versed in commercial vehicles, it would be interesting to see what other expansion opportunities there were and whether they could capitalize on with regards to takeovers of other competitors up to the ATL present, along with what the commercial vehicle manufacturers map would look like in this scenario.

       The comments by Tomhdu in the following thread appear to corroborate Leyland’s OTL mistakes with regards to the commercial vehicle side of things.
       http://www.trucknetuk.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=35&t=65419&start=300

    3. Also I don’t know much about commercial vehicles
       But I know that Leyland lack of cash led to a combination of the metric unitsand the Imperial units, which led to a heavy burden on Leyland truck sector in the 1970s

       On the other hand, commercial vehicles mainly rely on the global market. Developing countries may not be able to afford too many cars, but they need a large number of commercial vehicles to support economic development. This determines that as long as Lilan adopts the right model, it can always maintain its position as the largest truck manufacturer in the world, at least one of them

    4. Leyland’s issues in summary based on the thread above were apparently down to:

       – Stokes being chosen instead of Markham (the latter would have avoided many, if not all, of the major pitfalls that were to be encountered later)

       – The Ergomatic Cab

       – Labour Government Pressure

       – Dr Albert Fogg and his three failed engine projects (in place of developing the venerable Leyland O.680 engine along the same lines as DAF)

       – Inheriting the FJ with a tilted under-floor 5.1-litre and 5.7-litre engines from BMC’s Bathgate factory

       – Scandinavian Imports

       – Metricifation & Exports

       – Another Labour government commissioning the Ryder Report.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Enter your comment here...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

Email (required) (Address never made public)

Name (required)

Website

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out /  Change )

You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out /  Change )

You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out /  Change )

Cancel

Connecting to %s

Notify me of new comments via email.

Notify me of new posts via email.

Δ

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.