There was a chapter from Mini: The Definitive History about a stillborn prototype called the "Mini-Mini" that was requested by Innocenti for the Italian market (and would later inspire Issigonis to create the unrelated 9X that was smaller, more spacious and cheaper to build), which was a Mini shortened by 9 inches and had a flatter front-end though the photos shown are only of the body-in-white on pages 158/159.
A "What-If" British Motor Industry Scenario
- Thread starter Masked Grizzly
- Start date
There was a chapter from Mini: The Definitive History about a stillborn prototype called the "Mini-Mini" that was requested by Innocenti for the Italian market (and would later inspire Issigonis to create the unrelated 9X that was smaller, more spacious and cheaper to build), which was a Mini shortened by 9 inches and had a flatter front-end though the photos shown are only of the body-in-white on pages 158/159.
NothingNow
Banned
It's not that big a problem, but the BMC 9X, when properly styled could be a nice model to supply overseas, and be used as the basis for commercial models, especially if Issigonis could be convinced to make a taller version as a van/truck, along the lines of the Honda Life Step Van, to compete with the Daihatsu Hijet and Subaru Sambar and replace the Honda TN360 and T360.
TBH, until you brought it up I did not consider the potential of creating an 9X-based Kei-Truck/Microvan variant.
In FF form like in the Honda Life StepVan, a taller slightly-longer van/truck/commerical version of the 9X may be possible though any other layout like in the Daihatsu Hijet, Subaru Sambar and Bedford Rascal / Suzuki Super Carry would probably prove to be too difficult to say the least for all I know and would be better off creating a new platform based on existing components to cut-down costs.
A modern 9X-based replacement for the original Mini-based 4wd Austin Ant (think Mini-Sized Land Rover), along the lines of the Suzuki Jimny is another possibly worth looking into. - http://www.minimarcos.org.uk/altpics/ant.html
NothingNow
Banned
Agreed. It'd probably be FF only, but that gives the advantage of allowing the vehicle to have a lower, flatter load-floor (which could seriously help sales.)
In my own BMC scenario, this model (called something like the"Mini-Van/ Mini-Microvan") and the commerical versions of it (and other budget / commerical models) would be badged as Austins while an enlarged van / commerical version of the larger supermini-sized Austin Mini-Midi/Midi (9X) could possibly be badged as the Austin Midi-Maxi/Maxi with the original alternate Maxi adopting the Austin Aquila name.
With a large enough budget, it might be possible for BMC or even LMC and other British Carmakers to develop a range of microvans / kei-trucks and larger commerical vehicles in other layouts beyond FF.
It would interesting to imagine BMC building a proper Austin-badged rival to the Ford Transit, though LMC / Leyland would still end up building an alternate version of the Leyland / Morris Sherpa van.
NothingNow
Banned
Cool.
Definitely. But basing them off the Mini, and probably the Morris Minor would be the best cheap bet on the low-end, while other decent base platforms might be the Austin Westminster (followed by the Austin 3-liter), Austin Cambridge, and Rover P5 & P6.
There's also the option of license building a design like the Dodge A100, Prince/Nissan Homy, or Toyota HiAce, building a simplified FR version of the Land Rover, or putting some money, and decent power trains in the Morris J-series.
Each company could do their own thing of course, so BMC (Austin, Morris et al) might update the J-series, Leyland might build their own design in house, and perpetually-broke Rover could make a deal with the devil and build the Prince/Nissan Homy or Toyota HiAce, using their own engines and transmissions, particularly the 2.25L Fours, and some Straight Sixes. That said, 3.4L (3429cc) I6 developments of the 2.25L (2286cc) fours would probably be the best heavy-duty powerplant for any Rover van. They'd be quiet, bullet-proof, exceptionally smooth and decently powerful for the day, unless something goes horribly wrong.
I'd expect ~110bhp/180lb-ft from a 3.4L petrol engine, and ~95bhp/200lb-ft from the 3.4L diesel engine.
That said, the 2.25L Petrol and Diesel would already be a major step up for the Homy and HiAce (but should fit, since they managed to squeeze 2200cc diesels in them IOTL,) so fitting an engine as powerful and future-proof as the hypothetical 3.4L I6 would require some serious work.
That it would. Although a Morris J2 with a proper gear-box and the 2.6 or 2.9L C-series straight six or a bored out A-series four-cylinder (~2 liters displacement) would've been the right vehicle for the former.
I was thinking along the lines of an indigenously UK developed and built range of cars and commerical vehicles, that while not sharing parts with foreign carmakers would still be inspired/influenced by non-UK car / commerical designs.
The alternate LMC / Leyland (composed of Morris, Innocenti, Triumph, Jaguar / Daimler and Leyland's own Commerical Trucks/Bus Division), would have commericals like the Sherpa and alternate Marina-based Van/Pickup branded either Leyland or Morris.
The alternate BMC (composed of Austin, MG, Rover and BMC as the Truck/Bus Division after owning ERF/Foden and Metro Cammell Weymann/MCW which further strengthened the commerical side of BMC), would have Austin-badged commerical vehicles from car-based Vans/Pickups to "clean-sheet" Purpose-built Commericals. The trouble with using the existing commerical vehicles prior to the Sherpa in the OTL was that the Ford Transit was such a leap forward that uprating existing products was simply not going to cut it. - http://www.aronline.co.uk/blogs/com...-commercials/purpose-built-vans-and-pick-ups/ and http://www.aronline.co.uk/blogs/commercials/commercials-purpose-built-vanspick-ups/
In the Collaboration period between BMC and Leyland as well as the real-life Minivan, commerical versions of the alternate 1100/1300 (ADO16) and 1800/2200(ADO17) were also produced with BMC's being branded as Austins and Leyland's versions being badged as Morris. - http://www.aronline.co.uk/blogs/cars/bmc-cars/11001300/service-vans-ado16-and-ado17/
Car-derived Vans/Pickups - http://www.aronline.co.uk/blogs/commercials/ar-commercials-car-derived-vanspick-ups/
Commericals: Light Trucks - http://www.aronline.co.uk/blogs/commercials/commerials-light-trucks/
The UK branches of Ford and GM (Vauxhall) also had quite a few "What-If's" with the latter being cars like the Opel Manta B based Vauxhall Silver Aero prototype (http://cavalierandchevetteclub.co.uk/Silver_Aero.htm) and the former being hypothetical cars like say a mk1 Lotus Capri (powered by the 1.6 Lotus TwinCam) or a 2-seater mk1 Ford Cortina based on the Ford Saxon Cortina concept. - http://www.thepetrolstop.com/2011/09/ford-saxon.html
What were the chances for Jag building a 2.5-liter "mini XJ6"? (Such as the Kammback?)
And if Jag didn't merge with BMC, what would the company have done for bodies?
And if Jag didn't merge with BMC, what would the company have done for bodies?
Last edited:
Buy in experience from USA in product pricing where they were world leaders then you can make a profit on models that you can sell in quantity.
You need to start with the formation of BMC and fast forward to British Leyland. In other words get the economies of scale as soon as possible. Lets Rootes do the same.
Thirdly ruthlessly rationalise the groups components. So many minor parts can be shared around. Don't let them fight for the staus quo, make them fight for a good place in the new vision.
Personally, using the period technology, I would use the Daimler V8 for the engine base. A 1.2 litre 4, 2.0 litre V8, 3 litre V8 and 4.5 litre V8 plus a good 2.5 diesel 4, possibly bought in or on a Daimler type block.
Teach the component suppliers (especially the Prince of Darkness) that you will buy elsewhere if they don't meet your standards. They need you more than you need them. Customers will judge you by their performance. For them the Lucas alternator didn't fail, the Morris didn't charge it's battery.
Emphasise reliability and quality to the engineers and staff. Everything must work and fit. Use incentives and pride to commit staff to these goals. This cuts across everything. Set acheivable high standards and insist they are met and give staff the tools to be able to reach them. They are professional qualified car makers not assembly line drudges. The minimum standard has to be that everything works in all weathers and continues to do so until appropriate mileages are reached. In return demonstrate to the staff that they are valued. Training and qualifications. Clean company uniforms across all staff. Spend money on cleaning and painting, quality canteens and toilets etc. Get you product pricing people to do a cost price base company car workers can buy. Austin company car parks used to be full of Fords and Morris Marinas. If you can then get company based unions rather than trade based ones. Work with them to improve staff standards and self value. A good union is your ally in developing staff and identifying staff issues before they cause disruption.
Weather the storm of existing pride in the old badge companies. They have to be transferred to image blocs. e.g. Triumph for small sporting quality saloons, e.g. MG for small sports cars, Jaguar for larger ones, Rover for larger sub jaguar saloons, Jaguar for the large ones. Austin for bread and butter saloons. Alvis, Riley, Wolseley, Vanden Plas etc. can be reserved for the super deluxe ends of each range. e.g. The Rover saloons have a 2.0 litre 4 engine but there is a top end with the 3.0 litre V8 as an Alvis.So you have a single name for each image and a single image for each name but the mechanics are group mechanics.
The dealers will squeal so back those that will come on board and encourage them to expand into the territory of those who won't. Give them an undertaking that you are committed to do away with the warranty repairs otherwise so common and make servicing and repairs easier so that they can do more work with less staff. Treat them as part of the company and supply them with the latest tools to do the work.
Borrow in the market place not from government.
Let your experimental staff play with new technology but stick with known arrangements until the reliability and servicing costs can be proven to be up to standard. So no FWD until it can compete on merit.
Minimise your base floorpans as well as gearboxes and engines so RWD means a small gearbox, a medium/diesel one and a large one. Buy in automatic boxes and make this a V8 standard. Same for differentials and axles, brakes and steering racks.
Now you are in a position to seek larger markets overseas with dealers and buyers confident in the products. Remember in OTL the japanese products only sold on price and reliability. Poor handling, ride and braking etc. but they kept on going and you could afford them. You will be asking a modest premium but giving a finish quality, reliability and image that they cannot.
The light goods vehicle side has to be seen as equal in importance and the same principles apply entirely with reliability and cheap servicing being even more important and can be identified with the Morris name in a light car based van, small true van, medium true van and a true LGV for light quasi lorry work.
The heavy commercial lorry/bus side would not fit well with the car/light goods range and needs it's own separate group but the above principles still hold.
OK, nice model but how do you get there? Do so while you can still sell what you have by channelling investment into a certain area and demonstrating it works before seeking new investment from the market on a proven business plan. Having the model you can eliminate (painfully) investment in areas where they will not contribute to the plan in the future.
I would begin with the light goods range. In the 1960's this will call for the two 4 cylinder types and the diesel together with the small and medium gearboxes etc. If quality and reliability can be achieved in this demanding high mileage market then it will perform in cars.
I definitely would not do a pick and mix of all the possible prototypes etc. that OTL might have considered. This ATL needs it's own.
I see a small sports car floorpan with 1.2 Austin mechanicals, a smallish saloon doing the 1.2 Austin/2.0 Triumph range, a large one doing the 2.0 Rover/4.5 Jaguar range with a large sports car floorpan for 4.5 Jaguar sports cars. If the floorpans can be done easily in differing lengths then so much the better and if they can overlap with the van range then ideal. Clearly you can tweak the capacities up and down a little.
I see the biggest problem as being the politics of shutting down old sites and/or opening green field sites.
You need to start with the formation of BMC and fast forward to British Leyland. In other words get the economies of scale as soon as possible. Lets Rootes do the same.
Thirdly ruthlessly rationalise the groups components. So many minor parts can be shared around. Don't let them fight for the staus quo, make them fight for a good place in the new vision.
Personally, using the period technology, I would use the Daimler V8 for the engine base. A 1.2 litre 4, 2.0 litre V8, 3 litre V8 and 4.5 litre V8 plus a good 2.5 diesel 4, possibly bought in or on a Daimler type block.
Teach the component suppliers (especially the Prince of Darkness) that you will buy elsewhere if they don't meet your standards. They need you more than you need them. Customers will judge you by their performance. For them the Lucas alternator didn't fail, the Morris didn't charge it's battery.
Emphasise reliability and quality to the engineers and staff. Everything must work and fit. Use incentives and pride to commit staff to these goals. This cuts across everything. Set acheivable high standards and insist they are met and give staff the tools to be able to reach them. They are professional qualified car makers not assembly line drudges. The minimum standard has to be that everything works in all weathers and continues to do so until appropriate mileages are reached. In return demonstrate to the staff that they are valued. Training and qualifications. Clean company uniforms across all staff. Spend money on cleaning and painting, quality canteens and toilets etc. Get you product pricing people to do a cost price base company car workers can buy. Austin company car parks used to be full of Fords and Morris Marinas. If you can then get company based unions rather than trade based ones. Work with them to improve staff standards and self value. A good union is your ally in developing staff and identifying staff issues before they cause disruption.
Weather the storm of existing pride in the old badge companies. They have to be transferred to image blocs. e.g. Triumph for small sporting quality saloons, e.g. MG for small sports cars, Jaguar for larger ones, Rover for larger sub jaguar saloons, Jaguar for the large ones. Austin for bread and butter saloons. Alvis, Riley, Wolseley, Vanden Plas etc. can be reserved for the super deluxe ends of each range. e.g. The Rover saloons have a 2.0 litre 4 engine but there is a top end with the 3.0 litre V8 as an Alvis.So you have a single name for each image and a single image for each name but the mechanics are group mechanics.
The dealers will squeal so back those that will come on board and encourage them to expand into the territory of those who won't. Give them an undertaking that you are committed to do away with the warranty repairs otherwise so common and make servicing and repairs easier so that they can do more work with less staff. Treat them as part of the company and supply them with the latest tools to do the work.
Borrow in the market place not from government.
Let your experimental staff play with new technology but stick with known arrangements until the reliability and servicing costs can be proven to be up to standard. So no FWD until it can compete on merit.
Minimise your base floorpans as well as gearboxes and engines so RWD means a small gearbox, a medium/diesel one and a large one. Buy in automatic boxes and make this a V8 standard. Same for differentials and axles, brakes and steering racks.
Now you are in a position to seek larger markets overseas with dealers and buyers confident in the products. Remember in OTL the japanese products only sold on price and reliability. Poor handling, ride and braking etc. but they kept on going and you could afford them. You will be asking a modest premium but giving a finish quality, reliability and image that they cannot.
The light goods vehicle side has to be seen as equal in importance and the same principles apply entirely with reliability and cheap servicing being even more important and can be identified with the Morris name in a light car based van, small true van, medium true van and a true LGV for light quasi lorry work.
The heavy commercial lorry/bus side would not fit well with the car/light goods range and needs it's own separate group but the above principles still hold.
OK, nice model but how do you get there? Do so while you can still sell what you have by channelling investment into a certain area and demonstrating it works before seeking new investment from the market on a proven business plan. Having the model you can eliminate (painfully) investment in areas where they will not contribute to the plan in the future.
I would begin with the light goods range. In the 1960's this will call for the two 4 cylinder types and the diesel together with the small and medium gearboxes etc. If quality and reliability can be achieved in this demanding high mileage market then it will perform in cars.
I definitely would not do a pick and mix of all the possible prototypes etc. that OTL might have considered. This ATL needs it's own.
I see a small sports car floorpan with 1.2 Austin mechanicals, a smallish saloon doing the 1.2 Austin/2.0 Triumph range, a large one doing the 2.0 Rover/4.5 Jaguar range with a large sports car floorpan for 4.5 Jaguar sports cars. If the floorpans can be done easily in differing lengths then so much the better and if they can overlap with the van range then ideal. Clearly you can tweak the capacities up and down a little.
I see the biggest problem as being the politics of shutting down old sites and/or opening green field sites.
Last edited:
I agree with most of what you've said, but this is a problem. The OTL designers & engineers are the ones you'd be working with. How do you get wholly new designs? Changing the conditions so different designs get adopted I can see, but unless your POD is way back, wholly new seems pretty improbable.yulzari said:
phyx1138
That is the difference between leadership and management. The group needs a leader who can sell the vision. They need managers who can enact the vision. Enthuse the designers with the vision, give them a single state of the art research centre and ditch those who cannot sign up. Cruel but how many lost their jobs in OTL? Those who won't sign up were still good engineers and will benefit other industries.
I suggested an early 'BL', maybe by 1960. Industrial progress was not a dirty word then. The vision is to project the industry forward, not prevent it from collapsing. By the 1970's it was about avoiding bankruptcy while in a Somme battle with the unions.
Engineers want DOHC automatic Landcrabs. Accountants want a 1970's Morris Minor. Ford wanted a car that worked, could sell and was desireable to fleet customers. Who made the money?
BMW built a successful company on, basically, one car, sound engineering, quality and image. For all the muck, probably rightly thrown, at Phoenix, if they had been allowed to kill off everything but the Rover 75 I believe they would be around today.
That is the difference between leadership and management. The group needs a leader who can sell the vision. They need managers who can enact the vision. Enthuse the designers with the vision, give them a single state of the art research centre and ditch those who cannot sign up. Cruel but how many lost their jobs in OTL? Those who won't sign up were still good engineers and will benefit other industries.
I suggested an early 'BL', maybe by 1960. Industrial progress was not a dirty word then. The vision is to project the industry forward, not prevent it from collapsing. By the 1970's it was about avoiding bankruptcy while in a Somme battle with the unions.
Engineers want DOHC automatic Landcrabs. Accountants want a 1970's Morris Minor. Ford wanted a car that worked, could sell and was desireable to fleet customers. Who made the money?
BMW built a successful company on, basically, one car, sound engineering, quality and image. For all the muck, probably rightly thrown, at Phoenix, if they had been allowed to kill off everything but the Rover 75 I believe they would be around today.
I think we're talking about two different things, here. I agree, if the management (decision-makers) are different, the company goes a different way.yulzari said:
What I'm getting at is this: if the management at Jaguar is different enough the company stays independent, does that mean Malcolm Sayer ceases to be chief stylist on the replacement E-type? I don't think so. It may mean Oliver Winterbottom's version is adopted instead. I certainly don't think it means Bill Mitchell or Larry Shinoda comes on board & the new E-type looks more like a '72 Stingray.
(Not to say there's anything wrong with the '72 Stingray....)Do you disagree?
I think we're talking about two different things, here. I agree, if the management (decision-makers) are different, the company goes a different way.
What I'm getting at is this: if the management at Jaguar is different enough the company stays independent, does that mean Malcolm Sayer ceases to be chief stylist on the replacement E-type? I don't think so. It may mean Oliver Winterbottom's version is adopted instead. I certainly don't think it means Bill Mitchell or Larry Shinoda comes on board & the new E-type looks more like a '72 Stingray.
Do you disagree?
I don't disagree at all. What I have tried to do is step back from the detail of what model, what design issues and approach it from a total motor industry point of view and let the details flow from there. I don't see Jaguar as any different myself. It carved itself a valueable image around a single overweight over expensive (but very nice) engine.
Possibly it would be more manageable to follow the vision in miniature in the Rootes group with a better rationalisation.
In many ways they signed up for the vision above but it all went horribly wrong yet they even went for working with plants abroad to make vehicles for the local market such as Iran and Japan.
They failed to get the unions and staff on their side, allowed government to influence business decisions and were appalling at marketing a positive image. They had a sound light commercial side with names that could be used to differentiate the market segments suggested above. Again let the lorry side do it's own thing.