I really doubt it. The Isetta comes from a time period that BMW would like to remember the least. No luxury car maker would ever deliberately cheapen its image like that. The Mini had a reputation that the bubble cars simply didn't-they'd be either forgotten or remembered as cheap junk.
Automotive AHC/WI - Saving the domestic British Motor Industry
- Thread starter Masked Grizzly
- Start date
I really doubt it. The Isetta comes from a time period that BMW would like to remember the least. No luxury car maker would ever deliberately cheapen its image like that. The Mini had a reputation that the bubble cars simply didn't-they'd be either forgotten or remembered as cheap junk.
In practice it would probably be an ATL BMW MINI though instead with mostly exterior elements of the BMW 700 that saved the company (and some possible BMW 600 nods), being more a German caricature of the Mini ITTL in the same way the Daihatsu Mira Gino is unashamedly a Japanese caricature of the Mini IOTL (along with arguably the BMW MINI itself).
It really depends on whether BMW ITTL are confident enough to compete in the Premium B Segment niche they ended up creating IOTL under their own name or deciding use another marque like Glas, whilst BMW got the underpinnings right for the IOTL BMW Mini would they have still had the same success had it featured regular BMW styling and badging without the retro styling?
The BMW 700 is the closest styling template BMW had to creating a retro Mini-like analogue to the IOTL BMW MINI without being a direct copy of the Mini, the only other alternatives would be the unconventional BMW Z13 concept that came close to production (before BMW acquired Rover) or a car with BMW MINI-like underpinnings and Tritec engine clothed in similar styling as the electric BMW Z15 (E1) concept (possibly with BMW E46 Compact like front in lieu of the latter instead featuring a regular BMW E46 3-Series front end). - https://bmwconceptsarchive.wordpress.com/2015/05/21/bmw-z15-e1-1993/
Last edited:
- Jensen ) ITTL the company would feature some elements of OTL Bristol with the ATL Jensen Interceptor featuring Chrysler LA V8 (and ATL mid/late-1960s LA V6) engines featuring Rotomaster Turbochargers and early Throttle Body Fuel Injection (TBI) System as well as LPG conversions. The 360 V8 Turbo putting out around 330-350 hp with the 239 (later 270) V6 Turbo putting out around 250-265+ hp (or roughly equivalent to the OTL 3.8 Buick V6 turbo and 4.3 GM 90-degree V6 turbo units IOTL).
The ATL Jensen-Healey and Jensen-Healey GT (alternate Jensen GT that appeared at the same time) received better styling via William Towns original smoother-looking rejected proposal (without it being ruined by Kjell Qvale like IOTL). Engine options that were further evaluated during development ranged from 130-150 hp 2.0-2.3 16-valve DOHC fuel-injected ATL Vauxhall Slant-Four, ATL (reliable) 144+ hp 2.0 Lotus 907, 155-190 hp 3.5 Rover V8 and a 131-180+ hp 2.0-2.2 Chrysler/Simca Type 180 with a Ricardo or Matra sourced 16-valve Twin-Cam head.
Ultimately Jensen's closer ties with Chrysler ITTL would lead the company to opt for the 2.0-2.2 Chrysler/Simca Type 180 engine along with the (possibly US specific) ATL Chrysler LA V6, the latter in naturally aspirated form put out up to 175-185+ hp and slotted above Chrysler/Simca Type 180 4-cylinder yet below the turbocharged LA V6. The LA V8 as well as the LA V6 / V8 LPG conversions would help broaden the appeal of the Interceptor a bit more as well as the Jensen-Healey / Jensen GT models the engines were fitted to ITTL.
The success of both the ATL Jensen Healey and Jensen Interceptor would lead to Jensen itself eventually being acquired by Chrysler, who approved the ATL Jensen G-Type and Jensen F-Type projects leaving the Healeys to move on to another venture.
- Healey ) Under BMC ITTL an early-1960s version of the Austin-Healey 4000 (ADO24) would reach production, with the Healeys being much happier with the final result of the Austin-Healey 3000 MkIV (ADO51) project - now reconceived as The Mid Healey (as opposed to a Big Healey successor) and featuring differentiated styling from the ATL MGC (which like the ATL MGB featured either rear coil springs with properly-designed Frontline-style Panhard Rod, rear coil spring with Watts Linkage or existing MGB/MGC suspension with telescopic front dampers and parabolic rear springs).
The ATL Austin-Healey 3000 MkIV (ADO51) would carry over the styling from Pio Manzu’s 1962 Austin-Healey 3000 Firrere Pininfarina concept (that formed the basis of ADO30) with a Coune MGB Berlinette front-end and the egg-box front-grille from the Costello MGB/MGC V8 by Ken Costello. Power would come from an ATL 3-litre B-Series 6-cylinder engine (much lighter than OTL C-Series) that depending on specification would put out 160-173+ hp (up to about 200 hp).
Events at BMC in the aftermath of the company acquiring Rover and feature products in the pipeline without any involvement or interest from the Healeys such as the ATL MG EX234 (that was to replace the Austin-Healey Sprite / MG Midget along with the MGB) and Rover P9, led Donald Healey to see the writing on the wall and secretly initiate the Healey X500 project before he was cut loose from his lucrative association with Austin by 1970 (albeit under more amicable circumstances compared to OTL).
History ITTL would be the same as the Jensen section above for the ATL Jensen-Healey up to Chrysler taking over Jensen during the mid/late-1970s, leading to the Healeys to return to the orbit of ATL BMC aka Austin Rover as a low-volume sportscar maker under the Healey Motor Company in a new final venture from the early-1980s.
Essentially the Healey Motor Company ITTL would acquire the rights to and produce initially restored later official low volume resto-mod versions of the Sprite (ATL Healey Frogeye) and Big Healey (ATL HMC MkiV - also here) as well as the ATL ADO51 (think ATL ADO51/ADO52 analogue of the Aston Martin MGB prototype though with the rights/tooling instead going to Healey), with engines sourced from ATL BMC aka Austin Rover who would go on to acquire the company not long after the death of Geoffrey Healey in 1994.
The ATL Jensen-Healey and Jensen-Healey GT (alternate Jensen GT that appeared at the same time) received better styling via William Towns original smoother-looking rejected proposal (without it being ruined by Kjell Qvale like IOTL). Engine options that were further evaluated during development ranged from 130-150 hp 2.0-2.3 16-valve DOHC fuel-injected ATL Vauxhall Slant-Four, ATL (reliable) 144+ hp 2.0 Lotus 907, 155-190 hp 3.5 Rover V8 and a 131-180+ hp 2.0-2.2 Chrysler/Simca Type 180 with a Ricardo or Matra sourced 16-valve Twin-Cam head.
Ultimately Jensen's closer ties with Chrysler ITTL would lead the company to opt for the 2.0-2.2 Chrysler/Simca Type 180 engine along with the (possibly US specific) ATL Chrysler LA V6, the latter in naturally aspirated form put out up to 175-185+ hp and slotted above Chrysler/Simca Type 180 4-cylinder yet below the turbocharged LA V6. The LA V8 as well as the LA V6 / V8 LPG conversions would help broaden the appeal of the Interceptor a bit more as well as the Jensen-Healey / Jensen GT models the engines were fitted to ITTL.
The success of both the ATL Jensen Healey and Jensen Interceptor would lead to Jensen itself eventually being acquired by Chrysler, who approved the ATL Jensen G-Type and Jensen F-Type projects leaving the Healeys to move on to another venture.
- Healey ) Under BMC ITTL an early-1960s version of the Austin-Healey 4000 (ADO24) would reach production, with the Healeys being much happier with the final result of the Austin-Healey 3000 MkIV (ADO51) project - now reconceived as The Mid Healey (as opposed to a Big Healey successor) and featuring differentiated styling from the ATL MGC (which like the ATL MGB featured either rear coil springs with properly-designed Frontline-style Panhard Rod, rear coil spring with Watts Linkage or existing MGB/MGC suspension with telescopic front dampers and parabolic rear springs).
The ATL Austin-Healey 3000 MkIV (ADO51) would carry over the styling from Pio Manzu’s 1962 Austin-Healey 3000 Firrere Pininfarina concept (that formed the basis of ADO30) with a Coune MGB Berlinette front-end and the egg-box front-grille from the Costello MGB/MGC V8 by Ken Costello. Power would come from an ATL 3-litre B-Series 6-cylinder engine (much lighter than OTL C-Series) that depending on specification would put out 160-173+ hp (up to about 200 hp).
Events at BMC in the aftermath of the company acquiring Rover and feature products in the pipeline without any involvement or interest from the Healeys such as the ATL MG EX234 (that was to replace the Austin-Healey Sprite / MG Midget along with the MGB) and Rover P9, led Donald Healey to see the writing on the wall and secretly initiate the Healey X500 project before he was cut loose from his lucrative association with Austin by 1970 (albeit under more amicable circumstances compared to OTL).
History ITTL would be the same as the Jensen section above for the ATL Jensen-Healey up to Chrysler taking over Jensen during the mid/late-1970s, leading to the Healeys to return to the orbit of ATL BMC aka Austin Rover as a low-volume sportscar maker under the Healey Motor Company in a new final venture from the early-1980s.
Essentially the Healey Motor Company ITTL would acquire the rights to and produce initially restored later official low volume resto-mod versions of the Sprite (ATL Healey Frogeye) and Big Healey (ATL HMC MkiV - also here) as well as the ATL ADO51 (think ATL ADO51/ADO52 analogue of the Aston Martin MGB prototype though with the rights/tooling instead going to Healey), with engines sourced from ATL BMC aka Austin Rover who would go on to acquire the company not long after the death of Geoffrey Healey in 1994.
Last edited:
Do you think there are other marques that might have prospered in an ATL British motor industry?
Would McLaren have entered the road car market and would it have done so as per OTL or under the aegis of a larger British concern? Would Britain's dominance in F1 have led to other exotic sports car brands being developed? A Williams brand perhaps?
Equally, could Britain have been the cradle for a Tesla analogue (perhaps just a Dyson Car Company that actually started production but maybe more than that)?
Would McLaren have entered the road car market and would it have done so as per OTL or under the aegis of a larger British concern? Would Britain's dominance in F1 have led to other exotic sports car brands being developed? A Williams brand perhaps?
Equally, could Britain have been the cradle for a Tesla analogue (perhaps just a Dyson Car Company that actually started production but maybe more than that)?
It is difficult to say, know Bruce Mclaren prior to his death was looking to develop a road-going version of the M6GT though such a car reaching production ITTL for example would create too many butterflies (to potentially erase the Mclaren F1) and ATM have little to no knowledge on any other historical projects IOTL by Williams, etc to help keep things grounded and relatively plausible. - https://www.topgear.com/car-news/big-reads/driving-bruce-mclarens-m6gt
The 1250-1750 OHC engine based on the Coventry Climax 1220cc FWE ，what Rootes designe in OTL
Last edited:
The 1250-1750cc OHC was indeed based on the Coventry Climax 1220 FWE engine used in the Lotus Elite, however it was said to be expensive to produce and tied to the Rootes Swallow project as well as being unrelated to the more conventional OTL 1250-1600/1800 Avenger engines (1100cc and 2000cc versions were also envisaged).
The Swallow project lost out to the more conventional Arrow project IOTL, it is likely ATL Rootes would have still opted for the latter route even had the ATL Imp been successful.
Aside from ATL Arrow drawing inspiration from the Florian ITTL only other thing that would be different however would be new production tooling / etc in this scenario beforehand allowing the Minx OHV engine to follow a more Isuzu G-like development trajectory with 1300-1950cc+ displacements (instead of 1390-1725cc) before being replaced in the post-Leyland aka Jaguar-Triumph era.
The Swallow project lost out to the more conventional Arrow project IOTL, it is likely ATL Rootes would have still opted for the latter route even had the ATL Imp been successful.
Aside from ATL Arrow drawing inspiration from the Florian ITTL only other thing that would be different however would be new production tooling / etc in this scenario beforehand allowing the Minx OHV engine to follow a more Isuzu G-like development trajectory with 1300-1950cc+ displacements (instead of 1390-1725cc) before being replaced in the post-Leyland aka Jaguar-Triumph era.
In my ATL ，Rootes and Strandard had megred in 1950s
And had lanched RWD C-segment car for the 1.0L markert
So，Both Imp and Swallow will not happen
The Rootes-Strandard indeed had reason for a engine family to replace all the old enigne
Note- The scenario below for ATL TVR draws inspiration from both the altered context ITTL as well as elements from Peter Filby’s two books on TVR covering its early days up to 1981 together with Oliver Winterbottom's book.
- TVR ) Early TVR Grantura Mk1s to MK2s would feature enlarged 42-54 hp 1172-1498cc OHV versions of the 35 hp 1172cc Ford Sidevalve engine, with optional ATL 64-82 hp 1172-1498cc OHV engines equipped with Shorrock superchargers (in place of the OTL supercharged 56 hp 1172cc Sidevalve).
The ATL Grantura Mk2 would instead feature a slightly lengthened and raised rear body section featuring an external boot with the chassis having wishbone front suspension with trailing arms and coil springs at the rear, whilst carrying over the OTL TVR Grantura Mk2A revisions.
The ATL TVR Grantura MkII (essentially an OTL MkIII) would merit a better start to its life and a greater impact on the market compared to the OTL MkIII to MkiV featuring BMC B-Series engines from 90+ hp 1.6-litres up to 106+ hp 2-litre (and even a 115 hp 2-litre B-OHC) as well as 2-door fastback and roadster bodystyles.
The ATL Trevor Frost/Fiore-designed Fissore-built TVR Trident project (that was a 3-door fastback coupe) would be more advanced in development compared to OTL, not enough to butterfly away the ATL TVR Griffin (the latter being akin to the later further developed SWB TVR Tuscan V8) however yet enough to be nearly ready for production (thanks to no US dock strike exacerbating the company’s problems) prior to collapsing in 1965 (stemming from the damage Jack Griffith caused in US). Resulting in the ATL TVR Trident becoming one of the many TVR assets purchased by Arthur Lilley and his son Martin Lilley.
That is despite a surreptitious attempt by TVR dealer Bill Last (OTL founder of Trident Cars) with two other accomplices to illegitimately commandeer the rights to the Trident design during the period of confusion after TVR’s collapse by falsely presenting themselves officially representing TVR interests to a Fissore executive they met with.
One notable version of the ATL TVR Trident would be equipped with a Boss 302 engine, Ferguson 4WD and Maxerat anti-lock brakes (derived from the OTL Liam Churchill instigated wide-bodied 1969 Tuscan V8 of the same specification that was timed by police doing 178 mph), prior to the thoroughly updated Trident with slightly enlarged dimensions featuring a 166-inch length, 96-inch wheelbase and 69-inch width. However the popularity of the V8 powered TVR models would be overshadowed by the success of the US emissions compliant 2.5-3.0-litre+ Ford Europe 60-degree V6 engined TVR Tuscan and Trident models alongside the ATL 71-106+ hp 1300-2000cc TVR Vixen models.
The ATL Lilley Era at TVR would be notable for exercising greater financial control from the outset (instead of from 1968 IOTL) in lowering running costs and producing results, with the 90-inch wheelbase (aka LWB) being standardized for both the ATL Vixen S1 and ATL Tuscan. The latter would feature the ATL 123-138 hp 2.5-3.0-litre+ Ford Europe 60-degree V6 (merged Essex/Cologne V6) early on which would be US emissions compliant with tuned version reaching up to 154-185+ hp in 2.5-3.0-litre+ forms (the ATL 2.5-litre 60-degree V6 butterflying away the OTL 2.5-litre Triumph I6 unit in the Vixen).
The ATL TVR Vixen would be built on the 90-inch wheelbase chassis and feature other revisions of the Vixen S2 from the outset, it would be powered by 71-86 hp 1298-1599cc Ford Kent and enlarged Kent-based 94-106 hp 1753-1975cc OHV half-relations in addition to the OTL Speedwell tuned 110-115 hp 1599cc variants being further complimented by Speedwell tuned 110-142 hp 1753-1975cc engines.
The TVR Tina project would reach production in 1968 powered by 875-1150cc (up to 1268cc) Imp engines, production being possibly farmed out to either Jensen Motors, Rootes (later Leyland aka Jaguar-Triumph) or Aston Martin with production lasting until 1974-1976).
The ATL TVR M-Series would be little different apart from being equipped with larger Kent-based 1753-1975cc half-relation and US emissions compliant ATL 120-144+ hp 2.5-3.0-litre+ Ford Europe 60-degree V6 engines (plus ATL 230-250 hp 3-litre Turbos) as well as being available with roadster and 3-door coupe hatchback bodystyles from the start, with the 1600M not being withdrawn in April 1973 only to be revived in 1975 to belatedly meet increased demand for fuel-efficient vehicles in the wake of the 1973 Fuel Crisis as was the case IOTL (the 1975 fire at the TVR factory never occurred ITTL).
The ATL TVR Tasmin / Wedge would resemble the Series II with additional 3-door coupe bodystyle (along featuring turbocharged V6 and supercharged Rover V8 variants), which would mitigate the negative reception the original Tasmin / Wedge received IOTL prior to the Wedge shape being rounded off with a facelift in the mid-1980s (resembling the OTL 1989 Speed Eight prototype), before being succeeded in 1991 by the ATL TVR Griffin followed with the ATL TVR Chimaera (both of which would be available with 2-door 2-seater coupe bodystyles).
It would be joined by the ATL early-1980s TVR S-Series that would be available in 2-door roadster and 3-door coupe bodystyles along with a production version of the Evolution S aka ES prototype. Both the ATL Tasmin / Wedge and S-Series would be equipped with 200-250 hp 2-litre Cosworth Turbo engines.
One dramatic change ITTL would be the ATL early-1980s entry-level TVR Tina II*, being conceptually a TVR version of the OTL Vegantune Evante albeit clothed with styling by Oliver Winterbottom (who ironically designed the ATL Lotus Elan II M80) resembling the OTL Lotus Elan M90 (the latter ITTL would enter production featuring styling by Peter Stevens resembling the OTL Lotus Elan M100). Power would come from naturally aspirated 115-150+ hp 1.6-2.0 ATL Ford CVH engines - The latter best described as a better developed version of the OTL CVH engine without the bad reputation, more like the later Zeta engine it would be replaced by from the outset at best or similar to the OTL hybrid ZVH engine at most.
*- Inspired by a short-lived idea by then TVR boss Martin Lilley IOTL looking into a small economy sportscar to swell the TVR range and asking Oliver Winterbottom to draw up some ideas based on the Ford Fiesta running-gear, however it was a low priority and never progressed beyond the concept stage.
The ATL TVR Cerbera like the aforementioned TVR Griffin and TVR Chimaera would instead be powered by ATL Rover V8s albeit in 224-380 hp 3.5-5.0-litre 32-valve quad-cam fuel-injected form (plus supercharged 3.5-5.0-litre variants increasing power to 284-402 hp), due to events at a thriving ATL BMC aka Austin Rover unfolding differently compared to OTL without TVR feeling threatened by the prospect of the Rover V8 being dropped by BMW. Until the ATL Rover V8 was superseded by the ATL 3.0-4.0-litre TVR Speed Six, 4.2-5.0-litre TVR Speed Eight and 6.0-7.0-litre TVR Speed Twelve engines coinciding with a new generation of TVR models as the company entered into the new millennium.
- TVR ) Early TVR Grantura Mk1s to MK2s would feature enlarged 42-54 hp 1172-1498cc OHV versions of the 35 hp 1172cc Ford Sidevalve engine, with optional ATL 64-82 hp 1172-1498cc OHV engines equipped with Shorrock superchargers (in place of the OTL supercharged 56 hp 1172cc Sidevalve).
The ATL Grantura Mk2 would instead feature a slightly lengthened and raised rear body section featuring an external boot with the chassis having wishbone front suspension with trailing arms and coil springs at the rear, whilst carrying over the OTL TVR Grantura Mk2A revisions.
The ATL TVR Grantura MkII (essentially an OTL MkIII) would merit a better start to its life and a greater impact on the market compared to the OTL MkIII to MkiV featuring BMC B-Series engines from 90+ hp 1.6-litres up to 106+ hp 2-litre (and even a 115 hp 2-litre B-OHC) as well as 2-door fastback and roadster bodystyles.
The ATL Trevor Frost/Fiore-designed Fissore-built TVR Trident project (that was a 3-door fastback coupe) would be more advanced in development compared to OTL, not enough to butterfly away the ATL TVR Griffin (the latter being akin to the later further developed SWB TVR Tuscan V8) however yet enough to be nearly ready for production (thanks to no US dock strike exacerbating the company’s problems) prior to collapsing in 1965 (stemming from the damage Jack Griffith caused in US). Resulting in the ATL TVR Trident becoming one of the many TVR assets purchased by Arthur Lilley and his son Martin Lilley.
That is despite a surreptitious attempt by TVR dealer Bill Last (OTL founder of Trident Cars) with two other accomplices to illegitimately commandeer the rights to the Trident design during the period of confusion after TVR’s collapse by falsely presenting themselves officially representing TVR interests to a Fissore executive they met with.
One notable version of the ATL TVR Trident would be equipped with a Boss 302 engine, Ferguson 4WD and Maxerat anti-lock brakes (derived from the OTL Liam Churchill instigated wide-bodied 1969 Tuscan V8 of the same specification that was timed by police doing 178 mph), prior to the thoroughly updated Trident with slightly enlarged dimensions featuring a 166-inch length, 96-inch wheelbase and 69-inch width. However the popularity of the V8 powered TVR models would be overshadowed by the success of the US emissions compliant 2.5-3.0-litre+ Ford Europe 60-degree V6 engined TVR Tuscan and Trident models alongside the ATL 71-106+ hp 1300-2000cc TVR Vixen models.
The ATL Lilley Era at TVR would be notable for exercising greater financial control from the outset (instead of from 1968 IOTL) in lowering running costs and producing results, with the 90-inch wheelbase (aka LWB) being standardized for both the ATL Vixen S1 and ATL Tuscan. The latter would feature the ATL 123-138 hp 2.5-3.0-litre+ Ford Europe 60-degree V6 (merged Essex/Cologne V6) early on which would be US emissions compliant with tuned version reaching up to 154-185+ hp in 2.5-3.0-litre+ forms (the ATL 2.5-litre 60-degree V6 butterflying away the OTL 2.5-litre Triumph I6 unit in the Vixen).
The ATL TVR Vixen would be built on the 90-inch wheelbase chassis and feature other revisions of the Vixen S2 from the outset, it would be powered by 71-86 hp 1298-1599cc Ford Kent and enlarged Kent-based 94-106 hp 1753-1975cc OHV half-relations in addition to the OTL Speedwell tuned 110-115 hp 1599cc variants being further complimented by Speedwell tuned 110-142 hp 1753-1975cc engines.
The TVR Tina project would reach production in 1968 powered by 875-1150cc (up to 1268cc) Imp engines, production being possibly farmed out to either Jensen Motors, Rootes (later Leyland aka Jaguar-Triumph) or Aston Martin with production lasting until 1974-1976).
The ATL TVR M-Series would be little different apart from being equipped with larger Kent-based 1753-1975cc half-relation and US emissions compliant ATL 120-144+ hp 2.5-3.0-litre+ Ford Europe 60-degree V6 engines (plus ATL 230-250 hp 3-litre Turbos) as well as being available with roadster and 3-door coupe hatchback bodystyles from the start, with the 1600M not being withdrawn in April 1973 only to be revived in 1975 to belatedly meet increased demand for fuel-efficient vehicles in the wake of the 1973 Fuel Crisis as was the case IOTL (the 1975 fire at the TVR factory never occurred ITTL).
The ATL TVR Tasmin / Wedge would resemble the Series II with additional 3-door coupe bodystyle (along featuring turbocharged V6 and supercharged Rover V8 variants), which would mitigate the negative reception the original Tasmin / Wedge received IOTL prior to the Wedge shape being rounded off with a facelift in the mid-1980s (resembling the OTL 1989 Speed Eight prototype), before being succeeded in 1991 by the ATL TVR Griffin followed with the ATL TVR Chimaera (both of which would be available with 2-door 2-seater coupe bodystyles).
It would be joined by the ATL early-1980s TVR S-Series that would be available in 2-door roadster and 3-door coupe bodystyles along with a production version of the Evolution S aka ES prototype. Both the ATL Tasmin / Wedge and S-Series would be equipped with 200-250 hp 2-litre Cosworth Turbo engines.
One dramatic change ITTL would be the ATL early-1980s entry-level TVR Tina II*, being conceptually a TVR version of the OTL Vegantune Evante albeit clothed with styling by Oliver Winterbottom (who ironically designed the ATL Lotus Elan II M80) resembling the OTL Lotus Elan M90 (the latter ITTL would enter production featuring styling by Peter Stevens resembling the OTL Lotus Elan M100). Power would come from naturally aspirated 115-150+ hp 1.6-2.0 ATL Ford CVH engines - The latter best described as a better developed version of the OTL CVH engine without the bad reputation, more like the later Zeta engine it would be replaced by from the outset at best or similar to the OTL hybrid ZVH engine at most.
*- Inspired by a short-lived idea by then TVR boss Martin Lilley IOTL looking into a small economy sportscar to swell the TVR range and asking Oliver Winterbottom to draw up some ideas based on the Ford Fiesta running-gear, however it was a low priority and never progressed beyond the concept stage.
The ATL TVR Cerbera like the aforementioned TVR Griffin and TVR Chimaera would instead be powered by ATL Rover V8s albeit in 224-380 hp 3.5-5.0-litre 32-valve quad-cam fuel-injected form (plus supercharged 3.5-5.0-litre variants increasing power to 284-402 hp), due to events at a thriving ATL BMC aka Austin Rover unfolding differently compared to OTL without TVR feeling threatened by the prospect of the Rover V8 being dropped by BMW. Until the ATL Rover V8 was superseded by the ATL 3.0-4.0-litre TVR Speed Six, 4.2-5.0-litre TVR Speed Eight and 6.0-7.0-litre TVR Speed Twelve engines coinciding with a new generation of TVR models as the company entered into the new millennium.
Last edited:
A fundamental problem is that the economic situation would obviously affect customers' preference for cars
The preference of German market for large cars is significantly higher than that of other European countries
Since the economic background has changed so much
How to make sure that the market will prefer large family cars at 100’’ wheelbase instead of 106’’ wheelbase？
The preference of German market for large cars is significantly higher than that of other European countries
Since the economic background has changed so much
How to make sure that the market will prefer large family cars at 100’’ wheelbase instead of 106’’ wheelbase？
Last edited:
I'm not sufficiently versed in the details of the British car industry to say much, but I've got a few random thoughts.
Don't go making the Mini too big. The OTL version has a lot of admirers, & you risk robbing her of her charm. (BMW managed that.
) The first generation New Beetle got it right--even though the second generation's styling is closer to the original... I'd try and aim for that.
IMO, a V8 at Jag should be a mid-range option, with the 3.6-4 liter straight 6 the base model, & the V12 the top. The E-type shouldn't offer the six; make her a true GT. (A side-opening rear lid would be good, since a hatchback is bound to make people think "cheap".)
I'd look at a Kammback four-door at Jag with the six standard, & the (Daimler?) 2.5 V8 top option.
I'm not clear just badging Minis or Morris Marinas as Borgwards, assembled in Germany, would be a bad idea; it would get past Britain being shut out of the EC. It might want Borgward (or somebody) to restyle them for the local market, in the way Innocenti did (or how FIAT allowed some companies to do); I can't name any offhand, but I know there were a couple of German styling studios that did attractive work. (And that's beyond Rometsch or Beutler, who were, AIUI, committed to supplying VW; if they aren't...)
Watching with interest, & hoping (expecting, actually ) to learn a lot.
Don't go making the Mini too big. The OTL version has a lot of admirers, & you risk robbing her of her charm. (BMW managed that.
) The first generation New Beetle got it right--even though the second generation's styling is closer to the original... I'd try and aim for that.IMO, a V8 at Jag should be a mid-range option, with the 3.6-4 liter straight 6 the base model, & the V12 the top. The E-type shouldn't offer the six; make her a true GT. (A side-opening rear lid would be good, since a hatchback is bound to make people think "cheap".)
I'd look at a Kammback four-door at Jag with the six standard, & the (Daimler?) 2.5 V8 top option.
I'm not clear just badging Minis or Morris Marinas as Borgwards, assembled in Germany, would be a bad idea; it would get past Britain being shut out of the EC. It might want Borgward (or somebody) to restyle them for the local market, in the way Innocenti did (or how FIAT allowed some companies to do); I can't name any offhand, but I know there were a couple of German styling studios that did attractive work. (And that's beyond Rometsch or Beutler, who were, AIUI, committed to supplying VW; if they aren't...)
Watching with interest, & hoping (expecting, actually
) to learn a lot.Don't go making the Mini too big. The OTL version has a lot of admirers, & you risk robbing her of her charm. (BMW managed that.
At most envision the growth of the ATL Mini's successor by the 1990s in dimensions being roughly similar to the OTL Austin/Rover Metro and Suzuki Alto-based Maruti 800 as well as OTL Japan's Kei Car regulations (in size terms) circa 1 October 1998, the latter allowing the later ATL Mini's successors to comply with said regulations using the Daihatsu Mira Gino as one example.
Like the Daihatsu Mira/Cuore the Mira Gin is derived upon, it is based to be capable of carrying over the 1.3-1.5-litre 4-cylinder Toyota SZ engine via MCM's Blue Turd and other Mira/Cuore engine swaps. The ATL 1990s Mini successor would also be similar powered by 3/4-cylinder engines that still matches the OTL BMW Mini in terms of maximum displacement yet in a much smaller A-Segment / City Car sized package.
Agree to an extent yet 3-litre+ Sixes as base model would do little good in markets that penalized cars with higher taxes above a certain engine displacement.
Jaguar does not have to go as far as to comply with Italian tax laws in producing a 2-litre model since Triumph would cover that end ITTL. Jaguar does gain a V8 in ATL just not the Daimler V8.
It would have made more sense to ditch the Borgward marque ITTL for whoever acquires it, just like Volvo did IOTL when it acquired DAF Cars where the DAF 66 was rebadged as the Volvo 66.
I don't think the V8 between large L6 and V12 makes sense
the 3.6-4L L6 could matched Mercedes' small V8 and the largest BMW engine until 1987
Mercedes sold 100k 450SE/SEL form 1973-1980，didn‘t find the the proportion of 4.5L V8 in SL / SLC，But I think it will be less
That means only about 20K 4.5 V8 per year for even mercedes，who sold 400k Eclass and S Class a year in 1970s
Based on a fully automated production line, the Jaguar V12 can produce at least 50K a year
Adding a V8 could only steal sales from V12，and make them both uneconomic
Why not just provide more V12？ Which would not only unparalleled USP, but also cheaper
I don't see the problemI'd look at a Kammback four-door at Jag with the six standard, & the (Daimler?) 2.5 V8 top option.
I'm not clear just badging Minis or Morris Marinas as Borgwards, assembled in Germany, would be a bad idea; it would get past Britain being shut out of the EC. It might want Borgward (or somebody) to restyle them for the local market, in the way Innocenti did (or how FIAT allowed some companies to do); I can't name any offhand, but I know there were a couple of German styling studios that did attractive work. (And that's beyond Rometsch or Beutler, who were, AIUI, committed to supplying VW; if they aren't...)
Watching with interest, & hoping (expecting, actually
they does not need to be provided in the same market
Offer Borgward in same markets，Offer Austin in other market，
This is how Opel and Vauxhall operate，This was not a Sloan ladder
Last edited:
Different from DAF ，Borgward was an established brand
It should at least be used in the German market
It didn‘t hurt by simply putting the Vauxhall badge on Opels，different from when Chrysler replaced Hillman
The point is to make them substitutes for each other，instead of a Sloan ladder
Last edited:
The 153ci Perrier hemi.
I'd love to see them commonplace. It could probably have been done prewar.The Ardun hemi was an option in Ford trucks, where the higher power was desired. (IDK if it was the 337ci or not.) Making the 337ci Ardun standard in cars?
I see the V12 as the high-status premium-priced model, the six as entry-level, and the V8 (in this context) as the "economy performance" model.
Huh? I'm saying, badge the Austins (or Morrises, or whatever) as Borgwards for sale in Europe, with assembly in Germany, to get past EC import restrictions. I'm also saying, if necessary, give Borgwards the leeway to mildly reskin their versions to suit the local market, as FIAT did. (Actually, FIAT left their licencees pretty well alone; I wouldn't go quite so far.) I never mentioned Sloan or GM, nor was I suggesting a "sub-Austin" marque.
Looking at the wheelbase again, I withdraw my objection. (Wider track wouldn't hurt, if it's not too much.)
I was thinking of Britain & the U.S. in the main with that; a 2.0 six (or four) for Italy (say) might be necessary (& probably a good idea). For the E-type, IMO, the target market means that tax penalty doesn't matter. Probably. (I'm aware Ferrari had a 206...)
You'd reject a 2.0 E-type entirely? Hmm... I might, too, but I might try it & see what happens. (Cf 206.)
Six of one, IMO. Cf my proposed badge-engineering option.
But the economy performance would be more expensive than the top line BMW unless you are willing to offer it at a cheap price
This is the way Jaguar takes in OTL, but I don't think it's right.
Jaguar has more prestige than BMW until the new century，they wasted it
Mercedes does had a V8 6.9 at the top, but it's a hand made engine
A completely different concept with the Jaguar V12
They only sold 7000 in 8 years，and had a price in the range of V12 Ferrari
On the other hand, the 450SEL was twice as expensive as the Top Cadillac
I don't think it doesn‘t high-status premium-priced enough
Let the 3.6-4.0L L6 match the BMW635/735 and 350SL/SE
Let V12 Jaguar match 450SEL, you can gain advantages in all dimensions
And it's much cheaper than using another mid engine
Sorry for my misunderstood. I'm not a native English speaker
I misunderstood as you said that‘s a bad ideal about just badge the Austin，the Borgward sould got a different shape to distinguish Austin
Last edited:
Jaguar has invested heavily in a fully automated V12 production line could produce at least 50K per year
They could produce more V12 than the XJ they could produce in fact
If it wasn't for the fuel crisis and CAFE
I think they'd rather have a V12 on every XJ
Even Mercedes could only sold less than 20K a year by the engines which larger than 4 liters
It can't be more for Jaguar，especially if you're going to match the price
Even if only considered the cost of manufacturing，one V12 would much cheaper than a V12 and aV8
Not to mention the cost of development, the cost of tools and the cost and engineering resources to adapt it to emissions regulations
They could produce more V12 than the XJ they could produce in fact
If it wasn't for the fuel crisis and CAFE
I think they'd rather have a V12 on every XJ
Even Mercedes could only sold less than 20K a year by the engines which larger than 4 liters
It can't be more for Jaguar，especially if you're going to match the price
Even if only considered the cost of manufacturing，one V12 would much cheaper than a V12 and aV8
Not to mention the cost of development, the cost of tools and the cost and engineering resources to adapt it to emissions regulations
Well, yeah, kinda, a price under the top of range V12. That it is (or isn't) cheaper than a Bimmer doesn't strike me as relevant; what market is Jag targeting, & what price are they aiming at? (Also, what model are we talking about?)
Hey, your English is pretty good, considering, so no worries.
I am saying the Borgward-badged Austin (or Morris, or whatever) should be restyled--if the local market wants it enough.
well，I'll try to explain
| Chassis code | Model Years | Model | Engine | No. built [9] |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| W116.020 | 1973–1980 | 280 S sedan | 2.8 L M110 I6 | 122,848 |
| W116.024 | 1973–1980 | 280 SE sedan | 2.8 L M110 I6 | 150,593 |
| W116.025 | 1974–1980 | 280 SEL sedan | 2.8 L M110 I6 | 7,032 |
| W116.028 | 1973–1980 | 350 SE sedan | 3.5 L M116 V8 | 51,100 |
| W116.029 | 1973–1980 | 350 SEL sedan | 3.5 L M116 V8 | 4,266 |
| W116.032 | 1973–1980 | 450 SE sedan | 4.5 L M117 V8 | 41,604 |
| W116.033 | 1973–1980 | 450 SEL sedan | 4.5 L M117 V8 | 59,578 |
| W116.036 | 1975–1980 | 450 SEL 6.9 | 6.9 L M100 V8 | 7,380 |
Let's take the S-class as an example
In 8 years,they sold 280k 2.8L6，55k 3.5V8，100k 4.5V8，7k 6.9V8
If you match Mercedes at the size
That means the jagaurV8 match 4.5V8, V12 match 6.9V8
The M100V8 was a handmade engine,sold less than 1k per year
And the 450SEL6.9 had a price in the V12 Ferrari range ，It‘s a halo model cann‘t expect to sell a lot
This will make Jaguar's expensive V12 production line a complete waste
The ideal way is to use V12 to match 4.5V8
Since the 450sel was expensive enough
Attachments
Last edited: