Automotive WI - Austin and Nissan maintained ties

In OTL Austin's and Nissan's ties extend as far back as the pre-war era up to early-1950s, what if Austin/BMC/BL and Nissan managed to maintain ties with each other via two possible PODs?

1) - The extent of Austin's (later BMC) ties with Nissan/Datsun is merely extended to the former adding an optional clause to the post-war licence agreement 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 / BMC’s own discretion.

BMC benefits by being able to quickly develop a new 1000-1600cc engine based on A-Series principles (akin to the Nissan A OHV / Nissan E OHC engines) to slot between the A-Series and B-Series engines, with the Mini, 1100/1300 (aka Austin America), MG Midget and ATL (99-inch wheelbase) Maxi being a few of the main beneficiaries of this ATL "A+" engine in 1380-1596cc forms (being in essence production versions of overbored / stroked 1380-1596cc A-Series engines).

2) - If BL still happens as in OTL, then Nissan in this ATL 2nd POD basically takes over Honda's role and was actually one of the options BL shortlisted in OTL during the mid/late-1970s.

One advantage Nissan has over Honda would be the former already having historic ties to Austin with the Nissan C / E OHV / J engines tracing their lineage to the BMC B-Series while the Nissan A / E OHC / CA / MA engines trace their lineage to the BMC A-Series engine, it would be easy to see both companies jointly-developing new engines in this scenario.

Another advantage along with Nissan's own reputation for reliability would be in still producing front-engined RWD models at the time at the higher end of the range as well as in sportscars. Curiously enough while Nissan themselves explored mid-engined sportscars with the 1975 Nissan AD-1 and 1985-1987 Nissan MID4 concepts, it is interesting to note Nissan could have potentially developed a competitive Mazda MX5 clone below the Nissan Silvia (roughly in place of the Nissan EXA and Nissan NX as well as beyond the 1.8 Nissan CA Turbo powered Reliant Scimitar SS1). One that could have also formed the basis for a small front-engined RWD MG sportscar.
 
Last edited:
It would it easy to cite the ill-fated collaboration between Nissan and Alfa Romeo which resulted in the Alfa Romeo Arna, however BL despite its OTL was a much larger carmaker than Alfa Romeo and thus be more of an equal partner.

Nissan's ATL collaboration with BL would also have potential to butterfly away the Infiniti marque, however see this Anglo-Japanese partnership being limited to using / developing engines, platforms and certain models as opposed to BL basically building rebadged Nissans.

It is possible the ATL Triumph Acclaim / Rover 200 (SD3) could instead be derived from a downsized Nissan Cedric Y30 of similar dimensions to the later Nissan Cedric Y31-based Nissan Crew, being of comparable size to the BMW 3-Series and Mercedes-Benz W201 as a replacement for the Triumph Dolomite and stillborn ADO77//TM1 projects.
 
There's little point replacing the a series in the 850cc to 1275cc range, though elderly it remained a viable engine compared to it's opposition in the small car market into the 80s
Stretching the a series to 1600 is a no go, to allow for that capacity increase its more efficient to design a new engine than compromise.

Regarding joint designs or using Nissan designs instead of bmc/bl/triumph etc designs, I really can't see British management being up for that in the mid 70s. It took near collapse of the entire group to accept Honda later on. On top of which a major problem with British cars at that time was one of quality, the same workforce building Nissan designs would probably result in the same poor quality.
 
Am aware the A-Series could not be stretched beyond 1275cc (though David Vizard's A-Series book does show the engine being stretched to 1297-1596cc), hence the idea for an early/mid-60s British equivalent of the 1.0-1.6-litre Nissan A OHV / Nissan E OHC engines based on A-Series principles (with a 70.6-76mm bore and 62-88mm stroke) dubbed "A+" to slot between the A-Series and B/O-Series/etc engines. The B-Series was too heavy in 1.5-1.6 forms to fit into BMC/BL's smaller models with the underdeveloped E-Series being merely a B/C-Series replacement with delusional pretensions of adequately replacing the A-Series (the E-Series could however potentially been a British Volkswagen EA827 in better circumstances).

BL in OTL did consider producing what was known as the 2nd generation South African engines derived from the 1275cc (spawning a short-stroke 1098cc unit) and the 59-84 hp 970-1275cc A-OHC project, both of which were planned to feature a common 70.6mm bore. The ATL "A+" can be best described as an early slightly upscaled version of both OTL projects with elements of Nissan's improvements and David Vizard's work, albeit capable of being enlarged to feature a maximum 76mm bore and 88mm stroke akin to the Nissan A OHV / Nissan E OHC engines.

The 0.8-1.3-litre A-Series in this scenario would likely play a similar role to the Renault Billancourt engine in 848cc form and as well as for economy focused 1.0.1.3-litre versions whilst sharing many parts with the related ATL "A+" with the A-Series in turn being influenced by the former, that is assuming the ATL "A+" unit's bore for some reason cannot be reduced to around 67.65mm which together with a 59mm stroke (as on the Nissan A OHV / Nissan E OHC) would create a short-stroke 848cc replacement. While "A+" the ATL early/mid-60s British equivalent of the Nissan A OHV / Nissan E OHC engines would play a similar role to the Renault C-Type and Nissan A OHV / E OHC engines. The C-Type itself in OTL evolved into the Renault E-Type and even the Renault K-Type engines with the latter still being produced to this day in petrol/diesel/flex-fuel/LPG forms (as well as forming the basis of the Brazilian built C-Type derived petrol/ethanol powered Ford CHT engine), which is roughly how the ATL "A+" and its descendants would evolve in this scenario.

Nissan would basically replace Honda in this scenario during the mid/late-1970s in the event British Leyland still happens as in OTL and was one of the shortlisted companies before BL chose Honda, the Nissan Cedric Y30-derived ATL Triumph Acclaim / Rover 200 (SD3) would be developed in place of the OTL Honda Ballade versions and evolve from there.

However in an early-1950s POD where Austin decides to add an optional clause to the post-war licence agreement 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 / BMC’s own discretion, it definitely has potential to butterfly away the existence of British Leyland even if the company would face similar challenges to OTL though at least an ATL "A+" engine would allow BMC to remain stronger at the middle of the range where they had nothing between the 1275cc A-Series and 1798cc B-Series (the early/mid-60s 106 hp 1998cc B-Series / 112-115 hp 1998cc B-OHC prototypes were developed though not built and by the time they were considered over a decade later the B-Series's tooling was worn out).
 

kernals12

Banned
It's not a magical solution to quality problems. Rover's tie-up with Honda certainly didn't stop their decline into irrelevance.
 

kernals12

Banned
It would it easy to cite the ill-fated collaboration between Nissan and Alfa Romeo which resulted in the Alfa Romeo Arna, however BL despite its OTL was a much larger carmaker than Alfa Romeo and thus be more of an equal partner.

Nissan's ATL collaboration with BL would also have potential to butterfly away the Infiniti marque, however see this Anglo-Japanese partnership being limited to using / developing engines, platforms and certain models as opposed to BL basically building rebadged Nissans.

It is possible the ATL Triumph Acclaim / Rover 200 (SD3) could instead be derived from a downsized Nissan Cedric Y30 of similar dimensions to the later Nissan Cedric Y31-based Nissan Crew, being of comparable size to the BMW 3-Series and Mercedes-Benz W201 as a replacement for the Triumph Dolomite and stillborn ADO77//TM1 projects.
I want to learn more about the thought process that resulted in that automobile.

Guy from marketing: Okay guys, so we've decided, what the people want is Japanese style combined with Italian quality.
 
It would it easy to cite the ill-fated collaboration between Nissan and Alfa Romeo which resulted in the Alfa Romeo Arna, however BL despite its OTL was a much larger carmaker than Alfa Romeo and thus be more of an equal partner.

Nissan's ATL collaboration with BL would also have potential to butterfly away the Infiniti marque, however see this Anglo-Japanese partnership being limited to using / developing engines, platforms and certain models as opposed to BL basically building rebadged Nissans.

It is possible the ATL Triumph Acclaim / Rover 200 (SD3) could instead be derived from a downsized Nissan Cedric Y30 of similar dimensions to the later Nissan Cedric Y31-based Nissan Crew, being of comparable size to the BMW 3-Series and Mercedes-Benz W201 as a replacement for the Triumph Dolomite and stillborn ADO77//TM1 projects.

the Arna was the wrong mix of components ... the dull origami Nissan styling with the unreliable alfa engine and electrics ... vs what it could / should have been i.e. afollow on the alfasud with Nissnan powertrain, electrics and QC
 
It's not a magical solution to quality problems. Rover's tie-up with Honda certainly didn't stop their decline into irrelevance.

Agree to some extent though BL/Rover's quality did improve during the 1980s onwards. The OTL scenario was partly due to a combination of factors including the Maestro/Montego appearing too late on the market by about 4-6 years* and Honda being difficult during the development of the HH-R Rover 400 and Rover 600, prior to BMW acquiring Rover before Honda could buy the company itself.

BL/Rover would have likely fared better collaborating with Nissan due to its previously history with Austin and the fact they were still producing engines with roots back to the Austin engines (allegedly to the point of there being some parts commonality), which would put to rest concerns some may have of such a partnership.

Despite being capable of doing with C engine the Honda refused to develop a V8 engine and aside from the Honda S2000 sportscar, were also resistant to developing a front-engined RWD car.

Nissan OTOH had no such reservations which would have been to ATL BL/Rover's benefit, in turn Nissan benefits from amongst other things potentially entering into new segments from a Mazda MX5 clone (to form the basis of a new MG) and Kei Car (to succeed the Mini), RWD Rover SD1 / Triumph TR7-8 successor, etc.

*- Had the Maestro/Montego appeared earlier in OTL both would have likely been profitable enough to allow for the modular AR6 Metro project to reach production, which was not only conceived to replace the Metro but also the Maestro (AR7) and Montego (AR5 - technically an SD3 replacement though in practice a Montego replacement) as well thereby butterflying away the Honda-based R8 Rover 200/400.

I want to learn more about the thought process that resulted in that automobile.

Guy from marketing: Okay guys, so we've decided, what the people want is Japanese style combined with Italian quality.

Cannot say, though Alfa Romeo on top of being a much smaller company compared to BMC/BL were in a pretty desperate state at the time. In some respects the company during the Alfasud project mirrors the Rootes Group developed Hillman Imp in both companies being forced to build new factories in strike prone areas, with the former also having to use imported steel from Russia.
 
It could IF BMC/BMH/BL is avoided completely, hence keeping Austin independent.

It could work with BMC if it is limited to the optional clause during its license agreement to allow for the development of the ATL "A+" (though BMC was more than capable of developing such an engine themselves if the South African A-Series and A-OHC are any indication), however in a BL scenario Nissan would basically replace Honda and would have perhaps been a better relationship given the previous history compared to both Honda and BMW.
 
Last edited:
If ATL BL/Rover was to follow a similar path with Nissan as it did with Honda in OTL than the basis of the ATL Nissan range would be as follows from the early-1990s (albeit still largely with its own engines though still including some Nissan engines):

Model - Nissan (ATL) - - Honda (OTL) -
Rover 100 = Nissan Micra* = NA (though allegedly a Honda-developed replacement was considered codenamed SK3, either in essence a stillborn 3rd gen Honda City or what later became the Honda Logo prior to becoming the R3 Rover 200)

Rover 200 = Nissan Sunny N14 (later Nissan Almera) = Honda Concerto (later the Concerto-derived R3 Rover 200)

Rover 400 = Nissan Primera = Honda Concerto (later Honda Domani)

Rover 600 = Nissan Maxima (or Skyline saloon) = Honda Accord (later Rover 75 under BMW)

Rover 800 = Nissan Cima / President = Honda Legend (later Rover 75 under BMW)

Worth noting there was still the Nissan 200SX and Nissan 300ZX for Rover to utilize, along with a smaller Nissan-developed front-engined RWD 1600-2000cc Mazda MX5 clone in place of the Metro-derived mid-engined MGF (short of the latter being re-conceived as a Honda Beat type model in both 660cc Kei Car and 1000-1400cc non-Kei Car engined forms).

However had the Maestro and Montego appeared earlier (giving them a much better chance of success in the late-70s/early-80s) then BL/Rover would have been in a position to replace the Metro, Maestro and Montego with the modular AR6, AR7 and AR5 family though could still see the company collaborate with Nissan on engines. Meanwhile it was still possible for the Rover SD1 to be replaced by the Rover Bravo project, with the Triumph TR7/TR8 in turn being replaced by the Triumph Broadside project prior to both Bravo and Broadside being superseded from the late-80s to early-90s by Nissan-derived replacements.

*- Interestingly the 1990s Nissan Micra models could have formed the basis of a retro-bodied Mini replacement (along with the 1100/1300-inspired Lotas Princess March), also worth noting that fitting Micra engines into classic Minis is a common engine swap.

Another interesting twist in this scenario would be a more balanced partnership between BL/Rover-Nissan and BMW, on the basis of both Nissan and BMW historically producing licensed build Austin 7 models.
 
Last edited:
Top