BMC no-merger sanity options?

[Masked Grizzly]

Not clear why. Even allowing Bertone's capacity was limited, I see no reason BMC couldn't build the bodies to a Bertone design.

The Innocenti body cost too much to build compared to the existing Mini and sacrificed rear end space. Prior to being integrated further into Austin, envision Innocenti (along with Authi and Siam Di Tella, etc) establishing its own unique Latin styling theme with Bertone to help mitigate costs, whereas Austin would be associated with Pininfarina and Morris in-house styling.

I'd say the first wouldn't (shouldn't!) happen. The second IMO could be overcome, but probably not before a second-generation Mini. By then, IMO, it should be a V6 or V8.

The Mini was always intended to be powered by A-Series engines, which ruled out the larger and bulky narrow-angle V4 engine planned for the 1100 and 1800. The narrow-angle V4 could only be mounted longitudinally in a similar manner to the FWD Triumph 1300/1500 and was a clean sheet design, whereas Volkswagen were able to later develop a narrow-angle V4/V5/V6 (plus W8/W12/W16) engine family a few decades later that was light and compact enough to be mounted transversely as well as reduced the cost by carrying over components and other architecture from the EA827.

Oh, I presume it for the Range/Land Rovers per OTL. I'm thinking Marina in addition.

Possibly prior to Morris largely completing their switch to FWD platforms, though it is more likely for the largest Morris models featuring 6-cylinders in most markets.

In that event, I see no reason the C/D couldn't use the B hood--unless there's a good reason for a cowl induction scoop. (I don't have one offhand... )

The MG people together with the Healeys originally wanted the B-Series "Blue Streak" 6-cylinder engine in the MGC / MGC-based Big Healey (ADO51), in ATL it would also be built in the UK instead of just Australia as well as feature Twin-Cams in MGC form.

Syd Enever in OTL pushed for an extensive modernization of the C-series for what became the revised engine, including different bore and stroke dimensions of an oversquare design to make it more sporty and lighter in weight along with reducing the height of the engine by a further 1.75 inches (or 3.5 inches in total) in order to get it under the hood without the bonnet bulge, but BMC technical director Alec Issigonis overruled him on cost grounds. That and the fact George Harriman spent a lot of money in Germany on a block-boring machine whose limitations meant the engineers were tied for bore centres and diameters, which would not be the case with Joe Edwards in charge of ATL BMC.

The development of the ATL C-Series Twin-Cam by Gerald Palmer and other extensive modernization / redesign earlier on by the likes of Harry Weslake, Daniel Richmond and Edward Turner (roughly akin to a mid-1960s version of the Triumph-developed Leyland PE166 SOHC 6-cylinder in standard non-DOHC form) would have mitigated / butterflied away those issues.

I much prefer the F-16, despite the Neon echo.

It is a decent starting point, yet dislike popup headlights in general and would have preferred a more aggressive variation of the MGF's styling.

The headlights of the 300ZX make me cringe. The Elan front end, with the '88-9 Poncho headlights, beats it.

The loosely Z32 inspired front would mainly be for the small Nissan sportscar to share a family look without looking too anonymous (like the Silvia S13 to S15 models), the only other alternative would be a front derived from the 1989 Nissan 300XM (NTC IF).

 

[phx1138]

The Innocenti body cost too much to build compared to the existing Mini and sacrificed rear end space.

Huh. Do you know why it cost so much? I'm imagining the Bertone styling being contracted out/copied by BMC & done in-house. Issues of space could be addressed by a longer wheelbase, which I'd have standardized for the saloon, hatchback, & estate; the 2dr, I'm not sure it's such an issue.

envision Innocenti (along with Authi and Siam Di Tella, etc) establishing its own unique Latin styling theme with Bertone to help mitigate costs, whereas Austin would be associated with Pininfarina and Morris in-house styling.

Again, IMO that works against Mini profitability. One body style with cosmetic changes by marque beats two: GM proved it works. It might offend purists, but it saves a bundle.

The Mini was always intended to be powered by A-Series engines, which ruled out the larger and bulky narrow-angle V4 engine planned for the 1100 and 1800. The narrow-angle V4 could only be mounted longitudinally in a similar manner to the FWD Triumph 1300/1500 and was a clean sheet design

I'll accept the V4 wouldn't fit even a Clubman-nosed *Mini. What I'm dubious about is why a clean sheet narrow V4 couldn't do what VW did with the VR6: it's not the OTL V4, just one with (more/less) similar dimensions & capacity--designed from the off to fit the *Mini (&, indeed, probably a Maxi &/or Allegro, if they still happen, & probably an MG Midget, longitudinally, too, for all that).

Possibly prior to Morris largely completing their switch to FWD platforms, though it is more likely for the largest Morris models featuring 6-cylinders in most markets.

I don't say the sixes shouldn't be fitted, just the 3.5 be available--especially, IMO, for North America.

The MG people together with the Healeys originally wanted the B-Series "Blue Streak" 6-cylinder engine in the MGC / MGC-based Big Healey (ADO51), in ATL it would also be built in the UK instead of just Australia as well as feature Twin-Cams in MGC form.

Syd Enever in OTL pushed for an extensive modernization of the C-series for what became the revised engine, including different bore and stroke dimensions of an oversquare design to make it more sporty and lighter in weight along with reducing the height of the engine by a further 1.75 inches (or 3.5 inches in total) in order to get it under the hood without the bonnet bulge, but BMC technical director Alec Issigonis overruled him on cost grounds.

The development of the ATL C-Series Twin-Cam by Gerald Palmer and other extensive modernization / redesign earlier on by the likes of Harry Weslake and Edward Turner (roughly akin to a mid-1960s version of the Triumph-developed Leyland PE166 SOHC 6-cylinder in standard non-DOHC form) would have mitigated / butterflied away those issues.

That works for me. (I will always, I think, want the 3.5 available, however...even if MG actually didn't. I'll have to live with that.)

dislike popup headlights in general and would have preferred a more aggressive variation of the MGF's styling

I also dislike the pop-ups. I don't see a reason to radically restyle the MGB, unless you mean to replace it. I prefer this

If you mean it to be supplanted by this

in the '90s, I could live with it. (Give it a mid-mounted 1.8-2.0 twincam turbo four, you're gold.) I'd be sad to see the classic MGB & retro MGF go (& I'd probably want to own an MGC with a 5.2 Rover-block V8 stuffed in it ), but it wouldn't break my heart.

The loosely Z32 inspired front would mainly be for the small Nissan sportscar to share a family look without looking too anonymous (like the Silvia S13 to S15 models), the only other alternative would be a front derived from the 1989 Nissan 300XM (NTC IF).

Going with a Silvia-like front end would be a lot better, IMO, if you're after a family resemblance. I'm not thrilled with it, but it isn't hideous--& the OTL 300Z is pretty awful.

 

[Masked Grizzly]

Huh. Do you know why it cost so much? I'm imagining the Bertone styling being contracted out/copied by BMC & done in-house. Issues of space could be addressed by a longer wheelbase, which I'd have standardized for the saloon, hatchback, & estate; the 2dr, I'm not sure it's such an issue.

Again, IMO that works against Mini profitability. One body style with cosmetic changes by marque beats two: GM proved it works. It might offend purists, but it saves a bundle.

In which case Bertone does not enter the picture for Innocenti, Authi, etc in ATL.

The Bertone route could work if it was not restricted to just Italy, but also extended to Spain and other Latin American markets to atomize costs whilst sharing the same underpinnings and meeting various local content rules. With Austin opting for a Pininfarina 9X exterior look and the Morris version resembling a conservative composite of the Clubman hatchback / Project Ant.

Looking to how Nissan with the Micra K10/K11 and the Daihatsu Mira in OTL were able to spawn various models both retro and modern.

I'll accept the V4 wouldn't fit even a Clubman-nosed *Mini. What I'm dubious about is why a clean sheet narrow V4 couldn't do what VW did with the VR6: it's not the OTL V4, just one with (more/less) similar dimensions & capacity--designed from the off to fit the *Mini (&, indeed, probably a Maxi &/or Allegro, if they still happen, & probably an MG Midget, longitudinally, too, for all that).

Because it was large, bulky, cost too much to put into production, required new tooling due to being an unconventional design and a new factory as well as was a clean sheet design with no commonality with existing engines unlike the OTL VR6 for Volkswagen who were in a position to produce the latter.

That works for me. (I will always, I think, want the 3.5 available, however...even if MG actually didn't. I'll have to live with that.)

If the ATL B-Series included a UK built 6-cylinder and the 4-cylinder Twin-Cam was reliable to be enlarged to 2-litres and spawn a 3-litre Twin-Cam 6-cylinder, why would MG from their perspective in ATL after investing so much with the former would they suddenly opt for the Rover V8 (regardless of the latter being lightweight)?

The Healeys would be more receptive to the idea of an MGC-based Big Healey with Rover V8 provided it was completely re-bodied and differentiated from both the MGB and MGC.

I also dislike the pop-ups. I don't see a reason to radically restyle the MGB, unless you mean to replace it. I prefer this

If you mean it to be supplanted by this

in the '90s, I could live with it. (Give it a mid-mounted 1.8-2.0 twincam turbo four, you're gold.) I'd be sad to see the classic MGB & retro MGF go (& I'd probably want to own an MGC with a 5.2 Rover-block V8 stuffed in it ), but it wouldn't break my heart.

Could see the MGB/MGC being rebodied and further moderized from the early/mid-1970s or replaced by either an upscaled EX234 platform (with different exterior styling) or an ATL Rover P10-derived sportscar (similar to how the OTL Rover SD1 largely shares mechanicals with the Triumph TR7/TR8/Lynx and the unbuilt Triumph SD2).

Going with a Silvia-like front end would be a lot better, IMO, if you're after a family resemblance. I'm not thrilled with it, but it isn't hideous--& the OTL 300Z is pretty awful.

Cannot see a reason why a more tastefully styled 300ZX Z32 approach for the front end could not work for Nissan's Mazda MX-5 rivalling small sportscar.

 

[phx1138]

In which case Bertone does not enter the picture for Innocenti, Authi, etc in ATL.

That just doesn't make sense to me. If Bertone is styling the body, not building them, why wouldn't BMC licence Innocenti et al to produce the same (Bertone-designed) body for every producer? VW didn't restyle the Typ 1 for Mexico & Brazil & wherever; it was exactly the same as in Germany. Why in the world would BMC (if it's rational) do different? Even local-market variation (like Oz) is arguably a bad idea, because it introduces costs in the supply chain.

The Bertone route could work if it was not restricted to just Italy, but also extended to Spain and other Latin American markets to atomize costs whilst sharing the same underpinnings and meeting various local content rules.

Local sourcing makes sense, especially as a way around EC restrictions.

With Austin opting for a Pininfarina 9X exterior look and the Morris version resembling a conservative composite of the Clubman hatchback / Project Ant.

This doesn't... Again, see the Typ 1, & the GM example.

Looking to how Nissan with the Micra K10/K11 and the Daihatsu Mira in OTL were able to spawn various models both retro and modern.

Given this, maybe I'm overestimating the cost. If the "body in white" is the same for all, can the front/rear sheetmetal be drastically different without making the MSRP climb beyond reason? That is, the Bertone Mini, the ARO70, & (for discussion's sake) an updated 1100, all on the ATL Mini underpinnings & mechanicals. If that's what you've been meaning, & if that's possible without cost getting insane, I'm game.

I still find the Pininfarina styling boring...so I'd be looking for something else. Maybe adapt the Rover P8 concept?

(This is about 1968, so it might be a bit early for an MG reskin...& a bit dated by the time it would ideally hit the market.) I did find the OTL Dodge Omni styling reasonably attractive at the time; now, less so...

Because it was large, bulky, cost too much to put into production, required new tooling due to being an unconventional design and a new factory as well as was a clean sheet design with no commonality with existing engines unlike the OTL VR6 for Volkswagen who were in a position to produce the latter.

I must not be thinking straight...

If the ATL B-Series included a UK built 6-cylinder and the 4-cylinder Twin-Cam was reliable to be enlarged to 2-litres and spawn a 3-litre Twin-Cam 6-cylinder, why would MG from their perspective in ATL after investing so much with the former would they suddenly opt for the Rover V8 (regardless of the latter being lightweight)?

As said, I must not be thinking straight...

The Healeys would be more receptive to the idea of an MGC-based Big Healey with Rover V8 provided it was completely re-bodied and differentiated from both the MGB and MGC.

I'd believe that. I do wonder if a Healey-BMC deal might not fall though, given a more successful & profitable Mini & better, more successful, & more profitable MGB/C: there's less need for BMC to go that route. If, OTOH, we presume Healey is getting rolling MGB/C chassis & rebodying them to suit, I could see it. Or Healey is doing a deal like Shelby or Yenko, & radically improving production MGB/Cs.

Could see the MGB/MGC being rebodied and further moderized from the early/mid-1970s

Given a choice, I'd keep an updated MGC/D/F around well into the '80s; it had already achieved classic status, & by then would be gaining retro classic appeal, IMO. (Maybe an updated TF, too.)

replaced by either an upscaled EX234 platform (with different exterior styling) or an ATL Rover P10-derived sportscar (similar to how the OTL Rover SD1 largely shares mechanicals with the Triumph TR7/TR8/Lynx and the unbuilt Triumph SD2).

Presuming it's front engine/FWD, the SD1 would get my vote. It's near enough the K-back without getting into the Peugeot oddities.

Cannot see a reason why a more tastefully styled 300ZX Z32 approach for the front end could not work for Nissan's Mazda MX-5 rivalling small sportscar.

View attachment 555862
View attachment 555863
View attachment 555864

I honestly don't like the headlight treatment of any of those that much. The second from the bottom would get my vote, if these were all I had to pick from, but...

 

[Masked Grizzly]

That just doesn't make sense to me. If Bertone is styling the body, not building them, why wouldn't BMC licence Innocenti et al to produce the same (Bertone-designed) body for every producer? VW didn't restyle the Typ 1 for Mexico & Brazil & wherever; it was exactly the same as in Germany. Why in the world would BMC (if it's rational) do different? Even local-market variation (like Oz) is arguably a bad idea, because it introduces costs in the supply chain.

Given this, maybe I'm overestimating the cost. If the "body in white" is the same for all, can the front/rear sheetmetal be drastically different without making the MSRP climb beyond reason? That is, the Bertone Mini, the ARO70, & (for discussion's sake) an updated 1100, all on the ATL Mini underpinnings & mechanicals. If that's what you've been meaning, & if that's possible without cost getting insane, I'm game.

I still find the Pininfarina styling boring...so I'd be looking for something else. Maybe adapt the Rover P8 concept?

(This is about 1968, so it might be a bit early for an MG reskin...& a bit dated by the time it would ideally hit the market.) I did find the OTL Dodge Omni styling reasonably attractive at the time; now, less so...

Because in Innocenti's case while having ties with BMC they only became part of OTL British Leyland in 1972, previously building various mainly BMC models under license yet going out of their way to differentiate localized models to what was sold in the UK such as the Innocenti Spider / C Coupe - A version of the MG Midget / Austin-Healey Sprite with a body by Ghia and a localized version of the Austin A40 Farina with a hatchback variant (that significantly outsold the regular model). Even Innocenti versions of the 1100/1300 and pre-Bertone Mini differed from regular models.

The ATL ideal would be for Innocenti to become part of BMC, yet also spearhead BMC's expansion in Europe and much of Latin America.

It is a matter of taste, though a developed version of the Rover P8 concept (with more Range Rover elements) would really only work with Rovers.

The Pininfarina 1100/1800 styling did nothing to improve upon the space efficiency of the FWD models, BMC would have been better off continuing their relationship with Pinninfarina for a Peugeot-like styling theme to wrap to clothe their evolution of the existing FWD platforms.

I'd believe that. I do wonder if a Healey-BMC deal might not fall though, given a more successful & profitable Mini & better, more successful, & more profitable MGB/C: there's less need for BMC to go that route. If, OTOH, we presume Healey is getting rolling MGB/C chassis & rebodying them to suit, I could see it. Or Healey is doing a deal like Shelby or Yenko, & radically improving production MGB/Cs.

It depends on whether the Healeys believe it is worthwhile continuing their relationship with BMC, they were dissatisfied with how things were going in OTL with ADO51 (along with possibly other aspects) prior to the formation of British Leyland where the Austin-Healey 4000 project was canned at the behest of Jaguar (along with the Leyland people cutting ties to Cooper, Downton Engineering, etc).

Given a choice, I'd keep an updated MGC/D/F around well into the '80s; it had already achieved classic status, & by then would be gaining retro classic appeal, IMO. (Maybe an updated TF, too.)

Whether the MGC remains in production for that long is down to if there anything left to improve upon. Even then it would make sense for a direct replacement to appear in the mid-1970s.

Presuming it's front engine/FWD, the SD1 would get my vote. It's near enough the K-back without getting into the Peugeot oddities.

It was always intended to be front-engined RWD, it would make sense for the basic platform to also underpin MG sportscars and saloons (as was the case with SD1, TR7/TR8/Lynx and SD2) above the EX234.

I honestly don't like the headlight treatment of any of those that much. The second from the bottom would get my vote, if these were all I had to pick from, but...

Agree on the second proposal, it is just a matter of looking at what was considered in OTL which can be used as a starting point for Nissan's MX-5 rival.

 

[phx1138]

Because in Innocenti's case while having ties with BMC they only became part of OTL British Leyland in 1972, previously building various mainly BMC models under license yet going out of their way to differentiate localized models

That explains it. My ignorance is showing, again. I understood Innocenti was building to BMC spec. I should have guessed...

to what was sold in the UK such as the Innocenti Spider / C Coupe - A version of the MG Midget / Austin-Healey Sprite with a body by Ghia and a localized version of the Austin A40 Farina with a hatchback variant (that significantly outsold the regular model).

Those actually sound interesting. And a hatchback A40 as a BMC factory option would be a really good idea. I like the Innocenti Sprite a lot, & better than the Austin in-house design. (Tom Tjaarda wins again. )

The ATL ideal would be for Innocenti to become part of BMC, yet also spearhead BMC's expansion in Europe and much of Latin America.

Go to Innocenti in preference to a Belgian branch plant, & to Authi or Borgward? Buy them out, rather than make the licence deal, in '61? That works for me. I'd happily have Innocenti be leading BMC's work in Europe. IMO, tho, you want an Argentine, Brazilian, or Mexican company for Latin America (maybe all three), especially if you're going to establish local production (& I would). IKA comes to mind (take it over instead of it going to Renault? {that would predate my proposed POD... }), but I'm sure there are other options.

It is a matter of taste... The Pininfarina 1100/1800 styling did nothing to improve upon the space efficiency of the FWD models, BMC would have been better off continuing their relationship with Pinninfarina for a Peugeot-like styling theme

That works if you like the Peugeot styling. I really, really don't. I'd sooner work out a more space-efficient approach that goes a different direction, or pick another carrozzeria.

It depends on whether the Healeys believe it is worthwhile continuing their relationship with BMC, they were dissatisfied with how things were going in OTL with ADO51 (along with possibly other aspects) prior to the formation of British Leyland where the Austin-Healey 4000 project was canned at the behest of Jaguar (along with the Leyland people cutting ties to Cooper, Downton Engineering, etc).

That seems unlikely to happen TTL.

Whether the MGC remains in production for that long is down to if there anything left to improve upon. Even then it would make sense for a direct replacement to appear in the mid-1970s.

Given the MGB was still selling (if less well) into the '80s, IMO a better MGC could survive that long before replacement.

It was always intended to be front-engined RWD, it would make sense for the basic platform to also underpin MG sportscars and saloons (as was the case with SD1, TR7/TR8/Lynx and SD2) above the EX234.

I wouldn't oppose that. The styling does suggest FWD to me, tho.

 

[merlin]

There's some interesting alternative designs here, but really will any of them make that much difference. No, you need fundamentally revise the Longbridge layout to make it work more effectively and efficiently. Also, you need a 'minority' internal coup, i.e. the quality control people in Rover to call the shots at Austin/Morris rather than the other way around. If Austin Morris regarded 'quality' as a commercial advantage rather than a 'cost' things may have turned out different.
It got better after a tutorial by Honda, but by then it was too late.

 

[Masked Grizzly]

Those actually sound interesting. And a hatchback A40 as a BMC factory option would be a really good idea. I like the Innocenti Sprite a lot, & better than the Austin in-house design. (Tom Tjaarda wins again. )

Agreed. BMC should have seen the signs from the success of the Innocenti A40 Combinata hatchback and the fact the hatchback bodystyle would work much better on a FWD layout such as their own then upcoming FWD trio. Largely agree on the Innocenti version of the Midget / Sprite.

Go to Innocenti in preference to a Belgian branch plant, & to Authi or Borgward? Buy them out, rather than make the licence deal, in '61? That works for me. I'd happily have Innocenti be leading BMC's work in Europe. IMO, tho, you want an Argentine, Brazilian, or Mexican company for Latin America (maybe all three), especially if you're going to establish local production (& I would). IKA comes to mind (take it over instead of it going to Renault? {that would predate my proposed POD... }), but I'm sure there are other options.

That is one possible approach (sans Borgward) though would give Innocenti a degree on autonomy and a role in the establishment of Authi and absorb Siam Di Tella, along with establish links with BMC (Turkey) should the latter desire to enter car production.

Not sure which companies BMC could take over in Brazil and Mexico in ATL, it is likely they would have to take the plunge in the immediate post-war period, which would largely depend on the Morris Minor family (including related Oxford/Isis/etc variants up to the early-60s Marina/Ital-inspired trio) becoming successful enough to seriously challenge the Volkswagen Beetle.

That works if you like the Peugeot styling. I really, really don't. I'd sooner work out a more space-efficient approach that goes a different direction, or pick another carrozzeria.

Whatever ones preferences, one cannot deny Peugeot greatly benefited from its relationship with Pininfarina.

Given the MGB was still selling (if less well) into the '80s, IMO a better MGC could survive that long before replacement.

The only reason it sold as long as it did in OTL was because its original replacement in the Triumph TR7 was pushed upmarket, with financial issues preventing BL from properly updating or replacing it by the time it was finally disconnected.

I wouldn't oppose that. The styling does suggest FWD to me, tho.

Cannot see it given the designer of the SD1 drew inspiration from Ferrari.

There's some interesting alternative designs here, but really will any of them make that much difference. No, you need fundamentally revise the Longbridge layout to make it work more effectively and efficiently. Also, you need a 'minority' internal coup, i.e. the quality control people in Rover to call the shots at Austin/Morris rather than the other way around. If Austin Morris regarded 'quality' as a commercial advantage rather than a 'cost' things may have turned out different.
It got better after a tutorial by Honda, but by then it was too late.

Agreed. Post-war investment and modernization at Morris (as envisioned by Miles Thomas) prior to the formation of BMC would have made its merger with Austin one of equals instead of being a weaker partner that needed investment and Leonard Lord feeling empowered enough to go after Morris personal (who were known for properly costing cars), followed by Leonard Lord being succeeded by Joe Edwards instead of George Harriman. Despite Alec Issigonis's bad traits, it seems Harriman took credit while Issigonis was successful yet put the blame on him to cover for his own timidity and incompetent (as a Yes Man to Leonard Lord).

Would also have Gerald Palmer stay a bit longer at the company to at least properly-develop the B-Series Twin-Cam, produce the C-Series Twin-Cam and help plan BMC's RWD cars from the late-50s onwards by using the component from the Morris Minor / Oxford III / Isis to underpin the ATL Farina A/B/C models as well as the early-60s Marina/Ital trio from Vauxhall Viva HA and mk1/mk2 Ford Cortina to Opel Commodore analogues.

Joe Edwards seems like a figure who would be more than inclined to listen and adopt the advice of BMC's misused Research Department, the latter from late-1962 in OTL being more than willing to help take the cost out of the Mini and FWD cars to make them profitable. That largely resolves BMC's issues and butterflies away Lord's / Harriman's blind alley projects that preoccupied the Research Department yet were never put into production*.

The later ATL acquisition of Rover by BMC would have been beneficial for both sides. Whereas seem to recall reading Jaguar in OTL basically built its aspirational upmarket cars on a shoestring with used and worn out tooling, etc (usually though not always from Standard later Standard-Triumph) prior to being acquired by BMC.


* - See the quote from the following article at AROnline - https://www.aronline.co.uk/facts-and-figures/when-bmc-led-the-world/bmc-story-1962/

In late 1962 Duncan Stuart of BMC’s Research Department approached the company Chairman. ‘I went to see Harriman at about the time they turned down our V4 engines for the 1100 and 1800. I said “You know we are doing all this research but you don’t use any of it, so why don’t you put the whole of my Research and Development Department on cost cutting the Mini? We could easily take £20 out of the production cost.”’

‘He said “That’s a good idea. Talk to Alec.” I replied “Surely it is you who should talk to Alec?” He answered “If Alec is in favour, I’ll support you.” In effect he was telling me that Alec was running the company. I’m sure that’s where things went wrong, because the gearbox itself was a disaster and the problems of the synchros, and the water and so on, could all have been avoided really.

‘To divorce all our research work from any product planning strategy was almost criminal. We had about a hundred people in East Works (Longbridge), a complete drawing office with test beds and a road test department.’

 

[phx1138]

Agreed. BMC should have seen the signs from the success of the Innocenti A40 Combinata hatchback and the fact the hatchback bodystyle would work much better on a FWD layout such as their own then upcoming FWD trio. Largely agree on the Innocenti version of the Midget / Sprite.

Only two provisos on the Innocenti *Sprite: a 1200-1300 base engine, better still a 1500-1600 or 2000. And reduce the "busy-ness" of the grille, with less chrome; something nearer a '69 'cuda or Charger.

That is one possible approach (sans Borgward) though would give Innocenti a degree on autonomy and a role in the establishment of Authi and absorb Siam Di Tella, along with establish links with BMC (Turkey) should the latter desire to enter car production.

Agreed. I'd forgotten Turkey. I'd keep a Borgward takeover, I think, for the production capacity. I'd also set up a factory in South Africa, & look hard at one in Morocco or Egypt.

Not sure which companies BMC could take over in Brazil and Mexico in ATL...would largely depend on the Morris Minor family ...becoming successful enough to seriously challenge the Volkswagen Beetle.

I don't see it hinging on success. If BMC wants to expand production into Latin America (& it's a really, really good idea), they should be doing it anyhow. ISTM the Typ 1 would (should) actually push them that way.

cannot deny Peugeot greatly benefited from its relationship with Pininfarina

No argument there.

The only reason it sold as long as it did in OTL was because its original replacement in the Triumph TR7 was pushed upmarket, with financial issues preventing BL from properly updating or replacing it by the time it was finally disconnected.

With Triumph not a corporate competitor, & BMC being in better shape, you see the MGB/C being replaced entirely? (Maybe I'm too nostalgic, or maybe I see too much Porsche...)

Cannot see it given the designer of the SD1 drew inspiration from Ferrari.

Not saying the design was, just the appearance strikes me that way. Go figure.

Post-war investment and modernization at Morris (as envisioned by Miles Thomas) prior to the formation of BMC would have made its merger with Austin one of equals instead of being a weaker partner that needed investment and Leonard Lord feeling empowered enough to go after Morris personal (who were known for properly costing cars), followed by Leonard Lord being succeeded by Joe Edwards instead of George Harriman. Despite Alec Issigonis's bad traits, it seems Harriman took credit while Issigonis was successful yet put the blame on him to cover for his own timidity and incompetent (as a Yes Man to Leonard Lord).

Would also have Gerald Palmer stay a bit longer at the company to at least properly-develop the B-Series Twin-Cam, produce the C-Series Twin-Cam and help plan BMC's RWD cars from the late-50s onwards by using the component from the Morris Minor / Oxford III / Isis to underpin the ATL Farina A/B/C models as well as the early-60s Marina/Ital trio from Vauxhall Viva HA and mk1/mk2 Ford Cortina to Opel Commodore analogues.

Joe Edwards seems like a figure who would be more than inclined to listen and adopt the advice of BMC's misused Research Department, the latter from late-1962 in OTL being more than willing to help take the cost out of the Mini and FWD cars to make them profitable. That largely resolves BMC's issues and butterflies away Lord's / Harriman's blind alley projects that preoccupied the Research Department yet were never put into production*.

The later ATL acquisition of Rover by BMC would have been beneficial for both sides. Whereas seem to recall reading Jaguar in OTL basically built its aspirational upmarket cars on a shoestring with used and worn out tooling, etc (usually though not always from Standard later Standard-Triumph) prior to being acquired by BMC.

I like that a lot. Especially avoiding blind alleys & cheapness. (Jag had enough trouble with nutty union labor. )

Only one problem I see. For all his good reputation, it seems he wouldn't stand up to the unions enough.

In late 1962 Duncan Stuart of BMC’s Research Department approached the company Chairman. ‘I went to see Harriman at about the time they turned down our V4 engines for the 1100 and 1800. I said “You know we are doing all this research but you don’t use any of it, so why don’t you put the whole of my Research and Development Department on cost cutting the Mini? We could easily take £20 out of the production cost.”’

‘He said “That’s a good idea. Talk to Alec.” I replied “Surely it is you who should talk to Alec?” He answered “If Alec is in favour, I’ll support you.” In effect he was telling me that Alec was running the company. I’m sure that’s where things went wrong, because the gearbox itself was a disaster and the problems of the synchros, and the water and so on, could all have been avoided really.

‘To divorce all our research work from any product planning strategy was almost criminal. We had about a hundred people in East Works (Longbridge), a complete drawing office with test beds and a road test department.’

How do you run a company that way?

 

[Masked Grizzly]

Only two provisos on the Innocenti *Sprite: a 1200-1300 base engine, better still a 1500-1600 or 2000. And reduce the "busy-ness" of the grille, with less chrome; something nearer a '69 'cuda or Charger.

Being overambitious there, otherwise envision the ATL A-Plus mentioned in the previous page appearing in the early/mid-60s.

Agreed. I'd forgotten Turkey. I'd keep a Borgward takeover, I think, for the production capacity. I'd also set up a factory in South Africa, & look hard at one in Morocco or Egypt.

Only a large company like Chrysler could possibly benefit from acquiring Borgward, even Fiat eventually withdraw from NSU-Fiat / Neckar.

With Triumph not a corporate competitor, & BMC being in better shape, you see the MGB/C being replaced entirely? (Maybe I'm too nostalgic, or maybe I see too much Porsche...)

Yes, even the OTL ADO77 project to replace the Marina (that was later merged with the SD2 project to create the TM1 project) was planned to underpin a replacement for the MGB along with one or two other MGB replacement proposals.

I like that a lot. Especially avoiding blind alleys & cheapness. (Jag had enough trouble with nutty union labor. )

Only one problem I see. For all his good reputation, it seems he wouldn't stand up to the unions enough.

Joe Edwards had a record of wielding the axe during his previous tenure at BMC and seemed to have the ruthless management streak that Sir George Harriman lacked, particularly when he became head of Pressed Steel notably returning the company to profitability while making the necessary redundancies.

Meanwhile in Walking in the Shadow of a Political Agitator by Richard Etheridge (son of Dick Etheridge). Etheridge noted there was nostalgia in Longbridge concerning Joe Edwards in the late-1950s with many expressing the view that had he still been there after 1956, the company would have been in a better position regarding labour relations, model policy and rationalisation of the Morris factories. And again during the Wilson government's political interference and desire to force through mergers in UK industry via BL merger talks in OTL, there was also a feeling at Longbridge that had Joe Edwards immediately returned after Lord's retirement (instead of in 1966) he would have had more time to tackle integration and rationalisation of the disparate elements of the old Morris empire*.

*- The latest being around 1960-1961 in place of George Harriman (in 1961) as well as before Alec Issigonis had been made technical director (also in 1961).

It is also mentioned in the Etheridge book that while Nissan learnt automation techniques from Longbridge, they also adopted the management theory and practice most probably learnt from Frederick Winslow Taylor effectively, stealing a lead in this area as well as in the field of quality management via William Edwards Deming.

How do you run a company that way?

All the more reason why Joe Edwards should have succeeded Lord and kept Issigonis in check.

Another would have been Lord keeping Gerald Palmer around at BMC until 1957-1958 (instead of 1955) to lay the groundwork for the conventional RWD cars and success reliable Twin-Cam B/C-Series.

 

[phx1138]

Being overambitious there

I have to disagree. IIRC, BMC did have a 1300 that could have been used. I'm less sure about a 1500; was the B-series?

Only a large company like Chrysler could possibly benefit from acquiring Borgward

Fair enough. The idea is make BMC better, not worse.

Yes, even the OTL ADO77 project to replace the Marina (that was later merged with the SD2 project to create the TM1 project) was planned to underpin a replacement for the MGB along with one or two other MGB replacement proposals.

Huh. That suggests the replacement (appearing in mid-'70s) would be very TR7esque.

Any notions on a name? (Honestly, I'd have named the MGA the UA, or something, & make this the UB or VA. Or go from Spitfire to Spiteful. {Seafang is over the top.} })

Joe Edwards

Thx for that. I've read a very small amount about him, so I'll bow to superior knowledge. There seems to be widespread agreement he'd have been the best option in any case, so I'd pick him even in the face of my ignorance.

Another would have been Lord keeping Gerald Palmer around

Done. As long as possible, if it improves the product.

Edit:
For the Innocenti *Sprite, use the 1500cc B-series twin-carb as used in the Magnette ZA.

 

[Masked Grizzly]

I have to disagree. IIRC, BMC did have a 1300 that could have been used. I'm less sure about a 1500; was the B-series?

Agreed that the 1275cc A-Series could have appeared sooner than it did compared to OTL from 1962 at around the same time as the 1098cc A-Series instead of 1966-1967 for the Midget/Sprite and ADO16 (yet at the time there was little guarantee the 1275 A-Series could be productionized outside of the more specialized Mini 1275 Cooper S variants), though a 1.6+ B-Series would have been too heavy and compromised the Sprite if the Project Mars is any indication compared to a new slightly upscaled 850-1600cc engine.

The fact there was little certainty the 1275cc A-Series could have been fully productionized in OTL should have led BMC to develop a slightly enlarged 848-1596cc engine based on A-Series principles (with much commonality as possible) in ATL for introduction in the early/mid-1960s (yet still compact and light enough to slot into the engine bay of a Mini) initially displacing 1372-1596cc, before smaller short-stroke versions indirectly supersede the smaller mostly long-stroke A-Series (except in more fuel economy focused models).

David Vizard's book on modifying the A-Series notes it was capable of being enlarged from 1275cc around 1293-1596cc though the larger versions could not be productionized in existing A-Series form, hence the neccessity of an ATL 850-1600cc A-Plus engine that realise what the OTL A-Series could not.

Fair enough. The idea is make BMC better, not worse.

It stems from Chrysler easily being able to integrate Simca and Borgward (unlike BMC or even Chrysler in OTL between Simca and Rootes), based on the projects the latter had prior to their bankruptcy with Chrysler Germany's ideas being more in tune with Detriot's whilst checking Chrysler France's influence (that had limited application outside of France to the detriment of other markets in the UK, US, etc).

Huh. That suggests the replacement (appearing in mid-'70s) would be very TR7esque.

Any notions on a name? (Honestly, I'd have named the MGA the UA, or something, & make this the UB or VA. Or go from Spitfire to Spiteful. {Seafang is over the top.} })

It was mentioned in David Knowles's MG: The Untold Story book. One was an MG version of ADO68 Project Condor, another being a Midget/MGB replacement derived from the ADO77 project followed by a TR7-derived O-Series powered MG Boxer proposal (see twitter thread). Model names could include the likes of MG Magna and MG Magnetta, etc. Like the idea of Mite being used as a name for a production version of the Mini-based MG ADO34 prototype.

in ATL envision both a rebodied EX234 and the MGB/MGC replacement for the early/mid-1970s drawing inspiration from the OTL Rover SD1's Ferrari-inspired styling at the front, with the rest of the styling for both sportscars drawing inspiration from the much better looking Triumph Broadside (plus RT061) project as well as elements of the Nissan Z-Car and Mazda RX-7.

 

[merlin]

With all the marques in the MC fold - what to keep and how to differentiate them? IMHO - I'd be inclined to drop the Riley/Wolsely (?) brands unless for some special edition. Austin I would devote to Fwd as in 11001300, Alegro, and Maxi, with Morris Rwd - Marina/Ital, with Vanden Plas name available for both for a luxury version.
While with Rover & Triumph the former is basically the (safe) bank manager/accountant, with triumph is for the 'get me there yesterday - Sales managers etc.
I like the earlier comment about badging the Mini-cooper as part of the MG stable (though purist will say it's not a 'sports car')!
It could be that MG does the 'sports cars', with Triumph, using an existing wheelbase creates a 'go faster' coupe look - can't imagine a MG driver changing to a Triumph Dolomite Sprint for example different market can co-exist.

 

[Masked Grizzly]

With all the marques in the MC fold - what to keep and how to differentiate them? IMHO - I'd be inclined to drop the Riley/Wolsely (?) brands unless for some special edition. Austin I would devote to Fwd as in 11001300, Alegro, and Maxi, with Morris Rwd - Marina/Ital, with Vanden Plas name available for both for a luxury version.
While with Rover & Triumph the former is basically the (safe) bank manager/accountant, with triumph is for the 'get me there yesterday - Sales managers etc.
I like the earlier comment about badging the Mini-cooper as part of the MG stable (though purist will say it's not a 'sports car')!
It could be that MG does the 'sports cars', with Triumph, using an existing wheelbase creates a 'go faster' coupe look - can't imagine a MG driver changing to a Triumph Dolomite Sprint for example different market can co-exist.

Triumph would be part of Leyland in this ATL, while MG would be pushed upmarket to become BMC's analogue of Triumph as an aspirational sporting marque and play a junior role to Rover in ATL*.

Both Wolseley and RIley would be absorbed into Vanden Plas from the early late-1950s with Vanden Plas denoting luxury versions of Austin and Morris models, while Cooper would largely be reserved for more sporting Austin and Morris models (minus possibly MG ADO34).

Austin-Healey would be more of a challenge in ATL assuming they do not split from BMC to form Jensen-Healey in ATL. A Rover V8 version of the ATL MGC-based ADO51 Big Healey replacement with differentiated styling would certainly help matters, along with an earlier mid-1960s version of the Rolls-Royce FB60 (later G60) powered Austin-Healey 4000 prototype (see also here) that is itself replaced by a 4-litre V8 version of the MGC-based Big Healey replacement or a thoroughly updated Rover V8 powered Big Healey like the OTL HMC MKiV (also see video here).

One idea would be to base future Austin-Healeys under BMC on Rover / Land Rover underpinnings similar to Marauder Cars in the early-1950s by ex-Rover engineers as well as drawing inspiration from Steve Harper's 1992 Gentleman's Sports Car concept rendering.

That just leaves the question of whether Austin-Healey replaces the Sprite (possibly with an ATL version of the Healey WAEC prototype or a Sprite-replacing version of ADO21 to challenge the Fiat X1/9) or opts to move upmarket to become a more autonomous part of BMC (ditching the Austin part of Austin-Healey in favour of just Healey) that makes Rover-derived luxury GT cars as opposed to ATL MG who pursue a more Triumph-like sporting direction.

* - ATL MG would largely make use of two chassis families from the 1970s onwards, one being derived from a 240Z/RX-7 styled EX234 (spawning a small saloon/coupe/etc in the manner of the BMW 02/BMW E21/Alfa Romeo Giulia/etc) and the other from the ATL Rover P10 / SD1 (that shared DNA in OTL with the Triumph TR7/TR8/Lynx and Triumph SD2). However unlike Rover in OTL or even in ATL (with its own P8 Hydragas-like hydraulic/anti-roll suspension that was tested in the Rover P7 prototype), the MG versions would feature more sophisticated all-independent suspension for more sporting applications.

 

[Masked Grizzly]

Going back to Rover being in a position to acquire the rights to build both the all-alloy 215 Buick V8 as well as the related Buick V6 in ATL. Even though Rover would have probably sought to develop an all-alloy Buick V6, both Rover and later BMC would have potentially benefited from then recent developments in high-precision “thin wall” casting techniques for reducing the weight in cast iron engines (that were used on both the OTL Buick V6 and reputedly the later larger non-alloy Buick Small Block V8s) many years before the technique found its way to European carmakers.

With earlier thin-wall casting at Rover, it would have made the P6-based inline-6 engine tested in the Rover P7 prototype or a later P10-based inline-6 into a more viable proposition compared to OTL. - https://www.aronline.co.uk/concepts-and-prototypes/rover-p7/

‘The P7 was purely a development thing. But there was something that we called P7A, which was no longer than the P6 and had the six-cylinder engine in, and double wishbone suspension… To say that it would not go into the car was wrong. In P7, it stuck its nose out and was too heavy and everything,’ he added.

‘It’s not a bad motor car, that engine was a pretty good engine actually. That was too heavy somehow. In other words, if you make a four into a six, you oughtn’t to have to make it 50% heavier because a lot of the stuff there is the same as the four-cylinder. But, in fact, somehow or another, it got a very heavy sump or something, and it made the engine very heavy.

‘I batted very hard against the V8 to try and continue that because I believe the BMW policy was right; if you’ve got something, you ought to develop it – that way you have a linear development programme instead of hopping over here and there – doing something completely different. But I was wrong I think… No doubt that V8 was a huge asset.’

 

[phx1138]

I'd be inclined to drop the Riley/Wolsely (?) brands unless for some special edition. Austin I would devote to Fwd as in 11001300, Alegro, and Maxi, with Morris Rwd - Marina/Ital, with Vanden Plas name available for both for a luxury version.

That would suit me. I might be inclined to make them model names, a bit the reverse of Mercury going from model to marque.

I like the earlier comment about badging the Mini-cooper as part of the MG stable (though purist will say it's not a 'sports car')!

Not a "traditional" sports car, certainly, so you might get resistance from MG fans used to the TD & TF (& even MGA).

Agreed that the 1275cc A-Series could have appeared sooner than it did compared to OTL from 1962 at around the same time as the 1098cc A-Series instead of 1966-1967 for the Midget/Sprite and ADO16

That definitely works for me. As small a change as the 1275 (indeed, even the 1100) in the Innocenti *Sprite would have made it a better performer, & with a 1275 option for the Mini very early...

1.6+ B-Series would have been too heavy

Was it impossible to put it on a diet? Like an aluminum block? (Yes, that has its own issues...)

The fact there was little certainty the 1275cc A-Series could have been fully productionized in OTL should have led BMC to develop a slightly enlarged 848-1596cc engine based on A-Series principles (with much commonality as possible) in ATL for introduction in the early/mid-1960s (yet still compact and light enough to slot into the engine bay of a Mini) initially displacing 1372-1596cc, before smaller short-stroke versions indirectly supersede the smaller mostly long-stroke A-Series (except in more fuel economy focused models).

The very idea of a 1600cc Mini...

an MG version of ADO68 Project Condor

Like this?

followed by a TR7-derived O-Series powered MG Boxer proposal

If that could be done with headlight buckets akin the 240Z, I'd be sold.

Edit:
In ref Canadian & U.S. Minis, could bumper height compliance have been achieved with 12" or 13" rims? Would 13" even fit the wheelwells?

 

[Masked Grizzly]

That definitely works for me. As small a change as the 1275 (indeed, even the 1100) in the Innocenti *Sprite would have made it a better performer, & with a 1275 option for the Mini very early...

Specially if the ATL A-Series was more like the later OTL A-Plus (as opposed to the ATL 850-1600cc A-Plus).

Was it impossible to put it on a diet? Like an aluminum block? (Yes, that has its own issues...)

AFAIK BMC never really looked at all-alloy B-Series, whilst their attempts at reducing the weight of the larger C-Series did not produce meet the weight loss target.

A more sensible approach would have been an ATL ~1596cc A-Plus, being it is in essence a slightly upscaled A-Series (or half-relation or engine based on A-Series principles like the Nissan A OHV / Nissan E OHC).

The only positive about this ATL scenario would be the ATL reliable 100-136 hp 1.6-2.0 B-Series Twin-Cam engines (or even 89-115 hp 1.6-2.0 B-OHC engines) in the MGB, making it easier to justify a larger engined MG Midget / Austin-Healey Sprite unlike OTL where despite its flaws Project Mars was able to outperform the OTL 1.8 MGB.

The very idea of a 1600cc Mini

Could see the original Mini being limited to 1275cc in order to avoid overlap with ~1600 versions of the larger 1100/1300 (apart from limited-run or bespoke Vanden Plas, MG ADO34 and Cooper S models), however the Mini's in-sump gearbox (as opposed to the ATL 1100/1300's end-on gearbox layout) would likely limit the amount of power a 1600cc Mini could reliably put out in road-going production form.

An ATL Mini II ADO20 (think Project Ant meets ADO20 Clubman hatchback and Minki-II, etc) equipped with an end-on gearbox (amongst other improvements), would be more likely in a scenario where ADO22 becomes a 1100-2000cc car (the ATL ADO16 being a 1100-1600cc car).

Like this?

Sort of, though other Marina-based proposals exist and in ATL would instead be more like an early-1970s ADO77-based MG sportscar.

If that could be done with headlight buckets akin the 240Z, I'd be sold.

A fixed-headlight front would have definitely been an improvement over the OTL popup headlights (both generally as well as regarding one of the proposals below).

In ref Canadian & U.S. Minis, could bumper height compliance have been achieved with 12" or 13" rims? Would 13" even fit the wheelwells?

Cannot say. The OTL Mini did receive 12/13-inch wheels though of the view it could have worked much better in an ATL Mini II ADO20 with Clubman-like front and hydragas suspension to go with the 12/13-inch wheels (introduced as a cost-saving measure compared to the original 10-inch wheels).

At the same time US Minis sales fell in 1967 as only the Cooper models were popular, with the 1968 US emissions regulations certainly not helping maters (apart from an ATL being able to exploit the emissions exception loophole with sub-803-819cc versions displacing 719-770cc+). Prompting BMC/BL in OTL to focus on the 1100/1300 Austin America.

It would certainly help if US laws were more lenient like Canada's in OTL for the Mini to be sold until 1980 onwards, if only to reduce the costs of compliance to make BMC believe it worthwhile meeting.

 

[phx1138]

Specially if the ATL A-Series was more like the later OTL A-Plus (as opposed to the ATL 850-1600cc A-Plus).
A more sensible approach would have been an ATL ~1596cc A-Plus, being it is in essence a slightly upscaled A-Series (or half-relation or engine based on A-Series principles like the Nissan A OHV / Nissan E OHC).

Given smarter BMC management TTL, I could pretty easily see a re-engineered A-Series being the standard. Use the Mini as the excuse to introduce an updated/improved variant?

AFAIK BMC never really looked at all-alloy B-Series, whilst their attempts at reducing the weight of the larger C-Series did not produce meet the weight loss target.

Would you believe an alt-BMC doing it at all? Or am I pushing hindsight (or handwavium) too much? I'm thinking of GM & the 215; can BMC have a kind of epiphany? Or get a clue from learning GM is thinking about it?

The only positive about this ATL scenario would be the ATL reliable 100-136 hp 1.6-2.0 B-Series Twin-Cam engines (or even 89-115 hp 1.6-2.0 B-OHC engines) in the MGB, making it easier to justify a larger engined MG Midget / Austin-Healey Sprite unlike OTL where despite its flaws Project Mars was able to outperform the OTL 1.8 MGB.

My thinking is, you'd get both being better with a twincam, even disallowing the aluminum B-Series. Put it in service, better still.

Could see the original Mini being limited to 1275cc in order to avoid overlap with ~1600 versions of the larger 1100/1300 (apart from limited-run or bespoke Vanden Plas, MG ADO34 and Cooper S models)

I can see that. I picture it being more limited production; maybe limit to an MG.

the Mini's in-sump gearbox (as opposed to the ATL 1100/1300's end-on gearbox layout) would likely limit the amount of power a 1600cc Mini could reliably put out in road-going production form.

I'm thinking any alt-Mini would abandon the in-sump layout from the start--unless that creates insurmountable packaging issues... However, I could live with that waiting for the Mark II, & with something like a better 1800 (maybe only 1600cc base engine, given the 1500-1600cc segment looked most popular) having moved up-market.

The obvious other option for a 1500-1600cc Mini is make it North America-only (or NAm & Oz-only), where the 1100/1300 is going to be too small to sell well (or at all).

An ATL Mini II ADO20 (think Project Ant meets ADO20 Clubman hatchback and Minki-II, etc) equipped with an end-on gearbox (amongst other improvements), would be more likely in a scenario where ADO22 becomes a 1100-2000cc car (the ATL ADO16 being a 1100-1600cc car).

As noted above, I have trouble believing a car that big would do well in Britain--not until about 1970, anyhow, if the Cortina is any guide. That said, I'd be looking at something like the P76 for '68-'70, & that does want a 2.0 base engine; I'd want the 3.0 inline 6, or, better, the 3.5-4.0 Rover V8.

Sort of, though other Marina-based proposals exist and in ATL would instead be more like an early-1970s ADO77-based MG sportscar.

That's in line with what I'd want.

OTL Mini did receive 12/13-inch wheels though of the view it could have worked much better in an ATL Mini II ADO20 with Clubman-like front and hydragas suspension to go with the 12/13-inch wheels (introduced as a cost-saving measure compared to the original 10-inch wheels).

Given the U.S. rule changes are around '74-5, the change could go with a reskinning/updating, including the 1500-1600 & end-on 'box.

At the same time US Minis sales fell in 1967 as only the Cooper models were popular, with the 1968 US emissions regulations certainly not helping maters (apart from an ATL being able to exploit the emissions exception loophole with sub-803-819cc versions displacing 719-770cc+). Prompting BMC/BL in OTL to focus on the 1100/1300 Austin America.

It would certainly help if US laws were more lenient like Canada's in OTL for the Mini to be sold until 1980 onwards, if only to reduce the costs of compliance to make BMC believe it worthwhile meeting.

IMO, a twincam 1500 could be made to breathe better, so smog gear need not be the end. And a 1500-1600 Mini, even losing power due to smog gear, will still outperform most of the competition, & be cheaper to own (& certainly to run!) than, say, a Corvette. (Selling an MG variant at a premium wouldn't hurt BMC, either...even if it also suffered power losses.)

 

[Masked Grizzly]

Given smarter BMC management TTL, I could pretty easily see a re-engineered A-Series being the standard. Use the Mini as the excuse to introduce an updated/improved variant?

Basically the OTL A-Plus could have appeared much earlier from the late-50s/early-60s instead of in 1980, which would a starting point for a slightly enlarged ~1596cc half-relation. The following article is worth a read. - https://www.minimania.com/Mini_Engine_Performance_Enhancement_605

Would you believe an alt-BMC doing it at all? Or am I pushing hindsight (or handwavium) too much? I'm thinking of GM & the 215; can BMC have a kind of epiphany? Or get a clue from learning GM is thinking about it?

No. At best maybe they learn/invest earlier on in thin-wall casting techniques in 1960 and beyond similar to Volvo with the B18, though like the revised C-Series it might not make much difference in terms of weight reduction or cost to be justified.

My thinking is, you'd get both being better with a twincam, even disallowing the aluminum B-Series. Put it in service, better still.

Would seek to establish some separation between the Midget/Sprite and MGB in terms of engines, there is little argument the MGB could have benefited from ATL reliable -136 hp -2.0 B-Series Twin-Cam engines. However the Midget/Sprite would have been better off equipped with a lighter and more compact ATL 1596cc A-Plus, even a twin-carb version of the latter derived from a 66-83 hp 1275cc twin-carb* A-Series would put out around 83-104 hp (sans more potent limited-run OHC and Twin-Cam variants) without the compromises a larger and heavier 1.6 B-Series would entail in a Midget/Sprite.

The 104 hp figure of the ATL 1596cc A-Plus twin-carb is close to the 106 hp 1748cc E-Series engines used in Downton-tuned Austin Allegro (and Maxi), which featured an in-sump gearbox (compared to the standard OTL Allegro 1750's 91-95 hp).

Do not forget the reliable output limit of the 1275cc A-Series is about 120-130 hp, which is well within the limit of 1596cc A-Plus half-relation that carries over much commonality and componentry with the 1275cc A-Series. Nor the fact such an engine already pretty much outmatches the larger and heavier 100-108 hp 1.6 B-Series Twin-Cam.

Meanwhile a 1596cc A-Plus version of the 99 hp 1275cc A-Series by Downton Engineering Conversion (mentioned in Autosport - 24 September 1965 here for the Mini), would be in the region of 124 hp and in the Midget/Sprite (which unlike the in-sump Mini could handle the extra power) would allow them to compete against the original Lotus Elan.


* - The 66 hp 1275cc A-Series twin-carb comes from the OTL Innocenti Regent, the 83 hp 1275cc A-Series twin-carb comes from an OTL unbuilt MG-badged Authi Victoria.

I'm thinking any alt-Mini would abandon the in-sump layout from the start--unless that creates insurmountable packaging issues... However, I could live with that waiting for the Mark II, & with something like a better 1800 (maybe only 1600cc base engine, given the 1500-1600cc segment looked most popular) having moved up-market.

The obvious other option for a 1500-1600cc Mini is make it North America-only (or NAm & Oz-only), where the 1100/1300 is going to be too small to sell well (or at all).

The rush to production with the design brief given would have precluded a Mini with end-on gearbox, a better introduction of a Mini with an end-on gearbox would be an ATL Mini II ADO20 from the late-60s as part of a logical evolution. Cannot see the ATL Mini, Mini II ADO20 and successors featuring engines above 1600cc.

An ATL ~1596cc A-Plus with alloy-head would have allowed the engine to be compliant with various emissions standards.

As noted above, I have trouble believing a car that big would do well in Britain--not until about 1970, anyhow, if the Cortina is any guide. That said, I'd be looking at something like the P76 for '68-'70, & that does want a 2.0 base engine; I'd want the 3.0 inline 6, or, better, the 3.5-4.0 Rover V8.

For Austin a 1100-1600cc ADO16 and 1100-2000cc ADO22 would have allowed them to more effectively compete against the Cortina (in tandem with an early-1960s Morris Marina) prior to being replaced by the mid/late-1970s by the ATL Maestro/Montego, even with the Cortina growing in size such changes would have placed ADO16/ADO22 perfectly into the Golf/Jetta segment while an early-1970s version of ADO77 as an ATL Morris Marina would directly face off against the Cortina.

P76 is of roughly similar dimensions as the Rover SD1, such a car would be unlikely until the mid-1970s in ATL if derived from the SD1 / P10 or a slightly upscaled ADO77 platform (to replace the enlarged Marina-derived Ford Corsair-like successor to the ATL Morris Isis-based Farina C cars).

 

[merlin]

In the fifties judging by the names Austin Morris had 'middle-class' pretensions with West country Counties first with Austin Devon, Somerset and (I think) Devon, followed by University towns of Oxford and Cambridge - wonder why they didn't continue. Somehow seems to have a bit more character than just Morris 1100!