BMC no-merger sanity options?

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!
Guess they viewed it as increasingly unfashionable,, in OTL one proposed name for the Austin version of the Mini instead of Austin Seven was Austin Newmarket yet could see the latter being a more suitable name for a Vanden Plas version of the Mini.
 
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.
That works for me, for sure.

In looking at that great Minimania site, I'm reminded I've forgotten a need to upgrade brakes & rad.:oops::oops::oops: I'm thinking Allegro/1800 (or equivalent) brakes & axles, & all-new aluminum rad.
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.
:teary: Oh, well.
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'd agree with all of that. I'm picturing the Sprite with a top 1500 as a GT (with all the goodies) & a GTS (stripper, only the best radio), with the B/C getting more power & (ultimately) the straight 6 (or V8).
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.
I'd hope not to have the Mini produced in quite the panic OTL.
Cannot see the ATL Mini, Mini II ADO20 and successors featuring engines above 1600cc.
It may be asking too much. I'd want to see it prototyped, & hear why it wouldn't work, first.
An ATL ~1596cc A-Plus with alloy-head would have allowed the engine to be compliant with various emissions standards.
:cool::cool: U.S. sales continued...:cool:

Aside: I stumbled on the Autobianchi A112Z prototype/concept, which could be the '75-up Mini (if it's not just a rebadged Innocenti, which it might be...:oops: )
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.
That works for me.
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).
I'm thinking of a P76 more the size of the OTL Cortina or 1800, with a smaller car later: in essence, take the rush out of the 1800 so it's not such a dog, & offer tougher competition to Ford UK & Vauxhall's RWD fleet cars.
 
I'd agree with all of that. I'm picturing the Sprite with a top 1500 as a GT (with all the goodies) & a GTS (stripper, only the best radio), with the B/C getting more power & (ultimately) the straight 6 (or V8).
In the case of the ATL MGC, you'd be looking at a 150-204 hp 2.4-3.0 B-Series Twin-Cam and/or equivalent properly-developed 150-200+ hp 2.6-2.9+ C-Series (that meets its weight targets plus Twin-Cam, etc).

Envision the non Twin-Cam B-Series and C-Series possibly being utilized by conventional RWD saloons and non-BMC specialized sportscars. - https://www.mgexp.com/forum/mgb-and-gt-forum.1/mgb-6-2-4-litre-6.2387081/

I'd hope not to have the Mini produced in quite the panic OTL.
They were hoping to capitalize on the post-Suez environment to drive Bubble Cars off the roads, even then it would probably have been better for the original Mini to retain the in-sump gearbox layout for a time with the 59-90 hp 1275cc engine being its largest displacement (and 30-ish hp 719-770cc unit being the smallest displacement) until the ATL Mini II ADO20 (like the later 2-inches wider Minki-II prototype) appears with end-on gearbox and 1596cc engine.

It may be asking too much. I'd want to see it prototyped, & hear why it wouldn't work, first.
Engine bay and weight being the main reasons units bigger than the A-Series / ATl A-Plus would be easily ruled out. Its like trying to fit the "Big Block" Volkswagen EA827 engine used in the mk1/mk2 Volkswagen Golfs into the engine bay of a mk1/mk2 Volkswagen Polo typically used for the "Small Block" EA111 engine.

I'm thinking of a P76 more the size of the OTL Cortina or 1800, with a smaller car later: in essence, take the rush out of the 1800 so it's not such a dog, & offer tougher competition to Ford UK & Vauxhall's RWD fleet cars.
Sounds like you appear to want an early-60s Marina, worth bearing in mind that its Minor/Oxford III-derived componentry would mean it roughly features similar displacement engines as the OTL Marina / Ital from 1300-2000ccc (with possible 1100cc entry-level model). The sixes of that period would be too heavy for that early Marina in that period, especially when considering the trouble the OTL 1970s Marina experienced with the heavy 1.8 B-Series.

A more upscaled version of the Minor/Oxford/Isis-derived family of conventional RWD cars of similar dimensions to the Ford Corsair and Opel Commodore would able to feature 2.4-3-litre sixes along with a 2-litre 4-cylinder.

An entry-level Vauxhall Viva HA and Nissan Sunny B10/B110/B210/B310 sized model under the Morris Minor nameplate would complete the trio at the bottom of the range powered by 1000-1600cc engines.

By the early-1970s however the Minor/Oxford/Isis-derived family of conventional RWD cars would be replaced by an ADO77-derived duo of conventional RWD cars, with the B-Series superseded by 1.6-2.0+ ATL E-Series/E6 engines.
 
Last edited:
Another interesting butterfly in this scenario would be the ATL ADO71 Princess in Austin form featuring styling by Pininfarina roughly along the lines of the Lancia Gamma, while a more conventional FWD Morris variant carrying over the Harris Mann styling.

The ATL model would differ from OTL by featuring an end-on gearbox as well as a hatchback from the outset along with 2/4-door three-box saloon (for suitable Vanden Plas models) and 3/5-door estate bodystyles, etc (also here).

Austin versions would feature Hydragas, while Morris versions would feature conventional suspension. The ATL E6 engines would be displace up to 2.4-2.5-litres and be mounted transversely reminiscent of later OTL transversely-mounted inline-6 FWD Volvos and the Daewoo Magnus / Chevrolet Epica, another alternative in the case of the Morris version would be utilizing a smaller all-alloy transversely-mounted 2.5-2.7-litre version of the Buick V6 (regardless of whether Rover managed to acquire the Buick V6 together wit the 215 Buick V8 or not).

If the ATL ADO71 Princess becomes smaller and lighter enough to be a rival to the mk3/mk4/mk5 Ford Cortina (as opposed to sitting above the Cortina yet below the Granada in OTL) in the manner of the OTL FWD Opel Ascona C / mk2 Vauxhall Cavalier (GM J-Body), Lancia Beta / Lancia Trevi and Simca Alpine, than the model would be limited to just Austin with the front-engined RWD ADO77 being reserved for Morris as a more conventional challenger.

It is possible an enlarged Granada-sized version of the ATL ADO71 Princess forms the basis of a unique low-volume flagship FWD Vanden Plas saloon equipped with longitudinally mounted Rover V6/V8 engines, inspired by an OTL one-off experimental Australian-built Austin 1800 V8 prototype as well as the Citroen SM-based Maserati Quattroporte II (that may share some relation to the Lancia Gamma via the Citroen CX by way of Citroen Project L) yet smaller of roughly similar dimensions as the Lancia Gamma.



48706188961_7afce4bda6_o.jpg
 
Last edited:
In the case of the ATL MGC, you'd be looking at a 150-204 hp 2.4-3.0 B-Series Twin-Cam and/or equivalent properly-developed 150-200+ hp 2.6-2.9+ C-Series (that meets its weight targets plus Twin-Cam, etc).
:cool: :cool: That makes the MGB/C a real rocket.

Looking at this, & thinking BMC management TTL wouldn't be so hidebound, would you accept a TC 1600-1620 inline four for the Sprite/clones & descendants, & 2.6-2.8 inline six for the MGB/C?
Envision the non Twin-Cam B-Series and C-Series possibly being utilized by conventional RWD saloons and non-BMC specialized sportscars.
That works for me.
They were hoping to capitalize on the post-Suez environment to drive Bubble Cars off the roads, even then it would probably have been better for the original Mini to retain the in-sump gearbox layout for a time with the 59-90 hp 1275cc engine being its largest displacement (and 30-ish hp 719-770cc unit being the smallest displacement) until the ATL Mini II ADO20 (like the later 2-inches wider Minki-II prototype) appears with end-on gearbox and 1596cc engine.
I'm honestly not seeing how the in-sump version is advantageous. Also, wider would be more comfortable, at the risk of compromising the styling a touch.

The idea of a 720cc Mini?:eek::eek: However, as a "commuter" variant, even a 4dr with only 30hp, for daily drivers who don't need (or want) quick, could be a good idea.
Engine bay and weight being the main reasons units bigger than the A-Series / ATl A-Plus would be easily ruled out. Its like trying to fit the "Big Block" Volkswagen EA827 engine used in the mk1/mk2 Volkswagen Golfs into the engine bay of a mk1/mk2 Volkswagen Polo typically used for the "Small Block" EA111 engine.
Clear enough.
Sounds like you appear to want an early-60s Marina, worth bearing in mind that its Minor/Oxford III-derived componentry would mean it roughly features similar displacement engines as the OTL Marina / Ital from 1300-2000ccc (with possible 1100cc entry-level model). The sixes of that period would be too heavy for that early Marina in that period, especially when considering the trouble the OTL 1970s Marina experienced with the heavy 1.8 B-Series.

A more upscaled version of the Minor/Oxford/Isis-derived family of conventional RWD cars of similar dimensions to the Ford Corsair and Opel Commodore would able to feature 2.4-3-litre sixes along with a 2-litre 4-cylinder.
I'm thinking around '68, with introduction around '72-3, & a bit bigger, but otherwise, you're spot on. I imagine the *P76 with a twincam straight 6 option, tho (as you'll probably guess;) ) a 3.5 V8 would be the ideal, base engine being a 1600cc or so B-Series.
An entry-level Vauxhall Viva HA and Nissan Sunny B10/B110/B210/B310 sized model under the Morris Minor nameplate would complete the trio at the bottom of the range powered by 1000-1600cc engines.

By the early-1970s however the Minor/Oxford/Isis-derived family of conventional RWD cars would be replaced by an ADO77-derived duo of conventional RWD cars, with the B-Series superseded by 1.6-2.0+ ATL E-Series/E6 engines.
That works.
Another interesting butterfly in this scenario would be the ATL ADO71 Princess in Austin form featuring styling by Pininfarina roughly along the lines of the Lancia Gamma, while a more conventional FWD Morris variant carrying over the Harris Mann styling.

The ATL model would differ from OTL by featuring an end-on gearbox as well as a hatchback from the outset along with 2/4-door three-box saloon (for suitable Vanden Plas models) and 3/5-door estate bodystyles, etc.

Austin versions would feature Hydragas, while Morris versions would feature conventional suspension. The ATL E6 engines would be displace up to 2.4-2.5-litres and be mounted transversely reminiscent of later OTL transversely-mounted inline-6 FWD Volvos and the Daewoo Magnus / Chevrolet Epica, another alternative in the case of the Morris version would be utilizing a smaller all-alloy transversely-mounted 2.5-2.7-litre version of the Buick V6 (regardless of whether Rover managed to acquire the Buick V6 together wit the 215 Buick V8 or not).
I don't see a reason to have two versions built to drastically different spec.

I like the styling of these, tho not opposed to something more Gamma-esque.
If the ATL ADO71 Princess becomes smaller and lighter enough to be a rival to the mk3/mk4/mk5 Ford Cortina (as opposed to sitting above the Cortina yet below the Granada in OTL) in the manner of the OTL FWD Opel Ascona C / mk2 Vauxhall Cavalier (GM J-Body), Lancia Beta / Lancia Trevi and Simca Alpine, than the model would be limited to just Austin with the front-engined RWD ADO77 being reserved for Morris as a more conventional challenger.

It is possible an enlarged Granada-sized version of the ATL ADO71 Princess forms the basis of a unique low-volume flagship FWD Vanden Plas saloon equipped with longitudinally mounted Rover V6/V8 engines, inspired by an OTL one-off experimental Australian-built Austin 1800 V8 prototype as well as the Citroen SM-based Maserati Quattroporte II (that may share some relation to the Lancia Gamma via the Citroen CX by way of Citroen Project L) yet smaller of roughly similar dimensions as the Lancia Gamma.
I'd love a V8 version, & a V6 would be a really good idea, too.

In ref the ADO40, what were the chances BMC would adopt BMCA's widebody idea along with the hatchback? (I'd go wider still, to equal the Valiant, so 7", not 5.)

In ref the A-Series engines, make the 8-port head standard from the start.
 
Looking at this, & thinking BMC management TTL wouldn't be so hidebound, would you accept a TC 1600-1620 inline four for the Sprite/clones & descendants, & 2.6-2.8 inline six for the MGB/C?
No

I'm honestly not seeing how the in-sump version is advantageous. Also, wider would be more comfortable, at the risk of compromising the styling a touch.

The idea of a 720cc Mini?:eek::eek: However, as a "commuter" variant, even a 4dr with only 30hp, for daily drivers who don't need (or want) quick, could be a good idea.
It was a solution that Issigonis came to for FWD cars despite working on an experimental FWD Morris Minor prototype with end-on gearbox, would assume he believed it to be the best arrangement for the Mini given the parameters set out by Leonard Lord and was soon expediently used on the larger 1100 and 1800 once the V4 was canned. In ATL it would be more expedient to let the original Mini retain the in-sump as a stop-gap unlike the ATL 1100 and 1800, before the Mini is replaced by the ATL Mini II ADO20 with end-on gearbox.

Other carmakers that made use of an in-sump gearbox layout include the Datsun Cherry E10, Peugeot 204/304/305, Peugeot 104, Citroen Visa, Renault 14 (essentially cars that used the PSA-Renault X-Type engine) and Honda N360 (plus related models).

A 30 hp 720-770cc Mini is a much better idea for an entry-level model compared to the short-lived 948cc-based 16-17 hp (?) 475cc 2-cylinder A-Series prototype engine (ADO11) that was canned for being too rough, not being an improvement in terms of fuel economy (compared to the 4-cylinder A-Series) and the need for engineers to utilize an existing engine for the Mini project.

I'm thinking around '68, with introduction around '72-3, & a bit bigger, but otherwise, you're spot on. I imagine the *P76 with a twincam straight 6 option, tho (as you'll probably guess;) ) a 3.5 V8 would be the ideal, base engine being a 1600cc or so B-Series.
With Michelotti working at Leyland in ATL it would butterfly away the P76 as we know it.

At best the Morris versions from the late-60s to early-70s would feature 4/6-cylinder OHC engines via ATL 1600-3000cc E-Series/E6, replacing the earlier OHV 4/6-cylinder engines.

I don't see a reason to have two versions built to drastically different spec.

I like the styling of these, tho not opposed to something more Gamma-esque.
Think of it as taking an early-GM TASC/VOH Interchangeability Programme approach to differentiation between Austin and Morris in the event the latter gradually switches from RWD to a more conventional version of transverse-mounted FWD with non-Hydragas suspension. However a Morris ADO77-based RWD family would delay the need for a Harris Mann-styled version of the Princess / ADO71 until the ATL Maestro/Montego-derived family appears in the mid/late-1970s (that in OTL was also upscaled to spawn Princess/Ambassador and SD1 sized proposals).

I'd love a V8 version, & a V6 would be a really good idea, too.
In light of the above with the Morris ADO77-based RWD family, am thinking the V6/V8 idea might work as a upscaled Granada-sized Princess/ADO71-derived Vanden Plas three-box saloon with the existing smaller Cortina-sized Austin version of ADO71 utilizing ATL -2.5 E-Series.

Essentially a three-box composite of the OTL Vanden Plas Princess 2200 prototype and the in-house Lancia Gamma Trevi proposal below (possibly with more almost Jaguar-like nods). The Hydragas suspension and V6/V8 engines would be conceptually similar to the much larger OTL CItroen SM-based Maserati Quattroporte II V6 (and unbuilt V8).

Vanden Plas Princess 2200 prototype
1592255592348.jpeg


Lancia Gamma Trevi (in-house proposal)
1592255127390.jpeg

1592255144684.jpeg


In ref the ADO40, what were the chances BMC would adopt BMCA's widebody idea along with the hatchback? (I'd go wider still, to equal the Valiant, so 7", not 5.)
Doubtful

In ref the A-Series engines, make the 8-port head standard from the start.
Would target the update either on an ATL late-50s / early-60s A+ development of the A-Series (instead of 1980) after the appearance of the ATL reliable B-Series Twin-Cam or the slightly enlarged ~1596cc ATL "A-Plus" half relation from the early/mid-60s (as was the case on the Nissan A engine), prior to eventually filtering down to the A-Series (along with other developments from the ~1596cc ATL "A-Plus").
 
Last edited:
B-Series four just too heavy for the Sprite regardless? I could believe that. The BMCA "Blue Streak" doesn't look drastically wrong for the MGB/C.
It was a solution that Issigonis came to for FWD cars despite working on an experimental FWD Morris Minor prototype with end-on gearbox, would assume he believed it to be the best arrangement for the Mini given the parameters set out by Leonard Lord and was soon expediently used on the larger 1100 and 1800 once the V4 was canned. In ATL it would be more expedient to let the original Mini retain the in-sump as a stop-gap unlike the ATL 1100 and 1800, before the Mini is replaced by the ATL Mini II ADO20 with end-on gearbox.
If it would delay the introduction a lot, I could accept that. In that event, I'd make a *Mark II a higher priority, & get it in production around 1963 (with no drastic reskin).

I don't see the 8-port having to wait. It need not delay introduction; it could be a production-line change, with the option to back-fit for rodders & racers.

I'm seeing the ATL A-Plus being a more radical factory upgrade that needs for money to pay for tooling, & that should (would have to?) wait for a *Mark II. I'd also be working closely with Nissan; I want to know how they got a production-standard 76mm bore from the A-Series block without issues--& I want it for all alt-BMC A-Series engines.
Other carmakers that made use of an in-sump gearbox layout
I'm not saying it's bad in itself, just a power limiter for the hi-po Mini I'm dreaming of. ;)

And thinking of that, am I right thinking a 5sp in-sump box was possible? I'd be after the AP 4sp auto (tho I wouldn't use engine oil:eek: ).

Is a pre-oiler system too sophisticated for the '60s? (Yeah, probably...:rolleyes::'( )
A 30 hp 720-770cc Mini is a much better idea for an entry-level model compared to the short-lived 948cc-based 16-17 hp (?) 475cc 2-cylinder A-Series prototype engine (ADO11) that was canned for being too rough, not being an improvement in terms of fuel economy (compared to the 4-cylinder A-Series) and the need for engineers to utilize an existing engine for the Mini project.
No question of that at all. The only real issue I have is, even the OTL Mini was pretty slow for highway/motorway driving, & a smaller-capacity car would be worse. That seems to want a different top gear; it also probably means a "steeper" first gear (& maybe the axle gear, too). That suggests desirability of a 5sp.
With Michelotti working at Leyland in ATL it would butterfly away the P76 as we know it.
I could live with it, I guess.
At best the Morris versions from the late-60s to early-70s would feature 4/6-cylinder OHC engines via ATL 1600-3000cc E-Series/E6, replacing the earlier OHV 4/6-cylinder engines.
That wouldn't break my heart, I don't think.
Think of it as taking an early-GM TASC/VOH Interchangeability Programme approach to differentiation between Austin and Morris in the event the latter gradually switches from RWD to a more conventional version of transverse-mounted FWD with non-Hydragas suspension. However a Morris ADO77-based RWD family would delay the need for a Harris Mann-styled version of the Princess / ADO71 until the ATL Maestro/Montego-derived family appears in the mid/late-1970s (that in OTL was also upscaled to spawn Princess/Ambassador and SD1 sized proposals).
I'm too ignorant of the goals & results there, so I won't argue it. I wouldn't do it.
In light of the above with the Morris ADO77-based RWD family, am thinking the V6/V8 idea might work as a upscaled Granada-sized Princess/ADO71-derived Vanden Plas three-box saloon with the existing smaller Cortina-sized Austin version of ADO71 utilizing ATL -2.5 E-Series.

Essentially a three-box composite of the OTL Vanden Plas Princess 2200 prototype and the in-house Lancia Gamma Trevi proposal below (possibly with more almost Jaguar-like nods). The Hydragas suspension and V6/V8 engines would be conceptually similar to the much larger OTL CItroen SM-based Maserati Quattroporte II V6 (and unbuilt V8).
That Gamma Trevi, or something very like it, as a BMC VP, could give Jag some real headaches.:eek::cool: It has a kind of XJ40 feel, only lacking the twin round headlights (which would be much more attractive than the Perspex-covered ones:eek: ).

As to whether BMC management would actually build the wider A40, I would in any event. It makes enormous sense to me.
 
If it would delay the introduction a lot, I could accept that. In that event, I'd make a *Mark II a higher priority, & get it in production around 1963 (with no drastic reskin).
It would be unrealistic because the Mini would at minimum need to be widened by about 2-inches in order to be equipped with an end-on gearbox (if the OTL Minki-II prototype is any indication), hence it would be more feasible to reserve it for an evolution of the Mini via the ATL Mini II from the late-1960s.

I don't see the 8-port having to wait. It need not delay introduction; it could be a production-line change, with the option to back-fit for rodders & racers.

I'm seeing the ATL A-Plus being a more radical factory upgrade that needs for money to pay for tooling, & that should (would have to?) wait for a *Mark II. I'd also be working closely with Nissan; I want to know how they got a production-standard 76mm bore from the A-Series block without issues--& I want it for all alt-BMC A-Series engines.
The ATL A-Plus which am assuming you are referring to the ~1596cc half-relation (instead of the OTL 1980 development of the A-Series) would essentially be utilize all the developments (including 7/8-port head, etc) that were considered for the A-Series in OTL, while at the same time share much commonality with the A-Series (in order to use existing tooling with the lines being blurred a further as more component sharing is implemented) and draw inspiration from the distantly related OTL Nissan A OHV / Nissan E OHC / Nissan GA / etc that did appear to largely make use of what was considered for the A-Series during its long production life.

Essentially imagine the OTL evolution of the B-Series to the O-Series, M-Series and T-Series (plus dieselized Perkins Prima / L-Series / G-Series and Td5 / Project Storm), than apply that to the ATL A-Series.

The same goes with the OTL evolution of the similarly-sized Renault Billancourt to the Cleon-Fonte/Sierra/C-Type, Energy/E-Type and K-Type engines, which is another template for the ATL A-Series to follow.

OTL BMC and even Issigonis at his worse took the approach of adopting revolutionary and costly clean-sheet solutions without bothering to develop what they had via an evolutionary and cheaper approach. The OTL Morris Minor and related models (plus Oxford and Isis pre-Farina) particularly stand out when one considers much of the mechanicals found their way into the Marina / Ital from the 1970s, which is why an ATL where they were not neglected would have provided BMC with the means to produce a low-cost trio of conventional front-engined RWD cars from the early-1960s.

And thinking of that, am I right thinking a 5sp in-sump box was possible? I'd be after the AP 4sp auto (tho I wouldn't use engine oil:eek: ).
A 5-speed manual in-sump gearbox was considered for the Mini (with possible usage in other in-sump FWD cars) along with a 5-speed version of the AP Automatic (both IIRC involving Jack Knight), however both were not productionized due to BL going bankrupt.

No question of that at all. The only real issue I have is, even the OTL Mini was pretty slow for highway/motorway driving, & a smaller-capacity car would be worse. That seems to want a different top gear; it also probably means a "steeper" first gear (& maybe the axle gear, too). That suggests desirability of a 5sp.
It would be the definitive entry-level (if necessary emissions exempt) tax special Mini (resembling the de-chromed 1958 Mini prototype yet with detachable Minivan grille) being to the regular Mini what the Renault R3 and 4CV version of the Simca 1000 were to the Renault R4 and regular Simca 1000, so speed would not be a high priority apart from customers opting for aftermarket tuning kits from Cooper/Downton/etc.

I'm too ignorant of the goals & results there, so I won't argue it. I wouldn't do it.
After deliberately differentiating Austin and Morris from the late-1950s onwards in OTL for them to establish their own post-BMC identities, it makes sense to retain differentiation between the marques to a certain extent as they began to share common platforms (due to Morris gradually shifting from RWD to FWD) akin to GM TASC/VOH or even Volkswagen's approach (which was something the likes of Roy Hayes wanted to implement in OTL decades before it became a thing).

Even Citroen under Peugeot still used hydropneumatic suspension on various models and the Maestro/Montego was tested with Hydragas suspension (due to the platform originally being derived from the Allegro platform with engineers using it as a starting point before adding conventional suspension and VW gearboxes in OTL).

That Gamma Trevi, or something very like it, as a BMC VP, could give Jag some real headaches.:eek::cool: It has a kind of XJ40 feel, only lacking the twin round headlights (which would be much more attractive than the Perspex-covered ones:eek: ).
Of course, it is also tempting to utilize non-fastback variation of Pininfarina's proposal during the XJ40 Project for the general body (as opposed to the front and rear which would be changed to loosely resemble the Gamma Trevi at the front and possible feature more Bentley Eight / Morris Ital style integrated rear-headlamps) to further empathize the XJ40 vibes.

It also parodies OTL Jaguar's fear of losing its autonomy through BL potentially forcing it to use the Rover V8 during the XJ40 project, which the low-volume ATL flagship Vanden Plas would feature in a rather unsporting FWD platform with hydragas suspension (being in essence the complete opposite of Jaguar as a luxury car with bitza mechanicals).
 
It would be unrealistic because the Mini would at minimum need to be widened by about 2-inches in order to be equipped with an end-on gearbox (if the OTL Minki-II prototype is any indication), hence it would be more feasible to reserve it for an evolution of the Mini via the ATL Mini II from the late-1960s.
It figures it's more complicated than I think. :teary: I'd happily see it happen with the first major re-engineering, especially given the 5sp options.
The ATL A-Plus which am assuming you are referring to the ~1596cc half-relation (instead of the OTL 1980 development of the A-Series) would essentially be utilize all the developments (including 7/8-port head, etc) that were considered for the A-Series in OTL, while at the same time share much commonality with the A-Series (in order to use existing tooling with the lines being blurred a further as more component sharing is implemented) and draw inspiration from the distantly related OTL Nissan A OHV / Nissan E OHC / Nissan GA / etc that did appear to largely make use of what was considered for the A-Series during its long production life.
I'm taking TTL's A-Plus to be all the way up to twincam. I picture minor in-production improvements year on year before a re-engineered (but same basis) engine appears, again around the time of the wider *Mark II (if that's what it's called).
Essentially imagine the OTL evolution of the B-Series to the O-Series, M-Series and T-Series (plus dieselized Perkins Prima / L-Series / G-Series and Td5 / Project Storm), than apply that to the ATL A-Series.

The same goes with the OTL evolution of the similarly-sized Renault Billancourt to the Cleon-Fonte/Sierra/C-Type, Energy/E-Type and K-Type engines, which is another template for the ATL A-Series to follow.
I'd presume that to be the model followed, culminating in effectively a new A-Series, kind of the "ship of Theseus" approach (or GM & the small-block Chevy;) ).
OTL BMC and even Issigonis at his worse took the approach of adopting revolutionary and costly clean-sheet solutions without bothering to develop what they had via an evolutionary and cheaper approach. The OTL Morris Minor and related models (plus Oxford and Isis pre-Farina) particularly stand out when one considers much of the mechanicals found their way into the Marina / Ital from the 1970s, which is why an ATL where they were not neglected would have provided BMC with the means to produce a low-cost trio of conventional front-engined RWD cars from the early-1960s.
No, that's a bad call.
A 5-speed manual in-sump gearbox was considered for the Mini (with possible usage in other in-sump FWD cars) along with a 5-speed version of the AP Automatic (both IIRC involving Jack Knight), however both were not productionized due to BL going bankrupt.
Those would both be options ASAP, for me. IDK which I'd make standard, but I lean to the auto on the 4dr & hatch, manual on the others; the 720cc "commuter" would seem to want one, too, but I have a sense there'd be a lot of lost power in the drivetrain.
It would be the definitive entry-level (if necessary emissions exempt) tax special Mini (resembling the de-chromed 1958 Mini prototype yet with detachable Minivan grille) being to the regular Mini what the Renault R3 and 4CV version of the Simca 1000 were to the Renault R4 and regular Simca 1000, so speed would not be a high priority apart from customers opting for aftermarket tuning kits from Cooper/Downton/etc.
No, top speed wouldn't be the goal, but when even OTL Minis were barely capable of highway speeds...:eek: In Europe, driven mostly in cities, maybe not an issue; in North America, with more freeway driving, it would be. Having the engine straining to keep up with traffic isn't something I'd want to drive daily: it rapidly becomes a major nuisance or a warranty nightmare, or both.:eek::eek: That being true, better gearing is essential. (There's a reason cars with the Quad 4 had a steeper axle gear than those with the 3.1 or 3.8.)
After deliberately differentiating Austin and Morris from the late-1950s onwards in OTL for them to establish their own post-BMC identities, it makes sense to retain differentiation between the marques to a certain extent as they began to share common platforms (due to Morris gradually shifting from RWD to FWD) akin to GM TASC/VOH or even Volkswagen's approach (which was something the likes of Roy Hayes wanted to implement in OTL decades before it became a thing).

Even Citroen under Peugeot still used hydropneumatic suspension on various models and the Maestro/Montego was tested with Hydragas suspension (due to the platform originally being derived from the Allegro platform with engineers using it as a starting point before adding conventional suspension and VW gearboxes in OTL).
I guess I'm more heavily influenced by GM from the mid-'70s, with less mechanical & more cosmetic difference. That might hurt sales some, I admit; I take a view cost trumps.
Of course, it is also tempting to utilize non-fastback variation of Pininfarina's proposal during the XJ40 Project for the general body (as opposed to the front and rear which would be changed to loosely resemble the Gamma Trevi at the front and possible feature more Bentley Eight / Morris Ital style integrated rear-headlamps) to further empathize the XJ40 vibes.

It also parodies OTL Jaguar's fear of losing its autonomy through BL potentially forcing it to use the Rover V8 during the XJ40 project, which the low-volume ATL flagship Vanden Plas would feature in a rather unsporting FWD platform with hydragas suspension (being in essence the complete opposite of Jaguar as a luxury car with bitza mechanicals).
If Jag doesn't want it, I'd steal the Pininfarina XJ40 entire, tweak the grille & headlights, badge it VP, & thumb my nose at Coventry.;) And price it below the XJ6/12, just.;) I'd also be heavily inclined to put all manner of black cats in the adverts, in case anybody didn't get it.;)
 
I'm taking TTL's A-Plus to be all the way up to twincam. I picture minor in-production improvements year on year before a re-engineered (but same basis) engine appears, again around the time of the wider *Mark II (if that's what it's called).
Would probably have an earlier version of TTL's A-Plus as an OHV unit or if emissions are particularly stringent in certain markets convert it to an A-OHC at most (and if possible utilize fuel-injection), whilst increasing component sharing with the ATL ~1596cc A-Plus half-relation.

OTOH the ATL ~1596cc A-Plus half-relation would pretty much take over the performance role of TTL's A-Plus, whilst leaving the latter to be used in a more economy focused role that is sold alongside the ATL engine similar to the OTL Renault Billancourt with the Cleon-Fonte/Sierra/C-Type until around 1985 (except for non-Western markets).

I'd presume that to be the model followed, culminating in effectively a new A-Series, kind of the "ship of Theseus" approach (or GM & the small-block Chevy;) ).
Could see the ATL ~1596cc A-Plus half-relation eventually being superseded by a new evolutionary 3/4-cylinder engine from the late-80s / early-90s that essentially amounts to a British Nissan GA / Nissan QG (plus elements of the Nissan CG / Nissan CR) with the Renault K-Type. The 3/4-cylinder Suzuki G engine is another template that springs to mind given the 3-cylinder Suzuki G10 powered Mini swaps are a common engine conversion in OTL, along with the odd Mini or few with a 3-cylinder Daihatsu C-Series turbodiesel.

In OTL terms such an ATL engine would be best described as an BMC/Nissan interpretation of the heavily Triumph-influenced Rover K-Series that is easily capable of being stretched to 1.6-litres and converted to turbodiesel.

No, that's a bad call.
If by BMC and Issigonis not taking an evolutionary approach to updating and further developing what they already had then agree is it a bad call.

Those would both be options ASAP, for me. IDK which I'd make standard, but I lean to the auto on the 4dr & hatch, manual on the others; the 720cc "commuter" would seem to want one, too, but I have a sense there'd be a lot of lost power in the drivetrain.
Cannot see the in-sump 5-speed and 5-speed AP automatic gearboxes being produced in ATL after the Mini is superseded by Mini II ADO20.

That said, could see such a solution be considered in a scenario where the original Mini is still built in large numbers in non-Western markets together with an early-60s version of TTL's A-Plus and 4/5-door variants. However both the in-sump and TTL's A-Plus would eventually be replaced by a end-on gearbox and smaller 3-cylinder engine in such markets (see Daihatsu Charade-derived version of the Innocenti Mini and the Rover Minki-I prototype), with the 3-cylinder engines basically replacing the earlier 720-1000cc A-Series engines.

No, top speed wouldn't be the goal, but when even OTL Minis were barely capable of highway speeds...:eek: In Europe, driven mostly in cities, maybe not an issue; in North America, with more freeway driving, it would be. Having the engine straining to keep up with traffic isn't something I'd want to drive daily: it rapidly becomes a major nuisance or a warranty nightmare, or both.:eek::eek: That being true, better gearing is essential. (There's a reason cars with the Quad 4 had a steeper axle gear than those with the 3.1 or 3.8.)
In North America's case the emissions exempt 720-770cc+ Mini would be a historical footnote alongside other sub-819cc emissions exempt US spec versions of the Fiat 850 (817cc) and Saab 96 (795cc), otherwise it depends on US legislation whether the 720-770cc+ Minis reach US shores or remain limited to markets outside of the US.

At the same time if the tunability of the A-Series and the OTL Fiat 100 Series engines are any guide however, it should not be an issue uprating the output of the 720-770cc Minis to the level of the Mini 850 at minimum with the 850 engine being capable of a max street output of 50 hp via the Minimania site (and the US spec 817cc Fiat 100 Series engine virtually matching the 47 hp output of the regular 843cc engine).

I guess I'm more heavily influenced by GM from the mid-'70s, with less mechanical & more cosmetic difference. That might hurt sales some, I admit; I take a view cost trumps.
In apart from the suspension and exterior styling, the long-term plan for ATL Austin and Morris would be to largely share the same underpinnings as Morris shifts from RWD to FWD with the process being complete around the 1980s-1990s.


If Jag doesn't want it, I'd steal the Pininfarina XJ40 entire, tweak the grille & headlights, badge it VP, & thumb my nose at Coventry.;) And price it below the XJ6/12, just.;) I'd also be heavily inclined to put all manner of black cats in the adverts, in case anybody didn't get it.;)
Indeed.
 
Last edited:
Would probably have an earlier version of TTL's A-Plus as an OHV unit or if emissions are particularly stringent in certain markets convert it to an A-OHC at most (and if possible utilize fuel-injection), whilst increasing component sharing with the ATL ~1596cc A-Plus half-relation.

OTOH the ATL ~1596cc A-Plus half-relation would pretty much take over the performance role of TTL's A-Plus, whilst leaving the latter to be used in a more economy focused role that is sold alongside the ATL engine similar to the OTL Renault Billancourt with the Cleon-Fonte/Sierra/C-Type until around 1985 (except for non-Western markets).
I take you to mean an OHC version as the performance choice, I'd agree. I'd make FI available ASAP (but that's a Thing with me ;) ).
Could see the ATL ~1596cc A-Plus half-relation eventually being superseded by a new evolutionary 3/4-cylinder engine from the late-80s / early-90s that essentially amounts to a British Nissan GA / Nissan QG (plus elements of the Nissan CG / Nissan CR) with the Renault K-Type. The 3/4-cylinder Suzuki G engine is another template that springs to mind given the 3-cylinder Suzuki G10 powered Mini swaps are a common engine conversion in OTL, along with the odd Mini or few with a 3-cylinder Daihatsu C-Series turbodiesel.

In OTL terms such an ATL engine would be best described as an BMC/Nissan interpretation of the heavily Triumph-influenced Rover K-Series that is easily capable of being stretched to 1.6-litres and converted to turbodiesel.
A tighter relationship with Nissan that leads to improvements across the board seems like a really good idea. I'm less enthused with 3cyls.
If by BMC and Issigonis not taking an evolutionary approach to updating and further developing what they already had then agree is it a bad call.
That's what I meant.
Cannot see the in-sump 5-speed and 5-speed AP automatic gearboxes being produced in ATL after the Mini is superseded by Mini II ADO20.
No, I meant until.
That said, could see such a solution be considered in a scenario where the original Mini is still built in large numbers in non-Western markets together with an early-60s version of TTL's A-Plus and 4/5-door variants. However both the in-sump and TTL's A-Plus would eventually be replaced by a end-on gearbox and smaller 3-cylinder engine in such markets (see Daihatsu Charade-derived version of the Innocenti Mini and the Rover Minki-I prototype), with the 3-cylinder engines basically replacing the earlier 720-1000cc A-Series engines.
That works for me.
In North America's case the emissions exempt 720-770cc+ Mini would be a historical footnote alongside other sub-819cc emissions exempt US spec versions of the Fiat 850 (817cc) and Saab 96 (795cc), otherwise it depends on US legislation whether the 720-770cc+ Minis reach US shores or remain limited to markets outside of the US.
I have my doubts emissions-exempt models would pass.
At the same time if the tunability of the A-Series and the OTL Fiat 100 Series engines are any guide however, it should not be an issue uprating the output of the 720-770cc Minis to the level of the Mini 850 at minimum with the 850 engine being capable of a max street output of 50 hp via the Minimania site (and the US spec 817cc Fiat 100 Series engine virtually matching the 47 hp output of the regular 843cc engine).
Tuning a 700cc-range four for 50hp sounds pretty good.
In apart from the suspension and exterior styling, the long-term plan for ATL Austin and Morris would be to largely share the same underpinnings as Morris shifts from RWD to FWD with the process being complete around the 1980s-1990s.
That works for me.
 
I take you to mean an OHC version as the performance choice, I'd agree. I'd make FI available ASAP (but that's a Thing with me ;) ).
Earlier and reliable fuel-injection would come either from Bosch or Brico Engineering provided Rolls-Royce does not go bust in the early-1970s in the case of the latter. - https://drive-my.com/en/test-drive/item/2935-super-rare-fuel-injected-aston-martin-dbs6-vs-dbs-v8-fi.html

A tighter relationship with Nissan that leads to improvements across the board seems like a really good idea. I'm less enthused with 3cyls.
The 3-cylinder engines would have their place in ATL in both petrol and diesel forms as a replacement for the sub-1-litre 4-cylinders in smaller city cars. Renault themselves managed to develop a 3-cylinder version of the similarly-sized Cleon-Fonte engine via the Renault Vesta 2 prototype, while similar to Rover in OTL with the 3-cylinder K-Series for the Austin AR6 project BMC themselves would be interested in having an ultra-efficient 3-cylinder reach the 100mpg figure a long time before others were targeting that figure.

Both the Suzuki G10 (via the Geo Metro XFi) and Daihatsu C-Series diesel/turbodiesel engines would be the benchmarks, followed later by other advanced 3-cylinder units.

I have my doubts emissions-exempt models would pass.
It depends on whether the US opts to close that loophole in ATL, Mini sales were not that huge in OTL nor were the US spec versions of the Fiat 850 and Saab 96 yet could see the emissions-exempt 720-770 Minis contributing towards a slight increase in sales while it remains open from 1968-1970.

In the unlikely event BMC decides to bring the Mini II ADO20 to the US from the late-60s to early-70s, could see both regular and emissions-exempt models capitalizing on the post-1973 fuel crisis environmental however OTOH the ATL ~1596cc A-Plus being emissions compliant (and the North American preference for larger engines) would pretty much negate the need for the 720-770 emissions-exempt variants in the US.

Tuning a 700cc-range four for 50hp sounds pretty good.
A figure of around 43-45 hp appears to be more feasible for a tuned 720-770 A-Series (with performance comparable to or even slightly exceeding the OTL 998cc Minis), though in the case of the US spec 47 hp 817cc Fiat 100 Series engine the latter was only used for the Fiat 850 Sport Spider and Fiat 850 Sport Coupe.
 
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!
More retro elements of a surviving BMC range (taking a leaf out of OTL BMW MINI) could perhaps do with those kinds of names, perhaps for one offs. However, for a far more successful operation that sought to be internationally acceptable, I think its more conventional products would need to be less peculiarly English. There are certain names used by BMC and its descendants that worked well, like Sterling which connotes strength and aspiration. Devon to me suggests it belongs to a range of Noddy cars...
 
Earlier and reliable fuel-injection would come either from Bosch or Brico Engineering provided Rolls-Royce does not go bust in the early-1970s in the case of the latter.
I'd licence the Bosch, myself, but I'm not sure the Brits were over the war yet. Of course, by the time FI became a cost-reasonable option (on U.S. models it was going at $600-700!), that might cease to be a problem.
The 3-cylinder engines would have their place in ATL in both petrol and diesel forms as a replacement for the sub-1-litre 4-cylinders in smaller city cars. Renault themselves managed to develop a 3-cylinder version of the similarly-sized Cleon-Fonte engine via the Renault Vesta 2 prototype, while similar to Rover in OTL with the 3-cylinder K-Series for the Austin AR6 project BMC themselves would be interested in having an ultra-efficient 3-cylinder reach the 100mpg figure a long time before others were targeting that figure.

Both the Suzuki G10 (via the Geo Metro XFi) and Daihatsu C-Series diesel/turbodiesel engines would be the benchmarks, followed later by other advanced 3-cylinder units.
I could see them for Europe, India, maybe Japan; over here, not really. Which isn't a reason not to do it. ;)
It depends on whether the US opts to close that loophole in ATL, Mini sales were not that huge in OTL nor were the US spec versions of the Fiat 850 and Saab 96 yet could see the emissions-exempt 720-770 Minis contributing towards a slight increase in sales while it remains open from 1968-1970.
I'm surprised the OTL Mini didn't sell well here, as nimble as it was. I can only think too small & (thanks in part to gearing, IMO) too slow.
In the unlikely event BMC decides to bring the Mini II ADO20 to the US from the late-60s to early-70s, could see both regular and emissions-exempt models capitalizing on the post-1973 fuel crisis environmental however OTOH the ATL ~1596cc A-Plus being emissions compliant (and the North American preference for larger engines) would pretty much negate the need for the 720-770 emissions-exempt variants in the US.
That's the route I'd take. I'd be pushing the alt-Mini with a 1300-range base engine & a 1600 twincam "GT" for the U.S., with available 700cc-range models on special order. (I can picture some New Yorkers, frex, liking how small & frugal they are.)
A figure of around 43-45 hp appears to be more feasible for a tuned 720-770 A-Series (with performance comparable to or even slightly exceeding the OTL 998cc Minis), though in the case of the US spec 47 hp 817cc Fiat 100 Series engine the latter was only used for the Fiat 850 Sport Spider and Fiat 850 Sport Coupe.
Even that much is pretty good for a 700cc. I'd be looking to Downton Engineering to provide production-suitable (or low maintenance, to avoid high warranty cost...) improvements, tho, to get the best performance in a street-tractable daily driver. (That would apply for all models, not just the 700s.)
 
I could see them for Europe, India, maybe Japan; over here, not really. Which isn't a reason not to do it. ;)
Suzuki managed to make it work to some extent in North America via the Cultus / Swift / Metro, while the Charade was also notable for the 68-105 hp 1.0-litre Turbo / GTti models in addition to the 38-50 hp 1.0-litre diesel/turbodiesels.

I'm surprised the OTL Mini didn't sell well here, as nimble as it was. I can only think too small & (thanks in part to gearing, IMO) too slow.
Apparently only the Mini Cooper models did well in OTL US, the larger 1100/1300 might have had a better chance had it been introduced to the US in the early/mid-1960s as a hatchback and three-box saloon from the outset along with earlier 1300-1600cc engines.

Even that much is pretty good for a 700cc. I'd be looking to Downton Engineering to provide production-suitable (or low maintenance, to avoid high warranty cost...) improvements, tho, to get the best performance in a street-tractable daily driver. (That would apply for all models, not just the 700s.)
Think the tuning of the A-Series engine was largely built upon the work done by Downton Engineering and others who worked for the company before setting up their own tuning businesses.
 
Last edited:
Suzuki managed to make it work to some extent in North America via the Cultus / Swift / Metro, while the Charade was also notable for the 68-105 hp 1.0-litre Turbo / GTti models in addition to the 38-50 hp 1.0-litre diesel/turbodiesels.
It seems pretty niche, to me. Not to say I wouldn't do it, but I wouldn't count on it as a sales leader.
Apparently only the Mini Cooper models did well in OTL US, the larger 1100/1300 might have had a better chance had it been introduced to the US in the early/mid-1960s as a hatchback and three-box saloon from the outset along with earlier 1300-1600cc engines.
That makes sense. In retrospect, I should have thought about engine size--& no four-door; they routinely outsell coupés.
Think the tuning of the A-Series engine was largely built upon the work done by Downton Engineering and others who worked for the company before setting up their own tuning businesses.
Even the OTL factory tuning? That wasn't in-house? I have read Downton was the best aftermarket outfit, which is why I suggested them; if they're doing the factory work, that explains a lot.

If they are, it might be possible to turn them into a kind of alt-AMG for BMC. (Not that I have anything against Cooper, I just can't resist a change that I've never heard of, & that wouldn't actually hurt anybody. I don't imagine Cooper not doing Mini conversions would cripple them. ;) )
 
It seems pretty niche, to me. Not to say I wouldn't do it, but I wouldn't count on it as a sales leader.
Could see some in North America embracing an ultra-efficient economical 3-cylinder city car, though otherwise agree is would be pretty niche.

What would be fascinating is non-Western versions of the Mini featuring a later 3-cylinder akin to the Daihatsu E-Series / Toyota KR petrols (plus elements of the Mercedes-Benz M160 and Mitsubishi 3B2), with dieselized versions being competitive against the 41-54 hp 0.8-litre Mercedes-Benz OM660 (used in Smarts) and 57 hp 1-litre Fiat Multijet (latter derived from 1.3 Multijet and used in Indian-built Chevrolet Beat - which via the 104 hp 1.3 Multijet should theoretically mean the 1-litre Multijet is potentially capable of up to 78 hp).

If they are, it might be possible to turn them into a kind of alt-AMG for BMC. (Not that I have anything against Cooper, I just can't resist a change that I've never heard of, & that wouldn't actually hurt anybody. I don't imagine Cooper not doing Mini conversions would cripple them. ;) )
There would be little point establishing Downton as a marque in its own right as opposed to integrating it into BMC with the more potent versions being reserved for Cooper. Along with tuning the A-Series, B-Series (with tuned 1.8-litre pushing out 99-112 hp) and C-Series engines as in OTL (with Stage 3 tuned C-Series putting out around 174.46 hp), ATL Downton under a successful BMC would have become more involved in properly developing the ATL ~1596cc A-Plus and VW 827/S-Series-like E-Series 4/6-cylinder engines (beyond the OTL 106 hp 1750cc Stage 2 conversion in the Austin Maxi). - https://www.aronline.co.uk/cars/mini/mini-–-classic-downton-conversions/

Downton’s first significant work for BMC was the 12G295 cylinder head, which first appeared on the ADO16 MG 1100 saloon of 1962 and in 1964 on the 998cc Mini Cooper. This design of cylinder head featured more open combustion chambers and better flowing ports than previous A-series engine heads. Downton were soon supplying heads to the Abingdon Rally cars and engines to the Cooper Car Company’s racing Mini’s. John Cooper may have developed the original Mini Cooper, but the legendary Cooper S was a Downton engineering creation in collaboration with Morris engines at Coventry. The cars 12A185/AFG163 cylinder head was designed by Daniel Richmond. The Mini’s glory years were the 1960s, and Downton was the catalyst. Other Downton contributions for BMC were the 12G940 cylinder head, found on so many 1275cc engined cars since 1966, and the 1800 S “Landcrab”. Daniel Richmond also helped design the DX engine for the stillborn Mini replacement, the Issigonis 9X and helped turn the E-series into a half decent engine.
One butterfly effect in this scenario would be several former employees at Downton Engineering not starting their own successful companies from Jan Odor of Janspeed*, George Toth and Richard Longman of Longman Engineering (becoming 1978-1979 BTCC champion in Longman-tuned Mini 1275 GT), David Dorrington of Maniflow, Brian Slark of Slark Race engineering and Steve Harris, etc. Thanks to BMC not being merged with Leyland Motors to become British Leyland, with Leyland people in power terminating contracts of consultants from Downton, Cooper, Healeys.

* - Daniel Richmond would need to keep his other half in check though in order to prevent Jan Odor from walking out in 1962 to found Janspeed. Which occured after his wife's violent outburst upon discovering Daniel in the act of giving Jan Odor a bonus for his excellent work, saying he was paid enough already and causing a blazing row. - https://www.aronline.co.uk/cars/mini/mini-–-classic-downton-conversions/

Amongst other tuned cars, Janspeed in OTL would develop a Janspeed Rover 216 Vitesse Turbo that featured a turbocharged 150 hp 1.6-litre S-Series engine.



 
Last edited:
What would be fascinating is non-Western versions of the Mini featuring a later 3-cylinder akin to the Daihatsu E-Series / Toyota KR petrols (plus elements of the Mercedes-Benz M160 and Mitsubishi 3B2), with dieselized versions being competitive against the 41-54 hp 0.8-litre Mercedes-Benz OM660 (used in Smarts) and 57 hp 1-litre Fiat Multijet (latter derived from 1.3 Multijet and used in Indian-built Chevrolet Beat - which via the 104 hp 1.3 Multijet should theoretically mean the 1-litre Multijet is potentially capable of up to 78 hp).
I could definitely believe that, especially in Japan. I'd even picture tuner versions running over 80 hp in the 700s in all-Mini events. (Didn't Britain run all-Mini events once? And offer 'glass repop bodies for the racers?)
There would be little point establishing Downton as a marque
IDK if that's quite how I'd put it. I had Yenko in mind: custom jobs with warranty protection, all parts to factory spec. It also puts all the "boy racers" in one place with a management more likely to approve a hi-po project than a hidebound (or, at least, cautious) BMC.
with the more potent versions being reserved for Cooper
I wouldn't oppose that, but why bother?
Along with tuning the A-Series, B-Series (with tuned 1.8-litre pushing out 99-112 hp) and C-Series engines as in OTL (with Stage 3 tuned C-Series putting out around 174.46 hp), ATL Downton under a successful BMC would have become more involved in properly developing the ATL ~1596cc A-Plus and VW 827/S-Series-like E-Series 4/6-cylinder engines (beyond the OTL 106 hp 1750cc Stage 2 conversion in the Austin Maxi).
Amongst other tuned cars, Janspeed in OTL would develop a Janspeed Rover 216 Vitesse Turbo that featured a turbocharged 150 hp 1.6-litre S-Series engine.
I'd definitely do all of that.
One butterfly effect in this scenario would be several former employees at Downton Engineering not starting their own successful companies from Jan Odor of Janspeed*, George Toth and Richard Longman of Longman Engineering (becoming 1978-1979 BTCC champion in Longman-tuned Mini 1275 GT), David Dorrington of Maniflow, Brian Slark of Slark Race engineering and Steve Harris, etc. Thanks to BMC not being merged with Leyland Motors to become British Leyland, with Leyland people in power terminating contracts of consultants from Downton, Cooper, Healeys.

* - Daniel Richmond would need to keep his other half in check though in order to prevent Jan Odor from walking out in 1962 to found Janspeed. Which occured after his wife's violent outburst upon discovering Daniel in the act of giving Jan Odor a bonus for his excellent work, saying he was paid enough already and causing a blazing row.
That would bother me a little, with the loss of tuner/rod shops. (Odor isn't going to quit, since Richmond's wife will have less say, since Richmond isn't going to be deciding bonuses.)
 
They kind of did – there was the plant at Seneffe in Belgium, partnerships such as Authi in Spain, Innocenti in Italy, BMC in Turkey etc. Most of them look to have started in the early 1960s though, and even Borgward was only forced out of business in 1961.
One of my favourite BL stories is that junior BL executives who were assigned an Allegro as their company car always tried to get a Belgian built model as they were more reliable than those made at Longbridge o_O
 
IDK if that's quite how I'd put it. I had Yenko in mind: custom jobs with warranty protection, all parts to factory spec. It also puts all the "boy racers" in one place with a management more likely to approve a hi-po project than a hidebound (or, at least, cautious) BMC.
I wouldn't oppose that, but why bother?
Because Cooper unlike Downton has significantly more brand recognition and motorsport cachet including F1 success. It will also be challenging preventing Daniel Richmond from kicking the bucket and living another decade or two due to his hedonistic lifestyle.

I'd definitely do all of that.
It is a question of when and how they go about implementing it in ATL prior to BMC acquiring Rover, what with MG confidently switching to reliable Twin-Cams. The ATL tuned OHV (and even OHC) engines likely being utilized by Austin, Morris and Vanden Plas (as well as a few others like TVR, Elva, etc).

That would bother me a little, with the loss of tuner/rod shops. (Odor isn't going to quit, since Richmond's wife will have less say, since Richmond isn't going to be deciding bonuses.)
Am sure a few would seek better pastures upon Daniel Richmond's passing in 1974 even in ATL, though the example of Richard Longman's motorsport success with the Mini demonstrates there was still plenty of life left in having the Mini compete in motorsport beyond 1969 with a works-backed team.

Some more info on the story of Daniel Richmond and his "wife".
- https://www.minicooper.org/social-chat/downton-bunty-amp-daniel-richmond/page-1/
- http://mk1-forum.net/viewtopic.php?t=9317
 
Top