BMC no-merger sanity options?

The following piece of OTL Rolls-Royce / Bentley history is partly related to BMC.

Basically prior to the Rolls-Royce Silver Shadow / Bentley T-Series, the company investigated a few prototypes one a larger Rolls-Royce model known as Tibet and another a smaller model known as the Bentley Burma (with a Rolls-Royce version contemplated under the name of Tonga). Tibet was to be powered by the L-Series V8, while Burma was originally to be powered by the 4-litre inline-6 only to later feature the V8. Ultimately the explorations of Burma and Tibet would never be completed as both projects were shelved (likely on the grounds of the prohibitive costs in developing two quite different models) yet their best features were combined to create the OTL Silver Shadow / T-Series.

BMC's OTL involvement was a final joint-project undertaken by BMC and Rolls-Royce, and was intended to produce a coupe based on a shortened version of the aborted Bentley Burma prototype known as ADO58. The car would have been built and sold only by BMC, and would most likely have carried one of their upmarket brands, such as Wolseley or Riley (more likely Vanden Plas - especially in ATL). However, it is claimed the project was cancelled before any models or prototypes were built, although it is believed that one of the Bentley Burma prototypes was modified as a mock-up.

It is not yet confirmed though whether ADO58 was essentially a BMC version of the Bentley Burma-based 1961 Bentley Korea Coupe prototype below, which was conceived as a proposed Continental variation of the Burma prototype (the first image curiously featuring a similar front as the 1973 Jaguar XJ Series II).

https://carsthatnevermadeitetc.tumblr.com%2Fpost%2F155451995128
Rolls-Royce Tibet prototype

5433151656_71e741878b_o.jpg
 
Last edited:
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'll withdraw my objection.
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).
I'm fine with that. I'd add Morgan as a possible sales source, too, at least for the fours; I doubt Morgan would refuse the Rover V8.
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.
If BMC doesn't have a works Mini team from the start, & keep it right to the end (or damn near), they're idiots. :rolleyes: Class wins at Le Mans? Monte Carlo rally, certainly. BTC? SCCA? (Or would that fall under the aftermarket umbrella?)
Edit:
I'm far less sure a joint project with Bentley is a good idea. Even VP wearing similar styling is risking unfavorable comparison. Go after the XJ12, instead. (Not to mention the Bentley styling is a bit ponderous & pretty dull.)
 
If BMC doesn't have a works Mini team from the start, & keep it right to the end (or damn near), they're idiots. :rolleyes: Class wins at Le Mans? Monte Carlo rally, certainly. BTC? SCCA? (Or would that fall under the aftermarket umbrella?)
It was the Leyland people at BL under Donald Stokes in OTL who put largely put a stop to works-backed Minis in motorsport viewing the Mini as a spent force (compared to the Ford Escort RS2000 despite the Mini's later BTCC success), along with generally holding little regard for motorsport unless they were guaranteed to win. Which would not be the case in ATL.

I'm far less sure a joint project with Bentley is a good idea. Even VP wearing similar styling is risking unfavorable comparison. Go after the XJ12, instead. (Not to mention the Bentley styling is a bit ponderous & pretty dull.)
Am essentially envisioning a scenario where Rolls-Royce sells the rights to the Jaguar Mark X-sized Burma/Korea to BMC. which the latter produces as a more modern-looking alternative in place of the Vanden Plas Princess 4-litre R with the Jaguar-like front and a more Pininfarina-style (along with a Vanden Plas equivalent of the OTL Jaguar Mark X-based Daimler DS420).

Basically this ATL Vanden Plas flagship pretty much appropriates the exterior styling of the Series II Jaguar XJ from the mid-1960s, leaving Jaguar in an interesting conundrum on how to style the ATL Jaguar XJ Series 1 (and Series 2).

However whether it is anymore successful compared to the OTL Vanden Plas Princess 4-litre R is another matter.
 
Last edited:
Fascinating Rolls Royce prototypes there and not ones I've seen on aronline. It makes me think that a Rolls/BMC tie up would have worked very well in ATL.

The fwd/rwd distinction between Austin and Morris has been mentioned several times as being something to set the two marques apart, a la Peugeot and Citroen in an ATL 1970s, before they converge on fwd in the 80s/90s. I wonder if the larger Austins and Morrises would both be rwd up until the late 80s before making the shift to fwd, rather like Ford moving to fwd when Sierra was replaced by Mondeo. This would allow ATL Vanden Plas to establish itself as a luxury car player by sharing platforms with the larger rwd BMC cars during the 70s and 80s before shifting to some new ATL rwd platform shared with ATL Rolls/Bentley/MG.
 
It makes me think that a Rolls/BMC tie up would have worked very well in ATL.
Jaguar XJ precursor styling for Vanden Plas aside it is doubtful a tie-up between BMC and Rolls-Royce/Bentley would work beyond a brief joint-project, which combined with a 4-litre Rolls-Royce powered Austin-Healey 4000 appearing in the early/mid-1960s at least provides Rolls-Royce with some much needed capital at minimum to better resist its early-1970s bankruptcy (and thus allow the Brico fuel-injection system to be brought to production).

Rover is more valuable to BMC due to the success of the Land Rover and Rover P6, together with its acquisition of the Rover V8 (and ATL acqusition of the Buick V6). Its cars, powertrains and upcoming projects better mesh with what BMC were up to, unlike Rolls-Royce whose Burma/Korea platform as well as its 4-litre inline-6 and 6.25-litre V8 engines could not really be utilized outside of Vanden Plas (compared to the versatile Rover V8).

The fwd/rwd distinction between Austin and Morris has been mentioned several times as being something to set the two marques apart, a la Peugeot and Citroen in an ATL 1970s, before they converge on fwd in the 80s/90s. I wonder if the larger Austins and Morrises would both be rwd up until the late 80s before making the shift to fwd, rather like Ford moving to fwd when Sierra was replaced by Mondeo. This would allow ATL Vanden Plas to establish itself as a luxury car player by sharing platforms with the larger rwd BMC cars during the 70s and 80s before shifting to some new ATL rwd platform shared with ATL Rolls/Bentley/MG.
Austin in ATL would readily embrace FWD for its larger cars (the Austin 3-litre would be butterflied away), gradually followed by Morris switching from RWD to FWD beginning in the 1970s with smaller cars and progressing upwards til the process is complete by around the mid/late 1980s (akin to how the OTL Rover SD1 was replaced with the Honda Legend-derived Rover 800).

Cannot see ATL Vanden Plas's low-volume flagship cars being a suitable alternative to Rover under BMC in this scenario let alone be able to be easily twinned with MG or be anymore of a sales success than it was in OTL.
 
Last edited:
Jaguar XJ precursor styling for Vanden Plas aside it is doubtful a tie-up between BMC and Rolls-Royce/Bentley would work beyond a brief joint-project, which combined with a 4-litre Rolls-Royce powered Austin-Healey 4000 appearing in the early/mid-1960s at least provides Rolls-Royce with some much needed capital at minimum to better resist its early-1970s bankruptcy (and thus allow the Brico fuel-injection system to be brought to production).

Rover is more valuable to BMC due to the success of the Land Rover and Rover P6, together with its acquisition of the Rover V8 (and ATL acqusition of the Buick V6). Its cars, powertrains and upcoming projects better mesh with what BMC were up to, unlike Rolls-Royce whose Burma/Korea platform as well as its 4-litre inline-6 and 6.25-litre V8 engines could not really be utilized outside of Vanden Plas (compared to the versatile Rover V8).



Austin in ATL would readily embrace FWD for its larger cars (the Austin 3-litre would be butterflied away), gradually followed by Morris switching from RWD to FWD beginning in the 1970s with smaller cars and progressing upwards til the process is complete by around the mid/late 1980s (akin to how the OTL Rover SD1 was replaced with the Honda Legend-derived Rover 800).

Cannot see ATL Vanden Plas's low-volume flagship cars being a suitable alternative to Rover under BMC in this scenario let alone be able to be easily twinned with MG or be anymore of a sales success than it was in OTL.
Well if Rover is going to be part of this ATL BMC equation, then yes - I think the idea of Vanden Plas as any kind of low volume specialist operation goes straight out of the window. It would be a pointless distraction as a separate marque when you would want all of the corporate energy to go into pushing Rover into Mercedes territory and MG into taking on BMW and a successful ATL Triumph; VP would be better used as it was OTL as a posh variant with a bit of extra walnut, leather and chrome (I'm guessing it might suit the Morris range more, as Morris would be the more mainstream of the two volume marques). It would be BMC's Vignale equivalent, just as Cooper would be the equivalent of Cosworth or Abarth.

That said, I do think that Rolls Royce/Bentley would still work well as the range toppers of a combined BMC-Rover operation. By the 21st century, I can imagine Bentley using ATL Rover mechanicals, rather like OTL Bentley makes use of Audi/Porsche bits and pieces, while perhaps Rolls Royce would remain aloof from the BMC parts bin, just as OTL Rollers use the bespoke 'Architecture of Luxury'.
 
I wonder what logos Austin and Morris would adopt ATL? Perhaps a version of the old Mini logo would be suitable for Austin as it was derived from Austin in the first place:
1592843659411.png

And then a version of the BMW MINI winged roundel for Morris, as does seem to be derived from the original Morris logo.
 
Well if Rover is going to be part of this ATL BMC equation, then yes - I think the idea of Vanden Plas as any kind of low volume specialist operation goes straight out of the window. It would be a pointless distraction as a separate marque when you would want all of the corporate energy to go into pushing Rover into Mercedes territory and MG into taking on BMW and a successful ATL Triumph; VP would be better used as it was OTL as a posh variant with a bit of extra walnut, leather and chrome (I'm guessing it might suit the Morris range more, as Morris would be the more mainstream of the two volume marques). It would be BMC's Vignale equivalent, just as Cooper would be the equivalent of Cosworth or Abarth.
Agreed, Vanden Plas would be better off reserved for Austin and Morris as ATL BMC's in-house equivalent of Radford and Wood & Pickett, with pre-set (e.g. Riley/Wolseley succeeding) and cost-no-object / experimental bespoke variants. The Burma/Korea-based and other bitza Vanden Plas flagships proposals are exercises for where Vanden Plas could go if BMC were unable to resist the temptation of developing a more unique model, yet cannot see it amounting to anything.

Chronologically speaking however, an ATL Jaguar XJ-styled Bentley Burma/Korea-derived flagship Vanden Plas in place of the OTL Vanden Plas Princess 4-litre R could have potentially appeared a few years prior to BMC acquiring Rover, which could mean the early/mid-60s ATL Vanden Plas flagship like the late-60s OTL Austin 3-litre has a very short production run at most probably being discontinued around the same time as the Rover P5 in the early-70s prior to both being replaced by the Rover P8.
 
Last edited:
I wonder what logos Austin and Morris would adopt ATL? Perhaps a version of the old Mini logo would be suitable for Austin as it was derived from Austin in the first place:
View attachment 559339
And then a version of the BMW MINI winged roundel for Morris, as does seem to be derived from the original Morris logo.
Cannot say regarding logos, it is possible it goes in such a direction in ATL.
 
It was the Leyland people at BL under Donald Stokes in OTL who put largely put a stop to works-backed Minis in motorsport viewing the Mini as a spent force (compared to the Ford Escort RS2000 despite the Mini's later BTCC success), along with generally holding little regard for motorsport unless they were guaranteed to win. Which would not be the case in ATL.
If I'm anywhere near a TL like this one, there'd be convenient accidents wherever I needed to prevent the race program being dropped.;) I'd also look seriously at how hard it would be to persuade Sterling & Graham & maybe Masten Gregory & such to take an occasional ride with a side number.;) (*looks it up* Too late for a new course record in the Mille Miglia.:teary: Thought so.)
Am essentially envisioning a scenario where Rolls-Royce sells the rights to the Jaguar Mark X-sized Burma/Korea to BMC. which the latter produces as a more modern-looking alternative in place of the Vanden Plas Princess 4-litre R with the Jaguar-like front and a more Pininfarina-style (along with a Vanden Plas equivalent of the OTL Jaguar Mark X-based Daimler DS420).

Basically this ATL Vanden Plas flagship pretty much appropriates the exterior styling of the Series II Jaguar XJ from the mid-1960s, leaving Jaguar in an interesting conundrum on how to style the ATL Jaguar XJ Series 1 (and Series 2).

However whether it is anymore successful compared to the OTL Vanden Plas Princess 4-litre R is another matter.
Bentley does all the engineering, & all BMC has to do is skin it & build it? That sounds like a gimme from Bentley, too good to be true; what do they get?

More important, what's the hazard of Rolls/Bentley building a clone of their own & wiping out the BMC model? Unless not doing it is a condition of the deal... (Or unless Rolls is too broke to, which is why they're offering BMC such a plum.)

You're absolutely right, that leaves Jag in an extremely tight spot.;) Personally, I'd go with something a bit more aggressive, like about a '67 Ferrari 330GTC or Mistral. (The Montreal, frex, is a bit too conservative, & that's gonna get you a beatdown.) Maybe that's too late, tho, & I really dislike the 365's styling (no matter what Brock Yates says:openedeyewink: ).
 
Bentley does all the engineering, & all BMC has to do is skin it & build it? That sounds like a gimme from Bentley, too good to be true; what do they get?

More important, what's the hazard of Rolls/Bentley building a clone of their own & wiping out the BMC model? Unless not doing it is a condition of the deal... (Or unless Rolls is too broke to, which is why they're offering BMC such a plum.)
That is pretty much what the OTL ADO58 Burma-based coupe final joint-project between BMC and Rolls-Royce was, only envision the saloon also being available in ATL in place of the Vanden Plas Princess 4-litre R (and though unlikely possibly using the OTL Austin 3-litre's hydrolastic suspension that was originally planned for the ADO53-based Bentley Java 2 prototype as well as a few early/mid-1960s Pininfarina styling touches for the rest of the body).

The board at Rolls-Royce in OTL apparently approved the short-lived collaboration with BMC on the basis it signaled using idle capacity at Crewe as well as potentially giving the company a smaller luxury model. However the 4-litre inline-6 initially experienced some teething problems in the Vanden Plas Princess 4-litre R, which together with the fact the engine was unfairly maligned as being a military engine (descended from a family of military engines ranging from a 4-cylinder used in the Austin Champ to a straight-8 used in the Alvis Stalwart) by the time the teething issues were resolved and the fact the car itself was a white elephant derived from the Austin Westminster A110 with overambitious sales targets by George Harriman* meant the car never recovered.

*- Sales had been expected to exceed 100 cars a week (or over 5200 cars annually), but such figures were not realized and production was down to 200 cars a year by 1967.

Additionally unbeknown to both BMC and the Healeys, Rolls-Royce in OTL had suspected BMC would not be taking its full allocation of engines nor saw ADO30 amounting to anything and decided to get rid of a lot of tooling for the engine by the time the Healeys were developing the Austin-Healey 4000 prototype (ADO24) in the mid/late-1960s. So Rolls-Royce wasn’t really in a position to start immediate production of the engine as certain critical castings weren’t available (the fact BMC were in financial trouble and ADO24 was seen a potential in-house rival to the Jaguar E-Type meant the project never went anywhere).

In ATL an early/mid-1960s version of the Austin-Healey 4000 ADO24 would have easily allowed BMC to take its full allocation of the 160-175 hp 4-litre 6-cylinder (together with spawning a 200-268+ hp near 300 hp 4-litre G60 Twin-Cam variant), followed by a Jaguar XJ Series 2-inspired Vanden Plas version of ATL ADO58 (aka Bentley Burma/Korea) that theoretically opens up the possibility of Bentley and Rolls-Royce versions though they would probably balk at taking that risk beyond benefiting financially from the collaboration with BMC (that in turn allows them to survive bankruptcy as well as be in a position to consider independently developing a smaller Silver Shadow / T- Series based model from the late-60s to early/mid-70s).

Though the Jaguar XJ Series 2-like styling of the ATL Vanden Plas ADO58 saloon and coupe would appear to be a selling point (however envision single headlights like the Vanden Plas 2200 prototype and Lancia Gamma Trevi prototype instead of outright Jaguar-like twin-headlights), its Jaguar Mark 10-like size along with the growing success of smaller luxury cars like the Rover P6 and Triumph 2000/2500 would have likely not prevented the ATL Vanden Plas ADO58 from still being a bit of a white elephant (albeit potentially a very attractive one with a styling theme to last the next few decades).

You're absolutely right, that leaves Jag in an extremely tight spot.;) Personally, I'd go with something a bit more aggressive, like about a '67 Ferrari 330GTC or Mistral. (The Montreal, frex, is a bit too conservative, & that's gonna get you a beatdown.) Maybe that's too late, tho, & I really dislike the 365's styling (no matter what Brock Yates says:openedeyewink: ).
Nick Hull's Jaguar Design - A Story of Style book along with the XJ40 and XJ-S prototypes (together with the tuned Lister-Jaguar XJ and Arden XJ) does give some idea as to how Jaguar could get itself out of such a tight spot via a sleek more modernized and aggressive form of its OTL styling theme for the ATL Jaguar XJ Series 2 and beyond.
 
Last edited:
That is pretty much what the OTL ADO58 Burma-based coupe final joint-project between BMC and Rolls-Royce was, only envision the saloon also being available in ATL in place of the Vanden Plas Princess 4-litre R (and though unlikely possibly using the OTL Austin 3-litre's hydrolastic suspension that was originally planned for the ADO53-based Bentley Java 2 prototype as well as a few early/mid-1960s Pininfarina styling touches for the rest of the body).

The board at Rolls-Royce in OTL apparently approved the short-lived collaboration with BMC on the basis it signaled using idle capacity at Crewe as well as potentially giving the company a smaller luxury model.
By no means expert on Rolls/Bentley history, but IIRC, Rolls built an entry-level model (Silver Shadow?) that proved so successful, it undermined the exclusivity of the marque & helped drive them into bankruptcy. :eek::eek: I see this idea making that worse.:eek::eek:
Rolls-Royce in OTL had suspected BMC would not be taking its full allocation of engines nor saw ADO30 amounting to anything and decided to get rid of a lot of tooling for the engine by the time the Healeys were developing the Austin-Healey 4000 prototype (ADO24) in the mid/late-1960s. So Rolls-Royce wasn’t really in a position to start immediate production of the engine as certain critical castings weren’t available (the fact BMC were in financial trouble and ADO24 was seen a potential in-house rival to the Jaguar E-Type meant the project never went anywhere).

In ATL an early/mid-1960s version of the Austin-Healey 4000 ADO24 would have easily allowed BMC to take its full allocation of the 160-175 hp 4-litre 6-cylinder (together with spawning a 200-268+ hp near 300 hp 4-litre G60 Twin-Cam variant), followed by a Jaguar XJ Series 2-inspired Vanden Plas version of ATL ADO58 (aka Bentley Burma/Korea) that theoretically opens up the possibility of Bentley and Rolls-Royce versions though they would probably balk at taking that risk beyond benefiting financially from the collaboration with BMC (that in turn allows them to survive bankruptcy as well as be in a position to consider independently developing a smaller Silver Shadow / T- Series based model from the late-60s to early/mid-70s).
That idea in mind, let me counterpropose: BMC gets a Rolls-built alloy inline TC six, which goes into the MGB/C/D, Healey, Princess, *Marina, *P76, & other BMC big cars. That gives Rolls some free money & use of their production capacity, & gives BMC a tap into the "Bentley Boys" & their smart engine builders.
Though the Jaguar XJ Series 2-like styling of the ATL Vanden Plas ADO58 saloon and coupe would appear to be a selling point (however envision single headlights like the Vanden Plas 2200 prototype and Lancia Gamma Trevi prototype instead of outright Jaguar-like twin-headlights), its Jaguar Mark 10-like size along with the growing success of smaller luxury cars like the Rover P6 and Triumph 2000/2500 would have likely not prevented the ATL Vanden Plas ADO58 from still being a bit of a white elephant (albeit potentially a very attractive one with a styling theme to last the next few decades).
I'd agree with the last part; the styling would be so dull, nobody would much notice. I'd say it would be a real blow to sales: a Bentley or Rolls might get away with that, given extremely conservative customers; I don't see VP customers wanting it.
Nick Hull's Jaguar Design - A Story of Style book along with the XJ40 and XJ-S prototypes (together with the tuned Lister-Jaguar XJ and Arden XJ) does give some idea as to how Jaguar could get itself out of such a tight spot via a sleek more modernized and aggressive form of its OTL styling theme for the ATL Jaguar XJ Series 2 and beyond.
Something like the XJ21 or XJ27 (with the DKV plate) would look like really good options. (Were I Jag, I'd build the XJ21 as an option for the XJ6/12; XJ6, certainly.) Of the XJ40 options, any of the 9/73-5/74 options look really good, without being too Jag-like.
 
By no means expert on Rolls/Bentley history, but IIRC, Rolls built an entry-level model (Silver Shadow?) that proved so successful, it undermined the exclusivity of the marque & helped drive them into bankruptcy. :eek::eek: I see this idea making that worse.:eek::eek:
Do not recall an automotive model undermining the exclusivity of the marque and driving it into bankruptcy, rather it seems to be down to the RB‐211 engine for the Lockheed L1011 Tristar jumbo jet.

Finding a way of butterflying away the issues of the above, together with Rolls-Royce selling Burma/Korea to BMC for a low-volume Vanden Plas flagship as well as proving the 4-litre 6-cylinder for the Austin-Healey 4000 (ADO24) and playing a role in bringing Brico fuel-injection system into production would place it in a decent position to consider an in-house independently build smaller model for the 1970s akin to the later 1982 Rolls-Royce SX Proposal (apparnely conceived in the context of meeting US emissions / fuel economy targets of the period via smaller dimensions, etc) and (BMW E34-based) 1994 Bentley Java concept.

That idea in mind, let me counterpropose: BMC gets a Rolls-built alloy inline TC six, which goes into the MGB/C/D, Healey, Princess, *Marina, *P76, & other BMC big cars. That gives Rolls some free money & use of their production capacity, & gives BMC a tap into the "Bentley Boys" & their smart engine builders.
There are doubts as to whether the 4-litre 6-cylinder could fit into the likes of the ATL Marina and ATL equivalent of the P76, the Austin-Healey 4000 prototype required an extra 6-inches in width with the Austin Westminster A110-based Vanden Plas Princess 4-litre requiring a further slightly increase in width to fit the engine. It does seem likely the Austin 3-litre derived Rolls-Royce / Bentley proposals were able to easily fit the 4-litre 6-cylinder, yet they would probably be butterflied away if Burma/Korea is sold to BMC if not used as a slightly smaller Vanden Plas model below the Burma/Korea-derived model.

I'd agree with the last part; the styling would be so dull, nobody would much notice. I'd say it would be a real blow to sales: a Bentley or Rolls might get away with that, given extremely conservative customers; I don't see VP customers wanting it.
A single-headlight version of the ATL Burma/Korea-based Vanden Plas flagship with XJ Series 2-like front-end would pretty much a resemble a single-headlight version of the Jaguar XJ40 with a OTL Vanden Plas 2200 prototype-type front-grille (making it resemble an ATL mid-1960s precursor to the OTL 1993 LWB Jaguar XJ40 Vanden Plas Majestic), which would not be considered too dull given the non-sporting pretensions of Vanden Plas though still a bit of a white elephant (with the Austin-Healey 4000 ADO24 being much more of a success yet both still providing Rolls-Royce with cash to consider a smaller model or an earlier introduction of the OTL 1980 Rolls-Royce Silver Spirit / Bentley Mulsanne).

1592970860866.jpeg

1592970877552.jpeg


Something like the XJ21 or XJ27 (with the DKV plate) would look like really good options. (Were I Jag, I'd build the XJ21 as an option for the XJ6/12; XJ6, certainly.) Of the XJ40 options, any of the 9/73-5/74 options look really good, without being too Jag-like.
Agree on ATL Jaguar (under Leyland Motors) embracing more XJ27 and early/mid-1970s XJ40 styling themes for the XJ Series 2. The direct E-Type replacing XJ21 prototype would be its own thing in the event it reaches production.
 
Last edited:
Do not recall an automotive model undermining the exclusivity of the marque and driving it into bankruptcy, rather it seems to be down to the RB‐211 engine for the Lockheed L1011 Tristar jumbo jet.
No, not the sole cause, but helped cheapen the brand enough to hurt the company. Not doing it probably still doesn't save them, given the RB-211.
Finding a way of butterflying away the issues of the above, together with Rolls-Royce selling Burma/Korea to BMC for a low-volume Vanden Plas flagship as well as proving the 4-litre 6-cylinder for the Austin-Healey 4000 (ADO24) and playing a role in bringing Brico fuel-injection system into production would place it in a decent position to consider an in-house independently build smaller model for the 1970s akin to the later 1982 Rolls-Royce SX Proposal (apparnely conceived in the context of meeting US emissions / fuel economy targets of the period via smaller dimensions, etc) and (BMW E34-based) 1994 Bentley Java concept.
I'd be fine with that.
There are doubts as to whether the 4-litre 6-cylinder could fit into the likes of the ATL Marina and ATL equivalent of the P76, the Austin-Healey 4000 prototype required an extra 6-inches in width with the Austin Westminster A110-based Vanden Plas Princess 4-litre requiring a further slightly increase in width to fit the engine. It does seem likely the Austin 3-litre derived Rolls-Royce / Bentley proposals were able to easily fit the 4-litre 6-cylinder, yet they would probably be butterflied away if Burma/Korea is sold to BMC if not used as a slightly smaller Vanden Plas model below the Burma/Korea-derived model.
That makes sense. I was just throwing out possible users. :)
A single-headlight version of the ATL Burma/Korea-based Vanden Plas flagship with XJ Series 2-like front-end would pretty much a resemble a single-headlight version of the Jaguar XJ40 with a OTL Vanden Plas 2200 prototype-type front-grille, which would not be considered too dull given the non-sporting pretensions of Vanden Plas though still a bit of a white elephant (with the Austin-Healey 4000 ADO24 being much more of a success yet both still providing Rolls-Royce with cash to consider a smaller model or an earlier introduction of the OTL 1980 Rolls-Royce Silver Spirit / Bentley Mulsanne).
I'm not a fan of either single-headlight variant (nor any of the ones I've seen from that period). They just don't seem to work. (That said, the M94 version is the more attractive.)
Agree on ATL Jaguar (under Leyland Motors) embracing more XJ27 and early/mid-1970s XJ40 styling themes for the XJ Series 2. The direct E-Type replacing XJ21 prototype would be its own thing in the event it reaches production.
I imagined the XJ21 as a more family-friendly, maybe entry level & smaller, model, with the E-type being replaced by something akin to OTL's F-type, but a lot sooner, so as to keep Jag in that market.
 
No, not the sole cause, but helped cheapen the brand enough to hurt the company. Not doing it probably still doesn't save them, given the RB-211.
It is just AFAIK there was no entry-level Rolls-Royce / Bentley below the Silver Shadow / T-Series around in OTL that tarnished the marque and contributed towards its bankruptcy or are you referring to the prospect of the company developing a smaller Rolls-Royce / Bentley model during its brief collaboration with BMC?

I'm not a fan of either single-headlight variant (nor any of the ones I've seen from that period). They just don't seem to work. (That said, the M94 version is the more attractive.)
Understand, just that ATL Vanden Plas would probably embrace a more conservative variation of the Korea styling theme that to be fair would still be more modern compared to OTL

I imagined the XJ21 as a more family-friendly, maybe entry level & smaller, model, with the E-type being replaced by something akin to OTL's F-type, but a lot sooner, so as to keep Jag in that market.
.XJ21 was conceived to be a direct E-Type successor however, though could see it being replaced by a tidied up version of the OTL Pininfarina styled 1978 Jaguar XJ-Spider that was considered to be the true precusor to the Jaguar F-Type and the inspiration behind the Jaguar XJ41/XJ42 project (which became the Aston-Martin DB7 / Jaguar XK8).
 
Last edited:
It is just AFAIK there was no entry-level Rolls-Royce / Bentley below the Silver Shadow / T-Series around in OTL that tarnished the marque and contributed towards its bankruptcy or are you referring to the prospect of the company developing a smaller Rolls-Royce / Bentley model during its brief collaboration with BMC?
I may be overstating with "contributing to bankruptcy" (tho I'd say it was a bad call in any event). I don't recall what the exact model was, except there was an effort by Rolls to broaden the base of their market & ended up with a marque that had lost its sense of exclusivity. What the model was, I no longer recall. And no, this isn't a notional collaboration; it's a real thing. (Sorry to be so unhelpful.)
Understand, just that ATL Vanden Plas would probably embrace a more conservative variation of the Korea styling theme that to be fair would still be more modern compared to OTL
I wouldn't oppose that. Somehow, I see Bentley (&/or Rolls) being the more conservative (or cautious) than VP.
.XJ21 was conceived to be a direct E-Type successor however, though could see it being replaced by a tidied up version of the OTL Pininfarina styled 1978 Jaguar XJ-Spider that was considered to be the true precusor to the Jaguar F-Type and the inspiration behind the Jaguar XJ41/XJ42 project (which became the Aston-Martin DB7 / Jaguar XK8).
Maybe it's the lines of the rear quarter shot. I picture that XJ21 as a 4dr or hatchback saloon. The XJ40, OTL, could be the F-type.
jaguar_xj41_prototype_3.jpg
This one or...
XJ41-3.jpg
this one.
 
Last edited:
I may be overstating with "contributing to bankruptcy" (tho I'd say it was a bad call in any event). I don't recall what the exact model was, except there was an effort by Rolls to broaden the base of their market & ended up with a marque that had lost its sense of exclusivity. What the model was, I no longer recall. And no, this isn't a notional collaboration; it's a real thing. (Sorry to be so unhelpful.)
Would still appreciate a source as can only find some vague mention of overproduction, yet given the saloon had a long production cycle of 15 years before being replaced in 1980 (other derivatives being produced until 1995 e.g. Corniche) that would appear to be more a consequence of Rolls-Royce's early-1970s bankruptcy and aftermath rather than a contributing factor. Otherwise a replacement would have probably appeared much sooner then it did in OTL. The same goes with the Jaguar XJ with the Series III remaining in production until 1992 (being produced alongside the XJ40 with the BL bankruptcy and protracted development programme not helping matters), not to mention the related XJS ceasing production in 1996 (if one does not count the modified XJS-derived XK6 / DB7).

I wouldn't oppose that. Somehow, I see Bentley (&/or Rolls) being the more conservative (or cautious) than VP.
It is expected that Vanden Plas would be ambitious, from our perspective what would be considered modern and conservative would be considered revolutionary in the mid-1960s. At the same time the ATL XJ Series 2-like Vanden Plas flagship would not be completely out of place during this period in terms of exterior styling compared to say the NSU Ro80.

Maybe it's the lines of the rear quarter shot. I picture that XJ21 as a 4dr or hatchback saloon. The XJ40, OTL, could be the F-type.
jaguar_xj41_prototype_3.jpg
This one or...
XJ41-3.jpg
XJ21 was apparently to be derived from the E-Type platform instead of the XJ platform as was the case with the later XJ27 / XJS.

It appears prior to the Flying Buttresses, consideration was in fact given to the XJS featuring a Jensen Interceptor-like glassy fastback / hatchback coupe rear that was developed in parallel prior to the former winning out against the latter (via James Taylor's book on the Jaguar XJS).

It is debatable however whether a 5-door fastback hatchback bodystyle would have made the Jaguar SJ a success in the segment that was more comfortable with regular three-box saloons, a 3-door fastback hatchback bodystyle might have worked much better on the XJS in ATL if the aftermarket conversion below is anything to go by.

1593048222288.jpeg

1593048239152.jpeg

1593048994226.jpeg
 
Last edited:
Would still appreciate a source as can only find some vague mention of overproduction
I would give you one if I could recall. Best I can do is say, I seem to recall it was a TV doc (as unreliable as that's likely to be...).
Otherwise a replacement would have probably appeared much sooner then it did in OTL.
That I don't doubt.
The same goes with the Jaguar XJ with the Series III remaining in production until 1992 (being produced alongside the XJ40 with the BL bankruptcy and protracted development programme not helping matters), not to mention the related XJS ceasing production in 1996 (if one does not count the modified XJS-derived XK6 / DB7).
Judging by how crazy things were in British labor-management relations, I marvel Jag produced as many cars as they did & avoided bankruptcy so long. :eek::eek:
It is expected that Vanden Plas would be ambitious, from our perspective what would be considered modern and conservative would be considered revolutionary in the mid-1960s. At the same time the ATL XJ Series 2-like Vanden Plas flagship would not be completely out of place during this period in terms of exterior styling compared to say the NSU Ro80.
Oh, I understand, our POV is different. I'm thinking of the corporate culture: I don't see VP being adventurous.
XJ21 was apparently to be derived from the E-Type platform instead of the XJ platform as was the case with the later XJ27 / XJS.

It appears prior to the Flying Buttresses, consideration was in fact given to the XJS featuring a Jensen Interceptor-like glassy fastback / hatchback coupe rear that was developed in parallel prior to the former winning out against the latter (via James Taylor's book on the Jaguar XJS).
I'm less concerned about the platform than the styling, in this instance.
It is debatable however whether a 5-door fastback hatchback bodystyle would have made the Jaguar SJ a success in the segment that was more comfortable with regular three-box saloons, a 3-door fastback hatchback bodystyle might have worked much better on the XJS in ATL if the aftermarket conversion below is anything to go by.

View attachment 559994
View attachment 559995
View attachment 560000
I wouldn't demand a fastback or hatch; I just meant, rather than a 2dr.

I do like the idea of a hatchback XJS.:cool:
 
Oh, I understand, our POV is different. I'm thinking of the corporate culture: I don't see VP being adventurous.
Roughly envision the ATL 1960s Vanden Plas range evolving as follows prior to BMC acquiring Rover:

Vanden Plas Sheerline 4-litre - Essentially an XJ Series 2-like variation of ADO58 aka Burma/Korea that appeared in 1965 (with coupe version possibly reviving the Atlantic name) and was powered by a 200-268 hp 4-litre 6-cylinder Twin-Cam.

Vanden Plas Pathfinder 3000 - Best described as a Vanden Plas version of the Austin 3-litre ADO61 that appeared in around 1963 and benefited from a probably developed 3-litre 6-cylinder putting out around 150-175 hp.

Vanden Plas Princess 2000 / 2500 - An earlier alternate production version of the X6-based Vanden Plas 1800 prototype, powered by a 112-115 hp 2-litre B-OHC and a 134-138 hp 2.5-litre E-Series 6-cylinder engine.

Vanden Plas Kestrel 1600 - Resembling an ADO16 aka 1100/1300-sized three-box version of the Vanden Plas 1800 prototype (many years prior to the OTL Michelotti styled Austin Apache / Victoria), it was powered by an 80-90+ hp 1.6-litre engine.

Vanden Plas Newmarket 1300 - A further downsized Mini-derived 2/4-door three-box variation of the Vanden Plas 1800 prototype (with similar styling elements the Mini-derived MG ADO34 prototype that replaces the OTL Wolseley Hornet/Riley Elf), it was powered by a 59-70+ hp 1.3-litre engine.

I'm less concerned about the platform than the styling, in this instance.
The XJ21's styling does not appear to translate well on the XJ platform.

I do like the idea of a hatchback XJS.:cool:
Indeed, it is pretty well executed.
 
Roughly envision the ATL 1960s Vanden Plas range evolving as follows prior to BMC acquiring Rover:

Vanden Plas Sheerline 4-litre - Essentially an XJ Series 2-like variation of ADO58 aka Burma/Korea that appeared in 1965 (with coupe version possibly reviving the Atlantic name) and was powered by a 200-268 hp 4-litre 6-cylinder Twin-Cam.

Vanden Plas Pathfinder 3000 - Best described as a Vanden Plas version of the Austin 3-litre ADO61 that appeared in around 1963 and benefited from a probably developed 3-litre 6-cylinder putting out around 150-175 hp.

Vanden Plas Princess 2000 / 2500 - An earlier alternate production version of the X6-based Vanden Plas 1800 prototype, powered by a 112-115 hp 2-litre B-OHC and a 134-138 hp 2.5-litre E-Series 6-cylinder engine.

Vanden Plas Kestrel 1600 - Resembling an ADO16 aka 1100/1300-sized three-box version of the Vanden Plas 1800 prototype (many years prior to the OTL Michelotti styled Austin Apache / Victoria), it was powered by an 80-90+ hp 1.6-litre engine.

Vanden Plas Newmarket 1300 - A further downsized Mini-derived 2/4-door three-box variation of the Vanden Plas 1800 prototype (with similar styling elements the Mini-derived MG ADO34 prototype that replaces the OTL Wolseley Hornet/Riley Elf), it was powered by a 59-70+ hp 1.3-litre engine.
Works for me.
The XJ21's styling does not appear to translate well on the XJ platform.
:teary:
 
Top