BMC no-merger sanity options?

[Masked Grizzly]

had the OTL quality issues in mind, actually, plus the North American hostility to diesel generally, which led to a lot of Olds diesels being engine-swapped.

Thinking about it a bit more, a better diesel, especially with European influence & tech, might just mean there are actually more Olds diesels around. (Yes, the hot rodder in me is unrestrained. ) Thus, diesels with the kind of performance you're suggesting would be good for GM, & good for rodders (& customizers).

As far as European influence is concerned, North American could look to an ATL production version of the 3750cc Vauxhall V8 diesel engine (aka Vauxhall-Opel / GM Europe V8) since the equivalent 1875cc Slant-Four diesel prototype engine of early-1966 put out 62 hp and 100lb-ft torque. - http://www.vauxpedia.net/vauxhall---the-slant-4-engine

IMO, the Cortina is a bit bigger than it needs to be if it's going to the the alt-Pinto (& so alt-Mustang II?); I continue to think smaller is better, here. (The idea of the Vega being bigger than the 'vette seems really odd, to me.) If you're after an executive model, there's always the Consul to base it on.

Would disagree as while the following would not quite apply to North America at least in Europe the mk3 Cortina correctly anticipated the growth in the D Segment, besides it is nothing that cannot be remedied with a reduction in wheelbase and length for a SWB variant with the existing mk3-mk5 Cortina dimensions of the related Ford Germany built fastback Ford Taunus GT Coupe forming the starting point of a North American version of the Ford Capri. While the Maverick and ATL Maverick-based Mustang II would remain in production until 1977 where it would be replaced by the European mk2 Ford Granada and ATL Granada-based Mustang III.

I do hope the V12 would appear in time for the Eldo; OE V12s in a U.S. maker... Cad sales might take a hit in the oil crisis; GM could carry them...

Looking at late-60s to early-70s timetable at best.

Works for me. My concern with the 32v (presuming a 90deg V8) is width, for a longitudinal fit; a transverse, like the Allante (or notional *Corsetta), has less of an issue that way.

It is possible there would be scope in the design for transverse applications, however largely see the engine being used mainly in RWD models.

Agreed. I would, however, suggest it earlier, say the Ascona B (in essence, first-year T-car).

Envision the ATL 60-degree V6 being used in the Vauxhall version of the ATL Ascona A and carried over to the Ascona B prior to the (FWD/4WD) Ascona C / J-Car.

2cyl flat under the floor? Here I thought Mazda came up with that for the MPV... (Hint to Chrysler: slant 6, RWD... )

It is basically a variation of the idea from the Jalopnik from a while back for the Volkswagen Beetle to feature the Type 3 Pancake engine to allow the rear enough space to create a rear-engined hatchback.

Essentially it would be the rear-engined hatchback equivalent of the Innocenti A40 Combinata hatchback.

 

[Masked Grizzly]

Here's my two penny's worth post 1970, as I'm wondering if the Tory Gov't would want to expand the tie-ups considering the success of the Honda based Triumph Acclaim.

Austin goes on to produce their Metro, Maestro & Montego as in OTL.

Triumph tie up with Honda as in OTL, but more widespread with their range and continuing past 1982. Rover badged Honda's produced as Triumph's.

Morris tie up with Nissan (Datsun) in 1980, producing a range of Nissan based cars.

Rover tie up with BMW in 1980, a full range of BMW based Rovers produced based on the 3, 5 & 7 series.

Wolsley in OTL become defunct in 1975. Instead they tie up with Audi to produce a range of Audi 80, 100 etc based models

MG in tie up with Alfa Romeo to produce Alfa based family cars carrying the MG badge. The Alfa 'Sud' based hatch back is a big seller in the UK market.

Much obliged!

Afraid this thread is focusing on sanity option scenarios for BMC where it survives (and matters relating to this TL) as opposed to British Leyland, which upon its formation was beyond salvageable.

Additionally the marques themselves were NOT independent within British Leyland, so short of being independent carmakers beforehand (via a pre-war POD) why would they opt for individual tie-ups with other carmakers with no commonality nor consideration for cost?

Even Honda sought to reduce its ties with Rover upon BMW acquiring the latter in OTL

 

[phx1138]

As far as European influence is concerned, North American could look to an ATL production version of the 3750cc Vauxhall V8 diesel engine (aka Vauxhall-Opel / GM Europe V8) since the equivalent 1875cc Slant-Four diesel prototype engine of early-1966 put out 62 hp and 100lb-ft torque.

I'm honestly less concerned about how (& that OTL GM didn't use the Vauxhall is a dumb one ) than with the results.

Would disagree as while the following would not quite apply to North America at least in Europe the mk3 Cortina correctly anticipated the growth in the D Segment, besides it is nothing that cannot be remedied with a reduction in wheelbase and length for a SWB variant with the existing mk3-mk5 Cortina dimensions of the related Ford Germany built fastback Ford Taunus GT Coupe forming the starting point of a North American version of the Ford Capri. While the Maverick and ATL Maverick-based Mustang II would remain in production until 1977 where it would be replaced by the European mk2 Ford Granada and ATL Granada-based Mustang III.

I don't disagree with the Cortina (& derivatives) being the right size for that segment. I don't see the Mustang (or II, or Cougar), nor Vega (or Astre, another one that needs renaming ) in that segment. Maybe my pro-Mini bias is showing... What I want for the 'stang II & Vega is something nearer a Shelby Anglia than a Thunderbird.

Looking at late-60s to early-70s timetable at best.

That looks about right. Which, unfortunately, is about exactly the wrong time for it if there is a fuel crisis... How's GM's nerve TTL? Introduce it in '72 & carry it through 3-4yr weak sales? (Not quite Edsel, but...)

It is possible there would be scope in the design for transverse applications, however largely see the engine being used mainly in RWD models.

Yeah, I'd imagine mostly RWD too. I'm just thinking, the transverse 5.3 & longitudinal 5.3 aren't internally that different: both SBC. So, change the front cover & accessory drives, & the trans fit.

Envision the ATL 60-degree V6 being used in the Vauxhall version of the ATL Ascona A and carried over to the Ascona B prior to the (FWD/4WD) Ascona C / J-Car.

I have no problem with that.

I was thinking, tho, go with the bigger-capacity 90deg V6 in the J-, F-, & T-bodies & get the lower hoodline (& for the lighter weight of the alloy engine).

It is basically a variation of the idea from the Jalopnik from a while back for the Volkswagen Beetle to feature the Type 3 Pancake engine to allow the rear enough space to create a rear-engined hatchback.

Essentially it would be the rear-engined hatchback equivalent of the Innocenti A40 Combinata hatchback.

Yeah, I got that. If it worked for the Type 2, why not here?

 

[Masked Grizzly]

I don't disagree with the Cortina (& derivatives) being the right size for that segment. I don't see the Mustang (or II, or Cougar), nor Vega (or Astre, another one that needs renaming ) in that segment. Maybe my pro-Mini bias is showing... What I want for the 'stang II & Vega is something nearer a Shelby Anglia than a Thunderbird.

If by Shelby Anglia you have thinking in terms of an mk1 Escort Coupe then it is doubtful the latter would be able to be fitted with V6 and V8 engines as it would have already been considered by the likes of Basil Green Motors.

The closest thing would be the Vauxhall Viva HC-based limited-run South African Chevrolet Firenza Can-Am V8 that used the same 302 V8 as the 1969 Chevrolet Camaro Z/28, with the Vauxhall Viva HC being of similar dimensions to the Opel Ascona A (the latter being slightly longer with the former being slightly wider and having a longer wheelbase).

That looks about right. Which, unfortunately, is about exactly the wrong time for it if there is a fuel crisis... How's GM's nerve TTL? Introduce it in '72 & carry it through 3-4yr weak sales? (Not quite Edsel, but...)

The ATL V12 should be able to survive the fuel crises like the OTL Jaguar V12, even more so given it would be part of a modular family of engines that Jaguar attempted to achieve on a smaller scale with its own V12 project.

I was thinking, tho, go with the bigger-capacity 90deg V6 in the J-, F-, & T-bodies & get the lower hoodline (& for the lighter weight of the alloy engine).

Would probably be the case in non-European markets.

Yeah, I got that. If it worked for the Type 2, why not here?

Would have to assume it was down to cost and lack of inclination, yet it did not stop the likes of SEAT or even Polski Fiat from looking at unique derivatives.

It seems Giannini also decidied to develop the Giannini 700/4C prototypes featuring a 42 hp 698cc 4-cylinder created from a pair of Fiat 500 Giardiniera engines, however while referring to the engine as a boxer it is not quite clear if it with regard to being a flat-mounted engine as in the Giardiniera or an actual boxer engine. - http://giannini.free.fr/sitegiannini/Page_31.html

 

[phx1138]

If by Shelby Anglia you have thinking in terms of an mk1 Escort Coupe then it is doubtful the latter would be able to be fitted with V6 and V8 engines as it would have already been considered by the likes of Basil Green Motors.

The closest thing would be the Vauxhall Viva HC-based limited-run South African Chevrolet Firenza Can-Am V8 that used the same 302 V8 as the 1969 Chevrolet Camaro Z/28, with the Vauxhall Viva HC being of similar dimensions to the Opel Ascona A (the latter being slightly longer with the former being slightly wider and having a longer wheelbase).

I would go with the HB Viva GT, or even an HA with the same styling. (That might be getting a bit small...) Given the POD, & GM having more European involvement, I'm going to presume a small-block V8 (or at least the 90deg V6) will fit--& in Europe, at least, the 262/283 V6 would be the GT. For the U.S., I'd make the 262 the base engine, with optional inline 4 (1200 & 1600, say) & V8 (305?).

The ATL V12 should be able to survive the fuel crises like the OTL Jaguar V12, even more so given it would be part of a modular family of engines that Jaguar attempted to achieve on a smaller scale with its own V12 project.

Would have to assume it was down to cost and lack of inclination, yet it did not stop the likes of SEAT or even Polski Fiat from looking at unique derivatives.

It seems Giannini also decidied to develop the Giannini 700/4C prototypes featuring a 42 hp 698cc 4-cylinder created from a pair of Fiat 500 Giardiniera engines, however while referring to the engine as a boxer it is not quite clear if it with regard to being a flat-mounted engine as in the Giardiniera or an actual boxer engine.

My guess would be lack of inclination. I get the sense VW did it because they weren't willing to completely re-engineer the Type 1 pan, & BMC didn't see the point.

 

[Masked Grizzly]

I would go with the HB Viva GT, or even an HA with the same styling. (That might be getting a bit small...) Given the POD, & GM having more European involvement, I'm going to presume a small-block V8 (or at least the 90deg V6) will fit--& in Europe, at least, the 262/283 V6 would be the GT. For the U.S., I'd make the 262 the base engine, with optional inline 4 (1200 & 1600, say) & V8 (305?).

V6 might be feasible with some North American version of the Viva HB with some work (as on the related Holden Torana), whereas a V6 and V8 would probably be more likely with an Opel Rekord C-based car in North America (via the GM V platform).

My guess would be lack of inclination. I get the sense VW did it because they weren't willing to completely re-engineer the Type 1 pan, & BMC didn't see the point.

BMC were not a fan of the layout, whereas Volkswagen rather indecisive when it came to further developing what they already had in mitigating the flaws of the rear-engined layout (and other aspects) to the point it almost brought down their company.

Returning back to BMC and how they could have approached things differently, think we can pretty much call it a wrap for this thread.

 

[phx1138]

think we can pretty much call it a wrap for this thread

I think we can.

 

[Dr Dee]

Thanks for a fascinating convo, chaps.

 

[Masked Grizzly]

Well in that case would stream lining the business earlier by eliminating a lot of the 'niche' model brands (Princess, Riley, Vanden Plas, Wolseley) and just go with Austin-Morris as most if not all these cars where badge engineered anyway thus leaving Jaguar as their premium brand.

Also eliminate Healey and put all their finance into MG sports cars, although they still might run into the same problems as in OTL regarding US regulations.

Much obliged!

By the time BMC and Leyland Motors merged to become British Leyland, the company was beyond salvageable even before its inevitable bankruptcy as many of the constituent marques and companies had already invested much time and money on their own future product plans prior to the merger, which created a perfect storm of internal chaos within the combine and much money invested gone down the drain as a result.

Rationalizing and properly differentiating the marques as was belatedly attempted under BL with Austin and Morris in OTL was something that should have been done under BMC from the mid/late 1950s, which amongst other things would have butterflied away both BMC's problems as well as the need to form anything like British Leyland to began with.

There is also the issue of how the individual marques like Jaguar and Rover became part of larger carmakers in OTL, in reality Jaguar should have gone to Leyland Motors as it was something William Lyons himself considered in his biography and would have secured the marque's place within the company as Jaguar and Lyons already had historical ties with Standard / Standard-Triumph going back to the pre-war period. Whereas Jaguar and Lyons at BMC and later British Leyland had a negative role in trying to maintain the marque's prestige and status within the company (at the expense of other marque's projects / etc) and make sure it was never diluted on grounds of cost.

With Rover likewise contemplating joining BMC instead of Leyland Motors where it overlapped too much with Triumph, since Rover's experimental department with the P8's anti-roll suspension bears similarities with Alex Moulton's Hydrolastic / Hydragas suspension systems and were open to using BMC mechanicals for Land Rovers in OTL.

 

[oliver123]

Austin and Morris merged in 1949, not 1952
The development of OTL Austin A30 begine in 1949，After the fail of merge.So,ther would be no A30，but a Austin's version of Minor.
The resources for developed A30、 A40 Somerset would be concentrated together to developed a better unibody Mid-car to replaced A40 Devon and Oxford.
The resources for developed Pathfinder and Westminster were concentrated together to developed a new large car

Avoid model diffusion
The segmentation of the UK market was more than that of the European market.
Increasing segmentation would only erode the profits of the model

Killed Mini from the beginning，Provide appropriate size C-segment vehicles
If the first FWD is larger, Issigonis woudl choose an end-to-end transmission
（He tried it in the 1950s, and the original Mini also wanted to use 2 cylinders and end-to-end gearbox. But the 2 cylinders were not powerful enough）
This car could cover the market range of Mini、Minor A40、Ado16 four cars, and guarantee that Ado17 will not be too large
B Segment didn't appear until the 1970s. There's no need to rush in.
Even if the excessively low pricing of mini in OTL is avoided, small car would not have high profit, which is certain

The UK car market before Mini can be divided as follows
Small car：about 1.0L
Mid car：about 1.5L
large car： above 2.0L
For the OTL，BMC had six segmentation in the '60s
Mini under the samll car
ADO16 between the Small car and large car
ADO17 between the Mid car and large car
That's why they didn't get rid of old cars

If BMC's first FWD was aimed at the core of the small car market
The cost were not much higher than the Mini, but could easily charge at least 150 pounds more per car
（Minor in the 1950s and a40 in the 1960s are at least 50 pounds more expensive than Ford Anglia）
At the same time, as this car was slightly smaller than the Ado16, the Ado17 would be fixed in the center of the midcar market
The smaller Ado17 will ensure that the Ado61 cannot use the Ado17 body
In this way, the whole market was covered with three cars
Even if sales were the same as OTL, the profitability wouldl be much better