I can imagine Vanden Plas really taking off as a standalone brand with a range like this in the 60s, which makes me doubt that BMC would then bother with Rover (even if there are obvious synergies that could be exploited via an acquisition).
BMC no-merger sanity options?
- Thread starter phx1138
- Start date
Can see the bottom three Vanden Plas models really taking off to warrant ATL ADO20 (1600) / ADO22 (2000) / ADO71 (2500+) derived successors as well as capturing money for luxury / bespoke models that otherwise went to Radford and Wood & Pickett in OTL, though it is questionable whether the same could be said for the ATL 3000 (ADO61) and 4000 (ADO58).
Even if the ATL 3000 appeared much earlier in 1963 instead of 1969 (with a proper 150+ hp 3-litre engine and as a Vanden Plas from the outset - plus optional "Wolseley" front as well as a facelift featuring a Vanden Plas 1800 prototype X6-like rear), it is possible the 3000 as well as the larger 4000 are both eventually replaced in the early/mid-1970s by ALT Rover P10 / SD1 and Rover P8 based successors with the P8 in particular possibly even forming the basis of a flagship limousine.
I'm inclined to agree. If alt-BMC is doing so much better, especially with VP doing better (& leading with a VP 3-liter on styling akin the later 1800 makes tremendously more sense than the reverse, so much so it makes BMC management OTL look like {even bigger?} nitwits
), there doesn't seem a need for BMC to be involved with a Rover buyout.Does that provoke a Jag takeover? Or BLMC? (I'm wondering if Jag has issues with body production, which IIRC was a problem, given PSF is owned by BMC, which might be solved by Rover.)
I'm inclined to agree. If alt-BMC is doing so much better, especially with VP doing better (& leading with a VP 3-liter on styling akin the later 1800 makes tremendously more sense than the reverse, so much so it makes BMC management OTL look like {even bigger?} nitwits
Does that provoke a Jag takeover? Or BLMC? (I'm wondering if Jag has issues with body production, which IIRC was a problem, given PSF is owned by BMC, which might be solved by Rover.)
Jaguar would be acquired by Leyland Motors in this scenario (thereby taking them out of the PSF web) since Lyons would have been open to joining them had Sir Henry Spurrier not retired in 1963 and passed away a year later to be replaced by Donald Stokes (based on William Lyons biography), Rover in turn would eventually be acquired by BMC (instead of Leyland in 1966) both due to considering such an idea themselves as well as due to being wholly or largely dependent on PSF.
BMC's rationale for acquring Jaguar in OTL was partly due to not having a decent presence in the luxury car segment, though in retrospect BMC would have had a better chance with an established carmaker like Rover who had a Volvo/Mercedes-like reputation for reliable over-engineered luxury cars prior to British Leyland.
Even with the Vanden Plas 3-litre ADO61 appearing in 1963 followed by an ATL Vanden Plas 4-litre ADO58 in 1965-1966 with much improved and modern exterior styling, the fact of the matter is the likes of compact executive 2-litre saloons like the Rover P6 and Triumph 2000/2500 made full-sized luxury cars largely redundant.
Only an early ATL Vanden Plas Princess X6 2000 / 2500 would have been able to take the fight to both Rover and Triumph, yet due to its transverse FWD layout (with concerns about torque-steer for outputs nearing 150 hp) would have no answer upon the Rover P6 featuring the 3.5 Rover V8 (nor for that matter in the event the Triumph 2000/2500 featured either an enlarged hypothetical 2.7 inline-6 or reliable 3-litre+ Triumph V8).
Last edited:
I'd hope that an ATL Rover-less BMC would eventually move on from stop gaps to investing in dedicated rwd platforms for some kind of ATL Specialist Division, comprising MG, Vanden Plas and Austin Healey (and perhaps RR and Bentley?). So by the mid 70s, you'd have an analogue of ADO77 and an analogue of SD1 to both provide the basic underpinnings for Vanden Plas and MG smaller saloons. How flexible would such a platform be so that a three box VP version could be tuned for luxury while an SD1-like 5 door MG version could be tuned for performance and handling? In these days when the same basic component set seems to be used for JLR saloons and SUVs for instance, it seems straightforward. Was it as straightforward in the 70s? Would it be possible in the 70s to engineer the VP version with hydragas suspension and the MG with conventional suspension, in a way similar to how the much later Citroen XM shared its roots with the more conventional Peugeot 605? I just don't have the engineering knowledge to answer that one, so this probably sounds extremely foolish - but have to ask!
Wasn't it also the case that ADO77/TM1, SD1 and TR7 shared quite a lot of components in OTL so perhaps in this timeline, such an ATL BMC Specialist Division might be able to use such a basic component set for larger MG sports cars and Austin Healeys (and even a Bentley Alpha/ADO30 equivalent or successor) as well as its upmarket saloons?
Last edited:
I'm also fascinated when reading these counterfactuals about BMC (and the rest of the British motor industry) about how the modern day ranges would look and what OTL car makers they'd most resemble. I'd imagine that a surviving BMC in 2020 (if it's still called that - if it linked up with Rolls Royce in the 70s, perhaps the combined industrial giant would adopt the Rolls name for its entirety?) would have Austin, Morris, MG, Vanden Plas and (Austin?) Healey - let's put RR and Bentley to one side for the moment.
I feel the Austin of 2020 would be more conventional than OTL Citroen (although that's pretty conventional now tbh) and perhaps would resemble OTL Renault and would sell itself on the basis of a high technology image. Morris, I feel, would be like a cross between OTL MINI, Fiat, Peugeot or Skoda as I think it would be the home of retro inspired styling in the BMC empire for its smaller cars as well as more conventional larger saloons. I'd like to think MG would have gone upmarket to take on BMW (although ITTL, I'd hope that Alfa Romeo would be a target as it would be just as successful as BMW!). I'm not sure what the VP equivalent would be; perhaps it would resemble a successful version of the retro Rover that BMW tried to create in the late 90s?
I feel the Austin of 2020 would be more conventional than OTL Citroen (although that's pretty conventional now tbh) and perhaps would resemble OTL Renault and would sell itself on the basis of a high technology image. Morris, I feel, would be like a cross between OTL MINI, Fiat, Peugeot or Skoda as I think it would be the home of retro inspired styling in the BMC empire for its smaller cars as well as more conventional larger saloons. I'd like to think MG would have gone upmarket to take on BMW (although ITTL, I'd hope that Alfa Romeo would be a target as it would be just as successful as BMW!). I'm not sure what the VP equivalent would be; perhaps it would resemble a successful version of the retro Rover that BMW tried to create in the late 90s?
In such a scenario mentioned above would see Vanden Plas struggling above the ATL X6 / ADO71 derived models and likely being supplanted eventually by the rising success of MG, the same goes with Austin-Healey after the 4000 (ADO24) has ceased production depending on their relationship with BMC. The Healeys might decide to go their own way whilst managing to maintain ties with BMC (unlike real-life with BL).
Even if one were to include Rolls-Royce / Bentley into the equation, what does this ATL BMC have between BMC's 3-litre Twin-Cam engines and Rolls-Royce's 6.75-litre L-Series V8? Before the latter was turbocharged in the early-1980s it was designed to be refined with adequate output as opposed to being compact and putting more power like the Rover V8 and other engines. Even the 4-litre FB60 later G60 Twin-Cam engines would have been too wide to fit into the likes of an MGC and others models beneath ADO61. It is unlikely BMC would consider developing an ATL E-Series based V8 akin to the Volkswagen EA827/EA113-derived V8/V10 beyond the 4/6-cylinder engines, whereas the inclusion of Rover would provide the necessary catalyst for the ATL E-Series (or related successor) to go into more modular direction.
The knowledge that brought TM1, SD2, SD1 and TR7 into being was a product of reluctant Rover and Triumph thinking in tandem with BL cutting costing that satisfied no one (along with going much to dilute Rover's reputation for reliable and over-engineered cars). Meaning the inclusion of Rover into BMC would be needed in any case to bring ATL equivalents. At best ATL BMC would likely make use of the ADO77 platform unrelated to the above before it was merged with SD2 in OTL to create TM1, yet that could not really be stretched to the SD1 and above segments.
Can see ATL Austin making use of Hydragas suspension and retro-styling, Morris would be akin to Skoda, Nissan and Volvo with more attractive styling by Pininfarina and conventional suspension. ATL MG would be the British equivalent of Alfa Romeo that unlike the latter still largely makes use of RWD platforms to become an effective challenger to BMW, Vanden Plas meanwhile might be akin to the retro Rover which BMW tried to establish in OTL featuring Hydragas suspension and transverse (or longitudinal) 6-cylinder engines assuming it survives though it is possible the marque becomes reduced to a trim level at worst.
One possible solution for ATL Vanden Plas in a late-1990s revival scenario would be via a more equal collaboration between BMC and BMW (as well as possibly Nissan from the late-90s to early-00s in place of Renault via ATL Micra K12 and post-2006 Almera / Primera / Maxima). Essentially the BMC-BMW collaboration would resemble OTL albeit only for Vanden Plas in the case of BMC in the retro Rover manner as well as a revived Glas (plus Glas Isetta) for BMW by way of alternate R50 aka MINI* (for Vanden Plas Newmarket / Glas Isetta), R30, R55 (as FWD / 4WD 3-Series+) and R75 (as FWD / 4WD 5-Series+) platforms prior to both BMC and BMW drifting into different directions with their replacements.
*- The ATL Mini would continue be produced by Austin and Morris with a new platform by around the early/mid-90s to early-00s, the Austin version being retro styled and featuring hydragas suspension while the Morris version would either feature the same suspension (or conventional one) with non-retro styling to resemble a typical small European hatchback (inspired by David Saddington's Evolution and Roy Axe's Revolution OTL proposals in the following article - https://www.aronline.co.uk/cars/bmw-mini/mini-2/r50-development-story/)
Last edited:
That works for me. Does it leave Daimler hanging, or has Jag already taken that over?
That also works. I'm going to presume VP, even with a Bentley/Rolls tie-in, can't manage that.
I'm not sure VP should be going after Triumph; I have a strong image (probably not shared by Brits...) of Triumph as a sports car marque. Rover, maybe, with a Bentley/Rolls tie--but, if Rover is taken over, VP's inability does become moot. (The most obvious answer is, "Fix the torque steer problem"...
That has beneficial implications for BMC's entire FWD line, not least the Austin/MG Mini GTs.)My engineering knowledge is pretty limited, too, so take with a box of salt.
My understanding is, if the body or chassis isn't interfering with the movement of the parts, it's just a matter of attachment. It does require engineering the suspension pieces to achieve the desired ride, but that's always true.Think of swapping Corvette IRS under a '60s Nova. Is it easy? I'd say not. Is it possible? Certainly. (I know, because John Buttera did it in his shop.
) For a major automaker, it might even be easy. (After all, Ford {or Shelby} moved the shock towers of a Mustang to fit a 429, & that is a serious engineering job. {Big companies do prefer not to modify the "black metal", which that was, tho: doing it costs so damn much. })Jaguar likely takes over Daimler already by that point.
Mainstream British cars of that period at least in the UK (as well as non-British carmakers in other markets) were said to be notoriously under-spec / sparsely equipped in terms of factory options compared to the Japanese and even the German carmakers (albeit the latter more accurately having an extremely long list of factory options).
Vanden Plas role would be rectify that flaw earlier on ATL Vanden Plas versions of mainstream Austin and Morris models as well as be BMC's experimental in-house version of Radford and Wood & Pickett for more bespoke versions, that in turn leaves the door option for BMC to eventually filter down the factory options to regular Austin and Morris models that compared to rivals have a reputation for being well-equipped/specced.
I'm not sure VP should be going after Triumph; I have a strong image (probably not shared by Brits...) of Triumph as a sports car marque. Rover, maybe, with a Bentley/Rolls tie--but, if Rover is taken over, VP's inability does become moot. (The most obvious answer is, "Fix the torque steer problem"...
The ATL Vanden Plas X6 2000 / 2500 would basically find itself in the same segment as the Triumph 2000/2500, though in a more non-sporting role akin to the Audi 100 C1 1.9. Fwiw both Rover and Triumph did look at FWD during the development the P6 and 2000 though it proved too costly and time consuming to properly develop into maturity.
Once Rover becomes part of BMC in AT, it pretty much acts as a glass ceiling for Vanden Plas's grand ambitions though can still see it play a role without overlapping with Rover similar to how VP played a role in the OTL Daimler DS420 (though potentially leaving open the possibility of occasional low-volume Vanden Plas-ized Rovers akin to Daimlerized Jaguars albeit with different exterior styling and suspension layouts along with sub-Rover FWD luxury models).
My engineering knowledge is pretty limited, too, so take with a box of salt.
Think of swapping Corvette IRS under a '60s Nova. Is it easy? I'd say not. Is it possible? Certainly. (I know, because John Buttera did it in his shop.
In OTL the P10 aka Rover SD1 featured a more conventional Triumph-influenced suspension layout on grounds of cost (that in reality belonged on a European Ford Granada-sized Morris than a Rover or MG), which stands in contrast to both the more sophisticated suspension layout of the Rover P6 and Hydragas-like layout of the unbuilt Rover P8 prototype.
It has one thinking though whether an ATL Rover P10 platform could form the common basis of E-Segment as well as most D-Segment Rovers, MGs, (low-volume) Vanden Plas and Morris models. The Rovers would either carry over the P6 or P8 suspension layout, the MG an all-independent suspension layout (MGB-like featuring rear Coil Spring with Watts linkage or properly-designed Frontline-style Panhard Rod), the low-volume Vanden Plas would utilize Hydragas, while the Morris would make use of the OTL Rover SD1 suspension layout (prior to the latter being succeeded by FWD successors).
With the recent discontinuation of the Rolls-Royce L-Series V8 from this year after 61 years of production in mind, along with the similarly long production runs and other developments from the Buick V6, Rover V8 and GM 90-degree V6 / Chevrolet Small-Block V8 engines. It brings the question of how a Rover owned Buick V6 and Rover V8 would have been further developed and thoroughly evolved over the next few decades under a well-capitalized ATL BMC.
Rover themselves in OTL reputedly had plans to carry over the 16-valve Twin-Cam fuel-injection of the 145-170 hp 2.2 Rover P10 engine onto the Rover V8 for the P8 saloon (roughly equating to a 32-valve quad-cam fuel-injected 4.4 Rover V8 putting out 280-340 hp) until the chaos at BL prevent it from reaching production (along with the 100-150 hp V8 diesel/turbodiesel Iceberg project with Perkins and a 2.8-litre version under Project Redcap), what if though the ATL Rover V6 / Rover V8 engines not only featured the aforementioned developments but also thoroughly evolved the V6 / V8 engines along similar lines over the next few decades as the Lotus-designed 375-528 hp LT5 version of the 5.7-litre Chevrolet Small Block (including unbuilt 3rd gen) and the turbocharged/twin-turbo 293-530 hp 6.75 Bentley L-Series V8?
This ATL Rover V6 / V8 together with the ~1596cc A-Plus (including 3/4-cylinder descendants), EA827/EA113/S-Series-like 1485-2998cc E-Series 4/6-cylinder engines (including modular successors) as well as the Rover P10 engine, would have pretty much given ATL BMC (plus Rover) a complete range of roughly four engine families with exceptionally long production lives (that is eventually reduced down to two engine families).
Can easily envision the ATL Rover V6 / Rover V8 engines eventually being superseded by EA827/EA113-like ATL E-Series based modular 90-degree V6/V8/etc engines as used by OTL Audi though by that point, perhaps ATL BMC could also follow the example of OTL Mercedes-Benz in being able to build both a related 60-degree V6 (M276) and 90-degree V8 (M278) on the same production line.
Rover themselves in OTL reputedly had plans to carry over the 16-valve Twin-Cam fuel-injection of the 145-170 hp 2.2 Rover P10 engine onto the Rover V8 for the P8 saloon (roughly equating to a 32-valve quad-cam fuel-injected 4.4 Rover V8 putting out 280-340 hp) until the chaos at BL prevent it from reaching production (along with the 100-150 hp V8 diesel/turbodiesel Iceberg project with Perkins and a 2.8-litre version under Project Redcap), what if though the ATL Rover V6 / Rover V8 engines not only featured the aforementioned developments but also thoroughly evolved the V6 / V8 engines along similar lines over the next few decades as the Lotus-designed 375-528 hp LT5 version of the 5.7-litre Chevrolet Small Block (including unbuilt 3rd gen) and the turbocharged/twin-turbo 293-530 hp 6.75 Bentley L-Series V8?
This ATL Rover V6 / V8 together with the ~1596cc A-Plus (including 3/4-cylinder descendants), EA827/EA113/S-Series-like 1485-2998cc E-Series 4/6-cylinder engines (including modular successors) as well as the Rover P10 engine, would have pretty much given ATL BMC (plus Rover) a complete range of roughly four engine families with exceptionally long production lives (that is eventually reduced down to two engine families).
Can easily envision the ATL Rover V6 / Rover V8 engines eventually being superseded by EA827/EA113-like ATL E-Series based modular 90-degree V6/V8/etc engines as used by OTL Audi though by that point, perhaps ATL BMC could also follow the example of OTL Mercedes-Benz in being able to build both a related 60-degree V6 (M276) and 90-degree V8 (M278) on the same production line.
Last edited:
Thx. (I imagine a TL with Daimler going under, somehow. Not that I dislike Daimler, mind.
)That'd be good for BMC, & for the British motor industry in general. I wonder a bit about price (option) creep; would it allow for a "stripper" Mini (as the GT? GTS?), frex, with nothing but a radio? (Better still, maybe, even a delete option on it.)
I can see a Daimlerized VP as a Rover companion. And if high performance isn't essential against the Triumphs, torque steer at 150hp shouldn't be an issue, should it? I don't recall many Brit cars in the era hitting anywhere near that number.
Putting them on a common platform makes a lot of sense to me. In that event, tho, I wouldn't go nuts on suspension variations; that kind of defeats the purpose.
That all sounds terrific.
A 32v twincam Rover 5.3-5.4 (on the Buick 215 block)? (Especially if it's exported to North America. Transplants into earlier model MGBs, or Novas, or Vegas... With available Morgan-spec pieces, better still. {Does that mean a new[er] +8? [OMG, a new Morgan! Stop the presses! {Or at least slow them down.}])Honestly, I prefer less proliferation of engine designs. I wouldn't object to a Rover 3.5-based 90deg V6, tho. If the E-series replaced the A-series, it wouldn't break my heart. (If some A-series parts, like heads, would swap across, the hot rodder in me would approve.
)Based on this thread things would pretty much be OTL for Daimler (despite having some ideas for Daimler / BSA entailing either pre-war or immediate post-war PODs that are not relevant).Thx. (I imagine a TL with Daimler going under, somehow. Not that I dislike Daimler, mind.
Cannot say, otherwise it would help remedy one more negative in the British and European car industry during that period.
Am assuming you mean Daimlerized in the sense the larger low-volume RWD or FWD/4WD Vanden Plas would be a Rover companion?
Envision the larger ATL FWD/4WD Vanden Plas models largely following a much earlier Volvo-like approach in being powered by transversely-mounted compact inline-6 engines (think compact ATL E6/S6) with end-on gearboxes, as was the case with the inline-6 version of the Volvo Modular later Volvo SI6 engines in OTL. Think the larger FWD Vanden Plas models should be able to cope with up to 150 hp provided the ATL compact inline-6s are initially in a lower state of tune (prior to the later introduction of 4WD).
In which case the more simpler large Morris saloon variation (with SD1-like basic suspension) would be better off discarded in favour of a conventional FWD layout (shared with Austin) to reduce unnecessary duplication and complication a P10-derived Morris would cause, leaving just Rover, MG and Vanden Plas making use of a P10-based RWD family of platforms (akin to the OTL Rover SD1, Triumph TR7/TR8 as well as the unbuilt Triumph SD2 later TM1 and Triumph Lynx).
That all sounds terrific.
Considering what was achieved with the Chevrolet Small Block-based LT5 V8 and Bentley L-Series V8 engines, it does bring up the question of whether the Rover V8 (and related Rover V6) were capable of achieving similar feats in ATL both in terms of long production life as well as thorough development compared to what it received in OTL.
Honestly, I prefer less proliferation of engine designs. I wouldn't object to a Rover 3.5-based 90deg V6, tho. If the E-series replaced the A-series, it wouldn't break my heart. (If some A-series parts, like heads, would swap across, the hot rodder in me would approve.
A compact 4-cylinder like the ATL A-Plus (and evolutionary descendants) would still be needed at BMC and despite being significantly lighter and shorter compared to OTL, the ATL E-Series like the Volkswagen EA827 to the Volkswagen EA111 (or Renault F-Type to the Renault K-Type as well as the Ford Zeta to the Ford Sigma) engines would still be in essence a big block 4-cylinder engine. It is still largely common practice for carmakers to have cars powered by both small block and big block 4-cylinder engines families.
Last edited:
Suits me. (I've never been really sure Daimler & Jag were a good fit.)
It can't hurt. I suppose any "stripper" model is a matter of chance (or author fiat, so you can guess which way I'd go
).Either way: moved up market some, with help from Rover feedback, platform sharing, & such.
As said, I don't see VP needing 150hp until relatively late (& by that time, torque steer should be solved anyhow). Taking a Volvo-esque approach makes a lot of sense. (I confess, a transverse inline six strikes me as a real packaging nightmare. Isn't that awfully wide?)
That works. If you're not already including it, I'd add an MGB/C replacement on the same platform--presuming the Triumph/MG conflict doesn't end up with the *MGD or *TR7 cancelled.
Amen. I can easily see BMC offering a factory 32v V8, & I only say 5.3-5.4 because I know the existing architecture will support it; the factory could readily go bigger, if inclined, I think. (Going down under 3.5 seems counterproductive, but in the Brit/European market, maybe a 2.0-3.0 makes sense.) Ditto the V6; a BMC aluminum 24v variant of the Regal GNX?
(Stuff that in an *MGD? Or even a *Spitfire?)I'm not opposing a size range, more thinking the parts supply chain (& manufacturing supply chain) gets more complicated than it needs to be. BMC isn't GM, & can't really afford to be profligate.
Around 130-ish hp should be fine in an ATL Vanden Plas X6 2500, since it would not be encroaching too much on the Rover P6 3500 V8 (whose power ranged from 143 hp to as much as 184 hp in South Africa) while matching the 132 hp (net) Triumph 2500 PI mk1/mk2.
That is the intention for MG in ATL with its MGB/MGC successor and more sporting MG analogues of P10 and SD2, below the MGB/MGC successor meanwhile would be an ATL Midget/MGB successor roughly akin to EX234 (a Midget/Spitfire replacement was planned for the TR7-derived Project Broadside in OTL though nothing became of it).
Amen. I can easily see BMC offering a factory 32v V8, & I only say 5.3-5.4 because I know the existing architecture will support it; the factory could readily go bigger, if inclined, I think. (Going down under 3.5 seems counterproductive, but in the Brit/European market, maybe a 2.0-3.0 makes sense.) Ditto the V6; a BMC aluminum 24v variant of the Regal GNX?
Aside from the Italian tax special TVR 2-litre V8S, the smallest Rover V8 considered in OTL was a 2.8-litre project. The ATL addition of an all-alloy Rover V6 would negetive the need for the Rover V8 to feature reduced displacement versions outside of tax special Land Rovers / Range Rovers, Rovers and other models for the German market (to slot below the 2.8-litre limit).
Honestly do not see such an issue nor consider a small four to be profligate for BMC in ATL, many other carmakers both large and small have both big and small block 4-cylinder engines (cannot really think of any immediate exceptions to the rule that come to mind - though can assume their specific circumstances would be different to a successful BMC). Additionally the same people involved in the development of the OTL A-Series and B-Series engines were also involved in the development of the E-Series.
The ATL engine situation becomes nothing like the OTL. A-Series is succeeded by ~1596cc A-Plus (along with related descendants) with both the B-Series and C-Series being replaced by the ATL E-Series, which power Austins, Morris, MGs and Vanden Plas. While the ATL Rover V6 / V8 would largely be utilized by Rover, Land/Range Rover and Healey / Rover-Healey.
Last edited:
That ought to do nicely for a start. Just don't stop there: working up to, & through, 150hp would be a very good idea.
Actually, I'd take the SAfr management guys & bring them to Longbridge. The 11/55, Chicane, & V8 Sport are dead easy to do, & end up being better.
Works for me.
No, aside Italy, I wasn't seeing much demand for a very small V8--but having that option, for some cars & some markets, might be handy. (Frex, would a Dino 246 be worse than a 208, given no other changes?) I can imagine a *Spitfire with a 2.0 V8, as a range-topping model that has the V6 {from the same basic design} as the usual choice. Would I demand it? No. Neither would I rule it out, if somebody in BMC engineering (or on the racing side) proposed it.
By profligate, I meant two distinct, largely unrelated fours. (Or three?) Presuming BMC sees a lot of pressure to standardize (& I'd be pushing hard on it, myself), which leads to the end of Wolseley & Riley (as separate dealer networks at a minimum, as marques, if I had my way), it follows, IMO, there would be a strong drive toward standard engines, & I'd strongly advocate a single inline four (A-series to start, A-Plus, &, in time, alt-E-Series), a single inline 6, & a single V8 (if any; that might be able to wait for Rover).
That doesn't mean they're limited to spec by displacement (or state of tune), just by basic architecture: having a SOHC 2v/cyl Rover V8 & a DOHC 4v/cyl Rover V8 seems pretty wasteful & silly--unless the 4v DOHC version is developed outside (by Morgan, frex, or Cooper). I'm not entirely convinced even having iron & alumin(i)um block versions is a good idea, because that means separate production lines. Spend money on what improves quality & sales, instead.
I don't think we're fundamentally disagreeing on this issue, unless I'm misreading you.
Of course not, the ATL compact E6 would be utilized in both FWD and RWD applications to effectively replace the B/C-Series 6-cylinder engines. The initially RWD Morris models would feature E6s in a more moderate state of tune compared to the FWD Austins, with ATL MG models utilizing Twin-Cam E6s*
*- The possible performance benchmarks for the ATL E6 Twin-Cam (or related descendant) engine in later decades would be in naturally aspirated form a hypothetical 302 hp 3-litre inline-6 version of the 201 hp 2-litre Nissan SR20VE (if not a hypothetical 351-370 hp 3-litre inline-6 version of the 247 hp 2-litre Honda F20C) as well as the 286-355 hp 3.0-3.2-litre BMW S50/S54 inline-6 engines.
If deemed necessary the turbocharged benchmarks for the ATL E6 Twin-Cam (or related descendant) for MG in later decades meanwhile would be the 268-345 hp 2.8-3.0-litre Volvo Modular / SI6, hypothetical 3-litre inline-6 turbo versions of the Fiat Pratola Serra (including 165-250+ hp 2-litre 4-cylinder turbo Fiat Twin-Cam precursor), ~321 hp 3-litre Toyota JZ as well as the 276-325 hp 2.6 Nissan RB (at least in terms of displacement and featuring turbochargers).
Healey would probably use the Rover V6 in an EX234-like Midget/MGB replacement model and the Rover V8 in a MGB/MGC successor.
At best the (still likely turbocharged/supercharged) ATL 2-litre Rover V8 along with tax special 2.6-2.8/3-litre Rover V8 engines would probably be utilized by the Rover P9 as well as other Rover, Land Rover / Range Rover and Healey models for certain markets.
By profligate, I meant two distinct, largely unrelated fours. (Or three?) Presuming BMC sees a lot of pressure to standardize (& I'd be pushing hard on it, myself), which leads to the end of Wolseley & Riley (as separate dealer networks at a minimum, as marques, if I had my way), it follows, IMO, there would be a strong drive toward standard engines, & I'd strongly advocate a single inline four (A-series to start, A-Plus, &, in time, alt-E-Series), a single inline 6, & a single V8 (if any; that might be able to wait for Rover).
That doesn't mean they're limited to spec by displacement (or state of tune), just by basic architecture: having a SOHC 2v/cyl Rover V8 & a DOHC 4v/cyl Rover V8 seems pretty wasteful & silly--unless the 4v DOHC version is developed outside (by Morgan, frex, or Cooper). I'm not entirely convinced even having iron & alumin(i)um block versions is a good idea, because that means separate production lines. Spend money on what improves quality & sales, instead.
I don't think we're fundamentally disagreeing on this issue, unless I'm misreading you.
Envision the ATL E-Series (which like the later OTL EA827/EA113 goes on to form the basis of 90-degree Audi V6 / V8 units) itself forming the basis of V6 / V8 engines to eventually replace the ATL Rover V6 / V8, the venerable reputation and thorough development of the Rover engines in ATL though would mean the winding down process would be very gradual before becoming post-production crate engines. Which would largely be helped by the relatively low-volumes of the ATL Rover V6 / V8 engines usage in Rovers, Land Rovers / Range Rovers, Healeys and occasional Vanden Plas as well as other smaller sportscar marques like TVR, Morgan and Ginetta, etc.
Thereby leaving ATL BMC with effectively two engine families down the line, the 750-1600cc (Volkswagen EA111/EA211, Suzuki G, Nissan CA/QG and Renault K-Type-like) descendant of the ~1596cc A-Plus and the modular 1600-3000cc+ (Volkswagen EA827/EA113, Rover S-Series, Fiat Pratola Serra/Multijet, Volvo Modular/SI6/D5-like) E-Series 4/5/6-cylinder (and V6/V8/etc) engines.
There is does not appear to be any fundamental disagreement, at the same time however it is worth bearing in mind ATL BMC should have little problem building 3 engine families (2 mass market and 1 relatively low-volume family mainly reservedfor prestige vehicles, sportscars, 4x4s, etc) for a few years under such circumstances to begin with since better management, rationalisation (Wolseley / Riley merged with Vanden Plas, single dealer networks, component sharing / commonization, etc) and product development would have allowed the company be able to maintain its OTL post-BMC position as the world's 5-4th largest carmaker even before acquiring Rover.
Last edited:
Whew. If you're aiming for 350-370hp naturally aspirated...
I'm not sure I'd see a need for turbo, in that case. Smaller displacements later would likely go into smaller, lighter cars, so a bit of reduction (power & capacity) wouldn't hurt. (Not to say I'd oppose turbo, just less inclined to ask for one. If you want to argue for lower capacity still, & balance with turbo, or hybrid, or both, I'm more than game. )Works for me. Given U.S. sales, would you put an upper displacement limit on the 3.5's basic design (& put it above 5.3?)?
Okay, when you add a third as low-production, I'm fine with that (I think).
For a V6, I'd start with the Rover V8, for four main reasons.
- It seems less complicated & less likely to f*ck up.
- Buick has already done it, so it works.
- It offers opportunities for rodders' crossover into NAm market Buick V6s. (Pulling parts out of Rovers, or swapping the alumin(i)um block V6s into domestic cars.)
- It might encourage GM to do more with the GN Regals, Syclone, Typhoon, 3.8 Firebird (& Camaros they should have built!), & maybe even TranSport (hopefully like the late 3.8 versions from the start, butterflying the aardvark nose entirely)
Whew. If you're aiming for 350-370hp naturally aspirated...
Am looking in terms of possible evolutionary paths, for a naturally aspirated 3-3,2-litre* E6 Twin-Cam something in the region of 302 hp via a 201 hp 2-litre Nissan SR20VE-like 3-litre inline-6 would probably be the most achievable. At the same time both the Volkswagen EA827 and Nissan SR were capable of reaching around 275 hp in 2-litre turbo forms via the mk3 Volkswagen Golf A59 as well as the Nissan SR20VET engines, which would roughly equate to a 3-litre inline-6 turbo potentially reaching about 413 hp (up to around 420 hp if using the 311 hp 2.2 5-cylinder Audi RS2 Avant as a rough guide).
*- The 3-litre+ displacements being inspired by the more feasible Eurospec and Oettinger derived 2-litre+ enlargements for the Volkswagen EA827/EA113 which the ATL E-Series partly draws inspiration from.
That depends, ATL Rover managing to acquire the design of both the Buick V6 and 215 Buick V8 would give the company the option to reach about 4916cc (e.g. 300 Buick V8 tier) fairly early on with the all-alloy Rover V8 compared to OTL via the 225 Buick V6. 5-litres for the V8 would probably be very doable (and IMO be the upper displacement limit), otherwise unsure whether the ATL Rover V8 would possess the ability for road-going models to feature Rover V8's displacing up to 5.2-litres to as much as over 5.6-litres to even 6.3-litres (if wikipedia.. is any indication).
Okay, when you add a third as low-production, I'm fine with that (I think).
For a V6, I'd start with the Rover V8, for four main reasons.
I can easily see alt-BMC being #5, even #4, with the kinds of rational decisions we're proposing. I also see BMC producing some of the most innovative & exciting cars in the world, from an A40 hatchback in '62-5 to a 1300cc 5sp Mini (& even a 5dr!) to a twincam inline 6 MGC/D with IRS & IFS. And they're not insanely priced exotics! Does it get any better for the Brits?
- It seems less complicated & less likely to f*ck up.
- Buick has already done it, so it works.
- It offers opportunities for rodders' crossover into NAm market Buick V6s. (Pulling parts out of Rovers, or swapping the alumin(i)um block V6s into domestic cars.)
- It might encourage GM to do more with the GN Regals, Syclone, Typhoon, 3.8 Firebird (& Camaros they should have built!), & maybe even TranSport (hopefully like the late 3.8 versions from the start, butterflying the aardvark nose entirely)
The ATL Rover V6 precedes the later ATL E-Series derived V6 by a few decades, with the latter conceived to replace the former (the same goes with the ATL Rover V8 and ATL E-Series derived V8).
Had it appeared earlier on, a British built version of the ATL Innocenti A40S Cominbata hatchback could have been a foreshadow for its FWD ADO16 replacement featuring a hatchback. The ATL original Mini would likely feature 4/5-door bodystyles (otherwise too early for a 5-speed), though can see the ADO20/Project Ant-inspired ATL Mini II featuring a 5-speed upon switching to an end-on gearbox layout. An ATL 3-litre Twin-Cam inline-6 MG with proper all-independent would justify the marques push upmarket as a sporty brand like Triumph, Alfa Romeo, etc.
While it is very easy to see things with the benefit of hindsight, it is indeed quite extraordinary how BMC (and its Austin and Morris precursors) screwed things up for themselves as well as missed out on big opportunities to thrive.
Last edited:
That makes for some serious potential performance out of later MGs (& others).
Based on what I've read, a 5.3 is about the limit: given the 265ci small-block (3" stroke) peaked with a stroke of 3.75" in the 400, the OTL Rover 3.54" stroke is about the maximum, & a 3.78" bore is the upper limit (AFAIK). Unless BMC/Rover wants to re-engineer it... (BTW, the Wikipedia mention of a 317-318ci is supported by my own reading; I have that issue of Hot Rod.)
That does surprise me. I'd have concentrated on improving the Rover-based V6/V8, myself.
Agreed on all points.
And that is a major understatement.
It does make me a bit sad BMC buggered it so badly. (I almost see a GM/BMC merger, with GM getting the benefit of BMC goodies & BMC getting the money & dealer network, & the combined company going on to rule the automotive world. Except for GM management being even stupider... )Would put the limit for the ATL Rover V8 at around 5.0-litres to 5.2-litres at most, which is not too out of the ordinary for a European luxury V8 engine.
The E-Series based V6/V8s would not be an immediate replacement for the Rover V6/V8s, rather it would gradually be supplanted by the former of the latter in a case of medium to long-term rationalisation and commonization by BMC (yet with BMC still producing crate versions of the ATL Rover V6 / Rover V8).
Fwiw it seems the maximum bore and stroke of the 1984cc (82.5x92.8mm) EA827/EA113 engine is 84.5x100mm, equating to a maximum 4-cylinder displacement of 2243cc with a doubled up hypothetical V8 equating to around 4486cc (roughly putting out 445 hp naturally aspirated via 414 hp mk2 Audi RS4 4.2 V8 or 477-630 hp twin-turbo via 444 hp Audi RS6 4.2 Bi-Turbo V8 and 375 hp mk1 Audi RS4 2.7 Twin-Turbo V6). The latter would roughly be the maximum initial displacement envisaged for an ATL E-Series based V8 that replaces the lower-capacity versions of the ATL Rover V8.
And that is a major understatement.
It is bit sad seeing unfulfilled potential in general. Apart from alliances / joint-ventures (and less likely outright acquisitions) with Nissan and BMW who both have historical ties with Austin (with BMW reviving Glas / Isetta in place of the OTL BMW MINI and family), cannot really see where a secure and thriving BMC would go from here as the world's 4th largest carmaker. GM is another matter.
Maybe ATL BMC decides to focus on improving and expanding its commercial vehicles division, make a further push in the motorcycle industry above Lambretta (via Innocenti possibly renamed Austin) by either reviving Rover as a premium motorcycle manufacturer or indirectly promoting MG as a fledgling motorcycle marque (possibly by acquiring Moto Guzzi as well as Benelli before De Tomaso in OTL during the early-1970s - along with potentially Laverda).
Another is an earlier collaboration with Van Doorne on an earlier late-70s to early-80s introduction of the Transmatic CVT gearbox (mentioned on page 57 of Popular Science - July 1976), which instead appeared on the Volvo 440/460 in 1987 (followed by a few other cars including supposedly the OTL Rover Metro/100) and was said to be a significant improvement over the parallel Ford CTX developed by Ford, Fiat and Van Doorne (both the Transmatic and CTX CVT gearboxes were developed for use in FWD cars unlike the original Variomatic CVT). Eventually laying the groundwork for BMC to be the first to introduce Multitronic CVT before Audi.
Last edited: