British Leyland survives and thrives...?!

[Dr Dee]

Inspired by this article: https://www.autocar.co.uk/opinion/i...-car-industry-should-embrace-its-niche-status

And this article: https://www.aronline.co.uk/great-motor-men/sir-john-egan/

Here’s a possible route for British Leyland to have survived in a form. It would have required more sustained investment from govt (Thatcher’s administration might need butterflying away) and the retention of a golden share after privatisation.

John Egan was appointed as head of Jaguar in the late 70s. Egan’s success with Jaguar and its workforce, his investment in Whitley, his hardball approach with suppliers like Lucas, led to the company eventually being privatised in 1984. So what if Egan’s success allowed him to succeed Michael Edwardes as boss of the whole of BL? Jaguar wouldn't have been spun off BL but would have been the inspiration for the whole company's revitalisation. Could Jaguar’s approach (combined with a still burgeoning collaboration with Honda) have spread its positive effects across the entire group?

Jaguar could have taken the lead for developing an XJ40 platform that might have provided the following cars in the 80s:

• XJ6
• A smaller Jaguar, along the lines of the OTL S-type of the 90s (but hopefully with far better styling)
• XJ41 sports car (the F-type)
• A Rover SD1 successor (in place of the OTL Rover 800/Honda Legend, complete with saloon, hatch and estate variants)

This XJ40 might have been powered by a thoroughly worked over version of the Rover V8, complete with Jaguar designed 32 valve heads. It might also have been accompanied by a V6 derived version of the same engine. AJ6 would have been butterflied away. Jaguar’s reluctance to share its platforms and to maintain the purity of its bloodline might have been assuaged if Whitley had sole responsibility for developing rear wheel drive platforms for BL. I’ve already mentioned the XJ40. I would also give Jaguar responsibility for developing a smaller rear wheel drive platform that would eventually provide the following vehicles:

• A Triumph Dolomite successor (in saloon form to replace the stillborn SD2/TM1 and in coupe form to replace the Stag and TR7)
• A smaller Rover saloon (a Rover 600 series, a decade earlier)
• An MGB successor

Solihull would take responsibility for all four wheel drive cars, including an analogue of the OTL Discovery that would arrive much earlier.

In the meantime, the burgeoning operation at BL Technology in Gaydon would take care of front wheel drive platforms. Roy Axe would have been appointed a little sooner than he was OTL and would have had more time to sort out the awkward styling of the M cars. Later on in the 80s, these would be replaced by platforms derived from a steel AR6. A K-series analogue would still have been developed (minus later HGF problems). I wonder how much mileage there would have been in developing the E-series much further, rather than going down the route of the O/M-16/T-series?

Abingdon, home of MG, would be modernised and become the centrepiece of the company’s sports car development programmes, even if most MG cars would be built either on Whitley developed rwd platforms or Gaydon developed fwd platforms. Abingdon itself would build the XJ220, which ITTL retains the original 48 valve Jaguar V12, plus its four wheel drive system. A cheaper version would be badged as an MG and would be powered by the Metro 6R4 V6 (which, ironically, powered the OTL production XJ220). And yes, it would be called the MG EX-E.

All of the front wheel drive cars would be badged as Triumphs or MINIs (which in this timeline becomes a standalone marque in a formal sense far earlier than when BMW did this in 2000). Austin, Morris and Princess would be retired. The British Leyland name would also be dropped to be replaced by JRT (OTL Jaguar Rover Triumph) – which is what it would be, plus Land Rover, MINI and MG.

• Jaguar wouldn’t go head to head with BMW or Mercedes but would compete against their more expensive products. They would also be sportier and sleeker than OTL.
• Rover would go up against the cheaper Mercedes and Volvos. They would have a focus on interior space, solidity and luxury.
• Triumph would be a British VW – saloons and hatches that had a sporty element to them. As it would supplant Austin/Morris, it wouldn't be squashed between the volume operation and Rover - because it would be the volume operation. Equally, it would no longer make bespoke sports cars, only coupes or hot hatches (Sprints rather than GTIs!). Out and out sports cars would be left solely to MG and Jaguar.
• Land Rover, MG and MINI would be as per OTL.
• Not sure about cooperation with DAF over Leyland Trucks.
• As there was some collaboration between BMC/BL/Rover Group with Rolls Royce, could RR and Bentley eventually have become part of this group? Were there opportunities for other collaborations? There was some talk of British Aerospace buying SAAB in the late 80s and, of course, there was a history of collaboration between SAAB and Triumph in the 60s. There was also speculation over collaboration/mergers with Chrysler UK/Talbot and GM Europe/Vauxhall.

A lot of stars would have to align here:

• A government that believed in retaining a national car industry
• Suppliers to massively up their game and cooperation with Honda to continue to as to ensure that reliability is what it should be
• Styling and marketing of the cars to be sorted (avoiding the weird sizing issues that seemed to plague BL, for instance)
• And finally, competent management (like Egan) who wanted to preserve the company, and who believed in the company – rather than wanting to asset strip it.

How feasible is this scenario? Or something like it?

 

[TheMann]

The biggest problem that would impede any BL revival was structural and had nothing to do with the products. The workforce was absolutely militant (and Thatcher isn't gonna help that at all, no matter who is in charge), the company's production facilities needed billions of pounds in investments to make them capable of regularly producing high-quality cars (Ford had to spend something like $200 million on Jaguar's facilities alone) and the company had vastly too many dealers and needed to cast off at least half of them. All of those things were apparent to Sir Edwardes, and while Egan was indeed quite successful at Jaguar he wouldn't be able to do so for the entire company unless you are prepared to more a mountain of money into BL to revitalize the company. Thatcher wasn't prepared to do so, and while the Honda connection would be a huge help it doesn't solve many of the problems.

If you're going this route, it would be better to have Edwardes stay with a mandate from the government to take a chainsaw to the dead wood, letting him take the heat (and the government to deal with the strikes that would inevitably result) while giving Egan the go-ahead to develop the new cars.

As for the specific plans, I'd avoid using the XJ40 chassis for anything other than the XJ sedan, though it may be usable for a grand touring car to replace the XJS. For a sports car platform forget it, it's too large, and the same is true for the smaller S-type analogue sedan, which I agree is a good idea but you'll want its own chassis for it. That chassis is more likely to be usable for the F-Type too. What you want for that sports car will determine its chassis, because the OTL F-Type is closer in size to a Porsche 911 than a big grand touring car, and while the F-Type presumably would be a cheaper car than the XJS (I'd recommend this) and you can still add the analogue Jaguar XK and XJ220 later, you'll not wanting to be using a large car chassis for a sports car.

The Honda Legend / Rover SD1 successor is something I'd really lean into, because that way Rover gets a new proper luxury car developed with mostly Honda money. It's hard to turn down something like that, isn't it? I'd have the Rover have body differences and a coupe version right from the off, but Honda will probably love having a coupe version to fight the Toyota Soarer, Nissan Leopard and Mazda Cosmo. Make this one a rear-drive platform out of sporty dynamics (you won't have trouble getting Honda to go for that) and develop it as they did IOTL, complete with Honda's new V6 engines. A wagon version might be a little later addition but it is a good idea, first thing that needs to happen for that to work however is for the cars to built to quality standards.

The smaller chassis for a sporty rear-driver to replace the Dolomite is a good call (keep calling it a Triumph, perhaps?) and for a good smaller Rover sedan, but while you could have Jaguar do it you don't want them to get too much on their plate for all of the obvious reasons. This is another area where a Honda-BL project would work, for a smaller sedan for their incoming Acura luxury brand and Honda Clio dealership chain in Japan and a new smaller car for Triumph. As for an MGB successor, simply go with the MGF - from a design standpoint its actually very good, just it was many years too late. Drop it in the mid-1980s to go fight the Toyota MR2 and Pontiac Fiero, and keep it cheap enough to seduce some of those who bought Mazda MX-5s when it came out and you're well on your way.

 

[Dr Dee]

The biggest problem that would impede any BL revival was structural and had nothing to do with the products. The workforce was absolutely militant (and Thatcher isn't gonna help that at all, no matter who is in charge), the company's production facilities needed billions of pounds in investments to make them capable of regularly producing high-quality cars (Ford had to spend something like $200 million on Jaguar's facilities alone) and the company had vastly too many dealers and needed to cast off at least half of them. All of those things were apparent to Sir Edwardes, and while Egan was indeed quite successful at Jaguar he wouldn't be able to do so for the entire company unless you are prepared to more a mountain of money into BL to revitalize the company. Thatcher wasn't prepared to do so, and while the Honda connection would be a huge help it doesn't solve many of the problems.

If you're going this route, it would be better to have Edwardes stay with a mandate from the government to take a chainsaw to the dead wood, letting him take the heat (and the government to deal with the strikes that would inevitably result) while giving Egan the go-ahead to develop the new cars.

As for the specific plans, I'd avoid using the XJ40 chassis for anything other than the XJ sedan, though it may be usable for a grand touring car to replace the XJS. For a sports car platform forget it, it's too large, and the same is true for the smaller S-type analogue sedan, which I agree is a good idea but you'll want its own chassis for it. That chassis is more likely to be usable for the F-Type too. What you want for that sports car will determine its chassis, because the OTL F-Type is closer in size to a Porsche 911 than a big grand touring car, and while the F-Type presumably would be a cheaper car than the XJS (I'd recommend this) and you can still add the analogue Jaguar XK and XJ220 later, you'll not wanting to be using a large car chassis for a sports car.

The Honda Legend / Rover SD1 successor is something I'd really lean into, because that way Rover gets a new proper luxury car developed with mostly Honda money. It's hard to turn down something like that, isn't it? I'd have the Rover have body differences and a coupe version right from the off, but Honda will probably love having a coupe version to fight the Toyota Soarer, Nissan Leopard and Mazda Cosmo. Make this one a rear-drive platform out of sporty dynamics (you won't have trouble getting Honda to go for that) and develop it as they did IOTL, complete with Honda's new V6 engines. A wagon version might be a little later addition but it is a good idea, first thing that needs to happen for that to work however is for the cars to built to quality standards.

The smaller chassis for a sporty rear-driver to replace the Dolomite is a good call (keep calling it a Triumph, perhaps?) and for a good smaller Rover sedan, but while you could have Jaguar do it you don't want them to get too much on their plate for all of the obvious reasons. This is another area where a Honda-BL project would work, for a smaller sedan for their incoming Acura luxury brand and Honda Clio dealership chain in Japan and a new smaller car for Triumph. As for an MGB successor, simply go with the MGF - from a design standpoint its actually very good, just it was many years too late. Drop it in the mid-1980s to go fight the Toyota MR2 and Pontiac Fiero, and keep it cheap enough to seduce some of those who bought Mazda MX-5s when it came out and you're well on your way.

I think it would probably need a very different government to back BL, it's true. My opinion of Egan went up a little after reading the AROnline article about him; before, I thought he'd just successfully papered over the cracks and fooled the world into thinking Jaguar was better than it actually was. I think there was a bit more substance to him than that. I think Edwardes was an industrial relations warrior but I'd like someone with a car sensibility to fight for the company's products a little more. I'd also imagine his skills would infinitely exceed my very poor graphic design skills as showcased below...

I have read that the XJ40 platform was too heavy for XJ41/42, which is probably why the project became bloated with four wheel drive, and a twin turbo AJ6. Eventually it was cancelled by Ford after their takeover so, as you say, perhaps a new RWD platform was needed that could be scaled to provide something in the C-class and E-class range (to be anachronistic about it). XJ40 would remain unique to Jaguar while the new smaller rwd platform would provide an S-type analogue and an SD1 successor in its larger guise, and an SD2/TM1 successor in its smaller guise. The Triumph badged version of this smaller car could be badged Dolomite and would go up against the rwd Sierra (as I imagine Triumph would replace Austin and Morris as BL's slightly premium mainstream brand).

As for Honda's involvement, the Rover 800/Legend was compromised because of the Japan-friendly dimensions imposed upon it and Honda's anaemic 2.5 V6. I really think that Honda could have helped BL with quality control, componentry and engines (that 2.5 V6 aside). Sharing entire platforms didn't seem to work that well although it certainly provided OTL BL/ARG with competitive product for a while. If Honda could be persuaded to provided beefier engines, their units would have provided good service in the 80s and early 90s, while BL (or JRT as I call them here) sorted out the K-series, and eventually the AJ12/AJ26 engine that was the eventual source of the OTL AJ-V8 engine. This was a modular design that would have provided a 4.0-litre eight-cylinder and a 3.0-litre six-cylinder, but also looking at a 2-litre four-cylinder, a 5-litre 10-cylinder and a 6-litre 12-cylinder engine. While the company waited for K-series and AJ12/26 to be readied for production, it could have relied on a mix of Japanese and updated British units like the M16 or the Jaguar modified Rover/Buick V8 I mentioned.

I know what you mean about Jaguar having too much on their plate and I guess that's where the massive investment would come in with this different govt. It would be tasked with developing the modular large engine I've just described, plus the two rear drive chassis (and I'd imagine that the smaller rwd chassis could eventually be scaled up to provide an XJ40 successor, rather like BMW wanted to base the 3, 5 and 7 series on the same component set IOTL). In some ways, Jaguar would cease to exist; it would be BL (or JRT)'s rwd drive centre of excellence, while Gaydon was the fwd focus, Solihull for 4wd and Abingdon for sports cars.

Totally agree about the MGF being the right product in the wrong decade. One of the Rover designers almost cried when he saw the MX5/Miata come out in 89 while Rover was umming and ahhing about what to do with MG.

Eventually, I imagine that JRT and Honda's collaboration would drift somewhat as the former hopefully got stronger. Honda seems to have lost its way completely (at least in Europe); I would hope that, whatever happened, the dynamic outfit of the 80s wouldn't die as it kind of did IOTL. JRT would be making more of its own stuff on its own platforms, thus helping its own profits. They'd make these profits out of two engine families (K series and AJ12/26 and, ultimately, three platforms in the shape of the rwd platform, the modular AR6 type fwd platform and a four wheel drive component set to provide the underpinnings for Discovery, Range Rover and Defender).

By the time we get to 2021, we might have a company that in OTL terms would provide competition in the following areas:

Jaguar: elements of Porsche and Tesla (which seems to the way that JLR/TATA want to take it now IOTL)
Rover (or maybe call it Range Rover, to minimise confusion and to give it extra kudos): British analogue of Volvo
Triumph: equivalent of VW
MG: perhaps it would broaden out into saloons as well so it would become equivalent of Mazda/SEAT, or even Alfa
Land Rover: as OTL
MINI: as OTL but I'd hope for better styling rather than the Bavarian retro caricatures of a British car that we see from BMW. I'd hope for it to be a little more innovative too.

 

[TheMann]

I think it would probably need a very different government to back BL, it's true. My opinion of Egan went up a little after reading the AROnline article about him; before, I thought he'd just successfully papered over the cracks and fooled the world into thinking Jaguar was better than it actually was. I think there was a bit more substance to him than that. I think Edwardes was an industrial relations warrior but I'd like someone with a car sensibility to fight for the company's products a little more. I'd also imagine his skills would infinitely exceed my very poor graphic design skills as showcased below...

The thing is that with BL of the early 1980s industrial relations was a key part of the job. Edwardes commented at one point that he spent something like half his time on industrial relations, which is just nuts but emblematic of what Britain's nationalized industries had become. Thatcher IMO was a fucking fool for effectively allowing those industries to be picked apart, but at the same time it was far easier to do that then try to fix them with so much almost-certain resistance to anything that could be done to improve the situation.

If you put Egan in charge he'll get stuck with that madness, which is why I said keep Edwardes on top to handle that mess and let Egan handle the development of the new cars. If Edwardes is having to spend that much time and effort on his workforce Egan will pretty a very free hand in any case, and Sir Michael is likely to be much more able to convince Thatcher for extra investment for the products and facility improvements if there is progress on the reorganization front.

I have read that the XJ40 platform was too heavy for XJ41/42, which is probably why the project became bloated with four wheel drive, and a twin turbo AJ6. Eventually it was cancelled by Ford after their takeover so, as you say, perhaps a new RWD platform was needed that could be scaled to provide something in the C-class and E-class range (to be anachronistic about it). XJ40 would remain unique to Jaguar while the new smaller rwd platform would provide an S-type analogue and an SD1 successor in its larger guise, and an SD2/TM1 successor in its smaller guise. The Triumph badged version of this smaller car could be badged Dolomite and would go up against the rwd Sierra (as I imagine Triumph would replace Austin and Morris as BL's slightly premium mainstream brand).

That's not a bad idea, but I'm not entirely convinced the SD1 successor should be based on the same platform as the S-Type. If you build both and the Rover is most of the car at a rather lower price, who is gonna bother with the Jaguar? I can see how Jaguar could be brought into a line of S-Type / XJ / XK / F-Type / XJ220 (and that would almost certainly work well if the cars are well done and the F-Type and S-Type are reasonably priced), but having the SD1 successor (call it the Rover P7, perhaps?) on the same platform is a bad idea if you ask me. Having the smaller Rover also be a Triumph is much more possible because the potential sales for it are much higher and you can make the car a very sporty machine indeed for Triumph but a much more comfortable, luxurious one for Rover.

As for Honda's involvement, the Rover 800/Legend was compromised because of the Japan-friendly dimensions imposed upon it and Honda's anaemic 2.5 V6.

I don't think the dimensions were that big of a deal, as the Legend was already a fair size car that Honda had to trim in lower versions just to get it inside of the regulations. That makes an easy way out, doesn't it? Cheaper models of the 800 / Legend / P7 (or whatever you want to call it) get a shorter wheelbase, higher-spec versions have a longer one on the same platform. Design the car so that it works best on the longer wheelbase, and let it have the shorter-wheelbase model make Japanese size regulations while the Rover variant is mostly the larger one. As for engines, Rover could have insisted on a bigger engine - and indeed Honda figured out the need for the bigger engine rather quickly - or developed their own V6 for the purpose.

I really think that Honda could have helped BL with quality control, componentry and engines (that 2.5 V6 aside). Sharing entire platforms didn't seem to work that well although it certainly provided OTL BL/ARG with competitive product for a while. If Honda could be persuaded to provided beefier engines, their units would have provided good service in the 80s and early 90s, while BL (or JRT as I call them here) sorted out the K-series, and eventually the AJ12/AJ26 engine that was the eventual source of the OTL AJ-V8 engine. This was a modular design that would have provided a 4.0-litre eight-cylinder and a 3.0-litre six-cylinder, but also looking at a 2-litre four-cylinder, a 5-litre 10-cylinder and a 6-litre 12-cylinder engine. While the company waited for K-series and AJ12/26 to be readied for production, it could have relied on a mix of Japanese and updated British units like the M16 or the Jaguar modified Rover/Buick V8 I mentioned.

That makes sense, but I would caution against the use of modular-design engines for a inline-four even if the V6/V8/V10/V12 possibilities do exist. This setup if the fundamentals are good could be a great engine to replace the aging Jaguar straight-six and V12 too, and any remaining uses of the Rover V8 (like the Range Rover), but designing an engine for a V-configuration and then having only one bank used isn't likely to work very well. Honda may want to go in on this one too, as they would have a rather modern sports car on the drawing board by then that could certainly use a beefier engine than the one it got IOTL....

If you can get the Honda connection really well sorted out, what you may consider is when your JRT goes to develop its newer four-cylinder engines (including perhaps the K-series) in the early 1990s, you may wish to develop the VTEC system right along with Honda, as the system is a nearly idiot-proof way of making a better engine.

I know what you mean about Jaguar having too much on their plate and I guess that's where the massive investment would come in with this different govt. It would be tasked with developing the modular large engine I've just described, plus the two rear drive chassis (and I'd imagine that the smaller rwd chassis could eventually be scaled up to provide an XJ40 successor, rather like BMW wanted to base the 3, 5 and 7 series on the same component set IOTL). In some ways, Jaguar would cease to exist; it would be BL (or JRT)'s rwd drive centre of excellence, while Gaydon was the fwd focus, Solihull for 4wd and Abingdon for sports cars.

That makes some sense, but when you go for developing Triumph and MG do remember that you are developing different chassis for different purposes. Triumph won't be able to survive on just the Dolomite, and if you're going to go the route of having them be the surviving volume car maker having them make rebadged Austin/Morris products is unlikely to work. I'd hold off on that until you get the fully modern cars for the 1990s, let the Maestro and Montego live with the styling issues you mentioned worked out, then replace them with Triumph cars later on. Scrap the Metro ASAP once you decide to move on from the Austin and Morris names, it was a piece of crap, and develop a car to sit in the gap between the Dolomite and smaller cars that were descendants of the Austin / Morris models.

Totally agree about the MGF being the right product in the wrong decade. One of the Rover designers almost cried when he saw the MX5/Miata come out in 89 while Rover was umming and ahhing about what to do with MG.

I agree, of course, but to be honest I'd never have brought back MG. Making a small sports car like the MGF to sit in the same showrooms as the Triumph models IMO makes all the sense in the world. Call it the Triumph Spitfire instead.

I didn't manage to comment on the XJ220 earlier, but I do want to point out that the reason it wasn't a V12-powered four-wheel-drive car is that the subsequent car was much too heavy to be of use as a proper exotic, and the four-wheel-drive system on the car was hideously complicated, with the front wheels driven via drive that came off of the front differential and went to the front via a quill drive and a driveshaft that passed through the V of the engine. (Yikes.) If you are insistent on the V12 sticking to just the rear wheels driven and shedding weight where possible, such as the use of kevlar bodywork and reducing complicated components wherever possible, but you'll have a challenge getting it to pass emissions laws while still making supercar-grade power. If it were me doing it from scratch, I'd have taken that 6R4 V6, added two more cylinders to it and then going with the turbochargers on that. A slightly smaller displacement increase through a shorter stroke gives you about a 4.5-liter V8, which with twin turbos could give you probably 650 horsepower while meeting emissions laws. Make sure the car can rev quickly to counteract turbocharger lag (the XJ220 was infamous for this) and make sure the car has ABS and handles better and you get a world-beater from Day One. The cheaper MG version IMO isn't likely to work, as remember that the XJ220 cost over half a million dollars in 1992 and there really isn't much that could be done to reduce the price that would allow the vehicle to still be what it is IOTL.

Eventually, I imagine that JRT and Honda's collaboration would drift somewhat as the former hopefully got stronger. Honda seems to have lost its way completely (at least in Europe); I would hope that, whatever happened, the dynamic outfit of the 80s wouldn't die as it kind of did IOTL.

I agree with that to a point. Honda was still very much a dynamic company in the 1990s, but they learned their lesson when Mitsubishi attempted a hostile takeover of them in 1992 and quickly shifted to producing more popular vehicles with the public as opposed to just their engineers, though admittedly they did swing the pendulum too far in the other direction I think. Despite that, you'll need to be looking at developing more utility vehicles as the 1990s goes on. As heinous as it may sound you will likely need to make vans of some sort, perhaps with Land Rover badges, and Honda needs to do the same so it would again be natural to work on mutual needs.

JRT would be making more of its own stuff on its own platforms, thus helping its own profits. They'd make these profits out of two engine families (K series and AJ12/26 and, ultimately, three platforms in the shape of the rwd platform, the modular AR6 type fwd platform and a four wheel drive component set to provide the underpinnings for Discovery, Range Rover and Defender).

That makes sense, but you'll need to remember that the truck chassis are going to have different demands too. The Defender and Discovery on versions of the same chassis is a possibility, but the Range Rover IMO I'd stick to OTL on, though I'd get to the second-generation model way before OTL - get it done by 1986ish and you may end up being so far ahead of the game that you get to define the market for luxury off-roaders, which wasn't a common thing at that time.

 

[oliver123]

In order to keep six brands competing in such many market segments, you need to produce 10 million a year. Ideally, the company can produce 1 million a year

 

[oliver123]

When Mercedes Benz sold 200000 W123 per year, Rover sold 30000 sd1 per year, and you plan to let Rover and Jaguar share the e segment. How many do you think they could sell?

 

[oliver123]

The price of the xJ40 was lower than the 5-series and W124 with the samilar engine. There were not space for one proper executive car, let alone two

 

[David Flin]

Here’s a possible route for British Leyland to have survived in a form. It would have required more sustained investment from govt (Thatcher’s administration might need butterflying away) and the retention of a golden share after privatisation.

John Egan was appointed as head of Jaguar in the late 70s. Egan’s success with Jaguar and its workforce, his investment in Whitley, his hardball approach with suppliers like Lucas, led to the company eventually being privatised in 1984. So what if Egan’s success allowed him to succeed Michael Edwardes as boss of the whole of BL? Jaguar wouldn't have been spun off BL but would have been the inspiration for the whole company's revitalisation. Could Jaguar’s approach (combined with a still burgeoning collaboration with Honda) have spread its positive effects across the entire group?

As @TheMann said above, the first priority in dealing with BL is to sort out the industrial relations situation. To describe the workforce as militant during the 1970s would be an understatement. In 1976, the Longbridge plant in Solihull lost more working days to strike action than it had productive working days. Regardless of investment levels of models produced or anything else, if more than 50% of potential production is lost to strikes, you haven't got a viable business.

Indeed, the industrial relations problems, as evidenced by the level of industrial action (why is it called action when the workers are specifically inactive?) during the late 1970s was a prime reason why Thatcher was elected in the first place, in the hope that someone would "sort the Unions out". (Be careful what you wish for). In 1979, Thatcher (or a Thatcher look-alike) was almost inevitable.

 

[oliver123]

In addition, your idea seems to be the opposite of the article that inspired you

The article points out that British high-end brands have always been in the position of low production and should take the niche position, but how many areas do you want to keep the six brands competing in most segments

 

[oliver123]

According to your plan, you have two platforms and two brands in C segment and D segment, and two brands in E segment. The annual output of the whole company is less than 400000 vehicles. What a classic BL plan

 

[TheMann]

In addition, your idea seems to be the opposite of the article that inspired you

The article points out that British high-end brands have always been in the position of low production and should take the niche position, but how many areas do you want to keep the six brands competing in most segments

It seems to me that what he's aiming for is Jaguar on top, Rover making near-luxury cars lower down on the totem pole and Triumph aiming to be more like Volkswagen. I agree that the Jaguar-Rover split needs to be larger (I made that comment earlier) and I don't see MG being a viable separate brand, but I think there is a lot than can be done with this idea. And while sales numbers the likes of what you envision would be preferable, its not strictly necessary.

 

[oliver123]

It seems to me that what he's aiming for is Jaguar on top, Rover making near-luxury cars lower down on the totem pole and Triumph aiming to be more like Volkswagen. I agree that the Jaguar-Rover split needs to be larger (I made that comment earlier) and I don't see MG being a viable separate brand, but I think there is a lot than can be done with this idea. And while sales numbers the likes of what you envision would be preferable, its not strictly necessary.

The pod of the 1980s was too late
Even with unlimited government support, it is impossible to build a viable competitor for Germany's triple
The ideal scenario is a stronger JLR
Jaguar in F, Esegment, Rover in D, C segment，land rover for SUV

 

[Dr Dee]

If you put Egan in charge he'll get stuck with that madness, which is why I said keep Edwardes on top to handle that mess and let Egan handle the development of the new cars. If Edwardes is having to spend that much time and effort on his workforce Egan will pretty a very free hand in any case, and Sir Michael is likely to be much more able to convince Thatcher for extra investment for the products and facility improvements if there is progress on the reorganization front.

I'd be happy with that. What I'd want to avoid is someone like Graham Day in charge who only saw value in what Honda did or George Simpson, who went on to destroy GEC.

That's not a bad idea, but I'm not entirely convinced the SD1 successor should be based on the same platform as the S-Type. If you build both and the Rover is most of the car at a rather lower price, who is gonna bother with the Jaguar? I can see how Jaguar could be brought into a line of S-Type / XJ / XK / F-Type / XJ220 (and that would almost certainly work well if the cars are well done and the F-Type and S-Type are reasonably priced), but having the SD1 successor (call it the Rover P7, perhaps?) on the same platform is a bad idea if you ask me. Having the smaller Rover also be a Triumph is much more possible because the potential sales for it are much higher and you can make the car a very sporty machine indeed for Triumph but a much more comfortable, luxurious one for Rover.

I guess it comes down to differentiation of the two marques. BL were hopeless at this but I think it could work. Jaguar and Rover have been represented as being at each other's throats in the BL family (Lyons allegedly killing off the P8 etc), but if handled correctly, I think they'd be going after totally different clienteles. The Jaguar would be very much the sports saloon and would be more powerful and, frankly, sexier. Rover would drop the Ferrari Daytona-esque styling idiom that David Bache gave to the SD1 in exchange for something more upright and brutal, maybe traditional (I always thought the SD1's styling theme was more suitable for Triumph). You'd have an estate version of the Rover and perhaps four wheel drive. Jaguar themselves were experimenting with a four wheel drive system for the aborted F type so maybe some of the same technology could be applied to Rover and also build the link with Land Rover. Personally, I think all the nonsense about the 'Land Rover Range Rover' could have been avoided by calling the Rover car division, 'Range Rover'.

As for engines, Rover could have insisted on a bigger engine - and indeed Honda figured out the need for the bigger engine rather quickly - or developed their own V6 for the purpose.

True, and I think Rover tried. But Honda weren't listening. The 800 was damaged somewhat by the crap engine initially offered. When they got the 2.7, my understanding was that Rover wasn't allowed to change it in any way. It was also considered a major disappointment to those used to the wave of torque from the Rover/Buick V8.

That makes sense, but I would caution against the use of modular-design engines for a inline-four even if the V6/V8/V10/V12 possibilities do exist. This setup if the fundamentals are good could be a great engine to replace the aging Jaguar straight-six and V12 too, and any remaining uses of the Rover V8 (like the Range Rover), but designing an engine for a V-configuration and then having only one bank used isn't likely to work very well. Honda may want to go in on this one too, as they would have a rather modern sports car on the drawing board by then that could certainly use a beefier engine than the one it got IOTL....

Okay, this is where my total lack of engineering knowledge really starts to make itself obvious! Jaguar abandoned AJ12 because of the complexity of the machinery needed to produce the engines. Perhaps develop the vee angle engines separately and then abandon the big inline four and work on a massively modified E-series as a 2.0 litre engine instead? I think the 1.6 R and S-series was E-series derived and Rover were working on a multi valve version of this so perhaps that could have been pursued too to avoid the K series being stretched beyond 1400cc.

If you can get the Honda connection really well sorted out, what you may consider is when your JRT goes to develop its newer four-cylinder engines (including perhaps the K-series) in the early 1990s, you may wish to develop the VTEC system right along with Honda, as the system is a nearly idiot-proof way of making a better engine.

Again, my knowledge is hazy but I think Austin Rover already had its own VVC system which was cheaper than VTEC and extremely effective.

That makes some sense, but when you go for developing Triumph and MG do remember that you are developing different chassis for different purposes. Triumph won't be able to survive on just the Dolomite, and if you're going to go the route of having them be the surviving volume car maker having them make rebadged Austin/Morris products is unlikely to work. I'd hold off on that until you get the fully modern cars for the 1990s, let the Maestro and Montego live with the styling issues you mentioned worked out, then replace them with Triumph cars later on. Scrap the Metro ASAP once you decide to move on from the Austin and Morris names, it was a piece of crap, and develop a car to sit in the gap between the Dolomite and smaller cars that were descendants of the Austin / Morris models.

I think Triumph would basically end up as the equivalent of the late 80s/early 90s Rover IOTL. It would have more than the Dolomite (which would be the equivalent of the OTL Rover 600 but sitting on a rwd platform ITTL). There would be a fwd Golf and Jetta rival (OTL Rover 200/400 equivalents) and perhaps an equivalent to the third generation Rover 200 that eventually became the Rover 25 - a smaller compact sporty car that might be a modern day equivalent of the Triumph Herald/Vitesse (but not called that!). Add on top of that various coupe/convertible versions (not full on sports cars for Triumph), then you have a good, slightly upmarket mass market manufacturer - a parallel to VW's strategy in a way.

I suggested that Roy Axe could have been hired earlier to avoid the horrendous scalloped styling of the Maestro/Montego. So you'd end up with styling as below, but Triumph, not Rover badged:

That's basically Montego mechanicals dressed in a much sharper suit. I think Austin/Morris would need to be retired asap and this styling theme applied as soon as possible. It really worked so well in that late 80s/early 90s honeymoon period for the Rover Group.

As far as the Metro being a piece of crap, it was certainly compromised but came through as being a seriously good car when relaunched in 1990 with interconnected hydragas and K series engine. Obviously, they should have also changed the styling too to the R6X theme:

Failing that, AR6 (using steel, not aluminium) should have been pursued, eventually providing a scalable platform for all of the group's fwd cars. The Metro name would live on as a larger car in the MINI range I propose (basically OTL MINI, but a decade earlier).

I agree, of course, but to be honest I'd never have brought back MG. Making a small sports car like the MGF to sit in the same showrooms as the Triumph models IMO makes all the sense in the world. Call it the Triumph Spitfire instead.

In this scenario, Triumph would be a volume car manufacturer who would still build 'sporty' cars but not out and out sports cars. They would be reserved for MG. Triumph sports cars really faded away quickly while MG remained fondly regarded (at least in Europe - to the extent that the MGF was the best selling sports car in Europe in the late 90s as I understand it). Triumph would build fwd sporty, mainstream based coupes/convertibles like this:

...while MG would build proper rwd cars like the MGF or even something a bit more hairy chested like this:

The cheaper MG version IMO isn't likely to work, as remember that the XJ220 cost over half a million dollars in 1992 and there really isn't much that could be done to reduce the price that would allow the vehicle to still be what it is IOTL.

I was thinking that if the Audi R8 can be based on the Lamborghini Gallardo IOTL, then the XJ220 and the EX-E might share a lot of componentry too.

Despite that, you'll need to be looking at developing more utility vehicles as the 1990s goes on. As heinous as it may sound you will likely need to make vans of some sort, perhaps with Land Rover badges, and Honda needs to do the same so it would again be natural to work on mutual needs.

When you say vans, do you mean MPVs/people carriers? Maybe not so heinous; after all, the Rover Group IOTL were considering building a kind of Matra Rancho style car codenamed Pathfinder that would have been badged a Rover in fwd guise and a Land Rover in 4wd guise. Some of the work that went into it eventually helped with Freelander.

That makes sense, but you'll need to remember that the truck chassis are going to have different demands too. The Defender and Discovery on versions of the same chassis is a possibility, but the Range Rover IMO I'd stick to OTL on, though I'd get to the second-generation model way before OTL - get it done by 1986ish and you may end up being so far ahead of the game that you get to define the market for luxury off-roaders, which wasn't a common thing at that time.

Yes, the Range Rover 38A took forever to come out. I remember a replacement Range Rover being scooped in CAR magazine in 1987...but it only came out in 1994, with BMW cash.

 

[Dr Dee]

In order to keep six brands competing in such many market segments, you need to produce 10 million a year. Ideally, the company can produce 1 million a year

Exactly 50 years ago, BL produced 1 million cars. With five more brands than I propose here. I think that it isn't total ASB to imagine that a BL that had properly differentiated marques and streamlined engineering to avoid insane duplication, proper industrial relations, managers who didn't treat their workers like dog manure and all the other butterflies required...might...just might..be able to produce perhaps a bit more than 1 million by now.

 

[Dr Dee]

In addition, your idea seems to be the opposite of the article that inspired you

The article points out that British high-end brands have always been in the position of low production and should take the niche position, but how many areas do you want to keep the six brands competing in most segments

I didn't say I agreed with it. I was thinking about how it described Jaguar Rover and Triumph as 'sub scale' in comparison to other European marques. I then thought what could have been done about that. Well, keep Jaguar at the top as a more niche manufacturer taking on the top end Mercedes/BMWs, have Rover in the middle as the equivalent of 80s Audi/Volvo and Triumph at the bottom taking on VW/Peugeot (but not slugging it out with the likes of Ford). You dump Austin Morris and you separate out Jaguar Rover and Triumph which were far more marketable. You then have MINI to pick up the lower end as a niche marque (as it was evolving into being in the 80s), MG (which is obviously a niche marque) and Land Rover (which is obviously its own thing with 4wds).

 

[Dr Dee]

According to your plan, you have two platforms and two brands in C segment and D segment, and two brands in E segment. The annual output of the whole company is less than 400000 vehicles. What a classic BL plan

Eh?

C segment would be Triumph only.

D segment would be Triumph and Rover, it's true but they'd be very different marques. Same for E-segment...and same answer.

The annual output would be far greater than 400000 cars, hopefully. This is NOT Austin Rover!

And it's not a classic BL plan. It's a VAG plan.

 

[oliver123]

Exactly 50 years ago, BL produced 1 million cars. With five more brands than I propose here. I think that it isn't total ASB to imagine that a BL that had properly differentiated marques and streamlined engineering to avoid insane duplication, proper industrial relations, managers who didn't treat their workers like dog manure and all the other butterflies required...might...just might..be able to produce perhaps a bit more than 1 million by now.

BL produced 1 million in 1972，but less than 400000 in 1980，when your pod begin

 

[Dr Dee]

BL produced 1 million in 1972，but less than 400000 in 1980，when your pod begin

Yes. And I’m assuming that things would rapidly improve...

 

[oliver123]

Eh?

C segment would be Triumph only.

D segment would be Triumph and Rover, it's true but they'd be very different marques. Same for E-segment...and same answer.

The annual output would be far greater than 400000 cars, hopefully. This is NOT Austin Rover!

And it's not a classic BL plan. It's a VAG plan.

You mentioned the M-Car, which means FWD triumph for C-segment and D-segment
The connection with Honda without XX/HX, which means the SD3 rover200
a rover600 based on the small RWD platform, You do have two brands and two platforms in the C-segment and D-segment
All of them were in early 1980s，When BL Sold 4000000 per year，at least 60% of them were metro and mini

 

[oliver123]

Yes. And I’m assuming that things would rapidly improve...

How？
We call the annual growth rate of 10% explosive growth