British Leyland survives and thrives...?!

[Dr Dee]

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

Not by 1981. It would take time. Obviously. And a lot of faith from the govt. But if they stuck with Austin Rover which carried on bumbling along with seven or eight brands and 400,000 cars per annum in the early 80s, I think they'd be encouraged to keep supporting a more streamlined operation that had six brands (two mainstream and four more niche) with rising production figures.

And maybe, if those stars were aligned, Egan wouldn't be starting from scratch anyway.

You said yourself that you thought the best route was to focus on JLR. I'm saying something similar. Concentrate on JRT, kill Austin Morris and spread Jaguar, Rover and Triumph out more, supported by other niche brands that offered marketable product.

 

[oliver123]

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).

OTL AG produces about 100000 Mcar and
20000 rover800 per year
Whwn Mercedes Benz produce 200000 W124 and 200000 W201
VW sold1 million Golfs per year,
nd you want BL to compete with them at the same time. Maybe you mean to increase the output tenfold within five years by rapidly improving?

 

[Dr Dee]

OTL AG produces about 100000 Mcar and
20000 rover800 per year
Whwn Mercedes Benz produce 200000 W124 and 200000 W201
VW sold1 million Golfs per year,
nd you want BL to compete with them at the same time. Maybe you mean to increase the output tenfold within five years by rapidly improving?

Who's saying that this JRT operation is going to outdo the German big boys that quickly? If ever. Not me.

I'm saying they could become far more competitive than they were. There was potential locked up in certain brands in BL that could have been realised far more effectively. Building twenty zillion units per year wasn't the idea.

When I said Rover would go up against cheaper Mercedes, I didn't mean it would eventually rival Mercedes in size. When I said Triumph would go up against VW....ditto. I'm saying they could go after the same kind of niche and they wouldn't exactly be the only car companies doing it.

If it's easier, let's forget the Germans. Imagine the company that I'm suggesting JRT would become would be a mix of:

Maserati (Jaguar)
Volvo (Rover)
VW/Peugeot/Honda - take your pick (Triumph)
MINI (MINI)
Land Rover (Land Rover)
MG (Geely owned Lotus? Not sure)

Is that so impossible?

 

[oliver123]

Not by 1981. It would take time. Obviously. And a lot of faith from the govt. But if they stuck with Austin Rover which carried on bumbling along with seven or eight brands and 400,000 cars per annum in the early 80s, I think they'd be encouraged to keep supporting a more streamlined operation that had six brands (two mainstream and four more niche) with rising production figures.

And maybe, if those stars were aligned, Egan wouldn't be starting from scratch anyway.

You said yourself that you thought the best route was to focus on JLR. I'm saying something similar. Concentrate on JRT, kill Austin Morris and spread Jaguar, Rover and Triumph out more, supported by other niche brands that offered marketable product.

In the early 1980s
Both VW Renault PSA produce over 2 million cars，Renault had 1 brand and VW had 2，PSA had 3，so they nearly go borke

 

[oliver123]

Who's saying that this JRT operation is going to outdo the German big boys that quickly? If ever. Not me.

I'm saying they could become far more competitive than they were. There was potential locked up in certain brands in BL that could have been realised far more effectively. Building twenty zillion units per year wasn't the idea.

If you can't have the same scale, how can you compete with them at the same time？

 

[Dr Dee]

If you can't have the same scale, how can you compete with them at the same time？

I'm sure the rest of the car manufacturing world asks themselves the same question. They are a phenomenon.

But I am saying that we could get higher, maybe considerably higher than 1 million cars by 2021.

 

[oliver123]

Who's saying that this JRT operation is going to outdo the German big boys that quickly? If ever. Not me.

I'm saying they could become far more competitive than they were. There was potential locked up in certain brands in BL that could have been realised far more effectively. Building twenty zillion units per year wasn't the idea.

When I said Rover would go up against cheaper Mercedes, I didn't mean it would eventually rival Mercedes in size. When I said Triumph would go up against VW....ditto. I'm saying they could go after the same kind of niche and they wouldn't exactly be the only car companies doing it.

If it's easier, let's forget the Germans. Imagine the company that I'm suggesting JRT would become would be a mix of:

Maserati (Jaguar)
Volvo (Rover)
VW/Peugeot/Honda - take your pick (Triumph)
MINI (MINI)
Land Rover (Land Rover)
MG (Geely owned Lotus? Not sure)

Is that so impossible?

Scale economy is always the most important factor in the automobile industry. R & D cost and tool cost account for more than half of the total cost. When your output is only a fraction of that of your competitors, your cost will be much higher than that of your competitors, and this does not even mention the advertising cost

 

[oliver123]

Who's saying that this JRT operation is going to outdo the German big boys that quickly? If ever. Not me.

I'm saying they could become far more competitive than they were. There was potential locked up in certain brands in BL that could have been realised far more effectively. Building twenty zillion units per year wasn't the idea.

When I said Rover would go up against cheaper Mercedes, I didn't mean it would eventually rival Mercedes in size. When I said Triumph would go up against VW....ditto. I'm saying they could go after the same kind of niche and they wouldn't exactly be the only car companies doing it.

If it's easier, let's forget the Germans. Imagine the company that I'm suggesting JRT would become would be a mix of:

Maserati (Jaguar)
Volvo (Rover)
VW/Peugeot/Honda - take your pick (Triumph)
MINI (MINI)
Land Rover (Land Rover)
MG (Geely owned Lotus? Not sure)

Is that so impossible?

Of course, It's possible. As long as you produce at least 8 million cars per year, PSA and Renault produce more than 4 million per year, they can't survive alone

 

[oliver123]

Not by 1981. It would take time. Obviously. And a lot of faith from the govt. But if they stuck with Austin Rover which carried on bumbling along with seven or eight brands and 400,000 cars per annum in the early 80s, I think they'd be encouraged to keep supporting a more streamlined operation that had six brands (two mainstream and four more niche) with rising production figures.

And maybe, if those stars were aligned, Egan wouldn't be starting from scratch anyway.

You said yourself that you thought the best route was to focus on JLR. I'm saying something similar. Concentrate on JRT, kill Austin Morris and spread Jaguar, Rover and Triumph out more, supported by other niche brands that offered marketable product.

The significant difference between us is that I abandoned the mass market, but you didn't. According to the actual situation, it needs at least 4 million annual sales to survive in the mainstream market.

 

[Dr Dee]

Of course, It's possible. As long as you produce at least 8 million cars per year, PSA and Renault produce more than 4 million per year, they can't survive alone

I'm sure JRT wouldn't be totally independent by now. There are very few car companies that are. Then maybe there'd be Stellantis style mergers involving JRT in the future? Where we could play with 14 brands, rather than the measly 2 plus 4 that I propose here. Who knows? Maybe a British government that was invested in the motor industry as a sign of national virility (not something I necessarily believe in personally!) and bought into a form of dirigisme might stick around regardless. As I said earlier, I don't think a Thatcher government would have bought into this at all. They just wanted it to all go away.

 

[Dr Dee]

The significant difference between us is that I abandoned the mass market, but you didn't. According to the actual situation, it needs at least 4 million annual sales to survive in the mainstream market.

Maybe I didn't make myself clear. The Triumph brand I suggest is rather like VW in the sense of its market positioning, not the number of units produced: an accessible posh brand. As I said before, NOT slugging it out with the likes of Ford. This Triumph would not be mass market. I mentioned Peugeot and Honda as analogues for the same reason; PSA seems to be taking Peugeot upmarket (appropriate as it was historically quite an upmarket brand) and Honda historically had that cachet about it before they started churning out the Jazz for pensioners.

Maybe a better analogue for this Triumph would be Mazda. And they get by on their own by producing 1.5 million cars...

 

[oliver123]

I'm sure JRT wouldn't be totally independent by now. There are very few car companies that are. Then maybe there'd be Stellantis style mergers involving JRT in the future? Where we could play with 14 brands, rather than the measly 2 plus 4 that I propose here. Who knows? Maybe a British government that was invested in the motor industry as a sign of national virility (not something I necessarily believe in personally!) and bought into a form of dirigisme might stick around regardless. As I said earlier, I don't think a Thatcher government would have bought into this at all. They just wanted it to all go away.

If not independent, why do they keep so many brands?
Why do their collaborators allow such crazy overlapping?

 

[Dr Dee]

If not independent, why do they keep so many brands?
Why do their collaborators allow such crazy overlapping?

I wasn't serious! Stellantis sounds like Tavares is setting up an absolute car crash (pardon the pun). But he does believe in his brands.

A lot of BL brands were just worn out and had no use. The ones that had any potential have actually survived IOTL and they are all featured in my scenario - apart from Triumph. Its demise is one the most bizarre things ever.

Those brands now survive and usually thrive under foreign ownership (and I personally have no problem with them being foreign owned). What I'm suggesting is a counterfactual whereby those brands that have survived up to today (including Triumph) might have had a future together, IF they were positioned wisely in relation to each other.

And as I said before, my scenario is really about focusing on Triumph and Rover, with the others clustered around them as niche brands.

 

[oliver123]

Maybe I didn't make myself clear. The Triumph brand I suggest is rather like VW in the sense of its market positioning, not the number of units produced: an accessible posh brand. As I said before, NOT slugging it out with the likes of Ford. This Triumph would not be mass market. I mentioned Peugeot and Honda as analogues for the same reason; PSA seems to be taking Peugeot upmarket (appropriate as it was historically quite an upmarket brand) and Honda historically had that cachet about it before they started churning out the Jazz for pensioners.

Maybe a better analogue for this Triumph would be Mazda. And they get by on their own by producing 1.5 million cars...

I know what you mean, but without the scale, you can't be profitable at the price
Asian manufacturers are a different situation. They have different wage structures and market conditions

 

[oliver123]

I wasn't serious! Stellantis sounds like Tavares is setting up an absolute car crash (pardon the pun). But he does believe in his brands.

A lot of BL brands were just worn out and had no use. The ones that had any potential have actually survived IOTL and they are all featured in my scenario - apart from Triumph. Its demise is one the most bizarre things ever.

Those brands now survive and usually thrive under foreign ownership (and I personally have no problem with them being foreign owned). What I'm suggesting is a counterfactual whereby those brands that have survived up to today (including Triumph) might have had a future together, IF they were positioned wisely in relation to each other.

And as I said before, my scenario is really about focusing on Triumph and Rover, with the others clustered around them as niche brands.

Let me put it bluntly.
It's absolutely impossible impossible to coexist for Rover and Triumph. You limit Rover at D and E, Triumph at C and D which means that there have not enough space for them. This is exactly the same as the situation of BL in the 1970s

 

[Dr Dee]

Let me put it bluntly.
It's absolutely impossible impossible to coexist for Rover and Triumph. You limit Rover at D and E, Triumph at C and D which means that there have not enough space for them. This is exactly the same as the situation of BL in the 1970s

You'll need to be blunt with Audi and VW as well then.

As I said, in my scenario, Rover and Triumph wouldn't be competing with each other. The days of both companies cannibalising each other by churning out Rover 2000s and Triumph 2000s would be long gone. They might build cars in the same size category but they'd have a very different image from each other. As I also said, this JRT might be wise to make the link with Land Rover more explicit.

 

[oliver123]

The Audi had B-F Segment
VW had A-D Segment
At the Same time，Your Rover had quarter the D and E segement，while Triumph had half the C and quarter D segment，The whole Rover Triumph had half range of Volvo
I can’t found the Similarities with VW Audi

 

[oliver123]

You'll need to be blunt with Audi and VW as well then.

As I said, in my scenario, Rover and Triumph wouldn't be competing with each other. The days of both companies cannibalising each other by churning out Rover 2000s and Triumph 2000s would be long gone. They might build cars in the same size category but they'd have a very different image from each other. As I also said, this JRT might be wise to make the link with Land Rover more explicit.

You'll need to be blunt with Audi and VW as well then.

As I said, in my scenario, Rover and Triumph wouldn't be competing with each other. The days of both companies cannibalising each other by churning out Rover 2000s and Triumph 2000s would be long gone. They might build cars in the same size category but they'd have a very different image from each other. As I also said, this JRT might be wise to make the link with Land Rover more explicit.

The Audi had B-F Segment
VW had A-D Segment
Your Rover had quarter the D and E segement，while Triumph had half the C and quarter D segment，The whole Rover Triumph had half range of Volvo
I can’t found the Similarities with VW Audi

 

[Dr Dee]

The Audi had B-F Segment
VW had A-D Segment
At the Same time，Your Rover had quarter the D and E segement，while Triumph had half the C and quarter D segment，The hole Rover Triumph had half range of Volvo
I can’t found the Similarities with VW Audi

If I understand what you've written correctly, you're saying that because the constituent companies of 'JRT' produce cars of a similar size, they'd cannibalise each other? I'm saying the two companies would appeal to a different clientele.

BL was a cannibal's paradise, it's true. Imagining the cars of my scenario in the way I sketched out, I really don't see how 'JRT' would be.

 

[oliver123]

You'll need to be blunt with Audi and VW as well then.

As I said, in my scenario, Rover and Triumph wouldn't be competing with each other. The days of both companies cannibalising each other by churning out Rover 2000s and Triumph 2000s would be long gone. They might build cars in the same size category but they'd have a very different image from each other. As I also said, this JRT might be wise to make the link with Land Rover more explicit.

On the other hand, as I have said, as long as you have at least 8 million sales, it can be realized

Since you say you don't want to reach their scale, how can you prove that you are feasible according to their situation?