British Leyland survives and thrives...?!

[oliver123]

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.

No, I mean their range is so narrow that it is meaningless to maintain the brand.
In 1970s, when Mercedes Benz was only in E and F segment, BL planned to let JRT be in F、E、D
Now Mercedes is in C-F, you let them have two segment each, so it's really just a repetition of BL.
In fact, it's even worse, because SUV will be marked as Land Rover

 

[oliver123]

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?

Let's talk about a very simple truth
Now you compete in many market areas
You're at a disadvantage in scale in every area
This means that you don't have enough resources to match your competitors and are at a disadvantage in product development
Next, will you focus your resources on one brand to match your competitors, or will you spread your resources on each brand and be at a disadvantage?
So if you want to keep so many brands, you have to make sure they are in the lead in every field

 

[tomo pauk]

Apart from niche manufacturers, having more than 3 'mainstream' firms is excessive for the UK past 1970s, or perhaps even past 1960s. Developing cars and all of the technogyy and materials is hard and expensive, the reliability standards still need to be met.

 

[oliver123]

Apart from niche manufacturers, having more than 3 'mainstream' firms is excessive for the UK past 1970s, or perhaps even past 1960s. Developing cars and all of the technogyy and materials is hard and expensive, the reliability standards still need to be met.

In fact, there were four in the UK, three of which are among the most powerful car companies in the world and all they were confined in a very narrow market
This was the main reason for the decline of the British automobile industry

 

[Dr Dee]

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

I didn't say I didn't want them to reach that scale. I said they wouldn't be a pile 'em high, sell 'em cheap operation.

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

Personally, I'm entirely feasible.

As far as JRT are concerned, maybe by 2020 they would reach that kind of scale if they went into collaboration with another group, which would probably be inevitable - and desirable. Maybe Honda - I think Honda produces around 5 million per year. If you put together the production totals of those OTL car companies I said would be analogues of the JRT companies (Maserati, Volvo, Land Rover, MINI, Mazda), you'd get a figure of around 3 million....add that to Honda...voila...

Of course, I'm being facetious. It's not as easy as that. Perhaps you're imagining that I'd expect Egan (or whoever, maybe someone else much earlier in the 70s) to swoop in, magic some fairy dust and sort it all out. I'm really not. I'm saying that while the creation of BL was beyond stupid and diabolically badly handled, perhaps more of it could have been salvaged as a company that wasn't broken up because its constituent pieces really could fit in together a hell of a lot better.

Honestly... I don't think that's impossible.

 

[Dr Dee]

Okay, let’s take two really bad examples: Ford’s creation of the Premier Automotive Group and BMW's purchase of the Rover Group.

PAG was a good idea, badly executed. Badly executed because the chums in Dearborn were a bunch of control freaks who knew Jaguar (for instance) needed a lot of discipline drummed into them and investment but who didn’t know that they really didn’t need a retro barge like the S-type (rather similar to BMW insisting that Rover should go after the pipes and slippers brigade with the Rover 75).

Despite that, Jaguar, Land Rover, Volvo, Lincoln and Aston Martin kind of made sense on paper. Jaguar and Land Rover were eventually reunited and have been making beautiful music together since 2008 (apart from the last two years although they seem to be on their way back). JLR has/had ambitions to produce 1 million cars per year from its own platforms. Volvo is probably heading the same way (700,000 units at the last count, I believe). Mazda wasn’t part of PAG but it’s done really well on its own, producing just 1.5 million cars. When BMW were trying to bail out of Rover, they did consider selling MINI to Ford at one point.

If we take those companies together, I’m saying JRT could have been an ATL Premier Automotive Group, plus MINI and a Mazda analogue in the form of Triumph. You’d be looking at around 3 million units. Not a heavyweight but if a company like JLR can support 2 marques with an annual production of 500,000 approx, I think JRT could support more with 3,000,000.

Now you might say that PAG only worked because of the backing of Ford. I’m saying that eventually, JRT would probably be sold off to another company – possibly Ford or Honda – that would give it that kind of backing. Or would merge.

Then we come to BMW’s original plan with Rover which was to almost to create a GM of premium brands as I think one car magazine called it at the time. Yes, they royally cocked it up because of incompetence from Gaydon, initial laissez faire attitude from Munich, subsequent control freakery from Munich, Tony Blair's government not lifting a finger to support the refurbishment of Longbridge, a shocking lack of vision about how BMW thought they would fit themselves in with the marques they had bought etc etc.

I still think it could have worked, though with government support, less back stabbing in the BMW boardroom and less naivete from the likes of Bernd Pischetsrieder who was Alec Issigonis’s nephew and wanted to bring back the likes of Riley!!!

Look, I’m not a romantic about these brands. I'm really not. If they don’t work, kill them. But I think they would work – and, after all, they are working IOTL. My contention is that they could have worked together.

 

[oliver123]

Apart from niche manufacturers, having more than 3 'mainstream' firms is excessive for the UK past 1970s, or perhaps even past 1960s. Developing cars and all of the technogyy and materials is hard and expensive, the reliability standards still need to be met.

I didn't say I didn't want them to reach that scale. I said they wouldn't be a pile 'em high, sell 'em cheap operation.

Personally, I'm entirely feasible.

As far as JRT are concerned, maybe by 2020 they would reach that kind of scale if they went into collaboration with another group, which would probably be inevitable - and desirable. Maybe Honda - I think Honda produces around 5 million per year. If you put together the production totals of those OTL car companies I said would be analogues of the JRT companies (Maserati, Volvo, Land Rover, MINI, Mazda), you'd get a figure of around 3 million....add that to Honda...voila...

Of course, I'm being facetious. It's not as easy as that. Perhaps you're imagining that I'd expect Egan (or whoever, maybe someone else much earlier in the 70s) to swoop in, magic some fairy dust and sort it all out. I'm really not. I'm saying that while the creation of BL was beyond stupid and diabolically badly handled, perhaps more of it could have been salvaged as a company that wasn't broken up because its constituent pieces really could fit in together a hell of a lot better.

Honestly... I don't think that's impossible.

Let's talk about some facts.
Most of Volvo's sales volume is SUV. When you label SUV as Land Rover, the rest is only about 250000.
Renault and PSA produced an annual output of 2 million in the early 1980's and 4 million now. From 400000 to 3 million means four times their success
The European market can't support such a big growth.
You have to rely on the U.S. and Chinese markets, which are Honda's core markets.
So what's the reason for Honda to cooperate with JRT?
Moreover, to succeed in China means that you have to enter the Chinese market as soon as possible. How can a company that relies on government support do that？
Finally, even if you can do all of this, you compete in a range similar to the VGA and the total sales volume is less than one-third of them
Even BL would not try to stay in the mass and premium market under these circumstances . When BL try to did so, they were the 5th largest car company in the world

 

[Dr Dee]

Let's talk about some facts.
Most of Volvo's sales volume is SUV. When you label SUV as Land Rover, the rest is only about 250000.
Renault and PSA produced an annual output of 2 million in the early 1980's and 4 million now. From 400000 to 3 million means four times their success
The European market can't support such a big growth.

Well, if JRT was successful, you'd imagine that some of the growth you mention in other companies would be butterflied away...because JRT would have taken away some of those sales...?!

You have to rely on the U.S. and Chinese markets, which are Honda's core markets.
So what's the reason for Honda to cooperate with JRT?

Because they already were...from the early 80s?

Moreover, to succeed in China means that you have to enter the Chinese market as soon as possible. How can a company that relies on government support do that？

If you mean back in the 80s when my alternative govt was in charge, the Chinese market was nothing.

If you mean now and we imagine that the UK government would still be supporting JRT, you'd better warn Peugeot...they're partly owned by the French government and are in bed with Dongfeng I believe...

 

[oliver123]

Okay, let’s take two really bad examples: Ford’s creation of the Premier Automotive Group and BMW's purchase of the Rover Group.

PAG was a good idea, badly executed. Badly executed because the chums in Dearborn were a bunch of control freaks who knew Jaguar (for instance) needed a lot of discipline drummed into them and investment but who didn’t know that they really didn’t need a retro barge like the S-type (rather similar to BMW insisting that Rover should go after the pipes and slippers brigade with the Rover 75).

Despite that, Jaguar, Land Rover, Volvo, Lincoln and Aston Martin kind of made sense on paper. Jaguar and Land Rover were eventually reunited and have been making beautiful music together since 2008 (apart from the last two years although they seem to be on their way back). JLR has/had ambitions to produce 1 million cars per year from its own platforms. Volvo is probably heading the same way (700,000 units at the last count, I believe). Mazda wasn’t part of PAG but it’s done really well on its own, producing just 1.5 million cars. When BMW were trying to bail out of Rover, they did consider selling MINI to Ford at one point.

If we take those companies together, I’m saying JRT could have been an ATL Premier Automotive Group, plus MINI and a Mazda analogue in the form of Triumph. You’d be looking at around 3 million units. Not a heavyweight but if a company like JLR can support 2 marques with an annual production of 500,000 approx, I think JRT could support more with 3,000,000.

Now you might say that PAG only worked because of the backing of Ford. I’m saying that eventually, JRT would probably be sold off to another company – possibly Ford or Honda – that would give it that kind of backing. Or would merge.

Then we come to BMW’s original plan with Rover which was to almost to create a GM of premium brands as I think one car magazine called it at the time. Yes, they royally cocked it up because of incompetence from Gaydon, initial laissez faire attitude from Munich, subsequent control freakery from Munich, Tony Blair's government not lifting a finger to support the refurbishment of Longbridge, a shocking lack of vision about how BMW thought they would fit themselves in with the marques they had bought etc etc.

I still think it could have worked, though with government support, less back stabbing in the BMW boardroom and less naivete from the likes of Bernd Pischetsrieder who was Alec Issigonis’s nephew and wanted to bring back the likes of Riley!!!

Look, I’m not a romantic about these brands. I'm really not. If they don’t work, kill them. But I think they would work – and, after all, they are working IOTL. My contention is that they could have worked together.

I will not say “PAG only worked because of the backing of Ford”
PAG can’t work even with the backing of Ford
PAG losing billions per year，they never work

On the other hand, when you come up with two examples of serious failure, it obviously doesn't support your idea at all

Finally, when JRT belong to Ford or Honda, it's clear that they willn't keep triumph

 

[oliver123]

Well, if JRT was successful, you'd imagine that some of the growth you mention in other companies would be butterflied away...because JRT would have taken away some of those sales...?!

Because they already were...from the early 80s?

If you mean back in the 80s when my alternative govt was in charge, the Chinese market was nothing.

If you mean now and we imagine that the UK government would still be supporting JRT, you'd better warn Peugeot...they're partly owned by the French government and are in bed with Dongfeng I believe...

The china market was nothing in 1980s，but Europe mass brand could not survived in China if you didn't set up a factory in China in the 1980s
Renault+PSA+Fait sold less than 200000 cars in China in2020，please tell me why triumph could do better than them，did Triumph had more resources than them？

 

[Dr Dee]

I will not say “PAG only worked because of the backing of Ford”
PAG can’t work even with the backing of Ford
PAG losing billions per year，they never work

On the other hand, when you come up with two examples of serious failure, it obviously doesn't support your idea at all

Sigh...they’re bad examples because they were cocked up, as I said. That’s the obvious point. On paper, they worked. If you fit your brands together carefully, it can work. If you just pick up brands as trophies without thought about how they fit together, then you’re in trouble. As BL, BMW, Ford and now VAG (considering selling off boutique brands like Lambo) found out.

Finally, when JRT belong to Ford or Honda, it's clear that they don't keep triumph

If it’s that clear, better let Tavares know that Opel, Citroen, Fiat, Vauxhall, Chrysler and Dodge need to be dumped in favour of Peugeot then...

 

[Dr Dee]

The china market was nothing in 1980s，but Europe mass brand could not survived in China if you didn't set up a factory in China in the 1980s
Renault+PSA+Fait sold less than 200000 cars in China in2020，please tell me why triumph could do better than them，did Triumph had more resources than them？

Probably not on their own...no..?!

 

[oliver123]

Sigh...they’re bad examples because they were cocked up, as I said. That’s the obvious point. On paper, they worked. If you fit your brands together carefully, it can work. If you just pick up brands as trophies without thought about how they fit together, then you’re in trouble. As BL, BMW, Ford and now VAG (considering selling off boutique brands like Lambo) found out.

If it’s that clear, better let Tavares know that Opel, Citroen, Fiat, Vauxhall, Chrysler and Dodge need to be dumped in favour of Peugeot then...

PSA retainOpel because Opel sold about the same amount with Peugeot and Citroen
But triumph sold less than 1/5 of Ford and Honda
What's more, even if Triumph was retaind in Europe，Please give me a reason why Ford or Honda would bring Triumph to China and the U.S. market to compete with themselves

 

[oliver123]

Okay, let’s take two really bad examples: Ford’s creation of the Premier Automotive Group and BMW's purchase of the Rover Group.

PAG was a good idea, badly executed. Badly executed because the chums in Dearborn were a bunch of control freaks who knew Jaguar (for instance) needed a lot of discipline drummed into them and investment but who didn’t know that they really didn’t need a retro barge like the S-type (rather similar to BMW insisting that Rover should go after the pipes and slippers brigade with the Rover 75).

Despite that, Jaguar, Land Rover, Volvo, Lincoln and Aston Martin kind of made sense on paper. Jaguar and Land Rover were eventually reunited and have been making beautiful music together since 2008 (apart from the last two years although they seem to be on their way back). JLR has/had ambitions to produce 1 million cars per year from its own platforms. Volvo is probably heading the same way (700,000 units at the last count, I believe). Mazda wasn’t part of PAG but it’s done really well on its own, producing just 1.5 million cars. When BMW were trying to bail out of Rover, they did consider selling MINI to Ford at one point.

If we take those companies together, I’m saying JRT could have been an ATL Premier Automotive Group, plus MINI and a Mazda analogue in the form of Triumph. You’d be looking at around 3 million units. Not a heavyweight but if a company like JLR can support 2 marques with an annual production of 500,000 approx, I think JRT could support more with 3,000,000.

Now you might say that PAG only worked because of the backing of Ford. I’m saying that eventually, JRT would probably be sold off to another company – possibly Ford or Honda – that would give it that kind of backing. Or would merge.

Then we come to BMW’s original plan with Rover which was to almost to create a GM of premium brands as I think one car magazine called it at the time. Yes, they royally cocked it up because of incompetence from Gaydon, initial laissez faire attitude from Munich, subsequent control freakery from Munich, Tony Blair's government not lifting a finger to support the refurbishment of Longbridge, a shocking lack of vision about how BMW thought they would fit themselves in with the marques they had bought etc etc.

I still think it could have worked, though with government support, less back stabbing in the BMW boardroom and less naivete from the likes of Bernd Pischetsrieder who was Alec Issigonis’s nephew and wanted to bring back the likes of Riley!!!

Look, I’m not a romantic about these brands. I'm really not. If they don’t work, kill them. But I think they would work – and, after all, they are working IOTL. My contention is that they could have worked together.

If you think two such serious failures can be called “work on paper”
I suggest you choose a better example
There exactly was a man who thought BL can work as you planned，with the support of the government.
His name is Ryder and he really got the supports
The only real difference between your and Ryder's plan was facing a situation far better than your Pod
At that time，BL sold similar with Renault or PSA，and sold about 1/5 when your pod begin

 

[Dr Dee]

PSA keep Opel because Opel sold similar with Peugeot and Citroen and them established for more than a hundred years
While triumph sold less than 1/5 of Ford and Honda
What's more, even if Triumph was retaind in Europe，Please give me a reason why Ford or honda would introduce them to China and the U.S. market to compete with themselves

I’m sorry - I don’t understand this.

 

[Dr Dee]

If you think two such serious failures can be called “work on paper”
I suggest you choose a better example

I’ll try again. Yes, they didn’t work - for the reasons I laid out. You seem to suggest it’s an immutable law of the universe that combinations of companies competing in different market sectors but using the same component set is doomed to failure. I humbly suggest you’re completely wrong.

In addition, the JRT I propose would ruthlessly share its components in a way that PAG and (especially) BMW did not. Take the madness of a bespoke platform for the Rover 75 and Mini. Or building the Tritec engine with Chrysler when they already had the K-series. Less Teutonic logic and more Dumb and Dumberer.

There exactly was a man who thought BL can work as you planned，with the support of the government.
His name is Ryder and he really got the supports
The only real difference between your and Ryder's was facing a situation far better than your Pod
At that time，BL sold similar with Renault or PSA，and sold about 1/5 when your pod begin

Er, no. Really, no.

The Ryder report recommended fiddling around with management structures and no plant closures in return for a massive injection of cash.

I’m proposing the whole company goes upmarket in broadly the same niches, accompanied by massive rationalisation - not just in the sense of plant closures and redundancies but in the sense of making the range rational and seizing the opportunities presented by the brands they owned.

 

[oliver123]

I’ll try again. Yes, they didn’t work - for the reasons I laid out. You seem to suggest it’s an immutable law of the universe that combinations of companies competing in different market sectors but using the same component set is doomed to failure. I humbly suggest you’re completely wrong.

In addition, the JRT I propose would ruthlessly share its components in a way that PAG and (especially) BMW did not. Take the madness of a bespoke platform for the Rover 75 and Mini. Or building the Tritec engine with Chrysler when they already had the K-series. Less Teutonic logic and more Dumb and Dumberer.

Er, no. Really, no.

The Ryder report recommended fiddling around with management structures and no plant closures in return for a massive injection of cash.

I’m proposing the whole company goes upmarket in broadly the same niches, accompanied by massive rationalisation - not just in the sense of plant closures and redundancies but in the sense of making the range rational and seizing the opportunities presented by the brands they owned.

First of all，“They didn‘t work because the reasons you laid”didn‘t means they could work without these mistake
Secondly，I never said “companies competing in different market sectors but using the same component set is doomed to failure”
I have said for severl times that it will work as long as you produce more than 8 million per year
Thirdly，goes upmarket wasn't a new idea at all，a man name Turnbull try this befor Ryder
Finally, please tell me, what kind of political position did a government holds let they give unlimited support to a car company and at the same time allow it to be cruelly rationalized？

 

[Dr Dee]

First of all，“They didn‘t work because the reasons you laid”didn‘t means they could work without these mistake

And it doesn't mean they couldn't either. This is an alternative history site. In an alternative timeline...maybe...y'know...they could...?!

Secondly，I never said “companies competing in different market sectors but using the same component set is doomed to failure”
I have said for severl times that it will work as long as you produce more than 8 million per year

And I suggested a way in which JRT might well collaborate with another company to reach this magical '8 million' figure. Several times.

Thirdly，goes upmarket wasn't a new idea at all，a man name Turnbull try this befor Ryder

George Turnbull, you mean? The man who basically started Hyundai? Ah...okay. They've done pretty well since, haven't they?

Finally, please tell me, what kind of political position did a government holds let the give unlimited support to a car company and at the same time allow it to be cruelly rationalized？

Investment, not blank cheque support. Obviously.

 

[oliver123]

And it doesn't mean they couldn't either. This is an alternative history site. In an alternative timeline...maybe...y'know...they could...?!

But that doesn't mean you can use failure cases as an argument to prove that your idea is credible

And I suggested a way in which JRT might well collaborate with another company to reach this magical '8 million' figure.

8million was for 6 brand，with the ownership by Ford or Honda
There are no reason to retain Triumph
And never Bring rover to China or U.S. market
The rover was such contaminated that when they try to return to America
AR created a new brand，why would they disturb when they have Lincoln/Acura？

George Turnbull, you mean? The man who basically started Hyundai? Ah...okay. They've done pretty well since, haven't they?

Yes，and he failed in a a much better context，why do you think someone else could success in 1980s

Investment, not blank cheque support. Obviously

I means why they would do that?
If it's not to protect jobs (and votes)，why did a government would support a car company for so much？
At that time , the whole British industry was collapsing, everyone was calling for government help

 

[Dr Dee]

But that doesn't mean you can use failure cases as an argument to prove that your idea is credible

That makes no sense at all.

I said there was potential in a multi brand premium car company. It just hadn't been done very well and for painfully obvious reasons, in hindsight. It seems perfectly reasonable to assume a counterfactual where mistakes over lack of rationalisation and poor management were avoided.

Jesus...it seems like a painfully long time ago that I started this thread (yesterday, I think). But then I did say that a lot of stars would have to align. If those stars align, I fail to see how the combine I suggest would be somehow breaking the laws of reality. It would be a far leaner BL that used brands that worked in their niches.

8million was for 6 brand，with the ownership by Ford or Honda
There are no reason to retain Triumph

There is a reason in this counterfactual; it would be the slightly more premium mainstream car brand that JRT would be using by the time that the company was associated with a bigger player. Why would you not retain it when you can charge more for an ATL Triumph than you could charge for a Sierra?!

And never Bring rover to China or U.S. market
The rover was such contaminated that when they try to back the America
AR created a new brand，why would they disturb when they have Lincoln/Acura

If I understand you correctly, that's why I suggested Rover should be renamed 'Range Rover' - to butterfly away the confusion with Land Rover and Rover and god knows what other Rovers. And to take away painful memories of SD1s - at least in the US although I'm not sure what the relevance of China is in a discussion of the historic Rover brand. If JLR were thinking about introducing a saloon type Range Rover a while back, then perhaps someone at JRT would have realised that associating Rover and Land Rover more closely would make sense. They did think about this with the one of the styling proposals for the P8 which had a Range Rover style front end:

By 2021, Range Rover saloons might look like this:

Yes，and he failed in a a much better context，why do you think someone else could success in 1980s

Er...are you saying he failed at Hyundai? Ummm...no.

I means why they would do that?
If it's not to protect jobs (and votes)，why did a government would support a car company for so much？
At that time , the whole British industry was collapsing, everyone was calling for government help

It would be to protect the jobs that could be protected. Why would they do it? Governments seemed to support car companies as signifiers of national virility; perhaps an alternative British government would see BL/JRT in this way too.