No British Leyland

[Simon]

If Borgward had been acquired by BMC (or an eventual Rolls Royce-BMC Automotive Alliance), perhaps it could have evolved in the same way that OTL Skoda plays its role in the OTL Volkswagen Group.

My general feeling is that there wouldn’t be enough of a gap in terms of brand and price between BMC and Borgward as there is between VW and Skoda for something like that. If BMC had bought Borgward then I see them doing a combination of producing BMC models and slimmed down number of Borgward models or perhaps Borgward-ised BMC models to begin with but eventually moving over wholly to standardised BMC vehicles.

I don't think Innocenti has been mentioned yet; in the same ATL Alliance, perhaps it would play the role of SEAT?

If you want a SEAT equivalent there's always Authi, although that was a later development. One scenario I played around with previously was for Austin or Morris to decide after WWII to open a plant in Asturias to take advantage of the expanding local steel industry to increase sales in Spain.

 

[Masked Grizzly]

IIRC Stanley Hooker, who was brought back in to help sort things out, wrote in his autobiography Not Much of an Engineer that if he and others had been tapped six months earlier the company could likely have avoided going into receivership.



Its been a number of years but when I looked at things it worked out as costing roughly the same for BMC to buy out the Borgward ownership for a few million Deutschmarks and pay off the company's debts as building the Seneffe plant.

Interesting.

BMC could have had an earlier presence in Continental Europe had Morris acquired a more viable concern like Cottin & Desgouttes in Lyon (becoming Morris/BMC's equivlent of Fiat-derived Simca) instead of getting suckered into buying Leon Bollee, from there the long-term approach would be to integrate it with the likes of Authi, Santana Motors (in the event BMC aquires Rover / Land Rover instead of Jaguar), Innocenti, Seneffe and BMC in Smyrna / Izmir (depending on if it is under ATL Greek or OTL Turkish control) to further strengthen its presence in Europe, etc.

Even better if Austin/Morris/BMC were able to establish more of an international presence beyond South Africa, Australia and Argentina (e.g. Siam Di Tella) by having an Austin-owned American Austin / Bantam move from Butler to the former Durant Motors site in Bridgeport put itself in a position to have the production capacity necessity to produce the original Jeep (instead of it getting built by Willys and Ford). Along with canny moves to establish plants in Mexico and Brazil (like Volkswagen) as well as acquire Hindustan Motors and merge it with Austin's own planned factory in India (in an ATL Sardar Patel / Rajaji right-leaning India with no License Raj).

 

[Simon]

BMC could have had an earlier presence in Continental Europe had Morris acquired a more viable concern like Cottin & Desgouttes in Lyon (becoming Morris/BMC's equivlent of Fiat-derived Simca)...

There was a window of opportunity where they might have actually been able to pick up Simca itself – in 1945 you had Renault being seized by the French government, the Pons plan was in the offing, and Fiat was an Italian company where Italy had been occupying part of France only recently. It's not surprising that they had some worries at the time. If a British company had approached them, or more accurately the Italian authorities, with a decent offer for the company and an agreement to allow them to continue using Fiat technology for say five years I think they might have been tempted. How much of that is hindsight though I couldn't say.

... by having an Austin-owned American Austin / Bantam move from Butler to the former Durant Motors site in Bridgeport put itself in a position to have the production capacity necessity to produce the original Jeep (instead of it getting built by Willys and Ford).

This is again going my my notoriously bad memory but I believe that Bantam actually had a couple of respected industrial consulting firms do studies which showed that between their Butler plant and facilities in Detroit, plus possibly some licensed production, they had the required capacity. For some reason the Quartermaster Corps seems to have almost had it in for them.

An ideal scenario to my mind would be Bantam getting the original contract and then as order numbers increase they sub-contract with Willys, Ford can build trailers or do something else. Depending on whether or not Toledo makes for a better production site you could have Bantam use some of the profits they've made to launch a friendly takeover after the war or simply stay in Butler.

 

[Masked Grizzly]

There was a window of opportunity where they might have actually been able to pick up Simca itself – in 1945 you had Renault being seized by the French government, the Pons plan was in the offing, and Fiat was an Italian company where Italy had been occupying part of France only recently. It's not surprising that they had some worries at the time. If a British company had approached them, or more accurately the Italian authorities, with a decent offer for the company and an agreement to allow them to continue using Fiat technology for say five years I think they might have been tempted. How much of that is hindsight though I couldn't say.



This is again going my my notoriously bad memory but I believe that Bantam actually had a couple of respected industrial consulting firms do studies which showed that between their Butler plant and facilities in Detroit, plus possibly some licensed production, they had the required capacity. For some reason the Quartermaster Corps seems to have almost had it in for them.

An ideal scenario to my mind would be Bantam getting the original contract and then as order numbers increase they sub-contract with Willys, Ford can build trailers or do something else. Depending on whether or not Toledo makes for a better production site you could have Bantam use some of the profits they've made to launch a friendly takeover after the war or simply stay in Butler.

Would not want to butterfly away Simca and Willys-Overland away in this scenario and believe a post-war POD to be too late for Austin/Morris or another British company to acquire them, Morris's ATL acquisition of Cottin & Desgouttes as well as Austin's pre-war ATL acquisition / relocation of American Austin / American Bantam should be a sufficient enough starting point for a more significant post-war presence by ATL BMC in both Continental Europe and the US.

 

[marathag]

For some reason the Quartermaster Corps seems to have almost had it in for them.

That was from Ford and Willys have ready capacity, as of signing, no juggling needed.
Did they get screwed?
Yes.
But no way Bantam could have made enough to supply complete Jeeps to meet contract goals with what they had.

 

[Masked Grizzly]

If Borgward had been acquired by BMC (or an eventual Rolls Royce-BMC Automotive Alliance), perhaps it could have evolved in the same way that OTL Skoda plays its role in the OTL Volkswagen Group. I don't think Innocenti has been mentioned yet; in the same ATL Alliance, perhaps it would play the role of SEAT?

Do not believe such a scenario is feasible though can see Borgward along with Simca as part of Chrylser Europe.

Chrysler could have also acquired the likes of Jowett Cars with a pre-war POD instead of the Rootes Group, thereby allowing Jowett to survive beyond the mid-1950s and undergo expansion before it is further integrated into Chrysler Europe. Perhaps Chrysler manages to sell a viable Flat/Boxer-engined version of its pre-war radial-engined FWD Star Car project to Jowett and even buys a stake in the latter before it is replaced by the ATL properly-developed Jowett Javelin.

It would have given Chrysler a presence in the UK, France and Germany with marques that unlike real-life could be easily integrated given Borgward's own work with Boxer engines (including the unbuilt Hansa 1300) as well as even Simca (who themselves produced two small Flat-4s as possible alternatives to the inline-4 Poissy engine used in the Simca 1000).

 

[Dr Dee]

Do not believe such a scenario is feasible though can see Borgward along with Simca as part of Chrylser Europe.

Chrysler could have also acquired the likes of Jowett Cars with a pre-war POD instead of the Rootes Group, thereby allowing Jowett to survive beyond the mid-1950s and undergo expansion before it is further integrated into Chrysler Europe. Perhaps Chrysler manages to sell a viable Flat/Boxer-engined version of its pre-war radial-engined FWD Star Car project to Jowett and even buys a stake in the latter before it is replaced by the ATL properly-developed Jowett Javelin.

It would have given Chrysler a presence in the UK, France and Germany with marques that unlike real-life could be easily integrated given Borgward's own work with Boxer engines (including the unbuilt Hansa 1300) as well as even Simca (who themselves produced two small Flat-4s as possible alternatives to the inline-4 Poissy engine used in the Simca 1000).

View attachment 552565
View attachment 552566

Am I right in thinking that Jowett's chief designer left to work for BMC - specifically designing MGs? In that case, would a lot of this design work have been useful in creating a more distinct MG that might eventually have become a kind of junior premium manufacturer, like Triumph?

 

[Masked Grizzly]

Am I right in thinking that Jowett's chief designer left to work for BMC - specifically designing MGs? In that case, would a lot of this design work have been useful in creating a more distinct MG that might eventually have become a kind of junior premium manufacturer, like Triumph?

Gerald Palmer (worth checking out his autobiography Auto-Architect) also worked related Rileys and Wolseleys as well as along with a number of unrealised projects including a MG version of the Wolseley 1500 that resembled a shrunken MG Magnette ZA/ZB along with the B-Series Twin-Cam (plus a C-Series Twin-Cam), the latter which he never got to finish development of with predictable results in the MGA Twin-Cam.

He could have definitely elevated MG to something more premium like Triumph or even further in the right circumstances, the B-Series Twin-Cams could have become MG's equivalent of the Alfa Romeo Twin-Cam (without even mentioning the possibilities of the C-Series Twin-Cam or even an inline-6 version of the B-Series Twin-Cam). BMC acquiring Rover instead of Jaguar in ATL would have placed a glass ceiling for MG, yet could play a junior sporting role to Rover and gained early use of the Rover V8 (since Rover themselves had plans to move further upmarket and utilize DOHC, Multi-valves, fuel-injection).

It seems Leonard Lord was looking for any excuse to fire Gerald Palmer in order to temp Alex Issigonis back from Alvis to BMC, however Palmer's later work at Vauxhall on the Viva and Victor models would suggest he could have stayed at BMC a bit longer in order to perfect the Twin-Cams as well as develop similarly conventional low-cost front-engined RWD equivalents of the Viva HA and Ford Cortina (to compliment BMC's FWD cars without alienating conservative buyers and pushing them to rivals).

 

[Dr Dee]

Gerald Palmer (worth checking out his autobiography Auto-Architect) also worked related Rileys and Wolseleys as well as along with a number of unrealised projects including a MG version of the Wolseley 1500 that resembled a shrunken MG Magnette ZA/ZB along with the B-Series Twin-Cam (plus a C-Series Twin-Cam), the latter which he never got to finish development of with predictable results in the MGA Twin-Cam.

He could have definitely elevated MG to something more premium like Triumph or even further in the right circumstances, the B-Series Twin-Cams could have become MG's equivalent of the Alfa Romeo Twin-Cam (without even mentioning the possibilities of the C-Series Twin-Cam or even an inline-6 version of the B-Series Twin-Cam). BMC acquiring Rover instead of Jaguar in ATL would have placed a glass ceiling for MG, yet could play a junior sporting role to Rover and gained early use of the Rover V8 (since Rover themselves had plans to move further upmarket and utilize DOHC, Multi-valves, fuel-injection).

It seems Leonard Lord was looking for any excuse to fire Gerald Palmer in order to temp Alex Issigonis back from Alvis to BMC, however Palmer's later work at Vauxhall on the Viva and Victor models would suggest he could have stayed at BMC a bit longer in order to perfect the Twin-Cams as well as develop similarly conventional low-cost front-engined RWD equivalents of the Viva HA and Ford Cortina (to compliment BMC's FWD cars without alienating conservative buyers and pushing them to rivals).

The idea of MG as an upmarket brand is a fascinating one. Palmer's background is very interesting - I didn't realise there was a later link with Vauxhall. As I understand it, there was some talk of BMC differentiating between Austin and Morris a little more - with Austin being the technology led Citroen analogue, if you like, and Morris being a more conventional Peugeot type maker. Could Palmer have taken responsibilities for Morris while Issigonis took on the more cutting edge Austin?

 

[Dr Dee]

I wonder what the butterflies would have been for the rest of the world's car industry if the UK/Commonwealth car industry had been far more successful (or at least fulfilled its potential). I am fond of Innocenti as a brand and I'd love to think that BMC could have used them to inject some Italianate style into their range.

 

[Masked Grizzly]

The idea of MG as an upmarket brand is a fascinating one. Palmer's background is very interesting - I didn't realise there was a later link with Vauxhall. As I understand it, there was some talk of BMC differentiating between Austin and Morris a little more - with Austin being the technology led Citroen analogue, if you like, and Morris being a more conventional Peugeot type maker. Could Palmer have taken responsibilities for Morris while Issigonis took on the more cutting edge Austin?

It also makes sense to push MG upmarket given the brand recognition it already had in export markets, instead Morris later BMC were content to neglect it in OTL apart from rebadged Morris/Austins and sportscars in place of Wolseley, Riley and brief involvement with Rolls-Royce without success before acquiring Jaguar.

Gerald Palmer at Vauxhall was involved with the Viva HA (part 1 / part 2 - that was largely commonized with the Kadett A), Viva HB and Victor FB before (possibly even other projects before retiring).

Ideally BMC should have rationalised its marques down to about 4 from the late-1950s with Austin, Morris, MG and Vanden Plas. With Austin and Morris being differentiated earlier on, MG being pushed upmarket and Vanden Plas spawning luxury bespoke versions of BMC models.

Austin would embrace FWD like in OTL yet capitalize on the FWD layout by featuring hatchbacks as previewed in 1960 by the RWD Innocenti A40 Combinata. Unlike the smaller Mini the 1100/1300 and 1800/2200 were easily capable of featuring end-on gearboxes, with BMC's misused Research Department being given permission to reduce the costs of the FWD cars and make them profitable as well as increasing component sharing between the Mini and 1100/1300 beyond 30% (compared to OTL). Hydrolastic / Hydragas suspension and Peugeot-like Pininfarina styling would become a few of ATL Austin's USPs.

Morris would embrace conventional RWD cars, essentially early-1960s version of the Marina in Viva HA and mk1/mk2 Cortina sizes. However from the 1970s onwards it would gradually shift to more conventional FWD cars (likely related to Austin) as the FWD layout becomes more accepted though unlike Austin with more conventional suspension and conservative in-house styling.

MG would feature independent rear suspension on its RWD cars as well as 4/6-cylinder Twin-Cam and Rover V8 engines possibly without any FWD models apart from possibly the MG ADO34 (though have other ideas). In terms of styling envision the ATL MGs embracing the Ferrari Daytona-like looks of the Rover SD1 as well as the MG ADO21 prototype (that formed the basis of the Triumph TR7/TR8/Lynx).

Another idea that depends on BMC developing a slightly enlarged 750-1600cc engine (based on A-Series principles) with Twin-Cam variant, would be best described as an early-1960s LWB Pininfarina-styled version of the ADO16 Austin Apache/Victoria with end-on gearbox. Basically imagine the composite of a FWD Lancia Fulvia with Alfa Romeo Giulia (Type 105) Twin-Cam engines up to 1600ccs and possible Citroen-like Hydrolastic suspension.

Or an early-1960s Cortina-sized Marina-derived RWD variation with all-independent suspension and 1600-2000cc Twin-Cam engines, depending on the approach ATL BMC take for MG.

Vanden Plas would absorb Wolseley (and Riley if still part of BMC) to become BMC's experimental in-house version of Radford and Wood & Pickett, being distinct partly by producing luxury three-box versions of its FWD cars (thereby avoiding overlap with Morris's conventional RWD cars) as well as other bespoke Austin/Morris/MG models.

Rover (in the event it joins BMC) would be pushed further upmarket and twinned to some extent with an ATL MG (the latter playing a junior role), the unbuilt Rover P8 prototype's sophisticated suspension bares some vague similarities with Alex Moulton's Hydrolastic / Hydragas suspension systems. The Rover V8* would be pensioned off to MG with Rover developing its own common family of 4/5/6-cylinder and V8 engines. Its styling would be a developed and tidier version of the traditional-leaning P8 with elements of the original Range Rover, which given the success of the Range Rover would have been a correct approach instead of the Pininfarina Aerodynamica and Ferrari Daytona-like looks of the Rover SD1. - https://www.aronline.co.uk/opinion/rover-return/

-* An interesting POD would be Rover not only gaining the rights to the all-alloy 215 Buick V8, but also sharing the rights with AMC to produce the related Buick V6. In OTL GM offered Rover both engines though for whatever reason were only able to acquire the V8.

I wonder what the butterflies would have been for the rest of the world's car industry if the UK/Commonwealth car industry had been far more successful (or at least fulfilled its potential). I am fond of Innocenti as a brand and I'd love to think that BMC could have used them to inject some Italianate style into their range.

Innocenti in ATL could have absorbed Authi as well as Cottin & Desgouttes on the Continent (along with Siam De Tella and any ATL Brazilian / Mexican equivalents in Latin America) before eventually being integrated into ATL Citroen-esque Austin by the 1980s-1990s.

 

[QuentinEdwardDevrill]

My general feeling is that there wouldn’t be enough of a gap in terms of brand and price between BMC and Borgward as there is between VW and Skoda for something like that. If BMC had bought Borgward then I see them doing a combination of producing BMC models and slimmed down number of Borgward models or perhaps Borgward-ised BMC models to begin with but eventually moving over wholly to standardised BMC vehicles.



If you want a SEAT equivalent there's always Authi, although that was a later development. One scenario I played around with previously was for Austin or Morris to decide after WWII to open a plant in Asturias to take advantage of the expanding local steel industry to increase sales in Spain.

No only local steel industry, also aluminium, zinc, and some cadre of skilled labour in way of weapons and machine tools factorys. That people are the core producers of sea wind generators for the north and irish sea parks.

But 2 problems:
1st Uk dislikes Franco more than other western powers (Authi project is very very late compared to Renault, Fiat or Jeep plants in Spain) as an example, they vetoed the 105L7 gun for use in tanks sold to spain (can't buy Nato's standard Leopards I or M60s nor upgun the m48 till 90's)

2nd, The spanish economy is state controled at near soviet levels untill mid 50's and even if they leav some degree of freedom from there, there is 2 rules in the goverment that keep even after Franco's death about car production: A) Most of the production is for sales abroad to get hard currency not for local market 2) Local market don't need fancy things only basic and cheap cars, common spaniards don't deserve luxury cars. Even democratic goverments forbad Citroen to build the Cx in Vigo around 1980 here is a newsbulletin with some info (in spanish)

http://biblioteca.ccoo.cat/intranet-tmpl/prog/en/local_repository/documents/20582_47612.pdf

 

[Dr Dee]

If Austin and Morris were differentiated (using OTL PSA as a template, Austin playing the role of Citroen and Morris playing the role of Peugeot), I wonder what naming system they would have used so that the two companies would become more distinctive in terms of public perception and profile rather than simply their under body engineering? In the later BMC/BL days, the two marques seemed to madly overlap, to the extent that it might have made sense just to merge the two and badge their cars as Austin-Morrises.
Anyway, if that marque distinctiveness was fostered and meant something, perhaps Morris would have kept the 'M' car names? So you'd have the Morris Mini, the Morris Metro, the Morris Midi/Match/Maestro, the Morris Maxi/Maestro/Marina. And then you'd have the Austin Se7en, the Austin Eleven (as a nod to the 1100), erm...the Austin Aquila? Sheerline? Sterling?
I'd imagine that Austin and Morris would give up on having a full size executive car in time - so no Granada/Carlton analogue. That would be left to Vanden Plas and MG. Maybe MG would use Z car designations for its Alfa Romeo rivalling sports saloons and small cars - ZA, ZR/S/T etc - while using a different system for its sports cars and the inevitable, eventual SUVs if BMC survived to 2020.

 

[Masked Grizzly]

If Austin and Morris were differentiated (using OTL PSA as a template, Austin playing the role of Citroen and Morris playing the role of Peugeot), I wonder what naming system they would have used so that the two companies would become more distinctive in terms of public perception and profile rather than simply their under body engineering? In the later BMC/BL days, the two marques seemed to madly overlap, to the extent that it might have made sense just to merge the two and badge their cars as Austin-Morrises.
Anyway, if that marque distinctiveness was fostered and meant something, perhaps Morris would have kept the 'M' car names? So you'd have the Morris Mini, the Morris Metro, the Morris Midi/Match/Maestro, the Morris Maxi/Maestro/Marina. And then you'd have the Austin Se7en, the Austin Eleven (as a nod to the 1100), erm...the Austin Aquila? Sheerline? Sterling?
I'd imagine that Austin and Morris would give up on having a full size executive car in time - so no Granada/Carlton analogue. That would be left to Vanden Plas and MG. Maybe MG would use Z car designations for its Alfa Romeo rivalling sports saloons and small cars - ZA, ZR/S/T etc - while using a different system for its sports cars and the inevitable, eventual SUVs if BMC survived to 2020.

Roughly envision the differences between Austin and Morris from the late-50s to early-60s as follows:

Styling - Austin: Pininfarina / Morris: in-House
Layout - Austin: FWD / Morris: RWD
Suspension - Austin: Moulton / Morris: Ideally All-Independent or failing that conventional Morris Minor/Marina/Ital type suspension with telescopic front dampers and parabolic rear springs, anti-roll bars.
Bodystyle: Austin: Two-Box Hatchback / Morris: Three-Box Saloon

From late-60s to early-70s Austin and Morris would still be differentiated in terms of styling and suspension (the former being quirky Citroen-like with Hydragas and Peugeot-like Pininfarina styling with Morris by contrast being conservative and conventional), however Morris would gradually begin to transition towards FWD* and hatchbacks via a process of further increased component sharing beneath the differing exterior styling yet Morris would feature conventional suspension on its FWD cars with front MacPherson Struts and rear Torsion Beam Axle (essentially a Volkswagen Polo like arrangement that was actually considered for 9X Mini prototype as well as the OTL mk1 Austin Metro).

* - The larger RWD Morris models would probably ditch the existing suspension layout for Hydrolastic (later Hydragas) as on both the Midget/MGB-replacing MG EX234 prototype and the OTL Austin 3-litre ADO61 (the latter likely being a Vanden Plas), prior to being replaced by a conventional FWD layout. Reputedly early prototype versions of the 1800/2200 featured RWD (being derived from Issigonis's work at Alvis) before switching to FWD.

An example would be Austin and Morris versions of an alternate late-60s shared Mini replacement in place of ADO20 (basically Barrel Car with end-on gearbox, hatchback and 12-inch wheels plus other updates) being as follows:
Model Name - Austin Mini / Morris Clubman (or Morris Metro)
Styling - Austin: Pininfarina 9X / Morris: ADO20 Clubman hatchback
Suspension - Austin: Hydragas (Metro R6-type) / Morris: from MacPherson Struts and rear Torsion Beam Axle

The above from the late-60s to early-70s would be a bit of a gamble compared to simply merging Austin and Morris (a case could have been made for the latter had the UK joined the EEC in 1963 to butterfly away Ford's dominance in the company car / fleet market with the Cortina), however the goal is differentiate the marques whilst sharing as much componentry as possible by catering to different segments of the market with Morris retaining existing conservative BMC customers (suspicious of FWD, Moulton suspension, etc) that otherwise would have gone to Ford, Vauxhall, etc while attracting new customers with the more avant-garde Austin marque.

Both Austin and Morris would retreat from the full-size car segment to FWD D-Segment, leaving it to MG and Rover as well as the odd Vanden Plas.

Envision ATL MG using M model designations from Mite (e.g. ADO34) and Mosquito (e.g. Cortina/Giulia/Fulvia challenger) to Magnette or Magna (e.g. MG analogue of Rover SD1).

 

[Dr Dee]

Roughly envision the differences between Austin and Morris from the late-50s to early-60s as follows:

Styling - Austin: Pininfarina / Morris: in-House
Layout - Austin: FWD / Morris: RWD
Suspension - Austin: Moulton / Morris: Ideally All-Independent or failing that conventional Morris Minor/Marina/Ital type suspension with telescopic front dampers and parabolic rear springs, anti-roll bars.
Bodystyle: Austin: Two-Box Hatchback / Morris: Three-Box Saloon

From late-60s to early-70s Austin and Morris would still be differentiated in terms of styling and suspension (the former being quirky Citroen-like with Hydragas and Peugeot-like Pininfarina styling with Morris by contrast being conservative and conventional), however Morris would gradually begin to transition towards FWD* and hatchbacks via a process of further increased component sharing beneath the differing exterior styling yet Morris would feature conventional suspension on its FWD cars with front MacPherson Struts and rear Torsion Beam Axle (essentially a Volkswagen Polo like arrangement that was actually considered for 9X Mini prototype as well as the OTL mk1 Austin Metro).

* - The larger RWD Morris models would probably ditch the existing suspension layout for Hydrolastic (later Hydragas) as on both the Midget/MGB-replacing MG EX234 prototype and the OTL Austin 3-litre ADO61 (the latter likely being a Vanden Plas), prior to being replaced by a conventional FWD layout. Reputedly early prototype versions of the 1800/2200 featured RWD (being derived from Issigonis's work at Alvis) before switching to FWD.

An example would be Austin and Morris versions of an alternate late-60s shared Mini replacement in place of ADO20 (basically Barrel Car with end-on gearbox, hatchback and 12-inch wheels plus other updates) being as follows:
Model Name - Austin Mini / Morris Clubman (or Morris Metro)
Styling - Austin: Pininfarina 9X / Morris: ADO20 Clubman hatchback
Suspension - Austin: Hydragas (Metro R6-type) / Morris: from MacPherson Struts and rear Torsion Beam Axle

The above from the late-60s to early-70s would be a bit of a gamble compared to simply merging Austin and Morris (a case could have been made for the latter had the UK joined the EEC in 1963 to butterfly away Ford's dominance in the company car / fleet market with the Cortina), however the goal is differentiate the marques whilst sharing as much componentry as possible by catering to different segments of the market with Morris retaining existing conservative BMC customers (suspicious of FWD, Moulton suspension, etc) that otherwise would have gone to Ford, Vauxhall, etc while attracting new customers with the more avant-garde Austin marque.

Both Austin and Morris would retreat from the full-size car segment to FWD D-Segment, leaving it to MG and Rover as well as the odd Vanden Plas.

Envision ATL MG using M model designations from Mite (e.g. ADO34) and Mosquito (e.g. Cortina/Giulia/Fulvia challenger) to Magnette or Magna (e.g. MG analogue of Rover SD1).

By the 90s, I wonder if Morris would have developed an OTL Fiat 500 like retro aesthetic (which would perhaps chime with its more conventional engineering remit and also echo the retro chic of the OTL BMW MINIs). I can also imagine that Morris would eventually produce a new generation Morris Minor based on the Morris Midi, just as the new Beetle was based on the Golf. Or perhaps Morris would be re-positioned as an utterly conventional analogue to OTL Skoda. Or maybe both - just as OTL Fiat has attempted, perhaps Morris would adopt two parallel 'pillars' as its brand strategy: one which would be retro/chic/quite upmarket (so Fiat 500 style) and one quite utilitarian and robust (so Fiat Panda style).

Meanwhile, I can imagine Austin still being an echo of OTL Citroen.

I've looked up ADO34 - what a little gem that was.

 

[Masked Grizzly]

By the 90s, I wonder if Morris would have developed an OTL Fiat 500 like retro aesthetic (which would perhaps chime with its more conventional engineering remit and also echo the retro chic of the OTL BMW MINIs). I can also imagine that Morris would eventually produce a new generation Morris Minor based on the Morris Midi, just as the new Beetle was based on the Golf. Or perhaps Morris would be re-positioned as an utterly conventional analogue to OTL Skoda. Or maybe both - just as OTL Fiat has attempted, perhaps Morris would adopt two parallel 'pillars' as its brand strategy: one which would be retro/chic/quite upmarket (so Fiat 500 style) and one quite utilitarian and robust (so Fiat Panda style).

Meanwhile, I can imagine Austin still being an echo of OTL Citroen.

I've looked up ADO34 - what a little gem that was.

Going back to AD034, one cannot help but notice the rear would have made a suitable Pininfarina basis for an ATL 2/4-door three-box saloon Mini (in place of Wolseley Hornet / Riley Elf) as well as an earlier Austin Apache / Victoria (with the latter resembling a downsized version of the X6-based Vanden Plas 1800 prototype).

Would say ATL Morris from the 1980s onwards would indeed be approximate to OTL Skoda under Volkswagen as well as OTL Nissan, albeit better styled in case of latter either (belatedly) by Pininfarina, Italdesign Guigiario, I.DE.A Institute, Bertone or Coggiola (see Rover R6X).

Retro-styled cars is something that could be delegated to either Austin or Vanden Plas, similar to how Nissan spawned the Figario, Be-1 and Pao from the Micra K10 and how the Micra K11 formed the basis of the 1100/1300-inspired Lotas Princess March and Copel Bonito (not to mention the Mini-inspired Daihatsu Mira/Cuore-deirved Daihatsu Mira Gino).

Envision some version of the original or alternate ADO20 Minis being produced in non-Western markets up to the present as a rough composite of the three photos below initially in simplified de-chromed form, being an early British developed locally (e.g. Hindustan?) built analogue of the Maruti 800 with a detachable Minivan grille (inspired by minimalist 1958 Mini prototype though version with detachable grille would allow for easy replacement / upgrade), likely featuring simplified suspension and hatchback rear though not ruling out a split-tailgate like on Austin A40 / Range Rover (as explored in OTL 1992 Minki I prototype).