No British Leyland

[kernals12]

Which is why after the ATL FWD hatchbacks have been launched, all subsequent FWD models (including the Maxi and possibly even the Princess) should have replaced the in-sump gearbox arrangement with an end-on arrangement. Interestingly another BMC precursor to the FWD cars was an early 1950s FWD Morris Minor prototype that featured a transverse engine as well as end-on gearbox layout, which was developed prior to Alec Issigonis moving to Alvis though for some reason decided against the end-on gearbox arrangement.

A no BL scenario would have still meant Issigonis being sidelined to some degree at BMC despite carrying over his ideas for the 9X and E-Series engines that would have been properly developed and emulated the later Volkswagen EA111 and Volkswagen EA827 respectively (given their apparent similarities).

The 9X/10X projects however potentially had a similar weakness with regards to gear-change despite featuring a new gearbox layout as well as an all-new engine and overall clean-sheet design, with the gear-change being unfavorably compared to the original Mini and Clubman as well as the Autobianchi A112 Abarth in what was otherwise a favorable comparison test for the 9X prototype.



The Rover V8 could have only been useful had Rover been allowed to develop it further to feature Quad-Cams, 32-valves and fuel-injection on top of larger capacities as was planned for the Rover P8 project. Otherwise even though it was partly their fault the P8 was cancelled, Jaguar could have been justified to reject the Rover V8 as it was in OTL where it could be dismissed as technically inferior and negatively impacting on Jaguar's prestige (being the engine equivalent of the Cadillac Cimarron with a similar potential to kill Jaguar). Though the notion of a Rover engined Jaguar did not appear to get far beyond a Daimlerized version of the Rover SD1.

However if Jaguar were part of Leyland instead of BMC, Jaguar would have had the option of using the Daimler V8 between the XK6 and V12 that was capable of being enlarged to 5-litres (with the power of the 4.5-litre being understated being more than 220+ hp), a rough 60-degree V8 derived from the V12 and the Triumph V8. The latter which had it been developed properly could have been quite an asset to Jaguar as it was capable of displacing 2.5-4.0-litres and with Saab's developments of the Slant-4 potentially allowing for displacements of 4.2/4.3-5.0-litres. Buying Jaguar time to develop their 1980s modular engine family much earlier that in OTL under Ford ownership end up forming the basis of the Jaguar AJ-V8 yet was capable of producing anything from a 4-cylinder to a V12.




Another factor was the OTL Maxi's weaknesses with the styling and having to carry over the centre section of the Landcrab, which made the Maxi a bigger and heavier car then it should have been with slow sales partly being the cause in preventing BL from rolling out hatchbacks on other models. The Maxi was originally suppose to feature a similar wheelbase to the later Austin Maestro and like the latter feature a 1300cc engine at the lower end of the range.

The Maxi needed amongst other things new styling akin to the Pininfarina 1800 and Aquila to go with the hatchback bodystyle, an end-on gearbox layout and a wheel-base of 100-inches or a shade below with a length of around 155-inches (making for a lighter car). Combined with properly developed E-Series engines capable of growing to 2-litres in 4-cylinder (think 2-litre EA827) as well as a 1300cc entry-level model (either E-Series or more likely A-Series) and you basically have an earlier Austin Maestro with Hydragas and contemporary styling featuring EA827-like engines that precede the Volkswagen engines by 3 years (or potentially even earlier).

The Rover v8 was more technically advanced than Jaguar' s engines in every sense. It was 11 years newer, had aluminum heads, and was superbly lightweight and efficient. And it was good enough to go in the P5, P6, and the very expensive Range Rover.

 

[Masked Grizzly]

The Rover v8 was more technically advanced than Jaguar' s engines in every sense. It was 11 years newer, had aluminum heads, and was superbly lightweight and efficient. And it was good enough to go in the P5, P6, and the very expensive Range Rover.

However the Rover V8 would have struggled to move the heavier Jaguars with the engines that did use the Rover V8 in OTL especially in North American emissions-strangled form putting out 133 hp without P8 developments (which Jaguar themselves helped kill off), compared to the 4.5 Daimler V8 they already had (or even 280-300+ hp 5-litre prototype they developed) and additionally Jaguar were heavily invested in the V12 to the point of exploring different engines derived from the V12.

Porsche for example could have used a V10 derived from a pair of EA827-derived Audi 5-cylinders engines for the Porsche 928, however they realized the negative impact a less prestigious engine (which powered the Golf in 4-cylinder form) would have on their range-topper compared to their own in-house V8 and decided to opt for their own V8.

Another alternative in the case of Jaguar under BL given the limited production capacity of the Rover V8 (even though they would have been better off under Leyland Motors with BL never happening), would have been a E-Series V8 similar to the 1.8 EA827-derived 250 hp 3.6 V8 used in the Audi V8 with a 4.0 E-Series V8 potentially putting out an output closer to 300 hp and making use of spare E-Series production capacity. However Jaguar would have probably rejected that option as well.

 

[kernals12]

However the Rover V8 would have struggled to move the heavier Jaguars with the engines that did use the Rover V8 in OTL especially in North American emissions-strangled form putting out 133 hp without P8 developments (which Jaguar themselves helped kill off), compared to the 4.5 Daimler V8 they already had (or even 280-300+ hp 5-litre prototype they developed) and additionally Jaguar were heavily invested in the V12 to the point of exploring different engines derived from the V12.

Porsche for example could have used a V10 derived from a pair of EA827-derived Audi 5-cylinders engines for the Porsche 928, however they realized the negative impact a less prestigious engine (which powered the Golf in 4-cylinder form) would have on their range-topper compared to their own in-house V8 and decided to opt for their own V8.

Another alternative in the case of Jaguar under BL given the limited production capacity of the Rover V8 (even though they would have been better off under Leyland Motors with BL never happening), would have been a E-Series V8 similar to the 1.8 EA827-derived 250 hp 3.6 V8 used in the Audi V8 with a 4.0 E-Series V8 potentially putting out an output closer to 300 hp and making use of spare E-Series production capacity. However Jaguar would have probably rejected that option as well.

The great thing about the engine was its tunability. So they could've gotten a lot more than 133 hp if they wanted.

 

[Masked Grizzly]

Despite the SAE ratings the XK6 was essentially making similar if not more power to the Rover V8 and regardless of its tunability or lightness find it difficult to envision it producing that much more power without the planned P8 V8 developments (even in emissions-strangled form). Besides the only thing that allowed Jaguar to just about survive in OTL was its ruthless political manoeuvrings against any perceived threat to its autonomy within BMC and later BL (ultimately to the detriment of both), using another marque's engine would have diminished its prestige like it did with other marques within BL including Rover (that ended building Honda-based cars under the Rover name) with the potential to irreparably damage the marque.

Obviously from the outside it makes sense to reduce costs by having Jaguar use the Rover V8, however the mentioned issues including limited production capacity of the Rover V8 make such proposals a non-starter. There were even plans to develop Jaguar turbo-diesels using the same 3.6 VM Motori 6-cylinder that went into the AMC Eagle (though some say it was a 3.8 VM Motori 6-cylinder turbo-diesel). Only for William Lyons to get wind of the plan and cancel it almost sacking the guy involved with the Jaguar diesel project, the Pistonhead article states it was the 2.4 4-cylinder turbodiesel however it is incorrect as there were plans by BL to use 3-cylinder, 4-cylinder, 5-cylinder and 6-cylinder VM Motori diesels as well as 2-litre O-Series 4-cylinder and Rover V8 Perkins diesels across the range (with the Metro at one point planned to receive a 1.5 version of the 1.8 3-cylinder diesel / turbodiesel used in the Alfa Romeo 33).

However getting back to the subject of this No BL thread. Jaguar and Triumph would have complimented each other at Leyland Motors prior to both benefiting from an earlier version of Jaguar's modular engine project, while Rover had more in common with BMC including a planned suspension system for the P8 with similarities to Hydragas suspension. The Austin Ant prototype meanwhile could have been repurposed as a Mini-Land Rover akin to an earlier Suzuki Jimny.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

EDIT - This has been replaced by the Graph in Post 66

This is the first table in Post 15 converted into a graph. I haven't included the following to make the rest easier to read: Australia, Canada, Sweden, USSR, other countries and the World Total.

 

[kernals12]

Despite the SAE ratings the XK6 was essentially making similar if not more power to the Rover V8 and regardless of its tunability or lightness find it difficult to envision it producing that much more power without the planned P8 V8 developments (even in emissions-strangled form). Besides the only thing that allowed Jaguar to just about survive in OTL was its ruthless political manoeuvrings against any perceived threat to its autonomy within BMC and later BL (ultimately to the detriment of both), using another marque's engine would have diminished its prestige like it did with other marques within BL including Rover (that ended building Honda-based cars under the Rover name) with the potential to irreparably damage the marque.

Obviously from the outside it makes sense to reduce costs by having Jaguar use the Rover V8, however the mentioned issues including limited production capacity of the Rover V8 make such proposals a non-starter. There were even plans to develop Jaguar turbo-diesels using the same 3.6 VM Motori 6-cylinder that went into the AMC Eagle (though some say it was a 3.8 VM Motori 6-cylinder turbo-diesel). Only for William Lyons to get wind of the plan and cancel it almost sacking the guy involved with the Jaguar diesel project, the Pistonhead article states it was the 2.4 4-cylinder turbodiesel however it is incorrect as there were plans by BL to use 3-cylinder, 4-cylinder, 5-cylinder and 6-cylinder VM Motori diesels as well as 2-litre O-Series 4-cylinder and Rover V8 Perkins diesels across the range (with the Metro at one point planned to receive a 1.5 version of the 1.8 3-cylinder diesel / turbodiesel used in the Alfa Romeo 33).

However getting back to the subject of this No BL thread. Jaguar and Triumph would have complimented each other at Leyland Motors prior to both benefiting from an earlier version of Jaguar's modular engine project, while Rover had more in common with BMC including a planned suspension system for the P8 with similarities to Hydragas suspension. The Austin Ant prototype meanwhile could have been repurposed as a Mini-Land Rover akin to an earlier Suzuki Jimny.

Build more production capacity! Retool the factories building Jaguar XK6s to Rover V8s.

 

[kernals12]

However the Rover V8 would have struggled to move the heavier Jaguars with the engines that did use the Rover V8 in OTL especially in North American emissions-strangled form putting out 133 hp without P8 developments (which Jaguar themselves helped kill off), compared to the 4.5 Daimler V8 they already had (or even 280-300+ hp 5-litre prototype they developed) and additionally Jaguar were heavily invested in the V12 to the point of exploring different engines derived from the V12.

Porsche for example could have used a V10 derived from a pair of EA827-derived Audi 5-cylinders engines for the Porsche 928, however they realized the negative impact a less prestigious engine (which powered the Golf in 4-cylinder form) would have on their range-topper compared to their own in-house V8 and decided to opt for their own V8.

Another alternative in the case of Jaguar under BL given the limited production capacity of the Rover V8 (even though they would have been better off under Leyland Motors with BL never happening), would have been a E-Series V8 similar to the 1.8 EA827-derived 250 hp 3.6 V8 used in the Audi V8 with a 4.0 E-Series V8 potentially putting out an output closer to 300 hp and making use of spare E-Series production capacity. However Jaguar would have probably rejected that option as well.

Volkswagen had money to spare. BL needed to cut costs. Interestingly, Jaguar was developing a 3.5 Liter V8 of their own. And let's move away from Jaguar. Triumph would've benefited immensely from the Rover V8. The Stag would've been a reliable roadster and a huge cash cow. The Spitfire would've easily outgunned a Mustang II.

 

[Masked Grizzly]

Why? Thought this thread was about BL not existing? There was no way to increase production capacity of the Rover V8, especially at the expense of the XK6 engined models which were still selling and besides it seems there were also some licensing reasons that prevented Rover from further increasing production capacity after originally acquiring the 215 Buick V8 from General Motors.

Sure the Triumph Stag could have benefited from the Rover v8 assuming it was feasible albeit not without compromises, yet cancelling the Stag V8 after Triumph invested much time, sweat and great cost developing it together with the Slant-4 would have killed the marque much quicker than happened in OTL by taking away Triumph's engineering independence and losing many millions in wasted capital developing the Slant-4 / V8 as the V8 was about to enter production in the process. It was also down to cost cutting that caused the Stag V8's infamous reputation by not allowing the original head gaskets to be used (that were very similar to Payen gaskets).

The E-Series was originally conceived to replace almost all of BMC's engines in one go, they also had plenty of unused E-Series production capacity to spare and even in OTL underdeveloped form (as opposed to fully unleashed EA827-like form) could have easily developed a 3.5 V8 at little cost derived from a pair of 1748cc E-Series engines just like Volkswagen did with creating a 3.6 V8 from a pair of 1.8 EA827 engines for the Audi V8.

The Spitfire was an aging design by the 1970s and would have required lots of expensive modification to fit the Rover V8 let alone the Slant-4 (the latter was actually attempted in OTL), it was supposed to be replaced by the Michelotti-styled Triumph Bullet project given the latter was to feature a 1.5 4-cylinder yet also replace the TR6 with the related pre-TR7 Triumph Lynx that was to replace the GT6.

Unfortunately there really was little way of salvaging OTL British leyland, the only way would be to make sure the respective companies are successful is for the merger never happen to be begin with and for BMC and Leyland to make more balanced acquisitions compared to OTL.

 

[kernals12]

Why? Thought this thread was about BL not existing? There was no way to increase production capacity of the Rover V8, especially at the expense of the XK6 engined models which were still selling and besides it seems there were also some licensing reasons that prevented Rover from further increasing production capacity after originally acquiring the 215 Buick V8 from General Motors.

Sure the Triumph Stag could have benefited from the Rover v8 assuming it was feasible albeit not without compromises, yet cancelling the Stag V8 after Triumph invested much time, sweat and great cost developing it together with the Slant-4 would have killed the marque much quicker than happened in OTL by taking away Triumph's engineering independence and losing many millions in wasted capital developing the Slant-4 / V8 as the V8 was about to enter production in the process. It was also down to cost cutting that caused the Stag V8's infamous reputation by not allowing the original head gaskets to be used (that were very similar to Payen gaskets).

The E-Series was originally conceived to replace almost all of BMC's engines in one go, they also had plenty of unused E-Series production capacity to spare and even in OTL underdeveloped form (as opposed to fully unleashed EA827-like form) could have easily developed a 3.5 V8 at little cost derived from a pair of 1748cc E-Series engines just like Volkswagen did with creating a 3.6 V8 from a pair of 1.8 EA827 engines for the Audi V8.

The Spitfire was an aging design by the 1970s and would have required lots of expensive modification to fit the Rover V8 let alone the Slant-4 (the latter was actually attempted in OTL), it was supposed to be replaced by the Michelotti-styled Triumph Bullet project given the latter was to feature a 1.5 4-cylinder yet also replace the TR6 with the related pre-TR7 Triumph Lynx that was to replace the GT6.

Unfortunately there really was little way of salvaging OTL British leyland, the only way would be to make sure the respective companies are successful is for the merger never happen to be begin with and for BMC and Leyland to make more balanced acquisitions compared to OTL.

Leyland would've done just fine on its own, the company was extremely profitable. Now, what happens to BMH? The company was on the brink of bankruptcy in 1968. What if they had charged an extra 40 pounds for the Mini from the get go?

 

[Masked Grizzly]

Leyland would've done just fine on its own, the company was extremely profitable. Now, what happens to BMH? The company was on the brink of bankruptcy in 1968. What if they had charged an extra 40 pounds for the Mini from the get go?

While am largely biased towards earlier PODs in the case of BMC along with pre-merger Austin and Morris, it is possible that BMC/BMH could have been salvaged as mentioned in the following ATL AROnline Essay: Counterfactual BMH - what if Leyland had walked away which give one possible answer.

 

[kernals12]

This is the first table in Post 15 converted into a graph. I haven't included the following to make the rest easier to read: Australia, Canada, Sweden, USSR, other countries and the World Total.

View attachment 393968

I like that chart. Shows the devestation wrought by the Eisenhower recession on the US car industry. It took until 1965 for production to exceed 1955 levels!

 

[marathag]

I like that chart. Shows the devestation wrought by the Eisenhower recession on the US car industry. It took until 1965 for production to exceed 1955 levels!

1961 is off, though. That should be 5,935,000.

Some say that in some ways, Detroit never really recovered from that, despite selling more cars

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

1961 is off, though. That should be 5,935,000.

Some say that in some ways, Detroit never really recovered from that, despite selling more cars

I've checked the source document and the figure I have put in is the figure in the source document for 1961. However, I agree that it seems to be far too low. It must be a typo in the source document.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

I like that chart. Shows the devestation wrought by the Eisenhower recession on the US car industry. It took until 1965 for production to exceed 1955 levels!

It also shows that the British car industry was overtaken by Japan, France and Germany while Italy had caught up.

So yes the British car industry has to be making better cars in the period 1955-74 so that more people would want to buy them, but it also has to be capable of making twice as many of them by the early 1970s.

 

[kernals12]

It also shows that the British car industry was overtaken by Japan, France and Germany while Italy had caught up.

So yes the British car industry has to be making better cars in the period 1955-74 so that more people would want to buy them, but it also has to be capable of making twice as many of them by the early 1970s.

Building more capacity isn't a problem.

 

[kernals12]

Things would've been a lot different if they had just paid for the development of this car. Called the 9x, it was designed by Sir Alec Issigonnis as an improvement on the mini. Compared to the Mini, it was smaller, lighter, yet roomier. It had a more powerful OHC engine (60 hp compared to 40 for the Mini), a hatchback, and yet was cheaper to build. It was a better Metro that could've been on sale 10 years earlier. It almost certainly would've sold like hot cakes in France and Italy once Britain entered the EEC.

 

[Großadmiral Biene]

It costs $16, I'm not paying for that.

Knowledge isn’t always free.

 

[Shanghai61]

The Rover v8 was more technically advanced than Jaguar' s engines in every sense. It was 11 years newer, had aluminum heads, and was superbly lightweight and efficient. And it was good enough to go in the P5, P6, and the very expensive Range Rover.

Don't know where you get the idea that the Rover engine was "11 years newer". The Buick 215 was designed in the late 50s, and introduced in 1960/61. Rover bought the tooling in early 1965. That's almost identical to the development and introduction of the Turner-designed Daimler V8s, which were in production from 1960 till 1968.

Weight and production cost certainly favour the Rover engine, but the Daimler engines weren't obsolescent. Jaguar tested a Daimler 4.5 in a Mark X body, lapped MIRA at 135mph and reportedly scared the shit out of Bill Lyons. They decided against selling it precisely because it made the XK sixes look a bit underwhelming. Another great decision.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

This replaces the table in Post 15.

I went to the reference library and updated my spreadsheet. In addition to the corrections to the passenger car and commercial vehicle production figures for 1955 to 1974 I have added the export figures and I discovered that the table went back to 1952 although I only had time to add 1953 and 1954.

There are no passenger cars or commercial vehicles from 1960 to 1968 and for other countries from 1960 to 1969 because no reliable figures were available, but the combined figures for passenger cars and commercial vehicles were available and are in the total production section.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Things would've been a lot different if they had just paid for the development of this car. Called the 9x, it was designed by Sir Alec Issigonnis as an improvement on the mini. Compared to the Mini, it was smaller, lighter, yet roomier. It had a more powerful OHC engine (60 hp compared to 40 for the Mini), a hatchback, and yet was cheaper to build. It was a better Metro that could've been on sale 10 years earlier. It almost certainly would've sold like hot cakes in France and Italy once Britain entered the EEC.

Unfortunately not necessarily. The Rover SD1 which replaced the Rover P6 and Triumph 2000/2500 won the European Car of the Year title yet only 303,345 were built, which was less than half of the combined total of its predecessors. That is 322,302 Rover P6 and 320,687 Triumph 2000/2500, total 642,389. All 3 cars were in production for about the same length of time.