Color me sad on all counts. I do agree, tho.No, BMC would not be likely or willing to immediately share Alec Issigonis's FWD trio with AMC. Nor would imagine AMC themselves being inclined to immediately embrace the transverse FWD layout until after
AMC's ATL ties with BMC would be unlikely to allow the former to take any input in the development of the FWD trio, again a more secure ATL AMC themselves would likely follow the other Big Three in taking a wait & see approach in the adoption of transverse FWD before taking a well-costed route to embracing FWD.
I was thinking less as a business matter than of making it fit without re-engineering the whole front end of the car.If BL is butterflied away than BMC is likely to gain the Rover V8
And in-TL, with AMC being very wait-&-see, there'd be no outside money (or demand) for it.The narrow-angle V6 is dependent on the development of the related V4 akin to the Essex V4/V6 and Taunus V4 / Cologne V6, BMC could not justify the costs of putting the V4/V6 engine family into production
For all its problems, & its slightly odd styling, IMO the 1800/2200 would not have been out of place in the U.S. market. It would've been pretty small, akin to the Nova or Vega, but there's a decent market for that, especially given the Oil Shocks. So what about giving BMC a bit of smart, have them develop the Maxi first & follow with the 1800, which goes mainly to the U.S., with the narrow V8--paid for under contract with AMC? Or is that still too early for AMC?
He'd need to have, judging by how bad it was across the British industry.The British Unions would have still needed to be put in their place, though Joe Edwards was said to have had good relations with Unions.