PC/WI: AMC Motors build British Leyland cars post 1973 oil crisis?

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.
Color me sad on all counts. I do agree, tho.
If BL is butterflied away than BMC is likely to gain the Rover V8
I was thinking less as a business matter than of making it fit without re-engineering the whole front end of the car.:eek: It doesn't strike me as easy as a 5.3 Chevy in a Beretta by any means.
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
And in-TL, with AMC being very wait-&-see, there'd be no outside money (or demand) for it.:oops: Unless it happened a fair bit later? AMC & BMC dusting off the design in the '70s?

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?
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.
He'd need to have, judging by how bad it was across the British industry.
 
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?

Still too early.

In any case. The Maxi's existence is the result of the 1800/2200 drifting into becoming a bigger car than it was originally intended to be, however in some respects that is in the latter's benefit provided it featured a hatchback from the outside and a 2-litre B-Series / B-OHC at the lower-end of the range followed by an ATL 2.4-litre E6 (the limit of what the in-sump gearbox layout could take in both the 1800/2200 and Princess 18-22). A Vanden Plas version of the FWD X6 would have been a unique challenger to the Rover P6 and Triumph 2000/2500 with similar engine displacements (Rover V8 notwithstanding), though a RWD X6 would have allowed room for larger engines up to 3-litres.

He'd need to have, judging by how bad it was across the British industry.

He was originally heir apparent to replace Leonard Lord only for both to have a falling out in 1956 with Joe Edwards moving to Pressed Steel, with Lord being succeeded by the ineffective George Harriman who brought Edwards back after acquiring Pressed Steel. Only it was by then too late for Edwards to change things in OTL.

PART ONE : 1966 – THE ANATOMY OF A CRISIS

We shall start our story on 9 June 1966. The previous year the British Motor Corporation had purchased the Pressed Steel Company, the car bodybuilding firm.

Today BMC announced a management re-shuffle.

Sir George Harriman, the Chairman and Managing Director, was appointed Executive Chairman and Joe Edwards was appointed Managing Director. Mr Edwards continued as the Managing Director of the Pressed Steel Company. Joe Edwards had left BMC in 1956 after a falling out with the then Chairman, Sir Leonard Lord. Joe Edwards had a record of wielding the axe during his previous tenure at BMC and seemed to have the ruthless management streak that Sir George Harriman lacked.

He later said. ‘I found that nothing had happened in the 12 years I had been away. The company had unwound. It was the Lord Harriman regime just staggering from one thing to another. There was no forward thinking. There was no question of getting hold of new people. They did not believe in training management. The management was just not equipped to run that size of company.’
.......
https://www.aronline.co.uk/history/...ritish-motor-holdings-the-whole-story-part-1/
 
Still too early.
*sigh*
The Maxi's existence is the result of the 1800/2200 drifting into becoming a bigger car
That's what I was (unclearly...) getting at: WI BMC does a bit of actual research, realizes the projected 1800 is too big, & instead produces something nearer OTL's Maxi, to begin with? And when AMC comes around to FWD, there's a joint venture more closely resembling OTL's 1800, with optional V8.

2.4-litre E6 (the limit of what the in-sump gearbox layout could take
Was that the only option for the gearbox? If I could, I'd move it, especially if it's for the U.S. market.
A Vanden Plas version of the FWD X6 would have been a unique challenger to the Rover P6 and Triumph 2000/2500
Indeed. I wonder about badge-engineering against marketing, tho. Would BMC in the end be better served by having it available through more (BMC) dealers, or by having it sold at a premium due to being a Vanden Plas?
He was originally heir apparent to replace Leonard Lord only for both to have a falling out in 1956
I've just been reading the later parts of that. It's quite fascinating stuff. It leaves me wondering if anybody really could have made things any better; Brit unions seemed unwilling to abide by any rules. (How much of that perception is the writer's POV, IDK.)
 
Was that the only option for the gearbox? If I could, I'd move it, especially if it's for the U.S. market.

Was pretty much the only option Alec Issigonis considered for his original FWD cars (original prototypes appeared in the mid/late-50s in the aftermath of the Suez Crisis), an ATL successful BMC would in theory be able to switch them to an end-on gearbox by the late-60s to early/mid-70s after Dante Giacosa pioneered the layout on the Autobianchi Primula.

That's what I was (unclearly...) getting at: WI BMC does a bit of actual research, realizes the projected 1800 is too big, & instead produces something nearer OTL's Maxi, to begin with? And when AMC comes around to FWD, there's a joint venture more closely resembling OTL's 1800, with optional V8.

The reason the 1800 grew larger during development was partly the need to fit the enlarged 1.8-litre version of the heavy B-Series engine in line with the MGB (both of which in retrospect would have benefited from a 2-litre B-Series), BMC did not have any suitable engine to sit between the A-Series and B-Series (hence the need for an ATL 1000-1600cc A+).

I've just been reading the later parts of that. It's quite fascinating stuff. It leaves me wondering if anybody really could have made things any better; Brit unions seemed unwilling to abide by any rules. (How much of that perception is the writer's POV, IDK.)

Worth reading Brick by Brick by Martyn Nutland in get some insight into both Leonard Lord as well as other motoring figures including Joe Edwards.

Indeed. I wonder about badge-engineering against marketing, tho. Would BMC in the end be better served by having it available through more (BMC) dealers, or by having it sold at a premium due to being a Vanden Plas?

Definitely a premium given both the following OTL X6-based Vanden Plas 1800 prototype's dimensions and potential 2000-2400cc engines had it appeared earlier.

upload_2019-8-6_14-40-56.jpg

upload_2019-8-6_14-41-34.jpeg

https://www.aronline.co.uk/cars/vanden-plas/x6-based-vanden-plas-1800/
 
Top