Why no British cars made in North America?

All of the British autos of the 50s and 60s that were of an adequate size for US use were waaay underpowered. I had a neighbor with a Minor in 65/66 and I actually got myself, 3 other people (all HS seniors) 2 guitars, a banjo and a standup bass in it. Only the fact that one person was a small guy and one was a girl made it even theoretically possible. Oh, and was the first time I drove a manual shift on the post not the floor. YThe poor beast struggled even driving around the city to the bar we were playing at.
 
Thoughts on Armstrong Siddeley for production in Canada? AIUI, Hawker Siddeley, the manufacturer of Toronto's subways in Thunder Bay ON was part of the same company in the 1950s and 60s.

Not that ANY of its Daimler (UK) like cars (or even worse, this ugly thing below) would be wanted in the North American market. So, something new would be needed.

as1_2.jpg


Was Bristol cars part of the same firm at this time?

If only they were able to give this Jaguar-esque styling and other advances to be competitive, also there would have to be sufficient demand for Armstrong-Siddeley cars in North America for a factory to be considered, with Armstrong-Siddeley needing to be about as popular and less conservative if not more so then OTL Jaguar.

Not sure what PODs would be needed for Armstrong-Siddeley to remain an independent luxury car marque beyond 1960 since government interference and desire to rationalize the aircraft industry was partly what caused Armstrong-Siddeley to disappear in OTL (though Armstrong-Siddeley did have various projects in the works). It may even be impossible hence requiring an earlier ATL Bristol wank as mentioned in a previous thread where Armstrong-Siddeley roughly becomes to Bristol what Rolls-Royce is to Bentley.

All of the British autos of the 50s and 60s that were of an adequate size for US use were waaay underpowered. I had a neighbor with a Minor in 65/66 and I actually got myself, 3 other people (all HS seniors) 2 guitars, a banjo and a standup bass in it. Only the fact that one person was a small guy and one was a girl made it even theoretically possible. Oh, and was the first time I drove a manual shift on the post not the floor. YThe poor beast struggled even driving around the city to the bar we were playing at.

It would partly require a POD where the British RAC Tax Horsepower is scrapped a lot earlier compared to OTL (likely prior to WW2) for British cars to no longer be as underpowered as OTL due to being influenced by the RAC Tax Horsepower system even after it was withdrawn post-war.

The Morris Minor itself could have received more powerful engines were it not for William Morris's attempt at sabotaging the Minor only because he instead wanted a updated version of the pre-war Morris Eight to be produced.

The pre-war 918cc Morris Sidevalve also spawned a 918cc OHV Wolseley Eight unit, with both being copies of the Ford Sidevalve engine that was itself capable of being enlarged to a 1500cc OHV unit via the Ford Taunus P1. There was also the pre-war XP engines that would have allowed Morris to reduce costs by using the same engine as on the MG T-Series in North America, with the ATL Minor even potentially receiving a detuned 1466cc version of the MG TF engine (though some believe the XP unit was capable of a bit more enlargement up to 1600cc).

Even so both were pre-war designs and would have needed replacing by the mid/late-50s with both the A-Series (up to 1300cc) and B-Series (up to 1600cc even 1800-2000cc) engines, nevertheless both the enlarged 920-1500cc Wolseley OHV and 1140-1500cc (possibly even 1600cc) Morris XP engines would have given the Minor the necessary power to make a bigger impact in North America as well as properly challenge the Beetle.
 
Last edited:
Interesting, I wasn't aware of the horsepower tax. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_horsepower#Britain

I often wondered why in the era before power-sucking emission controls, >2L four and six cylinder engines in 1950-60s British cars were often making <90 hp. My 1969 Triumph motorcycle makes about 40 hp from 500cc, so you'd think a 2L six pot engine would be at least 3X as powerful.
 
Last edited:
Another aspect is while such 4/6-cylinder engines from the UK were capable of producing more power and being further enlarged (see Ford Zephyr 4/6-cylinder), carmakers in the UK were not inclined to do go into that direction hence the potential of such engines was often left to be extracted by 3rd party tuners for companies such as AC for the AC Ace and AC Greyhound (and even Reliant for the Sabre and early Scimitar).
 
Interesting, I wasn't aware of the horsepower tax. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_horsepower#Britain

I often wondered why in the era before power-sucking emission controls, >2L four and six cylinder engines in 1950-60s British cars were often making <90 hp. My 1969 Triumph motorcycle makes about 40 hp from 500cc, so you'd think a 2L six pot engine would be at least 3X as powerful.

Best way for looking at engine size, is the actual output torque rather than just HP

after all, a 40+HP Kawasaki Ninja 4 cyl. had a high HP, but actual 18 ft.Lbs of torque, vs a 4 cyl. 4-71 Jimmy Diesel with 155 HP and 413 ft.lbs

So even the poor smogged V8s, that like with the 302 went from 1970s 210HP to '80s 135HP only lost around 20 ft.lbs of torque. Didn't drive near as peppy, but would still haul the 4000 pound LTD to 3800 pound Crown Vic around town
 
Another aspect is while such 4/6-cylinder engines from the UK were capable of producing more power and being further enlarged (see Ford Zephyr 4/6-cylinder), carmakers in the UK were not inclined to do go into that direction hence the potential of such engines was often left to be extracted by 3rd party tuners for companies such as AC for the AC Ace and AC Greyhound (and even Reliant for the Sabre and early Scimitar).
Good points. I suppose we must also take into account the low octane fuel available in Britain in the 1950s and 1960s. No point in running tight tolerances and high compression.
 
Interesting, I wasn't aware of the horsepower tax. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_horsepower#Britain

I often wondered why in the era before power-sucking emission controls, >2L four and six cylinder engines in 1950-60s British cars were often making <90 hp. My 1969 Triumph motorcycle makes about 40 hp from 500cc, so you'd think a 2L six pot engine would be at least 3X as powerful.

UK HP tax favoured small bore long stroke engines. which aren;t good for peak power or high revving and don;t help with 'breathing' as overhead valves in these small bore engines are small as well - where a squarish is or even oversquare engine will rev happily and make both power and thriugh through beign free breathing/ good scavange of charge and allowing nice big valves to fill / empty quickly
 
UK HP tax favoured small bore long stroke engines. which aren;t good for peak power or high revving and don;t help with 'breathing' as overhead valves in these small bore engines are small as well - where a squarish is or even oversquare engine will rev happily and make both power and thriugh through beign free breathing/ good scavange of charge and allowing nice big valves to fill / empty quickly
Why would the tax favour long stroke engines? Do they offer greater torque?
 
Why would the tax favour long stroke engines? Do they offer greater torque?
The RAC Horsepower tax was based on bore only and ignored stroke, so the way to minimize tax for a given engine displacement was small bores and long strokes.
 
The RAC Horsepower tax was based on bore only and ignored stroke, so the way to minimize tax for a given engine displacement was small bores and long strokes.
Would a larger number of narrow cylinders circumvent the tax? For example, a 2L straight 6 vs. 2L straight 4?
 
until the Rover V8 is available in the 1970s?
That makes me think of the Buick/Olds 215. What happens to that deal, if Stude is taken over? Does *Stude Canada end up with an available 215 turbo?

Does this butterfly the Stude Lark?

Does it butterfly the Packard deal, or does Packard sell off Stude Canada & actually end up better off than OTL?

More importantly, since it appears Stude management believed the Canadian division could still operate at a profit even in 1964-5, while South Bend couldn't, would Stude Canada be sold at all...?

OTOH, if there's a company in some need & open to a merger, what about Willys-Overland? Which gives BMC access to the Jeep, & to the (relatively bulletproof) Willys inline 4s.
 
If Austin (prior to merging with Morris to form BMC that was at one point the world's 4th largest carmaker managed to reacquire American Bantam before WW2 who originally developed the Jeep, then BMC buying Willys-Overland for access to the North American market would not be necessary.

It would also allow BMC to develop a proper replacement (allow it to diverge from the OTL Willys-Overland Jeep) using components from similar OTL Nuffield Guppy, Nuffield Gutty, Wolseley Mudlark, Austin Champ and Austin Gipsy vehicles without even needing to acquire Rover (and Land Rover), perhaps even an earlier BMC equivalent of the Jeep Wagoneer.

Such vehicles could be powered either by the Austin "D-Series" 4/6-cylinder and related V8 engines, similar Morris 4/6-cylinder and V8s or even an Issigonis designed 1800-2500cc Flat-4 (best described as an enlarged version of the 800-1100cc Flat-4 originally intended for the Morris Minor) intended to power the Nuffield Gutty (along with at one point the shelved Morris Viceroy project in 2500cc form).
 
If Austin (prior to merging with Morris to form BMC that was at one point the world's 4th largest carmaker managed to reacquire American Bantam before WW2 who originally developed the Jeep, then BMC buying Willys-Overland for access to the North American market would not be necessary.

It would also allow BMC to develop a proper replacement (allow it to diverge from the OTL Willys-Overland Jeep) using components from similar OTL Nuffield Guppy, Nuffield Gutty, Wolseley Mudlark, Austin Champ and Austin Gipsy vehicles without even needing to acquire Rover (and Land Rover), perhaps even an earlier BMC equivalent of the Jeep Wagoneer.

Such vehicles could be powered either by the Austin "D-Series" 4/6-cylinder and related V8 engines, similar Morris 4/6-cylinder and V8s or even an Issigonis designed 1800-2500cc Flat-4 (best described as an enlarged version of the 800-1100cc Flat-4 originally intended for the Morris Minor) intended to power the Nuffield Gutty (along with at one point the shelved Morris Viceroy project in 2500cc form).

A better deal would be to acquire Graham-Paige before Henry Kaiser buys it out. They needed capital, and were making larger cars better suited for the US market.

They held the record for most production of supercharged engines till Buick took that title in the 1990s. Their reliable, supercharged 6 with aluminum head and syncro'd four speed, still gave 26 miles per gallons and 112 HP. By 1941, they were at 125HP

OTL, it was a merger, but Kaiser called all the shots, soon discontinued the Frazier line of vehicles(renamed for the soon to be outgoing VP of G-P) for the smaller (and cheaply equipped) models like the Henry J, thinking the auto buying public wanted inexpensive small cars.

They didn't.
They wanted large, nice cars with lots of options. The well respected, innovative autos of G-P that would have sold better, were no more by time this was found out.
Henry chose poorly.

and the resulting mess meant he needed a profitable vehicle line from Willys-Overland, and their Jeep.
 
Last edited:
Unfortunately Austin or even Morris acquiring Graham-Paige was not possible in the post-war period, while the formation of BMC in 1952 was years too late to acquire Graham-Paige.

Perhaps a better approach would be for Austin or Morris (later BMC) to acquire suitable factories in North America (beyond American Bantam aka ATL BMC America on the east coast) as opposed to carmakers, a site on the west coast would potentially allow an ATL BMC America to be integrated with BMC Australia at Victoria Park / Zetland, Sydney, NSW. While sites in the mid-west would mean BMC America would be in the US automotive heartland.
 
Good points. I suppose we must also take into account the low octane fuel available in Britain in the 1950s and 1960s. No point in running tight tolerances and high compression.

You might be thinking of wartime (and Suez Crisis) 'pool' petrol here - typically rated around 74 RON.

'Super' (four star - 98 RON) was introduced in 1955, and 'Best' (five star - 101 RON) in 1960.

The entire spread looked like this: Two star - 92 RON, three star - 95 RON, four star - 98 RON and five star - 101 RON. This remained the same all the way to the early nineties - although five star became very difficult to find from the mid eighties. The vast majority of fuel sold was four star and, whilst the odd tramp might have drunk two star, no - one else really bothered with it.
 
Would a larger number of narrow cylinders circumvent the tax? For example, a 2L straight 6 vs. 2L straight 4?
If the two have the same (bore area * cylinder count), no. An opposed piston engine would, but pretty much nobody builds those for automobiles.
 
Would a larger number of narrow cylinders circumvent the tax? For example, a 2L straight 6 vs. 2L straight 4?
Actually, no, because horsepower tax rating was proportional to the product of the number of cylinders and the square of their bore. So, let us look say at this hypothetical comparison:
  1. 4 cylinder with 3.35 inch bore and 3.50 inch stroke gives displacement of 123.398 cubic inches (2,022 cubic centimetres)
  2. 6 cylinder with 2.735 inch bore and 3.50 inch stroke gives displacement of 123.374 cubic inches (2,022 cubic centimetres)
  • In case (1), taxable horsepower is (bore^2*N)/2.5 = (3.35*3.35*4)/2.5 = 17.956 R.A.C. hp
  • In case (2), taxable horsepower is again (bore^2*N)/2.5 = (2.735*2.735*6)/2.5 = 17.95254 R.A.C. hp
  • Virtually the same, as are the capacities and strokes. So one could not circumvent the horsepower tax by more, narrow cylinders.
 
Actually, no, because horsepower tax rating was proportional to the product of the number of cylinders and the square of their bore. So, let us look say at this hypothetical comparison:
  1. 4 cylinder with 3.35 inch bore and 3.50 inch stroke gives displacement of 123.398 cubic inches (2,022 cubic centimetres)
  2. 6 cylinder with 2.735 inch bore and 3.50 inch stroke gives displacement of 123.374 cubic inches (2,022 cubic centimetres)
  • In case (1), taxable horsepower is (bore^2*N)/2.5 = (3.35*3.35*4)/2.5 = 17.956 R.A.C. hp
  • In case (2), taxable horsepower is again (bore^2*N)/2.5 = (2.735*2.735*6)/2.5 = 17.95254 R.A.C. hp
  • Virtually the same, as are the capacities and strokes. So one could not circumvent the horsepower tax by more, narrow cylinders.


Put into online HP calculator for Bore/stroke/cylinder, the four popper gives 132 HP while the Six would have 141HP
 
Top