Carryfast:
It was actually a 50% debt write off even debt run up between WW’s 1 and 2.
With the remaining 50% payable being conditional on it only being taken from Germany’s trade surplus earnings as I said 1 pfennig of trade surplus one pfennig of repayment.Otherwise no repayments at all.
That’s a lot more than just a cheap loan and obviously no such luxury for us.By Germany’s standard we obviously would have made no repayments.It was clearly a Germany specific deal made to look after Germany at our expense.We effectively repayed America for Germany’s war debts and British industry and its workers paid the price.
Yes, I get the bit about the pfennigs and the marks. Given that successive administrations in Germany had wasted lots in war preparations, and suffered a proper shallacking for their troubles- from us and the Americans, leaving the country as a proper basket case, in a far worse state than any other nation, it was fair that the population of Germany were given a leg up, after the conflicts. Wars are started by horrible people in charge, after all- not populations.
Britain, France and other central European nations also had zero and a bit interest, pay it back when you can loans under the Marshall Plan. Was there any complaint by the British Government, at any stage after WW2, about any disparity in the financial arrangements between the US and GB versus US and Germany?
You could draw the conclusion that the United States and its bankers were taking advantage of all the European nations. Look at it from their point of view- they didn’t start the wars. Their involvement was considered welcome at the time, at least by the Allies. Why should the Americans not earn a wage out of it?
[zb]
anorak:
Yes, I get the bit about the pfennigs and the marks. Given that successive administrations in Germany had wasted lots in war preparations, and suffered a proper shallacking for their troubles- from us and the Americans, leaving the country as a proper basket case, in a far worse state than any other nation, it was fair that the population of Germany were given a leg up, after the conflicts. Wars are started by horrible people in charge, after all- not populations.
Britain, France and other central European nations also had zero and a bit interest, pay it back when you can loans under the Marshall Plan. Was there any complaint by the British Government, at any stage after WW2, about any disparity in the financial arrangements between the US and GB versus US and Germany?
You could draw the conclusion that the United States and its bankers were taking advantage of all the European nations. Look at it from their point of view- they didn’t start the wars. Their involvement was considered welcome at the time, at least by the Allies. Why should the Americans not earn a wage out of it?
Let’s get this right now you’re saying we started WW2 so we should pay for the damage to Germany.
No we didn’t have any deal which wrote off 50% of our pre and post WW2 debt nor any loan repayment deal conditional on and proportional to a trade surplus situation.The fact is the banks needed a rich Germany to get their money back.
By definition that meant a poor Britain because someone’s trade surplus is someone else’s deficit but, unlike Germany, the banks didn’t care in our case because we still had to pay up regardless.
So the lose lose for us of more debt and deindustrialisation to make Germany top dog on trade to maintain its surplus at as high level as possible.
[zb]
anorak:
Yes, I get the bit about the pfennigs and the marks. Given that successive administrations in Germany had wasted lots in war preparations, and suffered a proper shallacking for their troubles- from us and the Americans, leaving the country as a proper basket case, in a far worse state than any other nation, it was fair that the population of Germany were given a leg up, after the conflicts. Wars are started by horrible people in charge, after all- not populations.
Britain, France and other central European nations also had zero and a bit interest, pay it back when you can loans under the Marshall Plan. Was there any complaint by the British Government, at any stage after WW2, about any disparity in the financial arrangements between the US and GB versus US and Germany?
You could draw the conclusion that the United States and its bankers were taking advantage of all the European nations. Look at it from their point of view- they didn’t start the wars. Their involvement was considered welcome at the time, at least by the Allies. Why should the Americans not earn a wage out of it?
Let’s get this right now you’re saying we started WW2 so we should pay for the damage to Germany.
No we didn’t have any deal which wrote off 50% of our pre and post WW2 debt nor any loan repayment deal conditional on and proportional to a trade surplus situation.The fact is the banks needed a rich Germany to get their money back.
By definition that meant a poor Britain because someone’s trade surplus is someone else’s deficit but, unlike Germany, the banks didn’t care in our case because we still had to pay up regardless.
So the lose lose for us of more debt and deindustrialisation to make Germany top dog on trade to maintain its surplus at as high level as possible.
Might need to get back to engine designs old mate, before this thread ends up in Bully’s Truckstop forum!
Carryfast:
Let’s get this right now you’re saying we started WW2 so we should pay for the damage to Germany.
No! I did not say anything of the sort. Read my post again.
Carryfast:
No we didn’t have any deal which wrote off 50% of our pre and post WW2 debt nor any loan repayment deal conditional on and proportional to a trade surplus situation.The fact is the banks needed a rich Germany to get their money back.
By definition that meant a poor Britain because someone’s trade surplus is someone else’s deficit but, unlike Germany, the banks didn’t care in our case because we still had to pay up regardless.
So the lose lose for us of more debt and deindustrialisation to make Germany top dog on trade to maintain its surplus at as high level as possible.
The interest rate was far less than any market rate, so it did not matter if GB did not pay anything back, for example in years of trade deficit. It was effectively free chips on the table.
So what if Germany was helped into a trade surplus? They traded with the entire world, not just Britain.
Please bear with me, Rowena. I will steer this right back into the cosy confines of engine design, when I have finished the groundworks and foundations.
I thought the Marshal Plan was funded from the US Treasury, not from the banks? Even if the US Government borrowed the money from the banks (all money being on a market, from which state and private loans can be made), surely they would guarantee the loan from their own funds? They would get a lower rate, than if the banks were lending money directly to a war-torn wreck of a state?
As I interpret it from your statement, Germany would not have to be massively in surplus with the RoW. As long as it did not go into a debt-funded decline, the lender would be happy. That’s normal, just like paying the mortgage. You can’t get a mortgage on a cardboard box.
By the 1970s, there were numerous competitors to Germany’s car industry. Even if the US Government and/or banks wanted to protect their investment in it by foul means, why would they attack Britain’s car companies? They were knackered anyway. Germany’s engineering industry was far ahead of Britain’s, long before the wars.
Firstly it’s clear that repayments based on the condition of trade surplus by definition means that Germany’s industry has to out perform its competitors in terms of both domestic and export sales for those repayments to be made.
Governments have no money only the banks have the money put there by depositors and investors and tax payers.
In the case of Germany it isn’t difficult to understand that a return on German investments and those investments then helping Germany to cover otherwise defaulted debt was a win win for the creditors.
While like wise helping Germany’s competitors was vice versa lose lose.
It’s also obvious that the US was never going to make itself a large European competitor in Germany’s home European markets for that reason.It also thereby obviously had no intention of allowing us to get ahead either.
That’s even before the geopolitical premise that the Germans had to be kept happy to stop the threat of Communism in Europe.
By the 1970’s exactly which European ‘competitors’ and products directly threatened BMW, Mercedes, Opel, and Ford and GM Germany in Europe and in the UK domestic market.
The above explains a lot of what we saw happen.A programme of sabotage by stealth.
Fortunately for Jaguar it wasn’t competing as effectively in the mid range premium sector which the Germans wanted to concentrate on most.With Lyons having luckily bet the farm on XJ6 and XJ12.
But Rover and Triumph were with 2.5 PI, and Rover P6, and some of the Essex products like the Granada Mk1 of Sweeney fame which the Germans would obviously have hated seeing on the tv.
So Rover and Triumph had to go and Ford and GM were transferred.
Taking out our truck manufacturing sector being a bonus.
Don’t you ever think if three box styled rear wheel drive 6 and 8 cylinder mid range premium products were supposedly so bad why did BMW base a business plan on exactly that.
Let alone a new max weight truck design for the 1980’s being lumbered with a 12.4 litre motor capable of no more than 270 hp.When a 12 litre one, with the potential of 400 hp at less engine speed, was handed over by the same government owner as Leyland, to a loose engine supplier. After first going to a firm not usually even connected with commercial vehicle component supply.
Why would the Germans hate to see the Mk1 Granada on the Sweeney? They were made in Cologne as well as Dagenham, in fact from 1976 till the mk2 was introduced they were only made in Germany.
newmercman:
The Mustang is absolutely savage, it wins hands down on looks and the noise it makes OMFG. On paper it wins on performance and it’s considerably cheaper too. The BMW new was only $3k less than an M3 with all the options it has, I know, there are some strange people about.
However in the real world the BMW is the faster point to point car as it’s performance is easily accessible, the Mustang just wants to kill you! A high speed run in the BMW is effortless, in the Mustang it requires 100% concentration, you get a dry mouth and sweaty hands and are grateful to be alive at the end of the journey.
On the right road on the right day you would have to spend some serious cash to better the Mustang experience, as an everyday car though, the BMW is the better car to drive, but it doesn’t matter which one you buy as there are elements of both that make you wish you’d bought the other, if only you could have both…
Ideally I want four doors, grew up with there ain’t any substitute for cubic inches, I want three box styling, it absolutely must have a proper manual box with a proper clutch and IRS.
Triumph 2.5 upgraded with 4.0 Rover V8, maybe 4.0 litre 32 valve Triumph V8 to follow and Jag XJ12 with 5 speed manual and then Triumph make the VXR8 before Holden do and let Ford get on with doing what Ford do best volume products is where I see Stoke’s idea of Leyland going.
As opposed to the Edwardes’ reality.
Which leaves the question if Stokes really said Triumph performance division only and Rover executive products only.How did we end up with the Acclaim the 800 and Jaguar running for the hills.More like Heath said this is what I’ve said that you’ve said and I’d rather you didn’t argue about it.
It’s a shame Stokes told Rover to replace the Triumph 2000 (and p6) in 1971 and they stopped making Triumph 2000 in 1977 months before Edwardes started at BL in November 77, he might have took your advice and put a Rover V8 in the 2000 and saved the company. After all he was happy for Triumph to use the rover V8 in the TR8 produced from 77-82
ERF-NGC-European:
Might need to get back to engine designs old mate, before this thread ends up in Bully’s Truckstop forum!
It provides an idea of the pressures and constraints and resulting impossible catch 22, created by the economic environment, which our factories’ staff were having to work within.
Any good ‘design’ which got us ahead in the market was held back under instruction from the highest levels.Anything mediocre to bad was pushed forward.The last thing they wanted was a successful competitive UK manufacturing industry.
It’s impossible to understand that unbelievable situation without going into detail as to how it could possibly have arisen and why.
Fast forward to 1979 RR ends up in the hands of Vickers not Leyland the TL12 not RR ends up in the Roadtrain thereby raining on its launch parade.Everyone, except Gingerfold, Anorak and Ramone , goes home scratching their heads wondering why.While the bankers open another bottle of best Champagne after telling Wall Street that all is going to plan.That’s another threat to the agenda agreed in 1951 being put out of the frame.
Also bearing in mind that AEC/Leyland had long been associated with loose engine supplies to assemblers but no surprise seemingly not the TL12 ?.
The Fodens and even Scammells etc of this world obviously had more of a survival instinct and would be dealt with later ?.
dazcapri:
Why would the Germans hate to see the Mk1 Granada on the Sweeney? They were made in Cologne as well as Dagenham, in fact from 1976 till the mk2 was introduced they were only made in Germany.
You seem to have missed the difference between an Essex 3 litre Granada v a Cologne 2.8 Mk2 Granada.Quite different beasts at least in terms of engine design.
( I preferred the 3 litre as used in the proper Sweeney’s motor ).
That’s a proper ultimate Essex 95 x 72 not a Cologne 80 x 60.Just listen to the zb I could always tell the difference between them 3.0 or 3.1.But it takes Triumph style ITB’s Weber or Lucas PI and a decent cam like the TR5 spec on the Triumph to really make it sing.Longer stroke Essex V6 was the nuts. youtube.com/watch?v=hGW3_JrLf4c
dazcapri:
It’s a shame Stokes told Rover to replace the Triumph 2000 (and p6) in 1971 and they stopped making Triumph 2000 in 1977 months before Edwardes started at BL in November 77, he might have took your advice and put a Rover V8 in the 2000 and saved the company. After all he was happy for Triumph to use the rover V8 in the TR8 produced from 77-82
Remind me what was Stoke’s position in 1975 and who was Leyland MD’s boss at the NEB.
Remind me who was it who signed the deal with Honda in '78 to make the Acclaim and 800.
Why were only 400 TR8’s ever produced.Mostly all destined for North America not UK or Europe.
Stokes actually said Rover should make a P6/Triumph ‘executive’ car replacement.
He didn’t say don’t make a Rover V8 Triumph BMW 5 series M535 competitor before BMW did it.
ERF-NGC-European:
Might need to get back to engine designs old mate, before this thread ends up in Bully’s Truckstop forum!
It provides an idea of the pressures and constraints and resulting impossible catch 22, created by the economic environment, which our factories’ staff were having to work within.
Any good ‘design’ which got us ahead in the market was held back under instruction from the highest levels.Anything mediocre to bad was pushed forward.The last thing they wanted was a successful competitive UK manufacturing industry.
It’s impossible to understand that unbelievable situation without going into detail as to how it could possibly have arisen and why…
So far, I have countered all of your arguments for how “It” could have arisen. Based on the evidence that you have presented, there was no conspiracy to damage the GB manufacturing industry. So far, all we have learned is, that in the aftermath of WW2, Germany was given a bit more easy-terms credit, and had some of the debts it incurred building its war machine written off (if that is true). None of that explains the parlous state of the British motor industry in the 1970s.
ERF-NGC-European:
Might need to get back to engine designs old mate, before this thread ends up in Bully’s Truckstop forum!
It provides an idea of the pressures and constraints and resulting impossible catch 22, created by the economic environment, which our factories’ staff were having to work within.
Any good ‘design’ which got us ahead in the market was held back under instruction from the highest levels.Anything mediocre to bad was pushed forward.The last thing they wanted was a successful competitive UK manufacturing industry.
It’s impossible to understand that unbelievable situation without going into detail as to how it could possibly have arisen and why…
So far, I have countered all of your arguments for how “It” could have arisen. Based on the evidence that you have presented, there was no conspiracy to damage the GB manufacturing industry. So far, all we have learned is, that in the aftermath of WW2, Germany was given a bit more easy-terms credit, and had some of the debts it incurred building its war machine written off (if that is true). None of that explains the parlous state of the British motor industry in the 1970s.
50% write off of debt incurred as of 1918 and repayments of the rest conditional on and proportional with Germany’s trade surplus post WW2 is a lot more than ‘easy terms credit’.
Jaguar XJ6/12, Triumph 2.5, Dolomite Sprint, Rover 3500S, ■■■■■■ RS 2000 and Granada 3.0, RR 265-290 and 305 before that oh and this flickr.com/photos/pobox448/4 … otostream/
parlous are you serious.
A driver who works with me bought a Triumph Stag and he has stripped it right down to the bare shell he has got the shell prepared for an expensive repaint and the rest is complete and ready to rebuild . I asked what engine he had in it he said a straight six from a TR6 the best engine Triumph ever made !
Carryfast:
50% write off of debt incurred as of 1918 and repayments of the rest conditional on and proportional with Germany’s trade surplus post WW2 is a lot more than ‘easy terms credit’.
Jaguar XJ6/12, Triumph 2.5, Dolomite Sprint, Rover 3500S, ■■■■■■ RS 2000 and Granada 3.0, RR 265-290 and 305 before that oh and this flickr.com/photos/pobox448/4 … otostream/
parlous are you serious.
The debt write-off occurred over 50 years before the era of the cars you mention. Was there any mention of these conspiracies during that period? Again, the financial assistance was simply to repair a war-torn nation- nothing sinister. How come Germany did not turn into an export colossus between 1918 and 1939?
“Conditional and proportional”, IE the more successful the Germans were at their border, the more they were taxed. You could say that it was a conspiracy against them. It’s how the mafia keep people in check.
I’ve got my own conspiracy theory now, having learned the basics: The spivs running the British engineering industry realised that their legions of village blacksmiths could not compete forever, against nations who took the trouble to educate and reward clever people, so they inveigled their inherited-wealth mates in the Government to find excuses to start wars with those nations. What do you reckon?
dazcapri:
Why would the Germans hate to see the Mk1 Granada on the Sweeney? They were made in Cologne as well as Dagenham, in fact from 1976 till the mk2 was introduced they were only made in Germany.
You seem to have missed the difference between an Essex 3 litre Granada v a Cologne 2.8 Mk2 Granada.Quite different beasts at least in terms of engine design.
( I preferred the 3 litre as used in the proper Sweeney’s motor ).
That’s a proper ultimate Essex 95 x 72 not a Cologne 80 x 60.Just listen to the zb I could always tell the difference between them 3.0 or 3.1.But it takes Triumph style ITB’s Weber or Lucas PI and a decent cam like the TR5 spec on the Triumph to really make it sing.Longer stroke Essex V6 was the nuts. youtube.com/watch?v=hGW3_JrLf4c
No I know the difference between a mk1 and mk2 Granada having owned both. I had a 2.0 pinto mk1 and a 3l Essex mk1, dad had a 2.5 Essex Consul, I had a 2.0 lx mk2 and a 2.8 ghia x cologne mk2. I also fitted a 2.8 cologne into a mk3 Cortina for a mate(using 2.3 engine mounts makes it an easy swap) that was originally a crossflow. I’ve also had about a dozen Capri’s with 1.6/2.0 pinto’s, a 3ltr mk2, a 2.8 injection mk3 and even a LHD 2.o ltr V4 cologne engined version. Along side those I’ve had about dozen Cortina mk’s 2,3,4 and 5(Cortina 80 if you want to be pedantic), roughly the same amount of mk1/2 Escorts so don’t say I don’t know my Ford’s or that I’m not a rwd fan my car now is still rwd. The mk1 Sweeney shape Granada was made in both Germany and England. Oh and just in case you have any more doubt about my knowledge I’ve also owned Allegro’s, Marina’s, Maxi’s, Mini’s and Triumph Dolomites including a 2…0 16v sprint. Dad had the 2000’s, Jags and landcrab etc. I worked for 5 years in a rover dealer from mid 80,s to about 91 where I drove sd1’s that had been part exchanged for more modern rovers and drove acclaim’s. I also had a couple of years at a Ford dealer in the late 90’s.
dazcapri:
It’s a shame Stokes told Rover to replace the Triumph 2000 (and p6) in 1971 and they stopped making Triumph 2000 in 1977 months before Edwardes started at BL in November 77, he might have took your advice and put a Rover V8 in the 2000 and saved the company. After all he was happy for Triumph to use the rover V8 in the TR8 produced from 77-82
Remind me what was Stoke’s position in 1975 and who was Leyland MD’s boss at the NEB.and
Remind me who was it who signed the deal with Honda in '78 to make the Acclaim and 800.
Why were only 400 TR8’s ever produced.Mostly all destined for North America not UK or Europe.
Stokes actually said Rover should make a P6/Triumph ‘executive’ car replacement.
He didn’t say don’t make a Rover V8 Triumph BMW 5 series M535 competitor before BMW did it.
!
In 1975 Stokes position would have been 1st in the queue at the job centre
Here’s a link aronline.co.uk/cars/rover/sd1/ to show that Stokes was at the meeting to choose the design of the Triumph 2000 and P6 replacement
Only 400 V8 Tr8 were made because that’s how many sold because unlike you most people didn’t want V8 engined cars possibly because there was a recession in the early 80’s
Stokes actually said Triumph would no longer compete with Rover in the large saloon market and would concentrate on the sports car and small saloon(i.e. Dolomite) market. The SD2 was to replace the Dolomite range and would have had a 1500tc engine for the base model and 2.0 Sprint engine for the sporty model link to SD2 aronline.co.uk/concepts-and … iumph-sd2/
Harry Webster wanted a V8 engined 2000 but he wanted to use the Triumph engine from the Stag,they wouldn’t have used th Rover engine because they had already told Maagement it wouldn’t fit.
In 1978 Edwardes signed a ground breaking deal with Honda that resulted in a top ten selling car for BL,which more importantly became the least warrantied BL car. Business Experts regard (you will obviously disagree) the deal with Honda as the starting point for Japanese cars coming to the UK without the Honda deal we wouldn’t have Nissan and Toyota opening factories in the UK.
Why FWD maybe because the Top ten selling cars were mostly FWD because the MAJORITY (not YOU or ME for that matter) of customers bougt FWD.Here’s the top ten selling cars of the 70’s retrowow.co.uk/transport/70s/70s_cars.php
80’s admiral.com/magazine/guides … -the-1980s
90’s admiral.com/magazine/guides … -the-1990s
It’s 2010 before your beloved 3 series BMW (I had one of them as well) makes the top ten sales list.
Funnily enough BMW now make small FWD cars so Edwardes rather than copying BMW like you keep saying was actually 40 years ahead of them.
Hee’s a link to BMW saying driving a small FWD car Is almost the sama as driving a small RWD car uk.motor1.com/news/360534/bmw-1 … r-rwd/amp/
ramone:
A driver who works with me bought a Triumph Stag and he has stripped it right down to the bare shell he has got the shell prepared for an expensive repaint and the rest is complete and ready to rebuild . I asked what engine he had in it he said a straight six from a TR6 the best engine Triumph ever made !
I’ll quote Webster regarding the Stag.
‘’ My greastest wish was to use the 2.5 litre straight six that was the way to go’'.
‘‘The V8 might have been right when properly developed’’.(Yeah right like 4.0 litre 32 valve Sprint based ).
Oh and we know the Rover V8 would have fitted.Which is what Stokes said put in it.
The TR5 2.5 was actually in a higher state of tune with a wilder cam but not much good for sitting in traffic on the way to work so unfortunately mine didn’t get that.
The weakness of the Triumph 6 was that it only had 4 main bearings not 7.The developed 7 bearing BMC C ceries in the MGC was actually better in that regard but Triumph bonnet was too short and the BMC was a heavy lump.
The truth is the Rover V8 was the right motor for the job.Spen King said Triumph couldn’t have it.
The after market tuning sector is where the obvious sabotage of our motor industry is shown.Not being constrained by politics.If it fits it’ll be tried to greatest effect and was/is.
Which means 3.8 Essex V6 powered old Fords to 4.0 + Rover V8 powered Triumphs.
Or even a Mustang V8 powered rear wheel drive Rover 75 given the right off message management but the bankers were obviously never going to allow that.
Carryfast:
You seem to have missed the difference between an Essex 3 litre Granada v a Cologne 2.8 Mk2 Granada.Quite different beasts at least in terms of engine design.
( I preferred the 3 litre as used in the proper Sweeney’s motor ).
That’s a proper ultimate Essex 95 x 72 not a Cologne 80 x 60.Just listen to the zb I could always tell the difference between them 3.0 or 3.1.But it takes Triumph style ITB’s Weber or Lucas PI and a decent cam like the TR5 spec on the Triumph to really make it sing.Longer stroke Essex V6 was the nuts. youtube.com/watch?v=hGW3_JrLf4c
No I know the difference between a mk1 and mk2 Granada having owned both. I had a 2.0 pinto mk1 and a 3l Essex mk1, dad had a 2.5 Essex Consul, I had a 2.0 lx mk2 and a 2.8 ghia x cologne mk2. I also fitted a 2.8 cologne into a mk3 Cortina for a mate(using 2.3 engine mounts makes it an easy swap) that was originally a crossflow. I’ve also had about a dozen Capri’s with 1.6/2.0 pinto’s, a 3ltr mk2, a 2.8 injection mk3 and even a LHD 2.o ltr V4 cologne engined version. Along side those I’ve had about dozen Cortina mk’s 2,3,4 and 5(Cortina 80 if you want to be pedantic), roughly the same amount of mk1/2 Escorts so don’t say I don’t know my Ford’s or that I’m not a rwd fan my car now is still rwd. The mk1 Sweeney shape Granada was made in both Germany and England. Oh and just in case you have any more doubt about my knowledge I’ve also owned Allegro’s, Marina’s, Maxi’s, Mini’s and Triumph Dolomites including a 2…0 16v sprint. Dad had the 2000’s, Jags and landcrab etc. I worked for 5 years in a rover dealer from mid 80,s to about 91 where I drove sd1’s that had been part exchanged for more modern rovers and drove acclaim’s. I also had a couple of years at a Ford dealer in the late 90’s.
You know the difference between an Essex v a Cologne Granada/Capri.( Longer stroke motor ultimately more torque ).
How does that make the case that Ford UK weren’t deliberately screwed to the benefit of Ford Germany ?.
You obviously owned/wanted an Allegro, but obviously not for some reason a 2.5 PI instead and you obviously have no intrinsic objection to front wheel drive poverty sector products, explains your views regarding Leyland products and Stokes v Edwardes management of the firm.
You obviously don’t see the Acclaim and the 800 as being deliberately retrograde products.
Which brings us back to the TL12 v RR in the Roadtrain debacle.
dazcapri:
In 1975 Stokes position would have been 1st in the queue at the job centre
Here’s a link aronline.co.uk/cars/rover/sd1/ to show that Stokes was at the meeting to choose the design of the Triumph 2000 and P6 replacement
Only 400 V8 Tr8 were made because that’s how many sold because unlike you most people didn’t want V8 engined cars possibly because there was a recession in the early 80’s
Stokes actually said Triumph would no longer compete with Rover in the large saloon market and would concentrate on the sports car and small saloon(i.e. Dolomite) market. The SD2 was to replace the Dolomite range and would have had a 1500tc engine for the base model and 2.0 Sprint engine for the sporty model link to SD2 aronline.co.uk/concepts-and … iumph-sd2/
Harry Webster wanted a V8 engined 2000 but he wanted to use the Triumph engine from the Stag,they wouldn’t have used th Rover engine because they had already told Maagement it wouldn’t fit.
In 1978 Edwardes signed a ground breaking deal with Honda that resulted in a top ten selling car for BL,which more importantly became the least warrantied BL car. Business Experts regard (you will obviously disagree) the deal with Honda as the starting point for Japanese cars coming to the UK without the Honda deal we wouldn’t have Nissan and Toyota opening factories in the UK.
Why FWD maybe because the Top ten selling cars were mostly FWD because the MAJORITY (not YOU or ME for that matter) of customers bougt FWD.Here’s the top ten selling cars of the 70’s retrowow.co.uk/transport/70s/70s_cars.php
80’s admiral.com/magazine/guides … -the-1980s
90’s admiral.com/magazine/guides … -the-1990s
It’s 2010 before your beloved 3 series BMW (I had one of them as well) makes the top ten sales list.
Funnily enough BMW now make small FWD cars so Edwardes rather than copying BMW like you keep saying was actually 40 years ahead of them.
Hee’s a link to BMW saying driving a small FWD car Is almost the sama as driving a small RWD car uk.motor1.com/news/360534/bmw-1 … r-rwd/amp/
BMW never stopped making rear wheel drive cars in favour of all front wheel drive.Nor did Mercedes.They just added a downmarket market sector element they didn’t replace their whole business plan with it in the form of not maintaining 3 series and 5 series etc.
The Cortina was a better seller than any front wheel drive Issigonis heap or the Granada your point being what.
So you admit that Stokes wasn’t running Leyland Group in 1975.
Remind me again who was and who was both’s boss at NEB before 1977.
Triumph weren’t meant to be in the BMC market sector.
Stokes said put the Rover V8 in the Stag King said no.
Stokes said let Rover replace both Triumph 2.5 and P6 in the executive car sector.
He didn’t say don’t put the Rover V8 in the Triumph as an M division performance saloon product.
He also didn’t say let’s put Rover and Triumph into the BMC sector to the point of Leyland ending up as Austin Rover.
The Acclaim and 800 were supposedly good in your view.Remind me what happened next.
How many BMW’s remain unsold and unwanted because they are rear wheel drive.
You’re showing your Allegro owner credentials here.
Hopefully nmm is vomiting.
Welcome to my world.