[zb]
anorak:
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?
The London Agreement happened in 1951.That’s 20 years not 50.
The 1970’s were obviously crucial turn around years for Germany as foreseen by its creditors then and after.
Germany knew it owed loads of money for wrecking Europe and itself.
Then said buy our stuff or we ain’t paying and what we do pay will be directly proportional to what you buy from us.( Using Brit customers’ cash to pay down German debt and wrecking our own industrial recovery in the process ).
You seem to have issues with your fellow Brits.Unfortunately unlike the German kamaraden.
Assuming you are a Brit.
If you were working in a Brit factory at the time you couldn’t possibly have not heard the numerous comments along the lines of zb Krauts are winning the peace, by being handed it on a plate, after we fought to win a war against em.I grew up with that ringing in both ears both at home from my Father and from his friends and at work and I agreed and still agree with them.
They were a generation who could outwork and outfight the best they didn’t need to lie.
Together with stuff like we the willing led by the unknowing are doing the impossible for the ungrateful.We’ve been doing so much with so little for so long that we are now qualified to do anything with nothing.
You wouldn’t have heard that in any German factory.
So back to the TL12 getting put in the Roadtrain instead of Rolls and Rover Triumph being turned into another BMC and Ford and GM UK going German.
Obviously anything which helps to sabotage domestic industry helps to increase the German trade surplus thereby Germany’s creditors get paid back faster.
It’s also clear that a similar albeit stealth deal was being applied to all of Europe’s trade with us.
Because the banks were more exposed to combined mainland European war debt than Brit.
So chuck us under the bus to get the greater amount paid off.
Win win if we can take advantage of investment in undamaged neutral economies like Sweden as part of that. 
[zb]
anorak:
The engineers convinced the toffs at the top that the engine wouldn’t fit. Wouldn’t have happened in Germany- the engineers were the management.
Stokes said fit it.
King lied and said they didn’t have enough of them coming off the line for Rover and Triumph.
At no point was Webster given the opportunity to use the Rover engine in the Stag by King.
King knew that a Rover V8 powered Stag by implication meant a Rover V8 powered 2.5 saloon superior to both the P6 and his eventual retrograde SD1.
Don’t believe him on the supply issue and get it wrong crash both firms.
That’s blackmailing the boss to the advantage of the foreign competition not it won’t fit.
You can bet that King wouldn’t have dared without the hidden backing of Heath/John Davies pressurising Stokes.
Fast forward to the Edwardes era and the launch of the T45 and the sale of RR to Vickers and Rover Triumph going downmarket to the BMC sector using Jap design and components.
Remind me what happened next.
Who gained from that.
Carryfast:
[zb]
anorak:
The engineers convinced the toffs at the top that the engine wouldn’t fit. Wouldn’t have happened in Germany- the engineers were the management.
Stokes said fit it.
King lied and said they didn’t have enough of them coming off the line for Rover and Triumph.
At no point was Webster given the opportunity to use the Rover engine in the Stag by King.
King knew that a Rover V8 powered Stag by implication meant a Rover V8 powered 2.5 saloon superior to both the P6 and his eventual retrograde SD1.
Don’t believe him on the supply issue and get it wrong crash both firms.
That’s blackmailing the boss to the advantage of the foreign competition not it won’t fit.
You can bet that King wouldn’t have dared without the hidden backing of Heath/John Davies pressurising Stokes.
Fast forward to the Edwardes era and the launch of the T45 and the sale of RR to Vickers and Rover Triumph going downmarket to the BMC sector using Jap design and components.
Remind me what happened next.
Who gained from that.
The story about them saying it won’t fit, as related by Dazcapri, is accepted as fact by everyone. I’ve heard it loads of times. It’s believable- the Triumph engineers make sure that the Stag will only accept the engine they have developed for it. Why is your version so different?
The reason Ford and GM were biased towards their German operations was simply to have products to sell when their British operations were shut down by their militant workers being on strike. BL never had that luxury. A prime example of reaping what you sew. Then there’s quality control, British built vehicles were shoddy compared to the vehicles built by their Teutonic brethren and those FACTS cannot be ignored.
That is a curiously British thing, compare a 95 Daf to a Seddon Atkinson Strato or an 85 Daf to a Foden Alpha, they’re world’s apart and look at the plastic crap turned out by ERF.
Now you (CF) keep bringing up the German competition and yet BL was mostly in competition with everyone but the Germans, excepting the German built Fords and Vauxhalls, Audi, BMW and Mercedes sold in very small numbers here, the biggest threat was from the Japanese car industry, bread and butter cars for Mr Average with his wife and 2.4 children, not RWD oversteering long stroke quad cam V8s, did such a thing even exist in those days, apart from the Cosworth DFV?
Your views on Germany are similar to Irish Catholics inbred hatred towards Irish protestants and vice versa. You grew up listening to anti German sentiment, yeah the war was bad, many died and many lost fathers, uncles, brothers etc to German bullets, understandably they were seen as the enemy and growing up surrounded by that is bound to have an impact on your views, as you continue to prove.
Carryfast:
[zb]
anorak:
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?
The London Agreement happened in 1951.That’s 20 years not 50.
The 1970’s were obviously crucial turn around years for Germany as foreseen by its creditors then and after.
Germany knew it owed loads of money for wrecking Europe and itself.
Then said buy our stuff or we ain’t paying and what we do pay will be directly proportional to what you buy from us.( Using Brit customers’ cash to pay down German debt and wrecking our own industrial recovery in the process ).
You seem to have issues with your fellow Brits.Unfortunately unlike the German kamaraden.
Assuming you are a Brit.
If you were working in a Brit factory at the time you couldn’t possibly have not heard the numerous comments along the lines of zb Krauts are winning the peace, by being handed it on a plate, after we fought to win a war against em.I grew up with that ringing in both ears both at home from my Father and from his friends and at work and I agreed and still agree with them.
They were a generation who could outwork and outfight the best they didn’t need to lie.
Together with stuff like we the willing led by the unknowing are doing the impossible for the ungrateful.We’ve been doing so much with so little for so long that we are now qualified to do anything with nothing.
You wouldn’t have heard that in any German factory.
So back to the TL12 getting put in the Roadtrain instead of Rolls and Rover Triumph being turned into another BMC and Ford and GM UK going German.
Obviously anything which helps to sabotage domestic industry helps to increase the German trade surplus thereby Germany’s creditors get paid back faster.
It’s also clear that a similar albeit stealth deal was being applied to all of Europe’s trade with us.
Because the banks were more exposed to combined mainland European war debt than Brit.
So chuck us under the bus to get the greater amount paid off.
Win win if we can take advantage of investment in undamaged neutral economies like Sweden as part of that.
Up there, you said the debt write-off was after WW1. 50 years before the 1970s, the period of British automotive meltdown you attributed to it.
The rest of your post is just repetition, with fluff. Who takes notice of factory floor tittle-tattle? Anyway, I’m a bit Chuchilled at the moment, so I’ll formulate a proper reply tomorrow.
Prost.
[zb]
anorak:
The story about them saying it won’t fit, as related by Dazcapri, is accepted as fact by everyone. I’ve heard it loads of times. It’s believable- the Triumph engineers make sure that the Stag will only accept the engine they have developed for it. Why is your version so different?
Because there are numerous examples of Stags and 2.5 saloons running around with Rover V8’s having been put in them by their happy enthusiastic owners.It actually fits better in the Stag/2.5 than it did in the P6.
King is also quoted as saying that providing the Rover engine to Triumph would have created supply issues at Rover.King ‘also’ said it wouldn’t fit.
Nowhere is Webster confirmed as having said that and how do you explain King’s two inconsistent reasons.
One of those explanations has to be a lie.The fact that Webster has never been shown anywhere to have stated that it wouldn’t fit and you’ve got the proof that it does fit suggests that it was King who was lying.
So does all the evidence regarding what happened next.
TR8 rationed to 400 units and Triumph turned over to making the Acclaim and Rover the 800 in a deal with Honda agreed by Edwardes as of 1978.
Followed by Rover being amalgamated with the former BMC division.
TL12 obviously signed off for T45 and RR handed over to Vickers.
newmercman:
The reason Ford and GM were biased towards their German operations was simply to have products to sell when their British operations were shut down by their militant workers being on strike. BL never had that luxury. A prime example of reaping what you sew. Then there’s quality control, British built vehicles were shoddy compared to the vehicles built by their Teutonic brethren and those FACTS cannot be ignored.
That is a curiously British thing, compare a 95 Daf to a Seddon Atkinson Strato or an 85 Daf to a Foden Alpha, they’re world’s apart and look at the plastic crap turned out by ERF.
Now you (CF) keep bringing up the German competition and yet BL was mostly in competition with everyone but the Germans, excepting the German built Fords and Vauxhalls, Audi, BMW and Mercedes sold in very small numbers here, the biggest threat was from the Japanese car industry, bread and butter cars for Mr Average with his wife and 2.4 children, not RWD oversteering long stroke quad cam V8s, did such a thing even exist in those days, apart from the Cosworth DFV?
Your views on Germany are similar to Irish Catholics inbred hatred towards Irish protestants and vice versa. You grew up listening to anti German sentiment, yeah the war was bad, many died and many lost fathers, uncles, brothers etc to German bullets, understandably they were seen as the enemy and growing up surrounded by that is bound to have an impact on your views, as you continue to prove.
How do you explain the fact that with all this supposed unfair beastliness to the Germans I myself deserted Triumph and bought an E3 rot box. 
The BMW E3 and then even moreso the 6 cylinder 5 series developments were the Triumph 2.5’s natural competitor and a formidable one too.Especially when the M535 arrived on the scene.
A 3.5-4.0 litre Rover V8 powered 2.5 would have stopped both the 528 and 535 in their tracks before they even arrived.
Yep let’s do a quad cam 32 valve V8 and put it in a performance saloon because we’ve already got everything we need to do it other than the block casting and we can do it long before BMW did it.
Triumph were never meant to be in the BMC market sector let alone Rover.BMC were meant to provide those cars for Mr and Mrs average.But unfortunately for your ideas Mr and Mrs average also preferred a BMW not a Toyota let alone a front wheel drive heap made by a moped manufacturer with a Rover badge on it.
As for militant workers if you’d have ever spent more than a week in a car/truck factory you’d understand why those workers were worth three or four times the wage of a truck driver but unfortunately they never got that because the Germans were considered superior.
[zb]
anorak:
Up there, you said the debt write-off was after WW1. 50 years before the 1970s
Which part of the London agreement wrote off 50% of Germany’s outstanding pre WW2 and it’s WW2/post WW2 debt did you miss.
No such luxury for us.
[zb]
anorak:
Carryfast:
[zb]
anorak:
The engineers convinced the toffs at the top that the engine wouldn’t fit. Wouldn’t have happened in Germany- the engineers were the management.
Stokes said fit it.
King lied and said they didn’t have enough of them coming off the line for Rover and Triumph.
At no point was Webster given the opportunity to use the Rover engine in the Stag by King.
King knew that a Rover V8 powered Stag by implication meant a Rover V8 powered 2.5 saloon superior to both the P6 and his eventual retrograde SD1.
Don’t believe him on the supply issue and get it wrong crash both firms.
That’s blackmailing the boss to the advantage of the foreign competition not it won’t fit.
You can bet that King wouldn’t have dared without the hidden backing of Heath/John Davies pressurising Stokes.
Fast forward to the Edwardes era and the launch of the T45 and the sale of RR to Vickers and Rover Triumph going downmarket to the BMC sector using Jap design and components.
Remind me what happened next.
Who gained from that.
The story about them saying it won’t fit, as related by Dazcapri, is accepted as fact by everyone. I’ve heard it loads of times. It’s believable- the Triumph engineers make sure that the Stag will only accept the engine they have developed for it. Why is your version so different?
Its also stated in a couple of the links I posted including aronline which is considered the go to resource for Bl history. It’s also on Wikipedia interestingly on wiki it says Triumph thought the torque range of the rover v8 would be wrong for the stag but according to carryfast they’re pro Edwardes
Carryfast:
dazcapri:
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.
Yes like I said I even had a very rare(and very rubbish) V4 cologne 2 ltr Capri but the question I asked which you have DELIBERATELY avoided answering is why the Germans would have hated the Sweeney mk1 appearing on TV, when they were making them as well. Oh just for the record that first sweeney granada is actually a Consul gt.
No I didn’t want an allegro in preference to triumph I was 18 when I had an allegro, Low paid and skint so bought what I could afford to buy and insure. I’ve never bought a car on credit I tend to buy 10/20 year old cars and run them into the ground.
As for my opinion on the big Triumph I’m sitting at the computer in the mancave in front of a poster of a 2500 Triumph which was a pull out from Retro Cars magazine. My lottery win garage will have a 2.5 Triumph saloon in it not a v8 I love the sound of a triumph straight 6 on full song.
I actually don’t blame either stokes or edwardes for the demise of BL I think it was a combination of several things.
I see the acclaim and 800 as giving the majority of people what they wanted (like I said not you or me) look at the sales the top sellers were fwd.
Carryfast:
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. 
What’s 1975 got to do with the decision by stokes and the management team in 1971 to replace the 2000 with a rover, you blame Edwardes for ruining BL by not putting a V8 rover in the 2000. How could he have done that when Stokes had already replaced the car and the guy in 1975(who’s name I forget) stopped making the car months before he started at Bl Explain to me how Edwardes is responsible for the death of the 2000 range especially considering he owned one.
King never said no its on record that Triumph said it wouldn’t fit, King had transferred to triumph by then why would he risk his own job by fitting an inferior engine into the stag. They all thought the stag v8 was a good engine.
I like the way you’re the first to mention bmw’s M division and now state is fact that the sd division is equivalent to the m (M for Motorsport).
The Specialist Division consists of at first Rover and Triumph and the later Jaguar and is to make the more specialised and lower selling vehicles. The ADO (Amalgamated Drawing Office) is to concentrate on the higher selling (hopefully) Austin Morris range of cars.
So where exactly would the V8 Triumph fit into this range if it wasn’t to compete with Rover. If you shift rover into the executive division you’re taking sales away from jaguar.
If you read the link to the SD1 development you’ll see the six prototype clay models were 5 hatchbacks and one notch back so you’re ideal 3 box style was defunct anyway
dazcapri:
The Specialist Division consists of at first Rover and Triumph and the later Jaguar and is to make the more specialised and lower selling vehicles. The ADO (Amalgamated Drawing Office) is to concentrate on the higher selling (hopefully) Austin Morris range of cars.
So where exactly would the V8 Triumph fit into this range if it wasn’t to compete with Rover. If you shift rover into the executive division you’re taking sales away from jaguar.
If you read the link to the SD1 development you’ll see the six prototype clay models were 5 hatchbacks and one notch back so you’re ideal 3 box style was defunct anyway
Thought I was quite knowledgeable about BL, but I didn’t even know what ADO stood for. I can tell you that it did not say that on the door, so my ignorance may have some excuse! I’m guessing the SD was Canley?
Here you go CF, have a look at some Great British Engineering in Germany, in the 1950s:
youtube.com/watch?v=nuwTWujeMM0&t=2s
20,000 miles steady state running, and they’re boasting. The other cars on the Autobahn (Beetles) will do 150,000 miles of that, before they are anything like worn out. The Beetle was going into production just before the war, a brand new design, engineered from the ground up. Fast forward 20 years, and the Britain’s best brains are getting all excited over an increase in compression ratio, on a design which was old hat when the Beetle was launched- the Austin A series, which was in the smaller cars in the video. The Beetle engine makes about the same BMEP, weighs about half as much and lasts about twice as long.
When the bloke in charge of Germany wants the best car for his people, he makes friends with an engineer (Dr. Porsche), and puts him in charge. Can you imagine the number of stuffed shirts- bankers, bomb-damaged Army officers, tennis partners etc- who report to the British Prime Minister, before you get down to the level of Donald Stokes? Keep digging down the hierarchy. Eventually, you will come across someone with an education fit for the purpose of making decisions about rotating lumps of metal. That is the reason for Germany’s historic superiority over GB in vehicle design. Little or nothing to do with the diversion of war reparation funds into industry.
dazcapri:
[zb]
anorak:
The story about them saying it won’t fit, as related by Dazcapri, is accepted as fact by everyone. I’ve heard it loads of times. It’s believable- the Triumph engineers make sure that the Stag will only accept the engine they have developed for it. Why is your version so different?
Its also stated in a couple of the links I posted including aronline which is considered the go to resource for Bl history. It’s also on Wikipedia interestingly on wiki it says Triumph thought the torque range of the rover v8 would be wrong for the stag but according to carryfast they’re pro Edwardes
Firstly Webster is quoted as saying the Rover V8 would be a ‘difficult’ fit he didn’t anywhere say it wouldn’t fit.If a load of oiks could do the job in the garage at home both regarding both the Stag and the 2.5 saloon I’m sure that the combined brains of King and Webster could also have done it.
King is also quoted as telling Stokes that there would be ‘supply’ issues.Which is the smoking gun which says that your version of ‘accepted’ history’ is bs.
Let alone the fact that the Rover V8 fits in both the Stag and the 2.5 saloon better than it fitted in the P6 and King knew it.Which also even casts doubt on the authenticity of the comments attributed to Webster regarding ‘difficult’.When the facts show that it was anything but a ‘difficult’ fit.
britishv8.org/Triumph/GaryStanfield.htm
britishv8.org/Triumph/MikePuke.htm
Yep pro Edwardes as in Rover and Triumph deliberately taken down into the BMC market sector.Rather than premium executive and performance divisions respectively, by him in total contradiction with Stokes’ instructions and the Ryder report.To the obvious advantage of BMW.
dazcapri:
Yes like I said I even had a very rare(and very rubbish) V4 cologne 2 ltr Capri but the question I asked which you have DELIBERATELY avoided answering is why the Germans would have hated the Sweeney mk1 appearing on TV, when they were making them as well. Oh just for the record that first sweeney granada is actually a Consul gt.
No I didn’t want an allegro in preference to triumph I was 18 when I had an allegro, Low paid and skint so bought what I could afford to buy and insure. I’ve never bought a car on credit I tend to buy 10/20 year old cars and run them into the ground.
As for my opinion on the big Triumph I’m sitting at the computer in the mancave in front of a poster of a 2500 Triumph which was a pull out from Retro Cars magazine. My lottery win garage will have a 2.5 Triumph saloon in it not a v8 I love the sound of a triumph straight 6 on full song.
I actually don’t blame either stokes or edwardes for the demise of BL I think it was a combination of several things.
I see the acclaim and 800 as giving the majority of people what they wanted (like I said not you or me) look at the sales the top sellers were fwd.
The Germans would have hated the Consul GRANADA GT in the brilliant Sweeney product placement because it showed the ESSEX built Granada and 3 Litre engine to great effect.
Although ironically they did over egg it a bit by suggesting that even a 3 litre Essex with semi trailing back end would trump a proper maintained Jag 3.8 or 420 Stype.
As for the Triumph 6 I actually preferred the BMC C series in Healey spec with triple SU’s or webers.It’s the nearest thing to a 6 which sounds like a V12 especially in the lower range.
While the 7 bearing MGC development was a waste there was 200 hp potential in that which matched BMW M30 in the 3.0 Si but I’m guessing with more torque from the longer stroke motor.
The prices now of MGC’s seem to reflect that.
As for Leyland Group it’s clear that it was salvageable with the Rover V8 used in the Triumph Stag/2.5.Think again regarding SD1.
Leaving the volume sector to Ford and closing BMC.So what did they do.
The Acclaim, the 800, the TL12, and letting RR go to waste were too much and the final nails and too much to not be sabotage.
Of a type which we saw repeated in numerous other examples as part of the stated policy of transition to a services and retail based economy to the obvious benefit of Germany.
[zb]
anorak:
Here you go CF, have a look at some Great British Engineering in Germany, in the 1950s:
youtube.com/watch?v=nuwTWujeMM0&t=2s
20,000 miles steady state running, and they’re boasting. The other cars on the Autobahn (Beetles) will do 150,000 miles of that, before they are anything like worn out. The Beetle was going into production just before the war, a brand new design, engineered from the ground up. Fast forward 20 years, and the Britain’s best brains are getting all excited over an increase in compression ratio, on a design which was old hat when the Beetle was launched- the Austin A series, which was in the smaller cars in the video. The Beetle engine makes about the same BMEP, weighs about half as much and lasts about twice as long.
When the bloke in charge of Germany wants the best car for his people, he makes friends with an engineer (Dr. Porsche), and puts him in charge. Can you imagine the number of stuffed shirts- bankers, bomb-damaged Army officers, tennis partners etc- who report to the British Prime Minister, before you get down to the level of Donald Stokes? Keep digging down the hierarchy. Eventually, you will come across someone with an education fit for the purpose of making decisions about rotating lumps of metal. That is the reason for Germany’s historic superiority over GB in vehicle design. Little or nothing to do with the diversion of war reparation funds into industry.
You really think the Beetle was the best car for the people. 
It was a piece of command economy elitist junk just like the Trabant.
Dumb morris minor overtaking dumber Beetle at 60 mph on a road designed for 100 mph + at 1.03 sort of defeats your own pathetic argument.
So tell us what ‘superiority’ did the Fatherland have in its armoury v an overdrive equipped Austin Westminster let alone a proper late 1950’s/60’s Jag.It seems that BMC didn’t want to rub the Kraut’s noses in it by taking an A95 over there instead of A50 and Morris Minors to blow the doors of their Beetles.
I get it you’re an elitist who thinks that cars like the Westminster and the Mk2/S type Jag, P6 Rover and Triumph 2.5 were all too good for the exploitable masses and you have issues with lowly oiks from the shop floor getting their hands on em.Ironically I did hear once or twice mutterings about the firm’s apprentices driving as good or better motors as/than the managers.They couldn’t actually decide if it was a good thing or a bad thing.But they certainly did know that my 2.5PI was better than the a manager’s company SD1 and that was just its looks.I actually preferred the next level’s Essex Granada and the one above him had a …2.8 XJ6.
I always laughed at the company car hierachy FFS just buy your own motor you’re earning enough was my answer.
So you obviously wanted all that stopped by leaving just the choice of XJ6/12 for the plutocrats, 800 for middle management and the Acclaim for the prols.Let me guess you really ain’t going to be happy about a truck driver driving a 6.0 litre 5 speed manual XJ12 and from experience even today the Fatherland needs something special to get past that and 155 mph certainly won’t cut it.
As for Edwardes what did that useless asset stripping zb know. That ended well for Rover Triumph.Now the working class innit crowd are all driving blacked windows M3’s or at least 325’s on their McDonalds wages.Beetles yeah right. 
Carryfast:
dazcapri:
[zb]
anorak:
The story about them saying it won’t fit, as related by Dazcapri, is accepted as fact by everyone. I’ve heard it loads of times. It’s believable- the Triumph engineers make sure that the Stag will only accept the engine they have developed for it. Why is your version so different?
Its also stated in a couple of the links I posted including aronline which is considered the go to resource for Bl history. It’s also on Wikipedia interestingly on wiki it says Triumph thought the torque range of the rover v8 would be wrong for the stag but according to carryfast they’re pro Edwardes
Firstly Webster is quoted as saying the Rover V8 would be a ‘difficult’ fit he didn’t anywhere say it wouldn’t fit.If a load of oiks could do the job in the garage at home both regarding both the Stag and the 2.5 saloon I’m sure that the combined brains of King and Webster could also have done it.
King is also quoted as telling Stokes that there would be ‘supply’ issues.Which is the smoking gun which says that your version of ‘accepted’ history’ is bs.
Let alone the fact that the Rover V8 fits in both the Stag and the 2.5 saloon better than it fitted in the P6 and King knew it.Which also even casts doubt on the authenticity of the comments attributed to Webster regarding ‘difficult’.When the facts show that it was anything but a ‘difficult’ fit.
britishv8.org/Triumph/GaryStanfield.htm
britishv8.org/Triumph/MikePuke.htm
Yep pro Edwardes as in Rover and Triumph deliberately taken down into the BMC market sector.Rather than premium executive and performance divisions respectively, by him in total contradiction with Stokes’ instructions and the Ryder report.To the obvious advantage of BMW.
King actually said that Triumph engineers told him it wouldn’t fit, wiki states that Triumph thought the torque range would be wrong for the Stag. We all know that it fits, although Rover V8 engined Stags only make up 4% of Stag survivors which is interesting considering how popular a conversion it was. King is also quoted as saying there MAY have been supply issues anyway, which is potentially the reason he didn’t push Triumph into fitting it.
Had the Stag sold in the huge numbers they expected it to (and probably would have done if TRIUMPH hadn’t insisted on fitting there own engine) there MAY have been supply issues. The Stag was developed in 1964 and launched 1 year late in 1970. The rover V8 had its BL debut in 1967. Some of the cars that were intended to have the Rover V8 around 1970 included
1967 Rover p5b
1967 Rover p6bs a mid engine coupe that didn’t enter production
1968 Rover p1968 Morgan plus 8
1973 mgb v8
So there is a possibility of a shortage but no matter what excuse you come up with the main reason it wasn’t fitted was because TRIUMPH said it wouldn’t fit. King did in a way help to ruin the Stag but not by refusing to fit the Rover v8 (because he didn’t) but by insisting on enlarging the 2.5 Triumph v8 to 3 ltr to create more torque it was that the caused the overheating problems.
Have you seen the link to Stokes proposed SD2 Triumph it looks like somebody reversed a Talbot Alpine into a Citroën BX it’s hideous. They even considered a fwd version and it was always going to be a hatchback so it’s Stokes who started Triumphs downfall. The SD2 was scrapped, due to lack of funds, in 1975 before Edwardes arrival.
Like others have pointed out BMW were small fry in the UK sales marketin the 70’s so why you keep comparing them I don’t know
Oh before you start on the supply of Rover V8’s to the kit car market and Ginetta, Marcos etc that didn’t happen till 1981/2
Carryfast:
dazcapri:
Yes like I said I even had a very rare(and very rubbish) V4 cologne 2 ltr Capri but the question I asked which you have DELIBERATELY avoided answering is why the Germans would have hated the Sweeney mk1 appearing on TV, when they were making them as well. Oh just for the record that first sweeney granada is actually a Consul gt.
No I didn’t want an allegro in preference to triumph I was 18 when I had an allegro, Low paid and skint so bought what I could afford to buy and insure. I’ve never bought a car on credit I tend to buy 10/20 year old cars and run them into the ground.
As for my opinion on the big Triumph I’m sitting at the computer in the mancave in front of a poster of a 2500 Triumph which was a pull out from Retro Cars magazine. My lottery win garage will have a 2.5 Triumph saloon in it not a v8 I love the sound of a triumph straight 6 on full song.
I actually don’t blame either stokes or edwardes for the demise of BL I think it was a combination of several things.
I see the acclaim and 800 as giving the majority of people what they wanted (like I said not you or me) look at the sales the top sellers were fwd.
The Germans would have hated the Consul GRANADA GT in the brilliant Sweeney product placement because it showed the ESSEX built Granada and 3 Litre engine to great effect.
Although ironically they did over egg it a bit by suggesting that even a 3 litre Essex with semi trailing back end would trump a proper maintained Jag 3.8 or 420 Stype.
As for the Triumph 6 I actually preferred the BMC C series in Healey spec with triple SU’s or webers.It’s the nearest thing to a 6 which sounds like a V12 especially in the lower range.
While the 7 bearing MGC development was a waste there was 200 hp potential in that which matched BMW M30 in the 3.0 Si but I’m guessing with more torque from the longer stroke motor.
The prices now of MGC’s seem to reflect that.
As for Leyland Group it’s clear that it was salvageable with the Rover V8 used in the Triumph Stag/2.5.Think again regarding SD1.
Leaving the volume sector to Ford and closing BMC.So what did they do.
The Acclaim, the 800, the TL12, and letting RR go to waste were too much and the final nails and too much to not be sabotage.
Of a type which we saw repeated in numerous other examples as part of the stated policy of transition to a services and retail based economy to the obvious benefit of Germany.
The Sweeney Consul 3 ltr GT was never badged as a Granada you’re confusing it with the Mk1 Consul /Cortina as the early pre airflow’s were badged until people got used to the new Cortina name. Mk1 Consul’s and Granada’s were made from 1972 till 1975, the Consul being the lower spec car distinguished by its 2 bar grille. The Consul name was dropped in 1975 after the UK Court ruled that Granada Television could not prevent Ford registering the name Granada as a trademark after this all models were badged Granada. For the last year of production all Mk1 Granada’s including Essex engined versions were made in Cologne.
You’re now saying one of best cars in the world actually had an inferior engine so why did Webster want to launch the Stag with the inferior Triumph straight six engine.
Again you say BL could have been saved if they carried on selling the Triumph but fitted with a V8, so please explain to me how Edwardes would have been able to do this considering in 1971 Stokes chaired the meeting to pick Rovers hatchback replacement for the Triumph and the fact the guy in charge before him(whose name I just can’t remember) stopped making the car before he had arrived.
Now you’re saying Ford benefitted from the demise of Triumph I thought it was BMW.
The acclaim and 800 were designed for the 80’s when 8 of the top 10 selling cars were fwd and as I’ve already said I don’t think the acclaim should have been badged a Triumph it just wasn’t a Triumph
[zb]
anorak:
dazcapri:
The Specialist Division consists of at first Rover and Triumph and the later Jaguar and is to make the more specialised and lower selling vehicles. The ADO (Amalgamated Drawing Office) is to concentrate on the higher selling (hopefully) Austin Morris range of cars.
So where exactly would the V8 Triumph fit into this range if it wasn’t to compete with Rover. If you shift rover into the executive division you’re taking sales away from jaguar.
If you read the link to the SD1 development you’ll see the six prototype clay models were 5 hatchbacks and one notch back so you’re ideal 3 box style was defunct anyway
Thought I was quite knowledgeable about BL, but I didn’t even know what ADO stood for. I can tell you that it did not say that on the door, so my ignorance may have some excuse! I’m guessing the SD was Canley?
Actually some sources say it stands for Austin Drawing Office but there’s been so many changes at BL,BMC etc it’s possible it started as Austin but was changed to Amalgamated after yet another merger. I’m not sure if it was Canley or not
dazcapri:
[zb]
anorak:
dazcapri:
The Specialist Division consists of at first Rover and Triumph and the later Jaguar and is to make the more specialised and lower selling vehicles. The ADO (Amalgamated Drawing Office) is to concentrate on the higher selling (hopefully) Austin Morris range of cars.
So where exactly would the V8 Triumph fit into this range if it wasn’t to compete with Rover. If you shift rover into the executive division you’re taking sales away from jaguar.
If you read the link to the SD1 development you’ll see the six prototype clay models were 5 hatchbacks and one notch back so you’re ideal 3 box style was defunct anyway
Thought I was quite knowledgeable about BL, but I didn’t even know what ADO stood for. I can tell you that it did not say that on the door, so my ignorance may have some excuse! I’m guessing the SD was Canley?
Actually some sources say it stands for Austin Drawing Office but there’s been so many changes at BL,BMC etc it’s possible it started as Austin but was changed to Amalgamated after yet another merger. I’m not sure if it was Canley or not
Yes; that sounds plausible. I do not recall any product design work going on at Cowley, during the 1980s, when I was at Longbridge. I assume that Longbridge was the ADO. I’m guessing that Canley was the SD office. Towards the end of the 1980s, Canley seemed to become the focus of the work: the styling department was there, as were the more respected engineers.
