The Carryfast engine design discussion

[carryfast]

dazcapri:

Carryfast:
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

There was only one Triumph engineer who mattered here that was Webster and at most as stated he ( supposedly ) said difficult not won’t fit.
‘May’ be suppy issues was enough to to stop the whole thing in its tracks that was all it took for Stokes to have to play Russian Roulette v Rover/Range Rover production if King was telling the truth.
V8 Rover supplies were no problem from at least the late 1960’s at least for MGB V8 and Morgan + 8.So why no problems of supply in those cases but suddenly there was a problem for Triumph.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MG_MGB#MGB_GT_V8

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgan_Plus_8#Engines

Ironically MG being in a better position than Triumph having the new 7 bearing C Series on board.Yet another wasted Leyland design chucked under the bus to the advantage of BMW’s 3.0 M30 in the form of its CS series.
While a Rover V8 powered Stag was obviously a Merc SL killer.
youtube.com/watch?v=aKEXwc4v1Ks

It’s obvious why the Rover V8 was witheld from Triumph for the Stag and it had nothing to do with supply nor Webster telling anyone it ‘wouldn’t fit’.

The Triumph 2.5 was a better car than the Rover P6 and with Rover V8 power it would have instantly taken out the the whole business case for the BMW 5 series at least the 6 cylinder developments of it.

Remind me what happened to Rover after the introduction of the 800 let alone Triumph after introduction of the Acclaim.

Make no mistake BMW and more importantly the bankers saw Rover/Triumph as a continuing threat to BMW’s operations.The Rover V8, Triumph 2.5 - 2.6 6 cylinder and the BMC C series all being a big part of that.

The same applied to an in house Leyland Eagle and T45 combination.Too much of a threat to the post war European recovery plans.

[carryfast]

dazcapri:
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

I’m not confusing ‘it’ it was a case of differentiating ‘Consuls’ to stop anyone else getting confused in the day.

Actual Consuls by name were just the lesser 4 cylinder range to the Mk1/2 Zephyr since the 1950’s before the Cortina Mk1 and many were still around in the day.

The Cortina was also never called a Consul in day to day terminology either because it would also have been confused with those previous types.The same applied in the case of the ‘Mk1 Granada’.We just didn’t call them ‘Consuls’ regardless of what the badge and Ford’s marketing said.
By necessity they were always qualified with the base model to differentiate them whether Classic, Capri, Corsair, Cortina, or Granada.If not how were you going to differentiate any of them all.

Hence Ford fighting the court case regarding Granada and dropping the name of Consul from the Cortina in 1964.

I said that ‘all’ transfer of ‘Ford UK’ operations to Cologne was part of the same plan.

We know that the superior longer stroke Essex 3.0 Litre engine became a victim of same.In favour of 2.8 Cologne.

Yes Ford Germany benefitted from the demise of both the Essex Granada and the 3.0 litre motor and the Triumph 2.5.Just as BMW obviously did.The Germans clearly wanted to monopolise the mid range all indpendent suspension 6 cylinder premium sector.So Rover and Triumph had to go.Especially even if they as much as thought that we’d put the Rover V8 in the 2.5 Triumph.

Ex Rover P6 and Triumph 2.5 customers didn’t generally run to their nearest SD1 showrom let alone Triumph Acclaim and the bankers didn’t want a Brit motor taking Ford Germany’s work and revenues away.So 2.8 Cologne Granada it also had to be.

As I said the Granada Mk1 or 2 was actually the better car than the BMW 5 series.
Remind we what eventually happened to the Granada or even Opel Omega/Senator.
Yep nothing could stand in the way of the progress of the waffen BMW uber wagens.
GM and Ford Germany didn’t count and were competing for BMW’s market share with those types so they also eventually had to go just like Rover and Triumph.
So regression to front wheel drive poverty spec Mondeo and Vectra for them too.

Stokes only said replace the Triumph 2.5 and Rover P6 ‘in the executive sector’.
The ‘executives’ predictably voted with their wallets and chose BMW’s and Granadas instead of SD1.Like us oiks they also wanted to keep to three box styling and IRS.So another mark against King.

Stokes didn’t say close down Triumph 2.5 production at least in the performance sector.Triumph 2.5 production was still underway in 1975 when Stokes’ successor took over.Edwardes being over both Stokes and his successor as of 1975 as boss of NEB.
Then Edwardes was boss of Leyland when there was still time to reverse the closure of 2.5 production and re start it.
The fact is ‘someone’ didn’t want a Rover V8 2.5 Triumph BMW 5 series competitor.Which the SD1 could never be.
They obviously did want Rover and Triumph to be removed from the BMW premium market sector.
Just as someone clearly didn’t want the superior RR taken in house and used in the T45 v TL12 at Leyland truck division.

[carryfast]

[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?

It’s a Group enterprise.By definition they aren’t competing with each other.It’s a Collective.
A sale for Jaguar is a sale for Leyland Group just like a sale for Rover.It’s all one firm.
So how does a BMW M5 compete with a 735.How does an M3 compete with a 750.How does a 325 compete with a 740.
So Triumph performance division is making the equivalent of M5 and M3 and 325.
Rover is making the 730 and 740.
Jaguar is a special case which makes both performance and Executive.
That’s not competing with BMW at all that’s in the Merc league anything from C class to S class from 2.5 litre 6 cylinder to 6.0 litre + V12.

Instead of which Edwardes decided to go front wheel drive Japanese with Rover and Triumph into the BMC sector.
Remind me what happened next.
You know after the formation of Austin Rover.
As for Triumph don’t even go there.

[newmercman]

Going back a bit to the car workers being worth 4x a lorry driver, speak for yourself pal. Now I’ve had quite a lot of dealings with the car industry as a lorry driver, collecting and delivering to Ford and GM in both the UK and Europe.

I’ve been to Ford plants in Basildon, Bridgend, Dagenham, Daventry, Halewood, Southampton and Swansea, all were typically British, i.e. bloody awkward for the sake of awkwardness, the Belgian and German ones in Genk, Köln and Saarlouis were uneventful, in and out with no fuss.

For GM going to Antwerp, Bochum or Kaiserslauten wasn’t an issue, in and out with a minimum of fuss, Ellesmere Port or Luton were a different story altogether. Couldn’t organize a ■■■■ up in a brewery is the best way to describe them.

I’ve been to Unipart and the car plant at Cowley, now that was a long day of sitting around thinking that if they don’t hurry up I won’t get home tonight, a complete contrast to BMW taking the car plant over and bringing German efficiency with them, a full load of engines off before you could nick a 45min break on the bay most of the time.

I went to Castle Bromwich and Solihull too, same old story there too, just like any British unionized industry, steelworks, newspapers, docks etc. Lot’s of people standing around doing SFA and many obstacles in the way of getting anything done in a timely manner.

That’s why German manufacturers thrived at the expense of British operations, they were better at it, no squabbling over everything with different departments, no strikes and things built properly. Put an Audi, BMW, Mercedes, Porsche or Volkswagen up against any American, European or Japanese car and the build quality is noticeably superior by a significant margin, even Bentley and Rolls Royce under German ownership make the best cars they’ve ever made.

[buzzer]

newmercman:
Going back a bit to the car workers being worth 4x a lorry driver, speak for yourself pal. Now I’ve had quite a lot of dealings with the car industry as a lorry driver, collecting and delivering to Ford and GM in both the UK and Europe.

I’ve been to Ford plants in Basildon, Bridgend, Dagenham, Daventry, Halewood, Southampton and Swansea, all were typically British, i.e. bloody awkward for the sake of awkwardness, the Belgian and German ones in Genk, Köln and Saarlouis were uneventful, in and out with no fuss.

For GM going to Antwerp, Bochum or Kaiserslauten wasn’t an issue, in and out with a minimum of fuss, Ellesmere Port or Luton were a different story altogether. Couldn’t organize a ■■■■ up in a brewery is the best way to describe them.

I’ve been to Unipart and the car plant at Cowley, now that was a long day of sitting around thinking that if they don’t hurry up I won’t get home tonight, a complete contrast to BMW taking the car plant over and bringing German efficiency with them, a full load of engines off before you could nick a 45min break on the bay most of the time.

I went to Castle Bromwich and Solihull too, same old story there too, just like any British unionized industry, steelworks, newspapers, docks etc. Lot’s of people standing around doing SFA and many obstacles in the way of getting anything done in a timely manner.

That’s why German manufacturers thrived at the expense of British operations, they were better at it, no squabbling over everything with different departments, no strikes and things built properly. Put an Audi, BMW, Mercedes, Porsche or Volkswagen up against any American, European or Japanese car and the build quality is noticeably superior by a significant margin, even Bentley and Rolls Royce under German ownership make the best cars they’ve ever made.

Plus one NM, the unions were for sure the downfall of Industry in this country, they misused the reason for there being in existence which really was a fair pay and condition structure and got power struck all for the wrong reasons just bloody mindless awkwardness and in the end just destroyed any decent manufacturing base we had, plus you were enforced to enrol else you were not allowed in a unionised works even if you were not in favour of such an institution, Buzzer.

[zb_anorak]

Carryfast:
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…

…

…

PMSL.

You’ve started a thread about engine design and, the closer it gets to that subject, the more you try to turn it into one of the fluffier pages of the Guardian. Trabant elitist LOL.

Now, please explain how the 1930s German small car engine could have a torque output similar to the British one, but weigh half as much and have twice the durability. How could that have happened? I would respectfully suggest that it was because its manufacturer’s management were all qualified to design engines, and spent their days working, while their British counterparts were poncing about shooting foxes and swigging port off the boot lids of their Trabants.

[carryfast]

newmercman:
Going back a bit to the car workers being worth 4x a lorry driver, speak for yourself pal. Now I’ve had quite a lot of dealings with the car industry as a lorry driver, collecting and delivering to Ford and GM in both the UK and Europe.

I’ve been to Ford plants in Basildon, Bridgend, Dagenham, Daventry, Halewood, Southampton and Swansea, all were typically British, i.e. bloody awkward for the sake of awkwardness, the Belgian and German ones in Genk, Köln and Saarlouis were uneventful, in and out with no fuss.

For GM going to Antwerp, Bochum or Kaiserslauten wasn’t an issue, in and out with a minimum of fuss, Ellesmere Port or Luton were a different story altogether. Couldn’t organize a ■■■■ up in a brewery is the best way to describe them.

I’ve been to Unipart and the car plant at Cowley, now that was a long day of sitting around thinking that if they don’t hurry up I won’t get home tonight, a complete contrast to BMW taking the car plant over and bringing German efficiency with them, a full load of engines off before you could nick a 45min break on the bay most of the time.

I went to Castle Bromwich and Solihull too, same old story there too, just like any British unionized industry, steelworks, newspapers, docks etc. Lot’s of people standing around doing SFA and many obstacles in the way of getting anything done in a timely manner.

That’s why German manufacturers thrived at the expense of British operations, they were better at it, no squabbling over everything with different departments, no strikes and things built properly. Put an Audi, BMW, Mercedes, Porsche or Volkswagen up against any American, European or Japanese car and the build quality is noticeably superior by a significant margin, even Bentley and Rolls Royce under German ownership make the best cars they’ve ever made.

I’m not hearing the other side of the story of your years spent working in a car factory.
How you looked forward to going to work every Monday morning and liked to stay even longer for plenty of overtime to make up the crap wage.
That’s probably why one of the main Union issues at Ford was dealing with factory workers fighting over transfer to the in house transport division to get out of that under paid hell hole of a job.

Yep I never understood anyone preferring a Rolls in the day to an XJ12.Not because the workers who put them all together weren’t second to none but because of the difference in Lyons’ thinking regarding value for money.
So fast forward to the German Rolls at least it gets 6 litres + and a V12 under the bonnet albeit at a German price.
Meanwhile Jaguar goes all Ford and gets a V8 at a V12 price not to mention the Mondeo with the Jag badge.Nothing to do with the workers.Ripping off the customer generally doesn’t end well.
The fact is classic prices are proving what’s good and what isn’t and 60’s/70’s premium rear drive 6 cylinder + Brit motors are at least as in demand as the German stuff.Good luck with finding an E3 to compare with any of its Brit contemporaries though.Even Mk2 Zephyrs and Zodiacs have a better survival rate,let alone the price attached to them.
While your version reads like a Sun article in the day to me.

[carryfast]

[zb]
anorak:

Carryfast:
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…

…

…

PMSL.

You’ve started a thread about engine design and, the closer it gets to that subject, the more you try to turn it into one of the fluffier pages of the Guardian. Trabant elitist LOL.

Now, please explain how the 1930s German small car engine could have a torque output similar to the British one, but weigh half as much and have twice the durability. How could that have happened? I would respectfully suggest that it was because its manufacturer’s management were all qualified to design engines, and spent their days working, while their British counterparts were poncing about shooting foxes and swigging port off the boot lids of their Trabants.

You mean like the Morris Minor overtaking the Beetle in your video.
You didn’t answer the question as to why they wouldn’t they have wanted to put a 6 cylinder A 90 Westminster there.What was Germany’s answer to the C series engine.
Remind me how VW was even able to make cars after WW2.Where did the money and management come from to re start production ?.
Suggest you check out the specific output of the BMC C series in the 6/90 v the contemporary VW Beetle.
Here’s a clue the Love Bug movie series were pro German fiction not fact.
Rover and Triumph, like BMC before it, were never meant to be in a race to make the best ( worst ) poverty car.
It’s not what Brits do.
Ironically that’s exactly what Edwardes did.
Still no answer as to what happened to Austin Rover.Remind me how that ended.

Trabant and Beetle elitist as in that’s good enough for the workers.No superior 6 cylinder cars allowed for us.

[ramone]

Buzzer:

newmercman:
Going back a bit to the car workers being worth 4x a lorry driver, speak for yourself pal. Now I’ve had quite a lot of dealings with the car industry as a lorry driver, collecting and delivering to Ford and GM in both the UK and Europe.

I’ve been to Ford plants in Basildon, Bridgend, Dagenham, Daventry, Halewood, Southampton and Swansea, all were typically British, i.e. bloody awkward for the sake of awkwardness, the Belgian and German ones in Genk, Köln and Saarlouis were uneventful, in and out with no fuss.

For GM going to Antwerp, Bochum or Kaiserslauten wasn’t an issue, in and out with a minimum of fuss, Ellesmere Port or Luton were a different story altogether. Couldn’t organize a ■■■■ up in a brewery is the best way to describe them.

I’ve been to Unipart and the car plant at Cowley, now that was a long day of sitting around thinking that if they don’t hurry up I won’t get home tonight, a complete contrast to BMW taking the car plant over and bringing German efficiency with them, a full load of engines off before you could nick a 45min break on the bay most of the time.

I went to Castle Bromwich and Solihull too, same old story there too, just like any British unionized industry, steelworks, newspapers, docks etc. Lot’s of people standing around doing SFA and many obstacles in the way of getting anything done in a timely manner.

That’s why German manufacturers thrived at the expense of British operations, they were better at it, no squabbling over everything with different departments, no strikes and things built properly. Put an Audi, BMW, Mercedes, Porsche or Volkswagen up against any American, European or Japanese car and the build quality is noticeably superior by a significant margin, even Bentley and Rolls Royce under German ownership make the best cars they’ve ever made.

Plus one NM, the unions were for sure the downfall of Industry in this country, they misused the reason for there being in existence which really was a fair pay and condition structure and got power struck all for the wrong reasons just bloody mindless awkwardness and in the end just destroyed any decent manufacturing base we had, plus you were enforced to enrol else you were not allowed in a unionised works even if you were not in favour of such an institution, Buzzer.

And another
We now have a different kind of union the H&S brigade who have to justify their jobs by bringing in stupid and senseless rules that hinder a job working efficiently. Then there’s the little hitlers that go about their work preying that someone breaks a rule so they can implement the given punishment all in the name of BS. We have new movements that want to bring the country to a standstill you know , the Eco Warriors that brought London to its knees then left a mountain of mess for the council to clean up then bugger off to their nice little lives . We have Corbyns brother and the nutcase Icke bringing London down again this week leading thousands to the capital to protest about lockdown measures. And lets not forget about the BLM movement , where were they in Birmingham the other week when a man went on the rampage stabbing people at will or up in Glasgow when another did a similar thing or when Lee Rigby was murdered . No mention of colour there. Then there’s the latest Police officer to be murdered no mention of colour here either. But it all stems to the same thing , disruption just like the unions of the 70s anything to bring this country down . Can anyone answer this , if we are such a horrible racist nation why are there record numbers of asylum seekers heading here , and when they land why cant we put them on a remote scottish island until their case has been considered at least they won’t go missing . Rant over now back to CFs sensible discussion on how and why V8s should have been the only engine BL used in every car from the mini upwards

[carryfast]

ramone:
Rant over now back to CFs sensible discussion on how and why V8s should have been the only engine BL used in every car from the mini upwards

I’m sure I’ve made the same case for developing the 6 cylinder options as V8.You know like the 2.3-2.6.
As opposed to what actually happened.
You mean let’s do the total opposite to what BMW is doing but do the same thing that BMC did and expect an even better outcome.That ended well.
That type of stupid can only be deliberate in all cases.

What Mini I said close BMC and let Ford do what Ford does best.

So we’ve got the full house of dumb and dumber SD1 followed by Acclaim and 800 and the TL12 in the T45.You seem to want to avoid the question what happened next.Here’s a clue it had nothing to do with insufficient supply of Acclaims, SD1’s, 800’s and TL12 engines because of strikes.

[zb_anorak]

Carryfast:
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.
…

Having decided to upgrade from your 4 bearing, 6 cylinder Triumphs, you chose a German car. Strange choice for a British Nationalist Confederator, or whatever the term you used was. Apart from that, why on earth would you want your chosen V8 in a 1960’s Triumph shell, when you could have had one of these?

youtube.com/watch?v=JXJJoP4pFM0

by that narrator’s description, the SD1 was indeed a strong competitor for the BMWs of the day- it was light for its size, and had remarkable torsional stiffness for a five-door car. He says it handled very well, with minimal body roll, and good comfort. IIRC, BMWs of the 1970s and '80s had a reputation for tail-happiness- not a good trait in a family car. If British engineers could beat that with a live axle, they deserve more praise than you are prepared to give them.

[zb_anorak]

dazcapri:
…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…

It’s the first time I’ve seen the SD2 and, good grief, does it look hideous! The Pininfarina proposal for it, though, looks fabulous (Even the Michelotti proposals for the facelifted Dolomite look acceptable- a cross between a BMW 2002 and a Fiat 130). The BL stylists’ effort, however, deserved to die- how could they have got the SD1 so right, and that so wrong?

With hindsight, they would have had a good range, without duplication, by ditching the Allegro, Maxi and Marina, and keeping the Pininfarina SD2 and wedge Princess. That was a good looker, and a good-handling car, for fwd, but was held back by its mechanicals- the 4 speed gearbox (why the hell did they not put the Maxi’s 5 speed ‘box in it?) and the engine. Those O series motors were old mens’ engines- you could not escape the undersquare (85x89) “drone”. Pinto’s sounded better, and revved up quicker, because they had more optimistic dimensions (89x79).

[carryfast]

[zb]
anorak:
Having decided to upgrade from your 4 bearing, 6 cylinder Triumphs, you chose a German car. Strange choice for a British Nationalist Confederator, or whatever the term you used was. Apart from that, why on earth would you want your chosen V8 in a 1960’s Triumph shell, when you could have had one of these?

youtube.com/watch?v=JXJJoP4pFM0

by that narrator’s description, the SD1 was indeed a strong competitor for the BMWs of the day- it was light for its size, and had remarkable torsional stiffness for a five-door car. He says it handled very well, with minimal body roll, and good comfort. IIRC, BMWs of the 1970s and '80s had a reputation for tail-happiness- not a good trait in a family car. If British engineers could beat that with a live axle, they deserve more praise than you are prepared to give them.

Physics says no.It will let go more predictably but not ultimately later.Mid corner bumps all bets are obviously off.

To be fair I chose the rot box with Zodiac type front end and head and valve gear made of cheese because it was the cheapest and quickest way to get 200 hp and 130 mph + performance.In a good looking 3 box saloon.The M535 took the 3.0 Si formula to the next level.
The Triumph with Rover V8 would have done all that sooner and better in an existing paid for design.I should have taken my own advice and kept the faith.

youtube.com/watch?v=8HzsJG0Sb_s

[zb_anorak]

Carryfast:
…
Rover and Triumph, like BMC before it, were never meant to be in a race to make the best ( worst ) poverty car.
It’s not what Brits do…

I think you might be forgetting a very successful BMC car, launched in 1959. Despite its rather conservative engine design, it was probably a superior machine, overall, to the Beetle.

Edit- just spotted this little gem, nestling among some words:

Carryfast:
…What was Germany’s answer to the C series engine
…

They probably wondered what the mad Brits were doing, putting development money into a lorry engine for a sports car, when the Rover V8 was already in production.

[ramone]

Carryfast:

ramone:
Rant over now back to CFs sensible discussion on how and why V8s should have been the only engine BL used in every car from the mini upwards

I’m sure I’ve made the same case for developing the 6 cylinder options as V8.You know like the 2.3-2.6.
As opposed to what actually happened.
You mean let’s do the total opposite to what BMW is doing but do the same thing that BMC did and expect an even better outcome.That ended well.
That type of stupid can only be deliberate in all cases.

What Mini I said close BMC and let Ford do what Ford does best.

So we’ve got the full house of dumb and dumber SD1 followed by Acclaim and 800 and the TL12 in the T45.You seem to want to avoid the question what happened next.Here’s a clue it had nothing to do with insufficient supply of Acclaims, SD1’s, 800’s and TL12 engines because of strikes.

It had a lot to do with strikes either the miners the steel workers or BL. There was a short supply of new commercial vehicles in the 70s do you think that was because the management said have a short week you deserve it . Have you seen the Clarkson docu on BL where the union man Red Robbo ( i think) just thought the whole strike situation was funny .Where a garage salesman said they took delivery of brand new cars and some had door cards that didn’t match the rest , 3 black and one brown . That’s the kind of thing that was happening down in the midlands and oh how they all laughed over a pint reminiscing over it all . It was a sad reflection of how pride in some peoples work had gone . The thing is it isn’'t improving . Do you think AEC would have carried on with the TL12 if they had been in charge of their own fate. When they ran their own empire they were constantly developing their products . Stokes’s Leyland put a halt to that. Take a look at the very first ergo AECs and the very last ones , very little difference apart from the grills Leyland had left over when they modified their version . The TL 12 was a fine engine reliable and fuel efficient despite being developed on a tight budget and despite not because of Leylands involvement .
Just like AEC , Triumph , Rover and Daimler Jaguar suffered at the hands of BL and its incompetent management team . The commercial vehicle and car divisons should never have been as one

[franglais]

SP 250 V8.

[essexpete]

Good morning all. I have watched this part of Truck Net for some time, in fact so long I had forgotten that I had signed up. I am not a driver or haulier, engineer or mechanic but have found the history of our automotive industry both interesting and sad. My knowledge of our UK vehicles has been gleaned from my childhood days of the 60s and early 70s with my Father running a variety tippers and British cars. Later myself running old British built cars, and driving a few 7.5 ton D series and a TK.
This thread would better be titled the demise of the UK automotive industry. I simply do not subscribe to conspiracy theories. Our UK problems came from a series of circumstances and attitudes.I understand that the post war Marshall Plan and subsequent write off of a proportion of debt may have been a huge leg up for West Germany in the 50s and on. I am certain the main reason for that was to prevent the re-occurrence of the Germany post WW1 which ultimately provided the breeding ground for the rise of fascism and Hitler. No conspiracy to inflate West Germany just a plan hatched to avoid further unrest in Europe. Other countries benefited as well including the UK although I will concede that West Germany appears to have had the best deal.
On a slightly different tack I watch a documentary a few years ago that charted the demise of the UK’s very powerful ship building industry. The general conclusion was that a very poor and outdated management that lacked the foresight to see that to go forward reinvestment was needed with outdated facilities and tooling coupled with a semi Victorian attitude to the workforce. The latter lead to a breeding ground for self serving out of control union leaders of the Derek Robinson type. If the management had been of better quality and perhaps treated ordinary working folk better, particularly post WWI, the rise of unhelpful/stroppy union activity might not have happened.
With regard to the Leyland group in the 60s and 70s clearly there were too many marques and lines within the group all with their own aspirations. It needed management with balls to clear out the dead wood. It must be remembered that for the most part that from 1964 to 1979 the country was largely under Labour control. Couple that with powerful disruptive unions and there would be little appetite for dumping unprofitable facilities and workforce. The Heath government’s brief interjection only worsened the situation plus their print money to solve problems policy. Of course the weeding out of dead wood did eventually occur for the most part but all too late. The moves made towards the end of 70s/early 80s should have occurred by the late 60s.
I note the continual reference to the German competition but do not forget the rise of the Japanese products with cars. When I was at school they were considered a joke by the 90s they could knock many European offings into a cocked hat.Admittedly Japan received massive help post war but no conspiracy there either.
Apologies for the rambling of my first post. What I will add that I note for the very large part the contributions on this forum are very civil and often interesting and different points of view are always good. There is probably not a definitive answer to any of the UK problems highlight by this thread.

[carryfast]

[zb]
anorak:

Carryfast:
…
Rover and Triumph, like BMC before it, were never meant to be in a race to make the best ( worst ) poverty car.
It’s not what Brits do…

I think you might be forgetting a very successful BMC car, launched in 1959. Despite its rather conservative engine design, it was probably a superior machine, overall, to the Beetle.

Edit- just spotted this little gem, nestling among some words:

Carryfast:
…What was Germany’s answer to the C series engine
…

They probably wondered what the mad Brits were doing, putting development money into a lorry engine for a sports car, when the Rover V8 was already in production.

You missed the bit at the time of around your Pathe video showing even the A 50 and Morris Minor being able to out run Herbie on its home turf let alone an A90.

The 7 bearing MGC lump was also anything but a lorry engine.Even the Fatherland knew when it’s hemi headed CIH wonder M30 had met its pushrod Brit match so again it had to go.

youtube.com/watch?v=Ppv7rZFC1xs

If you mean the Mini another poverty heap with wrong wheel drive, instead of putting the engine at the wrong end of the car and if you liked driving with your knees level with your chin and a death trap in a crash.

[carryfast]

ramone:

Carryfast:

ramone:
Rant over now back to CFs sensible discussion on how and why V8s should have been the only engine BL used in every car from the mini upwards

I’m sure I’ve made the same case for developing the 6 cylinder options as V8.You know like the 2.3-2.6.
As opposed to what actually happened.
You mean let’s do the total opposite to what BMW is doing but do the same thing that BMC did and expect an even better outcome.That ended well.
That type of stupid can only be deliberate in all cases.

What Mini I said close BMC and let Ford do what Ford does best.

So we’ve got the full house of dumb and dumber SD1 followed by Acclaim and 800 and the TL12 in the T45.You seem to want to avoid the question what happened next.Here’s a clue it had nothing to do with insufficient supply of Acclaims, SD1’s, 800’s and TL12 engines because of strikes.

It had a lot to do with strikes either the miners the steel workers or BL. There was a short supply of new commercial vehicles in the 70s do you think that was because the management said have a short week you deserve it . Have you seen the Clarkson docu on BL where the union man Red Robbo ( i think) just thought the whole strike situation was funny .Where a garage salesman said they took delivery of brand new cars and some had door cards that didn’t match the rest , 3 black and one brown . That’s the kind of thing that was happening down in the midlands and oh how they all laughed over a pint reminiscing over it all . It was a sad reflection of how pride in some peoples work had gone . The thing is it isn’'t improving . Do you think AEC would have carried on with the TL12 if they had been in charge of their own fate. When they ran their own empire they were constantly developing their products . Stokes’s Leyland put a halt to that. Take a look at the very first ergo AECs and the very last ones , very little difference apart from the grills Leyland had left over when they modified their version . The TL 12 was a fine engine reliable and fuel efficient despite being developed on a tight budget and despite not because of Leylands involvement .
Just like AEC , Triumph , Rover and Daimler Jaguar suffered at the hands of BL and its incompetent management team . The commercial vehicle and car divisons should never have been as one

The only reason the car and truck division existed was because Leyland bought out Rover and Triumph.Which turned out to be profitable.
Lyons stupidly tied Jaguar to BMC.
Even BMC only became a basket case for the same reason as Rover and Triumph.Being taken down market into the front wheel drive poverty sector.
It was AEC’s designers who made the 760/TL12 just like it was AEC’s designers who made the V8.They are also on record as to why they did it in the case of the V8 and obviously tied to their buse engine block design in the case of 691/760/TL12 thinking that shoving the con rod harder with a bigger piston is a substitute for using a longer lever.Nothing to do with Leyland or strikers.
Ironically it was the fact that there was no ‘shortage’ of Acclaims, SD1’s, 800’s and TL12’s which sealed Leyland Group’s fate.

[carryfast]

essexpete:
With regard to the Leyland group in the 60s and 70s clearly there were too many marques and lines within the group all with their own aspirations.

Ironically the government getting away with selling the lie, that a Group of merged formerly independent companies, can possibly compete with itself, is part of my case.Just as in the case of the numerous types of often over lapping BMW products.If just adds choice and a sale is a sale.

They were just different brands of one firm.The more choice for the customer the better and all the revenue earn’t is coming back to the Group as a whole on the balance sheet regardless.
Rationalisation just means creating economies of scale within that where possible which adds to profitability.
What you don’t do is not make maximum use of the best tools in the armoury in that regard.
BMW’s business plan was the one which Leyland needed to follow and DAF/Volvo for trucks.
In the 70’s it had all the tools it needed in the form of the 6 cylinder BMC C series, Rover V8, Triumph 2.3 and 2.6 6 cylinder options and the four valves per cylinder technology contained in the Sprint, Jaguar’s XK and V12 and bringing RR diesels in house.
The TL12 and making the same mistakes with poverty spec front wheel drive products, which wrecked BMC, as before and expecting a different outcome can only be deliberate.