kr79:
Wasn’t the 1100/1300 range the best selling car in Britain through most of the 60s and in to the early 70s.
It was, and the Mini was the world’s top rally car for the whole of the late sixties. Not only that, the competition cars were very little changed from standard, at least in the suspension department. In other words, for bargain basement money, you got the handling quality of an international winner.
kr79:
Wasn’t the 1100/1300 range the best selling car in Britain through most of the 60s and in to the early 70s.
In this case that was ironically part of the problem.IE the more they sold the more disillusioned customers were created,more warranty work,and more losses because the things hadn’t been costed properly at the design stage.Bearing in mind that at that time the old school drivers were ( rightly ) more resistant to the propaganda concerning the so called ‘benefits’ of fwd v rwd especially after they’d been lumbered with it after buying it.
[zb]
anorak:kr79:
Wasn’t the 1100/1300 range the best selling car in Britain through most of the 60s and in to the early 70s.It was, and the Mini was the world’s top rally car for the whole of the late sixties. Not only that, the competition cars were very little changed from standard, at least in the suspension department. In other words, for bargain basement money, you got the handling quality of an international winner.
The Mini’s success probably said more about the weight handicap of the opposition than the Mini.While as in most cases with motorsport the results depend more on the suitability of the car to the specific race venue and conditions. On that note you’ll need to factor in the successes of the Volvo PV and Amazon.Let alone when the ■■■■■■ became established on the Mini’s,SAAB’s and Lancia Fulvia’s type of turf when the ultimate advantages of rwd and more power in a good lightweight shell all finally came together and massacred the fwd competition.
It would also be fair to say that the Mini was even more outclassed in circuit racing v numerous more powerful rwd competition.
Carryfast:
kr79:
Wasn’t the 1100/1300 range the best selling car in Britain through most of the 60s and in to the early 70s.In this case that was ironically part of the problem.IE the more they sold the more disillusioned customers were created,more warranty work,and more losses because the things hadn’t been costed properly at the design stage.Bearing in mind that at that time the old school drivers were ( rightly ) more resistant to the propaganda concerning the so called ‘benefits’ of fwd v rwd especially after they’d been lumbered with it after buying it.
Was this cost myth not something put out by a competitior who did not understand how Morris or Austin could produce such an advanced car in the period they were designed & sold by the thousands, Did FWD not become the standard outlay for most economical cars worldwide…
dave docwra:
Carryfast:
kr79:
Wasn’t the 1100/1300 range the best selling car in Britain through most of the 60s and in to the early 70s.In this case that was ironically part of the problem.IE the more they sold the more disillusioned customers were created,more warranty work,and more losses because the things hadn’t been costed properly at the design stage.Bearing in mind that at that time the old school drivers were ( rightly ) more resistant to the propaganda concerning the so called ‘benefits’ of fwd v rwd especially after they’d been lumbered with it after buying it.
Was this cost myth not something put out by a competitior who did not understand how Morris or Austin could produce such an advanced car in the period they were designed & sold by the thousands, Did FWD not become the standard outlay for most economical cars worldwide…
The story seems to be that it was Ford who costed BMC’s fwd designs as being a loss maker.However admittedly that does sound surprising bearing in mind the usually accepted idea that fwd driveline configuration saves production costs. 
As for that compromised idea of driving the steering wheels yes it did become the common used idea after what seems to have been a commercial ‘agreement’ between the manufacturers not to compete with rwd v fwd at the ‘cheaper’ end of the market.Hence Ford stopping production of cars like the ■■■■■■ and Cortina and Granada in favour of zb like the Fiesta and Mondeo and Vauxhall ditching cars like the old rwd Cavalier and Carlton/Senator/Omega in favour of the Astra and Vectra . 
While Mercedes and BMW aren’t generally known for their ‘less advanced’ backward rwd cars. 
Carryfast:
The story seems to be that it was Ford who costed BMC’s fwd designs as being a loss maker.However admittedly that does sound surprising bearing in mind the usually accepted idea that fwd driveline configuration saves production costs.
Accepted by whom? How much saving? Do you have a source for that information?
Carryfast:
While Mercedes and BMW aren’t generally known for their ‘less advanced’ backward rwd cars.
They are by people who believe the balderdash you write. Since that group of people number about one, the statement is correct, however.
[zb]
anorak:Carryfast:
The story seems to be that it was Ford who costed BMC’s fwd designs as being a loss maker.However admittedly that does sound surprising bearing in mind the usually accepted idea that fwd driveline configuration saves production costs.Accepted by whom? How much saving? Do you have a source for that information?
Carryfast:
While Mercedes and BMW aren’t generally known for their ‘less advanced’ backward rwd cars.They are by people who believe the balderdash you write. Since that group of people number about one, the statement is correct, however.
You don’t need to look very far on both counts if you really must argue that black = blue. 
Let me guess you drive a zb 1100 or an Allegro just to make the point that Issigonis was a genius who built up market advanced cars. 
quora.com/Why-are-most-India … heel-drive
nytimes.com/1988/09/16/busin … wanted=all
While as you’d like to think you know it all you’ll obviously have no problem in providing your ‘source’ showing that what I’ve said is ‘balderdash’.
[zb]
anorak:kr79:
Wasn’t the 1100/1300 range the best selling car in Britain through most of the 60s and in to the early 70s.It was, and the Mini was the world’s top rally car for the whole of the late sixties. Not only that, the competition cars were very little changed from standard, at least in the suspension department. In other words, for bargain basement money, you got the handling quality of an international winner.
Precisely. The Ford Anglia was not a bad car (I passed my test in one) but the Mini was way more fun to drive and its road handling characteristics were much better. Robert
Carryfast:
You don’t need to look very far … if you really must argue that black = blue.
No s…t Sherlock.
robert1952:
[zb]
anorak:kr79:
Wasn’t the 1100/1300 range the best selling car in Britain through most of the 60s and in to the early 70s.It was, and the Mini was the world’s top rally car for the whole of the late sixties. Not only that, the competition cars were very little changed from standard, at least in the suspension department. In other words, for bargain basement money, you got the handling quality of an international winner.
Precisely. The Ford Anglia was not a bad car (I passed my test in one) but the Mini was way more fun to drive and its road handling characteristics were much better. Robert
To be fair the Ford needed more power to take advantage of its rwd configuration.I can certainly remember them with the 1500 and sometimes the 1600 crossflow dropped in them and they didn’t hang about even compared to my 2.5 Triumph.While I don’t remember anyone who preferred the Mini,with the 1100 and 1300 being the usual cheap upgrades in the day,or any other of the fwd BMC offerings over old school Fords.The fact is you can’t argue with the flawed physics of trying to steer with the same wheels as it’s driving with.Or for that matter the diabolical reliability and fragility of the things.Let alone the equally diabolical access problems when trying to fix them compared to the rwd inline engine configuration.With even a fan belt change often enough to hear swearing like zb it scrap the heap from under the open bonnet.
newmercman:
0
Very true
Carryfast is obviously a keen driver but the majority of people only see a car as a means of transport.
They look it what car is big enough for there needs then is it reliable does it have any gadgets they want and is it reasonably economical to run. If people were in to cars the japs wouldn’t of got established here and the likes of hyaundi wouldn’t sell so many cars.
The only reason most people buy a BMW or merc is they think it will impress people more than a vauxhall they couldn’t care what wheels drive.
Audi are very popular in the UK as a prestige motor and they have been fwd unless you get a quarto for years.
The reason Ford and vauxhall ditched the granada and carlton/senator is due to leasing deals BMW 5 series and e class mercy became more affordable and there brand image is much stronger as a prestige product.
One lasting memory from the time would be a typical suburban street with its mix of various small cars and the eher, eher, eher, eher, eher, of the 105E Anglias which refused to start.
The BMC 1100 sold so well because there was more room inside it than most of its direct competitors, unlike some of its contemporaries it was available with 4 doors and again unlike some of its rivals, from day one it was fitted with front disc brakes. At the time the front wheel drive concept and evidence from the Mini was being compared in the buyer’s mind with the handling offered by the 105E, Herald, Viva, Imp and Beetle. The Mk1 Cortina although better, was a larger car and tended to have the same hard starting issue as the 105E.
I would not dispute that the Ford brand was seen as ‘the working man’s car’ - it was a lot easier for him to fix himself and the spare parts were cheap and easily obtained. When Ford dumped the Anglia and introduced the MK 1 ■■■■■■ things were to change slowly and significantly in its favour.
All car makers in the mainstream sector other than merc and BMW are fed so it must work.
Yes the gearbox in the sump wasn’t the way but in them early fwd days there was various setups like gearbox in front from Renault an citron before the current setup was used.
Talk about quirky engineering, how about two of the more successful and prestige cars out there, the Audi with its Quattro system that puts the engine ahead of the front axle, or the Porsche 911 that has the engine hanging off the back behind the rear axle, absolutely flawed designs, yet they are desirable and sell in huge numbers.
That also happens in many other fields too, the better, more efficient on paper products are not as successful in the market place, take computers as an example, the Apple Mac is a far superior product that any Windows based PC and yet Windows outsells Mac by a significant amount. Back in the Video days the Sony BetaMax was a far superior technology than VHS, yet VHS kicked BetaMax into oblivion.
It just goes to show that the success of a product depends on the purchasers perception of it and nothing else, BL products being a prime example in the case of the T45 range, it was a good product, but had the wrong badge.
Is this the badge by any chance Mark, the badge of death!!
cav551:
One lasting memory from the time would be a typical suburban street with its mix of various small cars and the eher, eher, eher, eher, eher, of the 105E Anglias which refused to start.The BMC 1100 sold so well because there was more room inside it than most of its direct competitors, unlike some of its contemporaries it was available with 4 doors and again unlike some of its rivals, from day one it was fitted with front disc brakes. At the time the front wheel drive concept and evidence from the Mini was being compared in the buyer’s mind with the handling offered by the 105E, Herald, Viva, Imp and Beetle. The Mk1 Cortina although better, was a larger car and tended to have the same hard starting issue as the 105E.
I would not dispute that the Ford brand was seen as ‘the working man’s car’ - it was a lot easier for him to fix himself and the spare parts were cheap and easily obtained. When Ford dumped the Anglia and introduced the MK 1 ■■■■■■ things were to change slowly and significantly in its favour.
Pre crossflow 4 cylinder Fords especially being bad starters,is just as much a fact as fwd BMC’s being generally unwanted heaps. 
As I said the ‘typical’ suburban street also usually had it’s fair share of the 6 cylinder offerings of all the major manufacturers in the day.None of which were known for being bad starters.Usually bought on the same philosophy as mine when I started driving of a good older one with a decent motor in it is better than a later one with an unreliable gutless smaller motor.
On the subject of old school Fords don’t forget their inferior steering compared to their rack and pinion Triumph at least opposition in the day.Not to mention their other abortions like the V4 and 0HC 4 cylinder motors.
kr79:
newmercman:
0Very true
To be fair in my case it’s based on having spent a part of ( what should have been but luckily wasn’t ) my school days around the motor trade of the early 1970’s.In which when I wasn’t learning what to buy and what to walk away from at the auctions I was learning what I liked to help the old man work on and what we both hated with a passion.
newmercman:
It just goes to show that the success of a product depends on the purchasers perception of it and nothing else, BL products being a prime example in the case of the T45 range, it was a good product, but had the wrong badge.
Realistically the superiority and resulting profitability of Jaguars,Rovers and Triumphs over fwd BMC’s was a matter of fact not perception.Just as is the accusation that those BMC heaps played a massive part in the eventual fortunes of the Group.
