Carryfast:
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.
Carryfast:
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.
Not too sure about Rovers , the last decent ones were the 2000 , 2500, 3500s , the shape that followed SDs ? were troublesome with their dodgy gearbox, and who can forget that old favourite the Triumph Acclaim , i too prefer rear wheel drives but im snookered being a Volvo driver ....... the thing i dont get is why do most manufacturers go down the FWD road when they should quite rightly be taking in Carryfasts advice he always knows best 
ramone:
Carryfast:
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.
Not too sure about Rovers , the last decent ones were the 2000 , 2500, 3500s , the shape that followed SDs ? were troublesome with their dodgy gearbox, and who can forget that old favourite the Triumph Acclaim , i too prefer rear wheel drives but i
m snookered being a Volvo driver ....... the thing i dont get is why do most manufacturers go down the FWD road when they should quite rightly be taking in Carryfasts advice he always knows best
The deserved reputation of the Rover P6 ( and the unfortunate decision to go for the retrograde SD1 instead of extending the production life and putting the V8 and new 6 cylinder engines into the arguably even better Triumph 2.5 ) all being within the relevant make or break timeline.As for the SD1 gearbox if you mean the Triumph designed LT77 ? that had a reputation of being bombproof and was still being fitted in everything from TVR’s to Land Rovers into the 1990’s. 
As for rwd v fwd firstly the drawbacks of fwd have been reduced by technology since the day and get even less in today’s ever slower speed environment.But the advantages of rwd are still recognised by designers and consumers in providing the best road manners.While I think the old access issues for maintenance still apply to the transverse engine layout in many cases v the longitudinal one.
If the LT 77 is the finned box that was in Sherpa 300 vans and Landrovers then it resembled a bomb rather than being bombproof. Just about everything inside the poxy thing was usually scrap when opened up. IIRC it used to get stuck in reverse, which fortunately was an easy fix. From the number of times I had to sort that problem out actually I did manage to buy the baby a new bonnet. There were a lot of very dodgy ‘recon’ boxes about too.
cav551:
If the LT 77 is the finned box that was in Sherpa 300 vans and Landrovers then it resembled a bomb rather than being bombproof. Just about everything inside the poxy thing was usually scrap when opened up. IIRC it used to get stuck in reverse, which fortunately was an easy fix. From the number of times I had to sort that problem out actually I did manage to buy the baby a new bonnet. There were a lot of very dodgy ‘recon’ boxes about too.
Firstly gearboxes always seem to have been a weak point and an after thought among the Brit manufacturers.While even today it’s really still a two horse race between the Germans and the Americans in that regard whether it’s cars or heavy trucks.
By the standards of the day and Brit made transmissions the LT77 was known for being more or less as good as it got in terms of more than 4 speed car transmissions able to handle big V8 type torque inputs.The Jaguar 4 speeds probably being the strongest and at least as good as the German Getrag or ZF 5 speed options.But yes the combination of big mileage combined with a dodgy lubrication requirement,which like most Getrags,didn’t like use of EP grade oil,arguably being the main flaw in the LT77 ?.Although admittedly the Getrag seemed to be able to handle that better hence Jaguar moving to the Getrag later.
It is the same box having had a look in the workshop manual drawer and then a look on google. It was later referred to as the 77mm box. A picture of its guts shows what was its main failing; the oil pump - which distributed swarf all round everything which didn’t like swarf.
Strangely enough the AEC gearboxes were very good, by the mid/late1970s a bit dated with straight cut teeth, and hence very noisy (same as the Fuller) but easy to fix. I suppose the main criticism would be that they just didn’t have sufficient ratios. A 10 or 12 speed splitter D203 was an option, but it was a twin-stick jobbie. The earlier 1950’s four and five speed synchromesh boxes for the Park Royal cab Mercury and various buses did not give the trouble many other later makes did, even today 50 year old examples still have a light and smooth action without any baulking or grating.
cav551:
It is the same box having had a look in the workshop manual drawer and then a look on google. It was later referred to as the 77mm box. A picture of its guts shows what was its main failing; the oil pump - which distributed swarf all round everything which didn’t like swarf.
Thanks cav I was going by memory from when it was a new design and realistically by the standards of the day it was a choice between that or mostly the older type 4 speeds as in the previous P6 V8,whether German,Brit,or American some being stronger than others.Or 4 speed with over drive which couldn’t handle as much torque.With Jaguar at that time being stuck with only a 4 speed for the V12 which was soon unfortunately dropped anyway.Which realistically left the choice of the expensive evil shifting ZF 5 speed.Or lesser rated Getrag 5 speed which ‘supposedly’ doesn’t have as much torque capacity but ‘some’ people ‘disagree’ and use it happily with the big Jag V12. 
But it’s a complicated lump made up of longitudinal segmented casings and supposedly heat shrunk fit shafts within them which therefore is impossible to rebuild easily.The choice now seeming to be the last improved variations of Leyland type 5 speeds in the case of the old school Rovers and the usual German or American options in the case of the Jaguar.Preferably the American choice I think in the case of the Jaguar if the old Getrag in it decides to give up before I do. 
v8engines.com/transmission-3.htm#limited
Which raises an interesting question.Maybe the LT77 was developed by Triumph’s engineers because they thought the 2.5 was going to be continued with the Rover V8 as an option.With no possibility of any other option for an outsourced 5 speed box for the job that would fit.Or at least acceptable on price etc assuming they went for the 5 speed ZF and it could be made to fit ( doubtful from memory ) ?.
Can anyone remember the wheel nut debacle on the T45 range ■■?
Tyneside.
on saves production costs.
[/quote]
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
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’.
Harris Mann designed the Allegro not Issigonis and if you watched the James May programme on Sunday it was the engineers that cocked up his original design cos they wanted to fit the taller 1500 engine and didn’t want to design a new smaller heater to fit it
dazcapri:
Harris Mann designed the Allegro not Issigonis and if you watched the James May programme on Sunday it was the engineers that cocked up his original design cos they wanted to fit the taller 1500 engine and didn’t want to design a new smaller heater to fit it
To be fair the Allegro was more a case of following on from the fwd poverty spec benchmark set by the 1100. Rather than what was needed in getting back to a new updated version of the rwd Cambridge with independent rear suspension to take on the Cortina in its various marks. 
The old obsolete Morris Minor/Traveller based tech Marina was never going to cut it in that regard.Although ironically,like the old school pushrod Fords,the old 1.8 B series engine was probably the best aspect of it.Compared to the abortion that followed it in the form of the OHC O series.
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’.
[/quote]
Harris Mann designed the Allegro not Issigonis and if you watched the James May programme on Sunday it was the engineers that cocked up his original design cos they wanted to fit the taller 1500 engine and didn’t want to design a new smaller heater to fit it
[/quote]
Yep. Harris Mann himself was interviewed and he laid the responsibility firmly at the feet of the engineering management team for too much interference and an apparent inability to communicate among themselves. An interesting interview! Robert
robert1952:
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’.
Harris Mann designed the Allegro not Issigonis and if you watched the James May programme on Sunday it was the engineers that cocked up his original design cos they wanted to fit the taller 1500 engine and didn’t want to design a new smaller heater to fit it
[/quote]
Yep. Harris Mann himself was interviewed and he laid the responsibility firmly at the feet of the engineering management team for too much interference and an apparent inability to communicate among themselves. An interesting interview! Robert
[/quote]
It was very interesting and so was the fact that the hugely popular Morris Minor was originally designed to have an air cooled flat four. I wonder how BL would have fared had the cars that were actually designed been put into production without the engineers/accountants interference
Carryfast:
dazcapri:
Harris Mann designed the Allegro not Issigonis and if you watched the James May programme on Sunday it was the engineers that cocked up his original design cos they wanted to fit the taller 1500 engine and didn’t want to design a new smaller heater to fit itTo be fair the Allegro was more a case of following on from the fwd poverty spec benchmark set by the 1100.
You seem to have this view of Britain as being some sort of mini USA with long straight freeways instead of the small twisty congested roads that we actually have,why buy a Cambridge/Cortina sized car to use to potter round the doors to the shops etc and maybe travel on a motorway once a month/week if you were lucky. The Mini was designed to take sales from the people who were driving bubble cars not executive saloons,the 1100’s were an ideal small car (especially if you needed 4 doors or a small estate) for the local journeys they were designed for.
I think part of the problem with BL was that they were competing with themselves you had the mini v the 1100 at 1300cc you had triumph,allegro and marina,1800 dolomites,marinas and Princess and the bigger stuff had the Triumph v rover. Truck wise you could buy an aec,Guy, Scammell or leyland a lot of which had the same engine/cabs
dazcapri:
You seem to have this view of Britain as being some sort of mini USA with long straight freeways instead of the small twisty congested roads that we actually have,why buy a Cambridge/Cortina sized car to use to potter round the doors to the shops etc and maybe travel on a motorway once a month/week if you were lucky. The Mini was designed to take sales from the people who were driving bubble cars not executive saloons,the 1100’s were an ideal small car (especially if you needed 4 doors or a small estate) for the local journeys they were designed for.
I think part of the problem with BL was that they were competing with themselves you had the mini v the 1100 at 1300cc you had triumph,allegro and marina,1800 dolomites,marinas and Princess and the bigger stuff had the Triumph v rover. Truck wise you could buy an aec,Guy, Scammell or leyland a lot of which had the same engine/cabs
Firstly the old school Fords in the form of the Anglia,■■■■■■ and Cortina weren’t exactly over specced motors for the UK market nor were even the Zodiac and Granada.Nor,unlike the fwd BMC’s,were any of them exactly a liability in terms of their profitability and customer popularity either new or even more so in the used market.
While in the small car class many buyers,rightly,still preferred things like the older A30 and A40 or Triumph Herald or Vauxhall Viva in addition to,as I’ve said,the Ford Anglia and then ■■■■■■.All of which at least provided much easier maintenance and a better drive depending on preference.Bearing in mind the much greater resistance to the fwd configuration in the day.On that note it’s no surprise which configuration Datsun went for when they made their assault on the UK market with the 120Y and 180 Bluebird for example.Although you’d have needed to be familiar with and grown up around the car trade in the day.Which unfortunately,for people like May at least,regardless of the hyperbole,were actually probably a bit too young and/or didn’t have the connections to have been there.
As for the idea of rationalisation and internal competition.Ironically the later small Triumphs were a reaction to the fact that BMC were under performing in that all important ■■■■■■/Cortina class.Although it’s anyone’s guess why they decided to join BMC in adding the retrograde fwd configuration to some of it’s small car line up 
and equally no surprise that they ended up being regarded just the same as BMC’s.
While as GM and Chrysler Group showed across the Atlantic a Group can’t by definition compete internally.It’s just a matter of adding to customer choice with the win win situation that the Group receives the revenue regardless of what marque within the Group the customer chooses.The problem then not being internal competition but if any of the parts which make up the group are under performing.Under performing being a catastrophic understatement in the case of BMC and unbelievably predictably so from the day Leyland Group took that time bomb in.
Yep. Harris Mann himself was interviewed and he laid the responsibility firmly at the feet of the engineering management team for too much interference and an apparent inability to communicate among themselves. An interesting interview! Robert
[/quote]
Oh dear Robert, you are leading me into dangerous waters!
Having worked within a European manufacturing operation for more years than I care to remember I can remember clearly the words of our Chairman at a Company wide management meeting, when he chose to specifically address the Directors of Engineering… " My Engineers, your brief is to design and bring to the market a product that our Marketing people say, (based upon their research), in support of the wishes and knowledge of the market of our sales teams, the product that will satisfy the needs, and maximise the profit potential of the activities of our clients, within the legislation that they have to work within".
This was a thin rebuke to curb, and bring under control, the excess of engineering leadership that had twice within 30 years brought France`s largest vehicle manufacturer to the brink of total ruin. Creative , but often flawed, and without commercial reason…
I remember that meeting so well, and the frosty luncheon following it…but it needed to be said, and from then on the excess stopped…and quality and objectivity was supreme …Magnum anyone?
Cheerio for now.
.
dazcapri:
robert1952:
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’.Harris Mann designed the Allegro not Issigonis and if you watched the James May programme on Sunday it was the engineers that cocked up his original design cos they wanted to fit the taller 1500 engine and didn’t want to design a new smaller heater to fit it
Yep. Harris Mann himself was interviewed and he laid the responsibility firmly at the feet of the engineering management team for too much interference and an apparent inability to communicate among themselves. An interesting interview! Robert
[/quote]
It was very interesting and so was the fact that the hugely popular Morris Minor was originally designed to have an air cooled flat four. I wonder how BL would have fared had the cars that were actually designed been put into production without the engineers/accountants interference
[/quote]
You have misquoted me (above): I never posted: ‘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’.’ Please take care when cutting and pasting quotations . Thank you. Robert
robert1952:
dazcapri:
robert1952:
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’.Harris Mann designed the Allegro not Issigonis and if you watched the James May programme on Sunday it was the engineers that cocked up his original design cos they wanted to fit the taller 1500 engine and didn’t want to design a new smaller heater to fit it
Yep. Harris Mann himself was interviewed and he laid the responsibility firmly at the feet of the engineering management team for too much interference and an apparent inability to communicate among themselves. An interesting interview! Robert
It was very interesting and so was the fact that the hugely popular Morris Minor was originally designed to have an air cooled flat four. I wonder how BL would have fared had the cars that were actually designed been put into production without the engineers/accountants interference
[/quote]
You have misquoted me (above): I never posted: ‘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’.’ Please take care when cutting and pasting quotations . Thank you. Robert
[/quote]
Absolutely that was me replying to Anorak’s often dislike of my comments.
Carryfast:
Saviem:
Yep. Harris Mann himself was interviewed and he laid the responsibility firmly at the feet of the engineering management team for too much interference and an apparent inability to communicate among themselves. An interesting interview! Robert
As per Roberts post above, you have misquoted me as well! I was quoting Roberts comments, mine followed on!
Spec savers do great deals I believe!
Cheerio for now.
Saviem:
Carryfast:
Saviem:
Yep. Harris Mann himself was interviewed and he laid the responsibility firmly at the feet of the engineering management team for too much interference and an apparent inability to communicate among themselves. An interesting interview! RobertAs per Roberts post above, you have misquoted me as well! I was quoting Roberts comments, mine followed on!
Spec savers do great deals I believe!
Cheerio for now.
Apologies Saviem it gets confusing when the quotes are outside of the usual seperate boxes. 
Hopefully I’ve fixed it now.