gazsa401:
The Triumph Dolomite I had was typical of the majority of the 70s BL motors it had a decent engine but a complete rot box
It’s a good job I was a good welder
Allegros, Princesses and Maxis were very good for corrosion resistance. Minis, 1100s, Minors and Marinas, on the other hand, were awful in that regard, as were most of Ford and Vauxhall’s efforts of the time. I reckon Cowley must have had a better paint plant than Longbridge. The design of the shells cannot have made all of the difference between the types.
Ergos and T45s were worse rotboxes than the Bathgate ones, based on my observations. Those who have had to point a gas torch at the things might be able to elaborate.
newmercman:
As I remember the 70s car choice was very different to what it is now, there was no badge snobbery, you bought what you could afford and when it fell apart, you bought another one. If you wanted something a bit fancy a vinyl roof and a set of Wolfrace wheels did the job on whatever car you had.
Carryfast:
for me my first car was a 6 year old Triumph 2.5,admittedly bought at a good price,through the trade,but certainly not an unusual choice among my peers in the mid/late 1970’s.With those who were older often able to buy even later examples of that or any of the other numerous alternatives.In all cases the fwd BMC offerings were usually avoided for the same reasons in the used market as in the new market.With the lose lose situation of that also adding poor residual values to the issues at the point of new sale or nearly new.With the 1.8 Marina arguably being the best bet among a bad BMC bunch at that point.
We have different memories of the mid 70’s, all my peers wanted Mini’s or MK1 Cortina’s, the better off ones went for Coopers or MK2 Cortinas.
A bit like today.The insurance companies didn’t like 17 year olds driving the same stuff that the law were using on the motorways in the day. The key was finding a good broker.On that note I really wanted a 420 S type Jag and at that the broker said I was taking the pish so the Triumph it had to be.Although looking back I often think I should have put a Rover V8 in the Triumph instead of moving on to a 2.8i Granada and 3.0 Litre BMW as I got older.
Although I’d guess similar types of discussions between the Cortina buyers and Mini buyers as here in that case ?.
Nothing to do with insurance, they were the cars of choice for youngsters back then, Triumph 2.5 was something my Dad or Grandfather would have been driving around in…
Blimey you’re havin a laugh I was a ‘youngster’ back then and that was more or less the one of the best performance saloons of its day together with the Rover 3500S.Unless you knew of something quicker for a few hundred quid that a teenager could afford to insure which counted out the big Jags and BMW E3 3.0 litre.On that note no my old man actually drove a Triumph 2000 automatic until being given a Marina as a company car and moaned about me blowing too much money on petrol and insurance that I should have been paying him.I said he was just jealous.Although admittedly there were a few people around in the day who thought a Mini or a 1600 E was quicker.
newmercman:
As I remember the 70s car choice was very different to what it is now, there was no badge snobbery, you bought what you could afford and when it fell apart, you bought another one. If you wanted something a bit fancy a vinyl roof and a set of Wolfrace wheels did the job on whatever car you had.
There was no badge snobbery because a badge didn’t usually mean a lot.Most would have laughed at the choice between an Audi v a decent Ford then for example for similar reasons as given for the BMC’s with the added issue of more expense.
All sounds similar to the times here in Aus, where late 60’s saw big changes in the availability of finance, previously refused to those buyers with little or no credit history.
The big manufacturers began offering cheap finance for their vehicles, bought or leased. GMAC (General Motor’s Acceptance Corporation) for GM and similar from Ford and so on.
In my 50’s primary school classes only one other family had a car, his dad being the local GM dealer. Our car was a 1935 vintage and a trip into town saw horrible Ford Prefects, Consuls, Morris Minors etc. Police had the odd Zephyr but mostly motorbikes.
Then suddenly a very low income family was driving a brand new Datsun 1200 wagon with a radio and plastic on the seats.
Timber hauler whose previous truck was a Blitz were seen in a new bonneted Toyota. Not long after Nissan joined into the mix.
The Rootes group with it’s rally winning Hillman Hunter just through in the towel. Eventually absorbed into the Dodge Chrysler family but Dodge trucks here were really a badge engineered International.
The old time British dealers were pinning their hopes on Minis, 1100’s and whatever. Seemed as though every year there was another FWD job. By the time the Austin 1800 arrived we were well over it. Advertised as a lounge chair on wheels, probably not the smartest move with Ford releasing their most powerful road car ever and GM likewise. The 70’s was all about speed and handling, not lounge chairs.
VW was a tiny show way down the end of town, only frequented by the few diehard owners.
International Harvester trucks also got into leasing, the extremely low interest rates luring customers away from their first generation Leyland Comets and similar vintage plodders.
Plus it was boom times here in the 60’s and 70’s, fuel was cheap so a V8 petrol was perfect for the driver with minimum mechanical skills.
And dealers were selling/leasing trucks with the promise of instant work, there was so much new freeway put down in those years.
Leyland still kept its faithful clients, mainly the fuel companies. No rush to deliver fuel then, not like these days.
Carryfast:
Unless you knew of something quicker for a few hundred quid that a teenager could afford to insure which counted out the big Jags and BMW E3 3.0 litre.Although admittedly there were a few people around in the day who thought a Mini or a 1600 E was quicker.
Don’t know your background, but for me as a teenager a few hundred quid would have been a fortune, most of my cars back then would have been closer to the £20 mark, I doubt if I had even seen a BMW E3 back then.
I only ever raced old minis in the late seventies & I clearly remember mugging off some of the so called fast cars of the same period on the track, when I was having a good day.
FWD worked well for me at the time, I believe with a modern road car FWD or RWD should not be an issue under normal driving conditions.
Carryfast:
Unless you knew of something quicker for a few hundred quid that a teenager could afford to insure which counted out the big Jags and BMW E3 3.0 litre.Although admittedly there were a few people around in the day who thought a Mini or a 1600 E was quicker.
Don’t know your background, but for me as a teenager a few hundred quid would have been a fortune, most of my cars back then would have been closer to the £20 mark, I doubt if I had even seen a BMW E3 back then.
I only ever raced old minis in the late seventies & I clearly remember mugging off some of the so called fast cars of the same period on he track, when I was having a good day.
FWD worked well for me at the time, I believe with a modern road car FWD or RWD should not be an issue under normal driving conditions.
I used to pay roughly £10-15 per months mot in the eighties,so six months test I’d offer sixty to a hundred quid. On the twisty roads round here a well driven Mini would take some catching . I borrowed my dad’s 2500tc triumph a couple,lovely car I’m a big fan of them but for a fun blast round the country lanes I preferred my little 1500 toledo or one of the five minis that followed it
cav551:
At the age of 55 he approached my late Grandfather’s best mate, who was partner in the Austin dealership in Huntingdon (Maddox and Kirby), and a specially favourable deal was struck on a new Austin 1100. He was very pleased with it, I don’t recall any problems with it nor any financial disappointment when it was traded in for a 1300 a few years later. Certainly I would agree that to some extent we were tied to the brand, but I am sure Bill Kirby would never have allowed dad to be saddled with what he regarded as a lemon - and twice at that too.
‘Lemon’ in this case meaning from the point of view of the manufacturer/dealer.IE a description of ‘favourable deal’ obviously isn’t good from the manufacturer’s/dealer’s point of view.When they needed a product which could be sold at full list price no ifs no buts and no favours.While from the buyer’s point of view which could be sold for more privately than as a p/ex at trade in time and in which the dealer wasn’t lumbered with a used one that would have probably ended up losing money on the overall deal at auction.Bearing in mind it’s the used buyer not new who generally takes on all the potential aggro.
The dealer I worked for started as bl and ended up a rover dealer when I worked there he used to make 50 quid a car on metro’s and about a 100 on bigger stuff. I asked him why so little profit and he said we sell new cars to get the part ex in at the right price it’s the second hand car we make the money from and the servicing and warranty work keeps the workshop in profit. He was one of the richest men round here,he spent around a million pounds a month at the sales getting stock I saw him writing the cheques, so if your trade friends weren’t making money on fwd cars they just weren’t any good at it it had nothing to do with the cars.
Carryfast:
Unless you knew of something quicker for a few hundred quid that a teenager could afford to insure which counted out the big Jags and BMW E3 3.0 litre.Although admittedly there were a few people around in the day who thought a Mini or a 1600 E was quicker.
Don’t know your background, but for me as a teenager a few hundred quid would have been a fortune, most of my cars back then would have been closer to the £20 mark, I doubt if I had even seen a BMW E3 back then.
I only ever raced old minis in the late seventies & I clearly remember mugging off some of the so called fast cars of the same period on he track, when I was having a good day.
FWD worked well for me at the time, I believe with a modern road car FWD or RWD should not be an issue under normal driving conditions.
I used to pay roughly £10-15 per months mot in the eighties,so six months test I’d offer sixty to a hundred quid. On the twisty roads round here a well driven Mini would take some catching . I borrowed my dad’s 2500tc triumph a couple,lovely car I’m a big fan of them but for a fun blast round the country lanes I preferred my little 1500 toledo or one of the five minis that followed it
I owned this much more recently(sold it about 18 months ago-125 bhp from its 1380cc heavily modded A series lump.ultra reliable as well lol) nothing at all wrong with front wheel drive,not much could keep up with this on the twisties-slowing down for a bend wasn’t really a consideration…
A man after my own heart, Andrew. Of the four Minis I owned over many years, the one which gave me the biggest grin was a Mini van with 1340S engine, wide 12-inch wheels and various silly mods. I used to glance at the boy racers in their “hot” Escorts when blowing them away from the lights! Happy days.
Retired Old ■■■■:
A man after my own heart, Andrew. Of the four Minis I owned over many years, the one which gave me the biggest grin was a Mini van with 1340S engine, wide 12-inch wheels and various silly mods. I used to glance at the boy racers in their “hot” Escorts when blowing them away from the lights! Happy days.
hahaha that’s what minis are all about ROF !! i’m 42 this year-and the only time I haven’t owned a mini since I was sixteen is the 18 months or so since I sold the one above!!
my parents and older sister and myself had dozens over the years-I would love another high spec one like the white one in the pics,but they really are silly money at the moment.a bog standard one just wont cut it for me i’m afraid(unless its a mk1 or 2 cooper S )-it has to be getting on for 100bhp at least lol
Carryfast:
‘Lemon’ in this case meaning from the point of view of the manufacturer/dealer.IE a description of ‘favourable deal’ obviously isn’t good from the manufacturer’s/dealer’s point of view.When they needed a product which could be sold at full list price no ifs no buts and no favours.While from the buyer’s point of view which could be sold for more privately than as a p/ex at trade in time and in which the dealer wasn’t lumbered with a used one that would have probably ended up losing money on the overall deal at auction.Bearing in mind it’s the used buyer not new who generally takes on all the potential aggro.
The dealer I worked for started as bl and ended up a rover dealer when I worked there he used to make 50 quid a car on metro’s and about a 100 on bigger stuff. I asked him why so little profit and he said we sell new cars to get the part ex in at the right price it’s the second hand car we make the money from and the servicing and warranty work keeps the workshop in profit. He was one of the richest men round here,he spent around a million pounds a month at the sales getting stock I saw him writing the cheques, so if your trade friends weren’t making money on fwd cars they just weren’t any good at it it had nothing to do with the cars.
So by your logic less profit per unit on a fwd BMC heap and higher maintenance costs for the owner and/or higher warranty costs for the manufacturer,is a better business model than more profit per unit on a proper motor,less maintenance costs for the owner and less warranty costs for the manufacturer.
On that note as I remember it the main reason why my Father’s mate no longer required his services was because he effectively retired,not exactly short of a few bob ,well before state retirement age and moved away.While I never heard my father complaining about any shortage in the household finances then as he did when he was working much harder as an employed worker in the engineering manufacturing sector.So I’d guess it was a profitable operation.
Unlike Leyland Group’s.
On that note yes my Father did charge his mate more hours,for doing work on the odd fwd heap that would/should have been a much easier and quicker job on a rwd one.But the downside was that mean’t less profit in the car when it was sold,if it sold,and more hours spent earning the same amount of money per hour on an awkward zb job instead of on an easy one.Hence the general dislike in the trade and customers alike for such liabilities.Unless the deal was,more like seemed,too good to refuse.
Retired Old ■■■■:
A man after my own heart, Andrew. Of the four Minis I owned over many years, the one which gave me the biggest grin was a Mini van with 1340S engine, wide 12-inch wheels and various silly mods. I used to glance at the boy racers in their “hot” Escorts when blowing them away from the lights! Happy days.
Blimey as I said I also knew a few people in the day who thought even a more or less standard Mini or Cortina 1600 E could take on a 2.5 PI let alone the Granada 2.8i and BMW E3 3.0 Si I bought later into the 1980’s.That’s when the old man’s advice let them get on with it you’ve got nothing to prove saved me a lot of possible aggro with the law.On that note exactly what was the power and torque output and final drive gearing and top end on that toy and exactly how fast was it going when it ran out of steam v something with a bit more than a 2.0 litre at best 4 cylinder motor in it.Bearing in mind it took the RS 2000 Mk1 to match the 2.5 Triumph.At which point if you want more fwd runs into all the other flaws of torque steer and loss of traction off the line through weight transfer v something which drives and steers with the right wheels.
Put a decent driver in a Mini on a country lane or in an urban environment and you have one of the fastest point to point cars on the planet. Power to weight ratio is one thing on a drag strip, or the 0-60mph sprint, but a light car with plenty of grip will always come out of a corner faster and be a lot more fun as a result.
That’s a racetrack, put a single seat open wheel 1000cc race car on there and it would ■■■■ all over the TR8, horses for courses.
In the case of Leyland’s fortunes it was probably more about a better rwd Marina being the car that BMC division needed to compete against a world of cheap and easier to maintain and easier to flog Cortinas and Escorts not the fwd 1100/1800/Maxi.Bearing in mind that the Triumph 2.5 and Rover P6 and SD1 had enough on their plate v the Granada.Unfortunately the car side was probably always a battle for survival that Ford was going to win.
I have absolutely no idea what your point is here, the vast majority of car buyers couldn’t drive a nail into a block of wood with a 12lb hammer, let alone apex a corner or heel and toe, so handling and balance were of little importance. The Mini was designed to fit four people in a ten foot box, the point that it is fast point to point is irrelevant really as that was an unintended consequence.
You’re running off on a tangent and I can’t see the relevance of any of it to be honest.
In much the same way as your earlier mind numbing references to bore and stroke, we’re now blabbing on about RWD and FWD, none of which had any significant impact on the fortunes of BL, at least as far as lorries are concerned.
newmercman:
I have absolutely no idea what your point is here
You’re running off on a tangent and I can’t see the relevance of any of it to be honest.
In much the same way as your earlier mind numbing references to bore and stroke, we’re now blabbing on about RWD and FWD, none of which had any significant impact on the fortunes of BL, at least as far as lorries are concerned.
As I’ve said fwd at that point in time was a liability both in terms of customer acceptance and cost.
IE the car division was crippled by the wrong fwd products v Ford’s rwd ones.In addition to Rover and Triumph being upstaged by the Granada.Especially in the case of the SD1 with the exception of the Rover V8 in which case Ford would probably have just answered by putting a V8 in it if the SD1 had been given the Ford’s chassis advantages.
The truck side was equally crippled by the wrong short stroke engines v the competition’s right longer stroke ones.What’s irrelevant about any of that.
This is ground we’ve already covered though, no point in arguing the minutiae.
The downfall of British Leyland was, in reality, caused by the creation of British Leyland, it was doomed from the start. Too much government interference and stupid decisions like Bathgate, the losses of the ailing Austin - Morris group denying investment to the successful divisions, thereby making them soldier on with products that were soon to become obsolete in the fast paced ever changing 1970s, a lack of foresight on the potential profitability of the European market, the old school tie network getting all the prime positions, regardless of ability, militancy in the workforce and supply chain and the general shoddy build quality of products that were inferior to start with. All of these are valid reasons for the failure of the group. While the 760/TL12 did play apart in the big picture, it was a tiny part at best.
. Robert
The key was finding a good broker.On that note I really wanted a 420 S type Jag and at that the broker said I was taking the pish so the Triumph it had to be.Although looking back I often think I should have put a Rover V8 in the Triumph instead of moving on to a 2.8i Granada and 3.0 Litre BMW as I got older. 
