dazcapri:
You’ve answered it yourself the fleets didn’t want fwd because of the perceived higher servicing costs and again if you actually read your own link properly you’ll see that the marina was designed as a bigger car than the mk2 cortina unfortunately ford brought out the larger mk3 which ruined stokes plans. The austin range was built to be a small car with an uninterrupted interior,hence the invention of hydragas so no suspension turrets intruding. Why change from the tried and tested formula of the bestselling fwd austin to go backwards with rwd.
Your saying the yanks buy rice burners as shopping cars but get rwd barges when they want a real car,they actually buy pick ups the f150 being the best selling us vehicle by far. Several people on here have said that’s why people bought minis/1100’s etc but you argued against thar so your now agreeing with them? You also say the yanks use fwd cos of high fuel prices stricter speed limits etc we got that here as well so if that’s the case why would putting a V8 in a Triumph saved BL. By your own arguments Issigonis far from inventing rubbish was in fact a very forward thinking genius who was years ahead of his time
Stokes’ ‘plans’ for the Marina were doomed from the start because his Issigonis fan boy opponents wouldn’t give him the funds needed to make the Marina the clean sheet design that it needed to be.So instead of a Mc Pherson front semi trailing IRS MGB overdrive driveline Marina able to take on the Cortina.Leyland got a re styled Morris Minor with the B series engine compromised transmission and zb suspension to fund the zb Austin Maxi and Allegro to keep those Isssigonis fan boys happy. Not to mention that and all the following fwd zb instead of the clean sheet V8 all wishbone 3 box design successor to the Triumph 2.5 and Rover P6 needed to take on the Granada. You couldn’t make this zb up.
On that note,as I said,we are talking about the roads of the 1970’s not the supermarket car parks of the 21st century.
Issigonis designs were car parks full of small fwd hatchback runabouts mixed with larger rwd saloons exactly what your 21st century car park now looks like like I said a very knowledgeable forward thinking man.
As for bl not starting with a clean sheet what about ford the mk2 cortina was a rebodied mk1 the corsair was based on a cortina floor pan. 1970’s brought you the mk3 which was rebodied into the 4/5 till 82 then the Sierra used the same basic running gear till the nineties. Your much loved granada,I’ve had half a dozen myself, replaced the zephyr/zodiac range in 72 and was rebooted into the mk2 till 85 granted they replaced the old 3ltr boat anchor with the 2.8. The capri ran from 69-87 with again the same floor pan and same basic running gear. The ■■■■■■ 68-80 same floorplan/running gear.Then you had the rivals hillman/chrysler/Talbot avenger so they were all at it. As for the argument that the money for the marina could’ve been took away from the fwd stuff it was the best selling fwd 1100 that supplied the money to make it.
dazcapri:
As for the argument that the money for the marina could’ve been took away from the fwd stuff it was the best selling fwd 1100 that supplied the money to make it.
Exactly!
Although I must point out the difference between ‘argument’ and ‘broken record’
dazcapri:
As for the argument that the money for the marina could’ve been took away from the fwd stuff it was the best selling fwd 1100 that supplied the money to make it.
Exactly!
Although I must point out the difference between ‘argument’ and ‘broken record’
Ifs buts and mayby’s. Time moves on, and these vehicles are history. Motor museums such as Gaydon has one of each, but trying to say what could have happened, applies to numerous things from the past. I think the needle is stuck, as well as the broken record.
dazcapri:
As for bl not starting with a clean sheet what about ford the mk2 cortina was a rebodied mk1 the corsair was based on a cortina floor pan. 1970’s brought you the mk3 which was rebodied into the 4/5 till 82 then the Sierra used the same basic running gear till the nineties. Your much loved granada,I’ve had half a dozen myself, replaced the zephyr/zodiac range in 72 and was rebooted into the mk2 till 85 granted they replaced the old 3ltr boat anchor with the 2.8. The capri ran from 69-87 with again the same floor pan and same basic running gear. The ■■■■■■ 68-80 same floorplan/running gear.Then you had the rivals hillman/chrysler/Talbot avenger so they were all at it. As for the argument that the money for the marina could’ve been took away from the fwd stuff it was the best selling fwd 1100 that supplied the money to make it.
Using the Morris Minor’s chassis technology for a 1970’s product wasn’t exactly the same thing as going from Mk1 Cortina to Mk2 or for that matter Mk1 Granada to Mk2.The only good bit about it being the use of the B series engine.The rest being hopelessly crippled by having to use the Minor’s suspension and inability to use the MGB over drive transmission in it.
As for the ‘success’ of the Mini and 1100 supposedly supplying the money to pay for anything in Leyland Group feel free to explain the state of BMC’s finances when they were taken on by Leyland Group in 1968.By your logic BMC was the profitable side of Leyland Group subsidising the rest not vice versa.When in fact it was a parasitic liability.Mostly the result of Issigonis’ suicidal engineering design philosophy,both in terms of firstly holding Jaguar to ransom,by taking control of its body suppliers,and then Leyland Group.
On that note maybe you can explain how BMC found itself in the position of not being a profitable enough operation to carry on even at the point of the formation of BMH in 1966.Having effectively made a hostile takeover of the profitable Jaguar operation.Bearing in mind that the Mini and 1100 had been in production at that point for 7 and 4 years respectively.
dazcapri:
As for the argument that the money for the marina could’ve been took away from the fwd stuff it was the best selling fwd 1100 that supplied the money to make it.
Exactly!
Although I must point out the difference between ‘argument’ and ‘broken record’
It depends on the definition of argument and broken record.Broken record in this case being all those Issigonis design apologists trying to re write history by saying that BMC almost rescued Leyland only to have defeat snatched for the jaws of victory by the liabilities of the group’s rwd designs.
As for ‘sales’ volumes that isn’t the same thing as profitability.
At the end of the day (private) customers will buy what they want and not what someone tells them to.
Fleet sales will be based on what bulk order discount is available, along with what different alternative specs of the same model are available to suit the various levels of seniority among those employees entitled to a company vehicle. Other considerations will be secondary. Ford were so successful in this section of the market because they managed to offer so many options not only in a corporate structure compatible model range, but particularly options of the same basic bodyshells, extending this latter to include the car-derived van.
cav551:
At the end of the day (private) customers will buy what they want and not what someone tells them to.
Fleet sales will be based on what bulk order discount is available, along with what different alternative specs of the same model are available to suit the various levels of seniority among those employees entitled to a company vehicle. Other considerations will be secondary. Ford were so successful in this section of the market because they managed to offer so many options not only in a corporate structure compatible model range, but particularly options of the same basic bodyshells, extending this latter to include the car-derived van.
As I’ve said the idea of the Marina being all about ‘fleet sales’ is just part of the same bs as the idea that BMC’s fwd designs were viable either in the fleet market or anywhere else.The fact is Issigonis zb’d up big time and Stokes should have at least forced the end of all further fwd development and production and used the money saved to develop the cars that the Marina and SD1 should have been at the time when it could have made the difference.
If the rubber-band driven DAF had been available in 21 different specifications of at least half a dozen different size bodyshells and at the right bulk discount price, then the accountants who made the decision about fleet purchases would have bought DAF. The engineering didn’t interest them in the slightest.
cav551:
The engineering didn’t interest them in the slightest.
Going to all the trouble of resurrecting the Morris Minor,in the form of the Marina,for production in the 1970’s,after BMC had made the wholesale move to fwd from Mini to Maxi,on the premise that they needed rwd to compete with Ford etc in terms of customer acceptability,obviously doesn’t fit the script of customers having no interest in the engineering design of the product.
cav551:
If the rubber-band driven DAF had been available in 21 different specifications of at least half a dozen different size bodyshells and at the right bulk discount price, then the accountants who made the decision about fleet purchases would have bought DAF. The engineering didn’t interest them in the slightest.
Spot on.
They bought Cortinas and Gardner 180-powered Atkinsons and ERF LVs.
If I read about that poxy overdrive MG gearbox again I’m going to go off my nut! FFS man we get it, you would’ve done things differently, different stroke in the 760, a different gearbox and suspension set up in the Marina, do you really need to keep going on and on and on about it?
All of this is conjecture and opinion, others may have different opinions, would you please stop ramming your opinion down everybody’s throats efore this thread is abandoned by anyone with anything worthwhile to add.
The mini was designed to beat the bubble car invasion after fuel price hikes because of suez which it did so mission acomplished.
The 1100/1300 range was the best selling car in the UK for most of its life.
The land crab 1800/2200 was way roomier than anything in its class but was as ugly as sin and was never a big seller
The maxi was way ahead of its time it’s layout is what that sector now accepts as the norm.
They never looked great as it had to use the land crab doors to save costs and suffered early problems it could never shake off.
I remember reading bmc had something like five cars for real life road testing Renault who released a car I think it was the 16 which was also a fwd hatchback around the same time had over 200 been tested round the world in all different environments so that was part of the problem.
Ultimately issigionis was right in seeing where the market was going but his passion was function mattered styling didn’t and was allowed to oversee the whole project Ford would never have allowed that.
Famously Ford said every mini sold made a loss and Ford wouldn’t allow that but the monster bmc become and it’s style of management let it happen.
To this day most people couldn’t care what wheels drive a car and the reason most buy a BMW over a Ford is for the badge not what wheels drive the thing.
My mate has a BMW 1 series and inside the boot and re at passenger area is very cramped due to the transmission tunnel and a focus or golf or audi a3 is a way roomier car in that sector but the BMW sells because of its image.
newmercman:
If I read about that poxy overdrive MG gearbox again I’m going to go off my nut! FFS man we get it, you would’ve done things differently, different stroke in the 760, a different gearbox and suspension set up in the Marina, do you really need to keep going on and on and on about it?
All of this is conjecture and opinion, others may have different opinions, would you please stop ramming your opinion down everybody’s throats efore this thread is abandoned by anyone with anything worthwhile to add.
Enough is enough ffs!
I could reverse that by saying,if I read about the bad management of people like Stokes,strikes,militancy,more strikes,fwd was/is good,Issigonis was a genius,the total misunderstanding of the difference between sales volumes v profitability,build quality.Or ignorance of the fact that the ‘reason’ or BMW’s ‘image’ is because people are prepared to pay a premium for the rwd configuration notwithstanding the few downsides regards packaging.I’m going off my nut !.
kr79:
My mate has a BMW 1 series and inside the boot and re at passenger area is very cramped due to the transmission tunnel and a focus or golf or audi a3 is a way roomier car in that sector but the BMW sells because of its image.
The obvious question being if its all about the ‘image’ of the BMW badge and the 1 series is cramped why not buy one of the BMW fwd options like 2 series ?.Having said that the next 1 series will be fwd anyway.That’ll fix it.
kr79:
…
I remember reading bmc had something like five cars for real life road testing Renault who released a car I think it was the 16 which was also a fwd hatchback around the same time had over 200 been tested round the world in all different environments so that was part of the problem…
The British managers underestimated just how much engineering work had to be done, in order to make the ambitious new designs functional and reliable. This failing affected the lorries and the cars.
Renault that well known specialist in the volume fwd market.Oh wait.Which by the early 1980’s was losing ‘billions’ of Francs per ‘month’ .Also known for its ‘links’ with Volvo and Peugeot both known for the massive success and resulting profits of their rwd 120/140/240 and 504 ( European car of the Year at launch ) series products.Not to mention the guvnor being murdered by French Communists during the resulting industrial unrest which sort of puts Leyland’s ‘issues’ with the unions into perspective.
Not to mention that and all the following fwd zb instead of the clean sheet V8 all wishbone 3 box design successor to the Triumph 2.5 and Rover P6 needed to take on the Granada. You couldn’t make this zb up.
