The Carryfast engine design discussion

[dazcapri]

Carryfast:

dazcapri:

Carryfast:
The fact is there’s no evidence that Stokes ever said, let alone implemented, closure of AEC and to not maintain Triumph as a producer of performance saloon cars rivalling the BMW 5 series based on the 2.5.

Stokes was at the meeting in 1971 when the Rover SD1 was chosen as the successor to the P6 and Triumph 2000 it was decided that the Triumph design(a 3 box saloon) was too conservative. The Rover design was judged to be superior by the BL board which included Stokes. It’s in the link in plain English.
aronline.co.uk/cars/rover/s … ent-story/
Here’s another link that states the SD1 was built to REPLACE both the P6 and 2000 range
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rover_SD1 … 0is%20both,)%2C%20under%20the%20Rover%20marque.
Here is the Oxford Dictionary definition of what replacement means since you seem to be having trouble understanding it.
oxfordlearnersdictionaries. … ar%20parts
The next link is a 1973 interview with Stokes where he says the P6 and Triumph 2000 are very complimentary models and then says " I think it makes sense NOT to perpetuate that in the future-two similar cars of similar capacity"
aronline.co.uk/people/peopl … interview/
He is QUOTED as saying Rover and Triumph will no longer compete with each other name another Triumph car other than the 2000 which competed with the Rover range of Cars.
The Triumph 2000 could not have been fitted with a V8 in the late70’s/early 80’s to take on the 5 series because it was replaced by the SD1

The Triumph 2000 wasn’t the same thing as the Triumph 2.5 PI especially a 2.5 PI with a Rover V8 in it.

Stokes didn’t say Rover does both the plutocrats barges and the performance saloons.
The fact that the 2.5 PI not just the 2000 was replaced by the SD1 let alone the Acclaim is the point.
Nowehere did Stokes or the Ryder report ever say do that.Like AEC still being alive and kicking Triumph was still producing the 2.5 range when Stokes left the job.

What happened next was all about Edwardes and BMW, in the form of the 528 and 535i, was the obvious beneficiary.3 box IRS saloon too Conservative bs.

Yeah that’s right the 2000 and 2.5pi were COMPLETELY different they just shared the same bodyshell and engine. Triumph dropped the 2.5pi in 1975 because of reliability problems, replacing it with the 2500S model.
Stokes said Rover and Triumph would no longer compete with each other. Had Triumph, as originally planned, replaced the 2000/2500 range with the Puma they would have been selling cars fitted with the same 2.3/2.6 and if you had your way V8 engine as the SD1, not to mention the same front suspension any sensible person can see they would be rivals. Rover and Triumph had been merged at this point so the same company making two very similar cars would have been stupid and pointless.

You don’t just stop making a car they always say it will be PHASED Out and that is why it was still produced(and the P6) until 77.
The only person who mentions BMW is you the main rival for the 2000/2500 range was the P6 and the main rivals for BL was the likes of Ford/Vauxhall and the Japanese.
3 box saloon too conservative is BS IT’S IN THE LINK IN PLAIN ENGLISH STOKES AND THE BL TEAM CHOOSE THE HATCHBACK ROVER OVER THE TOO CONSERVATIVE TRIUMPH 3 BOX SALOON.
In the mid 70’s/early 80’s it wasn’t just BL who were making hatchbacks, Vw Golf/Polo, Ford mk2 Capri,mk3 ■■■■■■ and Sierra among others.

[zb_anorak]

Carryfast:
You’re the one who’s suggesting that the Eagle’s con rods and big end bearing caps would fly apart at 1,950 rpm you do it.
You’re also the one who suggested a 6 foot bore for the Wartzila when in fact it’s less than 3 with a 6.5 foot stroke and still that isn’t enough of a clue for you.
Head bolts bs you’re going to use 43% x 2% more head fastening and 43% x 7% more big end and small end provision when Rolls are already making a motor which is more than up to the job yeah right.
No surprise that Edwardes is your hero.But even he and his banker mates had the sense to realise which was the better choice at the end of the day to get their money back and at least leave a few customers for DAF to evetually pick up.

No to all of the above.

I did not say any of that crap. I tried to tell you that head bolts are not a limiting factor- increase the bore, increase the size/length/number of bolts. I also tried to help you work out that, other things being equal, the typical stroke of an engine is inversely proportional to the square of its running speed. You have actually stated as much, a hundred times, without making the obvious deduction LOL. Ihave also explained that, for a given maximum engine speed, a range of bore/stroke ratios is ordinary, across the engines in production at the time. At any time, and at any given engine size, the engines in production all have about the same BMEP. The TL12 was not hobbled by its bore/stroke ratio. It might have suffered a shortfall in development, during the late 1970s, but BL was skint, and had spent most of that time battling deluded fools, promoting themselves on a jarg commie agenda. I know how it felt.

[carryfast]

dazcapri:

Carryfast:
The Triumph 2000 wasn’t the same thing as the Triumph 2.5 PI especially a 2.5 PI with a Rover V8 in it.

Stokes didn’t say Rover does both the plutocrats barges and the performance saloons.
The fact that the 2.5 PI not just the 2000 was replaced by the SD1 let alone the Acclaim is the point.
Nowehere did Stokes or the Ryder report ever say do that.Like AEC still being alive and kicking Triumph was still producing the 2.5 range when Stokes left the job.

What happened next was all about Edwardes and BMW, in the form of the 528 and 535i, was the obvious beneficiary.3 box IRS saloon too Conservative bs.

Yeah that’s right the 2000 and 2.5pi were COMPLETELY different they just shared the same bodyshell and engine. Triumph dropped the 2.5pi in 1975 because of reliability problems, replacing it with the 2500S model.
Stokes said Rover and Triumph would no longer compete with each other. Had Triumph, as originally planned, replaced the 2000/2500 range with the Puma they would have been selling cars fitted with the same 2.3/2.6 and if you had your way V8 engine as the SD1, not to mention the same front suspension any sensible person can see they would be rivals. Rover and Triumph had been merged at this point so the same company making two very similar cars would have been stupid and pointless.

You don’t just stop making a car they always say it will be PHASED Out and that is why it was still produced(and the P6) until 77.
The only person who mentions BMW is you the main rival for the 2000/2500 range was the P6 and the main rivals for BL was the likes of Ford/Vauxhall and the Japanese.
3 box saloon too conservative is BS IT’S IN THE LINK IN PLAIN ENGLISH STOKES AND THE BL TEAM CHOOSE THE HATCHBACK ROVER OVER THE TOO CONSERVATIVE TRIUMPH 3 BOX SALOON.
In the mid 70’s/early 80’s it wasn’t just BL who were making hatchbacks, Vw Golf/Polo, Ford mk2 Capri,mk3 ■■■■■■ and Sierra among others.

In the mid 70’s and even the 80’s on the three box saloon was the default premium car choice.Even Ford and Opel’s Premium saloons.
How do you put Rover and Triumph into the VW Golf ■■■■■■ and Sierra market sector.
The clue is Leylands premium brands.
In what way was the 2.5 PI let alone Rover V8 the same engine as the 2000.
Just like BMW 518 v 528-535i.
Same bodyshell and similar suspension but totally different cars and market sectors.
Or for that matter 728-735 exec barges.
It’s obvious that the SD1 in no way fitted the bill of Rover just do the exec barges let alone the Acclaim fitted Triumph do the performance cars.
In fact the SD1 Vittesse not only nicked the Triumph performance brand name it also turned the whole plan upside down with an ugly hatchback retrograde product to add insult to injury.
It was a corrupted interpretation of the whole plan which derailed the whole JRT premium group.
As I said Triumph 2.5 saloon based 2.3, 2.6 PI and V8 Vittesse.That’s the 5 series covered.
BMC C series and V8 powered Rover P5 replacement using the Westminster name.That’s the 7 series sector covered.
BMC do the Acclaim why Triumph.Since when was Triumph meant to be in the BMC market sector.

That fitted the stated plan and kept the right products in their correct intended market sectors.

What we actually saw was sabotage of the most profitable premium brands of the car division after Stokes had gone.
Just like the TL12 powered T45 did with the truck division.

Jaguar luckily escaped.Only to end up screwed by Ford ( effectively Ford Germany ).
Effectively making sure there’d be no more V12 powered competition for BMW and Merc from there.

[carryfast]

[zb]
anorak:

Carryfast:
You’re the one who’s suggesting that the Eagle’s con rods and big end bearing caps would fly apart at 1,950 rpm you do it.
You’re also the one who suggested a 6 foot bore for the Wartzila when in fact it’s less than 3 with a 6.5 foot stroke and still that isn’t enough of a clue for you.
Head bolts bs you’re going to use 43% x 2% more head fastening and 43% x 7% more big end and small end provision when Rolls are already making a motor which is more than up to the job yeah right.
No surprise that Edwardes is your hero.But even he and his banker mates had the sense to realise which was the better choice at the end of the day to get their money back and at least leave a few customers for DAF to evetually pick up.

No to all of the above.

I did not say any of that crap. I tried to tell you that head bolts are not a limiting factor- increase the bore, increase the size/length/number of bolts. I also tried to help you work out that, other things being equal, the typical stroke of an engine is inversely proportional to the square of its running speed. You have actually stated as much, a hundred times, without making the obvious deduction LOL. Ihave also explained that, for a given maximum engine speed, a range of bore/stroke ratios is ordinary, across the engines in production at the time. At any time, and at any given engine size, the engines in production all have about the same BMEP. The TL12 was not hobbled by its bore/stroke ratio. It might have suffered a shortfall in development, during the late 1970s, but BL was skint, and had spent most of that time battling deluded fools, promoting themselves on a jarg commie agenda. I know how it felt.

Tell us more about your exact head fastening modifications to meet the increase in tensile loading at equivalent BMEP as the Eagle which you don’t seem to want to disagree with.

You know 43% x 2% 's worth of extra stress.How many extra bolts are you going to use and where will you put them.How does a larger bore supposedly provide more spare block casting capacity to anchor them all in that regard as opposed to less.

What about the extra 43% x 7% small and big end loading

Are you seriously suggesting that the TL12 had the same BMEP potential as the Eagle in view of all that.

If you’re not saying that the Eagle had a con rod tensile loading issue at 1,950 rpm v the TL12 then exactly WTF have you been arguing with me about.The fact is the TL12 had an insurmountable leverage deficit thereby totally trashing its specific torque potential v the Eagle.

The Eagle certainly didn’t have any so called ‘centrifugal’ tensile loading issues as a result of that leverage advantage.

[carryfast]

There’s the TL12 head fastening location and capacity.

ebay.co.uk/itm/Full-Engine-R … 2939463273

Where are you going to put your extra 43% x 2% 's worth needed to match the Eagle’s ultimate 43% BMEP advantage assuming you even know what BMEP means and the part played by the stroke measurement in reaching that figure.

[newmercman]

You’ve been spotted Carryfast.

[franglais]

newmercman:
You’ve been spotted Carryfast.

He was talking about gritters elsewhere.
This must be his Jaguar snowplough.

[dazcapri]

Carryfast:

dazcapri:

Carryfast:
The Triumph 2000 wasn’t the same thing as the Triumph 2.5 PI especially a 2.5 PI with a Rover V8 in it.

Stokes didn’t say Rover does both the plutocrats barges and the performance saloons.
The fact that the 2.5 PI not just the 2000 was replaced by the SD1 let alone the Acclaim is the point.
Nowehere did Stokes or the Ryder report ever say do that.Like AEC still being alive and kicking Triumph was still producing the 2.5 range when Stokes left the job.

What happened next was all about Edwardes and BMW, in the form of the 528 and 535i, was the obvious beneficiary.3 box IRS saloon too Conservative bs.

Yeah that’s right the 2000 and 2.5pi were COMPLETELY different they just shared the same bodyshell and engine. Triumph dropped the 2.5pi in 1975 because of reliability problems, replacing it with the 2500S model.
Stokes said Rover and Triumph would no longer compete with each other. Had Triumph, as originally planned, replaced the 2000/2500 range with the Puma they would have been selling cars fitted with the same 2.3/2.6 and if you had your way V8 engine as the SD1, not to mention the same front suspension any sensible person can see they would be rivals. Rover and Triumph had been merged at this point so the same company making two very similar cars would have been stupid and pointless.

You don’t just stop making a car they always say it will be PHASED Out and that is why it was still produced(and the P6) until 77.
The only person who mentions BMW is you the main rival for the 2000/2500 range was the P6 and the main rivals for BL was the likes of Ford/Vauxhall and the Japanese.
3 box saloon too conservative is BS IT’S IN THE LINK IN PLAIN ENGLISH STOKES AND THE BL TEAM CHOOSE THE HATCHBACK ROVER OVER THE TOO CONSERVATIVE TRIUMPH 3 BOX SALOON.
In the mid 70’s/early 80’s it wasn’t just BL who were making hatchbacks, Vw Golf/Polo, Ford mk2 Capri,mk3 ■■■■■■ and Sierra among others.

In the mid 70’s and even the 80’s on the three box saloon was the default premium car choice.Even Ford and Opel’s Premium saloons.
How do you put Rover and Triumph into the VW Golf ■■■■■■ and Sierra market sector.
The clue is Leylands premium brands.
In what way was the 2.5 PI let alone Rover V8 the same engine as the 2000.
Just like BMW 518 v 528-535i.
Same bodyshell and similar suspension but totally different cars and market sectors.
Or for that matter 728-735 exec barges.
It’s obvious that the SD1 in no way fitted the bill of Rover just do the exec barges let alone the Acclaim fitted Triumph do the performance cars.
In fact the SD1 Vittesse not only nicked the Triumph performance brand name it also turned the whole plan upside down with an ugly hatchback retrograde product to add insult to injury.
It was a corrupted interpretation of the whole plan which derailed the whole JRT premium group.
As I said Triumph 2.5 saloon based 2.3, 2.6 PI and V8 Vittesse.That’s the 5 series covered.
BMC C series and V8 powered Rover P5 replacement using the Westminster name.That’s the 7 series sector covered.
BMC do the Acclaim why Triumph.Since when was Triumph meant to be in the BMC market sector.

That fitted the stated plan and kept the right products in their correct intended market sectors.

What we actually saw was sabotage of the most profitable premium brands of the car division after Stokes had gone.
Just like the TL12 powered T45 did with the truck division.

Jaguar luckily escaped.Only to end up screwed by Ford ( effectively Ford Germany ).
Effectively making sure there’d be no more V12 powered competition for BMW and Merc from there.

The 2.5 pi was DROPPED by Triumph in 1975 because it was unreliable so HOW could it have been a BMW beater.
The 2.5 engine was the same Block as the 2000 just larger capacity (same as the 1.6/2.0 pinto e.g.)
I’m not saying the Golf etc are in the same class I’m just pointing out that a lot of manufacturers thought hatchbacks were the way forward. Ford even did it with the Granada.
I actually agree with you that they should have offered a saloon(and estate) version of the Rover there were prototypes but they weren’t developed.

This Rover SD1 was given the go ahead in 1971 by STOKES so by your own arguments its STOKES who ruined BL by not allowing Triumph to build the 3 box saloon Puma that they wanted to.
Since when was Triumph in the BMC sector?
From 1959 when they introduced the Herald to compete against the Mini/A35/40 range of vehicles.
This continued with the 1300 Toledo range.
They even had a FWD version which, if you read the Harry Webster interview I posted, was thought to be the way forward.
Unfortunately they were making too many versions of the same body shell, the FWD, RWD short boot Toledo and the long boot Dolomite. So according to Webster for COST reasons they scrapped it. Eventually the whole range would come under the Dolomite banner.
If they had replaced the P5 surely that would have clashed with the Jaguar range.
You can waffle on all you like but it was STOKES who started the decline of Triumph as a large car manufacturer he wanted Jaguar as the premium range. Then Rover for the middle management type (like Stokes is quoted as saying You’ve arrived in a Rover). Which left Triumph making the sports car range and the smaller Dolomite (later to have been the SD2 range) sporting cars. You are the only one that mentions the 2.0/2.5 range as sports saloons they were marketed as an executive saloon, as was the P6. I’m not denying they were sporty car they even released an S version (as did Rover with the P6) and it was the 2.5 S which replaced the unreliable 2.5PI. Stokes described the large Triumph as “Rubbish when we first got them” saying “we couldn’t give them away” these are direct quotes from Stokes who obviously wasn’t as big a fan of the Triumph as you are.
You yourself have mentioned the JRT range, why would the JRT group build vehicles that were going to compete with each other

[essexpete]

I realise this is off topic in this thread but the BL decline in both truck and car industries is being discussed. How profitable were the Triumph and MG sports cars? Another example of in house competition?

[ramone]

Carryfast:

essexpete:

ramone:
Aec lorries were built to 1976 with a few orders left for Mammoth Majors supplied to the military . When Edwards took over the government were very reluctant to prop BL up and so were the banks Edwards had to plead with banks for money , the place was in disaray with many of the 50 sites needing massive investment , money of which they didnt have
The group had a central base in London where all the decisions were being made instead of the factories where they should have been made Edwards changed that he didnt take over until November 1977 the very same day the Speke factory went on strike. He changed and reduced the board by half and then started on the central office which was top heavy with high paid managers . He had walked into a company that was on the brink of closing with no money and had been run for years into the ground . Unions had taken over interviewing for new staff , you couldnt make it up

Why do I think that sounds more plausible than the other argument/account. To be fair the decline happened over a long period of time and probably it is unfair to lay the blame at the door of any one individual. What was lacking was really good leadership, without historical agendas, that could cut the deadwood and use funds more carefully for development. That need to happen with Leyland group /AEC in the early 60 and more importantly the late 60s with the BMC group. I am no expert but I have said before that it would have been difficult to dispose of deadwood/the unnecessary duplication with the predominantly Labour govt and unions of the day.

How can 1976 mean anything when you’ve got ducumented evidence of the last Marathon rolling off the line in 1979 and 1977 reg Mercurys and how can Stokes be blamed for closing AEC in 1979, when he left the job in 1975 with it still producing trucks.
Oh and remind me who was PM when those banner waving AEC Bolsheviks were trying to save their jobs and the firm.Which obviously would have been far easier if production of the Routemaster was only at that point being ‘planned’ to end as opposed to ended 11 years previously and if RR Eagle production and Scammell’s operations had all been transferred to Southall with closure of Tolpits Lane.
But no the Thatcherites and Edwardes fans still say it was all Stokes’ fault and the Labour Party wot dun it.While at the same time defending the worst mistakes of the Stokes and Labour regime in the form of the TL12 powered Marathon and T45 no hopers and Issigonis’ front wheel drive heaps.Then sending Rover and Triumph all Japanese.
You couldn’t make it up.

Its like having a conversation with a 5 year old in a playground ffs. If you looked around you would have seen a X registration MM8 running around so does that mean AEC were still producing trucks in81 , no it means old unsold stock. The decision to stop AEC production wouldnt have been made and implemented immediately . It was a run down , yes the Marathon was built until closure in may 1979 then transferred to Scammell . The Reliance was also discontinued , Leyland had the T45 being introduced in 1979 but ended up being 1980 . So what were the employees going to be building if they hadnt closed Southall , glider engines for Heathrow ? There was nothing left AEC had been run down for ten years before the last true AECs left the place . It was also a business decision due to location and high running costs of the huge site. Edwards was a top business man his biggest fault was being born 10 years too late. If he had been in charge from the start there may have been a different outcome and then not the one that would keep everyone on here happy. You keep banging on about taking over the reins at RR ffs , BL had 50 sites that were out of control and in desperate need of modernisation with no money to do just that the last thing they needed was another site producing engines they could use anyway . They had a range of vehicles both car and commercial that were out dated and in desperate need of updating again with no funds . The more i read Edwards book the more i am beginning to understand the reasons behind some of the decisions. He got the union leaders on side after a few months but he openly admitted that there were militants that were out to disrupt at every corner. Bathgate had £12 million worth of investment in new tooling installed and what did the operators do , they came out on unofficial strike because they wanted a premium rate to use it with one striker quoted has saying they will give in they always do ( can you imagine heres a brand new lorry , well i want more money to drive that ) . Well they didnt and the lost revenue from the strike was taken out of future investment in Bathgate and we all know where that ended. He mentioned a new £90 million site in Solihull being opened the most modern in Europe at the time and the workers were out virtually straight away , a dispute about dirty overalls the strike cost a small fortune but this was the trend back then . He had a meeting of over 700 people mainly union and shop stewards , he told them his plans and got great feedback apart from 5 well known to the company militants who voted against it . Edwards was a business man British Leyland was a business with no leadership no vision no discipline and no direction , over staffed and under producing out dated products that customers were turning their backs on. Edwards was brought in to change that. The alternative was to close the lot down and put over 200,000 people out of work. Do you really think if the Roadtrain had been launched with a 320 ■■■■■■■ or RR anything would have changed or your mad cap idea of taking over RR with no money to develop their engines would have made a difference . Well it didnt because BL let someone else take RR and let them have the funds down in developing costs and still it went bang . The damage had been done by previous bad management or no management at all as it were . Stokes was head of the group for a long time and this is what he created whether his doing or the management team he put in the fault was at his door . There is no point buying Edwards book CF because you never read what people write unless it goes with your way of thinking , a man that comes into multi billion pound circus and tries to untangle almost 11 years of anarchy and mayhem knows less than a bloke in Leatherhead whos best friend is his Google finger
PS anybody who is interested i suggest you buy Michael Edwards book I’m not halfway through yet but it is a very interesting and intriguing read and insight into a man that i had no opinion on before but have the upmost respect for now , thanks Anorak for putting me onto it

[dazcapri]

ramone:

Carryfast:

essexpete:

ramone:
Aec lorries were built to 1976 with a few orders left for Mammoth Majors supplied to the military . When Edwards took over the government were very reluctant to prop BL up and so were the banks Edwards had to plead with banks for money , the place was in disaray with many of the 50 sites needing massive investment , money of which they didnt have
The group had a central base in London where all the decisions were being made instead of the factories where they should have been made Edwards changed that he didnt take over until November 1977 the very same day the Speke factory went on strike. He changed and reduced the board by half and then started on the central office which was top heavy with high paid managers . He had walked into a company that was on the brink of closing with no money and had been run for years into the ground . Unions had taken over interviewing for new staff , you couldnt make it up

Why do I think that sounds more plausible than the other argument/account. To be fair the decline happened over a long period of time and probably it is unfair to lay the blame at the door of any one individual. What was lacking was really good leadership, without historical agendas, that could cut the deadwood and use funds more carefully for development. That need to happen with Leyland group /AEC in the early 60 and more importantly the late 60s with the BMC group. I am no expert but I have said before that it would have been difficult to dispose of deadwood/the unnecessary duplication with the predominantly Labour govt and unions of the day.

How can 1976 mean anything when you’ve got ducumented evidence of the last Marathon rolling off the line in 1979 and 1977 reg Mercurys and how can Stokes be blamed for closing AEC in 1979, when he left the job in 1975 with it still producing trucks.
Oh and remind me who was PM when those banner waving AEC Bolsheviks were trying to save their jobs and the firm.Which obviously would have been far easier if production of the Routemaster was only at that point being ‘planned’ to end as opposed to ended 11 years previously and if RR Eagle production and Scammell’s operations had all been transferred to Southall with closure of Tolpits Lane.
But no the Thatcherites and Edwardes fans still say it was all Stokes’ fault and the Labour Party wot dun it.While at the same time defending the worst mistakes of the Stokes and Labour regime in the form of the TL12 powered Marathon and T45 no hopers and Issigonis’ front wheel drive heaps.Then sending Rover and Triumph all Japanese.
You couldn’t make it up.

Its like having a conversation with a 5 year old in a playground ffs. If you looked around you would have seen a X registration MM8 running around so does that mean AEC were still producing trucks in81 , no it means old unsold stock. The decision to stop AEC production wouldnt have been made and implemented immediately . It was a run down , yes the Marathon was built until closure in may 1979 then transferred to Scammell . The Reliance was also discontinued , Leyland had the T45 being introduced in 1979 but ended up being 1980 . So what were the employees going to be building if they hadnt closed Southall , glider engines for Heathrow ? There was nothing left AEC had been run down for ten years before the last true AECs left the place . It was also a business decision due to location and high running costs of the huge site. Edwards was a top business man his biggest fault was being born 10 years too late. If he had been in charge from the start there may have been a different outcome and then not the one that would keep everyone on here happy. You keep banging on about taking over the reins at RR ffs , BL had 50 sites that were out of control and in desperate need of modernisation with no money to do just that the last thing they needed was another site producing engines they could use anyway . They had a range of vehicles both car and commercial that were out dated and in desperate need of updating again with no funds . The more i read Edwards book the more i am beginning to understand the reasons behind some of the decisions. He got the union leaders on side after a few months but he openly admitted that there were militants that were out to disrupt at every corner. Bathgate had £12 million worth of investment in new tooling installed and what did the operators do , they came out on unofficial strike because they wanted a premium rate to use it with one striker quoted has saying they will give in they always do ( can you imagine heres a brand new lorry , well i want more money to drive that ) . Well they didnt and the lost revenue from the strike was taken out of future investment in Bathgate and we all know where that ended. He mentioned a new £90 million site in Solihull being opened the most modern in Europe at the time and the workers were out virtually straight away , a dispute about dirty overalls the strike cost a small fortune but this was the trend back then . He had a meeting of over 700 people mainly union and shop stewards , he told them his plans and got great feedback apart from 5 well known to the company militants who voted against it . Edwards was a business man British Leyland was a business with no leadership no vision no discipline and no direction , over staffed and under producing out dated products that customers were turning their backs on. Edwards was brought in to change that. The alternative was to close the lot down and put over 200,000 people out of work. Do you really think if the Roadtrain had been launched with a 320 ■■■■■■■ or RR anything would have changed or your mad cap idea of taking over RR with no money to develop their engines would have made a difference . Well it didnt because BL let someone else take RR and let them have the funds down in developing costs and still it went bang . The damage had been done by previous bad management or no management at all as it were . Stokes was head of the group for a long time and this is what he created whether his doing or the management team he put in the fault was at his door . There is no point buying Edwards book CF because you never read what people write unless it goes with your way of thinking , a man that comes into multi billion pound circus and tries to untangle almost 11 years of anarchy and mayhem knows less than a bloke in Leatherhead whos best friend is his Google finger
PS anybody who is interested i suggest you buy Michael Edwards book I’m not halfway through yet but it is a very interesting and intriguing read and insight into a man that i had no opinion on before but have the upmost respect for now , thanks Anorak for putting me onto it

When I worked at the Rover garage we had 2 MG Maestros(1 black 1 red) that stood in the showroom for a year and they been in the compound for at least 6 months. By the time they sold them the black one was 18 months old and the red one nearly 2 years old and they were both the older models because the newer version had been released

[carryfast]

dazcapri:
The 2.5 pi was DROPPED by Triumph in 1975 because it was unreliable so HOW could it have been a BMW beater.
The 2.5 engine was the same Block as the 2000 just larger capacity (same as the 1.6/2.0 pinto e.g.)
I’m not saying the Golf etc are in the same class I’m just pointing out that a lot of manufacturers thought hatchbacks were the way forward. Ford even did it with the Granada.
I actually agree with you that they should have offered a saloon(and estate) version of the Rover there were prototypes but they weren’t developed.

This Rover SD1 was given the go ahead in 1971 by STOKES so by your own arguments its STOKES who ruined BL by not allowing Triumph to build the 3 box saloon Puma that they wanted to.
Since when was Triumph in the BMC sector?
From 1959 when they introduced the Herald to compete against the Mini/A35/40 range of vehicles.
This continued with the 1300 Toledo range.
They even had a FWD version which, if you read the Harry Webster interview I posted, was thought to be the way forward.
Unfortunately they were making too many versions of the same body shell, the FWD, RWD short boot Toledo and the long boot Dolomite. So according to Webster for COST reasons they scrapped it. Eventually the whole range would come under the Dolomite banner.
If they had replaced the P5 surely that would have clashed with the Jaguar range.
You can waffle on all you like but it was STOKES who started the decline of Triumph as a large car manufacturer he wanted Jaguar as the premium range. Then Rover for the middle management type (like Stokes is quoted as saying You’ve arrived in a Rover). Which left Triumph making the sports car range and the smaller Dolomite (later to have been the SD2 range) sporting cars. You are the only one that mentions the 2.0/2.5 range as sports saloons they were marketed as an executive saloon, as was the P6. I’m not denying they were sporty car they even released an S version (as did Rover with the P6) and it was the 2.5 S which replaced the unreliable 2.5PI. Stokes described the large Triumph as “Rubbish when we first got them” saying “we couldn’t give them away” these are direct quotes from Stokes who obviously wasn’t as big a fan of the Triumph as you are.
You yourself have mentioned the JRT range, why would the JRT group build vehicles that were going to compete with each other

How does a ‘group’ supposedly ‘compete’ with each other.The clue is in the word group.Rover sells a car that revenue all goes in the same collective pot as a Triumph sale.The idea of competition within a group is an oxymoron.
Mercedes and BMW were competitors not Rover and Triumph.
Strange how gingerfold’s correct idea of brand loyalty matters between AEC and Leyland but not Rover and Triumph.
Good luck with fitting a 2.5 crankshaft in a 2000 block who told you they were the same engines other than interchangeable heads.You couldn’t even use the auto version’s crankshaft with a manual box let alone drop the long stroke 2.5 crank into the 2000 block.It was the bores and bore spacing which was kept the same just like a 154 mm stroke 690 would have done.That’s another advantage of stroked engines.
Yeah right Stokes hated the Triumph so much he said let’s go for the 2.5 development.
How does the 3.5 Litre P5 compete with the 4.2 Jaguar.Jaguar and Rover were never in competition and even if they were all the profits are being ploughed back into the group so what’s your problem between customers choosing a Rover or a Triumph or a Jag.A sale for the group is a sale at the end of the day and even if there was some duplication that just means more customer choice not a lost sale for the group.
We’re obviously not talking about a Lucas injected or even the old 2.5 engine for the new 2.6 and 4.0 PI in 1977.
The 2.5 wasn’t an executive saloon it was Leyland’s only sports saloon 5 series competitor.
Yes lots of manufacturers went for the ugly silly hatchback designs and equally lots of their customers then switched to BMW and Mercedes continuing three box saloon designs.Executives don’t like travelling with their luggage and only boy racers who can’t sort out the difference between a shopping car v a proper performance saloon like hatchbacks.That’s why the 3,5 and 7 series are still there but the SD1 isn’t.
Let alone then going full ■■■■■■ Jap crap front wheel drive.
Yes Triumph did mess around with front wheel drive heaps remind me what was the 1500 U turn all about.
You really think that the Acclaim was better than the Dolomite.
Like the 2.5/SD1/800 saloon debacle it was clearly a sabotage attempt to remove any competition to the BMW 3 series.
The rest is history.But what is certain is that none of it happened on Stokes’ watch or on Stokes’ orders.

[carryfast]

essexpete:
I realise this is off topic in this thread but the BL decline in both truck and car industries is being discussed. How profitable were the Triumph and MG sports cars? Another example of in house competition?

How is it ‘in house’ competition when its a joint bank account that the same profits are all going into.The idea of Competition within a group an oxymoron.
MGC and TR6 and MGB V8 and TR8 all had a business case for their continuing simultaneous production as a ‘GROUP’ enterprise.Not competition but choice to meet brand loyalties among a wide customer base.
Not making best use of all those models was all part of the same laughable sabotage plan.As was putting a pathetic 4 cylinder engine not even the 16 valve Sprint engine in the TR7.
Leyland had all the tools it needed in the form of the 7 bearing C series and Rover V8 and the Jag V12.While the new Triumph 2.3 and 2.6 were also good enough to bring to the party in the right car ( not the SD1 ).All development costs paid for.
Add all that to the TL12 not RR Eagle going in the T45 at launch that’s mainland European post war recovery conspiracy not ■■■■ up.

[carryfast]

dazcapri:
When I worked at the Rover garage we had 2 MG Maestros(1 black 1 red) that stood in the showroom for a year and they been in the compound for at least 6 months. By the time they sold them the black one was 18 months old and the red one nearly 2 years old

No one wanted pathetic 4 cylinder front wheel drive BMC heaps.Who would have thought it.
( BMW laugh all the way to the bank as 3 series sales increase ).

[zb_anorak]

This is especially entertaining:

Carryfast:
In the mid 70’s and even the 80’s on the three box saloon was the default premium car choice.Even Ford and Opel’s Premium saloons.

…apart from Citroen, Saab, Fiat, Renault, Lancia and anything with an estate back. Oh, and the Rover SD1, which was very popular.

Carryfast:
How do you put Rover and Triumph into the VW Golf ■■■■■■ and Sierra market sector.
The clue is Leylands premium brands.

What?

Carryfast:
In what way was the 2.5 PI let alone Rover V8 the same engine as the 2000.
Just like BMW 518 v 528-535i.
Same bodyshell and similar suspension but totally different cars and market sectors.

Piffle. The market sectors are governed by the vehicle itself, not the engine or trim options. That’s why they give them similar names, like 5 Series, for customers who can’t see that they are all the same shape. The Triumph 2000 and 2500 shared the same 1963 shell. There was no V8 version- you made that up.

Carryfast:
Or for that matter 728-735 exec barges.
It’s obvious that the SD1 in no way fitted the bill of Rover just do the exec barges let alone the Acclaim fitted Triumph do the performance cars.
In fact the SD1 Vittesse not only nicked the Triumph performance brand name it also turned the whole plan upside down with an ugly hatchback retrograde product to add insult to injury.

This is absolute balderdash. The SD1 was and is universally acclaimed for its styling, its road manners and the versatility afforded by the rear door. I wonder how many Granada Estate sales it snatched off Ford?

Carryfast:
It was a corrupted interpretation of the whole plan which derailed the whole JRT premium group.

Jaguar and Rover were still trading long after the SD1 had been replaced.

Carryfast:
As I said Triumph 2.5 saloon based 2.3, 2.6 PI and V8 Vittesse.That’s the 5 series covered.
BMC C series and V8 powered Rover P5 replacement using the Westminster name.That’s the 7 series sector covered.
BMC do the Acclaim why Triumph.Since when was Triumph meant to be in the BMC market sector.

That fitted the stated plan and kept the right products in their correct intended market sectors.

What we actually saw was sabotage of the most profitable premium brands of the car division after Stokes had gone.
Just like the TL12 powered T45 did with the truck division.

The Triumph shell was way past its sell-by date, by 1975. It would have made a joke 5 Series competitor. The SD1, on the other hand, was a viable alternative to many 5 and 7 series variants.

Carryfast:
Jaguar luckily escaped.Only to end up screwed by Ford ( effectively Ford Germany ).
Effectively making sure there’d be no more V12 powered competition for BMW and Merc from there.

Jaguar is still making cars in GB. Screwed up is the last phrase you would use to describe it. The Land Rover side of it is especially successful, earning silly prices all over the world for its products.

[carryfast]

[zb]
anorak:
This is especially entertaining:

Carryfast:
In the mid 70’s and even the 80’s on the three box saloon was the default premium car choice.Even Ford and Opel’s Premium saloons.

…apart from Citroen, Saab, Fiat, Renault, Lancia and anything with an estate back. Oh, and the Rover SD1, which was very popular.

Carryfast:
How do you put Rover and Triumph into the VW Golf ■■■■■■ and Sierra market sector.
The clue is Leylands premium brands.

What?

Carryfast:
In what way was the 2.5 PI let alone Rover V8 the same engine as the 2000.
Just like BMW 518 v 528-535i.
Same bodyshell and similar suspension but totally different cars and market sectors.

Piffle. The market sectors are governed by the vehicle itself, not the engine or trim options. That’s why they give them similar names, like 5 Series, for customers who can’t see that they are all the same shape. The Triumph 2000 and 2500 shared the same 1963 shell. There was no V8 version- you made that up.

Carryfast:
Or for that matter 728-735 exec barges.
It’s obvious that the SD1 in no way fitted the bill of Rover just do the exec barges let alone the Acclaim fitted Triumph do the performance cars.
In fact the SD1 Vittesse not only nicked the Triumph performance brand name it also turned the whole plan upside down with an ugly hatchback retrograde product to add insult to injury.

This is absolute balderdash. The SD1 was and is universally acclaimed for its styling, its road manners and the versatility afforded by the rear door. I wonder how many Granada Estate sales it snatched off Ford?

Carryfast:
It was a corrupted interpretation of the whole plan which derailed the whole JRT premium group.

Jaguar and Rover were still trading long after the SD1 had been replaced.

Carryfast:
As I said Triumph 2.5 saloon based 2.3, 2.6 PI and V8 Vittesse.That’s the 5 series covered.
BMC C series and V8 powered Rover P5 replacement using the Westminster name.That’s the 7 series sector covered.
BMC do the Acclaim why Triumph.Since when was Triumph meant to be in the BMC market sector.

That fitted the stated plan and kept the right products in their correct intended market sectors.

What we actually saw was sabotage of the most profitable premium brands of the car division after Stokes had gone.
Just like the TL12 powered T45 did with the truck division.

The Triumph shell was way past its sell-by date, by 1975. It would have made a joke 5 Series competitor. The SD1, on the other hand, was a viable alternative to many 5 and 7 series variants.

Carryfast:
Jaguar luckily escaped.Only to end up screwed by Ford ( effectively Ford Germany ).
Effectively making sure there’d be no more V12 powered competition for BMW and Merc from there.

Jaguar is still making cars in GB. Screwed up is the last phrase you would use to describe it. The Land Rover side of it is especially successful, earning silly prices all over the world for its products.

Remind me why Ford ditched Jaguar.
Oh wait.Lost sales of those who rightly thought that a V6 and a V8 has no place in a Jaguar.Jaguars should only have multiples of inline 6 and nothing under 4 litres.
theguardian.com/business/200 … y.motoring

You really think that the ugly live axle hatchback SD1 followed by the even worse front drive 800 were in any way BMW 5 series competitors.Remind me what happened to the SD1 and 800 v 5 series.Since when were Citroen and FIAT etc premium brands.

Why was the Rover 600/75 not a hatchback like the SD1 and 800.Effectively a return to 3 box styling followed by an even more desperate heroic attempt to return to the rear wheel drive V8 configuration by converting the 75 at too much cost unfortunately.

In what way was the 1970 introduced Triumph Mk2 saloon ‘outdated’ by 1975 when the 1972 introduced 5 series was just getting its 6 cylinder options in 1977.It did everything its 5 series competitor could do with more room and superior rack and pinion steering with an estate option.It just needed the Rover V8 option in it together with the updated Triumph designed 2.3 and 2.6 engines.I know there wasn’t a V8 version of the the Triumph 2.5 because Edwardes didn’t want there to be.

You seem to have problems with differentiating an estate from a hatchback design.Here’s a clue the 3 and 5 series tourers were always better premium sellers than any Rover hatchback ever was.But the executive sector rarely likes to travel with its luggage.
You seem to have no class when it comes to your taste in motors or the correct demands of the premium/performance brand clientele.
I can just imagine you moaning because you couldn’t find a mug who’d want to buy your front wheel drive Allegro and Citroen and Triumph Acclaim and Saab.When you thought that each would be an improvement on the previous one.

Also no one seemed to be listening when you told them that there was nothing wrong with the TL12 at 38t gross it just needs the intercooler upgrade coming soon it’ll be fine.

[zb_anorak]

Carryfast:
Remind me why Ford ditched Jaguar.

Errrr… Dunno. Was it because Tata thought they could do a better job of it than Ford, and Ford agreed?

Carryfast:
Oh wait.Lost sales of those who rightly thought that a V6 and a V8 has no place in a Jaguar.Jaguars should only have multiples of inline 6 and nothing under 4 litres.
theguardian.com/business/200 … y.motoring

The Honda V6 would have been a good choice for the XJ6. What is the advantage of a 12 cylinder engine over a V8? I guess smaller cylinders mean a shorter stroke, so smoother running at high RPM. Go on then- I’ll take one.

Carryfast:
You really think that the ugly live axle hatchback SD1 followed by the even worse front drive 800 were in any way BMW 5 series competitors.Remind me what happened to the SD1 and 800 v 5 series.Since when were Citroen and FIAT etc premium brands.

Why was the Rover 600/75 not a hatchback like the SD1 and 800.Effectively a return to 3 box styling followed by an even more desperate heroic attempt to return to the rear wheel drive V8 configuration by converting the 75 at too much cost unfortunately.

You are still making the mistake of thinking the SD1 was “ugly”. Everyone else says it is very stylish. It was a direct competitor to the 5 series- check the figures. Citroens have far superior engineering to any of those old British clunkers.

Carryfast:
In what way was the 1970 introduced Triumph Mk2 saloon ‘outdated’ by 1975 when the 1972 introduced 5 series was just getting its 6 cylinder options in 1977.It did everything its 5 series competitor could do with more room and superior rack and pinion steering with an estate option.It just needed the Rover V8 option in it together with the updated Triumph designed 2.3 and 2.6 engines.I know there wasn’t a V8 version of the the Triumph 2.5 because Edwardes didn’t want there to be.

The Triumph Mk2 was a mild update of the 1963 one. They rolled and wallowed like tugboats in storms, had asthmatic engines and looked horrible. Those early 5 series BMWs were the business- massively superior, in every way. I nearly bought a 528 (Would have meant blowing my student grant in one hit. I was overcome by common sense at the wrong moment, and invested it in beer instead). On the test drive, I thought it had really good steering. So what if Top Trumps says an obsolete British old man’s car has better steering?

Carryfast:
You seem to have problems with differentiating an estate from a hatchback design.Here’s a clue the 3 and 5 series tourers were always better premium sellers than any Rover hatchback ever was.But the executive sector rarely likes to travel with its luggage.
You seem to have no class when it comes to your taste in motors or the correct demands of the premium/performance brand clientele…

HAhaha!! Have you got sales figures to back that lot up? I bet not.

Carryfast:
Also no one seemed to be listening when you told them that there was nothing wrong with the TL12 at 38t gross it just needs the intercooler upgrade coming soon it’ll be fine.

[newmercman]

Carryfast, your whole argument appears to be that the TL12 should’ve been a Paccar MX13 with a Rolls Royce badge, the Triumph 2.5pi should’ve had the 3.5 V8 so you could have a burn up with a 535i, the BL workforce worked to German standards and Donald Stokes had god like qualities. To that you recently added that AEC should’ve carried on building the Routemaster for another 11yrs.

Well as this all started with the TL12, let’s start there, anecdotes all claim that the TL12 was a flying machine, I’ve never heard of anything problematic about it, the same applies to the T45, the only negative things I’ve heard about that are gearbox related and it’s infamy regarding the whine from the diff, that’s it.

Yes the TL12 was as far as you could go with the basic engine design, but so was the V8 fitted in the completely new 4 series Scania, to raise BHP from 530 to 580 Scania, despite all their experience, knowledge and money had to raise capacity from 14 to 16 litres, nobody had a problem with using the 14 litre engine at the launch of the 4 series, even though the engine design was at the end of it’s life. What’s the difference between that and a T45? Nothing, it’s exactly the same, except Scania had already isolated itself from its money hemorrhaging car division, having off loaded Saab to GM, yet it still launched a completely new range, after 15yrs of the 2/3 series with the same basic engine design as the LB series in 1969 or thereabouts. They used that until 2000ish, so a 30yr lifespan and around 25yrs between the first and last model launches to use the basic engine design. That’s the same timeline as 1950 to 1975/1980.

Now to cover pretty much all of the rest of your argument. Who was in charge while the Mini continued to lose money on every sale? While the arguments about the V8 going into Triumph cars were going on? While the decision to change the wage structure or the colour of the toilet paper or whatever it was that caused the workers to go on strike? Who was in charge when Rover designed and built the, in your mind disastrous, SD1? Who was in charge of BL car, bus and truck divisions while the decisions that led up to it’s eventual catastrophic failure were made?

Here’s a clue, it wasn’t Edwardes.

[dazcapri]

Carryfast:

[zb]
anorak:
This is especially entertaining:

Carryfast:
In the mid 70’s and even the 80’s on the three box saloon was the default premium car choice.Even Ford and Opel’s Premium saloons.

…apart from Citroen, Saab, Fiat, Renault, Lancia and anything with an estate back. Oh, and the Rover SD1, which was very popular.

Carryfast:
How do you put Rover and Triumph into the VW Golf ■■■■■■ and Sierra market sector.
The clue is Leylands premium brands.

What?

Carryfast:
In what way was the 2.5 PI let alone Rover V8 the same engine as the 2000.
Just like BMW 518 v 528-535i.
Same bodyshell and similar suspension but totally different cars and market sectors.

Piffle. The market sectors are governed by the vehicle itself, not the engine or trim options. That’s why they give them similar names, like 5 Series, for customers who can’t see that they are all the same shape. The Triumph 2000 and 2500 shared the same 1963 shell. There was no V8 version- you made that up.

Carryfast:
Or for that matter 728-735 exec barges.
It’s obvious that the SD1 in no way fitted the bill of Rover just do the exec barges let alone the Acclaim fitted Triumph do the performance cars.
In fact the SD1 Vittesse not only nicked the Triumph performance brand name it also turned the whole plan upside down with an ugly hatchback retrograde product to add insult to injury.

This is absolute balderdash. The SD1 was and is universally acclaimed for its styling, its road manners and the versatility afforded by the rear door. I wonder how many Granada Estate sales it snatched off Ford?

Carryfast:
It was a corrupted interpretation of the whole plan which derailed the whole JRT premium group.

Jaguar and Rover were still trading long after the SD1 had been replaced.

Carryfast:
As I said Triumph 2.5 saloon based 2.3, 2.6 PI and V8 Vittesse.That’s the 5 series covered.
BMC C series and V8 powered Rover P5 replacement using the Westminster name.That’s the 7 series sector covered.
BMC do the Acclaim why Triumph.Since when was Triumph meant to be in the BMC market sector.

That fitted the stated plan and kept the right products in their correct intended market sectors.

What we actually saw was sabotage of the most profitable premium brands of the car division after Stokes had gone.
Just like the TL12 powered T45 did with the truck division.

The Triumph shell was way past its sell-by date, by 1975. It would have made a joke 5 Series competitor. The SD1, on the other hand, was a viable alternative to many 5 and 7 series variants.

Carryfast:
Jaguar luckily escaped.Only to end up screwed by Ford ( effectively Ford Germany ).
Effectively making sure there’d be no more V12 powered competition for BMW and Merc from there.

Jaguar is still making cars in GB. Screwed up is the last phrase you would use to describe it. The Land Rover side of it is especially successful, earning silly prices all over the world for its products.

Remind me why Ford ditched Jaguar.
Oh wait.Lost sales of those who rightly thought that a V6 and a V8 has no place in a Jaguar.Jaguars should only have multiples of inline 6 and nothing under 4 litres.
theguardian.com/business/200 … y.motoring

You really think that the ugly live axle hatchback SD1 followed by the even worse front drive 800 were in any way BMW 5 series competitors.Remind me what happened to the SD1 and 800 v 5 series.Since when were Citroen and FIAT etc premium brands.

Why was the Rover 600/75 not a hatchback like the SD1 and 800.Effectively a return to 3 box styling followed by an even more desperate heroic attempt to return to the rear wheel drive V8 configuration by converting the 75 at too much cost unfortunately.

In what way was the 1970 introduced Triumph Mk2 saloon ‘outdated’ by 1975 when the 1972 introduced 5 series was just getting its 6 cylinder options in 1977.It did everything its 5 series competitor could do with more room and superior rack and pinion steering with an estate option.It just needed the Rover V8 option in it together with the updated Triumph designed 2.3 and 2.6 engines.I know there wasn’t a V8 version of the the Triumph 2.5 because Edwardes didn’t want there to be.

You seem to have problems with differentiating an estate from a hatchback design.Here’s a clue the 3 and 5 series tourers were always better premium sellers than any Rover hatchback ever was.But the executive sector rarely likes to travel with its luggage.
You seem to have no class when it comes to your taste in motors or the correct demands of the premium/performance brand clientele.
I can just imagine you moaning because you couldn’t find a mug who’d want to buy your front wheel drive Allegro and Citroen and Triumph Acclaim and Saab.When you thought that each would be an improvement on the previous one.

Also no one seemed to be listening when you told them that there was nothing wrong with the TL12 at 38t gross it just needs the intercooler upgrade coming soon it’ll be fine.

The 5 series BMW was updated in 1981 and again in 1988 but the tourer wasn’t introduced until 1990.

The 1963 introduced mk1 was actually updated into the mk2 in 1969 and like the mk3/4/5 Cortina retained the same basic running gear and chassis. The mk2 was basically a face lift of the mk1 triumph with a few mechanical changes.
I thought you previously said it was Spen King who stopped Triumph using the Rover v8 engine, you know Spen King the man who actually designed the first triumph (the gt6 replacement) to be fitted with a Rover V8.
Edwardes didnt want Triumph to use the V8 is this the same Edwardes who let them use it in the TR8.
More to the point how did he stop them when the car was OUT OF PRODUCTION when he started at the company
I don’t know what you don’t understand about the 1971 meeting chaired by STOKES that decided to stop making the big Triumph saloons in favour of the SD1.
In any case what sensible business man would spend money on a 14 year old design after the firm had spent millions of pounds designing and building its replacement.
STOKES ENDED PRODUCTION OF THE TRIUMPH anything else is just bs.

[carryfast]

[zb]
anorak:

Carryfast:
Remind me why Ford ditched Jaguar.

Errrr… Dunno. Was it because Tata thought they could do a better job of it than Ford, and Ford agreed?

Carryfast:
Oh wait.Lost sales of those who rightly thought that a V6 and a V8 has no place in a Jaguar.Jaguars should only have multiples of inline 6 and nothing under 4 litres.
theguardian.com/business/200 … y.motoring

The Honda V6 would have been a good choice for the XJ6. What is the advantage of a 12 cylinder engine over a V8? I guess smaller cylinders mean a shorter stroke, so smoother running at high RPM. Go on then- I’ll take one.

Carryfast:
You really think that the ugly live axle hatchback SD1 followed by the even worse front drive 800 were in any way BMW 5 series competitors.Remind me what happened to the SD1 and 800 v 5 series.Since when were Citroen and FIAT etc premium brands.

Why was the Rover 600/75 not a hatchback like the SD1 and 800.Effectively a return to 3 box styling followed by an even more desperate heroic attempt to return to the rear wheel drive V8 configuration by converting the 75 at too much cost unfortunately.

You are still making the mistake of thinking the SD1 was “ugly”. Everyone else says it is very stylish. It was a direct competitor to the 5 series- check the figures. Citroens have far superior engineering to any of those old British clunkers.

Carryfast:
In what way was the 1970 introduced Triumph Mk2 saloon ‘outdated’ by 1975 when the 1972 introduced 5 series was just getting its 6 cylinder options in 1977.It did everything its 5 series competitor could do with more room and superior rack and pinion steering with an estate option.It just needed the Rover V8 option in it together with the updated Triumph designed 2.3 and 2.6 engines.I know there wasn’t a V8 version of the the Triumph 2.5 because Edwardes didn’t want there to be.

The Triumph Mk2 was a mild update of the 1963 one. They rolled and wallowed like tugboats in storms, had asthmatic engines and looked horrible. Those early 5 series BMWs were the business- massively superior, in every way. I nearly bought a 528 (Would have meant blowing my student grant in one hit. I was overcome by common sense at the wrong moment, and invested it in beer instead). On the test drive, I thought it had really good steering. So what if Top Trumps says an obsolete British old man’s car has better steering?

Carryfast:
You seem to have problems with differentiating an estate from a hatchback design.Here’s a clue the 3 and 5 series tourers were always better premium sellers than any Rover hatchback ever was.But the executive sector rarely likes to travel with its luggage.
You seem to have no class when it comes to your taste in motors or the correct demands of the premium/performance brand clientele…

HAhaha!! Have you got sales figures to back that lot up? I bet not.

Carryfast:
Also no one seemed to be listening when you told them that there was nothing wrong with the TL12 at 38t gross it just needs the intercooler upgrade coming soon it’ll be fine.

Did you actually read the article regarding the losses incurred by Jaguar under Ford.
Yeah right ditch the Ford V6 and small V8 and put a Honda V6 in it instead that’ll have the customers rushing back from the nearest BMW or Merc dealers offering the choice of proper inline 6 to V12.A 6 litre V12 has the same volume cylinders as Ford’s 4 litre V8 which started the damage together with the pathetic V6’s.While 33% more cylinders with around 10% less stroke is obviously a win.Also no problem to fit an even larger 84mm stroke crankshaft in the Jag V12 block either.Which is how Jaguar won Le Mans with an NA engine v forced induction competition.So Ford ( Germany ) said no more Jag V12’s that would obviously upset the BMW and Merc kameraden.

How was BMW’s semi trailing arm IRS and McPherson front with steering box supposedly massively superior in every way to Triumph’s semi trailing arm IRS McPherson front with rack and pinion.All the around 2.5 litre 6 cylinder engines in the day were asthmatic at best BMW’s M30 in 2.5 litre form not being significantly better than the pushrod Triumph 2.5 .So why wouldn’t you want to put the Rover V8 in it unless you wanted to help BMW.

So you like Citroens, you think a V12 isn’t superior to a V8.You think the same chassis spec with inferior steering is massively better so long as it has a BMW badge and you think the TL12 would have been ok at 38t gross so long as you can find somewhere to put the extra head fasteners and customers don’t mind almost AEC V8 type end bearing wear.Keep going.