The Carryfast engine design discussion

UK PROFESSIONAL DRIVERS FORUMS OLD TIME LORRIES, COMPANIES AND DRIVERS (INTERACT
801

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 ).[/quote

Actually they were a hot hatch there main rivals were the likes of the Astra GTE and Ford ■■■■■■ XR2/3 etc.
We mostly sold Family cars, we had 3 generations (i.e. Grandparents, Parents and children from the same family) coming to buy cars from us but performance cars weren’t our thing. Then the insurance companies went silly with their prices which didn’t help.

802

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 ).

Were not some of the front wheel drive heaps best sellers at the start of the 70s?

803

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.

The TL12 was introduced in 1973 and was foreseeably a pile of useless junk by 1983 so not exactly the Scania V8 gestation and development saga.
Yep it was a flying machine compared to a Gardner 6 XLB in 1973.Borderline v an 8LXB though so even Bewick has to be right occasionally.
Not so good at 38t gross in 1983 though compared to a 290 - ‘340’ RR.

You must have missed the bit that Stokes wanted the Rover V8 put in the Stag but Spen King said doing that would run Rover out of supplies.Although he had no problem supplying MG and Morgan.Webster said it would be a ‘difficult fit’ but he also said no way to the small V8.The old 2.5 6 would do a better job.He at no time said he wouldn’t fit the Rover if King had given it to him.

The Mini you mean the same front wheel drive junk along with 1100 and Allegro that Anorak says saved the firm.

Stokes didn’t have the remit to close down BMC that would have been the NEB and the government owners.The Ryder report also said no for some reason.Stokes being on his way out of the job then so that was also moot in his case.

Just like bringing RR on board in 1976.You know the year that the T45 was signed off and 4 years before its introduction and 1 year after Stokes had stepped down as CEO and 1 year before Edwardes started but who was in the more powerful position as boss of NEB at that point so perfectly situated to bring in RR well in time for its fitment as standard in the T45 at launch covering all needs from 265 to 300 +.
So remind me what did Edwardes do in 1977-82.Other than wrecked Rover and Triumph and closed AEC and gave us the TL12 powered Roadtrain shortly before the foreseeable move to 38t gross.

804

essexpete:

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 ).

Were not some of the front wheel drive heaps best sellers at the start of the 70s?

Yes and it was the BMC 1100/1300 over and over again in the mid/late 1960s. 1963 - 1966 and 1968- 1971 with more than half of the 2 million produced being sold in the UK. So, given that some customers were repeat buyers that makes several hundred thousand people CF will no doubt insult.

805

dazcapri:
Actually they were a hot hatch there main rivals were the likes of the Astra GTE and Ford ■■■■■■ XR2/3 etc.
We mostly sold Family cars, we had 3 generations (i.e. Grandparents, Parents and children from the same family) coming to buy cars from us but performance cars weren’t our thing. Then the insurance companies went silly with their prices which didn’t help.

It was actually a 13 grand 5 door fwd torque steering and weaving zb box that no one with any sense would have wanted to drive at the ton let alone 125 mph max.
When for another 5 grand you could have a 131 mph rwd BMW 325 estate.With more space and better residual value.

806

cav551:

essexpete:
Were not some of the front wheel drive heaps best sellers at the start of the 70s?

Yes and it was the BMC 1100/1300 over and over again in the mid/late 1960s. 1963 - 1966 and 1968- 1971 with more than half of the 2 million produced being sold in the UK. So, given that some customers were repeat buyers that makes several hundred thousand people CF will no doubt insult.

Yep suicidally discounted desperation sales which Leyland and dealers lost money on every sale.
Sales volume doesn’t = profit.
While isolated sales of fwd junk doesn’t reflect the combined sales of all the different rwd types.
Top sellers 1968
151,146 1100/1300
86,190 Mini

137,636 Cortina.
101,000 Viva
98,218 ■■■■■■
Rootes Arrow range 76,375
Victor/Ventora 40,128
31,000 Corsair
30,000 Farina Cambridge
29,900 Herald Vitesse
28,000 Morris Minor
22,528 Rover 2000/3.5
19,988 Zodiac Mk4
15,648 Triumph 2000/2.5
13,951 Anglia
6,825 Triumph Sports types
5,798 MGB/MGC
4,294 Rover P5

So 661,289 rwd types sales v 237,336 fwd.
With 336,854 accounted for by Cortina,Viva,■■■■■■ alone.

I actually grew up around the the motor trade in the day.Our household bills depended on the earnings which my Dad and his business partner earned from what they sold.BMC fwd heaps were generally hated by dealers, mechanics and punters alike.That mantra served me well through my own car ownership.
Although to be fair the Zafira 1.8 has been an exception proving rules so far but very low miles run from new so not exactly a fair comparison.

807

Carryfast, do you argue with your own shadow?

Spen King said this, Webster said that, blah, blah, blah. Remind me again who their boss was, you know, the man at the top, the big cheese, the head honcho, chairman of the board, the CEO, the man that was supposed to make use of the abundance of talent and resources at his disposal and create a market leader in every segment.

Again I’ll give you a clue, it was the same man that allowed internal fighting and squabbling to the detriment of both parties in the case of the Stag and SD1, Rover engines, Triumph suspension respectively and both would have benefited immensely. The same man that didn’t recognize brand loyalty and let Austin and Morris, AEC and Leyland fight it out while backing what he considered to be the winning horse. The same man that failed to recognize the golden egg that was the Range Rover, the one that is to this day one of the top ten desirable brands in the automotive world. The same man that oversaw the bad decisions that led to an unhappy workforce which led to the unions gaining strength. The same man that allowed those unions to take control of the whole empire, that man.

And that’s a small example to keep this post from crashing the servers.

808

newmercman:
Carryfast, do you argue with your own shadow?

Spen King said this, Webster said that, blah, blah, blah. Remind me again who their boss was, you know, the man at the top, the big cheese, the head honcho, chairman of the board, the CEO, the man that was supposed to make use of the abundance of talent and resources at his disposal and create a market leader in every segment.

Again I’ll give you a clue, it was the same man that allowed internal fighting and squabbling to the detriment of both parties in the case of the Stag and SD1, Rover engines, Triumph suspension respectively and both would have benefited immensely. The same man that didn’t recognize brand loyalty and let Austin and Morris, AEC and Leyland fight it out while backing what he considered to be the winning horse. The same man that failed to recognize the golden egg that was the Range Rover, the one that is to this day one of the top ten desirable brands in the automotive world. The same man that oversaw the bad decisions that led to an unhappy workforce which led to the unions gaining strength. The same man that allowed those unions to take control of the whole empire, that man.

And that’s a small example to keep this post from crashing the servers.

The size of the task when Edwards took over was mammoth, they had a central control in London then another control centre in Coventry making decisions for factories miles away. He had the job of keeping the good and losing the ones that weren’t up to the job and apparently there were lots of both. One of his biggest problems were the staunch militants that were scattered around the company. There were over 200000 people employed and the place had spiraled out of control, like you already said there was only one bloke who allowed this to happen the blame is at his door because he let it happen . It is always easier not to do something than to do it !

809

Carryfast:
While isolated sales of fwd junk doesn’t reflect the combined sales of all the different rwd types.

Bringing this up to date then, if we look at the best selling cars in the UK during 2019, do tell us how many RWD model cars are in the top ten.

So are all these purchasers idiots because they don’t agree with you?

810

I do remember watching an interview with Tony Benn, who was saying how crazy it was to have so many plants spread over such a wide area, it was a government scheme to bring employment to areas that had lost other industries and had skilled trades out of work or something like that, can’t remember the name, but I’m sure somebody will Google it. After watching the clip I formed a completely different view of Benn, a far more positive one than the one I’d had.

In light of that, it’s clear that Stokes had a daunting task in keeping it altogether, one that was too much for him to handle, made worse by the fact that he never got to grips with even one of the many departments, unlike the CEOs of multinationals that have plants all over the globe and manage to keep on top of things, Stokes was out of his depth, it’s as simple as that. It was under his tenure that the tail started to wag the dog and that, not bore/stroke ratios, which end the wheels were driven or any of the multitude of other poor decisions that were made which sunk BL.

811

newmercman:
I do remember watching an interview with Tony Benn, who was saying how crazy it was to have so many plants spread over such a wide area, it was a government scheme to bring employment to areas that had lost other industries and had skilled trades out of work or something like that, can’t remember the name, but I’m sure somebody will Google it. After watching the clip I formed a completely different view of Benn, a far more positive one than the one I’d had.

In light of that, it’s clear that Stokes had a daunting task in keeping it altogether, one that was too much for him to handle, made worse by the fact that he never got to grips with even one of the many departments, unlike the CEOs of multinationals that have plants all over the globe and manage to keep on top of things, Stokes was out of his depth, it’s as simple as that. It was under his tenure that the tail started to wag the dog and that, not bore/stroke ratios, which end the wheels were driven or any of the multitude of other poor decisions that were made which sunk BL.

^^^^
Superb comment.

It is so fashionable to denigrate certain politicians who held controversial views because they are shouted down and popular opinion agrees with who shouts loudest; it then becomes all their opinions are wrong. Equally popular is the view that it was the shop floor who were to blame for the labour relations situation. It cannot solely be a case of sheep following a militant leader without there being substance to an on-growing severe problem with the ability of the management. It is the management’s job to prevent a situation arising. Yes certainly there were stupid, petty and ridiculous disputes which got out of control, but these must have been generated by a sense of mistrust leading to outright hostility. The Japanese didn’t have these issues with labour relations. Generate a team and there is no us and them.

812

cav551:

newmercman:
I do remember watching an interview with Tony Benn, who was saying how crazy it was to have so many plants spread over such a wide area, it was a government scheme to bring employment to areas that had lost other industries and had skilled trades out of work or something like that, can’t remember the name, but I’m sure somebody will Google it. After watching the clip I formed a completely different view of Benn, a far more positive one than the one I’d had.

In light of that, it’s clear that Stokes had a daunting task in keeping it altogether, one that was too much for him to handle, made worse by the fact that he never got to grips with even one of the many departments, unlike the CEOs of multinationals that have plants all over the globe and manage to keep on top of things, Stokes was out of his depth, it’s as simple as that. It was under his tenure that the tail started to wag the dog and that, not bore/stroke ratios, which end the wheels were driven or any of the multitude of other poor decisions that were made which sunk BL.

^^^^
Superb comment.

It is so fashionable to denigrate certain politicians who held controversial views because they are shouted down and popular opinion agrees with who shouts loudest; it then becomes all their opinions are wrong. Equally popular is the view that it was the shop floor who were to blame for the labour relations situation. It cannot solely be a case of sheep following a militant leader without there being substance to an on-growing severe problem with the ability of the management. It is the management’s job to prevent a situation arising. Yes certainly there were stupid, petty and ridiculous disputes which got out of control, but these must have been generated by a sense of mistrust leading to outright hostility. The Japanese didn’t have these issues with labour relations. Generate a team and there is no us and them.

Look too at worker representatives on works’ boards. Seems to work well in other countries?

813

Franglais:

cav551:

newmercman:
I do remember watching an interview with Tony Benn, who was saying how crazy it was to have so many plants spread over such a wide area, it was a government scheme to bring employment to areas that had lost other industries and had skilled trades out of work or something like that, can’t remember the name, but I’m sure somebody will Google it. After watching the clip I formed a completely different view of Benn, a far more positive one than the one I’d had.

In light of that, it’s clear that Stokes had a daunting task in keeping it altogether, one that was too much for him to handle, made worse by the fact that he never got to grips with even one of the many departments, unlike the CEOs of multinationals that have plants all over the globe and manage to keep on top of things, Stokes was out of his depth, it’s as simple as that. It was under his tenure that the tail started to wag the dog and that, not bore/stroke ratios, which end the wheels were driven or any of the multitude of other poor decisions that were made which sunk BL.

^^^^
Superb comment.

It is so fashionable to denigrate certain politicians who held controversial views because they are shouted down and popular opinion agrees with who shouts loudest; it then becomes all their opinions are wrong. Equally popular is the view that it was the shop floor who were to blame for the labour relations situation. It cannot solely be a case of sheep following a militant leader without there being substance to an on-growing severe problem with the ability of the management. It is the management’s job to prevent a situation arising. Yes certainly there were stupid, petty and ridiculous disputes which got out of control, but these must have been generated by a sense of mistrust leading to outright hostility. The Japanese didn’t have these issues with labour relations. Generate a team and there is no us and them.

Look too at worker representatives on works’ boards. Seems to work well in other countries?

I think Edwards put something on those lines in place , could be wrong though.

814

Tony Ben gets a mention by Edwards and it seemed the prime minister kept him on a lead

815

newmercman:
Carryfast, do you argue with your own shadow?

Spen King said this, Webster said that, blah, blah, blah. Remind me again who their boss was, you know, the man at the top, the big cheese, the head honcho, chairman of the board, the CEO, the man that was supposed to make use of the abundance of talent and resources at his disposal and create a market leader in every segment.

Again I’ll give you a clue, it was the same man that allowed internal fighting and squabbling to the detriment of both parties in the case of the Stag and SD1, Rover engines, Triumph suspension respectively and both would have benefited immensely. The same man that didn’t recognize brand loyalty and let Austin and Morris, AEC and Leyland fight it out while backing what he considered to be the winning horse. The same man that failed to recognize the golden egg that was the Range Rover, the one that is to this day one of the top ten desirable brands in the automotive world. The same man that oversaw the bad decisions that led to an unhappy workforce which led to the unions gaining strength. The same man that allowed those unions to take control of the whole empire, that man.

And that’s a small example to keep this post from crashing the servers.

Spen King ( he’s lying ) tells Stokes that there won’t be enough supplies of the V8 for both Triumph and Rover.
What is Stokes supposed to do at that point.Overrule him.Oh wait what if King is telling the truth how does he know for sure.

The Range Rover was actually designed and introduced on Stokes’ watch how does that supposedly translate as Stokes saw no business case for it.

There was rightly no brand loyalty for Austin Morris from the time that Issigonis’ heaps were allowed to displace the rwd Farina ranges.Stokes had nothing to do with that.It happened under BMH not Leyland Group.
As opposed to Lyons tying Issigonis’ fwd millstone around Jaguar’s kneck.Possibly because he saw cars like the bleedin Westminster as being ‘internal competition’ to a 3.8 S type and an XJ6 FFS.When it’s a joint bank account.

Meanwhile Ford sell more Cortinas and Corsairs let alone Escorts combined than BMC’s fwd crap while the fwd fan boys say lets ignore the Corsair and ■■■■■■ it didn’t happen because that would obviously have been ‘internal competition’ and Ford would never have allowed that.

Unions trying to maintain the wages of the workers without who you’ve got no production at all.Trying to stop the type of race to the bottom which we’ve seen destroy the road transport industry.Those unions and that Stokes.

816

ramone:
Tony Ben gets a mention by Edwards and it seemed the prime minister kept him on a lead

From what I remember of ME’s book, both left and right wing Governments were helpful allies of BL. I think there was a consensus that Britain having ownership of its motor industry was a good thing, regardless of points of principle. In the late 1980s, of course, that all collapsed, as Leyland was sold to DAF.

817

cav551:

Carryfast:
While isolated sales of fwd junk doesn’t reflect the combined sales of all the different rwd types.

Bringing this up to date then, if we look at the best selling cars in the UK during 2019, do tell us how many RWD model cars are in the top ten.

So are all these purchasers idiots because they don’t agree with you?

You seem to have missed the difference between sales volumes v profitability.

Remind me what happened to Ford and GM’s fortunes after their respective wholesale move to fwd products.Oh wait massive state bail outs all round anyone.Saab wasn’t exactly a licence to print money and Volvo were doing fine before they scrapped 1/2/900 series.The fwd Jag X type did enormous damage to Jaguar.

As opposed to BMW and Mercedes.

A business plan based on too many fwd products has been shown to create instability and volatility often to catastrophic effect.
It’s just a cheap way of producing cars for a fools profit.
There’s nothing in it for the end user.
Which is why a BMW 3 series estate will propably replace the Zafira.
Oh wait I’m up against all the same predictable residual value issues trading fwd for rwd that I knew in the 1960’s.Even though the Zafira is a great car in 1.8 petrol form at least with not enough torque to be intrusive through it’s very effective power steering and admittedly technology has moved forward in that regard.
But still noticeable enough to need a firm grip or two on the wheel like when making a quick entry from a stand still onto a roundabout or a left turn at a junction.Which would be dispensed with finger tips and not even a squeak from the rear tyres with the BMW.

818

newmercman:
I do remember watching an interview with Tony Benn, who was saying how crazy it was to have so many plants spread over such a wide area, it was a government scheme to bring employment to areas that had lost other industries and had skilled trades out of work or something like that, can’t remember the name, but I’m sure somebody will Google it. After watching the clip I formed a completely different view of Benn, a far more positive one than the one I’d had.

In light of that, it’s clear that Stokes had a daunting task in keeping it altogether, one that was too much for him to handle, made worse by the fact that he never got to grips with even one of the many departments, unlike the CEOs of multinationals that have plants all over the globe and manage to keep on top of things, Stokes was out of his depth, it’s as simple as that. It was under his tenure that the tail started to wag the dog and that, not bore/stroke ratios, which end the wheels were driven or any of the multitude of other poor decisions that were made which sunk BL.

Surely all that is closer to what I’ve said than Anorak and Ramone and your own views of ‘left wingers’ wot dun it.

Keep it in a tight area like the cars produced in West Midlands and all the trucks and buses in Middx. :wink:

Stokes was only out of his depth because he’d swallowed all the ‘internal competition’ bs which meant having to believe liars like Spen King and being lumbered with Issigonis’ and AEC’s and Leyland’s rejects and it was the NEB and the Bankers and LT Board who ultimately were the bosses of Leyland Group not him and they were all working for the foreign competition.
Edwardes obviously fitted into that toxic environment perfectly.

819

[zb]
anorak:
[Britain having ownership of its motor industry was a good thing, regardless of points of principle. In the late 1980s, of course, that all collapsed, as Leyland was sold to DAF.

Good we’re agreed.
So RR brought in house and produced at Southall and Scammell also moved into Southall, all before launch of T45, wouldn’t have been consistent with the former and helped to avoid the latter how.
Remind me when Stokes left the job again.

820

Carryfast:
…The fwd Jag X type did enormous damage to Jaguar.

As opposed to BMW and Mercedes.

A business plan based on too many fwd products has been shown to create instability and volatility often to catastrophic effect.
It’s just a cheap way of producing cars for a fools profit.
…

What damage did the X type do to Jaguar? You must be aware that Jaguar is still making cars, and they are perceived as desirable alternatives to BMW and Mercedes. Talking of which, aren’t both firms now making front wheel drive cars?