[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.
Why do you keep coming out with if RR had been taken on board , they couldn’t afford to run the 50 sites they already had never mind another loss making company what part of they were skint dont you get?
Carryfast you’re too blinkered mate, as Windrush often says, he hasn’t driven or worked on a particular vehicle so cannot form an opinion, you’re in the same boat, but you don’t realise it. You get too specific in your attacks, you hate the TL12 because of it’s engine architecture, regardless of any evidence to the contrary you’ve made your mind up and that’s it.
Your focus is too narrow and too personal, your mind is made up before your first comment on any subject and no matter what is said by anybody else, they’re wrong and that’s the end of it.
It is brilliant as I’ve learned so much from the responses to your posts over the years, I’ve even learned a thing or two from you, not in this particular thread as you’re talking out of your arse lol, but even so, it’s been a blast.
Carryfast:
A business plan based on too many fwd products has been shown to create instability and volatility often to catastrophic effect.
As one of Bewicks lurking guests, who does not post much, I really am astounded at some of your comments & statements , but the one above really must take pride of place .
You also go on about volume sales v profitability.
Looking at the figures you provided, your beloved JRT must have been profitable beyond expectations, because the no of sales is , well … on the low side
Even the Anglia, which was by then out of production showing twice the figure of Triumph sports types .
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?
Any damage done by the X type came at the end if it’s life when it was left in production for too long trying to fill the gap between until the XE came but that was years away. When X type was introduced it was a complete godsend to both Jaguar and their dealers they couldn’t get them fast enough. I recall ordering three for a leasing customer back in 01, the supplying dealer almost went into meltdown, he’d never sold 3 Jags in one phone call before in his life, I didn’t have the heart to tell him the full order was for 21 but I knew we’d need to spread it to get the supply speed.
It may have been badge engineered, it may have moved away from their traditional market but it certainly made money and that’s what it’s all about.
I would have to agree with CF with Stokes and the BMC product. Most of the products that became issues by the end of the 60s/early 70s were either coming to end of life or in the pipeline. Stokes must have been somewhat lumbered. I do not really think the modern front WD car was a problem per se, they were innovative and spacious for a given size. I would dispute the handling charges for everyday driving. The BMC front WDs handled and rode quite well compared to some of the older rear wheel drives. What they could be was pug ugly (1800) or unreliable (early Maxi). Hindsight is wonderful but I guess the Mini could have been dropped, the 1100/1300 kept going till a new model arrived (which it was). Dump the 1800 and the ghastly looking 3L. Spend some more time and ££ on the Maxi and make sure it it was reliable and sharp. Dump any plans for the Marina and end the old Farina RWDs. For the larger (but not top end) use the Rover or Triumph. If the Triumph lose the bigger car give them the small rear drive sports saloon and sports cars and dump MG. Just an idea that really is a waste of time!
ramone:
Why do you keep coming out with if RR had been taken on board , they couldn’t afford to run the 50 sites they already had never mind another loss making company what part of they were skint dont you get?
They were the government and NEB which was already running and backing both RR and BL it was already a State owned and run ‘Group’ of Companies.
Which part of they were BOTH under NEB management and bankroll don’t you get.
You wanted to save AEC then why not transfer RR’s engine production and Sacmmell to Southall instead of flogging RR off to Vickers and then closing both AEC and eventually Scammell.
It was all state owned anyway so what’s your problem.
Oh wait you’re showing your AEC fan boy silliness.
You’d rather save the TL12 no hoper and let the superior RR Eagle go because the TL12 had an AEC badge on it and was designed by your heroes.
That ended well in 1983.
That’s what Stokes was up against regarding infighting and his government bosses at the NEB against him.
The latter obviously working for the foreign competition as part of the European post war recovery plan in which we were to be chucked under the bus.
Don’t believe the old Christmas cracker joke about the Mini losing money. They could have stopped making it at any stage, but it remained in production for 40 years. With the intense scrutiny that BL was under, a loss-making, obsolete product would not have survived. The tools would be out of the door as soon as the scrap price reached a peak.
[zb]
anorak:
Don’t believe the old Christmas cracker joke about the Mini losing money. They could have stopped making it at any stage, but it remained in production for 40 years. With the intense scrutiny that BL was under, a loss-making, obsolete product would not have survived. The tools would be out of the door as soon as the scrap price reached a peak.
It got away for so long and after the Metro came along perhaps because all the tooling was bought and paid for years beforehand? Perhaps because of it’s quirkiness it did not date like some vehicles.
[zb]
anorak:
Don’t believe the old Christmas cracker joke about the Mini losing money. They could have stopped making it at any stage, but it remained in production for 40 years. With the intense scrutiny that BL was under, a loss-making, obsolete product would not have survived. The tools would be out of the door as soon as the scrap price reached a peak.
All the biased pro mini bs was clearly a loss making politically motivated agenda to push the poverty people’s car idea to save the employer classes paying decent wages to meet higher expectations.Now added to by the Green bollox.
Figures like 86,190 sales of Mini in 1968 v 98,218 ■■■■■■ and 101,067 Viva don’t lie which only went more against the BMC heap in the used market.The latter sold at a higher profit margin both new and used.
By then news had got around that a gear box can’t be lubricated by engine oil and changing a fan belt let alone a clutch or a water pump among other numerous accessability issues meant it was easier to scrap the fwd piece of junk than to maintain it.
Even if it had been better to drive something which meant having your knees as near to your chin as your feet and steered with its driven wheels,which it wasn’t.
It was a hateful piece of zb just like the 1100 saloon.
Maintenance and accessability at least of rwd cars is still usually easier in that respect.
essexpete:
I would have to agree with CF with Stokes and the BMC product. Most of the products that became issues by the end of the 60s/early 70s were either coming to end of life or in the pipeline. Stokes must have been somewhat lumbered. I do not really think the modern front WD car was a problem per se, they were innovative and spacious for a given size. I would dispute the handling charges for everyday driving. The BMC front WDs handled and rode quite well compared to some of the older rear wheel drives. What they could be was pug ugly (1800) or unreliable (early Maxi). Hindsight is wonderful but I guess the Mini could have been dropped, the 1100/1300 kept going till a new model arrived (which it was). Dump the 1800 and the ghastly looking 3L. Spend some more time and ££ on the Maxi and make sure it it was reliable and sharp. Dump any plans for the Marina and end the old Farina RWDs. For the larger (but not top end) use the Rover or Triumph. If the Triumph lose the bigger car give them the small rear drive sports saloon and sports cars and dump MG. Just an idea that really is a waste of time!
Actually my case is keep the Farina BMC’s ( with Triumph IRS ) no need for the inferior Marina in that case.
The Rover badged and made Westminster going onto be the Rover P5 replacement.No need for the SD1.
Although the Marina 1.8 wasn’t a half bad car especially with twin carbs.
Dump all the fwd BMC’s maybe with the exception of the Metro when it arrived.
But closure of BMC being the logical option when Ford and Vauxhall had that market sector sewn up anyway.
Realistically the car division was all about maintaining Rover and Triumph’s dominance of the premium sector as it had in the 1960’s while Jaguar was always the Ace card.
None of which would have made much difference to a truck division crippled by the TL12 or nothing and the premature end of the Routemaster bus equally crippling the AEC’s bus production.In addition to not taking the obvious option of moving Scammell and RR Eagle diesel production into Southall.
ramone:
Why do you keep coming out with if RR had been taken on board , they couldn’t afford to run the 50 sites they already had never mind another loss making company what part of they were skint dont you get?
They were the government and NEB which was already running and backing both RR and BL it was already a State owned and run ‘Group’ of Companies.
Which part of they were BOTH under NEB management and bankroll don’t you get.
You wanted to save AEC then why not transfer RR’s engine production and Sacmmell to Southall instead of flogging RR off to Vickers and then closing both AEC and eventually Scammell.
It was all state owned anyway so what’s your problem.
Oh wait you’re showing your AEC fan boy silliness.
You’d rather save the TL12 no hoper and let the superior RR Eagle go because the TL12 had an AEC badge on it and was designed by your heroes.
That ended well in 1983.
That’s what Stokes was up against regarding infighting and his government bosses at the NEB against him.
The latter obviously working for the foreign competition as part of the European post war recovery plan in which we were to be chucked under the bus.
The NEB was brought about to try and stop British Leyland losing more of the vast amounts of tax payers money , it was losing under your hero Stokes , did you have his poster on your bedroom wall next to a Detroit Crusader.
You answered your own question THEY SOLD IT , so THEY didn’t need to put anymore money into it . It was off their hands and books. If RR had gone to Leyland that would have lost them the ■■■■■■■ customers , AEC had gone long before closure , they had been run down since the Ergo was introduced . Their last ten years were the final insult from a man who hated them , a salesman who wanted them closed much earlier than 1979 , AEC s heart and reputation had gone long before then , being told to launch the V8 even though they had said it wasn’t ready ( it was a prototype project ) producing the Marathon on an embarassing shoestring budget ( there’s more than one way to skin a cat ) . The rear engined Routemaster never saw the light of day . AEC were never allowed to get on with what they did best due to restraints . They were starved of money
[zb]
anorak:
Don’t believe the old Christmas cracker joke about the Mini losing money. They could have stopped making it at any stage, but it remained in production for 40 years. With the intense scrutiny that BL was under, a loss-making, obsolete product would not have survived. The tools would be out of the door as soon as the scrap price reached a peak.
All the biased pro mini bs was clearly a loss making politically motivated agenda to push the poverty people’s car idea to save the employer classes paying decent wages to meet higher expectations.Now added to by the Green bollox…
Everyone’s a loser in Realityworld: the businesses make a loss, their customers have rubbish products and the workers earn half a wage. It’s all a conspiracy, but by whom? The Royal Family and a few wealthy farmers?
[zb]
anorak:
Don’t believe the old Christmas cracker joke about the Mini losing money. They could have stopped making it at any stage, but it remained in production for 40 years. With the intense scrutiny that BL was under, a loss-making, obsolete product would not have survived. The tools would be out of the door as soon as the scrap price reached a peak.
Figures like 86,190 sales of Mini in 1968 v 98,218 ■■■■■■ and 101,067 Viva don’t lie which only went more against the BMC…
Good research, finding the sales figures. Now put the figures for the 1100/1300 range in there, to make it an honest tale.
Carryfast:
…The Rover badged and made Westminster going onto be the Rover P5 replacement.No need for the SD1.
Although the Marina 1.8 wasn’t a half bad car especially with twin carbs…
Hahahahahaaaaa!!! The Westminster was made from 1954 until 1968. The SD1 was made from 1976 onwards. Great idea, that: re-launch 22 year old designs, after they have been out of production for 8 years. No one will notice.
I’ve got it- you judge cars by their success in banger racing!
Carryfast:
A business plan based on too many fwd products has been shown to create instability and volatility often to catastrophic effect.
As one of Bewicks lurking guests, who does not post much, I really am astounded at some of your comments & statements , but the one above really must take pride of place .
You also go on about volume sales v profitability.
Looking at the figures you provided, your beloved JRT must have been profitable beyond expectations, because the no of sales is , well … on the low side
Even the Anglia, which was by then out of production showing twice the figure of Triumph sports types .
The Anglia was one of the rwd Ford volume products like Cortina, Corsair and ■■■■■■ which is relevant to the losses of the fwd BMC products how.
A low volume Triumph profit was better than a high volume BMC loss.
There is a reason the majority of manufacturers chose Front Wheel Drive over Rear Wheel Drive, and one was cost saving, apart from extra room, the car could be compact with more passenger space, it wasn’t just British Leyland or BMC, the French, Italian, and Germans already had built FWD cars successfully, even Ford had to rush the Taunus P4 into production.
The Marina replaced the Morris Minor. The Mini and Maxi replaced the rest.
newmercman:
Carryfast you’re too blinkered mate, as Windrush often says, he hasn’t driven or worked on a particular vehicle so cannot form an opinion, you’re in the same boat, but you don’t realise it. You get too specific in your attacks, you hate the TL12 because of it’s engine architecture, regardless of any evidence to the contrary you’ve made your mind up and that’s it.
I provided the evidence in the figures.Do you really think that the TL12 could have gone onto match the specific output of the Eagle without compromising its head sealing and end bearing life.
The fact that they chose to ditch it within 10 years of its introduction while the Eagle went on to be a 400 hp power house is good enough evidence.
ramone:
The NEB was brought about to try and stop British Leyland losing more of the vast amounts of tax payers money , it was losing under your hero Stokes , did you have his poster on your bedroom wall next to a Detroit Crusader.
You answered your own question THEY SOLD IT , so THEY didn’t need to put anymore money into it . It was off their hands and books. If RR had gone to Leyland that would have lost them the ■■■■■■■ customers , AEC had gone long before closure , they had been run down since the Ergo was introduced . Their last ten years were the final insult from a man who hated them , a salesman who wanted them closed much earlier than 1979 , AEC s heart and reputation had gone long before then , being told to launch the V8 even though they had said it wasn’t ready ( it was a prototype project ) producing the Marathon on an embarassing shoestring budget ( there’s more than one way to skin a cat ) . The rear engined Routemaster never saw the light of day . AEC were never allowed to get on with what they did best due to restraints . They were starved of money
The NEB wasn’t just in charge of Leyland it was just a QUANGO which over saw the state run/funded firms.
RR diesels wasn’t an issue it was the aerospace division biting off more than it could chew in RB211 development costs which brought the whole group down and into government rescue.
You think that using the TL12 to meet Leylands in house engine production requirement and flogging off RR diesels was the better choice.As opposed to bringing RR on board instead.
That ended well for Leyland’s in house production plans.
