Comments about this vehicle

Author	Message
dsl ◊ 2016-09-25 00:19	Not sure if footage is Longbridge or Cowley, so Austin or Morris open. But Wolseley 18/85 behind tilts towards Longbridge, which also features in separate Mini footage - so Austin entered. Lots of other ADO16s seen, but apart from a blurred distant VdP (not worth capturing) they're all Mk2 Austin/Morris 4 doors (which is a Morris)
Q-Ball ◊ 2016-09-26 17:27	It's too bad there isnt any footage of the ADO17 'Landcrab' being shipped off after being completed. A segment of "Clarkson's Car Years" mentions that the ADO17 was too wide for the access roadway between the two buildings at Longbridge, so they had to be put on a truck and carted over in the snow and rain without being painted fully. Of course, it IS Jeremy Clarkson and it could have been pure hyperbole. But I would have loved to see.
chicomarx ◊ 2016-09-26 18:59	It's not totally true. "The story originally came from an interview with a former Longbridge worker which a researcher from Jeremy Clarkson’s Car Years series conducted in a local pub. The bloke relayed the tale with some conviction, possibly through a haze of Ansells, and it was duly fed into the finished programme as a fine example of British Leyland ineptitude. Truth is, by the time the tunnel came on stream the Landcrab had been in production for several years and its shells were indeed moved around by less weather proof means simply because the tunnel didn’t even exist." Link to "www.aronline.co.uk"
johnfromstaffs ◊ 2016-09-26 19:10	My father had three land crabs, an Austin MkI, a Wolseley 18/85S MkII and a Morris Mk III. None of them suffered from serious tin worm while in his ownership, and his neighbour bought the Morris and kept it for several more years. They were large, comfortable, and, on the whole not badly built. If BMC had built enough stretch into the Maxi E4 engine to have made a 2 litre four instead of the 2.2 E6, the land crab would have been much improved, but it was still a good car.
dsl ◊ 2016-09-27 01:40	ADO17 was launched in Oct 64 as Austin 1800, Morris added in Oct 65, Wolseley from March 67. Austins were Longbridge build, early Morris Cowley build but switched to Longbridge later. As an Issigonis design, it was always Austin's baby which was allowed for adoption by other makes, and Longbridge was the main production site from start to finish, so would have had "proper" infrastructure for volume production rather than haphazard arrangements.
chicomarx ◊ 2016-09-29 01:05	Ghostly pics from Longbridge today: Link to "www.dailymail.co.uk" "Unfinished Rover 75s have been left to rust on production line and paperwork left lying scattered in offices"
dsl ◊ 2016-09-29 01:27	One of the great What-if questions - what would have happened if chico's pin-up girl had not vetoed Rover merging with Honda, instead of forcing BAe to buy it in 1988?
Sandie ◊ 2016-09-29 01:33	If that had happened there would have been no Rover 75 for Daily Mail journalists to confuse with Rover 45/MG ZSs, at least.
chicomarx ◊ 2016-09-29 02:43	To counter dsl's Maggie bashing with a more complete history: so an "outcry in parliament" that the Americans were taking over. Wouldn't that have been the opposition? Then they indeed fudged deals with Honda and BMW:
dsl ◊ 2016-09-29 03:45	Sorry - three darts and you missed the board with all of them. The critical veto was about 1987-ish - around the time of the Ford and GM shenanigans - when Rover-Honda partnerships (Triumph Acclaim, Rover 213, 800 [XX]) had developed good collaboration and mutual respect (although some 800 episodes had been bumpy) and joint work towards 200/400 [R8] was bubbling nicely. The later BAe-driven attempt to set up a BMW vs Honda battle was a botched job - BAe wanted rid as soon as they'd discharged their contractual period of ownership, and Honda were reluctant to be bounced quickly into playing patsy after previous rejection. Then when BMW won, one of the endemic problems for the new regime was untangling the Honda linkages - licencing, intellectual property rights to existing and planned products, contractual obligations etc - and Honda were wary of revealing future projects to a competitor. So very frosty climate. BMW pushed the boat out handsomely to fund the Rover 75 but apart from that played very cautiously to keep exit strategies open. Honda's ride through the 90s was bumpy as well, so there's no guarantee that a 1987 marriage would have been all pink and fluffy or that Longbridge would be churning stuff out today. But the decision to reject Honda's overtures in 1987 was pure politics, not business-based and the BAe sale a clumsy arrangement which neither side wanted or derived any benefit from. It parked Rover on a convenient shelf and ticked a box, but was never going to provide any real solution or opportunity.
chicomarx ◊ 2016-09-29 04:11	Before all the rescue business, how did they get in that position in the first place? By being a nationalized car company, uncompetitive and with powerful unions. Japan had the exact opposite model, Honda never got government support, hence their success in the car industry. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StLBxt7Gfck&t=35m22s
dsl ◊ 2016-09-29 04:58	chicomarx wrote how did they get in that position in the first place? All sorts of reasons and causes which we could all argue about for a long time. And probably not agree on half of them. And we'd probably also disagree about nationalisation and how/when it can be successful. Or what defines its failure. One factor throughout 60s, 70s and 80s was successive governments (of whichever persuasion) being determined to steer the car industry in specific directions but not having the skills to make them work (eg Linwood, forced mergers, long-term strategic directions). When BMC and Leyland were forced together, BMC was pretty well bankrupt and dragged the then profitable Leyland side down with it into the 70s. Short-term political expediency again and again and .....
dsl ◊ 2016-09-29 05:23	And as a comment for how Japan did it (derived mainly from one book I read some time back - not in any way given as an informed perspective) - Japanese car firms may have grown and developed without government support in terms of direct cash, but there was very tight government control and intervention throughout 50s and 60s at least. All the late-50s collaborations (Hino-Renault, Nissan-Austin, Isuzu-Hillman, Mitsubishi-Kaiser jeeps) were tightly orchestrated government-driven programmes, and there was much domestic market protectionism etc. Japan did it all very differently from the UK, but it was very heavily stage-managed with huge dollops of indirect support.
johnfromstaffs ◊ 2016-09-29 09:36	dsl wrote All sorts of reasons and causes which we could all argue about for a long time... Accountants. Political meddling. Inept management. Stroppy workforce. Inadequate investment. Poor quality. Even poorer products. Inadequate dealer chains. Inadequate control of the supply chain. (I could tell you tales!) Short warranties. More accountants. But most of all, consequent upon the above, nothing modern and desirable to sell to Joe Public, and that was just as applicable to the Chrysler stuff as to BMC/BMH/BL. The resurgence of JLR as a force in the industry must be due to something....... As a final thought, if you wanted a car in, say, the mid 70s, just compare what was on offer from the British owned industry with what you could have bought from Ford, 'nuff said? Mini. Imp. Fiesta. Allegro. Sunbeam. Escort. Marina. Avenger. Cortina. Princess. Arrow. Granada. And then there's the Japanese, at that time with modern engineering and 50,000 mile warranties, but rusted away after five years. As the first owner, did you care? No, the warranty, cheapness, built in radio, and catchy marketing did it all. -- Last edit: 2016-09-29 11:29:24
dsl ◊ 2016-09-29 15:17	Nothing to really disagree with in that list. I'd add decline in world market opportunities (all sorts of post-war factors, including transition from empire to looser commonwealth, growth of domestic car production in those countries, decline in £ sterling), different stages of development (UK was trying to protect established industry, countries like Japan or Germany were (re)growing an industry from a fresh start so unencumbered by entrenched structures), and something less definable about attitudes. From doing all these COI documentaries, there's a strong impression of traditional paternalistic messages looking backwards to continuing how things were and assumptions that Britain will always be great, instead of a feeling that greatness has to be achieved and re-achieved by continually looking forwards. Maybe one facet is failure to really get to grips with marketing - we built stuff and expected it to sell because we'd built it. Japan - to take your example built stuff and fitted radios, which was heavily promoted and successfully gained attention. And your JLR comment is perhaps an extension of that point. Very well marketed, so has captured the attention and sells well despite being hugely overpriced for what it is. (And good stuff as it may be, there's nothing they offer which makes my dreamlist). Finally, agree with how Ford most of the time understood things better than Chrysler or BL. But the missing name in the comparison is Vauxhall who I'd put in the plodders group alongside Chrysler and BL - never anything you'd really prefer over a Ford. But they somehow survived comparatively intact ....
chicomarx ◊ 2016-09-29 18:29	Prepare for a scorching reply from ingo about the Vauxhall bit.
Sunbar ◊ 2016-09-29 20:54	From a strictly personal perspective, working with some of those manufacturers... British car manufacture BMC/BMH/BL were still operating like it was the 1950s or 1960s. Evidenced by their inability to bring a product to production on time and fully developed. Yes, they were also often badly targeted to the marketplace. Poor management meant little rationlisation of multiple car lines and no continuity of design. Engineering means building on your successes and eliminating your weaknesses. Often they would dump everything and attempt a complete redesign for the next programme. Jaguar-Land Rovers recent success I think was almost all as a result of Ford ownership. Big changes were made to the company and their Engineering and Development programmes completely rebuilt. It was unrecognisable from the previous Coventry-Solihull operations. Ford UK and Vauxhall were integrated with the German operations and benefited to a large extent by strong management. However in the case of Vauxhall, American management interference was rather damaging (poorly focused to British/European needs) whereas Opel were largely able to resist it. I suspect Ford (US) had less of an imput into Ford Germany. I have little direct Chrysler-Rootes experience, never having any direct contact with those operations.
johnfromstaffs ◊ 2016-09-29 23:13	Having been the owner of a 1958 Victor, bought when 8 years old with 26,000 miles on its clock, (absolutely genuine, I had known the previous owner) I have to say that the first decent car Vauxhall built post WWII, was the rear drive Cavalier. To my mind this was a better car than the HA Viva, and started a succession of cars that were both reasonable in price, and desired by the man in the street. I had an HC Viva that was so horrible I swapped it for an automatic Maxi! My next Vauxhall was an Astra SXI Estate, nice car, followed by a Mk 3 Cavalier turbo diesel. Totally reliable until the glow plug relay died and I couldn't start it. It had done 96,000 miles by then, in 4 years and all driven by me. So there's yer Vauxhall, nice if it's a rebadged Opel, not so nice if it isn't, but I have no experience of the Carlton/Senator types so no comment on them. I made no mention of Vauxhall earlier since they have been American owned for so long. -- Last edit: 2016-09-29 23:17:01
johnfromstaffs ◊ 2016-09-30 12:01	I also forgot to mention the 1997 Corsa we owned for 14 years. Known in the family as the Puddlejumper, it survived all the maltreatment of low mileage, intermittent use, and being driven by my daughter with total lack of attention until most of the fluids had run out, the windscreen was cracked, and the water pump failed. It had a fairly horrendous repair bill, and, as far as I know, is still going.
jcb ◊ 2016-09-30 12:44	The British Motorcycle industry was a microcosm of the car industry ,by the early 70's unreliable and outdated products well past their sell by date . Strangely though I think the 70's bike styling was fantastic , traditional lines and chrome with groovy seventies colours schemes. -- Last edit: 2016-10-01 10:31:49
Ingo ◊ 2016-10-01 19:16	chicomarx wrote Prepare for a scorching reply from ingo about the Vauxhall bit. No, why? Actually there is absolutely nothing origin British in or about my Vectra. It's a pure Opel - even the Vauxhall-badges were all made in Germany. Some years ago I've purchased some K 70-trims from a classic Opel-guy, who had connections to a company in the Sauerland, which produces badges, grilles, hubcaps an sich stuff - he had bunches of Vauxhall-bits in his shed. I wondered a bit, why he took that stuff with him, as ist's not really saleable in Continental Europe (except some boy racers who like to have the "exotic" Vauxhall-badge on the Corsas. johnfromstaffs wrote ... So there's yer Vauxhall, nice if it's a rebadged Opel, not so nice if it isn't, but I have no experience of the Carlton/Senator types so no comment on them. ... Yes, it's a pure Opel, in the same (not perfect, but mainly acceptable) quality. the last not-100%-Opel-Vauxhalls were the Cavalier Mk1 and the Cavalier MkII Estate, yes?
dsl ◊ 2016-10-01 22:37	Cav Mk1 was just a Manta with new nose. So 95% Opel. Cav Mk2 estate was Opel via Holden. So about 1% Vauxhall. Victor FE was probably the last Vauxhall Vauxhall; Chevette was a lot Vauxhall but probably comparable to Cortina Mk3 - Germany did the essential bits and England took it away and tried their best to de-Germanise it.
Ingo ◊ 2016-10-01 23:40	dsl wrote Cav Mk1 was just a Manta with new nose. So 95% Opel. Cav Mk2 estate was Opel via Holden. So about 1% Vauxhall. Victor FE was probably the last Vauxhall Vauxhall; Chevette was a lot Vauxhall but probably comparable to Cortina Mk3 - Germany did the essential bits and England took it away and tried their best to de-Germanise it. The Chevette was nearly Opel-free, because it was built in inch-measures. So none Opel-bits do fit. What's about the Cavalier MkI? If you compare it closer with an Ascona B, you see, that it's much less Opel inside than 95%.

Advertising

Last completed movie pages

1970 Austin 1300 MkII [ADO16]

1970 Austin 1300 MkII [ADO16] in Portrait of a People - Impressions of Britain, Short Movie, 1970

Comments about this vehicle

Add a comment

Advertising

Watch or buy this title - Powered by JustWatch

Advertising