WI 1970s British Leyland sold products that actually worked?

Some people both inside and outside Britain have asserted that 1970's British Leyland produced ill-designed, poorly made vehicles that were at best boring in design and at worse downright ugly. Some futher contend that sclerotic management and inefficient labor practices doomed the company and the British car industry in general.

How could BL have made better products that kept up with German and Japanese designs? Was there any cure to the labour disputes under Labour governments? It's certainly not off-guard to argue the merits of what Mrs Thatcher did to the union culture and whether or not earlier Tory power could have stemmed the dysfunctional nature of the British car industry. Feel free to share Allegro and Marina jokes if you want.
 
One thing that could have helped was not to dismiss consultants like Donald Healey and John Cooper. The Austin Maxi was a decent car, and the Mini Clubman idea was interesting (but get rid of that HORRIBLE front and keep the Mini continuously refreshed).

I'm tired at the moment - I'll think up something for tomorrow, at the earliest.
 

hammo1j

Donor
Triumph created one of the first 16v engines as used in the Dolomite Sprint, but I'm sure it was crippled by committee in that it only had one camshaft. I remember a mechanic telling me what a stupid arrangement it was and how it would have been just as simple to put another cam in there.

Similarly the fantastic looking Triumph stag could have been a winner if they had chosen the proven Rover V8 to power it and not the V8 made of two sprint engines welded together!
 
Go on Facebook and do a search for ' Dropping a piano on a Morris Marina'.................:):D:D:)
 
The problem was the ethos of British Leyland - build it quick, build it cheap. Perhaps this was a hangover from the time when Britain had captive markets, and demand and supply were both low. When demand went up, and buyers had the option to try foreign they liked what they got. BL's reaction was to cut costs, rather than to raise quality.
Always remember a guy from Rover being interviewed, relating what he was told by BL executive, something like 'the trouble with you people at Rover is you are too fussy about quality'! Apparently, oblivious to the idea that 'quality' is not a cost.
Sure the company had labour problems, but Longbridge was a shambles. And the costing deptartment seems to be incompetent - as they didn't know how much a Mini cost to make - Ford took one apart, and couldn't work out how they made any money on the price.

If it had been mor of a success - perhaps it would have bought out SEAT instead of VW!
 
From the descriptions here, it seems that union troubles were almost irrelevant. The real issue was a staggeringly incompetent management and engineering section.
 
Remember, Mrs Thatcher forged a new culture of nanny-state frontal assault, not containment beloved of One Nationals.I don't see Heath or Willie (her two '75 opponents) doing that. Politics aside, if you make bad cars, don't expect good money.
 
Triumph created one of the first 16v engines as used in the Dolomite Sprint, but I'm sure it was crippled by committee in that it only had one camshaft. I remember a mechanic telling me what a stupid arrangement it was and how it would have been just as simple to put another cam in there.

Similarly the fantastic looking Triumph stag could have been a winner if they had chosen the proven Rover V8 to power it and not the V8 made of two sprint engines welded together!

The main problem was Triumph (and to a lesser extent, Jaguar) still thought it was a separate company, that was forced to merge into the British Motor Corporation (B.M.C for short), in a "shotgun wedding" arrangement by government, & using another "Rival Company's" engine, as the Rover Division product was regarded as, was considered a symptom of "collabration with the enemy", hence the use of the "Bodged" engine based on the Dolomite Sprint engine...
 
Top