Posted by harry on August 16, 2009, 6:29 pm
On Aug 15, 2:51 am, cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:
Posted by harry on August 15, 2009, 6:59 pm
If you're talking BMC/British Leyland, it was so unionised and with a
labour government. the workforce was on strike more than doing any
work. Many of their car were actually sold at a loss. The mini for
And at that time they had the most advanced cars in the world. They
should have been able to destroy the carindustry in every other
country but threw it all away. Due to the unions.
Posted by News on August 15, 2009, 8:18 pm
Unions? You have been reading right wing tabloids. The company suffered from
poor management and lack of investment in plat. Some of the models were
outdated as well. The models which leading edge, the Rover SAD, was poorly
made because of poor facilities. The outfit was nationalised by the
The original Mini never, ever made money, as it was manpower intensive to
make. Where it scored was that many of the parts used were used on other
models and buying more in bulk from suppliers dropped the price of other
models. It made financial sense.
There was a plan in place to produce a new body hatchback Mini using the
same mechanicals, which would have been a sure-fire winner - R&D was done.
The company never invested in the plant, so it was dropped. A "gearless"
Mini was made and this was earmarked for production and never made it.
The XC9001 prototype (larger Mini) was in the 1960s. Not too dissimlar in
looks to the current model:
Pinifarina took the front and rear subframes and engine of the Austin 1800
and produced an advanced style and "running" car at the time, which would
have been easy to have brought into production as all the mechanicals were
off-the-shelf. Of course they rejected it and Citroen took it up. Look:
All the decent designs they came out with were turned down by the
Yerr of course they did! The Morris Marina, The Austin Maxi? Austin 1800?
(what an ugly car!!) What dogs!!!! Design and styling was abysmal. They
were using the A & B series engines that were designed in he 1940s. Need I
go on? All management problems. No idea, no vision, making cars for old
men. The up and coming baby-boomers with money would not touch them with a
The Labour government got in place the partnership with Honda, which put a
huge injection of quality know-how in the company
Posted by clare on August 16, 2009, 1:24 am
To be fair labour AND management have to share the blame for the
demise of BMC. Their cars were poorly designed to start with,and
poorly built in substandard plants by workers who didn't give a hoot.
Neither labout or management was willing to invest any effort in
building a better car.
Posted by News on August 16, 2009, 2:47 pm
It was all management's fault, as with the current GM. They own and run the
business. They are to blame. Labour relations, quality control, marketing,
design, engineering, investment, the whole lot. They control it.
"The dramatic wedge shapes were totally of their era. That the cars
themselves eventually became to be regarded in an unfavourable light was the
result of British Leyland's financial crisis, appalling build quality
control record, atrocious industrial relations, laughable attitude towards
marketing and inherent lack of managerial ability. British Leyland wouldn't
even have been able to find a brewery, let alone organise a bloody good time
Designer Harris Mann, complained that the company toned down is designs to
produce absorb looking cars. He complained at the absence of marketing and
quality control. The company was obsessed at using existing parts, like
doors of older cars. That restricts a designer.
Don't blame the man who screws on the wheels for not accepting this, which
was designed for them using their mechanicals:
They did sort of copy it 10 years later and too late, and it looked uglier.