The cars : Hillman Hunter/Rootes Arrows

The Arrow range was conceived as a smart-suited replacement for the Audax range of Minx/Supermix models and their badge-engineered counterparts. Some have called this the last Rootes car, although the Avenger has equal claim to that title. Launched in 1966/67, the new range of cars came in several guises, from the Hillman Minx at the bottom of the range, to the Humber Sceptre right at the top.

Prime performance

Hillman GT

The Arrow range came about as a result of The Rootes Group management’s determination to replace the Audax range of cars with something very conventional, and therefore, more inexpensive to produce. Why was this decision taken, given the buoyancy of the UK car market, and the confidence of the younger buyers coming into it? After all, the early 1960s were a time of great design advancement, with BMC in one corner going following an ambition front-wheel-drive policy, and Ford in the other, demonstrating a flair for design optimization within strict cost control.

Rootes, on the other hand, had put everything into the rear-engined Imp, and at the time, when the company’s thoughts became focused upon the matter of the Audax’s replacement, the Imp had yet-to-be launched. Given that, and the company’s confidence in the Imp, it made sense to devise a larger car designed around the same philosophy: advanced thinking, a rear engined layout, and flamboyant styling.

In 1962, the idea got off the ground, when it was conceived as a smaller, cheaper car, to augment the Swallow project. Initially, its styling was the responsibility of the Rootes design team, led by Peter Ware, and as can be seen from pictures of it in the projects and prototypes section, the styling schemes investigated were of a fairly conventional looking three-box mid-size saloon, with strong overtones of the Imp. The car was designed around a new engine, suspension and floorpan, and as such, Rootes hoped, would move the marque forwards.

Clay model: clear Imp influences there...

Clay model: clear Imp influences there…

Sadly, soon after the launch of the Imp, it became apparent that the Rootes Group profit situation was not good. The investment at Linwood had proved to be a huge drain on resources, even before the launch of the Imp; but, when the car did make it onto the market, Rootes’ negative cashflow situation was seriously exacerbated by the Imp’s lack of sales success and mounting warranty costs. And that seriously affected Rootes management’s confidence in the Swallow. Not only that, but the planned investment in such a car was too much for the financially strapped company. An alternative was needed…

Enter Arrow

In early 1963, that alternative plan was drawn-up: Arrow would be enlarged to cover the area that Swallow had vacated. The intention was for Rootes to build a lighter, slimmer car, built around the existing engine/transmission package as used in the Audax range. To simplify the product range, it was conceived that the Arrow would replace the Minx, Super Minx, Sceptre and Rapier models – and right from the beginning, saloon, estate and coupe versions of the new car were planned for.

The elementary work undertaken on the Swallow project did not go to waste though. In styling the Arrow, much of the previous car’s design features were incorporated, and that is why the saloon proposal could make the transition from project plan to full-sized clay model, approved by management in less than ten months.

A rejected proposal for the B Car (Avenger); this boxy saloon with its unusual haunch did not appeal to manangement, but it took clear influences from the Arrow. Note the Sunbeam badging on the front of this car; it was planned that export Hillman Hunter models would be badged in this way. (Picture: "Cars of the Rootes Group", by Graham Robson)

A rejected proposal for the B Car (Avenger); this boxy saloon with its unusual haunch did not appeal to manangement, but it took clear influences from the Arrow. Note the Sunbeam badging on the front of this car; it was planned that export Hillman Hunter models would be badged in this way. (Picture: “Cars of the Rootes Group”, by Graham Robson)

Arrow took shape as a “pure Rootes design”, as Graham Robson describes it, with the styling being led by Rex Fleming. The Rapier and estate version were overseen by Roy Axe, a designer that would go on to lead a long and successful career at Chrysler and Austin-Rover.

When Rootes received its first injection of cash from Chrysler in 1964, the Arrow project did not deviate from its intended course, meaning that it is this car, that should claim the title of “the last Rootes car”. Although, Chrysler’s purchase of a stake in Rootes did not change the design and implementation of the Arrow, it did mean that there was finally, a healthy amount of cash washing around the company. This allowed for the Arrow to enjoy a rapid and well-funded gestation period.

Rootes go Hunting

The Arrow monocoque was around 70kg lighter than the Super Minx, with an overall weight of 262kg. Structural rigidity was 4650 lb ft/deg, which was not bad for a 1966 four-door saloon. The body structure was built by Pressed Steel Fisher Ltd., and was comprised of seven separate sub-assemblies. (Picture: Style Auto)

The Arrow monocoque was around 70kg lighter than the Super Minx, with an overall weight of 262kg. Structural rigidity was 4650 lb ft/deg, which was not bad for a 1966 four-door saloon. The body structure was built by Pressed Steel Fisher Ltd., and was comprised of seven separate sub-assemblies. (Picture: Style Auto)

In comparison with the existing Minx range, the new car was considerably lighter, more square shouldered, and definitely more conventional in its engineering approach. Model-on-model, the new car was upto 135kg lighter than the outgoing one, and this meant that although the existing engine range was used, the new cars would be considerably more lively.

For a car that was launched in 1966, the Arrow was very contemporary in style, shedding the 50s fussiness that typified the its progenitors. The plain-jane three-box reflected its time perfectly, and it would integrate seamlessly in the the UK landscape, thanks to its similarity with Roy Haynes’ Ford Cortina mark II and Vauxhall Viva HB. As it transpired, this school of design did not stay in the ascendence for very long, being overtaken by the Detroit inspired “Coke bottle” cars, typified by the Ford Cortina mark III, Vauxhall Victor FE and Rootes/Chrysler’s own Avenger.

In the chassis department, the Arrow was conventional (in later terms), but proved significant for Rootes, as it was the company’s first car to sport MacPherson strut front suspension, allied to a solid rear axle. This resulted in safe and secure, if uninspiring, handling.

As per the original Arrow design brief, every version would use existing power units, although they were overhauled for their new applications. The ohv units were treated to a new five-bearing crankshaft, and in order to fit under the Arrow’s lower bonnet, they were inclined at a slight angle. The 1964 all-synchromesh gearbox was retained, as was the existing rear axle.

In the marketplace

In between its launch in 1966 and its demise in 1979, the Arrow’s development was really only one in a marketing sense. Badge engineering was the order of the day, and the differing needs of customers was handled with a bewildering array of marques and models. In contemporary road tests, the Arrow range never could be described as a pacesetter, and once the 1970s arrived, this well-engineered saloon was left behind by its contemporaries.

Initially built at Ryton, then Linwood from 1969, with bodies by Pressed Steel Fisher, the Arrow range typified Rootes, rather than Chrysler. By 1976, it was left on the fringes of Chrysler Europe’s range, being left behind by a new generation of SIMCA based products. Production was moved to Ireland in 1976 in order to make way for the Chrysler Alpine, it remained in production, sadly unmodified, until 1979.

The badge engineered variations are broken down below:

Hillman

1970 Hunter De Luxe estate: it took four years for the five door version of the Hunter to make an apperance on the market. The Estate body, however, appeared in 1967. Called simply the Hillman Estate car, it was based upon the Minx... (Picture: Chrysler press photo, supplied by Graham Arnold)

1970 Hunter De Luxe estate: it took four years for the five door version of the Hunter to make an apperance on the market. The Estate body, however, appeared in 1967. Called simply the Hillman Estate car, it was based upon the Minx… (Picture: Chrysler press photo, supplied by Graham Arnold)

The Hillman version of the Arrow was launched in 1966, and along with the Singer Vogue, it ushered the new Rootes style onto the marketplace. Called the Hunter, it replaced the Super Minx; available with 1496 and 1725cc engines and, and immediately began to sell well. The Minx version of the Arrow followed a year later (in saloon and estate form, although the Minx name was never attached to the five-door in the UK), and it amounted to little more than a downmarket of the Hunter. Differences were not just limited to trim and equipment, though, as it used an iron-headed version of the 1496cc engine (developing 54bhp). This principle was applied to the 1725cc Minx a year later (iron-headed again, producing 61bhp), but 1970, and in the spirit of Chrysler-sponsored rationalization, the Minx was dropped to make way for the Hunter De Luxe.

The trim-looking Hunter estate (sporting Sunbeam Rapier rear lamp clusters), appeared on the scene in 1970, the same time that the Hunter GT was made available. The sporting Hunter replaced a model based upon the Minx (but called, simply, the Hillman GT), and could boast a healthy power output of 79bhp. Performance was adequate for its day: 0-60mph in 13.5secs and a top speed of 97mph, but compared with the 1971 Cortina 2000, it began to look a little second rate.

In 1972, the Hunter received a further facelift, which was the announcement of the 93bhp Holbay-engined Hunter GLS, with Humber Sceptre-style front end styling. Beyond this, the Hunter did not receive any further improvements (of substance). The Hunter was rebadged a Chrysler in late 1977, receiving its last minor facelift, in order to fit into the rationalized range (the Sceptre/GLS grille was fitted to both remaining models, with vinyl roof and Rostyle wheels were added to the the Super). Production of the Chrysler Hunter continued (in Ireland) until 1979, when it was retired after a production run of 470,000 units.

Humber

The Humber Sceptre Mk III was the optimum Arrow, featuring the best trim package and a 79bhp version of the venerable 1725cc engine. Interior was plush indeed, with a wood veneer dashboard panel and luxuriously trimmed seats – in more modern terms, it would be the Ghia X or Vanden Plas EFi of the range.

Externally, it was distinguised by its handsome four headlamp nose (reminiscent of the Sunbeam Rapier) and the later Hunter GLS. An extremely appealing estate version was added in 1974, which used the Hunter estate shell and a complete set of Sceptre interior appointments. Externally, it was finished off with chromed roof rails, and as such, was considerably ahead of its time, as the idea of a plushly trimmed estate car had yet to find favour with rival manufacturers.

Humber Sceptre production continued until 1976, when it was phased out as a result of product rationalization. With its demise, the Humber name went to its grave.

Singer

In the same way that the Hillman Hunter/Minx was, the Singer Arrow was developed to replace two ranges (Vogue Mk IV and Gazelle Mk VI), with a single body shell. The existing names were carried over, but the Arrow-type Vogue, which appeared alongside the Hillman Hunter in 1966 and the Gazelle, which appeared a year later, were little more than an exercise in badge engineering.

These Singers were extremely closely related to their Hillman brethren, so it comes as no surprise that they were phased out in 1970 following further range rationalization.

Sunbeam

The Sunbeam Rapier was launched in 1967 and could be best summed up as "gentleman's tourer". It was a stylish car indeed, but sadly, was not developed during its life. (Picture: Chrysler press photo, supplied by Graham Arnold)

The Sunbeam Rapier was launched in 1967 and could be best summed up as “gentleman’s tourer”. It was a stylish car indeed, but sadly, was not developed during its life. (Picture: Chrysler press photo, supplied by Graham Arnold)

The Sunbeam versions of the Arrow were the extremely stylish Rapier/Alpine models, which were styled by Roy Axe. The pillarless two-door coupe was heavily based on Arrow underpinnings, right down to the suspension layout and engine configuration. The 1725cc Rapier came in two rates of tune; the 76bhp standard version, and the 93bhp H120. The H120’s engine featured twin dual-choke Weber carburettors, and was developed by notable Rootes tuners, Holbay.

As was the style at the time, the H120 received Rostyle wheels and a natty little boot lid spoiler. The wheels, and not the spoiler would be standardized in later years. When the gorgeous Alpine 2-seater roadster was dropped in 1968, it was replaced by a cheaper version of the Rapier, with simpler trim and a downrated 72bhp version of the 1725cc engine. A sad end, it has to be said, for the Sunbeam Alpine line…

The Sunbeam Alpine lasted until 1975, and the Rapier, a year later. Neither models were replaced by Chrysler Europe, as the Matra SIMCA Bagheera was never officially imported into the UK in right hand drive form. Even if it had been, it would have appealed to an entirely different clientele.

In mainland Europe, there were also Sunbeam versions of the Arrow saloon (as there were of the Avenger), but these were never sold in the UK in large numbers; only being offered for a few months during 1970, following the death of the Singer Vogue.


Written with reference to “Cars of the Rootes Group”, by Graham Robson

Thanks to Quentin Gallagher for further information.

Posted in: Hunter, The Rivals

About the Author:

28 Comments on "The cars : Hillman Hunter/Rootes Arrows"

Trackback | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Tony Evans says:

    The Alpine / Rapier looked fabulous to me and I nearly bought one but couldn’t quite make the asking price at the time. The high end versions were well equipped inside with a lot of instrument dials and very comfortable. Cheaper versions just had basic instruments and no rev counter. Access to the rear seats was not great but there was plenty of legroom when you got in although headroom was just about adequate as you would expect from the roof line. The 1725 engine was a gem in any state of tune and could be made to run like a sewing machine with a bit of TLC. The boot was also massive but with a small opening.

    Unfortunately, like many cars of the era, rustproofing was not a strong point and there were several rust traps, especially under the front wings in front of the A pillar and round the rear wheel arches. The long doors could also sag on the hinges if not greased regularly.

    As I recall, handling was reasonable but not terribly exciting, generally like the Hunter. Stable and predictable but the simple beam rear axle could tramp if you were heavy on the throttle on a wet road.

    I still look longingly at the Alpine versions in classic car shows!

  2. Mark Pitchford says:

    My first car was a 1967 Humber Sceptre OBL 536F. Rust In Peace.

  3. Michael Jolly says:

    I see the The Sunbeam Rapier and think, wow that looks nice, and i am amazed its related to a 4 door Saloon car

  4. steve hall says:

    Back in 1982, I had a 1973, 1500 (DL I think ) Hunter, followed, a year later by 1975 GLS, She was metallic turquoise and I loved that car. I was 19 at the time, wish I had both that car and a full head of hair these days!
    Great site, a real pleasure to look through so many interesting articles

  5. david says:

    I knew an ex rootes workshop manager in the early 70s and quality control was a major problem.He said the ones driven to the garage were bad enough but when they arrived on a low loader you knew you had your work cut out.Oneh120 was a tooth out on the timing gear

  6. Graham says:

    @7 My father worked for Roots, Chrysler and so on till the late 90s. During that time he would get one or more new company cars a year they used to come on a Friday and Saturday was spent with it up on the ramps with the spanners, i don’t think the concept of quality control existed at Linwood.

  7. Paul Pig says:

    Look at a Hillman Hunter estate then look at the new Range Rover Sport. Can you tell the difference?

  8. David Plimsoll says:

    My parents had a Hillman Minx in the early 70s, it was pale blue with blue vinyl seats. XPF667G, they brought it from Shackletons Garage in Merstham Surrey, trading in a Triumph Herald 13/60 convertible.
    It was a good car, don’t ever remember it going wrong. My mum sold it in 77 to a guy who drove the local mobile library. The last time we saw it it had been round the clock! Rust in peace

  9. DeLorean's Accountant says:

    Does anyone know the differences between a Hillman GT and a Hillman Hunter GT. My dad had a GT on an H plate and am now unsure if it was a Hunter GT or just a GT. My dad always called it a Hunter.

    I have a photo of it that I must scan in, then I’ll post it.

    • Spyder says:

      The Hillman GT was launched in 1968. It was renamed Hillman Hunter GT at the same time as the Minx and Singer models were renamed Hunter. It used the Sunbeam Rapier twin carb engine and remained part of the range until 1975. They were very rare.

  10. DeLorean's Accountant says:

    OK, thanks for that.
    I wonder what model it was my dad had then. I had thought that the GLS replaced the GT, as THAT had the Holbay engine in it.

    Ah, according to Wikipedia, “The final Minx was replaced by a Hillman Hunter De Luxe model in 1970”. So, an H plate GT could have been a Hillman GT OR a Hunter GT.

    • Spyder says:

      An H plate would have been a Hillman GT. The GLS came out in 1972 and used the Rapier H120 ‘Holbay’ engine. I think the Hunter GT eventually became one of these mystical models- that was in the brochures and price lists but you could not actually buy. Incidentally the red car at the top of the page is an early Hunter GT.

      • Pat says:

        I have a Chrysler brochure printed in October 1974. The Hunter GT is shown but really the Hunters at that time did not suit a GT as such.

        All the Sceptres had the alloy headed, high lift camshaft and twin Strombergs. There were not many Hunter GT’s sold but that engine was numerous in the Sceptre.

  11. Richard16378 says:

    It’s normally the basic spec models that are in the brochures and price lists but almost never seen on the roads.

    The idea is to tempt potention buyers into the showrooms with the low price & to get them to upgrade a trim level or 2.

  12. Pat says:

    The Hillman Hunter. There were loads of them on the roads when I was a boy. While British cars of the time were earning a bad reputation the Hunter was generally known for being a rugged reliable workhorse. A bit thirsty but reliable.
    I heard a man say once, ”..everything goes like a Hunter but nothing stops like the Hunter..”

    About every farmer had a Hunter, the Toyota Avensis of its era I’d say. There were loads of them and were probably the best 2WD car for towing there ever was. A farmer where I grew up had a Hunter for a long time and would tow insane loads with it. He replaced the Hunter with a MK5 Cortina which he thought was a great car until his rough use of the towing bent the rear crumple zones of the Cortina!
    He went back to the Hunter after that, a Chrysler Hunter with the Sceptre front end. That Hunter was around for a long time as I remember. Some people said the Chrysler Hunter was easier on petrol than the Hillman, probably due to the electronic ignition the Chrysler Hunter had and I’ve heard stories of recovery drivers removing the ignition parts of the Chryslers and fitting them to the earlier Hillmans.

    I wonder did Rootes make hay with the Hunter/Arrow series when the Hunter or New Minx was new at the time of the big strike at Ford?

    When Rootes died in mid-1970 to be re-branded as Chrysler UK so did the low priced Hillman Minx (became Hunter DL) and the Singer Vogue became Hunter GL where the Laycock overdrive was optional.

    There was a lot of confusion with the Hunters power output which may have lost it sales to the Cortinas. Minx, DL and Supers had the all-iron low compression engine while Vogue, GL and some Hunters at Super trim level had the more potent high compression alloy headed engine.
    The Rootes 1725 was a good wearing engine but like a lot of engines at the time they could suffer from oil starvation which killed them at a young age. They really needed STP to give them a long life.

    A very underrated and forgotten car the Hunter. If it were 1975/6 and I was after a new car I’d be straight down to the Chrysler dealers with a waxoil gun and a tin of STP to buy a Hunter Topaz (had the overdrive as standard on this special edition.) A late MK3 or MK4 Cortina? I reckon a good Hunter was still a wiser buy.

    • Pat says:

      Also I think the Hunter and Avenger suffered from Chryslers lack of engine development. The Rootes 1725 was probably more robust than the BMC B and most of the Ford units as well (the Vauxhall engines I remember being about the worst.)

      While its obvious that Chrysler came to favour the Simca side of Chrysler Europe, after all Simca made more profit, Uncle Walter didn’t develop the Simca engines either so its no suprize the former Rootes cars remained with ohv under the lid.

      While the Avenger engine was not the same as the Rootes 1725 they were similar, you could fit a Holbay 1725 to an Avenger gearbox as many rally drivers did and as a friend of mine plans to do with a MK2 Avenger 2-door.

      The real shame is that the Avengers engine was designed to be relativity easily developed to OHC and assuming also an alloy head we could have had a very real Cortina alternative.
      Remember also that Rootes were thin wall casting specialists, likely why their transmissions had a good reputation, so we can assume that the Avenger/Rootes OHC would have worked! Ford got a bad reputation with the early Pinto and none of the Pintos were ever economical.
      When you consider that the Japanese engines of the time (I mean the mid-late 1970’s) were known for both durability and economy (they were 10 years ahead with engine technology at the time) it was because they were alloy headed OHC units.

      So a Hunter fitted with an OHC 1800cc Avenger engine? Could have quite easily happened and have made the tough old Hunter exportable as well as putting an Avenger bang on par with the Japanese, if not further ahead considering handling characteristics.

      Chrysler UK went to the Government for a £200m bailout in 1976, about a year after the first BL bailout.

      Its a pity that at least a fraction of the money that was frankly wasted on BL was not granted to Chrysler UK to develop the Avenger engine to alloy OHC. It seems nobody was thinking in Chrysler UK.

  13. Hilton D says:

    Pat has fond memories of the Arrow cars! My late uncle owneda 1972 Humber Sceptre which was a lovely car. In 1975 while working in Iran, I visited the Peykan (Iran National) car factory where Hunters were built from CKD kits. The Peykan was the most popular taxi in Tehran. (Apparently Peykan was the farsi word meaning ARROW)

    • Pat says:

      Yes Hilton the Sceptre was indeed a lovely car and I was seriously getting the hots for a 1967/8 Sceptre in Persian Blue (there is a link to Iran if ever there was!) that was for sale a while ago.

      I remember, yes happy memories, of Hunters and Avengers. They also seemed to just go too! They actually started in the mornings, were comfortable and good to look at. I loved them if I am honest!

      Peykan also made MK1 Avengers for a few years, I wonder do they still have the tooling? Mayne a way to achive a bit of entnte cordial with Iran? Oh hey, fantasy!

  14. Pat says:

    Thinking about Hunters has woken up an old memory from 1978/9, I forgot about the following Hunter story.

    My Father had a MK3 Morris 1800 at the time which was none too reliable and I remember my Mother hating driving it, the word, ‘ropey,’ was often used. The Crabs had some merit but driving them with that bus-like steering column angle was indeed like trying to drive a bus with flat tyres.
    Her brother, an uncle of mine had a brown Hunter, a 1975 Super I think – it had the shiney bits around the boot which the Hunters for 1975 got.
    She was always borrowing that hunter! I forgot about that. Any long distance trip she borrowed the brown Hunter instead of the Crab!

    So look at the Hunters steering column angle as but one example, the comfortable seats and the good visibility you can see why a lot of people preferred to drive a Hunter rather than a so-called advanced FWD BMC. The Hunter ‘only’ had recirculating ball steering and that in some respects had merit over early rack and pinions.

    Unless my memory is playing tricks on me the Hunter was a nicer place to be in over the Crab too. Those mouse trap BL interior door handles! Snap – Pain!

    You know when you compare the Rootes cars to the BMC’s it tells a story. Rootes knew a lot more about what made people happy with a car.

    For a laugh youtube, ‘Chrysler UK ad’ there is a 1974 Chrysler commercial, ”…The Hunters, roomy and reliable, yet Hunters are not at all expensive to run..”

    The Chrysler Man can!

  15. Glenn Aylett says:

    These were generally reliable and desirable cars in 1725cc form. Also due to the reliable engines, many lasted well into the eighties as cheap runabouts. It’s a shame Chrysler lost the plot a bit by using Simca engines in their later models, as the Rootes engines were reliable, poweful and refined. Perhaps if the Alpine used the 1600 and 1725 Hillman engines it could have really scared the Cortina.

  16. Pat says:

    Rootes engines were reliable powerful and refined. For a British 1960/70’s engine that’s really saying something!

    My goodness there were actually good cars made in Britain at the time, how has history forgotten this?! When you say whats a British 60’s or 70’s car people automatically think BMC/BL and generally laugh. (okay this is the wrong forum to say so!)

    I think Rootes and Triumph were the business. BL got a long lingering public sector death, Rootes got a more rapid private sector death.

    Rootes>Talbot, what an incredible change in a decade! From a Hillman Minx to a Talbot Horizon. Chalk and cheese for sure.

    Is Chrysler to blame? Another big, ‘what if,’ regarding the British car industry. What if Chrysler buggered off a few years earlier than 1978 (and took their lack of rustproofing with them) and by government or partnership with a competent manufacturer (say VW or Renault) Rootes was resurrected (Three Spires Motors?)

    Hmmm just let BL die and grow former Rootes into a player? I guess that would have been politically unacceptable at the time although there is a certain logic to let BL crash and save Rootes. Being a smaller manufacturer they would have been easier to manage and grow.

    For sure, the Chrysler Alpine with the 1725 would have been a different car. It seems like Simca was driving Chrysler Europe and Chrysler UK was an afterthought.

  17. Hilton D says:

    Back in 1973 I rode in a hired Hunter Auto saloon. Although I was not driving and it being an automatic, it seemed to pull quite well and maintained good cruising speeds up to Scotland.

    I used to like the badged Singer Vogue too, which had oblong headlamps while the early Hunters had round. The twin headlights on the Sceptre really distinguished it from lesser versions.

  18. Andy wood says:

    Had a 1970 Sunbeam Rapier 40 years ago turquoise in colour, lovely car with that overdrive on 3rd & 4th gears. First MoT after buying it, sills needed welding as those satin sill covers hid a lot. Head gasket went but an easy fix. Also remember fixing a misfire with a pair of new diaphragms in the twin Strombergs at 50p each.
    The warning lights in the dashboard could be dimmed for night time by flicking the lenses.
    Went down to Cornwall for 2 weeks in 1997,first time I filled it to the brim and hadn’t realised how big the fuel tank was at about 12 gallons.

    Part exchanged it for a Citroen Dyane (!).

  19. Andy Wood says:

    Typing error: Cornwall in 1977.

  20. Glenn Aylett says:

    @ Pat, I agree, all this talk of British cars being rubbish in the seventies is untrue. Yes there were a few lemons like the Triumph TR7, but there were also good cars like the first generation Granada, the massively underrated Vauxhall Magnum and FE Victor, Hillman Hunters and Triumph Dolomite. Bear in mind continental Europe produced some real rubbish like the Fiat 131.

  21. Richard16378 says:

    The main counterpoint was the arrival of Japanese cars in many crucial markets, & a lot of European makers upped their game in that decade.

Have your say...