By 25 September 2013 54 Comments Read More →

Features : Urban myths and old wives’ tales

There are lies and there are damned lies…

Allegro interior

Okay, so the products of BMC>Rover have not always been built or designed as well as they could have been, but let’s not forget that despite upper management ineptitude and Government meddling, the workers who actually built the cars still actively cared about the product. Here then is a gallery dedicated to these men and women… one to put right all of the misconceptions about the company and its products – those that the press and public at large like to perpetuate.

We are very open to suggestions for this one.

Austin Allegro

There are lots of urban myths attached to the Allegro – some nice, some not so nice. Where to start?

‘The aerodynamics are back-to-front’
The Allegro is indeed more aerodynamic going backwards than it is going forwards, but so is just about every other car with a radiator grille at the front! Ex-BL designer Stephen Harper confirms: ‘On the Allegro myth, it was more aerodynamic in reverse. this was proven when I was in the Sales & Marketing Motor Sport Promotion Dept, when John Howlett turned down sponsorship for a Danish racing driver who was planning to rae in Holland. The Dutch were famous for their ‘backward’ racing competitions on the beaches of Scheviningen… they even had backwards caravan racing, with the van hitched to the front of the car… originally invented for the belt driven DAFs which went as fast forwards as backwards. The sponsorship was refused as the ‘reverse’ publicity was not seen as ideal.’

‘The wheels fall off’
Wheels only fell off the Allegro in the first instance because the wheel bearings were assumed by a few careless mechanics to be the same as those used on the ADO16, but were a completely different design, and the consequent over-tightening was responsible for a few cases of hub failure!

‘The rear screen pops out when you jack it up’
The Allegro’s lack of structural integrity did, in extreme cases, lead to the rear window popping out when the car was jacked-up. Of course, this made good copy, but it only happened as a result of injudicious use of a trolley jack; in their panic, engineers marked the areas to be avoided underneath the Allegro with high-visibility tape, but the damage had been done – the story went national, and it persists to this day.

‘They’re rust-buckets’
The Allegro was not especially rust-prone in relation to the opposition, despite what its detractors say: Allegros had generally better rust-proofing than most of the opposition. This ‘rusty’ reputation probably relates to an article that featured in a very early issue of What Car? magazine that stated that the Allegro would suffer from rotting around the rear subframe! The author of the piece had canvassed a BLMC dealer garage mechanic at the time and asked him what problems the Allegro suffered from in service, but it was later revealed that the mechanic thought he was being asked about ADO16, then anything up to 12 years old. The consequent harm that was done to the Allegro’s image is immeasurable, especially considering it was less than a year old at the time of the article.


‘BMC became BMH after it bought Jaguar’
Not really. The entity which we at the AROnline website affectionately refer to as ‘BMC>Rover’ has, of course, gone through many changes of name over years, most recently becoming the MG Rover Group in May 2000. Formed in 1952 with the merger of the Austin Motor Company and the Nuffield Organisation, it was first called the British Motor Corporation (BMC). When BMC purchased Jaguar (and its subsidiaries) in 1966, a new holding company called British Motor Holdings Ltd (BMH) was created, with BMC Ltd and Jaguar Cars Ltd as subsidiary companies.

By the way…
In 1964 a Turkish truck-building company (BMC Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S.) was set up at Izmir (birthplace of Alec Issigonis, incidentally) in partnership with BMC to build Austin and Morris trucks under licence. The company later became independent of British Leyland, but has retained its BMC name; indeed, its recent establishment of a distribution network in the UK has seen the BMC name re-appear here after an absence of around 30 years…The BMH initials reappeared in 1985, when BL Heritage Ltd became British Motor Heritage Ltd.

According to Graham Robson’s authoritative book, The Cars of BMC, both BMH Ltd and its subsidiary BMC Ltd† ceased to exist as companies when they were formally wound up on 31 May 1968 in order to pave the way for the formation of the British Leyland Motor Corporation (BLMC), which came about as a result of the merger with the Leyland Motor Corporation.

Yet, as can be seen from the above detail from a post-BLMC press advertisement, BMC was still going strong as a division of BLMC. Indeed, this was also reflected in the decision that BLMC’s light trucks which had previously been sold under the separate Austin and Morris brands would (from Autumn 1968 onwards) be badged ‘BMC’.

The BMC name finally disappeared from the UK in 1970, when an internal reorganisation saw the mass-market division of BLMC renamed ‘Austin Morris’ (although it also encompassed the Mini, MG, Vanden Plas* and Wolseley brands), while the BMC trucks were rebranded with the Leyland badge. But who would have thought back then that BMC trucks would reappear on Britiain’s streets some 30 years later… (see ‘By the way…’ panel).

† A company by the name of ‘The British Motor Corporation Ltd’ is currently registered at the address of BMW (GB) Ltd; see below.
* Until 1974, when the Vanden Plas brand was transferred to Jaguar Cars Ltd

‘BLMC disappeared with the formation of British Leyland Ltd in 1975’
Oddly enough, no – it didn’t. In 1975, BLMC was nationalised to become British Leyland Ltd, with four main divisions: Leyland Cars, Leyland Truck and Bus, Leyland Special Products and Leyland International. However, BLMC Ltd survived as a wholly-owned subsidiary of British Leyland Ltd, and is in fact still active today, as a holding company registered at the address of BMW (GB) Ltd (as is ‘The British Motor Corporation Ltd’)…

There was also a British Leyland subsidiary company called BLMC Engineering Ltd, created in May 1987 with the renaming of Leyland Group Ltd. In 1994, this was amongst a clutch of former-BL subsidiaries which swapped names for administrative reasons, with BLMC Engineering Ltd becoming Riley Motors Ltd (and vice versa) on 7 November that year. Within a couple of years, the ‘new’ BLMC Engineering Ltd was then dissolved, on 28 March 1996. There is currently another company with a similar name (BLMC Engineers Ltd), but this appears to be completely unrelated.

Rover 75

‘It’s a BMW in drag’
The Rover 75 was the first product of the BMW/Rover alliance to hit the market, and was a giant step forward from the Rover 800. However, many people believe that the car’s chassis is based upon the BMW 3 or 5-Series. This is certainly not the case, and its large transmission tunnel was set-up in order to give the car impressive torsional rigidity. There is no space for a rear differential without significant modification, as MG Rover/Prodrive found during the development of the ZT V8.

The basis of this story lies with the fact that during the months following the BMW takeover, a concept called ‘Flagship’ was developed, as styled by Richard Woolley. It is Woolley himself that explained the situation: ‘The story originated from the fact that very early on during BMW ownership, we did look at ‘re-cycling’ the then outgoing E34-generation 5 -Series platform for Flagship. BMW was about to launch the E39, and all the tooling for the old model’s underpinnings were theoretically available, sourced from the South African BMW plant. It was an idea that BMW suggested we investigate.’ This large car (a kind of latter-day P5) would have sat on a modified BMW 5-Series platform, but was cancelled shortly after the styling proposal was completed.

Morris Ital

‘It was styled by Ital Design’
According to folklore, this car was styled by Giorgetto Giugiaro in his Italian studio… in truth it was styled by Harris Mann in his Longbridge studio. Ital Design were, in fact, somewhat less involved in the design process – simply handling its productionisation. Of course, the story soon got out that the Morris Ital was actually the work of Giugiaro and, as one insider has subsequently said, ‘…why spoil the story with facts!’ It may have been good for the image of Austin-Morris, perhaps it was less so for Ital Design.

Kevan Barnhill, who was an apprentice on the Ital programme added: ‘They made a right mess of it. The ADO28 and ADO73 body drawings were all half-size, fully dimensioned – in decimal inches. That threw the Italians completely. When we got the drawings back to PSF at Cowley, we had to redo the whole lot. The only available people were us apprentices, so we re-did the whole lot. We loved the TV commercial that ran with the tag line “Designed in Italy, built in Britain”. It should have had “redesigned properly by 19 year olds in Cowley” added.’

‘It was the last-ever Morris’
When the Ital was finally laid to rest in 1984, the motoring press mourned the demise of the once-proud Morris marque, now consigned to history just as Riley and Wolseley had been. However, this was a little premature: while the Ital was indeed the last car to carry the Morris badge, the brand lived on for another year or so on the Metro van.

Jaguar XJ40

‘They designed it so the Rover V8 wouldn’t fit’
Soon after the XJ40 was launched, a rather curious story started doing the rounds: During the dark years, it has been said that the XJ40’s engine bay was deliberately designed in such a way, that it would be impossible for the Rover V8 to fit under the bonnet. The idea behind this, was to ensure that Jaguar remained purely Jaguar, and that no BL ‘parts-bin’ thinking infected its immaculate bloodline. It was a good story, and one never denied by the management… However, during 2003 Jim Randle admitted that he did tell BL management that the V8 wouldn’t fit, but as far as he knew, it probably did! The truth is that he only told this to BL for the reasons stated above, but no-one at BL bothered to check this for themselves…

Thanks to Richard Porter for this particular insight.

Vanden Plas Princess 4-litre R

‘It shares its engine with a Rolls-Royce’
‘The engine was from a military truck, not a car’
These two statements are about as common as each other, yet neither is entirely true. First-off, the 4-litre R’s engine – designated FB60 – was never actually used in any other production vehicle, Rolls-Royce or otherwise.

The FB60 was developed by Rolls-Royce in the late 1950s, as an all-alloy version of their cast-iron 6-cylinder, 4½-litre B60 engine, with a variety of other refinements such as hydraulic tappets and a reduction in the cylinder stroke measurement; despite its reduced capacity, in production form the FB60 produced 175bhp – around a third more than the B60 could manage. The FB60 unit became available to BMC as a result of their abortive collaboration with Rolls-Royce, which could have seen it used in proposed models such as the Rolls-Royce Rangoon and Bentley Bengal. Later on, there was also a plan to use the engine in the ADO24 roadster (the so-called Austin-Healey 4000), but this project was also shelved.

The original B60 unit, dating back to just before WWII, had indeed been developed primarily for military use; it was part of Rolls-Royce’s B-series range of modular engines, along with its 4- and 8-cylinder counterparts (designated B40 and B80 respectively). However, following the war, the B60 and B80 engines were also pressed into service, between them powering all Rolls-Royce and Bentley cars right up until the end of the 1950s (when the B-series gave way to the new V8 unit which went on to serve them into the new Millennium). Incidentally, the B40 unit was also used in the Austin Champ off-roader, while the B80 and related B81 engines found their way into Alvis’s range of armoured cars.

So, in short, the FB60 was not strictly-speaking a military engine, but it was a development of a Rolls-Royce engine which had been used both in military vehicles and civilian cars.

‘The ‘R’ stands for royal’
Er, nope. It actually stands for ‘Rolls-Royce’, of course. The ‘royal’ rumour started soon after the car emerged in the Sixites, and has never fully gone away. May have originated due to the ‘Princess’ connection.

London Taxi

‘There must be room for a bale of hay in the boot’
There are those who will tell that the Public Carriage Office’s Conditons of Fitness – the rules which govern the design and condition of licensed taxicabs – still specify to this day that all such cabs must be capable of carrying ‘a bale of hay for the horses’, an apparent throwback to the days of horse-drawn cabs. (There are even those who insist that the rules state that a bale must actually be carried).

How curious it is that this particular requirement wasn’t dropped when motor-driven taxis emerged… The truth is that there is no such requirement, nor has there ever been. It was merely incumbent upon drivers of horse-drawn Hackney carriages to ensure that their animals were adequately fed and watered.

With thanks to ‘an insider’, Stephen Harper and Richard Woolley for their help.

Keith Adams

About the Author:

Created in 2001 and watched it steadily grow into AROnline. Is the Editor of Classic Car Weekly, and has contributed to various motoring titles including Octane, Evo, Honest John, CAR magazine, Autocar, Diesel Car, Practical Performance Car, Performance French Car, Car Mechanics, Jaguar World Monthly, Classic Car Weekly, MG Enthusiast, Modern MINI, Practical Classics, Fifth Gear Website, and the the Motoring Independent... Likes 'conditionally challenged' motors and taking them on unfeasable adventures all across Europe.

54 Comments on "Features : Urban myths and old wives’ tales"

Trackback | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Sam Mace Frankie says:

    Interesting, thanks for posting this. Linked straight to Facebook 😀

  2. shado says:

    the Allegro was more aerodynamic in reverse. this was proven when i was in the Sales & Marketing Motor Sport Promotion Dept, when John Howlett turned down sponsorship for a Danish racing driver who was planning to rae in Holland. The Dutch were famous for their ‘backward’ racing competitions on the beaches of Scheviningen …. they even had backward caravan racing, with the van hitched to the front of the car …. originally invented for the belt driven DAFs which went as fast forwards as backwards. The sponsorship was refused as the ‘reverse’ publicity was not seen as ideal

  3. Steve Bailey says:

    Interesting article, busted a few myths there!

  4. Will M says:

    Can we add to this:

    “The Jaguar X type is a Mondeo in drag”.

    It used a modified mk3 Mondeo (itself regarded as a good car) platform, in the end sharing very few parts with this car.

    Besides which, platform sharing is a fact of life for large automotive groups (of which Jag being part of Ford at the time) – cf. Passat / A4 / Superb.

    (The latest Mondeo uses a variant of the Volvo P2 platform, while C30 and S40 mk2 used a Focus platform.)

  5. JonR Jon R says:

    Yeah, great post – now holding my breath for the next instalment…

    Hurry up please, my vision is going a bit wonky…

  6. David Dawson1 says:

    I’m again in my ‘Allegro’ mood and think the interior shot above is rather pleasing.

    Still think an Allegro with snazzy wheels, paint etc could be a strangely groovy motor…

  7. Chris Baglin says:

    Do you think Harris Mann himself had a hand in the naming of the facelifted Marina as the Ital, after Guigaro famously snubbed him over his styling of the TR7- ‘Oh my God- they’ve done it to the other side as well!’?

  8. Paul says:

    @4 – Pedalling an old wives tail yourself there. Volvo S60/V60/V70/S80 all use the Ford EUCD platform as developed for the current Mondeo, SMAX and Galaxy. The EUCD itself is related to the Ford C1 platform used by the previous generation Focus/CMax/Kuga, small Volvos and in much modified form the Freelander/Evoque.

    Heres another old wives tail. Apparently the rear wheel drive, 3 series based BMW 1 series is really the front wheel drive Rover R30.

  9. Will M says:


    My point was that many manufacturers platform share, and it made sense within the Ford empire for their premium marques to platform share with some half decent developed platforms.

    Re: Allegro / Wheels fall off.

    I’d been looking into this as a Minor old wives tale, apparently occasionally occurs if the kingpin isn’t properly greased and the trunion collapses.

  10. Ken Strachan says:

    Marinas (not specially vans, pickups, or estates, which had stiffer springs) would occasionally suffer leaf spring breakage on the back axle. Along with the above mentioned trunnion problem, inherited from the Minor, the Marina/Ital has the dubious distinction of being the only vehicle I know whose front AND back wheels may become seriously misaligned at any moment.
    Having said that, I once saw a 1986 Cavalier whose torsion beam rear axle had dropped off and realigned itself through ninety degrees, so that one of the wheels was standing vertically adjacent to the rear number plate. Not a pretty sight.

  11. Mike Gould says:

    While the Freelander 2 is based on Ford’s EUCD platform, Land Rover was at pains to point out that the Evoque only uses a few EUCD panels and is a new Land Rover lightweight vehicle platform. Apparently the desire to closely follow the lines of the LRX concept forced them down this route with packaging the rear passengers and suspension being a particular problem.

  12. Jason1.8tc says:

    It would be nice to see the ‘Flagship’ styling proposal

  13. Glenn Aylett says:

    One urban myth that has never been proven, as the company supposedly backed down in the face of union and government disapproval, was Allegro production was topped up by the import of a couple of thousand cars from Belgium in 1978. I know the factory in Seneffe produced CKD Allegros and Minis until 1980, but I did hear these were strictly for lhd European markets.

  14. david says:

    one of the Dads Christmas books with a list of cars you would not wish to own said the worst thing about the Allegro was that it didnt rust.You could not get rid of it that way

  15. The Wolseley Man says:

    Couldn’t resist the opportunity to start a myth!
    Chrysler got hold of all the old drawings from the Rover 3ltr and drew the 300 shape over the top. Then decided to make it.

  16. Paul the Van says:

    “The Allegro was more aerodynamic in reverse. this was proven when….”
    So, how was this proven?
    Reverse racing was done in reverse gear, which probably tops out at 25 mph.
    How does reverse beach racing prove better aerodynamics going backward?
    The Mythbusters busted the same myth about the Porsche 928, by flipping the shell backwards on the floorpan (!)
    Try Google.

  17. Comical_Engineer says:

    Wheels DID fall off All-Aggros all too frequently as my friend’s sister found out when she was overtaken by her own rear wheel on the A64 between York & Leeds. As for the jacking up issue,

    I used trolley jacks frequently in the 1970s/80s and never popped the back window out of any other car (although I did put the jack through the floor of a Midget once). The fact that it COULD happen to an Allegro simply pointed to the poor design of the body shell.

    Unfortunately, they didn’t rust and that was about the only good point.

  18. Adrian says:

    “Morris Ital

    ‘It was styled by Ital Design’”

    Best not to mention this if you ever visit Ital’s HQ in Italy..

  19. maestrowoff says:

    Great article, but I’m not sure Allegro sales were affected by being accused of being rust buckets, as ADO16 WAS a rust bucket and sold by the bucketfull! It was everything else that was the problem…

  20. David 3500 says:

    Another one I heard was that CB40, the first generation Land Rover Freelander, was based on the underpinnings of the Rover 600 Series.

    Completely inaccurate, of course, although the amount of times I used to hear that one over the years became rather infuriating. One of the culprits I knew of then went to work for a Land Rover dealership…

    Another one – regularly declared by one of those syndicate motoring writers in the regional newspapers whenever he writes about Land Rovers – is that the Td5 engine used in the Land Rover Discovery Series II and also in the Defender from 1998 – 2006 was a BMW engine. Again, completely inaccurate and when I wrote a polite email to advise him of this engine’s origins as part of the Rover Group’s proposed ‘Storm’ modular engine range, he said it did not matter who had designed the engine or who manufactured it. He was also highly offended that I had challenged his ‘knowledge’. Oh well…

  21. Lockupchap says:

    One myth to add to others about the London Taxi: they never rust. Presumably it’s more a case of visbile rust not being allowed in service.

    And yes, aluminum body panels on Solihull products DO corrode.

  22. Cliff says:

    Glenn @13. This is actually true. There was a short run of Allegros with a four headlamp set-up. Can’t remember the model designation but it could have been ‘Sport’ or something similar. These were all imported from Belgium where the four headlamp set up was standard.

  23. david says:

    The first couple of years of the All-agro the thing that irritated the workshop most was the electric screenwash pump
    it had a life in weeks not months.The other interesting design feature was the hup cap design which told you when you were too close to the kerb.Occasionally on a high kerb the tyre would be off the road. It took about a year for the management to stop having bent hubcaps recorded as a police accident.

  24. Hilton D says:

    Regarding the Ital, I thought the rear lights design and rear boot / wings looked an improvement, but the front end looked awful. Not surprisingly I never aspired to own one. The Acclaim, R200 onwards looked much better, thanks to Honda and British input

  25. Alasdair Mackenzie says:

    @20. I had read that the floorpan for the original Freelander was based on a much modified Maestro. Keith, can you confirm which is right?

  26. Paul Taylor Paul Taylor says:

    @13. @22
    I had a 1978 Allegro Special LE that was assembled in Belgium, so there were maybe more models brought over here than people realise. It haste standard single headlight set up.

  27. S Elliott says:

    I have heard it mentioned that the BMW 1 Series was based on a Rover Concept that they kept, it would be nice to clarify that here.

  28. Landyboy says:

    I definitely remember Allegros with “made in Belgium” stickers appearing in the compound at our local BL dealership around 1978.

  29. Kev says:

    Re 25: The floor assy could actually be traced back to…yep, you guessed it, the Allegro! The Maestro connection came from the first powertrain bucks being built under Maestro vans.

    Re 26/7: There were quite a few Belgian Allegros built as RHD. An easy way to distinguish them from a Longbridge car was to check the amount of, and quality of, the sealant used in the boot. Lots and scruffy = Longbridge.

  30. Will M says:


    The R30 / 1 series connection came about after the breakup, BMW kept the R30 plans. A few years later the similarly sized, styled and market positioned 1 series came about as an A3 / Golf competitor.


    If you read some sources, the car minus flame surfacing and RWD drivetrain is pure R30.
    If you read others, they’ll tell you that this is nonsense, and beyond any superficialities around the styling (almost all modern hatchbacks have a similar 2 box profile), that drivetrain would’ve required R30 to have been re-engineered anyway (unlikely to have R75 style large transmission tunnel).

    I’d likely fall towards the former. Certainly BMW lost interest and noted how Audi and Merc were moving their primary brand downmarket without harming the brand. Indeed, with the move towards smaller cars especially in cities, this was probably the right move to make – they did keep MINI as their citycar, though soon devising an upgrade path for buyers with families in the Countryman.

    The ownership of Land Rover also helped kickstart the ‘X’ range of SUVs, at a time when SUV sales were starting to skyrocket.

    For all the ‘English patient’ nonsense that is spouted, the Bavarians got a lot out of their stewardship of Rover Group…

  31. LewBLew says:

    What about the “Mini only ever sold at a loss” myth? I believe the truth is that it was only the initial base models which sold at a small loss. Later ones and anything with optional extras brought in profit.

    • Kev says:

      This myth is entirely due to a Ford study, using Ford methodologies. It’s derived from Ford’s practice of paying off the costs of press tooling over two years. BMC costed this over a longer period. The upshot of this was that Ford couldn’t see how BMC could make a profit – using Ford practices. Of course, they weren’t slow in bringing this news forward!

  32. Lockupchap says:

    ‘Completely Knocked Down’. A term that irritates me every time I read it. I confess to a lack of inside knowledge, but surely the cars can’t have been fully built, then partially dismantled for export, can they? It would be a pointless duplication of labour, and a set of assemblies would have taken up more shipping space than a fully built car.

    The Army may have dismantled and reassembled vehicles before and after lengthy sea journies in the days before proper, whole vehicle shipping had evolved, and it was something for their idle labour to do in peacetime, but I can’t believe the term can be accurately applied to car production.

  33. Graham says:

    It’s true to say that the 75 and 3 Series are completely different cars.

    However, you put them next to each other and look at the way they are engineered and also from the pictures I have seen assembled and you see the same DNA.

    I suspect the reality is that although many millions was spent with separate designs, the end results is very much the same as if you had taken a 3 series platform, re-engineered FWD and re-skinned it.

  34. Graham says:

    @32 CKD was something I think originated by Roots group.

    It’s never the case of vehicles being disassembled, its the concept that the vehicle basically arrives in a box to be assembled locally.

    Reality is you use the existing supply chain and component manufacturing facilities to supply an assembly plant in another location.

    However this is usually complicated by needing to bring in some local component supply to overcome import duties or local market preferences.

  35. Graham says:

    @31 The truth is that I don’t think they had clue until the Edwards era.

    The concept of them losing money on each Mini came from Ford’s costing’s of the car. It would be nice to think that Leyland would have got a grip on it, but given that they went ahead with building the O series around the B series tooling without realising the decrepit state the tooling was in, I think we can conclude they would not have had a grip on the profitability of what could anyway have been a marginally profitable product.

  36. Graham says:

    @30 You almost repeat the Urban Myth that the BMW X5 is based on Land Rover technology.

    The truth is that it was already signed off as a design when BMW bought Rover, being based on the BMW E39 platform. The only thing it had of Land Rover origin was the hill decent system from the Freelander.

    Given that Land Rover got the Freelander production engineered (rather than having body shells shipped in from Finland as BAe planned) and BMW body shell DNA plus a load of BMW electronic know how for the 3rd gen Range Rover, Land Rover got by far the better end of the deal.

  37. Will M says:


    This is true, but then BMWs position of finding yourself owning what could be argued as the world experts in 4×4 wouldn’t have hurt either at a time when developing their own 4×4 products.

    LR got a lot from BMW, yes, but then as-then an integral part of the Bavarian empire it would’ve been surprising if they hadn’t.
    They probably got as much, if not more, from Ford too. (Who also no doubt utilised LR knowhow when producing the Volvo XCs, especially the XC60)

  38. maestrowoff says:

    @ 37 Will M

    But how much LR knowledge did BMW need to produce their SUVs? They weren’t trying to produce a machine to go to the extremes of the planet, but rather a road orientated sporty vehicle, i.e. a take the existing 4WD 5 series estate, make it taller and give it trendy SUV styling!

  39. Will M says:


    But then the market was headed that way towards lifestyle vehicles, something that wasn’t lost on RG/LR themselves when developing the Freelander.

    LR didn’t develop the X- series.
    LR may or may not have contributed towards X- development.
    The R30 may or may not have contributed towards the 1 series.

    I feel I’ve had a productive Friday 😉

  40. Big H Big H says:

    What about the Mini & I think ADO160
    Never made any money. Urban myth or what?

  41. Richard Davies says:

    I’ve heard the ADO16 did make a (small) profit per car, at least according to the A-Z of Cars of the 1970s.

    Supposedly the Allegro broke even due to some common parts with the Mini, which meant BL could place larger orders for componants at a discount. This is mentioned in one of the Mini history books.

  42. christopher storey says:

    I am quite certain that both the Mini and ADO16 made lots of money . BMC and later BL’s very substantial profits up to about 1972 came from somewhere, and by the 1960s it was not the Minor or the Oxford which were producing them . Ford could not get its head round the fact that producing large numbers of cars from the same tooling was actually a very cheap way of building cars, compared with their expenditure on fresh tooling every 3 years or so . The same applied to engines – all the engines used stemmed from the original A series in 1952 and remained in tooling terms unchanged throughout the 47 year life of the engine

  43. iain says:

    MK3 Allegros definitely did rust! My Dad bought a brand new one in 1980 and it started rusting when it was 2 years old. Every time you shut the door chunks of rust would fall off. There were quite big holes near the door handles….

  44. Graham says:

    @42 BMC and BL profits were far from substantial, they fundamentally failed to generate profits sufficient to fund the development of new cars and modernise the factories.

    BMC ended up merging with Leyland simply because it ran out of cash in the late 60’s despite the success of the ADO16.

    The biginvestment programs of the early days of British Leyland were still only some 30% of where they needed to be to stay competitive in the European market.

    British Leyland’s cash came from its Truck and Bus division, success of the XJ6 and continued strong demand for the P6, Land Rover, Range Rover and MG / Triumph Sports Cars in the states. Also the operation borrowed heavily from both investors and banks to keep the cash coming in.

    Its clear though looking at the Leyland accounts that there was a large black hole in the volume car division. In theory Mini and ADO16 should have been delivering good returns, but missed production targets, high warranty claims and lost production to industrial actions turned the bottom line a consistent colour of red.

  45. Adrian says:

    Would this be a good place to get rid of the myth that the Marina was a rebodied Minor?

  46. Dave Dawson says:

    That photo of an early Allegro interior – I’ve often admired it…

  47. CMD says:

    @ 45, the Marina was a BL part-bin special, it had parts taken from all over the place, from Landcrab, Minor, etc

  48. Adrian says:

    The other myth that needs busting is that William Morris set up the Morris Motor Company in the late 19th century..

  49. Ol says:

    The marina wasn’t a re bodied minor, it just used the same suspension design to save money along with a larger capacity A series. It was very much designed on the cheap, so all the major components had to be pre existing. I’m just surprised it didn’t have Austin 1800 doors.

  50. Glenn Aylett says:

    The Marina was a flop is one I’ve heard a few times, or it was totally unreliable. The Marina sold over a million in its nine year lifetime and was Britain’s third best selling car in 1973. Also while not particularly well built, the Marina was powered by generally reliable engines and was very cheap and easy to maintain.

    • Richard16378 says:

      While the Marina sold at a decent rate BL had assumed they would be selling about 300,000 a year, when they were lucky to get half that many orders.

  51. Glenn Aylett says:

    @ Richard 16378, BL were probably hoping the Allegro would deliver the same sort of sales to private buyers that the ADO 16 did and more discerning family car buyers would flock to the advanced Maxi and Princess. The Marina really was created as a competitor to the Cortina in the fleet market, with its simple rwd technology and unassuming design, and when its Austin stablemates fell short of expectations, the Marina became the company’s best selling car after the Mini.
    In some respects it wasn’t much cop, the handling was poor, it lacked the ride sophistication of the Princess and was dull to look at and drive, but somehow the Marina gave its considerable following what they wanted. When it was relaunched as the Ital, with a modified A plus engine and improvements to the O series, the old stager lived on as cheap, reliable family car.

Have your say...