The cars : Austin Maxi development story

‘All the fives’ was the high technology tagline applied to the Austin Maxi when launched – with a five-door hatchback body and five-speed gearbox, Austin’s new mid-range fighter really did seem to have it all.

Sadly, the technology might have been there, but the execution was a little less than marvellous, and this avant-garde car failed to sell as a result. During its 12-year production run, it did win quite a few friends, though…

Austin Maxi: Rational choice in irrational times

1970 Austin Maxi

The Austin Maxi was created out of the desperate need to replace the aging BMC Farina saloons, which had been selling steadily since their launch in 1958. Originally, the BMC ADO17 had been conceived for the task but, due to a certain amount of project drift, Alec Issigonis‘ solution proved too large and too fast – and wasn’t really up to the task of replacing these important mid-liners.

Sadly, the Oxford and Cambridge saloons were fighting a rearguard action against the Ford Cortina – but didn’t have the armoury to do the Ford-fighting job their long production run had forced them into.

When it became clear the ADO17 wasn’t selling, a plan was put into place. BMC decided the only way forward was to produce a brand new car to fill the gap between BMC 1100/1300 and the larger car.

Project ADO14 kicks off in Longbridge

Serious work on the new car began in mid-1965 – and, before the Maxi’s project code of ADO14 was dreamed-up, it was known internally as the ‘ADO16 3/8’. The implication of that tag was obvious – the new car’s wheelbase was roughly three-eights of the way between the two cars, exactly 100 inches.

It didn’t take long for this agreeable baseline to fall apart. The first major decision (taken by George Harriman himself) to upset the applecart, was to use the 1800’s doors. They might have been effective doors, but pretty they weren’t, and more worryingly, their use would force the new car’s wheelbase close to 106-inches – rather longer than the Cortina. Also the 1800’s doors dictated the windscreen rake on the new car.

It also meant all Austin-badged cars between 1.5- and 3.0-litres would feature similarly styled centre sections. Alec Issigonis as BMC Technical Director used a cell system to develop BMC’s cars. Each cell was a group of Engineers with responsibility for a particular model.

Austin Maxi development: a question of cells

A-Cell, headed by Jack Daniels was responsible for Mini development, B-Cell, led by Chris Kingham, was tasked with developing the ADO17 1800; while C-Cell, originally led by Charles Griffin, was responsible for the ADO16, which was developed at Cowley until the team moved to Longbridge in May 1962.

For the ADO14 a new D-Cell was created, led by Eric Bareham, Assistant Chief Engineer – Engines and Transmissions and answerable to Charles Griffin, now Director of Engineering.

New engine, new factory…

The ADO14  became a separate project  because of the adoption of a new engine and gearbox. Any money-saving measures adopted in the design of the body would have quickly been negated. A requirement in any effective Cortina-fighter needed to be an engine range spanning 1.3- to 1.5-litres.

This ruled out the A-Series straight away – that had only recently been stretched to 1.3-litres in the Mini Cooper, and Engineers felt that was the limit of development.

Reflecting BMC’s bold ambitions of the time, it was decided that an all-new engine was needed. As Alec Issigonis headed up the project, nothing less than cutting edge would do – so it featured an overhead camshaft and plenty of upgrade potential an anticipation of future events.

Charles Griffin on BMC’s engine strategy

When questioned in 1969  about why BMC had opted for an overhead camshaft engine, Charles Griffin replied, ‘Because this is the right way to make an engine. It is right to try and get precise followings between the camshaft and the tappet, and to get the right message to the valve timing.

‘And it’s very much more accurate when you’ve got the direct mechanism of an OHC than when you’ve got pushrods and rockers and things. We are, probably, ahead of the main race in this. On the Continent, of course, they’ve got OHC engines coming quite rapidly – and there are one or two competitive engines in this country. We have a head start.’

As the Marketing Department were forecasting sales of 6000 Maxis a week, it was decided the new engine needed a new factory to build it – located at Cofton Hackett, near Longbridge. The site of the plant was exactly right but, sadly, the planning was all wrong.

E-Series: engineered for expansion

The engineering of the E-Series engine was compromised in order to facilitate upward expansion. Issigonis decided upper range E-Series engines should have an extra pair of cylinders, not more engine capacity, as more usually the case.

That meant it needed to be ultra compact in order to fit transversely into the engine bays of BMC’s front-wheel-drive range. Engineers facilitated this by the adoption of Siamesed cylinder bores, meaning there was no water jacketing between the pots. This design had advantages, but it meant the four-cylinder version was seemingly stuck with a 1500cc ceiling.

Initially, the E-series engine was planned with four different capacities, 1160cc, 1300cc, 1485cc four-cylinder units plus a 2227cc six-cylinder version of the 1485cc engine. Contrary to previous accounts, the two smaller units were never built leaving the 1485cc and 2227cc engines to be developed by BMC’s Engineers.

Engine testing begins in 1966

The first 1485cc engine began testing in March 1966 followed by the first six cylinder unit in July. By September 1966, ADO16 and ADO17 mules were road testing the new engines. Very early on it was decided the E-Series engine needed more torque and, by October 1967, a 1748cc and a 1797cc unit were being tested. The extra capacity was created by lengthening the stroke.

The new Cofton Hackett plant cost BMC £14 million in machinery alone and, in October 1967,  just weeks before production of the new E-Series engine was due to begin, Mr Bill Davis, Deputy Managing Director in charge of production, told The Times newspaper that the new plant was ‘the greatest concentration of modern equipment in an area of comparable size anywhere in the motor vehicle manufacturing world.’

Davis added: ‘We shall build engines and gear boxes which will later be assembled in another part of the new plant to produce a complete power unit. It will all be several years ahead of its time so we have a kind of compound interest in our investment before we even begin.’

Efficient production at Cofton Hackett

So automated was the layout that it would require a labour force of only 1100 men. There were five assembly tracks employing transfer bar conveyor systems with major components being fed direct by overhead conveyor from the machining area.

A special feature was the semi-automatic assembly of cylinder heads. The engine and transmission units would be tested on an overhead balcony before the final build-up.

Road-testing of production built engines began on 14 November 1967 and would last until 28 February 1969. By the Spring of 1968 engines were being tested in Spain and Portugal and at high speed on the German motorways.

Maxi development: a change of tack

Alec Issigonis and the Austin MaxiDuring the early stages of development of BMC’s Cortina fighter, George Harriman decreed the company would no longer enter into direct competition with Ford – a statement which immediately rendered the ADO14 as it was developing redundant.

ADO14 would also become a high-technology showcase for BMC’s capabilities – and that led to the decision to design a five-speed gearbox, the famous hatchback rear end and its adaptable and spacious interior.

Product Planners were beginning to see a British version of the Renault 16, and liked what they saw, because it was better – having benefited from several years’ further development over the 1965-vintage Renault.

A new transmission system for ADO14

In 1969 Charles Griffin was asked why the Austin Maxi had a five-speed gearbox. He said: ‘The short answer is: somebody had to take the initiative in this. Once again, as with front drive, we’ve done it. You can’t talk about this without bringing in overdrive.

‘The real objective of an overdrive is to increase the relationship between road speed and engine speed. The normal fourth speed, depending on the power to weight ratio, lies somewhere about 15.5mph per 1000rpm for the normal family saloon. Now overdrive lifts all that up to about 19.5mph per 1000rpm.

‘People buy an overdrive because they just don’t like fuss when cruising. We have therefore built this feature into our car with a fifth speed, replacing the need for an applied separate unit… having driven the ADO14 for many miles myself – I use fifth speed almost continuously. I find myself not waiting to get onto a motorway to go into fifth speed. When I want to listen to the radio at 50mph, that’s the time I enjoy fifth speed. The noise level comes right down, and you’ve got something very nice and refined.’

ADO14: those doors

Austin Maxi saloon
A closer look at the rear of the four-door Maxi bodyshell

A major problem for ADO14’s Designers was how to give it a palatable style when it had been lumbered with those ADO17 doors. The result was an unappealing situation which made it almost impossible to make the new car significantly smaller than the ADO17 (that car that was already blessed with compact front and rear overhangs).

That resulted in a crisis of confidence over the ADO14’s looks – and, along the way, it received a couple of hasty makeovers. The first was in 1967. When it became clear British Motor Holdings was deep in the mire, Joe Edwards ended up poring over the company’s affairs. When it came to the ADO14, he came to the conclusion its looks simply didn’t add-up – he was also well aware of the commercial significance of the new car and that the whole future of BMH may hinge on its success.

Because of this, he ordered a restyle of the front end. Ex-Ford Design Director, Roy Haynes was tasked with giving the ADO14 a more definite identity – and landed it with a suspiciously Cortina-esque grille and headlight arrangement. Edwards could not order the Designers to go any further because, the majority of the body panels had been signed-off and Pressed Steel was already in the process of building body presses.

The inside view of Austin Maxi development

The car would not prove to be the saviour of BMH. The development of the ADO14 was, at the time, probably the worst kept secret in the British motor industry. The Times of 22 April 1968 ran a  story by Geoffrey Charles headlined, Styling troubles delay new BMC saloon, in which he described the evolution of the external style. Charles later revealed how he was privy to so much information.

‘We must jump back to late 1964, when BMC Chairman, George Harriman, and his Technical Director, Alec Issigonis, first showed me ADO14, hidden in the secret projects department at Longbridge.

‘It was almost indistinguishable from the then new 1800; sporting a roof-hinged tailgate and five gears, but decidedly ugly around its snub nose and chopped-off hindquarters. The concept was pure Issigonis: two box body, maximum passenger space, minimum engine room and to hell with styling, Pininfarina must not run riot here…’

British Leyland’s first new-car launch

As events transpired, the ADO14 ended up being the first car launched by the British Leyland Motor Corporation. BLMC was announced in January 1968 but did not officially come into being until the following May. In preparation for Sir Donald Stokes taking personal charge of BMC, Alec Issigonis wrote to his future boss on 10 April 1968:

Dear Sir Donald,

I enclose a short resume of work that I am currently engaged on in my new undertaking. Management approval or rejection of these projects is still to be determined, but at the earliest opportunity I shall discuss the matter with Bertie Fogg in greater detail, so that you can appraise the situation with more facts at your disposal.

‘Most of the research work outlined below presupposes that we shall continue to produce a Mini in the foreseeable future. It is very important to arrive at a decision over this matter as soon as possible, because on this depends the speed at which the development work is executed. A low priority programme is both time consuming and costly in the long run. The greatest need in combating increased production costs over the year is the development of a new engine for a small car of this type.

‘The present A-series engine offered a quick way of getting the car into production in 1959, but has outlived its purpose both for weight and cost compared with European competition; although its performance is still well up to modern standards. The enlarged version (1300) is perfectly competitive for cars in the category above the Mini type of vehicle i.e. the lower medium class range.

  • Design and development of a 750/998cc  four-cylinder engine and transmission system for transverse or normal drive applications, for a new small car. In addition to this work we are doing a design study, in conjunction with Automotive Products Ltd., for a four-speed automatic transmission unit.
  • Development of a six-cylinder version of the above engine to give capacities from 1300 to 1490cc, using as much common tooling as possible including the same transmission system.
  • Development of a new Mini. This is being studied in two versions, one  six inches shorter than the present car (120 inches) and another 10 inches longer or  four inches longer than the present model. This will embody common suspension parts but, in order to keep production costs down to a minimum, Hydrolastic has had to be abandoned in favour of conventional springing. This is because a simplified version of the Hydrolastic design, which we have been working on for some time, has not yet materialised.
  • Development of a small hydrostatic suspension system in collaboration with N.E.L. The arrangement incorporates motors in each wheel and eliminates the use of high pressure hoses to transmit oil to these units.
  • General work on induction systems including the use of updraft carburettors for anti-pollution work. This work is very necessary in order that we can dispense with the expensive after burning devices which we have had to incorporate into our cars at present being sold in America.’

Bizarrely, Issigonis failed to mention the ADO14, which was near to production.

When Donald Stokes took over the ailing company in May 1968, he looked at the Maxi and decided it needed more work to be made a more appealing proposition. That resulted in its second pre-launch facelift. So little could be done by this point, all that was changed was the interior – giving it some semblance of habitability – and some very minor exterior detailing.

Making the Austin Maxi work…

Austin MaxiStokes drafted in Harry Webster (pushing Issigonis aside in the process) from Triumph to put right what he saw as the ills of Austin Morris. The prime suspect on that list was the Maxi.

So many faults were identified by the new management that Harry’s team would end up having their work cut out trying to make good and mend the Maxi. Top of the list of problems for many was the new car’s appalling cable-operated gearbox (pictured right). In the end, the Engineers did much pre-launch tinkering to make the gearbox work, but knew that curing its ills would necessitate a new linkage design.

These weren’t the only problems. By December, Webster was also hearing loud and clear from his Engineers the message that the 1485cc E-Series engine wasn’t up to the task of shifting the Maxi’s bulk. He tasked them with developing the more powerful 1748cc version into production reality, and this would take time. As a result of this news, the decision was taken by the BLMC Board to defer production of the four-door saloon variant for another year.

Harry Webster: re-engineering the Maxi in a hurry

As with the adoption of new gear linkages, the 1748cc variation of the E-Series engine would need over a year to be made production-ready and ended up adding £1 million to the final cost of the ADO14 development programme.

Stokes agonized over the Maxi, questioning whether it should be launched at all. However, in the end, he decided there was no option but to push the ‘launch’ button; the car needed to go because of all the investment ploughed in to the new Cofton Hackett engine facility.

So, the laughably optimistic product planning by BMC back in 1966 had saved the new car’s bacon under the auspices of BLMC’s new management regime – ironic really. Stokes pushed forward with the launch – pencilling in a date Spring of 1969. Webster ‘s modifications would have to wait until it was feasible to incorporate them as a series running improvements to the Maxi.

Getting the Austin Maxi off the ground

Austin Maxi
Like the Mini and 1800 before it, the Maxi was designed in a very functional way. It is a pleasing shape in retrospect but, in the style conscious 1960s, it was not what buyers wanted (Picture kindly supplied by Graham Arnold)
Austin Maxi
The influence of Roy Haynes’ ex-Ford design principles are clear to see in the Maxi’s interior. Unlike Issigonis’ earlier offerings, the Maxi interior was more obviously design-led. In fact, it was almost a clone of the designs offered by Ford at the time (Picture supplied by Graham Arnold)

In terms of marketing the Maxi, it would fit in perfectly with the plans that Stokes had for the Austin marque and how it fitted into BLMC overall strategy.

BLMC’s management was not shy in coming forwards with a long list of the sins of BMC in the past, the chief among those being that of badge-engineering. In August 1968, the policy was set in place by Stokes that no new British Leyland cars would be badge-engineered. Within the group, Austin’s role would be to represent the high technology end of the market whereas Morris would be developed into a marque that produced cars to fight Ford head on.

Because the ADO14 fitted into the former category perfectly, it was an obvious candidate for the Austin nameplate and was therefore introduced to replace the Austin A60 only (the Morris Oxford would have to live on for another two years). In his heart of hearts, Stokes knew that the Maxi wasn’t good enough, and his strategists were telling him so: their projections were that the Maxi would – at best – take a 4% share of the UK Market.

Expectations lowered before launch

By this time, it was envisaged that the car would only be in production for a few years, to be replaced by the sweeping range of new Leyland-engineered cars.

By January 1969, the press was reporting that the Leyland 1500 would be badged as an Austin. The head of the Austin Morris division, George Turnbull, was reported as saying that the new car would not go on sale until it was absolutely ready. ‘Preparation and testing, and then more preparation and testing, was my policy at Standard-Triumph and it remains my policy here.’

Testing times for the ADO14

He was quoted as saying, as well, ‘We are doing tens of thousands of miles of road testing and general bashing about. The success of the 1500 is of the utmost importance to everyone in the Austin Morris division. It is aimed at the biggest growth sector of the market and I don’t want it going off half-cock, even if it means holding the car back for a time.’

The world also got its first glimpse of the Leyland 1500 that same month when a Swedish newspaper published four scoop photographs of an ADO14 being tested in wintry conditions in Finland.

The Austin Morris test team, which included Charles Griffin’s son, Brian Griffin, were carpeted by their superiors for letting the Swedish pressmen get close enough to take a photo of the engine bay. In all, fifteen prototypes were employed in the testing.

Mixed reception from the press

Austin Maxi
And here it is – the Maxi’s raison d’etre: the huge, practical and versatile boot. Here was an area that the Maxi had an advantage over all its rivals, including the vivacious Renault 16

As it was, the Maxi was launched in Estoril, Portugal in April 1969 and it was immediately apparent a new management regime was running the show. CAR’s May 1969 issue  contained this description of  the Austin Maxi’s launch in Portugal. ‘Lord Stokes was furiously fielding criticism of the year’s non-event, the Austin Maxi, with what his transatlantic rivals would call an NIH response : Not Invented Here.’

Harry Webster briefed the assembled journalists on the Maxi’s finer points, and not the old ‘Austin’ Design Team. Webster had his work cut out selling the Maxi to the assembled press, and this was to prove even more traumatic after they actually drove the new car.

To say that the initial driving impressions were underwhelming is an understatement: journalists came away with the distinct feeling that not only was the Maxi was underpowered, it also suffered from heavy and low-geared steering.

The Maxi’s famously poor gearchange

The failing that overshadowed all others was the appalling gear change: of course, the Maxi offered the advantage of a five-speed gearbox, but the badly engineered cable operated shift resulted in a bad gear change. Many testers were left with the uneasy feeling that they never really knew whether it was going actually slot into gear or not. Gear changing should never be stressful – in the Maxi, it was.

Julian Mounter, motoring correspondent of The Times summed up the gear change thus: ‘It feels like stirring treacle with a long thin cane.’

Nevertheless, these shortcomings aside, the Maxi was an interesting concept with a great deal to recommend it. For a start, it was wonderfully commodious. Like the Issigonis-engineered cars that preceded it, the Maxi was blessed with keen roadholding and tremendous ride quality. However, unlike its older counterparts, the Maxi was also a quiet and long-legged motorway cruiser, thanks to its overdriven top gear. Unlike its principal rival, the Renault 16, the Maxi’s hatchback arrangement was straightforward in the extreme. It also had the added advantage of being able to fold all the seats down flat.

Austin Maxi impressions: so near, so far…

All that the Maxi really needed in order to become a good car was more power, an acceptable gear change and, most importantly, a well-styled body. At the time of the Maxi’s launch, Lord Stokes was publicly bullish about the car’s prospects. The New York Times quoted him as saying, ‘We believe that it will create the same kind of revolution in the field of middle-class family motor cars as did the Mini in the realm of small cars.’

He also said: ‘We have made certain that ample supplies are available in our distributors’ and dealers’ showrooms. In fact, almost 5000 are in their hands at this moment and, with a production rate now running at 2000 a week, the car will quickly become a very familiar sight on our roads so that customers won’t have to wait too long to get one. We are passing the starting line at a gallop as far as production of this car is concerned.’

He described the car as, ‘…the most thoroughly tested and proved model the motor industry has ever produced. We have done over a million miles of intensive testing with it up and down the motorways of Europe. in the hot summer of Portugal. and even inside the Arctic Circle in Lapland last winter.’

Austin Maxi: what  George Turnbull said

George Turnbull was also quoted at the time as saying: ‘I consider it a must if you’re selling in the family sector of the market and are going to spend heavily on advertising and sales promotion, to stock your dealers up before the fanfare. You can’t afford to go into a launch with 500 cars, keeping your fingers crossed.

‘Your dealers must have one or two cars apiece, and distributors considerably more, with a plentiful supply to follow up. I would be very sorry if we have less than 5000 on announcement day, allowing at least two per dealer, and we ought to have something like 7000. Output? We will certainly do 100,000 a year, maybe up to 150,000 even in the first year.’

Although, the Leyland men would later distance themselves from the Maxi’s development and shift blame onto BMC, publicly they were enthusiastic about the new car. Lord Stokes gave The Guardian newspaper perhaps the best quote of all: ‘Our Designers and market research men have carried out detailed studies on the sociological needs of the Seventies and the impact on the automobile and we firmly believe that the Maxi will fulfill the majority of requirements of the middle-class motorist in this context.’

Austin Maxi: what Charles Griffin said

Charles Griffin summed up the Maxi in May 1969 with this comment: ‘We think that a very wide variety of operators are going to find that this is exactly the sort of motor car they are looking for because it is very much more useful than an ordinary car.

‘For instance; until now, if you wanted the station wagon facility, you had to have something that didn’t look like a motor car. In the UK this is the first time really that we’ve given the best of both worlds.

‘Our ultimate motivation is based on the fact that a motor car is essentially an extension of a person; motoring is a very personalised activity. We have tried to give the customer what he wants – what we feel he wants – an entirely new car with enormous carrying capacity, easily and economically serviced, and attractively priced.’

Project Aquila: the stylish Maxi

Austin Maxi

This design produced by Chris Field as a result of a 1972 Daily Telegraph young designers competition was based on the Maxi’s running gear. This design proposal was made-up into a full-size car (below).

Although BLMC donated the Maxi, the exercise still cost the newspaper a cool £26,000. If the idea that the Maxi was an excellent car crying out for a more stylish body, it is most potently demonstrated here. Also, note the striking similarity between this car and a 1977 sketch for the ADO99 project by Harris Mann.

Austin Maxi

Buyers didn’t love the Maxi, either…

In truth the majority of the British motoring press, whatever they might have felt as individuals about the car, if not enthusiastic about the Maxi in print, did not rubbish it either, except the monthly CAR magazine. The magazine’s  Assistant Editor, Jeff Daniels, reviewed the Maxi under the title Back to the drawing board? Reading the article today, it is quite clear that it formed the basis for the chapter on the Maxi in Daniels’ later classic book, British Leyland – the truth behind the cars.

Back in 1969, Daniels complained about the E-Series engine’s breathing and described the gearchange as ‘one of the worst gear-shifts in Europe – this side of the Iron Curtain, at least.’

He went on to write: ‘The nose looks inoffensive if undistinguished, but doesn’t seem to belong to the rest of the car, having clearly been designed by somebody else. In fact, it is a comparatively recent redesign, having been lengthened by several inches in an attempt to give some sort of visual balance… Whether there is any room in the car for a bigger engine seems to depend on which BLMC man you talk to, but Harry Webster says not, at least without rearranging an awful lot of other components.’

Hints about future development

The last statement is interesting as Harry Webster already knew the 1748cc version of the E-Series engine was on its way. Jeff Daniels went on to write: ‘Interior noise assails one from several directions. It never becomes overpowering, but the car could certainly not be called quiet.’

Unfortunately, the Maxi was greeted with total apathy from the British car buying public – and it is easy to see why. For a start, most people failed to understand the Maxi; it was a great concept let down by fairly fundamental detailing, not least the styling.

Whereas the Cortina (despite what Harriman may have decreed, it was a rival to the Maxi) was crisply-styled and was available in a multitude of options, the Maxi was a one-model show: five-doors and five-speeds, take-it-or-leave-it…

An early sales success

The Maxi did enjoy a brief honeymoon with car buyers, by mid-May 1969 the press were reporting that Cowley was introducing a nightshift and that the order book for the car amounted to five months production. George Turnbull was quoted as saying: ‘We are very encouraged by the response of our distributors, dealers and public, to the Maxi. Our only anxiety is that we should fulfil these orders as quickly as possible. We are doing everything we can to build up production.’

However, a series of stoppages, mainly by Pressed Steel Fisher at Cowley, which supplied Maxi body shells tested the patience of the potential customers who had a Maxi on order. Gradually weekly Maxi production dropped from the planned 2000 a week to 1800, then 1600 and, by September 1969, BLMC revealed it was dropping further still to 1300.

In The Times of 16 September 1969, Giles Smith wrote: ‘The share of the British car market won by British Leyland’s new and much publicised Maxi, production of which will be cut back for the second time in a month later this month, dropped to less than 2.5%  in the three months following its April launch it was understood last night. Maxi models are estimated to have had a 3.3%  share of the May market, 2.5% in June, and 2.4%  in July.’

…but the bubble would soon burst

The Times went on to report:  ‘Indications are that sales in August are most unlikely to climb above the July figure. Leyland said last night that this had nothing to do with the production reduction at its Oxford plant and claimed the group had always been aiming at a  two per cent  initial market share figure. But sales of the new car, one of the most publicised and heavily prepared launches by the group’s Austin Morris division, have clearly been a disappointment to the company’s executives.

‘It is understood the group was thinking in terms of a minimum market share of 5%, possibly rising to 7-8%; no company would seriously consider a launch of the size and cost of the Maxi’s if it were not aiming at a market well above  5%.

‘Leyland confirmed over the weekend that output of the Maxi at Oxford, originally intended to be 2000 a week, but now some 1600 a week. would be cut back to 1300 when the plant re-opens on 29 September. The company said the cutback, involving short-time working, was due to difficulties in getting bodies for the Maxi from Pressed Steel Fisher.’

Poor expectations weren’t met

In fact, in September 1969, the Maxi took a mere 2.2%  of the UK car market, by November production had been reduced further to 1000 cars per week and, by December 1969, its market share had fallen disastrously to 1.4%; a mere 681 cars.

In the 1 November 1969 edition of the Daily Express, the newspaper’s motoring correspondent, Basil Cardew, outlined some of the Maxi’s perceived problems: ‘The Maxi has faced mounting criticism since it was launched last April. The output of Maxis is now down to 1000 cars a week – not nearly filling the assembly lines of a £24m factory to build its engine. Its sales are 2.2%  of the home market.

‘The Maxi is said to have a ponderous gear change, excessive road noise and disappointing performance. Its price of £979, including purchase tax, is said to be too high in relation to its closest rivals… Renault 16 ( £970), Ford Cortina Estate ( £958), French Simca 1100 Estate ( £959), Vauxhall Victor ( £949), and Hillman Minx de luxe ( £851).’

Austin Maxi: ten more years…

‘The Maxi, say the critics, would, be all right if it were sorted out properly. It feels and sounds unrefined – with buzzes, shakes and booms. It gives a bumpy ride and the advantage of the five-speed gearbox is offset by the tortuous gear change.

‘So last night I tackled 53-year-old Lord Stokes who said: ‘We have 31 basic models under the British Leyland umbrella, the Maxi is only one. Yes, I have heard, some of these criticisms but I tell you categorically, that the Maxi is here to stay at least for another ten years. There were similar criticisms when BMC brought out its 1800 model, but now it is one of our best sellers.’

‘He is convinced that, by next spring, the Maxi will be a best seller. The Austin/Morris 1800 was considerably modified before it gained favour: Will the Maxi also be worked on? Said Lord Stokes: “At this time we contemplate no major modifications”.’

Marketing and pricing mistakes

His Lordship’s statement about the Maxi remaining in production for a decade is ironic, considering Sir George Harriman also made similar promises about previous Issigonis cars to the media. In reality, as early as September 1969, the BLMC Board was expressing concern at the Maxi’s lack of market penetration. Lord Stokes wanted to know why it was not popular with fleet buyers. Sales Director Filmer Paradise’s response was that the Maxi was £75-150 too expensive.

Maxi was the brainchild of Sir Alec Issigonis - and BLMC wasn

BLMC launched a crash modification programme for the Maxi – Austin Morris Sales Director Filmer Paradise admitted, later in May 1970, that the original car ‘…had some niggling faults.’ Beginning on 17 December, Austin distributors were called to a series of conferences at Longbridge at which, according to Mr Paradise, ‘…everybody let their hair down. We approached them with stark realism and an acceptance of their problems in selling the Maxi.’

He added: ‘And any salesman who is not enthusiastic, is nothing. Something had to be done.’

Rebooting the Maxi for the 1970s

Maxi was substandard and the unusual step of going for a full relaunch seemed like the only way of saving the Maxi. By the autumn of 1969, modifications were being introduced to the assembly line at Cowley to isolate the causes of excessive vibration and make the gear change more positive. Sound deadening material was liberally applied.

Twenty of the newly-modified cars were handed over for trial runs. Countrywide re-training of showroom salesmen was next – distributors and dealers were given financial incentives to put more than 1500 demonstrators on the road, in order to get potential buyers behind the wheel of the Maxi.

Next came a mass-mailshot of 1.5 million would-be customers that the Maxi was well worth buying. However, the most telling move was the decision to hold the Maxi’s price at £1018 during price increases, thereby increasing its competitiveness.

The modified cars were met with a warmer response from the press and, by February 1970, market penetration increased to 2.2%; March’s was 2.5%  and April climbed to more than 3%. By May 1970, costs for repairs under warranty were the lowest of any BLMC car, but output was now way down on the production targets originally set.

Austin Maxi 1750 breaks cover

Austin Maxi

Eighteen months later, on 12 October 1970 and after a lot of back-room work on the car, the 1750cc E-Series version of the Maxi appeared, along with the new rod-operated gearchange – and, at that point, the Maxi started to come good as a car. The new version was no less odd-looking and the steering was just as heavy and low-geared, but at least the Maxi now had a reasonable turn of speed and one could now engage gear without the constant fear of wrong-slotting it.

At launch of the revised Maxi, Austin Morris Managing Director, George Turnbull, said: ‘We would be foolish not to concede that the original Maxi needed more refinement and a more positive gear selection mechanism. It is in these areas that we have concentrated our research and development.’

Unfortunately,  the damage had been done by now, the premature launch of the cable change 1500 Maxi had terminally tarnished the car. The revised Maxi was the car that should have been launched in the first place. In reality, as far as Maxi development was concerned, that was about it: the twin-carburettor Maxi HL appeared later on, in October 1972, including a useful hike in power to 91bhp.

Special Tuning gets its hands on the Maxi

There were, in fact, factory-backed developments available to improve the Maxi’s performance, care of British Leyland Special Tuning run by Basil Wales at Abingdon, but they  would cost a premium over the standard car. Autocar, in the shape of Jeff Daniels, who had moved from CAR, visited Special Tuning in late 1970.

Daniels tested several BLMC cars including a Maxi 1500, VVP 430J. The ST conversion comprised of twin SU carburettors, a polished inlet manifold and a new exhaust system all for a cost of £66 at time when the Maxi 1500 retailed at £1057.

The tuning package, known as a Pluspac A, boosted power from 74bhp to 83bhp, almost on a par with the new 1750 variant and pushed top speed up to 91mph from 86mph. The 0-60mph dash was reduced from 16.6 to 14.9 seconds, again indicating that the E-Series engine was severely restricted in standard form. The ST car was actually faster in fifth gear, whereas Autocar‘s 1969 road test car was fastest in fourth.

Motor magazine later tested a Pluspac A kit on the Maxi 1750, reaching a maximum top speed of 96.4mph and a 0-60mph time of 12.7 seconds. This tuning package formed the basis of the later Maxi HL minus the bigger bore exhaust system.

Downton improves the Maxi

As usual it was left to Downton Engineering of Wiltshire to demonstrate the Maxi’s true potential. For £203.30 the Maxi owner received their Stage 2 conversion which, in addition to the twin carburettors and performance exhaust offered by Special Tuning, also had a modified cylinder head. This boosted power to 105.7bhp at 6000rpm and torque was also up to 113.2lb ft at 4000rpm. Motor magazine tested UMW 777J in February 1973, lapping MIRA at 100.1mph.

The 0-60mph time was 10.1 seconds. Motor summed up the Downton Maxi as ‘ a very desirable, versatile, and civilised Q-car for town, country or motorway.’ However,  as far as the factory was concerned, they were not going to offer any of the improvements devised by Downton or Special Tuning on the E-Series engine as standard, which was left to wither on the vine for a decade.

By this time hopes that the more emissions friendly OHC E-Series engine would find a home in British Leyland’s sports cars had also evaporated. The MGB replacement was slated to use the engine, but the corporate sports car became Project Bullet, later the Triumph TR7. Only the Austin Allegro and Maxi used the four cylinder version of the engine.

Hydrolastic replaced by Hydragas

Beyond that, the Hydrolastic suspension was replaced by Hydragas and, in doing so, the Maxi was brought into line with the rest of the Moulton-suspended range.

Finally, in 1980, the Maxi was further, cosmetically facelifted to become the Maxi 2. New bumpers, wheeltrims and interior trim brightened the car, but did not significantly improve it.

It was left completely untouched to battle through the 1970s – and it has to be said that, although the Maxi never sold in any great numbers, settling down to a steady 20-30,000 a year in the UK, it did pick up a loyal following in the UK.

Carving a niche of its own

The Austin Maxi catered to the family man who needed space aplenty and, as such, there were few cars that could offer anything approaching its space efficiency. Most car magazines tended to view the Maxi as a small estate car and so its appeal was unfortunately severely compromised. Those that did not and compared it with the Renault 16 (the Maxi’s only real rival during its life) found it wanting in too many departments to mount an effective challenge to the charismatic French car.

In a sense part of the reason the Maxi failed to sell in the numbers expected of it was that British Leyland never really understood what they had and failed to exploit its virtues as perhaps the original MPV. Many potential buyers simply looked at the engine options and saw it as a Cortina rival, but without the style and at a higher price.

Those customers who did opt for the Maxi experienced a comfortable, flexible car with excellent ride characteristics provided by its Moulton-designed suspension. However, all the Maxi’s plus points cost money to engineer into the car which was passed onto the customer who could find a cheaper, simpler car from a rival manufacturer which they more readily understood. Even the concept of a fifth overdrive gear was alien to many motorists at the time.

Internal rivalries didn’t help the Maxi

Also it could be argued that the 1750 Maxi faced internal competition from the 1800 and later the Princess. In the Maxi’s peak year of production, 1972/73, 70,846 emerged from Cowley along with 37,831 1800/2200s from Longbridge. The 2200 may have had the edge in performance over the Maxi, but was the 1800 really worth keeping in production alongside the Maxi?

The last Maxi was produced at Cowley on 8 July 1981.

The General puts it into context

On 26 August 1981 General Motors unveiled the Vauxhall Cavalier Mk2, sold as the Opel Ascona in continental Europe. The day of the launch was co-incidentally the anniversary of the announcement of the original Issigonis Mini and, in a sense, the Cavalier/Ascona was as significant as the Mini.

Whereas the Mini and the 1100/1300 had established the front-wheel-drive format in their respective market sectors, the ADO17 1800/2200 and Austin Maxi had completely and totally failed to woo fleet buyers away from simple rear-wheel-drive cars like the Ford Cortina and its rival clones.

The Cavalier/Ascona was a front-wheel-drive car available as a four-door saloon with a boot or a five-door hatchback. The engines were overhead camshaft available in 1.3- to 2.0-litre capacities mated to a five-speed gearbox, which gave above average performance and all this was in a stylish contemporary body.

By 1983, the Cavalier/Ascona was challenging Ford’s new Cortina replacement, the Sierra in the sales chart. It was General Motors which took the Maxi blueprint and created a properly thought out and engineered car in the Cavalier/Ascona  – a car  which, in short,  appealed to both private and fleet buyers and established front-wheel drive as a viable commercial proposition in its respective market sector.


Looking at the size and weight of the Maxi, it is actually shorter and lighter than the 1998 Ford Focus, but manages to have considerably more room inside – which demonstrates that BMC certainly knew how to obtain the most interior room for any given package.

That the Maxi  manages to beat the Focus – state of the art in 1998 – for packaging speaks volumes for the concept. The ultimate shame for British Leyland was that, although the concept of the Maxi was fundamentally a good one, its execution (especially at the start of its life) was quite simply, rubbish.

Austin Maxi 2
Maxi 2 incorporating cosmetic improvements appeared towards the end of the car’s life, in 1980

British Leyland could have rescued the car by redesigning the body and interior and pushing this redesigned Maxi as a product to sit in the range where the Allegro finally ended up.

The reason for this abandonment of the Maxi is easy to see – it was seen as a product of BMC and, therefore, something from the past – and, by the time of its launch, the newly-installed British Leyland management was already busying itself planning for the launch of the new company’s first car: the Morris Marina.

As Alec Issigonis himself said in 1964, an advanced design only becomes a successful one when others copy it for themselves. The fact that so few rival Designers produced an answer to the Maxi speaks volumes about the car.

Austin Maxi
1969 Austin Maxi 1500 in ‘outdoor pursuits’ mode

Maxi Production figures (Cowley)*

1968/69 1969/70 1970/71 1971/72 1972/73
23,294 27,618 35,742 62,783 55,357
1973/74 1974/75 1975/76 1977 1978
41,639 33,132 43,983 32,479 38,567
1979 1980 1981 Total produced
27,490 15,778 12,435 450,297

* Calendar of years:

1968/69 to 1974/75 (October to September)
1975/76 (October 1975 to December 1976 – 15 Months)
1977 onwards (January to December)

Keith Adams


  1. Is Sir Alec holding a cigarette in the advert? Fascinating how unacceptable it seems, even to us smokers!

  2. I remember the R16 very foundly because my uncle owned about every declination of the car over many years, simply because “tata Huguette-his wife, my aunt” had a brother working for RNUR (that’s Renault for you and me) and he could buy a new car with at least 15% discount on list price and sell it after 6 months ownership, and do it again…I can remember the 16TS, with electric windows, I was about 7 or 8 years old and it was “PHHHOOOOAAAWWW” back in 1970-71, then there was the TA, no need to change gears, AMASING..My dad was into Simca 1300/1301special because of the 7 chevaux tax (R16 was 9 chevaux, road tax was double and V5 cost more accordingly…)and then the TX had 5 gears like an Alpine or a Ferrari. Today, my uncle drives an A4 TDI, black with big alloys, autobox and leather. I asked him about the car he would buy again last summer, R16 TX was top and said to me that after his R20 TS he was dissapointed, although it wasn’t rusting as badly as the old 16s did…I do not know much about the Maxi, but if renault was able to do an efficient gear change from a wheel column to ahead of front axle box, how could BMC-BLMC or BL make such a joke of a floor gearstick to a box less than 2 feet away? Did anyone drive the car before it was given to the motoring press? This car should have beaten the R16-on spec- but never delivered, why spend money on maxi2 before withdrawing the model a year or so later? same question for the Ambassador, with more insult and injury, as it was never produced for Europe, despite getting that hatchback it should have had from day 1(let alone the Allegro) Funny how Citroen got the lithe designs B/L/MC refused and are now icons!!! So many mistakes were made by people far too proud to aknowledge that they were WRONG, either by letting ONE man dictate his visions and then not able to VETO his choice and then shield themselves with: “we inherited that” attitude, do next to nothing about that great-on the paper- car and then come up with… marina!!! I know that with hinsight everything seems easy, but when was the last dreadfull under-tested car launched after these flops? ooops, Maestro springs to mind!!! Shall I add -another time- insult to injury, it took more than 10 years to come up with that Maxi3!!! no wonder Honda was a saviour after such a debacle, R8 gave hope after the 820/825 and 213/216 revival of the brand with at last! some reliabilty, innovative design albeit japanese tech based but with “That British Flair” they showed “BALLS” with new Rover engines(once again under-tested, same history repeating…)beating the “master”, 620TI anyone, then strangled by new german master, fearing for its own product and giving the 75 that ever so slightly sedated feel, then it was too late at ZT launch. All in all, it is true and true, this wonderfull website is full to the brim with “might have been”, last chance Saloon etc… MG name survives via china, but it seems that the same plague is affecting them, maybe they’ll be more lucky with their gm venture!

  3. Is there any truth there was an ad which mentioned the seats transformed into a double bed and then had the strapline – for the single man with a family in mind?

  4. Before the Maxi was announced it was tested in the Arctic Circle. But, not many people know that 2 versions were tested. These were the normal hatchback and surprisingly a saloon. The saloon was cancelled after the ‘field’ test and the hatchback had its ‘nose’ lenghtened by 6″

    • In reality, most of the Maxi’s cold testing was done in Morris Motors ‘cold rooms’ in Cowley North Works. These maintained a constant -30c, in 2 basement labs. The equipment was supplied from Presscold, who were part of PSF (which was over the road in PSF’s A Building).

  5. Not only is the Maxi shorter and lighter than the 1998 Ford Focus, but it’s shorter, narrower, lower and lighter than the current FIESTA. Is it me, or is car design going backwards?

  6. I think it was Alex Moulton that said (when asked for his oppinion on the new BMW Mini) replied, its heavier than an Austin Maxi. But my uncle also had one, and I think he quite liked it as a stock agents car. He said it handled well. they also had some Marinas, which they didnt like and crashed most of them i beleive (or they crashed themselves). but the maxis were defintiy spacious and in some ways technologically advanced. and not that bad looking either I reakon. I would NOT describe the Mk3 or 4 cortinas as better looking thats my oppinion(probably more reliable though). alex

  7. The money they spent developing the Allegro (possibly Marina too) should’ve been spent on doing the Maxi properly. If only they’d got it right, and offered saloon and estate versions with a “full” range of engines…

    Personally, I love the Maxi. It’s the car I grew up in, I still remember the day that our last one (MJX 702W a blue 1750HL Maxi2) went to the scrapper – the chap turned up, wound down the windows, threw some chains through and hoisted her up into the air onto his truck. I was upset, well I was only 10!

  8. @alexscott – The main reason the Maxi is no small compared with modern cars is that it did without – front and rear crumple zones, side protection bars, power steering, air-con, airbags…..etc, making it more compact, and much lighter – even Maxi 2 was an extremely basic car by 1982 standards, let alone modern cars. Interesting though how the Maxi concept has finally being adopted by other manufacturers – Skoda especially with the Fabia estate – surely a modern-day Maxi?

  9. @Michael Radcliffe – I agree cars of a modern design seem to be getting bigger with every new updated model. The latest Fiesta is much larger than its forebear of 1976 and although I havent checked the figures, I think the all new Focus is bigger than the MK2 & MK1.

    Although the Maxi was, dare I say dismal when launched, the improvements made the resulting MAXI 2 a more palatable vehicle. By then it was too late of course as the Japanese were making huge in-roads on the UK market.

  10. It seems the development team were just blind to the Maxi’s faults.I wonder if thought was given to fitting the 2200 6 cylinder engine to the Maxi so that they could drop ADO17 and hence open the market up to the more modern Maxi.

  11. How odd. Yesterday I saw a Maxi on the road for the first time in God knows when and today I see this article.

    My father had a Maxi 1750HL in 75/76. It looked quite good in blaze red (if I remember rightly) with beige coloured seats and it certainly was spacious. The gearchange, however, was a nightmare. My father battled manfully with it, I struggled with it, my mother put out her shoulder and my sister couldn’t manage it at all. The handling was very heavy too.

    Looking at it now, the later models (mid 70s 1750s especially) don’t look so bad but I can see how and why the doors were such a critical factor in the design. I guess having to share the doors with the landcrabs was a cost issue.

    As regards styling for all later BMC models, why did BMC stop working with Pininfarina?

  12. As regards the styling – whilst the Maxi was saddled with ‘those doors’ from the Landcrab (an interesting, but nevertheless ugly, and by 1968 dated looking car), it was never going to work stylistically – nothing short of a full re-skin would have made the Maxi desirable. Also to note was the height of the E-series engine, which would have made styling the car into anything (given the fashion at the time) sleek very difficult. BL’s management at the time were making poor decisions on styling throughout the early 70s – the Allegro, Marina, Maxi and Austin 3000 being cases in point! How could the mass-market arm of BL get the looks so fantastically wrong, when the specialist arms – Rover, Jaguar, Land Rover, Triumph kept getting it brilliantly right? (Princess excepted -(in my view) one of the best, and boldest looking mass-market cars of the 70s). Part of the blame has to lie with Issigonis – his ‘no styling’ philosophy worked in the early 60s, but, in the style obsessed 70s, especially after the launch of the Escort, Capri and Mk3 Cortina, car buyers expected more – even a Maxi based on the idioms set-down by the 1100/1300 – handsome cars as they were – wouldn’t have washed with the buying public, who wanted style and simplicity. In hindsight, maybe BL was too ahead of itself, especially with the Maxi. In other areas though, it was woefully ignorant of the marketplace – offering such a crude car as the Marina was testimony to their complete misreading of the market’s aspirations.

  13. Simon, I’d disagree about the Marina though, it may have been crude, but at least it sold as it gave people what they wanted, a conventional, fairly smart looking, 4 door saloon, with rwd and dull mechanicals – no weird cable gearchange, or hydrolastics etc Toyota and Nissan conquered the world with cars akin to the Marina, but more reliable and better equipped.
    The Princess may have been smart, but it sold a fraction of what a conventional Mk3 Cortina/Mk1 Cavalier type vehicle would have done, judgin by the relative sales of Landcrab, Maxi and Marina

  14. @Simon Hodgetts – wasn’t the Austin 3 Litre a BMC car which was soon culled after the formation of BLMC? I agree with you about the Princess which looked great in Austin form (the Morris and Wolseley variants just looked wrong). Of course it should have been a hatchback. The Marina, whilst nothing to write home about, did sell pretty well for the first few years and squirted valuable cash onto the balance sheet. It outstayed its welcome but then that could be said of just about any BMC/BL car.

  15. @MikeyC – I’d wholeheartedly agree with you that the Marina, for the first 3-4 years of it’s life was what the market wanted – as was the Hillman Avenger and to a lesser extent the Vauxhall Viva HC – but the sector moved on markedly from 1975 onwards – once the straightened out Mk3 Cortina, followed by the larger and much improved Mk4, then the Mk1 Cavalier, and finally the Japanese competition (notably the Datsun Sunny & Bluebird)- against this little lot the already dated and compromised Marina just couldn’t compete. Comparing the Marina with a Mk3 Cortina shows the woeful lack of size and engine range, let alone any dynamic ability (although it was acknowledged that the early Mk3 Cortinas were far from perfect). Every sorry attempt at a facelift made the car, which was BL’s representative in the most important market segment in the 70s and early 80s, look more and more risible…….It was only ever meant as a stopgap – but the car, in it’s basic form lasted 13 years – apart from the Hillman/Chrysler/Talbot Avenger, which lasted a similar length of time (and were just as creaky at the end!) the Marina’s rivals were on 5-6 yr new model cycles…..

    • An extremely late response…
      It’s difficult to see how the MkIV Cortina could be larger than the MkIII as it was the same car, re-skinned. Virtually all components, including all body shell panels apart from the exterior, were interchangeable.
      I agree, the early MkIIIs weren’t good – I had two of them for a total of about 6 or 7 years. I just got used to their tea-trolley-like handling. I still preferred them to the 1600 Avenger I had as a stopgap after the first Cortina was stolen.
      My dad had a late 1750 Maxi (HL?) as a hand-me-down company car in the late ’80s. The few times I travelled in it it seemed perfectly acceptable and as far as I remember he liked it – but it had replaced a Matra Rancho which he hated.

  16. @Richard – Ok so the Austin 3Ltr was an early victim of the post BLMC cull – the question remains, should it have been launched at all? As a flagship it was laughable…….

  17. The Maxi – an advanced concept on its launch, so much so that it only really had the R16 and the smaller Simca 1100 as same-concept rivals. So horrendously compromised, both stylistically and engineering-wise that most of the target market bought Cortinas etc instead. The Aquila proposal looks much more like it – and integral bumpers in 1972 was really avant-garde.
    450,000 built in 11 years is a joke – what other mainstraim manufacturer would have put up with that? Ford would have shifted about 2 million Cortinas in the same period, and Nissan UK have just built the millionth Qashqai in just over 4 years…
    And as for the aforementioned Focus, yes, bigger and heavier (despite being ‘smaller’) but infinitley better to drive and much safer in a crash.(More difficult to load a washing machine into a Focus hatch though). Where the Maxi led in one respect the Ford has followed though – the (Mk1) Focus has a cable-operated gear change…

  18. @Simon Hodgetts – I agree it shouldn’t have been launched at all. It didn’t look right and nobody was going to buy it in preference to a Rover for example. With the benefit of hindsight we can see where and when BMC were going wrong but I have to say I am astonished that they couldn’t see it then, or maybe they could and just launched the damn thing anyway. Clearly Leyland management did not share the same views as their BMC counterparts. In retrospect it’s probably a shame that Leyland (and Stokes in particular) did not get their hands on BMC five years earlier. Maybe then so many of the later mistakes would have been avoided
    and the new company might have been more competitive by the time the Japanese arrived in force.

  19. Simon, I agree the Marina was outdated by the mid 70s, but that was because BL chose to replace its oddball midrange car, the landcrab, with another stylish, but oddball mid range saloon, instead of giving the public what they wanted, which was a conventional saloon, like perhaps ADO77

    And even by the late 70s, the Marina still sold twice as many as the Princess.

  20. The story of the Maxi shows the level of incompetance in BMC at the time. Having realised that the ADO 17 Farina replacement was too large for the market for which it was intended leaving a huge (Cortina and Corsair sized) gap between it and the 1100 BMC wisely decided to plug the gap with a car roughly halfway between the two models. They decided it should be an advanced car with an all new OHC engine, 5 speed gearbox and a hatchback. Having decided upon a specification that rival manufactures like GM and Ford would not match till the 1980’s, BMC then compromised the design by insisting on using the doors- (dictating wheelbase, screen angles and rear design) of the car they already knew was too big for the market for the market they were looking to fill.

    Having now built a car that was much larger and heavier than origonally intended it must have come as no surprise that its all new engine had to grow to a similar size to that of the ADO17 in order to propel it. So BMC ended up making exactly the same mistakes twice with two competing simelarly sized cars with two different but sinmerlaly sized engine,s again leaving the middle market to be ruled by the Cortina.

    That said the Maxi was not a bad car- and despite its compromises found its own unique place in the market- but how much more successful could it have been if it had stuck to its origonal specifiation as a 1.3/1.5 100″ wheelbase hatchback?

  21. Why couldn’t the Maxi have been based around ADO16 with longer rear doors? Is it that expensive to extend the doors of one of your more successful products or maybe they should have introduced a bit extra width to the B pillars?

    • You need to understand the huge costs involved in new press tools on such a scale. It’s not just a matter of new door skins or a wider B/C post. To do either of those requires new sills, floor, cantrails, D posts, glass, carpets, door trim, and a host of other things.

  22. Neighbours parents had one back in the 80s. While it was roomy and innovative, this was a car that always seemed to look frumpy, the automotive equivalent of a tabbard, and always seemed to be in faded yellow or hearing aid beige.

    Did anyone ever use one for camping, or for sleeping the drink off in the pub carpark?

  23. I remember working on the Maxi finishing lines at cowley. The last ones were very high spec, comfortable and all the major problems ironed out. That was always BL’s problem – launch it and let the owners tell them what was wrong. If the car had been launched with the same spec as the final production models then it have been a different story. A good solid ‘chunky’ car you felt safe in…… long live the Maxi!!

  24. I took a Maxi to Kenya in 1972. Having previously spent 3 years there in the sixties driving an old Peugeot 403, I was well aware of the need for good ground clearance, which the Maxi had. Apart from the road to Mombasa and Nakuru and immediate Nairobi environs, most of the roads were stony or dirt (murrum) which became a mudbath in the rainy season. The car took us – a family of 2 adults (and on rare occasions, 3 adults) and 2 children, plus a 3 bedroom tent and associated camping gear, spare fuel and water, on safaris all over Kenya and Tanzania.

    Apart from numerous punctures, for which one always carried a repair kit or a second spare wheel, the Maxi never let us down in over 30,000 miles of motoring.The one problem we did have, was engine overheating especially when the air temperature went over 30 degs C. Fitting an additional radiator from a mini, behind the grill and removing the thermostat made negligeable difference.  When overheating did occur, the only solution was to stop, pour cold water over the rad. and wait till everything had cooled down. As most of the driving was done between 4000ft and 10,000ft  the problem mostly occurred going to and from the coast or in the southern Rift Valley where the temperatures could reach 40+ degs C.

    In contrast, the old Peugeot 403 never suffered from any overheating no matter what the conditions.Other good features of the Maxi:  the ease with which it became a bed for the 2 children when we went out to friends for an evening; much more convenient and safer than trying to find a babysitter; and the shelter afforded by the large opened tailgate when it was raining.On leaving Nairobi to return to UK in 1975, I was sad to leave the faithful Maxi with Benbros, the British Leyland agents in Nairobi, in exchange for another Leyland product, a Jaguar XJ6, awaiting collection on arrival home.

    That’s another story ….Happy Days.

  25. i owned 2 maxis one was CAB 2H that was a 1500 cable change i had no problems with gear change . the only problem i had was it started to burn oil i strpped the engine only to find out that bmc had made a batch of conrods that where an odd size ( mine had one that was slightly oval on the big end ). I bought a 1750 crank and rods cheap these where new i was also ofered a set of 1500 power max pistons new. The result was an engine that increased the power and torque that much you could wheel spin the car pulling away without racing the engine the fuel consumpsion was better (it had the original single carb. I so impressed with the performance i wrote to bmc told them what i had done offered the car for inspection or test. I got e reply that said i had taken the engine away from standard and that would invalidate the warranty ( car was 3 yrs old at time )

  26. In some respects the Maxi was a niche product that fitted into the BMC/BL range in much the same way that the C Max fits into todays Ford range. It was in effect an early take on the mini people carrier which Renault are credited with inventing with the Scenic in the mid 90s. Trouble is both the C Max and Scenic are based on mainstream vehicles, the Focus and Megane respectively. The low volume Maxi shared nothing (except its doors!) with any other car in BLs range. It even had its own bespoke engine and transmission when launched. BL just washed its hands of the car and left it to fester on into the 80s. If they had used the Maxis underpinnings on a proper mainstream saloon and given the Maxi a decent facelift/rebody it could have been a decent, profitable seller.

  27. Why oh why was the Maxi never developed more, sold harder?

    Driving to work this morning and out of nowhere I thought how I’d love to take a drive in one!

  28. Does anyone else think the Maxi was way, way ahead of it’s time? It was in many ways a predecessor of today’s Golf+, Toyota Auris, SEAT Ibiza estate, Skoda Felicia estate, Ford Fusion, Nissan Qashqai 2WD, and a few others. Not exactly exciting cars, but those that offer sensible solutions to the problems of practicality, robustness, and most importantly, offering the maximum space for minimum outlay. For that vision, Issigonis must be applauded, even if the Maxi was not the runaway success BMC hoped for.

  29. My mates dad had one and several engines!,his father passed awayand the car was left in the garagea few years,we decided to get it running again it smoked that much when we started it th e police and fire brigade turned up!this was about 23 years ago and we still talk about it now,i liked the maxi,with its versatile seats and believe it or not very good handling-they corner flat.

  30. Been pondering my long term motoring future – What will come after the ZR, hopefully in MANY years time. I’d like to always be able to source a mint BL>MG Rover car of some kind. It could end up being anything. Practically speaking, something newer – R8, 45, another 75 ?? HOWEVER, I have several times recently been thinking ‘MAXI’ !

  31. I find it hard to hate the Maxi, but you’ve got to wonder at the wisdom of tooling up for a brand new engine and transmission but not finding a few million extra for a new set of doors.

    Now if it had ridden on a 100″ wheelbase as originally envisaged that would imply that the car’s length would have been about 154″ – or about 2″ longer than the later Allegro.

    In other dimensions the Allegro and Maxi are really quite similar – the Aggro’s front and rear tracks were a bit wider, the height of the two cars were about the same.

    A shsme really, because if the Maxi had been developed as the shorter car originally proposed then the Allegro wouldn’t really have been needed.

    BLMC could then have save itself the Allegro’s £30 million development budget whipping that E-series engine into shape, and revising/refining/restyling its exisitng front platforms into products more in tune with 70s tastes.

    Of course, it didn’t happen but I still find it bizarre that with the Allegro the company didn’t just start with the idea of producing a truncated Maxi rather than with the notion of making a larger ADO16, because as we know the car grew through development hell into the pudding we all know and secretly ache to own.

    They really could have saved themselves an awful lot of grief.

  32. The Maxi post 1969 was a good car and technology wise light years ahead of the Cortina. I can always remember the fifth speed making the Maxi very quiet at high speed, the wood dahsboard gave it a classier look than the black plastic on its rivals and having a very good ride.

  33. I knew several Maxi owners. One christened theirs “Bellamy” because it had so much “character”. I remember the outstanding features were the bus like steering wheel and playing “hunt the gear” when you could never be sure if you were in 3rd or 5th or 2nd or 4th.

    Space and practicality were great, engineering was lousy. So nearly a great car, and how brilliant would an estate version have been?

  34. I own one. Nice car, some rough edges to it, but utterly reliable, cheap to run and great fun/comfort.

    It’s one of 18 remaining, taxed and MOT’d Maxi’s in Holland at the moment.

  35. I can’t help but think the 4-door maxi, despite the rather ungainly high rump, might have been worth pursuing as a more direct Cortina rival: as it says elsewhere on here, the British public were wary of 5-doors at this time, so I think it might have been a goer, and with minimal additional investment too.

  36. I drove 2 of those cars for 15 years.
    I still wonder why they werent a huge succes?
    I loved mine,lots of interior space, powerfull, carried heavy loads well, good as towcars, lot of power at low revs, easy to park, fine on motorways,steady as rocks in strong sidewind. I even still find them pretty. A renault 16 was in the family too for some years – also pretty – but no competition on all the other aspects mentioned.
    For 2 years in a row it was the car that you most often bougt again-and most often would recomend to a friend in a survey made by FDM (Danish AA).

    Flemming Thisted

  37. My dad had a red 1750 version with twin su carbs, it was really quick for me as a new driver. I really liked it even though the gearbox was still suspect even on the later cars (especially when brought up on the ford gearbox in a Corsair!).

    For me the Maxi was a bit different, much better than the Allegro. Interesting to read the comparisons with the Ford Focus.

    The Maxi was also part of one of my best car stories ever, with my dad going through 4 cars in a day. On the day of my sisters 21st birthday we had a Triumph 2.5pi in the garage awaiting a new engine. The Morris Marina we had on loan as a company car decide to blow its Cylinder head gasket picking up my auntie from Billingham, in Cleveland for the party. We had to get a tow back to Newcastle, which did not go down well.

    My dad didn’t let this phase him he just went straight back to work and selected another Marina from the compound, but this was left on the banks of the Tyne when it wouldn’t even bump start.

    I remember thinking it was cool when he went back to the compound (this was not a car dealership by the way) and said to the securiy guard, “whose is that car in the corner” (a brand new white N reg Maxi). When told it was a blokes new car who was in America for work he said “well he won’t need it today will he” and promptly took the keys!

    Four cars in a day, all British. Not sure what that says, but as a 18 year old I loved it and I think this was the start of the love affair with all things AR. It helped that I was allowed to drive all his company cars. He got new ones (hand me downs) every few months. He had loads of different marques during the years, but at that time they were all BL.

    Back to the point, the Maxi we had was a good car. Spacious, quick in this form and something a bit different. I liked the fact that it was narrower than other family cars (a bit like the first focus). One I will always remember, now what was that reg number!

  38. Simple,
    The Renault R16 was brilliant, brilliantly engineered, brilliant industrial design by Philippe Charbonneaux, the Maxi was none of that.
    The Renault R16 was avantgarde, just in a good way, the Maxi a mixture of old and new.
    People chose for the Renault R16 by the masses, over 1.8 million were made between 1965 and 1980.
    And in this case, the people were right.
    Guess the R 16 was the first Renault to attrack lots of British buyers as well.

  39. @Keith Adams
    Did read it, have nothing against the Maxi, but in my view the R16 was simply the better car.
    Like the seventies Princess could have been a real great car.
    Coz it stood out against the competition.

  40. They should have offered electric windows (at least in the front) and central locking. And perhaps an electrically operated sunshine roof too. R16TX had it.

  41. While the mock up 4 door was ugly, was it uglier that the 5 door? Not selling a 4 door was clearly a mistake. While the Maxi is a bit plain I don’t doubt a little bit of tinkering with the detail would have made it prettier. Changing the brightwork around the windows for example or altering the crome rubbing strip.

    Equally if you had to use these giant doors why not make a SWB 3 door/ 2 door. And as said the absense of an estate is lunatic.

    One of the reason the Maxi failed to be come cool was that inspite of successfull race and rally versions there was no warmed up cooper or mg versions as aspirational cars.

    A short wheel base 3 door MG maxi with an uprated 1750 or better a 2200 E6 would have have brought punters into the dealers.

    Peugeut showed it could be done their remarkably simiar cars or the same era. What price an 1800/2200 estate with an extra row of seats?

  42. This is a great example of management incompetence. First it is dictated to use the landcrab doors (were doors really that expensive to make?) and then they build an entirely new factory for producing an entirely new engine – no expenses spared. Only to end up with an underpowered engine of compromised design. I think they regarded Issigonis as a God, his decisions were not questioned. Wouldn’t the money have been better spent on styling and then being less ambitious about the engine. Maybe use an updated B-series… dare I say B+… 🙂

    • “….were doors really that expensive to make?”

      Yes, you’d better believe it! The door with it’s opening lines, drives the A post (due to the hinge pivot axis), the B/C post and latching, glass drop, and sealing, to name just a few things. There’s a whole lot more involved than the public understand.

  43. 1977 austin 1100 hydrostatic suspension. there a coil spring replacement or air/bag ride kit I can put in as the suspension system is extremely hard to get parts and refill in my country

  44. I had three maxis – the first a 1500cc with cable gearchange and the other two (bought new) 1750cc’s with the replacement gearchange.

    For me, with a young family, it was an ideal car – economical, with bags of space and you could sleep in it at a pinch. A comfortable motorway cruiser with its 5th gear, almost unique for the time.

    The original cable gearchanger was simply horrible but even the replacement gearchange was not ideal. My wife could never master it.

    These days, I regard buying new cars as a mug’s game. But in the 1970’s most 15 year-old cars were rust lacework bundles of trouble, so I’m not sure what it would have made sense to buy instead.

    Through the 1970’s and 80’s I watched the slow-motion train crash of the BL of Lord Stokes, Michael Edwardes and Red Robbo, without, so far as I can remember, feeling any resentment that I was using my tax-paid income to shore up their circus.

  45. Maxi’s were so well designed you could get anything in them, except 1st gear.

  46. The first Austin Maxi I remember seeing was that belonging to one of my neighbours in the Hackbridge Park Gardens area of Carshalton. Not surprisingly an autistic transvestic fetishist adolescent boy with shoulder length brown hair and brown eyes is taken out in an Austin Maxi driven by his father in one of my stories.

  47. A fact little mentioned is that the Maxi 5 speed gearset was repackaged into an inline configuration and used by Lotus – first in the Elan Plus 2S 130/5, then in the Series 1 Lotus Elite and Eclat. It wasn’t really strong enough to take 160bhp without careful treatment and was subsequently replaced in 1980 by a Getrag unit. I wonder why AR never used this repackaged configuration in the MGB and Marina at least? And even in the Triumph Dolomite?

  48. Love these Development stories However, things just don’t quite make sense…like

    “Edwards could not order the designers to go any further because, the majority of the body panels had been signed-off and Pressed Steel was already in the process of building body presses”. What was there to sign off exactly? The Hull was pure 1800.

    “Cofton Hackett” had cost BMC £14 million in machinery alone” Yet The E series was only fitted to The Maxi And Allegro (4 cyl) But Then They developed The O series ? Infact they had the Dolomite engines, why did they even need the E series?

    Was The E series deliberately de tuned so it didn’t damage the gearbox?

    The E-6 has been described as a good engine and yet the Triumph 6 ohc was developed?

    Why didn’t Mr Issigonis sort out his Gearbox creation?

    George Harriman decreed the company would no longer enter into direct competition with Ford – a statement which immediately rendered the ADO14 as it was developing redundant. Shall we give up now???

    Still another car that could of been a Great one if only it was developed.

    • “Edwards could not order the designers to go any further because, the majority of the body panels had been signed-off and Pressed Steel was already in the process of building body presses”. What was there to sign off exactly? The Hull was pure 1800.

      No, it shares the doors, B-pillars and sills. And that is about all a Maxi shares with the 1800! This was typical for the Issigonis period: Everything was designed for purpose, even if similar and possibly useful components were already at hand.

      Was The E series deliberately de tuned so it didn’t damage the gearbox?

      No, it was not. In the time the power output was competitive and in HL trim actually quite good. The box could withstand the power of the E4 engine quite well. It was not fail-safe (as was the 1800 box, that usually could out-last multiple engines), but well suite for the standard Maxi and Allegro.

      Still another car that could of been a Great one if only it was developed.

      Indeed. In common with the 1800 and Mini in particular. It seems the 1100 looked better in that respect. In later years, both 1800 and Maxi showed that they were basically very sound and rugged designs.

      Even though the Maxi looks quite similar to the 1800, it does in fact slot in perfectly between 1100 and 1800 in terms of size. The 1800 is really a big car (from the user’s perspective), even though it is only 20cm longer than a Maxi. The Maxi, whilst still roomy, feels noticeably smaller inside and is also much easier to handle in town. On the drive the Maxi feels closer to an ADO16 than an 1800.

  49. Questions that come to mind from reading the development stories and essays are the necessity of BMC being fully committed to producing Maxi and 1800 sized FWD cars (that were blind alleys in retrospect) as well as the need to continue using the transmission-in-sump layout for future FWD cars, especially since the gearbox layout in the Princess was what prevented it from using the 2.6 E6 engine (as well as preventing the MG Metro Turbo from reliably putting out 120-130 hp).

    BMC could have avoided the problems in the Maxi and 1800 by producing a pair of Cortina and Granada challenging RWD saloons with Hydrolastic / Hydragas suspension similarly sized to the Maxi and 1800/X6, while utilizing the hatchback and other styling elements of the Austin Maxi in an updated version of ADO16 equipped with a Dante Giacosa inspired end-on gearbox and 1400-1600/1750cc E-Series (followed by an updated Mini with hatchback and end-on gearbox).

    The former would have allowed BMC to make money in an area where they suffered with the 1800 and Maxi, while the latter is based on the rationale that ADO16 was continuing to sell well into the early/mid-70s and could have even conceivably lasted as long in production as the Austin Maxi (1981) before finally being replaced had it been properly updated / rebodied (and again equipped with an end-on gearbox).

    Based on the 9X/10X project, it seems Issigonis planned to eventually replace the existing transmission-in-sump layout in favor of the gearbox being mounted behind and below the engine in a separate casing rather than sharing the engine’s sump oil.

    However from the data in a comparison test involving the original Mini, Mini Clubman and Autobianchi A112, the 9X prototype’s only failing in the comparison test was apparently the gearshift.

    Which suggests that short of major improvements the new gearbox layout in the 9X was likely to be as problematic as on the in-sump layout in the Maxi and 1800, not to mention that the early end-on gearboxes in both the Autobianchi A112 and Fiat 127 were said to be appalling and the gearshift rubbery before the end-on layout was further developed and became the standard layout for FWD cars.

    Also the Aquila could have gone some way in helping to productionize the Pininfarina 1100/1800 concepts styling for BMC’s future models, likely the larger cars (RWD Cortina-rival to ADO61) as opposed to the smaller cars such as the Mini and ADO16.

    • Was the VW Golf the first FWD car with a decent gearbox?

      Thinking about it though, Japanese FWD cars of the early 70s like the Honda Civic and Datsun Cherry were known for being easy to drive, so I imagine they had decent gearboxes as well?

      • Triumph 1300? Seem to remember they had a decent box. Underneath the engine but separate casing. Made for quite tall but compact unit installed lengthwise in the car.

        • Good point about the fwd Triumph, However Mr Issigonis would have had a dickey fit with the space it used, also reading somewhere on this site it wasn’t cheap to build and possibly warranty claims were high. Harry Webster appeared to be rather protective of Triumph parts.. Hence The Marina Developed when they could have used the Dolomite and Then the Allegro, which shared its wheelbase length with the Dolly and Marina?

          • The Dolly and Allegro couldn’t be used. The Dolly was at the end of it’s life – it couldn’t be made to pass impending test requirements, the body was not capable of passing crash. The Allegro structure was not adaptable enough. We needed a platform that could, with minimal expenditure, cover 4 door, estate, van, and pick-up. That left the ADO28/73 as the only game in town.

    • How was it that the gearbox layout prevented the Princess from using the 2.6 E series? I have never heard that before. Did this also apply to the auto [which was a BW 35 from memory]?

  50. So the Maxi was conceived because the ADO17 1800 wasn’t selling? Fair enough, but by 1969 the 1800 was already 5 years old. Well past it by the model lifecycles of the day perpetuated by Ford and Vauxhall. Why introduce a new model that overlapped the 1800, keeping it in production? A properly sorted and sized ADO17 replacement would have got rid of an ageing and poorly performing product, done the Maxi’s job – and not have needed to retain ugly doors – and potentially alleviated the need for the Marina.

    • In brief-

      ADO17 used advanced technology and was designed to replace the 1.6 litre Farina models. Due to project slip it grew in size, weight and price and needed an engine of almost 1.8 litres to propel it. So it didn’t replace the Farina models but IMO it sold well in its market niche and was highly thought of my those that bought it. Yes five years was old by Ford and Vauxhall standard of the late sixties- but look what happened to Vauxhall.

      ADO 14 (Maxi) was designed to plug the gap between ADO16 (then only available as an 1100) and ADO 17 (1800). It was designed to have a 100″ wheelbase and be available as 1.3 and 1.6. It used advanced technology and was designed to replace the Farina. Due to project slip it grew in size, weight and price and needed an engine of almost 1.8 litres to propel it. So it didn’t replace the Farina models but IMO it sold well in its market niche and was highly thought of my those that bought it.

      ADO 28 (Marina) was designed to plug the gap between ADO 16 (now available as a 1300) and ADO 14 (Maxi). It was designed to replace the Farina. Due to Leyland having no money left (it had all been spent designing two cars to replace the Farina- but both missing the mark) it was developed on a shoestring. It had engines of 1.3 and 1.8 litres- so it didn’t replace the Farina (1.6) models but IMO it sold well especially considering it used outdated technology that wasn’t a great advance on the 1950s Farina models it was supposed to replace.

      • Interesting analysis, though I’m not sure either the Landcrab or Maxi sold well in their niches

        They attracted great loyalty from those people who loved them, but there weren’t enough of them.

        The Marina wasn’t really a car to fill the gap between ADO16 and Maxi, but rather a completely conservative alternative to the “weird” Maxi. Marina is anything was a rival to the Maxi.

        • The fact that neither the Landcrab nor Maxi sold as well as the Mini and ADO16 was what I was getting at, which makes me think BMC should have delayed introducing FWD for the larger models until the early/mid-70s when a less flawed gearbox layout could be considered.

          Ideally there should have been a proper RWD replacement for the Farina B that draws upon more of Issigonis’s work at Alvis with the Alvis TA175/TA350 project featuring 1300-2000cc engines and Hydrolastic suspension.

          Followed by a related RWD 1800/X6 equivalent featuring 2000-3000cc engines and Hydrolastic suspension, being BMC’s compact executive challenger to the Rover P6 and Triumph 2000/2500 (given the Austin Kimberly / Tasman X6 is of similar dimensions to the P6 and 2000/2500).

          While the alternate Austin 3-litre ends up being a Wolseley or Vanden Plas only challenger to the Rover P5 featuring either an E6 or some sort of V8 or even reworked C-Series and Rolls-Royce FB60 engines.

          ADO16 meanwhile could have more effectively utilized elements of the Austin Maxi then the latter ever could as a niche model with the exception of the latter’s flawed gearbox.

          • …which makes me think BMC should have delayed introducing FWD for the larger models until the early/mid-70s when a less flawed gearbox layout could be considered.

            Now, we all know that Mini and ADO16 boxes have their weeknesses. Some Maxi boxes posed problems too, but mainly due to poor matching of gear wheels on manufacturing – the resulting clatter and shocks in the drivetrain lead to various problems. Now the 1800 box: BMC made everything right on this one. Despite running with the engine oil, the 1800 box was – as already mentioned elsewhere – extremely resilient and usually outlasted the already durable B-series engines. As often with BMC, the concept does not look to be too flawed, it was more a problem of the actual execution.

          • Though the 1800 In-Sump box that was later carried over to the Princess, was what limited BMC from using more powerful engines such as the 2.4-2.6+ E6 and in the case of the Princess even a possible 2.0 O-Series Turbo.

            This in a car such as the 1800 that was more then capable of receiving larger engines such as the Aussie-tested Rover V8 ADO17 FWD prototype (quick yet full of torque-steer), were it not limited by being FWD and using the In-Sump layout.

            Agree that the concept behind 1800 and the Maxi was poorly executed, just that other more conventional alternatives could have helped BMC stay solvent and even profitable had the concept behind the Maxi and 1800 (along with the gearbox layout) been given time to develop.

      • ADO 28 was in fact only ever intended to be a stop-gap product. Designed and developed in 2 years, meant to be in production for no more than 4 to 5 years max. It was to tide us over until we could bring ADO77 on stream, but thanks to the disaster of SD1, we just never had the money. The project struggled on in various guises for the next 6 or 7 years. By then, the damage was terminal. We knew we were in trouble in the late 60s/early 70s, but there was simply no money. We did the best we could – ADO73/ADO73 1980 F/L, Maxi 2, Allegro Equipe, then Acclaim. We couldn’t even afford a new engine for Metro – trying to do a deal for the Charade’s triple pot unit – we even tried Norton’s twin rotor wankle – but in truth, the game was up by then.

        • Nate so was the limiting factor with the 1800 in sump gearbox one of torque capacity restricting it to the 2.2 E series? If so presumably this would not have applied to the auto?

    • I was wondering if the Maxi could have replaced the 1800 in the long run, which would have not needed to share doors with it. This is especially true once the 1750cc version came along, & even more so if the saloon Maxi had been produced.

      This would have left an assembly line free to keep up ADO 16 production rather than sacrifice it for the Marina.

      • Having had both a Maxi and an 1800 (Wolseley 18/85) my opinion is that they were two very different animals and both good in their own ways. If someone today said to .me ‘do you want to take the Maxi or the 1800 it would be the 1800

  51. A couple of comments on the Maxi story.

    Cable Gear change. This is now the norm on many cars and it is regarded as a conventional system nowadays. The Rover 75 had it and it works very reliably.

    Comparisons with the Renault 16. The Renault 16 was also only ever produced in on body style. The Maxi may have been deemed inferior to the Renault in many ways, but it didn’t rust quite as well as the Renault did.

    • The cable change in the much earlier launched 1800 works actually quite well. It is not very light to use, but precise and reliable – even on very high mileage cars. The cable change on the Maxi used a completly different layout, using very long cables – and effectively ruining the name of cable change boxes for decades…

  52. Is the MG6 a latter day Maxi? A bit of an oddball in size, the wrong car at the time (this time being a bit late to the party instead of well before), and not quite reaching it’s full potential. If they had been a bit more developed and thought out for their intended markets, then both could have achieved a lot more! Even the “Fastback” type styling isn’t a million miles away in concept.

  53. We had a 1500 Maxi in 1978-79. I can remember it being very spacious, the fifth gear made it quiet on long journeys and it was quite reliable, but it was let down by its sluggish performance, heavy fuel consumption due to the smaller engine and ponderous steering. Also the car was basic, with the only luxuries being a rear demister and a two speed heater fan. During the 1979 energy crisis, we changed it for a Toyota Corolla which averaged 10 mpg more, had standard fittings like a radio and cloth seats and seemed to perform almost as well.

  54. Failing to use the Aquila – a car that still looks good today – as the basis for a production model was one of BMC / BL’s biggest crimes.

  55. I still rate the Maxi. It never had the contempt shown towards it that the Allegro had, it had a massive boot and huge interior space, and in 1750 HL form went quite quickly and the fifth gear made it more refined and economical on long journeys than many of its rivals. Ours was the rather underpowered 1500 version, but even this was commendably quiet on long journeys and was generally reliable. Also the gearchange, while a bit stiff, never was the problem some owners claim it was.

  56. I have a real soft spot for the Maxi, my uncle bought a new 1750 in 1973, my dad took it over in 1979 and I had it from 1993 to its demise in 2002. It covered over 100,000 miles, never used any oil and even the gear change was not too bad. That car towed a caravan and a trailer, it carried no end of things and helped us move house. I was very sad when the front subframe rotted out, the car still ran well and the body was not very rusty. I bought my second Maxi, a 1978 one in 1998 and ran that as my main car through to 2006 when it was written off by an idiot in a Peugeot. The second Maxi still had loads of life in it and nothing else comes near to their practicality and character. The registration from the 1973 car lives on with my Rover 75 Tourer.
    If only the Maxi had been properly thought through, everyone I have spoken to who owned them has fond and positive memories of what was a potentially great car.

  57. I had 2 Maxis – the first being a 1972 one that I acquired in 1973 and that I ran to over 100,000 miles by 1980. I loved it – it was quiet, smooth and gave good motorway cruising with its 5th gear. My wife and I used it for camping, making full use of the lie flat seats, and we took it all round the Highlands of Scotland and the Outer Hebrides. So I was tempted to get another one in 1981 and went for a new Maxi 2 HL with the twin carbs. This turned out to be a disaster, the main problem being really excessive engine oil consumption – like a pint every 100 miles! I had to keep stopping on journeys to top it up from a large can I was obliged to carry with me. I got it looked at under warranty and the dealer rebuilt the engine with new pistons and rings, but the result was no better. So I resolved to rebuild the engine myself. I took the block to a local engineering shop for a rebore and they identified that the block was a porous casting which held oil in the cylinder walls and thus caused it to be burnt. They solved this by sleeving the bores and, once rebuilt by me, the engine then performed OK. I eventually got BL to contribute to my rebuild costs and also to admit to me that the last few Maxis made, of which mine was one, had “used up” a stock of porous casting blocks that had originally been rejected in the early years of Maxi production. What a shower BL had become by 1981! Even though the rebuilt engine ran OK I soon got rid of this Maxi, because of all the hassle it had given me, and went for a new Mk2 Cavalier as soon as they became available. These Mk2 Cavaliers, and the later Mk3 versions, were completely trouble-free cars and I had several of them – and indeed still have a Mk3 V6 auto.

    • It does to an extent with the Maxi. It also raises the question of if both the Mini Clubman and Allegro could have also benefited from some additional Michelotti influenced detailing at the front be it the front headlight and indicator treatment from either the Victoria or Apache.

      An Apache type front indicator arrangement would seem to be an improvement over the existing Allegro’s tacked on front indicators, at the same time would a more Victoria type indictor (above the bumper) be better suited for the Mini Clubman (assuming a similar Apache arrangement would have been too small)?

      • The makeover was probably quite cheap to do to the Maxi, as in reality it was just wings and bones pressing, with the rest being chrome stick ons. Instead the maxi trudge on without anything done until the Maxi 2.

      • You’re right in that it’s definitely not a Maxi. And as an aside, I don’t see the Allegro’s sidelight/ indicator unit as “tacked on”. They’re certainly better integrated than those on the Apache. I seem to be becoming quite the defender it the Allegro in my old age! It’s a worry

      • Yes the rear is similar to an Australian Morris Nomad but it looks just a bit sleeker. Maybe it’s just the angle or someone taking photoshop liberties.

  58. @ daveh, looking at that four headlamp Maxi, this could have formed a refresh of the range around 1974, along with recessed door handles, wing mirrors, and redesigned rear light clusters with reversing lights( still not standard on basic models). The HL could have benefitted from more standard equipment like a radio, rev counter, clock and tinted glass, while base models could have been upgraded to the previous HL level.

  59. The front treatments of the Maxi and Clubman raise the question of if a similar treatment was planned to be applied on both or either the 1100/1300 Mk3 and Nomad if not also ADO22?

    It could be said a Michelotti variation was applied to the Apache / Victoria, yet feel they could have gotten away with a Maxi/Clubman front on ADO16.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.