The cars : Austin Kimberley development story

The Austin Kimberley and Tasman, and their Morris-badged cousins, were an interesting development of the BMC 1800/2200 reserved for the Antipodean markets only.

Built between 1970 and late 1972, unsold stocks of Kimberley and Tasman models remained on sale after the Leyland P76 was launched the following year.

Austin Kimberley: thinking person’s ADO17

Austin Kimberley
Austin Kimberley in its natural habitat. Four-headlight front was reserved for the posher Kimberley, while the cheaper Tasman received a pair of round headlamps

The Austin Kimberley X6 and Austin Tasman X6 were developed by Leyland Australia as a replacement for the Austin 1800. These cars were styled in Australia to reflect local tastes and went under the codename YDO19. The two models were unusual in their market for being front-wheel drive, and offered in four- and six-cylinder forms.

Unlike the BMC 1800, which was clearly designed for European tastes, the Kimberley and Tasman were designed from the outset to be a six-seaters, and the boot was necessarily large – again to cater for local tastes.

Interestingly, the Kimberley needed to retain the 1800’s side doors and much of its centre section, aside from a 3in stretch in wheelbase. However, the doors required new pressings, as the handles needed to be recessed in order to meet Australian Design Rules requirements.

Styled in Britain

The Kimberley was penned in the UK, with the Cowley Design Office working on YDO13. Harris Mann was involved in the process, which initially started out quite handsome and brutal looking, but ended up being civilised somewhat for production.

His design can be seen above – but also, the Australian Design Team had a crack at the YDO13, too, and wanted it to be more progressive, almost NSU Ro80-looking than the UK’s proposal. It was ruled out, more’s the pity.

YDO13 Australian proposal
YDO13 Australian proposal from the book ‘Leyland Cars in Australia’ by Tony Cripps

E6-series engine debuts here

The Kimberley would end up being the first car from the BMC/Leyland stable to be powered the E6-Series engine. This was a six-cylinder version of the four-cylinder E-Series that debuted in the Austin Maxi and was unusual (for the time) in featuring a chain-driven overhead camshaft.

Like the Maxi’s engine, the Kimberley’s power unit was extremely compact for a straight-six, thanks to its siamesed bores and, as it shared the bore and stroke of the 1485cc four, it had a modest engine capacity of 2227cc. Maximum power was 10obhp in the Tasman and 113bhp for the twin-carburettor Kimberley.

The 2.2-litre E6-Series engine wouldn’t make it to the BMC 2200 until 1972 – and, in Australia (and South Africa), it would end up being enlarged to 2622cc (using the Maxi 1750’s bore and stroke measurements) for the Leyland P76. This larger unit wasn’t used in any European applications, although the Rover SD1 ended up being a recipient via the interesting Rover SDX.

X6 model differences

The cheaper sister of the Austin Kimberley - the Tasman. Note the single headlamp front end.
The cheaper sister of the Austin Kimberley – the Tasman. Note the single headlamp front end

The Tasman and Kimberley weren’t hugely different, with the cheaper car receiving the simpler six-seater interior, a lower-powered engine and four-headlamp grille. They were launched in 1970, and were upgraded to Mk2 specification (using the codename YDO19) in late 1971. Leyland Australia also designed a pickup version, but that never left the drawing board.

In the end, the Kimberley and Tasman were far from being the success Leyland Australia hoped for them. These front-wheel-drive cars were viewed with suspicion by Australian buyers and, despite being hugely commodious inside, they weren’t large enough to compete with the Chrysler Valiant, Ford Falcon and Holden Kingswood.

It wouldn’t be until Leyland Australia wheeled out the P76 in 1973 that it felt like the company had a car capable of competing effectively with the local opposition – and that was compromised by the closure of its maker late in 1974.

Making it to the UK… Sort of

However, the mothership in the UK didn’t completely ignore the X6 models. They would end up forming the basis for the Vanden Plas 1800 concept (below). It’s also worth noting that the Kimberley was sold in New Zealand as the Morris Kimberley, where it had a similarly foreshortened production run.

According to BMC historian Chris Cowin, launching the 1800 and 2200 MkIII with the X6’s body was the original plan (the 1969 BMC minutes appear to indicate) but it appears to have fallen victim to cost cutting.

This was perhaps down to body re-tooling costs, which would have been higher in the UK than Australia given respective production volumes. This might also explain why Vanden Plas ended up reworking a 1.8-litre X6 prototype into the VP1800.

The Kimberley is now an interesting footnote in BMC history, and one that shows how the ungainly 1800 could have been made somewhat more mainstream for the UK market with a little re-engineering.

Austin Kimberley formed the basis of the Vanden Plas 1800 prototype.
Austin Kimberley formed the basis of the Vanden Plas 1800 prototype
Keith Adams


  1. I think they missed a trick with ADO17/3. MK III 1800 – could have been 1800 morris/austin Tasman front hatchback, Tasman 2200 morris/austin TF hatchback Tasman saloon and then continue the 18/85 and the 22/110 Wolseleys as a hatch and saloon with the standard front (VP grille) for the 18/85 and the VP front for the 22/110.

    An estate is also possible since one has been made as a custom.. And I wonder if the self levelling from the landlobster could be fitted to the estate?

    I still don’t understand why blmc/bl never seemed to exploit their platforms even slightly.

    • Rather than exploit their platforms, they seem to do the opposite: make cars on new platforms, look just like old ones. In hindsight, a questionable business strategy….

    • I totally agree Jemma, I wonder why Leyland ( Both UK and OZ) didn’t do more with all the resources they had at hand . I know financess were probably an issue but hey ho.
      I had an interesting thought regarding the X6 cars, they could have used the larger E6 engine in 2.6 litre form and …. As a base model engine, the updated B series 1800 twin cam . That way Oz Leyland would have a car that straddled the Torana/ Cortina/ Centura market and a car that could better tackle the Kingswood/ Falcon / valiant !. That’s my 2 cents worth anyway .

  2. To me it would have made sense to use restyle as a basis for launching the E6 in Europe rather dropping it into the aged 1800 and dropping the 1800 when the 1750 maxi was launched.

    • Launching the Mk3 1800 and 2200 with that new body was the original plan (the 1969 BMC minutes appear to indicate) but it appears to have fallen victim to cost cutting – perhaps because body re-tooling costs would have been higher in the UK than Australia given respective production volumes.

  3. A minor correction if I may be allowed : ) – the Austin 1800 was not sold in Australia as the “Austin Freeway” but as the Austin 1800 (Mk1 and Mk2) as in the UK. (The Australian Austin Freeway was the six cylinder 2.4 litre version of the A60 Cambridge which Australia built between 1962 and 1965). However the Australian Austin 1800 was exported briefly to New Zealand (in 1969-1970) badged “BMC Freeway” – probably the only passenger car to be badged “BMC” on the grille rather than Austin or Morris.

    Another interesting detail about the X6 Tasman/Kimberley which often gets overlooked is that their wheelbase was three inches longer than the Austin 1800.

    • To which I add:

      X6s only had the E-series 2200 six; locally made E4s were used in the 1500/Nomad manual and Australian built Marina 1500/1750.

      Morris badged X6s were sold only in NZ as there were still separate Austin and Nuffield brands dealer chains but, unlike the 1800s, all were made in one CKD factory – Austin’s.

      Only the manual Tasman had the bench seat.

      Although they were renowned for silly faults like manual gear levers coming adrift (happened regularly to a friend’s car), the experience of a relative with fairly new manual and automatic Australian assembled cars showed they could be reliable and durable. I recall adequate performance as the six was on the small side by Australian car standards but comfort, ride, equipment and interior finish was ahead of the Big Three’s products. The X6s also set the stage for the small numbers of English assembled 2200s (and the odd Mk3 1800) shipped to NZ in 1973-4.

  4. My parents ran an Austin Tasman, I remember it seemed to suit our young family better than the huge crude Fords and Holdens their friends had. It filled a niche in the market though more aimed at 6 cylinder Toranas than the Kingswood.

    The thing to remember is that until about 1973 there weren’t many Japanese cars in Australia, so the BMC product even if flawed had a genuine market. Then VW sold the Clayton plant to Nissan, Chrysler got into bed with Mitsubishi. (Toyota was already there via AMI in the 60s)

    Geopolitical big picture was that once Britain joined the EEC the Oz government need to find new export markets so basically invited the Japanese car industry in as a quid pro quo for opening up the Japanese market for Coal/Iron Ore/Beef

  5. Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t the E Series engines use a chain driven camshaft, not belt driven as stated in the story?.

  6. Just a correction there regarding the E4 & E6 engines… they had a chain driven overhead camshaft, not a belt drive as stated in this article

  7. The base model Tasman is still very plain looking. Surprised they lengthened the wheelbase as the landcrab already had a very long wheelbase, and the long wheelbase is one of the reasons it looked “awkward”

    • I think the 1800 looks odd because it’s a long wheelbase in relation to the length of the car, looks like the wheels are in the wrong place. With the X6 saloon body an extra couple of inches makes sense – but whether they could have gotten away with it with the flying buttock 1800 I don’t know – and if they were making both an updated short body (maybe a hatchback) and the X6 at the same time – that might explain why it didn’t happen – it would have been quite costly. Plus if the X6 is longer, and the plan was just to replace with X6 wouldn’t that compound the size perception problem? Or by then had that issue faded away with the bigger competition?

    • The wheelbase of the X6 cars (108.12 in) was almost 3 inches more than the 1800, but the car itself was 8.5 inches longer. Nearly all of this extra length went into the nose/engine compartment – there was no increase in interior passenger space. This was all part and parcel of attempting to “pass off” the Tasman/Kimberley as valid members of Australia’s “family sedan” market which was huge and where Leyland Australia were not represented (but would be from 1973 with P76) as Keith has written. The 1800 had the required interior space for that segment and they were trying to make it look the part. There was no real need to extend the engine compartment to fit the 2200 engine with front-mounted radiator as the UK Austin/Morris 2200 demonstrated. The principal aim was to give the car a “big car look” with the stubby bonnet of the 1800 replaced by a much bigger expanse of steel. In the UK context there was not that requirement (although the 18-22/Princess which was being conceived at this time ended up even longer overall than X6).

      One can speculate as to whether, if the new styling had been introduced in the UK for the Mk3 facelift, the longer wheelbase and overall length would have been adopted also (turning the car into a sort of FWD Granada). I’ve not taken a tape measure to it but I believe the Vanden Plas prototype to retain the original 1800 wheelbase and length. It shares the rear end of the X6 cars but has a specific front end (similar in fact to the existing Wolseley 18/85). A Mk3 Austin-Morris 1800/2200 could have had a shorter version of the X6 front end styling (strengthening corporate identity with Clubman and Maxi) or (if money was tight) the sheet metal of the nose could have been left unchanged from the Mk2. In practice Austin Morris were heavily absorbed by Marina and then Allegro development at the turn of the decade around 1970, money was very tight, the Mk3 1800/2200 programme appears to have slipped and in the end they elected to not change the styling at all except for cosmetics ….

      • The Vanden Plus was entirely an X6. What was done to create the Vanden Plus was simply replace the X6’S front guards with 1800 guards, fit a modified 1800 bonnet in place of the X6 unit and graft a new grill and surrounding panel work to the X6 nose. Only two X6s came to the UK, both being for evaluation purposes by the BMC parent company.

  8. Could an earlier European version of the X6 have done with a Pinninfarina touch akin to the later Peugeot 604, see vague similarities between the two aside from the front end of the X6 (VP 1800 prototype excepted) needing more work?

  9. For the period I would have thought that Vanden Plas car was quite handsome – especially considering it’s 1800 connections.

  10. I have always fault this was a fascinating mess for BMC and BLMC. Firstly, if the Australian business knew that FWD was an issue with their home buyers, why didn’t they base the Tasmin/Kimberely on the 3000? The engineering had already been done so just a tweek to the body styling.
    Secondly why did BLMC not use the same design for a refresh in Europe? Money may have been tight but doing a restyle would have made the car look contemporary against the Mk2 Cortina?
    I think this just shows the sheer bloody mindfulness and lack of joined up thinking within BMC and then BLMC.

    • I’ve also wondered why the X6’s weren’t based on the Austin 3 litre as well, if combined with the RWD chassis and X6 styling upgrades that would have solved the negative problems that the 1800 faced in the Australian market.

      • That’s a great idea in theory. Quite possibly it didn’t happen because the 3 litre was never sold in Australia.
        In those days the country was quite a harsh environment once you got off the main highways. Before the Morris 1100 was sold here it was tested throughout the outback, and something like fifty changes were deemed necessary before local production commenced. It was a feature one of the monthly motor mags at the time. Nowadays we’d look askance at the idea of taking a poor 1100 through that kind of country, but back in those days Aussies expected any car to be able to take it. The 1800 was a great bush car, clearance aside. The 3 litre’s body would have been different enough structurally to require thorough testing before sale, never mind the unique suspension pieces.
        As for why the 3 litre wasn’t sold here, I imagine it would have been too sophisticated to compete on price against the simple US-derived designs that captured the majority of the market. As it was, I remember the 1800 and by extension the Tasman/Kimberley twins weren’t all that much cheaper than the larger Holdens, Falcons and Valiants. Profit margin must’ve been slim! A bigger 3 litre British car with a premium price but without the prestige of a Rover P5 would have struggled for buyers.

    • FWD was not an issue with Australian buyers. In fact BMC’s FWD cars were steady sellers. The 3000 had been evaluated by BMC AUSTRALIA and rejected as it would have been too expensive to manufacture in Australia.

  11. An interesting car would have been the Austin 3 Litre body with the P76 2.6 litre engine. The biggest problem with the Kimby was that they overheated because an engine stay was included to improve smoothness and this stay blocked off some of the flow for the coolant. The otter switches in the radiator also failed with monotonous regularity. That said it was a very good car for covering long distances in. Leyland Australia like Ford used to rely on the customer to do the development work or that is how it seemed to me. The P76 suffered the same problems except they also had to be built on a production line designed for the 1800/ Kimberley so there was a lot of rectification work done on doors because the P76 was a much wider car. They could not get Leyland UK to release extra funding to widen the line.

  12. Compared to the mediocrity of the Marina and its stablemates in the UK, these cars look rather good. The story of this company seems to be one of complete chaos, lack of co-ordination, and missed opportunities – maybe the management were too preoccupied with cash flow issues and labour disruptions. You look back to the situation 40 years ago and still feel the need to shout ‘Get a grip!’ on the lot of them.

  13. I can remember the Kimberley and Tasman well. Whilst initially greeted with enthusiasm the car quickly developed a notorious reputation that killed sales. I can think of overheating, engine problems, poor build quality. It is remembered as being seriously underdeveloped and in true Leyland style of the day consumers were the test bed. It is a sad chapter in Australian automotive history. The replacement, the P76 perhaps enjoys the worst reputation of any Australian made car. It is still know as ‘ the lemon’ unfairly I think It again suffered from underdevelopment, terrible supply problems and poor build quality.

    • Having worked in a Leyland dealership on tools, owned and driven Kimberly’s,P76’s I find your comments to be almost aligned with the propaganda from GM, Ford, Chrylser. Labor PM Whitlam referred to Leyland P76 as the Lemon. Whitlam was rooting for Chrysler at the time nd he insisted on Chrysler by Chrysler vehicles for Canberra. Overall Leyland vehicles didn’t have more problems then Ford, GM, Chrysler. As for as you charge overheating problems that’s bollocks.

  14. Leyland Australia had some rotten luck that saw them close down in 1975. Aussies wanted their cars to be big, reliable and able to take high mileages with ease, no one would seriously want to take a car into the outback that would overheat and break down at night. While the Kimberley and the P76 looked the part and could have been good cars, unreliability proved to be a killer. Then along came the oil crisis in 1974 and the rise of ultra reliable and cheap to run Japanese cars.

    • Unreliability wasn’t a major problem with them. I had a Kimberley in the mid-1990s and it wanted to overheat on hot days until I cleaned out the radiator that had silted up through lack of use with its previous elderly owner. After that, it was roomiest and most luxurious Aussie car I’ve owned, with the exception of the ZF Fairlane I had later on. The X6 cars had small issues of build quality initially and word of mouth had a way of exaggerating it to the the point that the cars developed a bad image. They were certainly no worse than the Japanese opposition that came later.

      The single biggest reason sales were slow was because of Wheels magazine. They got hold of a rumour that the X6 range was only going to be a short stopgap model ahead of the big P76 project. As a result, a lot of potential customers saw no reason to buy a car that wasn’t going to marketed and dealer supported for very long. If you ever come across the January 1971 issue of Wheels, go to page 42 and see their damaging article “British Leyland Axes FWD.” The article wrongly reported, “The Tasman and Kimberley have just been released, but they will be replaced by an ever bigger six cylinder car with north-engine within 12 months.”

      That is now a forgotten chapter of Leyland Australia history, but it’s the main reason for the lukewarm sales. Of course it’s easier to believe now that the slow sales were because of shoddy build quality and woeful reliability.

  15. My father had a Tasman for about 20 years. It was huge inside, had a large boot. Transported our family of six on numerous holidays over the years. I drove it a few times when I first got my license in the early 80s. It had plenty of power and handled well. Looking back, I wish I’d taken it off his hands when he finally sold it.

  16. Interesting that we have now seen some more design ideas for the K & T cars. It is shame that BL in the UK did not fund the rebody here because of cash flow issues, however when you consider the amount of money wasted on the P8 it really shows the gravity of disaster that was BL.

    I like Harris design, not so much the Australian NSU looking design, with Harris’ looking very much like the designs for the Marina that Roy Haynes is credited with – any co-incidence?

  17. The styling of both the Harris Mann and Australia proposals brings up the fact BMC typically appeared to be a step behind others went it came to styling, whereas the styling of the above two were what the company should have adopted by the mid-1960s for most of its cars.

  18. The Harris Mann sketch is very tidy in a Vauxhall Victor FD kind of way. It also looks like you’d never get the E series under the bonnet and the doors are not those infamous doors. No surprise then that the finished product looks nothing like the chosen design, infact apart form the front it looks like the more honest Australian sketch

    • I think if you look again the front is the same height as the Kimberley/Tasmin – the bumper is higher up which makes the light/grill area look smaller and this can be seen by the similar gap between the wheel arch and the bonnet when compared with the picture above. Also the doors are the same – the top frames are the same shape – it looks more dynamic as the C pillar on Mann’s drawing has a greater slope than the finished article, so hiding the doors better.

      • A better comaprison is the white car two pictures below which is almost the same angle and I think I stand by my comments. But if I’m wrong, and it is hard to tell in reality then they should have sharpened up the finished product to match the drawing and launched it here too

      • Which generation Nissan SIlvia you had in mind?

        In the case of the Isuzu 117 Coupe had in mind the late-1977 facelift, though would be surprised if a British X6 featuring styling like the Australian proposal was capable of remaining in production that long without a thorough update like the ADO16-based ADO22 project.

    • Would have to agree, on top of the Giugiaro influence there is also some Pininfarina via the Peugeot 504 coupe and convertible.

      Given the ties between BMC and Pininfarina, one wonders if the Australian version was in turn inspired by as some yet unknown Pininfarina proposal for X6 since the sketch looks more achievable IMO compared to the Pininfarina Aerodynamica Berlina 1800.

    • Absolute rubbish. BMC AUSTRALIA was very innovative and in many ways, years ahead of the opposition. The problem was that BMC AUSTRALIA was competing against Ford and Holden [GM] whose parent companies had deeper pockets and with almost no financial assistance forthcoming from its British Parent, BMC AUSTRALIA wasn’t able to fully develop those innovations. Ironically much of what BMC AUSTRALIA introduced – ie 6 cylinder FWD Vehicles, would, a mere 10 years later, become the norm for most major car manufacturers.

      • I agree. BMC Australia / Leyland Australia was an underfinanced source of good ideas that didn’t get enough visibility with head office. Ironically a bit like Holden 30 years later.
        Conceptually the X6 cars were ahead of their time
        Also – the ADO16 hatchback (Morris Nomad)
        V6 version of the Rover V8
        Rover V8 derived slant 4
        “Recreational” Landrover derivative
        P76 should have been exported to South Africa
        Project Perentie 6WD Landrovers developed in the 80s

        There was some good material rhere

        • On the matter of the Rover V8 derived slant 4. It is my understanding that Land Rover (via the James Taylor book) anticipated using such an engine in entry-level 60-83 hp 2.2-litre guise in a short-lived Land Rover/Range Rover replacement concept known as Adventurer during the early-1980s.

          It never left the drawing board and although it was claimed the engine only existed on paper, the fact it was conceived as one-half of the 4.4-litre Rover V8 does lead one to believe they are one and the same as what was developed by the Australians.

          Only petrol types were considered, however (likely with events involving the still-born Project Iceberg dieselized Rover V8 with Perkins in mind) it was believed that diesel versions would eventually appear.

          It also leads one to ask if there was a direct relationship between the Rover V8 based slant 4 by the Australians and previous work on the P10 slant 4, which although was allegedly built from P6 tooling and does not seem to be directly linked to the Rover V8 (heard the P10’s advanced features were to be carried over to the V8 or form the basis of a new V8 for the P8 had it entered production).

  19. It is incorrect to say the ute version of the X6 never left the drawing board.In fact two fully operational X6 utes were built and road registered.They spent their days being used as general runabouts and delivery vehicles by BMC AUSTRALIA They were made using the front half of an Austin Tasman mated to the rear half of a standard Austin 1800 ute – the latter also being an Australia only variation of the Austin 1800.

  20. From photos the extra wheelbase length seems to have been let in between the front axle and the front doors. One wonders if this allowed for the steering wheel angle to be made less bus-like. Also it would appear that the rear screen was carried over from the 1800 with just a cleverly re-worked C pillar.

    Tooling costs for the UK, with or without the extended wheelbase, would have been insignificant compared to the later Princess programme. It also seems likely that the new front and rear panels could have been supplied from the Zetland Australia plant. The UK would not have required the new door pressings, as can be seen on the VDP prototype.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


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