I was a back seat passenger in a Morris 1100 from 1965 to 1971, along with my two younger brothers and younger sister. I'm now 67, and both of my parents have passed away, but I still have fond memories of the "Black Beauty" as we called her. These days I understand how we all fitted in there, and why the ride was so good.
You're so right when you say that modern marketing never mentions the engineering. The truth is that the current generation are only interested in two things - how much more prestige a car bestowes than ones their contemporaries own, and how much "tech" it has. Look at modern advertising and you'll see those are the only things mentioned. You, my friend are a weird anomaly - meant as a compliment not an insult!
Agreed, but they _are_ leasing them in their tens of thousands. Personally, I like to own my car, but my son and his missus lease theirs and so do most of their friends.@@TwinCam
That's not what I mean. Nobody at all buys cars anymore - I'm using 'buy' as a catch all. I know of one person in my entire age group that has a new, leased, car, and that's a BMW M240i. Everyone else I know has used cars. No normal person my age can really afford to lease new!
A girl I went to school with drove the MG version of the 1100, a very rare car here in Australia. Her father owned a service station, our term for petrol station or gas station, and had interesting cars like that MG, a yellow and white '57 Chevy and early 70s Buick Riviera boattail. By far the most common 1100 here was the Morris made here is the Sydney suburb Zetland.
Back in 1972, I bought a 1969 Austin America. It was my first FWD car and they weren't that common here in the US yet. I still wasn't very mechanically adept back then and it started having issues. If I knew then what I know now, it could have been some easy fixes, and I could have kept it for a while longer. It wasn't very fancy, fast, or sporty, but I enjoyed it. It had the 1100cc engine and a 4speed...and some humongous headrests!
Ed, what makes your channel enjoyable for myself is learning about cars I have never seen or heard of. Thanks for your time, hard work and posting.......
Yes, an in car clutch change was possible. I did them! My first car was an Austin 1100 on which I learned my maintenance skills. Ahh, the joys of whipping off the head to do a decoke. I subsequently owned a Morris 1300 and a two door MG1300 before seeing the light and becoming 'Rootes man'. They were simple cars in a simple age. No ridiculous electronics to go wrong. I wonder how many people remember re polarizing the generator on the positive earth cars?
Ten years. Chevy Monza, Pontiac Sunbird, Olds Omega, Buick Skylark ring a bell? And underneath they were the same as a Vega & Astre, but with thicker steel and reliable engines.
It's amazing that manufacturers don't understand how easily buyers see through it. To succeed, the car they're all based on *must* be attractive in its own right. That's why Volkswagen can get away with a Golf and an Audi A3, but people are complaining thata Vauxhall Astra is based on the Peugeot 308.
VAG managed it because they severely differentiated between Skoda, Volkswagen, and Audi. Skoda and Audi didn't really have a philosophy or style before VAG ownership, so they were shaped to be similar enough for Volkswagen's best qualities to rub off on them, but Audi were sufficiently equipped to compete with BMW and Mercedes-Benz, while Skoda sat right at the bottom of the market, their image enhanced by the range of vRS performance diesels, all aimed at economy. On the other hand, we now know that Seat are dying, proof that this kind of badge engineering needs to be done carefully in order to truly succeed. However, what VAG does is rare. Really blatant badge engineering is traditionally only done on a wide scale across different territories, like GM used to between Holden and Opel, for example.
I really enjoyed this video. I remember the 1100 range when they were just old cars, when I was a kid. They were also made under licence by Innocennti in Italy.
Another concise and insightful film, full of interesting information. I remember my dad's grey Austin 1300 with red seats very fondly even though it tried to kill me once!
In my family we have acquired a few ADO16's as they are reasonably priced in NZ and they arent quite roadworthy a wolseley 1100 two MG 1100s a riley 1100 and my riley 1300 mkII excellent little cars great fun for me being a young guy get so many people telling me how they learnt to drive in one of those, great videos on these cars!
I own two Austin Apache (South African ADO 16 variants). The ADO 16 range of vehicles are some of the most underrated classic vehicles out there. Nice to see that they are beginning to get the modern-day recognition they deserve. Excellent channel.
I had a Wolseley 1300 as my 1st car.Along with my cousin we swapped the Wolseleys dash for one obtained from a Riley Kestral in a breakers yard! Also Walnut doorcaps from a VDP.That was the beauty of 6 car basically similar but with different trim details with many of them inter changable..
I really want a Wolseley or VDP 1300. Maybe even a 1300GT. Don't see any over here in Mauritius though so I guess I'll just have to dream. I was so into the Mini that I didn't even consider getting an ADO16 when I was still in the UK. People are more interested in how big the touch screen is now than how the car works these days. Oh well, as you say, different times.
Thank you for the video. My dad had a Morris 1100 and my grandad had an Austin 1100. I have fond memories of these cars but they were rot boxes and a lot of people converted the suspension from hydro gas or hydrolastic suspension as they were called then, as they never worked properly unlike the Citroen versions.
Back in the late 70's early 80's I usded to pick these things up in the car auctions for £20 or £30 with expired MOT's and usually needing a bit of welding. I'd get a ticket on them and sell then for £250 to students at the University who loved them. As you say great cars, the space, refinement of the ride and economy was amazing. I also owned a Riley Elf for several years and as you say I had the Hydrolastic "pumped up," they used to charge £3 and you could have it as high as you liked, although obviously this was impractical but looked fantastic. You'd take it back half an hour later and ask them to take some pressure out. Great car though, you could do a top end overhaul (cylinder head off, de-coke, lap the vales and do a bit of gas flowing on the siamese ports) in an afternoon no problem and get maybe 10% increase in power for a few hours enjoyable work and no expense. The A series was a lovely engine. I must admit that I'm generally not a big fan of your chanel but I think you got it right with the 1100 notwithstanding the fact that all modern cars are "badge engineered," i.e. a common platform with identity, extras and trim segmented for different markets. Nice one I'll check you out more often.
Lovely documentary.... I remember being offered one to buy second hand in the early 80's when I first qualified, it had a boot full of water and and a Gold seal engine.....I declined !!!! Thank you for bringing back more memories Roger... Pembrokeshire
Really enjoyable look at this brochure, i do wonder how the Wolsley's suspension would cope with our pot holed roads up here in Edinburgh compared to a car fitted with springs and shock absorbers.
Another great video. You do bring up a lot of points. I think the answer to as why they didnt just make them all morrises with different trim levels is a good one. I suspect that sure its about customer brand loyalty and keeping up with the joneses, but also the prices between the morris and riley was a heap.
I had a mk2 Wolseley 1300, it had deffo had some cost cutting in comparison to that lovely mk1 there, mine didn’t have the rear cushions, and the ignition switch was on the steering column rather than the dash, plus the seats in mind were vinyl rather than leather and the body was a single colour not two tone. It did have twin carbs though and some decent go for a 1300! Badge engineering has always been a thing that manufacturers have done from the 60’s onwards, and yes BMC were amongst the first to try and fool the buying public. At least cars back then cars had their own signature sound, unlike today they not only lookalike they sound alike! Thanks for another informative video Ed.👍
Thanks mate :) Yes, 1967 saw some severe cost cutting throughout the British motor industry. The Mk2 Mini, for example, gave all models the same interior trim, regardless of whether it was an 850 or a Cooper S, while Wolseleys of all types lost their leather seats. That Landcrab I drove last year was a Mk1, which was made for an even shorter period than the Mk1 Wolseley 1100, and the Mk2 lost its leather. Similarly, Jaguars lost their leather in the same year.
@@TwinCam I didn’t know Jags lost their leather! What were BL thinking, had they reserved the leather for Rovers and Triumphs? My Wolseley was a late 1972 L reg in Harvest Gold.
@@willswheels283 Afraid so 😅 Though Jaguar had been bought by BMC in 1966, this was their own decision. Jaguar was only absorbed into BL proper from a management perspective in 1970.
@willswheels283 Yes, Jaguar’s profitability had been falling rapidly since the turn of the ‘60s as their factory was still using technology from 1945, and with newer cars’ greater complication, Jaguars were taking longer to build than comparable cars and to a lower quality. This is when the perception of Jaguars as poorly built started.
Superb video once again, with a deep and factual analysis of BMCs idiosyncrasies. The ADO16 is also a favourite of mine not only in style but technically too
I note that the brochure as part of the excellent technical information mentions the body shell being 'dip bonderized' to prevent corrosion. I've never heard of this process but apparently bonderized steel begins as galvanized steel, which is steel hot dipped in molten zinc. This is followed by a phospate bath. It then has to be primed and painted. The process was developed for use with rainwater systems apparently. Why then did these cars rust so easily?
Every manufacturer had their own anti-corrosion marketing rubbish. The truth is, every car has some form of rust proofing as they wouldn't have lasted long enough to get to customers if the primer and paint was just sprayed onto bare steel, so they can confidently proclaim that the vehicle is rust proofed, even if it will still turn to dust within five years.
I had a Morris 1100, but my Dad had the Wolseley. Both were great cars, until terminal rust devoured vital sheet metal. Still, my Morris always left a similarly-powered Escort behind on country roads!
Another well balanced and informative video ED I really enjoyed it. Remember checking the carb dashpots for oil and hearing that delicious squish as the damper was removed. Can you find that experience on an electric car. No I'm a petrolhead to the end. Well presented Thanks.
Another cracking video Ed. BMC/BL got it wrong trying to use the names of their inherited companies as trim levels markers. Truth is there wasn't money to create new body styles. So, why doesn't anyone use 'hydro' type suspensions now?
Thanks David :) Of course, so the correct approach would have been to do what almost every other independent manufacturer does, and create one car with a range of trim levels as a hierarchy, rather than 'different cars' like BMC did. Hydrolastic couldn't survive simply because it was a long-term proprietary piece of hardware.
@@TwinCam Hi Ed, yes indeed, but it was one car with different brand names. It was the only way they could save money, produce cars and sell them, and it worked. I was always led to believe the hydroelastic and the better hydrogas systems were cheaper than springs and dampers and were not pressurized with a pump like the Citroen's so easy and cheap maintenance was another plus. The Allegro was a real minger though so no surprise that didn't sell. Of course some of the companies still had their own model with a different body for a while, like the MGA (and Jaguar after they took over PS) until BMH and BL came along... It's a long and tangled web that met a sorry end. Isn't it strange the UK now makes more cars than ever before, but not one company is UK owned except Morgan.
In the 70s and 80s my father had a 1968 Innocenti I4 a rebadge Austin 1100 in Italy, fantastic car in design and space, and features of interior, but with the motor not silent and with many rust.
Ed, in my 17th year and having been driving on and around the farm and area since my legs were long enough to press the leavers on the old Fergie, from whence I progressed to an E Type (Morris1), and having past my test first time, I was given a wonderful 680 Wolesely. So, I have a yen fot these cars with their leather, wood and radiator light. Only Jaguars, and particularly Mark 2s are higher in my classic car list. I therefore I greatly enjoyed your brochure tour of the 1100 Wolseley in which at least you were able to keep your immaculately trimmed nails and hands grease and oil free! Lol You are the review professor, and like sitting at the feet of Socrates under a plane tree in Classical Greece, I am entranced by all you fabulous presentations. Ta! R0b
Nice video Ed. My first car in 1976 - a 1967 Austin 1100 Countryman. I was so proud of it, rust and all! Now, not surprisingly, rarer than hen’s teeth. Mechanically, however, it never let me down.
Nice one Ed. For a company that always seemed to be low on cash the badge engineering on the 1100 in this way was not good. Different front body panels and the parts attached to them required different tooling and assembly, this all adds cost as does spares inventory. Also having different sales material for each brans/trim level adds marketing cost. Anyway these were different times and time has moved on. These were brilliant cars and I confess I would love one before it's time to leap off my mortal coil. Many thanks for sharing.
Here in Canadawe did get the ADO16, often badged as an Austin America. Safety regs here had certain items required rather earlier than in England. Head restraints were mandatory fitment as of 1968. Dual curcuit brakes were mandatory for 69. Front seat lap belts were mandated for 65, while front shoulder belts came in for 68. Rear lap belts in 70. Lots of changes in a hurry. Im not sure when the ADO16 left the Canadian market, but I remember watching the Mini evolve as crash standards increased. Our standards for impact damage were stringent enough that Morgan had to reinforce the frames on Canadian market cars. It has been years since I last saw any ADO16 here. Rust claimed them very quickly. Mind you, im not sure how well an 1100, or even 1300, would do on the roads here now, especially with the car fully laden. That plus high prices limited the appeal of the cars here. They were competing with much larger cars in a matket where bigger was better and fuel economy was not a concern. Gas was cheap and plentiful.
Absolutely. Although BMC/BL's share of the North American market was always small, the changes in safety and emissions regulations really scuppered them, not to mention the ever declining quality and, as you say, the fact that small cars didn't have the advantages they had in Europe.
Yes I think the A series was highly effective in its day but also think it could of been further developed in later years. I don’t know if multi valve technology could have been developed, but there was already access to an Arden eight - port cross flow cylinder head , it had already been used in motorsport particularly in the 1300 Marina complete with 4 individual carburettors by Amal which gave it a class win in the Rallye of a Thousand Lakes in Finland . This would have given better breathing possibilities and better performance and economic potential if they could have standardised it for mass production.
BL did develop an overhead camshaft A-Series in the late 1970s, and as you say, 16 valve setups had been used in racing for years, but they didn't meet the requirements of mass production mainly because the engine's inherent design meant an OHC cylinder head completely robbed the engine of its low down torque. Additionally, with the gearbox beneath and now a camshaft above, the engines were exceptionally tall. With no money with which to fix these issues, the project was binned in 1978, and development of the all-new K-Series engine was started in 1984.
I once owned a vanden plas version. My mom owned several. So did my father , the last being an MG. He was also on the test when they were first introduced. They were told to ignore some faults to get cars out. Badge engineering is rife now . Vauxhall Citroen Peugeot build basically the same cars . As other manufacturers do.
"Vauxhall Citroen Peugeot build basically the same cars." Yes, the vans are usually the most blatant. With the passenger cars there is usually some effort to give them different styling though (e.g., Fiat 500X and Jeep Renegade look quite different, even though they are the same car).
Ed, in the eyes of a ten year old UK car snob, the 1100 was only driven by geography teachers, the MG/Riley versions by fantasists and the Wolseley by wealthy widows. It suffered from chronic and terminal "unsexiness". It was only for people who NEVER tried chilli sauce and ALWAYS went to bed by 10pm.
I am using this previous video because I have no access to social media to find out if the videos have finished, or that Ed is ill, on holiday - or other reason - as I am having huge withdrawal symptoms with nothing happing for what it seems are weeks. There are so many trying to jump onto similar vids but in terms of professional research, scripting, editing and easy delivery and presentation, Ed is head and shoulders above them all. Boo Hoo if it is the end of them, and a huge loss to the automotive world. Rob
GM's US operations must have gotten the extreme badge engineering idea from BMC/BL, and then took it to a much extremer level. Then, there was the many variations of Chrysler Corp's K Cars.
I think we newer removed an engine in 1100/1300 for clutch replacement. However it becomes tricky if your engine mount I the wronged one. It is 2 sizes and you will not now that you have the wrong until you är trying to get it in place.
Good stuff. I know it's totally impossible in a Mini, and that the Metro's engine bay had been engineered specifically so things like clutch changes were possible, but wasn't sure on an 1100.
Hello Ed, May I correct you on one small matter please? Around the time the Mini and 1100/1300 were plentiful in scrapyards I was an amateur mini racer and accidental dealer in used A-Series engine and transmission parts, I also used to do engine swaps for people. I was a self taught expert in those matters. 1. The Mini Cooper 998 (I had one) and 1100 had very different remote gear changes and differential cases. The Cooper had a solid joint between the two with four vertical fixing bolts. The 1100 joint was a separate item consisting of a steel and rubber sandwich between the remote and the diff castings with eight sideways fixing bolts. Not interchangeable. I imagine the 1100 was more refined but maybe not quite so precise. I also believe the Cooper has a shorter stick throw. Unless a very heavy hammer was used on a mini floor pan the 1100 remote could not be fitted to the Mini. 2. While good for road purposes on fairly new cars the hydrolastic/hydragas systems slowly leak and the car sits lower and lower. This can be partially rectified by a "pump up" but all that does is replace compressible gas with incompressible fluid to compensate until you end up with no gas, normal ride height, but no suspension! Hydrolastic was completely useless in competition minis and was always ripped out and replaced by the older rubber cone suspension or even coilovers and dispensing with the heavy and rusty rear subframe. I never actually owned an 1100 or 1300 but occasionally drove my then girlfriends 1300GT and it was a nice road car. I also scrapped a terminally rusty VandenPlas 1300 - I completely removed all interior seats, dash and trim and badges and sold the full set for a lot of money. The engine was ideal for a mini engine swap.
Of course, the design was improved for the 1100, plus the car's dimensions demanded it be lengthened, with the new housing designed to retain the rigidity over the longer length of the selector. However, all other Minis used the 'magic wand' change. The 1100 did not, using the same 'remote' system as the Mini Cooper. The Hydrolastic fluid, as I mentioned in the video, was a part of the car's regular service. If it was not corrected every six months, it was poor maintenance.
Business worldwide did not understand marketing. They didn’t understand brand image. And it was only in to the 80s proper research started being done. Before this, business thought there was finite space for consumer demand, hence why for example with car manufacturers there was such paranoia about models eating in to sales of their other models if they were to similar. As BMW and VAG have proved though, this was utterly wrong.
The Austin 1300 was my mates first car when we were 17... Mine was a Vitesse 2 litre convertible. I of course thought my car was light years better, but today it would be a difficult choice, looks and open motoring or ... the Austin drives SOoo much better. I went on to have many cars but also three Minis. They are still my favourite ever car. There is nothing that drives like a well sorted Mini.. The 1100/1300 had a very good go though.
An Austin 1300 was my second car in 1974, having sold my Herald, it was a great little car. Could get all my mates in for trips to the pub, unfortunately coming back from one, one Sunday lunchtime a hedge and a ditch saw the end of it. No one hurt though.
@@martinda7446 😂. The Herald was ok, sunroof, wood dash but it was getting on a bit so i upgraded to something more modern 😂. After that little incident got myself a Triumph 1500. Now we’re talking.
Ha ha another mate had a Toledo and another a 1800 Dolomite, not Sprint, but that was a glorious car, we had lots of fun in that. Was yours a front wheel drive? @@PJD_55
Ed, the brand identity (or lack of it) did actually make a lot of sense back in that era. Britain was a very classist society hung over from the Victorian era but at the same time we had the rise of Marxist values in society, a very strong American influence, the corporate car park hierarchy and at the core people were still very conservative (all a bit contradictory). add to that the cost of tooling for different sheet metal in the pre-robot era and so the need to limit body panel variations. if you wanted to sell mass-market cars they had to dance a fine line. BMC and Rootes used all their historic marques to differentiate. Ford (being a single brand) created its Consul marque for its upper market and then rationalised into 'L, XL, GXL, GT and E' (the most logical I can ever remember) across its product range.
The Ford approach is exactly why they succeeded, that's what I'm saying in the video. Fragmenting and relying on small, ageing bases does not work. It was always clear what Ford stood for, and their motorsport successes were marketed to the hilt. BMC didn't overly bother tapping into their successes, and with brands like Wolseley on the books, they became seen as 'old'. There is no point whatsoever in marketing cars to old people, as by their nature, they won't be around to buy again.
@@TwinCam you're right about the Ford strategy as things evolved through the 1970s but in the '60s it wasn't the case. later on Ford were helped massively at the expense of British Leyland by of all people, Margaret Thatcher, when she gave them access to all areas in a deal that would have seen a Ford take-over had she not axed it at the 12th hour. who destroyed the British car industry? Everyone! Ford rode a tidal-wave of success usually occupying the top 3 model sales figures until the German invasion in the '80s first took hold with rebadged Opels (Vauxhall). regarding marketing cars to 'old people,' Peugeot did exactly that in the naughties as Top Gear satirised in Series 22 "Modern Peugeot Driver." there's real power in the grey Pound, especially at retirement when many choose to take 25% of their private pension pots as tax free cash to buy all and sundry including a new car. in many years time, you will probably do the same. always love your videos Ed. just wish Manor Park Classics would let you loose in some their tastier motors, the look on your face takes me back when many of these cars were young and I was ragging them around as a spotty long-haired youth after working on them.
Ford's access to BL was in 1986 though, by which point the blue oval had been on top for fifteen years. Certainly, by 1966, Ford were using trim levels as we know them today, on the Mk2 Cortina with the famous 1600E at its pinnacle, barring the Lotus. Cars like the 1600E and Lotus endeared a generation to Fords, as did the Cosworths a few decades later, as did the RS's after that. That's how you build a dynasty. Targeting people who are in a less aspirational part of their lives does not work long term. That's why Peugeot have put massive effort into changing over the past decade or so. The 1980s built Peugeot into an international powerhouse, but the 2000s destroyed their attraction, leading to the necessity of merging into Stellantis.
@@TwinCam volume car manufacturers seem to share an unfortunate similarity with pop bands - they're only as good as their last hit. so many manufacturers have gone because they got their new heavily invested key model wrong. the formation of Stellantis probably has more to do with the rapid change to electrification (some didn't see it coming), Covid (sales volume collapse), FIAT-Chrysler being a basket-case and the tidal wave of cheap Chinese car imports about to flood our shores. the lesson from all of this is: who in their right mind would create a new volume car producer UNLESS you had deep Chinese connections? as someone with such a strong focus on brand building I'm looking forward to see how your next moves build your brand into something you and us your loyal audience can be extremely proud of Ed.
Something they managed to perpetuate into the eighties, I worked for Mann Egerton one of the biggest BL dealers from the mid seventies and even at that late stage you had dealers that could only sell Austin and Morris products but not Rover, Triumph or Jaguar and then some that could sell Austin/Morris and Rover and Triumph but not Jaguar, some that could sell the whole range and some that sold exclusively Jaguar and then you had lingering dealers that sol just Triumph or Rover. To further complicate matters you had Austin Morris dealers that could sell Rover and Triumph products but could not service or carry out warranty work on them. As I said this situation lasted int the eighties,the dealer I worked at between 1977 and 1984 went from being Austin Morris to Austin Morris Jaguar Rover Triumph and then for a short time they took the Jaguar franchise away only to reinstate it 18 months later and in all that time we couldn't sell Land Rover products, it really was a proper mess.
No. In the 1960s, Austin and Morris dealers were still generally separate. However, you could always buy an MG and a Wolseley in a Morris dealer, for example. They had no hope of presenting Wolseley as a separate marque in that environment. However, let's say they marketed it differently. Let's say they were all Austins and were given a proper model name in 1962. We could have had an Austin Marina (let's say), as a Marina 1.1, Marina 1.3, Marina 1.1 XE, Marina 1.3 XE, Marina GT, Marina GT-S, and a Marina Vanden Plas. That would have been coherent, well-known, yet still hierarchical.
@@philiptownsend4026 To be fair every car of that period rusted quickly. Main competitors to the ADO16 here in the UK were the Ford Escort and Vauxhall Viva. Boy could those two rust!
BMC Australia solved most of that by having Morris for all the sub 1.6 litte cars and Austin only larger. Riley got rud of with Wolseley for a mid size Farina with a 2.4 litre B series six shared with lower trim Austin Freeway. MG and Austin Healey just sports cars. Simplifying for lower sales volumes. 1100 liked when new and quickly got a 1275 version called the Morris 1100 S. As the problems arose with age the far less problematic Japanese rear wheel drive small cars rapidly took over their market share, despite your claims of reliability.
Yes. Much more sensible over there, but convoluted none the less, especially with the changes to Leyland that did nothing to help them! However, I don't claim anything of the sort. I say that Hydrolastic is theoretically more reliable than a coil/telescopic damper system, but not the whole car. We all know that these were not reliable cars!
Why does no one level the criticism of badge engineering at VW/Audi/Seat/Skoda etc who do just the same . I suspect because people are snobbish but badge engineering is alive and well. Take the VW id3 and Cupra e born (cars I actually like to be honest) but they are a case of rampant badge engineering. My late mother bought a mint 68 Morris 1300 in 1974 which we loved and a neighbour had a 68 f plate two door 1100 which was terminally rotten by summer 1981, but only had 36k on it as I recall, was never put away wet but showed how this range rotted!
People do - including myself - but VW and BMC are incomparable in the case of the 1100. They are comparable, however, in the case of cars like the Wolseley 1500, on which I framed my video around the equivalent of VW.
@aslc2547 They are pure badge engineering, as were the Peugeot 107, Toyota Aygo, and Citroën C1. But there’s one massively important factor in both those examples - they were all on the same plane.
@@TwinCam did the replacement (Hydragas) damage the public perception of both systems? Hydragas was very good in the Allegro I had, and far simpler than Citroën's system! However without regassing, the cars looked broken. Perhaps the sales blurb's lie caused customers to not maintain the suspension (although the service schedule might have included this, home servicing was much more commonplace - knowledge of the different maintenance requirements may not have been widespread), leading to a poor reputation for reliability.
Perception certainly didn't help, but even in 1995, the motoring press really loved Hydragas under the MG F. A certain Mr Clarkson made Hydragas a central part of Top Gear's review of the car, saying that this was the secret of how it provided the best ride-handling compromise of any small sports car. I think people's lack of knowledge of how it really worked was a big driver of them rejecting the system. A coil spring and telescopic shock absorber are simple concepts to grasp. Hydragas isn't. Add to this the expense and nature of other manufacturers catching up thanks to group learning about coil springs versus Rover's proprietary hardware, plus the expense, and it was no wonder it died.
Not exactly longer lasting...my dad had one in the 70s, had leajed some hydrolastic fluid, lost ground clearance and bang! Hut a bump and the motor was shoved up and dented the bonnet - from the under side. Somehow kept going for years until the gear box froze. But super handling little beast.
Hydrolastic units did fail. That's to be expected, just as coil springs are known to crack. However, while Hydrolastic can be pumped up to restore damping, a telescopic shock absorber needs totally replacing every 5-6 years.
"It's superb" -- it's hard to not read that in Jeremy Clarkson's voice! So you had the 1100 offered under five brands which didn't work, but in the end you had only the Rover and MG brands (for passenger cars) and that didn't seem to be the solution either.
Rover and MG were not viable in the 2000s for totally different reasons to why BMC's marques were not viable. However, Rover, as an independent in the 1960s, was viable.
I'm afraid the presenter has very little understanding of BMC. Briefly, pre war Austin and Morris were the two major British car companies, with Morris outselling Austin in the 20's and 30's. Austin had got Wolseley into car manufacturing instead of producing bicycles, so when Morris bought Wolseley from under the nose of Austin in the late 20's, this didn't go down well with Austin. Wolseley was managed by Leonard Lord, who decided he didn't like the way Morris was run and fell out with Lord Nuffield, stating he would like to see the end of Cowley and duly joined Austin in 1936. In the early 40's after Lord Austin died, Leonard Lord became MD of the Austin. In 1952 the Austin and Nuffield group merged to become BMC, with Leonard Lord chairman and MD and Lord Nuffield as President. BMC then had numerous marques under its umbrella, from Austin came of course Austin, Austin Healey and Vanden Plas. From the Nuffield Group came Morris, MG, Wolseley and Riley. At that time all Nuffield marques had dealers selling their different marques. So when BMC were developing different range of models in the early years, these cars were then being sold by their dealers of that respective marque. When the ADO 16 1100 range came out, the first model being the Morris 1100, you couldn't go to an Austin dealership and ask to buy a Morris 1100, you had to go to your nearest Morris dealership. So as the 1100 range developed into other marques, this meant individual Austin, MG, Wolseley and Riley dealers had a new 1100 model they could sell. During the 60's most Nuffield dealers were able to sell you either a Morris, MG, Wolseley or a Riley 1100, but there were lots of dealers just selling either Morris, MG, Riley or Wolseley. However these Nuffield dealers could not sell you an Austin or Vanden Plas 1100, these had to be obtained through an Austin dealership. It was a situation that carried on into the BL days of the 70's. Why BMC under Leonard Lord didn't rationalise their dealerships in the late 50's is a mystery. BMC were criticised for badge engineering, but, it wasn't new, the Rootes Group did it in their model line up. Even today VAG do the same with their cars having a shared floor plan and engines with different designed bodies for each marque. So summing up, BMC didn't have a badge engineering problem, they had an antiquated dealership problem, caused by the old Nuffield dealerships selling different individual marques and these dealers having to have a new model they could sell to their buyers. In fact I thought the six different marques worked extremely well, each model having its own individuality and identity, and it covered all tastes, but looking back at it, maybe BMC should have ditched Riley and Wolseley very early on, but these two marques had a very solid following in the 1960's, especially Wolseley. So summing up BMC didn't have an image problem, in fact it worked very well and was popular, they had a messy dealership problem, which wasn't resolved even when it became BL Cars
You’ve clearly spent a lot of time writing that comment, yet you also clearly haven’t spent the time to actually watch any of my other videos about the 1100 or BMC in general.
I was a back seat passenger in a Morris 1100 from 1965 to 1971, along with my two younger brothers and younger sister. I'm now 67, and both of my parents have passed away, but I still have fond memories of the "Black Beauty" as we called her. These days I understand how we all fitted in there, and why the ride was so good.
For about 15 months I owned an MG 1300, but sadly I never got to drive it. It was a lovely car inside and very comfortable.
You're so right when you say that modern marketing never mentions the engineering. The truth is that the current generation are only interested in two things - how much more prestige a car bestowes than ones their contemporaries own, and how much "tech" it has. Look at modern advertising and you'll see those are the only things mentioned. You, my friend are a weird anomaly - meant as a compliment not an insult!
It’s a generation of cars thing, not a generation of people thing. Nobody my age is buying new cars, people my parents age are.
Agreed, but they _are_ leasing them in their tens of thousands. Personally, I like to own my car, but my son and his missus lease theirs and so do most of their friends.@@TwinCam
That's not what I mean. Nobody at all buys cars anymore - I'm using 'buy' as a catch all. I know of one person in my entire age group that has a new, leased, car, and that's a BMW M240i. Everyone else I know has used cars. No normal person my age can really afford to lease new!
A girl I went to school with drove the MG version of the 1100, a very rare car here in Australia. Her father owned a service station, our term for petrol station or gas station, and had interesting cars like that MG, a yellow and white '57 Chevy and early 70s Buick Riviera boattail. By far the most common 1100 here was the Morris made here is the Sydney suburb Zetland.
Back in 1972, I bought a 1969 Austin America. It was my first FWD car and they weren't that common here in the US yet. I still wasn't very mechanically adept back then and it started having issues. If I knew then what I know now, it could have been some easy fixes, and I could have kept it for a while longer. It wasn't very fancy, fast, or sporty, but I enjoyed it. It had the 1100cc engine and a 4speed...and some humongous headrests!
Ed, what makes your channel enjoyable for myself is learning about cars I have never seen or heard of. Thanks for your time, hard work and posting.......
Thanks as always Mike :)
Yes, an in car clutch change was possible. I did them! My first car was an Austin 1100 on which I learned my maintenance skills. Ahh, the joys of whipping off the head to do a decoke. I subsequently owned a Morris 1300 and a two door MG1300 before seeing the light and becoming 'Rootes man'.
They were simple cars in a simple age. No ridiculous electronics to go wrong. I wonder how many people remember re polarizing the generator on the positive earth cars?
It's interesting how GM in the USA fell into the same badge engineering black hole as BMC/BL, basically 20 years later.
Ten years. Chevy Monza, Pontiac Sunbird, Olds Omega, Buick Skylark ring a bell? And underneath they were the same as a Vega & Astre, but with thicker steel and reliable engines.
It's amazing that manufacturers don't understand how easily buyers see through it. To succeed, the car they're all based on *must* be attractive in its own right. That's why Volkswagen can get away with a Golf and an Audi A3, but people are complaining thata Vauxhall Astra is based on the Peugeot 308.
The Cadillac Cimarron version of the J car was at the apex of the whole GM house of cards. The public was not fooled.
It’s interesting how VAG have made a success of it
VAG managed it because they severely differentiated between Skoda, Volkswagen, and Audi. Skoda and Audi didn't really have a philosophy or style before VAG ownership, so they were shaped to be similar enough for Volkswagen's best qualities to rub off on them, but Audi were sufficiently equipped to compete with BMW and Mercedes-Benz, while Skoda sat right at the bottom of the market, their image enhanced by the range of vRS performance diesels, all aimed at economy. On the other hand, we now know that Seat are dying, proof that this kind of badge engineering needs to be done carefully in order to truly succeed.
However, what VAG does is rare. Really blatant badge engineering is traditionally only done on a wide scale across different territories, like GM used to between Holden and Opel, for example.
I really enjoyed this video. I remember the 1100 range when they were just old cars, when I was a kid. They were also made under licence by Innocennti in Italy.
Thanks mate :)
Another concise and insightful film, full of interesting information. I remember my dad's grey Austin 1300 with red seats very fondly even though it tried to kill me once!
Thanks mate :)
Very enjoyable video. I so miss having a car with Hydrolastic suspension and I completely agree with you about how brilliant it is. 😊
Thanks mate :)
@@TwinCam You're welcome, even though I detest being referred to as "mate" 😊
In my family we have acquired a few ADO16's as they are reasonably priced in NZ and they arent quite roadworthy a wolseley 1100 two MG 1100s a riley 1100 and my riley 1300 mkII excellent little cars great fun for me being a young guy get so many people telling me how they learnt to drive in one of those, great videos on these cars!
I own two Austin Apache (South African ADO 16 variants). The ADO 16 range of vehicles are some of the most underrated classic vehicles out there. Nice to see that they are beginning to get the modern-day recognition they deserve. Excellent channel.
Thanks James :)
PS. Your channel is getting better and better. Wonderful. Keep it up.
Thanks Martin :)
I had a Wolseley 1300 as my 1st car.Along with my cousin we swapped the Wolseleys dash for one obtained from a Riley Kestral in a breakers yard! Also Walnut doorcaps from a VDP.That was the beauty of 6 car basically similar but with different trim details with many of them inter changable..
I really want a Wolseley or VDP 1300. Maybe even a 1300GT. Don't see any over here in Mauritius though so I guess I'll just have to dream. I was so into the Mini that I didn't even consider getting an ADO16 when I was still in the UK. People are more interested in how big the touch screen is now than how the car works these days. Oh well, as you say, different times.
Thank you for the video. My dad had a Morris 1100 and my grandad had an Austin 1100. I have fond memories of these cars but they were rot boxes and a lot of people converted the suspension from hydro gas or hydrolastic suspension as they were called then, as they never worked properly unlike the Citroen versions.
Nobody converted the suspension, I can assure you of that.
Back in the late 70's early 80's I usded to pick these things up in the car auctions for £20 or £30 with expired MOT's and usually needing a bit of welding. I'd get a ticket on them and sell then for £250 to students at the University who loved them. As you say great cars, the space, refinement of the ride and economy was amazing. I also owned a Riley Elf for several years and as you say I had the Hydrolastic "pumped up," they used to charge £3 and you could have it as high as you liked, although obviously this was impractical but looked fantastic. You'd take it back half an hour later and ask them to take some pressure out. Great car though, you could do a top end overhaul (cylinder head off, de-coke, lap the vales and do a bit of gas flowing on the siamese ports) in an afternoon no problem and get maybe 10% increase in power for a few hours enjoyable work and no expense. The A series was a lovely engine. I must admit that I'm generally not a big fan of your chanel but I think you got it right with the 1100 notwithstanding the fact that all modern cars are "badge engineered," i.e. a common platform with identity, extras and trim segmented for different markets. Nice one I'll check you out more often.
Lovely documentary.... I remember being offered one to buy second hand in the early 80's when I first qualified, it had a boot full of water and and a Gold seal engine.....I declined !!!! Thank you for bringing back more memories Roger... Pembrokeshire
Thanks as ever Roger :)
BMC 1100 Pininfarina design was fantastic, and also interior and the handling with front wheel drive, but economical in anothers features
Really enjoyable look at this brochure, i do wonder how the Wolsley's suspension would cope with our pot holed roads up here in Edinburgh compared to a car fitted with springs and shock absorbers.
Another great video. You do bring up a lot of points. I think the answer to as why they didnt just make them all morrises with different trim levels is a good one. I suspect that sure its about customer brand loyalty and keeping up with the joneses, but also the prices between the morris and riley was a heap.
I had a mk2 Wolseley 1300, it had deffo had some cost cutting in comparison to that lovely mk1 there, mine didn’t have the rear cushions, and the ignition switch was on the steering column rather than the dash, plus the seats in mind were vinyl rather than leather and the body was a single colour not two tone.
It did have twin carbs though and some decent go for a 1300!
Badge engineering has always been a thing that manufacturers have done from the 60’s onwards, and yes BMC were amongst the first to try and fool the buying public.
At least cars back then cars had their own signature sound, unlike today they not only lookalike they sound alike!
Thanks for another informative video Ed.👍
Thanks mate :)
Yes, 1967 saw some severe cost cutting throughout the British motor industry. The Mk2 Mini, for example, gave all models the same interior trim, regardless of whether it was an 850 or a Cooper S, while Wolseleys of all types lost their leather seats. That Landcrab I drove last year was a Mk1, which was made for an even shorter period than the Mk1 Wolseley 1100, and the Mk2 lost its leather. Similarly, Jaguars lost their leather in the same year.
@@TwinCam I didn’t know Jags lost their leather! What were BL thinking, had they reserved the leather for Rovers and Triumphs? My Wolseley was a late 1972 L reg in Harvest Gold.
@@willswheels283 Afraid so 😅
Though Jaguar had been bought by BMC in 1966, this was their own decision. Jaguar was only absorbed into BL proper from a management perspective in 1970.
@@TwinCam Oh wow, they must have been going down financially, which is probably why they got sucked into the BL conglomerate.
@willswheels283 Yes, Jaguar’s profitability had been falling rapidly since the turn of the ‘60s as their factory was still using technology from 1945, and with newer cars’ greater complication, Jaguars were taking longer to build than comparable cars and to a lower quality.
This is when the perception of Jaguars as poorly built started.
Superb video once again, with a deep and factual analysis of BMCs idiosyncrasies.
The ADO16 is also a favourite of mine not only in style but technically too
Thank you my friend :)
I note that the brochure as part of the excellent technical information mentions the body shell being 'dip bonderized' to prevent corrosion. I've never heard of this process but apparently bonderized steel begins as galvanized steel, which is steel hot dipped in molten zinc. This is followed by a phospate bath. It then has to be primed and painted. The process was developed for use with rainwater systems apparently.
Why then did these cars rust so easily?
Every manufacturer had their own anti-corrosion marketing rubbish. The truth is, every car has some form of rust proofing as they wouldn't have lasted long enough to get to customers if the primer and paint was just sprayed onto bare steel, so they can confidently proclaim that the vehicle is rust proofed, even if it will still turn to dust within five years.
I had a Morris 1100, but my Dad had the Wolseley. Both were great cars, until terminal rust devoured vital sheet metal. Still, my Morris always left a similarly-powered Escort behind on country roads!
Another well balanced and informative video ED I really enjoyed it. Remember checking the carb dashpots for oil and hearing that delicious squish as the damper was removed. Can you find that experience on an electric car. No I'm a petrolhead to the end. Well presented Thanks.
Thanks Michael :)
Another cracking video Ed. BMC/BL got it wrong trying to use the names of their inherited companies as trim levels markers. Truth is there wasn't money to create new body styles.
So, why doesn't anyone use 'hydro' type suspensions now?
Thanks David :)
Of course, so the correct approach would have been to do what almost every other independent manufacturer does, and create one car with a range of trim levels as a hierarchy, rather than 'different cars' like BMC did.
Hydrolastic couldn't survive simply because it was a long-term proprietary piece of hardware.
@@TwinCam Hi Ed, yes indeed, but it was one car with different brand names. It was the only way they could save money, produce cars and sell them, and it worked. I was always led to believe the hydroelastic and the better hydrogas systems were cheaper than springs and dampers and were not pressurized with a pump like the Citroen's so easy and cheap maintenance was another plus. The Allegro was a real minger though so no surprise that didn't sell. Of course some of the companies still had their own model with a different body for a while, like the MGA (and Jaguar after they took over PS) until BMH and BL came along...
It's a long and tangled web that met a sorry end. Isn't it strange the UK now makes more cars than ever before, but not one company is UK owned except Morgan.
In the 70s and 80s my father had a 1968 Innocenti I4 a rebadge Austin 1100 in Italy, fantastic car in design and space, and features of interior, but with the motor not silent and with many rust.
Ed, in my 17th year and having been driving on and around the farm and area since my legs were long enough to press the leavers on the old Fergie, from whence I progressed to an E Type (Morris1), and having past my test first time, I was given a wonderful 680 Wolesely. So, I have a yen fot these cars with their leather, wood and radiator light. Only Jaguars, and particularly Mark 2s are higher in my classic car list.
I therefore I greatly enjoyed your brochure tour of the 1100 Wolseley in which at least you were able to keep your immaculately trimmed nails and hands grease and oil free! Lol
You are the review professor, and like sitting at the feet of Socrates under a plane tree in Classical Greece, I am entranced by all you fabulous
presentations. Ta!
R0b
Thanks Rob :)
Nice video Ed. My first car in 1976 - a 1967 Austin 1100 Countryman. I was so proud of it, rust and all! Now, not surprisingly, rarer than hen’s teeth. Mechanically, however, it never let me down.
Thanks mate.
I'm afraid that was a characteristic of the model, sir ;)
So you did not need to take the Basil Fawlty solution to it.
Nice one Ed. For a company that always seemed to be low on cash the badge engineering on the 1100 in this way was not good. Different front body panels and the parts attached to them required different tooling and assembly, this all adds cost as does spares inventory. Also having different sales material for each brans/trim level adds marketing cost. Anyway these were different times and time has moved on. These were brilliant cars and I confess I would love one before it's time to leap off my mortal coil. Many thanks for sharing.
what a lovely coment. cheers mate.
Thanks Anthony, totally agree :)
I think the Wolseley 1100 and Austin 1300 Gt are the pick of the ADO 16 range. All lovely timeless cars.
I totally agree.
It's been an ambition of mine for years to own a Wolseley ADO 16.
Here in Canadawe did get the ADO16, often badged as an Austin America. Safety regs here had certain items required rather earlier than in England. Head restraints were mandatory fitment as of 1968. Dual curcuit brakes were mandatory for 69. Front seat lap belts were mandated for 65, while front shoulder belts came in for 68. Rear lap belts in 70. Lots of changes in a hurry. Im not sure when the ADO16 left the Canadian market, but I remember watching the Mini evolve as crash standards increased. Our standards for impact damage were stringent enough that Morgan had to reinforce the frames on Canadian market cars. It has been years since I last saw any ADO16 here. Rust claimed them very quickly. Mind you, im not sure how well an 1100, or even 1300, would do on the roads here now, especially with the car fully laden. That plus high prices limited the appeal of the cars here. They were competing with much larger cars in a matket where bigger was better and fuel economy was not a concern. Gas was cheap and plentiful.
Absolutely. Although BMC/BL's share of the North American market was always small, the changes in safety and emissions regulations really scuppered them, not to mention the ever declining quality and, as you say, the fact that small cars didn't have the advantages they had in Europe.
Yes I think the A series was highly effective in its day but also think it could of been further developed in later years. I don’t know if multi valve technology could have been developed, but there was already access to an Arden eight - port cross flow cylinder head , it had already been used in motorsport particularly in the 1300 Marina complete with 4 individual carburettors by Amal which gave it a class win in the Rallye of a Thousand Lakes in Finland . This would have given better breathing possibilities and better performance and economic potential if they could have standardised it for mass production.
BL did develop an overhead camshaft A-Series in the late 1970s, and as you say, 16 valve setups had been used in racing for years, but they didn't meet the requirements of mass production mainly because the engine's inherent design meant an OHC cylinder head completely robbed the engine of its low down torque. Additionally, with the gearbox beneath and now a camshaft above, the engines were exceptionally tall. With no money with which to fix these issues, the project was binned in 1978, and development of the all-new K-Series engine was started in 1984.
I once owned a vanden plas version. My mom owned several. So did my father , the last being an MG. He was also on the test when they were first introduced. They were told to ignore some faults to get cars out. Badge engineering is rife now . Vauxhall Citroen Peugeot build basically the same cars . As other manufacturers do.
"Vauxhall Citroen Peugeot build basically the same cars." Yes, the vans are usually the most blatant. With the passenger cars there is usually some effort to give them different styling though (e.g., Fiat 500X and Jeep Renegade look quite different, even though they are the same car).
Ed, in the eyes of a ten year old UK car snob, the 1100 was only driven by geography teachers, the MG/Riley versions by fantasists and the Wolseley by wealthy widows. It suffered from chronic and terminal "unsexiness". It was only for people who NEVER tried chilli sauce and ALWAYS went to bed by 10pm.
Exactly my point. Marketing is how that image was created.
@@TwinCam yes indeed! Sorry if my comment was vague - I totally agree with you!
I am using this previous video because I have no access to social media to find out if the videos have finished, or that Ed is ill, on holiday - or other reason - as I am having huge withdrawal symptoms with nothing happing for what it seems are weeks. There are so many trying to jump onto similar vids but in terms of professional research, scripting, editing and easy delivery and presentation, Ed is head and shoulders above them all. Boo Hoo if it is the end of them, and a huge loss to the automotive world.
Rob
GM's US operations must have gotten the extreme badge engineering idea from BMC/BL, and then took it to a much extremer level. Then, there was the many variations of Chrysler Corp's K Cars.
Well done and interesting video..
Thanks Paul :)
Riley Kestrel next Ed?
My favorite car i bougth back in 1974 Was a Austin 1300 gt 4 Doors saloon engine 1275 cc vinyl roof color yellow 🦆, i still miss her, 😊😊😊
An in-car clutch change is possible (but not very advisable) in a Mini so I am pretty sure it can de done on an 1100.
I think we newer removed an engine in 1100/1300 for clutch replacement. However it becomes tricky if your engine mount I the wronged one. It is 2 sizes and you will not now that you have the wrong until you är trying to get it in place.
always wanted the vdp version
A VP would be ever so supreme.
Yes an in-car clutch change is possible. In fact it's quite easy.
Good stuff. I know it's totally impossible in a Mini, and that the Metro's engine bay had been engineered specifically so things like clutch changes were possible, but wasn't sure on an 1100.
Not impossible in a Mini used to do them all the time.@@TwinCam
Hello Ed,
May I correct you on one small matter please? Around the time the Mini and 1100/1300 were plentiful in scrapyards I was an amateur mini racer and accidental dealer in used A-Series engine and transmission parts, I also used to do engine swaps for people. I was a self taught expert in those matters.
1. The Mini Cooper 998 (I had one) and 1100 had very different remote gear changes and differential cases. The Cooper had a solid joint between the two with four vertical fixing bolts. The 1100 joint was a separate item consisting of a steel and rubber sandwich between the remote and the diff castings with eight sideways fixing bolts. Not interchangeable. I imagine the 1100 was more refined but maybe not quite so precise. I also believe the Cooper has a shorter stick throw. Unless a very heavy hammer was used on a mini floor pan the 1100 remote could not be fitted to the Mini.
2. While good for road purposes on fairly new cars the hydrolastic/hydragas systems slowly leak and the car sits lower and lower. This can be partially rectified by a "pump up" but all that does is replace compressible gas with incompressible fluid to compensate until you end up with no gas, normal ride height, but no suspension!
Hydrolastic was completely useless in competition minis and was always ripped out and replaced by the older rubber cone suspension or even coilovers and dispensing with the heavy and rusty rear subframe.
I never actually owned an 1100 or 1300 but occasionally drove my then girlfriends 1300GT and it was a nice road car. I also scrapped a terminally rusty VandenPlas 1300 - I completely removed all interior seats, dash and trim and badges and sold the full set for a lot of money. The engine was ideal for a mini engine swap.
Of course, the design was improved for the 1100, plus the car's dimensions demanded it be lengthened, with the new housing designed to retain the rigidity over the longer length of the selector. However, all other Minis used the 'magic wand' change. The 1100 did not, using the same 'remote' system as the Mini Cooper.
The Hydrolastic fluid, as I mentioned in the video, was a part of the car's regular service. If it was not corrected every six months, it was poor maintenance.
Business worldwide did not understand marketing. They didn’t understand brand image. And it was only in to the 80s proper research started being done. Before this, business thought there was finite space for consumer demand, hence why for example with car manufacturers there was such paranoia about models eating in to sales of their other models if they were to similar. As BMW and VAG have proved though, this was utterly wrong.
Absolutely.
The Austin 1300 was my mates first car when we were 17... Mine was a Vitesse 2 litre convertible. I of course thought my car was light years better, but today it would be a difficult choice, looks and open motoring or ... the Austin drives SOoo much better. I went on to have many cars but also three Minis. They are still my favourite ever car. There is nothing that drives like a well sorted Mini.. The 1100/1300 had a very good go though.
An Austin 1300 was my second car in 1974, having sold my Herald, it was a great little car. Could get all my mates in for trips to the pub, unfortunately coming back from one, one Sunday lunchtime a hedge and a ditch saw the end of it. No one hurt though.
How do you think it drove compared with the Herald? I hope the pub visit didn't contribute to the hedge and ditch too much! @@PJD_55
@@martinda7446 😂. The Herald was ok, sunroof, wood dash but it was getting on a bit so i upgraded to something more modern 😂. After that little incident got myself a Triumph 1500. Now we’re talking.
Ha ha another mate had a Toledo and another a 1800 Dolomite, not Sprint, but that was a glorious car, we had lots of fun in that. Was yours a front wheel drive? @@PJD_55
(there was front and rear versions of 1300/1500 if I'm not mistaken..)@@PJD_55
Seem to remember that the suspension was problematic after a few years use how reliable was it ? Certainly expensive to replace or repair.
They should have offered them with removable badges, allowing the customers to change the brand to fit the ocasion😂
I always like the MG Version
Ed, the brand identity (or lack of it) did actually make a lot of sense back in that era. Britain was a very classist society hung over from the Victorian era but at the same time we had the rise of Marxist values in society, a very strong American influence, the corporate car park hierarchy and at the core people were still very conservative (all a bit contradictory). add to that the cost of tooling for different sheet metal in the pre-robot era and so the need to limit body panel variations.
if you wanted to sell mass-market cars they had to dance a fine line. BMC and Rootes used all their historic marques to differentiate. Ford (being a single brand) created its Consul marque for its upper market and then rationalised into 'L, XL, GXL, GT and E' (the most logical I can ever remember) across its product range.
The Ford approach is exactly why they succeeded, that's what I'm saying in the video. Fragmenting and relying on small, ageing bases does not work. It was always clear what Ford stood for, and their motorsport successes were marketed to the hilt. BMC didn't overly bother tapping into their successes, and with brands like Wolseley on the books, they became seen as 'old'. There is no point whatsoever in marketing cars to old people, as by their nature, they won't be around to buy again.
@@TwinCam you're right about the Ford strategy as things evolved through the 1970s but in the '60s it wasn't the case. later on Ford were helped massively at the expense of British Leyland by of all people, Margaret Thatcher, when she gave them access to all areas in a deal that would have seen a Ford take-over had she not axed it at the 12th hour.
who destroyed the British car industry? Everyone!
Ford rode a tidal-wave of success usually occupying the top 3 model sales figures until the German invasion in the '80s first took hold with rebadged Opels (Vauxhall).
regarding marketing cars to 'old people,' Peugeot did exactly that in the naughties as Top Gear satirised in Series 22 "Modern Peugeot Driver." there's real power in the grey Pound, especially at retirement when many choose to take 25% of their private pension pots as tax free cash to buy all and sundry including a new car. in many years time, you will probably do the same.
always love your videos Ed. just wish Manor Park Classics would let you loose in some their tastier motors, the look on your face takes me back when many of these cars were young and I was ragging them around as a spotty long-haired youth after working on them.
Amazing the UK class system is so entrenched that an Executive class of cars is needed as an advantage.
Ford's access to BL was in 1986 though, by which point the blue oval had been on top for fifteen years. Certainly, by 1966, Ford were using trim levels as we know them today, on the Mk2 Cortina with the famous 1600E at its pinnacle, barring the Lotus. Cars like the 1600E and Lotus endeared a generation to Fords, as did the Cosworths a few decades later, as did the RS's after that. That's how you build a dynasty. Targeting people who are in a less aspirational part of their lives does not work long term. That's why Peugeot have put massive effort into changing over the past decade or so. The 1980s built Peugeot into an international powerhouse, but the 2000s destroyed their attraction, leading to the necessity of merging into Stellantis.
@@TwinCam volume car manufacturers seem to share an unfortunate similarity with pop bands - they're only as good as their last hit. so many manufacturers have gone because they got their new heavily invested key model wrong.
the formation of Stellantis probably has more to do with the rapid change to electrification (some didn't see it coming), Covid (sales volume collapse), FIAT-Chrysler being a basket-case and the tidal wave of cheap Chinese car imports about to flood our shores.
the lesson from all of this is: who in their right mind would create a new volume car producer UNLESS you had deep Chinese connections?
as someone with such a strong focus on brand building I'm looking forward to see how your next moves build your brand into something you and us your loyal audience can be extremely proud of Ed.
Well, was the production numbers of the 1100/1300 variants large enough to support separate marque dealerships? I doubt that.
Something they managed to perpetuate into the eighties, I worked for Mann Egerton one of the biggest BL dealers from the mid seventies and even at that late stage you had dealers that could only sell Austin and Morris products but not Rover, Triumph or Jaguar and then some that could sell Austin/Morris and Rover and Triumph but not Jaguar, some that could sell the whole range and some that sold exclusively Jaguar and then you had lingering dealers that sol just Triumph or Rover. To further complicate matters you had Austin Morris dealers that could sell Rover and Triumph products but could not service or carry out warranty work on them.
As I said this situation lasted int the eighties,the dealer I worked at between 1977 and 1984 went from being Austin Morris to Austin Morris Jaguar Rover Triumph and then for a short time they took the Jaguar franchise away only to reinstate it 18 months later and in all that time we couldn't sell Land Rover products, it really was a proper mess.
No. In the 1960s, Austin and Morris dealers were still generally separate. However, you could always buy an MG and a Wolseley in a Morris dealer, for example. They had no hope of presenting Wolseley as a separate marque in that environment. However, let's say they marketed it differently. Let's say they were all Austins and were given a proper model name in 1962. We could have had an Austin Marina (let's say), as a Marina 1.1, Marina 1.3, Marina 1.1 XE, Marina 1.3 XE, Marina GT, Marina GT-S, and a Marina Vanden Plas. That would have been coherent, well-known, yet still hierarchical.
Listen, these were brilliant cars , and if you were that way inclined they were very, vert tunable
ADO16s must surely be the best cars ever made.
But their build quality was atrocious and they rusted quickly and badly.
@@philiptownsend4026 To be fair every car of that period rusted quickly. Main competitors to the ADO16 here in the UK were the Ford Escort and Vauxhall Viva. Boy could those two rust!
They were poorly built, but so were the majority of cars.
BMC Australia solved most of that by having Morris for all the sub 1.6 litte cars and Austin only larger. Riley got rud of with Wolseley for a mid size Farina with a 2.4 litre B series six shared with lower trim Austin Freeway. MG and Austin Healey just sports cars.
Simplifying for lower sales volumes.
1100 liked when new and quickly got a 1275 version called the Morris 1100 S. As the problems arose with age the far less problematic Japanese rear wheel drive small cars rapidly took over their market share, despite your claims of reliability.
Yes. Much more sensible over there, but convoluted none the less, especially with the changes to Leyland that did nothing to help them!
However, I don't claim anything of the sort. I say that Hydrolastic is theoretically more reliable than a coil/telescopic damper system, but not the whole car. We all know that these were not reliable cars!
Why does no one level the criticism of badge engineering at VW/Audi/Seat/Skoda etc who do just the same . I suspect because people are snobbish but badge engineering is alive and well. Take the VW id3 and Cupra e born (cars I actually like to be honest) but they are a case of rampant badge engineering. My late mother bought a mint 68 Morris 1300 in 1974 which we loved and a neighbour had a 68 f plate two door 1100 which was terminally rotten by summer 1981, but only had 36k on it as I recall, was never put away wet but showed how this range rotted!
People do - including myself - but VW and BMC are incomparable in the case of the 1100. They are comparable, however, in the case of cars like the Wolseley 1500, on which I framed my video around the equivalent of VW.
@@TwinCam consider the VW UP!, Skoda Citigroup, Seat Mii etc. pure badge engineering.
@aslc2547 They are pure badge engineering, as were the Peugeot 107, Toyota Aygo, and Citroën C1. But there’s one massively important factor in both those examples - they were all on the same plane.
@@TwinCam Whereas it is arguable for example that the 1300GT, MG1300, Kestrel/ Riley 1300/VDP were a class apart from the Austin/ Morris .
Yes, but not in the same way an Audi A3 is from a Škoda Fabia.
If Hydrolastic was so good, why isn't it used now?
Because it was proprietary.
@@TwinCambut no one saw value buying that design to use , even the company who may have inherited it.
Just think about the nature of long-term proprietary hardware being used by a company with no money whatsoever. That’s your answer.
@@TwinCam did the replacement (Hydragas) damage the public perception of both systems?
Hydragas was very good in the Allegro I had, and far simpler than Citroën's system! However without regassing, the cars looked broken.
Perhaps the sales blurb's lie caused customers to not maintain the suspension (although the service schedule might have included this, home servicing was much more commonplace - knowledge of the different maintenance requirements may not have been widespread), leading to a poor reputation for reliability.
Perception certainly didn't help, but even in 1995, the motoring press really loved Hydragas under the MG F. A certain Mr Clarkson made Hydragas a central part of Top Gear's review of the car, saying that this was the secret of how it provided the best ride-handling compromise of any small sports car.
I think people's lack of knowledge of how it really worked was a big driver of them rejecting the system. A coil spring and telescopic shock absorber are simple concepts to grasp. Hydragas isn't.
Add to this the expense and nature of other manufacturers catching up thanks to group learning about coil springs versus Rover's proprietary hardware, plus the expense, and it was no wonder it died.
Not exactly longer lasting...my dad had one in the 70s, had leajed some hydrolastic fluid, lost ground clearance and bang! Hut a bump and the motor was shoved up and dented the bonnet - from the under side. Somehow kept going for years until the gear box froze. But super handling little beast.
That must have been exciting 😮
Hydrolastic units did fail. That's to be expected, just as coil springs are known to crack. However, while Hydrolastic can be pumped up to restore damping, a telescopic shock absorber needs totally replacing every 5-6 years.
I was lucky to have had a car with hydrolastic suspension, and lucky as well to have had a chat with Alex Moulton about it before he died.
"It's superb" -- it's hard to not read that in Jeremy Clarkson's voice! So you had the 1100 offered under five brands which didn't work, but in the end you had only the Rover and MG brands (for passenger cars) and that didn't seem to be the solution either.
Rover and MG were not viable in the 2000s for totally different reasons to why BMC's marques were not viable. However, Rover, as an independent in the 1960s, was viable.
this wolseley is just so british it's like made up for a comic book. the name, the styling. so much that the outside pr images could be ai generated
It's amazing how conservative an otherwise relatively rakish Italian design can be made simply by virtue of two-tone paint and an upright grille.
Any Wolseley brochure that doesn't mention that it was "the only car with its name up in lights" is missing a brand-building open goal.
That is absolutely true. They didn't have a clue what they had!
I'm afraid the presenter has very little understanding of BMC. Briefly, pre war Austin and Morris were the two major British car companies, with Morris outselling Austin in the 20's and 30's. Austin had got Wolseley into car manufacturing instead of producing bicycles, so when Morris bought Wolseley from under the nose of Austin in the late 20's, this didn't go down well with Austin. Wolseley was managed by Leonard Lord, who decided he didn't like the way Morris was run and fell out with Lord Nuffield, stating he would like to see the end of Cowley and duly joined Austin in 1936.
In the early 40's after Lord Austin died, Leonard Lord became MD of the Austin. In 1952 the Austin and Nuffield group merged to become BMC, with Leonard Lord chairman and MD and Lord Nuffield as President. BMC then had numerous marques under its umbrella, from Austin came of course Austin, Austin Healey and Vanden Plas. From the Nuffield Group came Morris, MG, Wolseley and Riley. At that time all Nuffield marques had dealers selling their different marques. So when BMC were developing different range of models in the early years, these cars were then being sold by their dealers of that respective marque. When the ADO 16 1100 range came out, the first model being the Morris 1100, you couldn't go to an Austin dealership and ask to buy a Morris 1100, you had to go to your nearest Morris dealership. So as the 1100 range developed into other marques, this meant individual Austin, MG, Wolseley and Riley dealers had a new 1100 model they could sell. During the 60's most Nuffield dealers were able to sell you either a Morris, MG, Wolseley or a Riley 1100, but there were lots of dealers just selling either Morris, MG, Riley or Wolseley. However these Nuffield dealers could not sell you an Austin or Vanden Plas 1100, these had to be obtained through an Austin dealership.
It was a situation that carried on into the BL days of the 70's. Why BMC under Leonard Lord didn't rationalise their dealerships in the late 50's is a mystery. BMC were criticised for badge engineering, but, it wasn't new, the Rootes Group did it in their model line up. Even today VAG do the same with their cars having a shared floor plan and engines with different designed bodies for each marque.
So summing up, BMC didn't have a badge engineering problem, they had an antiquated dealership problem, caused by the old Nuffield dealerships selling different individual marques and these dealers having to have a new model they could sell to their buyers. In fact I thought the six different marques worked extremely well, each model having its own individuality and identity, and it covered all tastes, but looking back at it, maybe BMC should have ditched Riley and Wolseley very early on, but these two marques had a very solid following in the 1960's, especially Wolseley.
So summing up BMC didn't have an image problem, in fact it worked very well and was popular, they had a messy dealership problem, which wasn't resolved even when it became BL Cars
You’ve clearly spent a lot of time writing that comment, yet you also clearly haven’t spent the time to actually watch any of my other videos about the 1100 or BMC in general.
First????