(first posted 7/18/2015) The question that BMC – and later BLMC – faced perpetually from the mid 1960s onwards was: How do you replace the Mini?
Alec Issigonis said in 1964 ‘an advanced design only becomes a successful one when others copy it for themselves’. In 1969, at the time of Issigonis’s knighthood and the production of the two millionth Mini, Lord Stokes, Chairman of BLMC said “The success of the Mini is a great tribute to its original concept……I see no reason why the Mini, should not continue for another 10 years.”
The Mini originated in 1956, with BMC chairman Leonard Lord’s circumstance driven ambition to compete against the imported bubble cars (such as the Heinkel and Messerschmitt) with a small but four seat car. Petrol rationing, at ten gallons a month, may have only lasted until May 1957, but Lord’s reaction had gained momentum.
Issigonis had been working on the XC9001, a large front wheel drive car that utimately became the 1964 Austin 1800 Landcrab. The decision to proceed with an altogether smaller and narrower car led Issigonis to pioneer the gearbox in sump arrangement that would be used for all the first eneration of BMC/BL front wheel drive cars. The transmission in sump arrangement would ultimately prove a dead end, and by 1991 the only BMC/BL/Rover car fitted with it was the Mini itself.
By the mid 1960s, no one had copied the Mini, at that point in the market. So, Issigonis copied it himself in his new position as Director of Advanced Research, utilising all BMC had learnt about front wheel drive with ten years’ experience with the Mini, 1100, 1800 and Maxi.
Looking at the regular Mini, there were aspects that BMC and Issigonis accepted could be improved – the engine was relatively heavy for a small car whilst not being that powerful, the gearbox in the sump was noisy, although spacious for its size the Mini was not that practical, the ride was a bit bouncy, to say the least. Issigonis took this onboard and developed a proposal for a new Mini, known as 9X.
This proposal had an entirely new, aluminium alloy head, 4 cylinder engine of 1000cc, which produced 60 bhp compared with the 1000cc Min’s 40 bhp and was 40lb lighter, the gearbox was below but behind, rather than directly underneath the engine, enabling a much quieter gear train to be developed, it had a hatchback (Issigonis had to be persuaded about this aspect), it had a 1970s style McPherson strut suspension, it had more space inside and was 4 inches shorter than a regular Mini.
So what happened to it? It was a victim of two things – the fact that the current Mini was selling at 300,000 cars a year, so the need to replace it was not as apparent as the temptation to keep it going, and the fact that there was no money available and a new car with a new engine
Issigonis always knew that the 9X was unlikely to be produced, but he had been tasked with doing the long term advanced thinking. This was at least medium term – it was 1972 before anything of this engineering concept was on sale, when the Peugeot 104 followed the ideas quite closely, except it was a little longer. Cars like the Renault 5 and Fiat 127 were also conceptually similar (except for the Renault’s longitudinal engine) but were still larger. It really was a potential Mini successor and world beater – BLMC could have been a decisive step ahead of the competition just as it was catching up.
Issigonis also planned an 1100 successor based on this layout, which was turned down, in favour of the Allegro, which of course failed in the market place. This left a gap in the BL range between the Mini and the Allegro, which was filled very admirably by cars like the Renault 5, Fiat 127, Peugeot 104 and (slightly later) the VW Polo and Ford Fiesta. But not by a BL product – seemingly, BL had created a gap but did not see it, even as Mini sales dropped from their peak volume of over 318,000 in 1971 to 200,000 in 1975 – a decline of 37%.
After the cancellation of the 9X in 1968, Stokes and the new management of Austin-Morris asked for a “quick fix” to update the Mini for the 1970s. Ex-Ford stylist and product planner Roy Haynes responded by grafting a new front end onto the car to create the Mini Clubman. Any resemblance of the front end, which was the only external difference, to the Maxi and Marina was totally deliberate – Haynes was trying to create a coherent Austin-Morris look. As the Cooper, Riley and Wolseley versions of the Mini were discontinued, the Clubman was also trimmed more expensively than a standard Mini, with wind up windows, a more complete dashboard and smarter seat trims, and there was the 1275GT version to fill the void left by the Cooper.
Photo from www.aronline.co.uk
Haynes had also developed a hatchback version of the Clubman, which would have been marketed at a greater premium to the Mini than the Clubman was. This never saw the light of production, due to the cost of development and conservatism within BL about building a small hatchback. The competition would soon prove that to be a false concern.
In 1968-69, BL formally evaluated three options, known internally as Ant, Ladybird and Dragonfly.
Dragonfly was the first to be discounted – it was a size larger at 24-30 inches longer than the Mini (making it Allegro-sized) and would have had 1000cc-1200cc engines. The proposed styling was “classic” three-box and effectively this car would be competing with Ford Escort, which could be permitted as the Morris Marina was growing larger and closer to the Ford Cortina.
Ant was a like for like, size wise, Mini replacement, being similarly sized to the original, with 750cc-950cc engine sizes and both 2 and 3 door body-styles. Ladybird was a larger car than the Mini, being some 15 inches longer and 5ins wider. Its engine range was 900cc-1100cc and it would have been a true supermini, created in the same idiom as the FIAT 127 and Renault 5.
The Ant was also popularly known as the Barrel Mini, for obvious reasons. Take a Mini, and fatten the sides out to create more width inside. The opportunity was also taken to simplify and reduce the number of pressings required to build the car, which was high for a car of this size, and a significant factor in the cost of production. It looked like a Mini that had “gone large with that”, but didn’t offer the step change Issigonis was looking for.
After a lot of internal analysis, including full size mock ups, the Ladybird concept was selected, and become known as ADO74. It was based around an 90 inch wheelbase, with an OHC engine with the gearbox in the sump, contemporary, smart, styling by Harris Mann, simple but effective suspension (similar to the 9X actually) and a bill of £130m.
To John Barber, BLMC’s finance director, this was an unaffordable amount and he considered the car too large, preferring something closer to a direct Mini replacement. Rather than try and fill a niche, Barber felt that BLMC should cover the niche and the existing product with the a new car. In September 1973, it was cancelled, just weeks before the Yom Kippur war. After that, of course, there was no money left for anything, and a year later BL was effectively bust.
One option that was considered seriously was to build a version of the Innocenti Mini at Longbridge. In 1974, Leyland’s Italian subsidiary Innocenti introduced a rebodied Mini, with a 3-door hatchback body styled by Bertone. However, within a year of its launch, BLMC went bankrupt and Innocenti was sold to de Tomaso. Prior to the launch of the Metro, the Innocenti was briefly available in the UK, and it continued to be sold as part of BL’s range in many mainland European countries for several years.
Remarkably, it was available in certain markets up to 1993, with 617 cc or 993cc Daihatsu engines and marketed as a De Tomaso model. As it was based on the original Mini, it was not able to offer anything like the step change Austin-Morris needed, and was expensive to manufacture.
In late 1974 and early 1975, as the dust of the bankruptcy and nationalisation settled, the idea of replacing the Mini was revisited.
The basic building blocks of the car fell into place quickly, and used many Mini and Allegro items. The wheelbase was 88 inches, down from the ADO74, the drive train, based on 998cc and 1275cc A series engines was pure Mini, complete the four speed gearbox in the sump and the suspension was by Hydragas system used on the Maxi, Leyland Princess and Allegro. BL looked very closely at the VW style beam style rear axle and suspension, and rejected it on the grounds of packaging. You suspect cost and time may also have been in the equation. So far, although Issigonis was long gone from BL, you can sense traces of his influence and preferences coming through, and these are only reinforced by the style of the car.
This project was known as ADO88, and whilst this was BL’s final answer, there is one final twist.
The style of ADO88 car had been kept deliberately simple, functional and even plain. It was expected to be selling below cars like the Renault 5, Ford Fiesta and Fiat 127, in the space between these cars and the Mini itself. Indeed, at this time, it was probably the new Mini.
When Sir Michael Edwardes, BL’s new Chairman and the new Austin-Morris chief, Ray Horrocks, viewed ADO88 for the first time in late 1977, both realised immediately that it needed re-evaluation. This was also consistent with the feedback from market research exercises. It was too late in the development cycle to drastically change the car – luckily the basic concept was good – but disastrous customer clinic results from the UK and France were backing up feelings that the concept of the ADO88 was too utilitarian when compared with more sophisticated rivals like the Volkswagen Polo and the new Ford Fiesta. What potential customers were saying was that too “unsophisticated”. With hindsight, you could argue Alec Issigonis’s influemce was still deeply embedded in Longbridge.
Photo from www.aronline.co.uk
The main points of contention were that the almost-vertical tailgate made it look too much like a small van and the flat sides of the car backed-up this impression. If you like, it needed to compete with the Renault 5, not the Renault 4, but it was more of a Renault 4 and less of a Renault 5. Seemingly, this was a repeat of the reception the Maxi got in 1968 from new senior managers.
The combination of the arrival of the new management and the very poor showing in customer clinics were the catalysts needed to get the required changes made – and made quickly. ADO88 got an emergency re-style, in just five weeks, and a year’s delay in coming to the market. At this point, the ADO88 project was renamed LC8 (for Leyland Cars), in order to tie the car in with the upcoming LC10 and LC11, but also to record the car’s changed focus.
The car grew, to be seen as a fully sized member of the supermini club. The length went up by 2.5 inches, the width by 2 inches, gaining the distinctive convex curved side of the Metro, and the rear profile substantially revised. The wheels were now to be 12 inch, not 10 inch as on the Mini, and conventional door handles added, rather than Renault 5 style recessed items into cutouts. A parallel process was conducted on the interior.
All this was conducted with much more press and public scrutiny than any other car in the long tale of the British motor industry. Even so, much of the detail escaped close attention, as the story was largely one of when and of BL’s labour and finance issues. The actual configuration of the car, though, as shown in 1980, was not a great surprise, given the basics BL had to build on.
But the press did try and therefore, in November 1978 when such a “scoop” feature was still unusual in the British press, this was a big one. But it is ADO88, not LC8 and already out of date. Note also, it is headlined as the new Mini, not as a supplementary model.
Eight months later, the photo was clearer, but it is still an ADO88 prototype, not an LC8. Of course, development of much of the car could be completed with the older prototypes, and that may also account for the lack of disguise on this example.
But, still the Austin miniMetro was coming.
It, and its descendants, will be on CC tomorrow.
Thanks for clearing up a lot of longstanding questions I’d had about the MIni and the Metro — particularly why they didn’t pursue the Innocenti version, which was more attractive and more sensible than the original Mini. If it cost even more to build, that would certainly be a dissuader.
I’m not sure I grasp why Issigonis was so reticent about hatchbacks. I can see a conservative resistance to hatchbacks over booted two-door sedans, but for a two-box car like the Mini, it would seem like a natural addition. Was it that it would have required structural reengineering? (With a car as light as the original Mini, I imagine re-stressing the body to compensate for the hatch opening would have been necessary.) Or was it simply that he hadn’t thought of it first?
BTW, one minor point: It’s “MacPherson struts,” not McPherson. This is a remarkably common error even in well-vetted official literature, but the inventor’s name was (Earle S.) MacPherson.
Hatchbacks are fine for pottering around, but making a car with a big hole in the back means torsional rigidity is sacrificed. We had a first gen Opel Corsa on the family fleet for a while, and the hatch was always squeeking and chattering as it tried to brace the triangle between the two hinges and the latch. I remember when first gen Sierra hatchbacks were farmers’ cars the latches would usually have given-up, and if you drove behind one you would see the bottom of the hatch move from side to side as the car flexed over bumps.
That’s a problem with more modern hatches too – my ’05 Mazda 3 has developed increasing hatch squeak over the past few years.
Thats just poor design and build quality My Citroen hatch has NO squeaks or rattles despite being a 98.
Agreed, mid-00s Mazda 3s are almost extinct here due to rust. Mazdas from this era rusted sooner and more visibly than anything else.
Issigonis was not a designer and regularly fought against any feature that he would not use himself.
He was an accomplished engineer but lacked understanding of the psychology behind buying, owning and use to do anything more than develop to his own taste.
The minor was a bit of a zeitgeist moment where his own personal preference signed with the buying market as it was in post war austerity.
MacPherson struts were very 50s technology having seen the light of day on the MK1 Zephyr and 100E Anglia/Prefect Fords.
Seems Leyland had a similar dilemma as VW having made the same thing for so long the difference being Leylands product was still selling well, The old Mini was revived for a time fully modernised after Metro production ceased I saw a 90s classic Min bin for sale yesterday still no hatch though.
Well, sort of. The MacPherson strut was invented in the ’40s and had become very common on English and later German Fords by the ’60s, but struts weren’t widely adopted by other manufacturers (or, curiously, by Ford in the U.S.) until after the original patents had expired.
I think the issue for British Leyland was less the VW problem and more a perennial lack of cash. If the Mini did make money — which BL insisted it did, despite Ford’s earlier estimates — it definitely wasn’t a cash cow. It was probably moderately profitable late in its life, when it was sold more as a lifestyle accessory with lots of cosmetic add-ons. So, it wasn’t like it was piling up money that could be used to finance a proper replacement.
BL had lots of other divisions bleeding cash away from any profits the Mini may have made, BL used struts on the Triumph 2000 and 2500 models it wasnt like they didnt know about them but the issigonis cars used Moulton rubber cones or hydrolastic.
A lot of these concepts were developed by BMC before the merger with Leyland, though, and it wasn’t until almost the early ’70s (after Issigonis was gone) that there were any thoughts to engineering cohesion.
Interesting that the Ant/Barrel Mini looks more old-fashioned than the 9X, which has quite a resemblance to the 3-door Peugeot 104/Talbot Samba. I can see how the curved sides would have added both stiffness and extra internal room, much the same as the evolution of Vauxhall’s FB to FC ‘101’ Victor, but it looks nothing like a 1970s car and would have been laughable as a circa 1971/72 model as it was. The later ADO74 is more clearly of its time but hardly attractive with a front that gives the Citroën Visa a run for its money in the ‘hit with the ugly stick’ stakes.
Also quite amusing that ‘Car’ was fooled twice with the same ADO88 prototypes! (Surprising what a bit of duct tape and hardboard can do).
Disguise – ha! Leyland went overboard with the P76 prototypes. One of our magazines, I think it was Modern Motor, found a prototype with an all-over thin fibreglass skin concealing the shape of the actual panel pressings, and promptly awarded Leyland a “Gold Medal Award for Disguise”. Trouble was, the prototype looked better than the actual production body it covered!
I’ve got the magazine packed away somewhere in my archive….
Agreed on the Ant/Barrel Mini though the front has a very slight hint of the Autobianchi A112, maybe it would have been a better recipient of the hatchback prototype rear and front end of what eventually became the Mini Clubman.
Mr. MacPherson was employed by GM when he came up with his (then) revolutionary strut design. A design GM was reluctant to use. After being hired by Ford, the MacStrut would be utilized by nearly every new Ford of Europe design.
It’s amazing how Mr. Issigonis managed to pioneer a few brilliant ideas, but then remained so conservative when it came time for a follow-up design.
Once again, BL knew they needed a certain TYPE of car, but could not decide how big or small to make it. I’m also surprised to hear BL utilized customer clinics to help make those decisions. They must have gotten participants from a rapidly dwindling number of supremely loyal BL customers.
By the time those “headlines” appeared on the pages of CAR…the covers, actually, I had been a reader for nearly 5 years. BL would be “scooped” dozens of times, while (potential) customers would be disappointed by the cars that eventually hit the showrooms…..or in most cases, DIDN’T. If only BL had produced the scooped cars as depicted.
On reflection, I’d say it’s maybe not so amazing that Issigonis got conservative as he aged. I’ve noticed this with myself as I get older. The enthusiasm of youth unfortunately doesn’t always carry on throughout life. And BMC/Leyland can’t have been a very encouraging environment to work in.
It would be interesting to compare Issigonis to Henry Ford. I get the impression that both wanted to get a rather innovative but spartan design right and then keep building it
Another great piece Roger. Second guessing and more second guessing. Given how long the Mini was in production, its replacement should have been relatively easy to formulate. Italy was lousy with Innocentis in the 70s, I wonder why it was so expensive for BL to put into production.
Funny how the Ladybird concept resembles the AMC Pacer!
I just finished reading “Whatever Happened to the British Motorcycle Industry?” and it sounds the same. Bad management refusing to prepare for the future until it was dropped on their lap.
If anything, BL made BSA/Triumph look intelligent by comparison. BL’s length of survival was due entirely to the sheer size of the company and the customer base compared to BSA/Triumph which was a very small outfit by comparison.
Just the same, having finished that wonderful book, you should go to aronline.com and take the time to read the entire history of BMC/BL/MGRover. The parallels in stupidity are mind boggling.
I think you mean aronline.co.uk.
The “.com” site sent my antivirus software into warp drive… 🙂
My second favourite website…
To a large extent, I think BL’s problems lay with BMC, and more specifically with the Austin and Morris core brands. Leyland/Standard-Triumph, Rover, and Jaguar were not without their problems pre-merger, but they were selling well, had lots of brand equity, and either had competitive products or had carved out unique niches. Jaguar in the early to mid-sixties was literally turning customers away because demand exceeded capacity.
One of the biggest post-merger issues was that BMC had really struggled throughout the ’60s (as Roger has nicely illustrated) to devise mainstream products that would be as competitive and economically successful as they were cleverly engineered. After the merger, BL kept struggling for some solid mainstream hits and all the niche brands that had really been the stronger of the bunch ended up suffering.
An alternate history of an independent Leyland might have ended up being quite a bit different. I don’t think Triumph-Rover-Alvis would have had everything their own way either, particularly after the U.K. became part of the ECE and the Germans moved into the niche Rover and Triumph had largely owned, but they might have weathered it better without being seconded to BMC’s problems.
I read somewhere a while back (maybe here?) that the management/labour struggles in British industry in general were exacerbated by the British system of class-consciousness. It heightened the “them versus us” feeling that led to industrial unrest, but also tainted management’s attitude in dealing with workers. So what seems to us as arrant stupidity from both sides seemed perfectly logical to the participants at the time.
While the rest of the world just shook their heads in disbelief…..
When the USSR collapsed in the early ’90s and the KGB files fell open, it turned out that a lot of the trades union leaders were actually working for them… which explains a lot. In WW2 car factories had become tank factories.
One concept that seemed to be missing here (and there’ was a lot missing in these BL years) was branding. The Mini was not just an iconic car but an iconic brand. The Japanese learned this with Corolla, Civic, Accord … brands that are going strong after 40 years, despite significant technical changes and size creep. It’s interesting that it took BMW to realize the value of the Mini brand, though that was applied originally as a single model retro concept (like the new Beetle) it’s a true brand now.
I think the iconic value of the Mini brand WAS recognised, but long after the management of Austin-Rover (as it had by then become) had the wherewithal to do much about.
After the Metro became established in the 80s, the Mini soldiered on for another twenty (yes, 20) years as a heritage fashion accessory. Cooper branding and, to some extent, performance was revived, the Clubman derivatives stopped, and the Mini became cool again – after all, if you wanted a properly small, city runabout, there still weren’t too many alternatives. Sales to Japan were robust throughout this period. Special editions poured forth, and, with capital costs long amortised and the model no longer required to be a price-leader, it was probably even profitable.
I dunno — for at least the last 10-15 years of the original Mini’s life, it was really being sold as a sort of retro lifestyle product more than anything else. By the time the Metro was available, there wasn’t a lot of reason to buy a Mini as an economy car — there was usually still a price-leader model that was cheaper than the low-end Metro or Rover 100, but if you weren’t approaching it with nostalgia and character foremost in mind, the basic versions of something, anything more modern were probably a better bet. Rover Group started getting heavily into the special editions well before the BMW acquisition, especially when it became clear that there was a market for that kind of thing in Japan.
The comparison with the Beetle/New Beetle is obvious, but I don’t see a connection with model names like Corolla, Civic, or even Fiesta — all of those models have evolved considerably in the past three or four decades, and while some people are certainly nostalgic for the early examples, it’s not like there’s a set of ‘heritage design cues’ for them the way there are for cars like the Beetle or the Mustang.
The iconic value of cars like the Mini tends to be rooted in either being pretty much sui generis to begin with and/or outliving its original era by such an enormous margin that its original antecedents are largely forgotten (like the Beetle), so that people no longer look at them as a product of a particular era or stylistic movement, but as kind of a stand-alone phenomenon.
I used to see a lot of old ladies in base model Minis in the 80s and early 90s. They were “proven” (one way or another) and people just liked them.
As for other buyers, Minis weren’t necessarily just about fashion or “heritage”, they were seen as a fun car, and UK motoring magazines never failed to mention in reviews that they were more fun to drive than just about any other car you could buy.
We had an ’88 Ford Fiesta with a 957cc engine and 4 speed. Heated rear window and parcel shelf as optional extras. It had a hatch but really wasn’t much more sophisticated than a Mini, and felt much more cheap and flimsy, without any of the Mini’s character.
The Corolla/Civic etc don’t really have iconic design themes but they are definitely strong brands, having been high-volume sellers for decades. Most of the population are aware of them and they would have a good reputation, so as a brand they are literally worth hundreds of millions; the amount it would take to get a new brand to the same level.
So much so, that the Metro was launched as Mini Metro.
Wikipedia says ‘Mini Metro’ instead of just ‘Metro’ happened because there was a dispute with bus maker Metro Cammel, who objected to the use of the name Metro when the car was launched. They later launched the Metrocab London taxi.
Seems to me that the mini sort of predicted what the future of cars (for a while at least) was going to be. Always liked the mini and like your writing. Keep up the good work.
Brilliant, Roger. I always feel like I learn more from your posts about the British car industry and models that intrigue me than I ever did from any books I collected. Looking forward to your post tomorrow.
I’ll happily second that.
Thanks Roger for another excellent read.BL was a dead man walking for many years by the time the Metro came out.
When I lived in the UK in the mid ’80s, the expressed attitude was “if you want to support the home team, buy British. If you want reliable, comfortable, and good value for money, buy Ford.” Funny, in the late 1970’s, substitute “American” for “British” and “Japanese” for “Ford”, and you heard the same opinion, at least on the West Coast.
Fortunately, the U.S. car industry managed to find its way before it was mostly decimated. It is fun to speculate about what a surviving large, vibrant, indigenous British car industry might be producing today.
I enjoy learning so much about cars I know little to nothing about. Thanks, Roger.
There was comment at the time of the Metro debut about the last minute restyle which had made the body wider – but not the tracks. The car never looked sexy or cute, the way the Mini had looked. I drove a rental one for a day when they were the latest thing – it was OK but nothing special.
Yes, that is why the Metro had noticeably convex sides and the wheels looked a little lost, especially on basic models
Yes the Metro was sold in NZ yet I cant remember when I saw one last original style Minis are still part of regular traffic especially on nice weekends and change owners at prices BMC/BL could only dream about.
As a cost cutting exercise the Metro as launched, used Mini subframes with a Mini trackwidth. The 1984 facelift brought in the properly sized subframes and track as originally intended.
Great story Roger, as usual.
One intriguing fact about the 1100/1300 9X replacement is that it would have been powered by a 1000-1500 cc 6 Cylinder version of the 9X Mini replacements engine.
It also would had a Twin Cam version envisaged.
The 6 Cylinder Engine was tried in an ADO16 1100 and eventually tried in a MG Metro. It fitted because it was a very compact engine and would even fit under a Minis’ bonnet.
A one-litre twin-cam six. Sounds like an early-thirties MG design!
But boy, if they’d produced that…
That 6 was actually the 1300cc Wolseley Hornett, the MG had a ohc 4 banger from the Morris Minor.
A version of the Wolseley-derived six was used in the F-type Magna (1271cc), and the K-type(1087cc and 1271cc) and N-type (1271cc)Magnette, all in the early thirties. I thought of MG before Wolseley.
Yeah MGs and Morris used some Wolseley engines back then if it was shaft driven OHC it was Wolseley.
Wingroad
A bit confused regarding the 9X engine since Issigonis developed a Gearless 9X prototype with a 1500cc 4-cylinder 9X engine yet little is mentioned of how much the 4-cylinder 9X engine’s size could be increased by and whether it could have potentially replace the 4-cylinder E-Series or whether the 6-cylinder 9X unit went beyond 1300cc and 100 hp as found in the later MG Metro prototype.
Also where is it mentioned that a Twin-Cam version of the 9X engine was envisaged?
Lotus Rebel
The information comes from Mini The Definitive History by Jon Pressnell published by Haynes.It has pictures of a Pininfarina designed version of 9X
Wingroad
Thanks. Managed to find the info in question, it seems the Twin-Cam version was envisaged only for the 6-cylinder though suppose the Twin-Cam would have eventually filtered down to the 4-cylinder.
ADO 88 just screams Lancia / Autobianchi Y10 to me…
Looks like they swiped the blueprints!
Or, more likely, saw photos of ADO88 and thought “That’s a good idea!”.
Tom Tjaarda designed the Lancia Y10 in 1978 but it was launched in 1985.
Also, the Giugiaro 1983 Mk1 Fiat Uno has similarities. The origin of the Uno is supposed to be related to the 1978 Lancia Megagamma people carrier / minivan concept car.
The more you learn about BMC, the worse it gets. The Mini and (especially) the 1100/1300 were brilliant, but the Minor was allowed to live on; the 1800 was fundamentally flawed, but Issigonis was allowed to develop it unchecked; the Maxi was underdeveloped but they made it anyway, but allowed the Farina saloons to live on. No strategy, no recognition of the weaknesses in new products, no learning from experience that Issigonis’ ideas needed to be controlled. And thinking ADO88 could compete with the Renault 5, Polo, 104 etc was as mad as pretending there was scope for a car between them and the Mini.
Indeed. And also, the reluctance of having cars with hatchbacks, fearing competing with the Maxi, which wasn’t that great anyway. Is like BL understood hatchbacks as a kind of car, of which you only needed one of. So they launched the Princess without a hatchback..l it wasn’t only an Issigonis thing.
And at the same time, Issigonis wasn’t only against hatchbacks. He also wanted his cars to be very spartan, hurting the development of the Maxi.
Indeed. Once they had something in production they wanted to keep it in production, regardless of the competition. While I can understand that from the plant manager’s point of view, BL management seemed to live in a vacuum, or a bubble, as we say nowadays.
Here in Australia, we had the Wolseley 1500-based Morris Major replace the Minor, and that was restyled in 1959 and again in 1962, acquiring a longer wheelbase along the way, and ran until replaced by the 1100. Yep, Australian management not only did the logical thing but found the funds to restyle and develop it twice. And yet I read a comment from a British author (was it Jeff Daniels or Graham Robson?) to the effect that ‘it’s hard to see where that would have fitted in the British lineup’! When I read that comment, I felt like firing off a stiff letter to say “It was the perfect Minor replacement, you dolt!” But I didn’t. Can’t go calling the experts names. Besides, the UK was a different country; what seems logical from outside might not have worked there…..
Then there were the cars we foreigners tend to forget. They kept the 1959 Austin Cambridge/Morris Oxford in production until 1971 when it was eventually replaced by the Marina. The Farina Austins looked thoroughly obsolete by the mid sixties. Back in the fifties Austin and later BMC was able to update the Cambridge every two or three years, yet they clung onto the Farina design way too long. Theoretically the 1800 was this car’s replacement, but it came out too big and expensive because Issigonis used the newer 1800 engine rather than the 1600 from the Cambridge. Not that the 1800 was a bad car, just too big for the market at the time. I still can’t figure how management couldn’t see that. So in the popular 1.5 litre sedan market they had two entries – one too old and the other too big.
No wonder they failed. It’s a wonder they lasted as long as they did.
The Farina Austin is a dead ringer for the Peugeot 404 (same PF design) and those were made until 1975 in France, but kept going in places like Argentina for longer still. Somehow, the fact that it looked old was not a huge drawback. They wouldn’t have kept making them after the 504 took over in 1968 if there wasn’t a market for them.
It seems BMC continued the Cambridge / Oxford after the 1800 came along for the same reason: folks who wanted one weren’t necessarily tempted by the other.
The wife and I conceived our first child in the back of a Mini; not our Mini, per se…
Funny how you mention the transmission in the sump proved to be a dead end. Yet 90% of motorcycles since WWII have been built just that way. Great story Roger, always look forward to what you write.
No most motorcycles have the gearbox behind the crankcase not inside it like the Mini.
Although the unit-construction motorcycle geartrain’s physically behind the crankshaft it’s inside the crankcase sharing the engine’s oil, just like a Mini.
Separate-gearbox motorbikes generally went out of favour during the 1950s.
Exceptions are longitudinal engine shaft-drive bikes like a flat twin BMW, or anachronisms like the Indian Enfield Bullet or certain Harley-Davidsons… And all two-strokes of course!
That original ADO88 prototype (the one in b/w with a “2” next to it) actually looked a good bit nicer than the Metro ended up looking. Curious though how the flat plane hatch was changed due to customer feedback–the early 80’s Civic hatchback had one almost exactly like that, one of the car’s distinctive features. And they did well enough (over here anyway, maybe they didn’t sell well in the UK?)
Roger
What is the source stating that the Ant project was the Barrel car?
Apparently a Pinninfarina-styled Mini in a similar mold to the Pinninfarina BMC 1100 Aerodynamica was also looked into.
A pity BMC / BL was never in a position to produce both the 9X and a developed version of the existing Mini, the latter featuring the advances from the likes of the Barrel car and 4-door prototoype to the hatchback and split-tailgate Hydragas-sprung Minki 1-2 prototypes (pre K-Series) eventually for markets outside of Europe akin to a smaller Hindustan Ambassador before the Maruti 800 appeared.
As for the 9X was the Mini and the ADO16 versions going to be limited to 3-door and 5-door bodystyles respectively or were they going to feature other bodystyles (e.g. 5-door Mini-9X, 3-door ADO16-9X, etc)?
Not quite sure on the 6-cylinder 9X engine as it would make more sense to produce a 750-1600cc 4-cylinder 9X engine, perhaps a 1300-1600cc 6-cylinder could work though wonder how the 9X could have taken on the early Hot Hatches in both Mini-9X and ADO16-sized forms.
Would have loved to have seen a production 9X with the styling of the Innocenti Mini as that seems to be the sweet spot with regards to a clean-sheet Mini replacement.
Never really liked the Mini Clubman because it retained the rear of the original Mini instead of adopting the rear from the Clubman hatchback prototype, while the original Mini should have replaced the boot with a split-tailgate (as on the Minki) later followed by a hatchback after production of the Mini Clubman ceased.
As for ADO88 / LC8 it was originally supposed to receive the front-rear interconnected Hydragas suspension later found on the Rover Metro / 100 as opposed to the compromised side-to-side at the rear only as was found on the production version despite the desperate pleas of Alex Moulton.
Just realized the 9X 4/6-cylinder engine family could also in theory have conceivably spawned an inline 3-cylinder engine of around 500/560-750cc.
Had the 9X entered production, an inline-3 version of the 9X have might allowed Honda to remain in the Kei Car class during its 10 year absence from the segment in mid-70s to mid-80s had an earlier more equal collaboration with BMC (or BL) occurred.
The shrunken-1800 styling on the front of the Ant / barrel Mini makes it look a bit like a Honda N360/N600.
Did you know Soichiro Honda and Alec Issigonis were born a day apart (17/18 Nov 1906) .. Must have been some engineering genius magic floating around overnight looking for homes!
A friend and I drove a Metro from the City of London to the Isle of Skye and back in ’85. Oddly, in my mind’s eye, we are driving on the right.
It’s easy to attribute the difficulty in settling on a replacement for the Mini to BL/BMC management incompetency, but let’s not forget how long it took VW to come up with a successor to the Beetle.
Having looked further into the various Mini replacement projects since the previous posts, would have to say that Project Ant was actually the best starting point out of the lot of them in retrospect.
Particularly in the sense it was a linear evolution of the Mini as well as significantly cheaper to produce as opposed to a more costly clean sheet design (9X, ADO74) or a compromised rebody, be it the cramped Bertone styled Innocenti Mini or the tacked on front of the Clubman.
Unlike the existing Mini it was also theoretically wide enough to be equipped with an end-on gearbox, which was the case with the later Minki-II prototype (widened by 2-inches to feature 1.4-litre K-Series).
Project Ant / Barrel Car could of course have benefited from a hatchback, as for criticisms regarding its styling one would only need to look at the Autobianchi A112 on how its styling could have been updated
How to replace a Mini ? Althought USA was unawared of his existence, already in earlies 1970s the easiest answer is Daihatsu Fellow , also known as Daihatsu Max , also known as Daihatsu Cuore dependng on the marketing for distinct countries `round the world.
Daihatsu demonstrated how outdated was the British creature .
Daihatsu microcar was smaller outside than Mini , but best ergonomics inside.
Daihatsu microcar was just 599 cc versus 998cc / 1275cc of the Mini .
Fuel efficiency of Daihatsu Fellow – Cuore – Max was beyond science fiction !
Not to mention Daihatsu`s engines durability . Proven little machines that shadowed all of those graceful Issigonis` designs .
( BMW`s takeover to Rover Group to relaunch the latest Mini is far another kind of Mini, a fat Mini re-structured à là Bimmer`s standards , it`s in a bigger category )