When I found the picture of the Lotus 7 clone in Spain yesterday, I foolishly didn’t make the connection to some other shots posted by kurtzos too, and said it was the only one. My bad: we’ll cover a few more, starting with this Montego. I know the Montego has a quite a story, but its going to be the bedtime version, and a scary one at that.
The Montego was the trunk-back sedan counterpart to the hatchback Maestro. The fact that the development of these cars started in around 1975, and they finally hit the market in 1984 probably suggests something about the state of BL at the time. The Montego was to be a technological showcase, with a solid state talking dashboard that was famous for calling out “Abort! Abort!” whenever it sensed some impending dysfunction. I kid; but not about the problems with this technological disaster of an IP. It was soon aborted by BL for a more conventional one.
In an apparent change of technological priorities, the Maestro/Montego dumped the famous Issigonis Hydrolastic suspension for one almost perfectly cribbed from the VW Golf.
That’s Chapter One of the Montego. I’m going to have to skip some of the ones in the middle, like when it lost its Austin. But the last one is about how the Montego earned the distinction of being one of Britan’s most-scrapped cars, and only some 8000 are still in existence; or were when that fact was last proclaimed. Who knows how many are left today? But this one in Madrid looks positively hale and hearty, given the Montegos compulsion to rust under its body cladding, which was not painted prior to having said cladding applied. This one must be one of the last years of production. After a few years of beta testing on its customers, BL sometimes did manage to get things right.
I know the Montego had redeeming qualities, otherwise BL wouldn’t have sold some 436k of them during its decade of production. But I’m going to leave it to others to extol those virtues.
Perhaps the reason BL sold 436k of these cars was there were no other cars for sale in the UK at the time.
Having had a fair bit of exposure to BL cars over the years, this can be the only reason other than a mental disorder.
Actually, these competed against the Sierra and Cavalier, two very competent cars. All three were fleet cars- very few individuals actually chose to buy any with their own money. This is mainly due to the tax system in the UK, where the cut off is very steep- presently you go from 22% to 40% around £40k a year. Thus, instead of raising a person’s salary, they would get a company car as a perk. This happens in the states too but it is not nearly as widespread as in the UK.
I think the reason the Montego sold well is because some fleet managers just had a better relationship with BL than with Ford or Vauxhall. It is also important to remember that both GM and Ford had a horrible reputation for rust and even their build quality was worse than BL in the 70s. (this had changed by the time the mk2 Cavalier and Sierra came out though). Thus, if your job was on the line if you purchased a fleet of lemons, you would stick with what you know. I would guess that a number of these fleet managers had been burned on Cortinas or Vivas, and decided to give BL a try.
BL cars, for all of their issues, were incredibly cheap to repair, and the basic mechanics of the Monstros (Montego/Maestro) were very robust, once they ditched the feedback carburetors that afflicted everything from the early to mid 80s.
The other thing about BL is that they were very much like Chrysler is in the US. First and second year of a new models were horrendous and nearly unusable lemons. By the third year, the kinks would be ironed out, and the cars were often incredibly reliable- much better than they had any right to be (unless there was a strike over lukewarm coffee or something.) Sadly, the reputation of the car as ‘one to avoid’ was set, and few bothered to learn how good they were. Counterintuitively, throughout the 70s, Austin/Morris cars had a very good reputation for rust resistance. While a Hillman, Ford or Vauxhall would be rotten in three years, Allegros, Maxis and Marinas would still be doddering along in the 1990s without anything other than surface corrosion. (again except the ones left out in the rain during the strikes.)
Much of the hatred of BL was not due to its products, which were no worse than anything else in Europe at the time, but due to it being a nationalized company and the red-hating tabloid media in the UK. Everything that happened at Longbridge, be it strikes or bad management also happened in Luton and Dagenham, but both of those companies being privately owned, escaped the wrath of the media. You see this in the US with absolute fabrications about the bailed out US manufacturers being accepted as fact on certain TV news channels.
Both of these cars were replaced by the Rover 200 series- probably the best British car of the era, as it was based on the ’88-91 Civic but with real wood and velour or leather on the top spec models. Both were generally trouble free from the first year, a first for BL, and perplexing, as the equally Honda derived 800/Sterling was a nightmare until the mk2 in the early 90s.
Thanks for the in-depth comment; that’s what really makes CC roll. I try to avoid overly-simplistic characterizations of cars I’m not really familiar with, because usually the picture is a bit more complex. I roughly knew that with these cars, but this helps put them into better perspective. Love that nickname “Monstros”!
And you analogy to Chrysler might better fit GM. Most of their Deadly Sins eventually became quite reliable, after a few years.
Brian: Thank you at last! A very insightful comment on the labyrinth that was BL. My own take on the implosion of Britain’s auto-industry has been that its poor rep was more due to nationalisation rather than intrinsically bad direction in the company. You make a good argument that red disruptors were equally biting Ford and Vauxhall, but BL got the worst publicity due to its nationalised status (which I strongly oppose, still). Even then, British Govt., as the steward of BL during a crisis period for domestic industry as a whole, should have done a better job. Just look over at State-owned VW, which seems to be doing quite well. Loss of an entire way of car-making was too bad.
CC: I’m going to bust you for calling VW “state owned”. The influence on the management of VW that the state of Westfalia has with its 20% voting rights share is functionally nil.
Functionally nil NOW, that is after the fake-sale to Porsche after the EU struck down the anticompetitive golden share the West German empire held in VW. Also, VW shares were only opened to the public after 1960, after the company had proven itself in the European market, and only after ensuring the company could not be taken over. Indeed, the criticism of sloth leveled at VW in the initial years was largely due to political ownership. How convenient that Auto Union, NSU and other refugees conveniently fell into their lap and gave them a competitive post-Beetle platform. I seriously doubt the company would even exist today without initial Govt ownership for two decades, and then only partial divestment under unlawful protection from takeover. If British politicians in the post-war decades had half the sagacity of their German counterparts, Morris and Rover would have been with us today.
The criticism of sloth at VW came well after 1960. In its first two decades, it was an economic wunderkind, coming out of the ruins to one of the world’s biggest automakers. And a very profitable one, from very early on, within a couple of years. Are you suggesting that the Land of Wesfalia was propping up VW, or injecting cash into it?
The sloth came in the early-mid sixties, when VW’s huge success made them very complacent about replacing the rear-engine platform.
> Are you suggesting that the Land of Wesfalia was propping up VW, or injecting cash into it?
Absolutely. In fact, W. German Federal Govt. and Lower Saxony owned 40% of VW after 1960, and it was in a Govt. sponsored trust earlier. If not for the West German Govt. (Federal and State both) propping it up, the British Major Hirst (spelling?) would either have packed it up, or some other company such as FIAT, Opel, or even Skoda could have bought it outright, for the one hit model it made. Instead, the Govt. financed initial development (including U.S. Marshall Plan money), and once the initial model succeeded, divested 60% of shares with the ridiculous (and unlawful, as per EU 70 years later) stipulation forbidding institutional investors from obtaining more than 20% of voting rights. The first million Beetles were made with Government money, coming from a Government that had just lost a major War of its own creation and getting Marshall Plan aid against the Red Threat.
As for sloth accusations coming in the early-mid sixties, that was exactly when Auto Union `fell’ from Daimler’s lap into VWs (not FIAT’s, not Opel’s, not Chrysler’s, not BMC’s, etc.), with allegations of corruption flying thick and fast. Coincidence?
Edit: Major Hirst (not Hirsh), and 50 years later instead of 70.
You said: I seriously doubt the company would even exist today without initial Govt ownership for two decades
That’s the point I’m disputing. Sure, VW wasn’t going to turn a bombed out crater of a factory into a running one again without some help, but from what little I know, VW was quite profitable by about 1951 or 1952, if not even by 1949. In my book, that’s a very successful resuscitation. And not one that took two decades of propping up.
It’s a very stark contrast to what happened at BL.
A very profitable company with limited production and only one model without any capital for growth (profits are hardly that much for a basically bottom-feeding car) under ownership of the Government is one thing and one thing only: an acquisition target. The Government should have conducted an organised divestment. Ford/Opel/FIAT/Austin/Skoda Beetle anyone? Instead, they delayed until 1960, and then only formalised 40% Govt ownership (simultaneously receiving US aid), and divested 60% but with the anti-competitive Volkswagen Law protection. They have TILL DATE not conducted a proper divestment. The phoney buy-sell game with Porsche has made it unlikely for anyone to buy control of VW now that the EU has struck down the VW law, but the whole saga stinks to hell.
No contrast to what happened at BL. If the British Govt had been as biased and manipulative in favour of BMC/BL, they would still be with us today, just like Peugeot, BMW and even Renault (which was an enthusiastic Nazi collaborator). Instead, Britain strove for a level playing field among Ford of UK, Vauxhall, and BMC. Two of those companies had access to capital and little threat of looming nationalisation. After all, the people running the British auto firms were the founders or their descendents, and would be personally destroyed if Big Brother swooped in and took their companies (just like they destroyed British Coal, Steel, Railways, you name it), so they paid huge dividends (upto 50% in a single year!) and didn’t invest in the future of the company, foreseeing failure and nationalisation by the Communists in power. This, sadly, became a self-fulfilling prophecy. As Brian pointed out, later, every strike and problem in BL was a Red Menace, while Ford and Vauxhall remained out of the storm. No comparison with VW at all.
Heh, turned out too long. 🙂
The styling certainly says VW rip off.
At a fast glance, it looks like Subaru Legacy, or a pre-Legacy.
Who knows how many are left today?
http://www.howmanyleft.co.uk/combined/Montego
In the UK there were 1,154 left as of Q2 2012: 427 licensed for use on public roads and a further 727 more still in existence but not licensed for use on public roads (SORNed). Just in case anyone was interested.
Dreadful cars, no great loss.
This site has just about anything on just about everything BL.
http://www.aronline.co.uk/blogs/2011/08/07/the-cars-maestromontego-development-story/
I really love the wrap-around window treatment at the back.
We got bucket loads of the Montego new in New Zealand, in the Austin, MG and no-name iterations. My Dad was a mechanic at the local Austin-Rover-Honda dealer when the Montego wagon was released, and gave me the brochure. The wagons are actually quite nice looking, and ours came with the option of the third row seat, to give them a point of difference against the top-selling Ford Sierra wagon.
I’ve posted on it here before, but a friend bought a 1987ish MG Montego 2.0SLi in 1995ish. It looked quite decent, and went okay for the several years he had it, but it was almost the worst car I’ve driven (worst was a 2001 Holden Vectra wagon…terrible, just terrible). The Montego’s steering felt like the steering wheel was attached to the steering rack by two wooden branches split lengthwise that were cable-tied together. ie the steering was anything but linear. Sometimes the road wheels would turn to the side at the same rate as the steering wheel, sometimes they’d turn further, sometimes less, and sometimes a random combination of all of the above. It was un-nerving to say the least. We tried sprinkling holy water on it and wearing a string of garlic when driving it, but no, no luck.
When I posted last time, someone said that was torque steer. Trust me, I’m not an idiot, I know what torque steer is (1985 Honda Civic Si anyone?). Having had steering rack issues last year with my Nissan Laurel, I now know the Montego’s internal steering rack bush/es likely had disintegrated, allowing the shafts free play to do their own thing. But still an interesting car nonetheless.
Your post says that the Montego was the worst car you’ve ever driven but then you finally admit that it had a specific failure. That could happen to any vehicle.
Yet most of your post implies that this was an inbuilt problem that applies to all of them. In my book that is the worst of the internet – people making sweeping condemnations of things which then becomes “lore”.
As an AustinRover salesman in the late 1980s I drove hundreds of Montegos, Maestros and all their competition and the Montego was extremely competitive in all respects. Handling and steering were definitely not a problem area. The Monty could out handle most of the opposition.
They had weak areas (horrible gear change on the VW-derived ‘box on the 1.6 models, wicked torque steer on the Turbos, a slightly “loose” feeling at very high speed, as examples) but overall they were extremely competent and all their competition had their own weak areas.
You and Canucklehead should show a bit more respect to a pretty-good-for-its’-day vehicle.
Uh, not quite sure why I deserved such spleen venting? I didn’t make a sweeping condemnation at all, rather I said they were “actually quite nice looking”, “went okay” and “an interesting car nonetheless”. As is the CC way, I simply shared a story about my experiences with a Montego – it was partially tongue-in-cheek, as signified by the holy water… Perhaps my humour was too subtle.
The Montego I referred to had its steering investigated in depth at the time by the garage – run by a fully-accredited BL mechanic (not my Dad!) – and no fault was ever found. It was pronounced okay. To me, for steering to be classed as okay means it should be linear, consistent, and not the least bit un-nerving. That car was none of these yet was deemed okay by the BL agent, thus my belief (in 1997) that ONE aspect of Montegos wasn’t so great.
As I also said, I learnt a lot about steering racks when mine needed reconditioning due to an internal bush disintegrating. 15 years after driving the Montego, it suddenly struck me that perhaps its internal bush/es had disintegrated, and for whatever reason that wasn’t picked up.
I’m sorry that you feel my opinion of the Montego as a good looking and interesting car is disrespectful, but I’d suggest taking a deep breath and counting to 10 before leaping to personal judgement. The whole point of CC is that it brings together auto enthusiasts of widely and wildly varied backgrounds, experience and knowledge. This is an aggression-free place to meet and share stories and experiences. A bit of passion is always awesome, and I’m delighted that there is someone out there who feels so passionately about Montegos. Please try to respect that not all of us will share your passion to the same degree.
Had one of these, a two litre, back in 1985. It really wasn’t all that bad and certainly handled and rode better than the GM (Vauxhall) Cavalier. Driving position and seats were both entirely reasonable. The Maestro hatchback version, although based on VW Golf underpinnings, had tall, gawky styling that condemned it forever to be a Senior Citizen Special. All in all, a fair effort for what was essentially a BL cobble-up, and fuel-injected MG versions could show a clean pair of heels to the competition.
VW-derived underpinnings? What the heck are you talking about? The Maestro was based on the preceding Allegro and 1100/1300 designs which, if anything, VW copied in building the Golf.
As far as I recall the only VW parts were the gearboxes on the 1.6 litre models and they had a horrible shift quality due to a nylon bush on the remote linkage that constantly dried out and squeaked and clunked like the devil. In fairness to VW, that linkage was a BL part I believe but the Golf gear change was also clunky.
The Maestro and Montego used a suspension design that was essentially cribbed from the VW Golf. Pre-production mules actually used Golf suspension components. Quite a departure from previous BMC/BL designs.
I remember these from the 80s since I actually have some Austin Rover catalogs picked up on vacations across the pond. I think they were considered competent but unexciting, rather like modern Hyundais. The diesel versions attracted a lot of scrapyard interest for their Perkins Prima TDi engines which were a popular swap for Landrovers until enough early Discoveries rusted out to make the Landrover 200TDi the donor engine of choice.