(first posted 3/26/2015) Back in December 2013, fellow Curbivore Tom Klockau covered the Austin 3 Litre and coined it brilliantly as the Landcrab Imperial. As chance would have it, at my local Classic Car club evening meeting last week the subject of the 3 Litre was raised. One member has one, which he nicknamed “The Lobster”, only partly based on its red colour. So, as a follow up to Tom’s post from 2013, I offer this further explanation on yet another BMC failure.
Let’s start by quantifying that failure. In three years, this car sold around 10,000 copies. Its predecessors, cars like the badge engineered Austin Westminster, Wolseley 6/99 and 6/110, sold 8-10,000 a year for 9 years to 1968. So, commercially it was a huge disappointment, and never achieved its break even production rate.
The engineering concept behind the car was consistent with that behind the Westminster, in the way it was related to the next smaller car in the BMC range. Both were visually similar, but obviously larger, cars than the core mid-market product in the range. The Westminster and its contemporary mid-market cousin, the Austin Cambridge and its badge engineered versions, shared a lot visually and indeed a previous generation shared doors as well; the Austin 3 Litre shared a lot of Austin 1800 Landcrab (an unofficial name, but so obviously correct it has stuck for 50 years), both visually and beneath the skin.
Essentially, the 3 Litre was the center section of an Austin 1800 body with a 3 litre straight six, from the Austin Westminster and the MGC, fitted in a conventional longitudinal position, driving the rear wheels. To accommodate the straight six, compared with the tightly packed transverse installation in the 1800, the front of the car was significantly lengthened. The wheelbase was 11 inches longer, all ahead of the front door. At the back, a longer and actually well integrated boot attempted to balance the front. Overall the car was 186 inches long, 22 longer than the Landcrab, and it weighed 3400lb, 850lb more than the already heavy enough Landcrab.
Technically, the car was much more conservative than many contemporary BMC products, with the only true novelty being self levelling units on the hydrolastic suspension. The interior was the full traditional luxury British wood, leather and West of England cloth experience, complete with picnic tables and a strip speedometer.
The development period of the car was fairly protracted, starting in 1963, getting diverted and delayed by BMC’s abortive projects and merger thoughts with Rolls-Royce before finally seeing the light of day in 1967 and the market in 1968. But, despite all this time, the 1968 car was visually and conceptually consistent with the 1963 thinking and prototypes.
Photo from www.aronline.co.uk
A quick aside on the Rolls-Royce link; BMC looked at a takeover of, or merger with, Rolls-Royce Motors (but not the aero-engine company) around 1962-4, and as part of that exercise looked at creating a compact Rolls-Royce or possibly Bentley saloon by using the Austin Westminster as a basis, and at one time produced a derivative of the Austin Westminster, known as the Vanden Plas Princess 4 litre R, in small numbers using a Rolls-Royce engine. This developed into the idea of utilising the central section of the Landcrab and a Rolls-Royce engine, all suitably trimmed and finished, as the basis for a compact Rolls-Royce or Bentley, and got as far as models, before Rolls-Royce bailed out.
All other members of the Landcrab family were built at Cowley, Oxford, and the 3 Litre was no exception.
But let’s consider some of the issues the car had in the market place.
The central section of the final car, known as ADO61, including the front and rear screens, doors and the complete roof line, is unmistakably Landcrab. The fact that the proportions may have worked better didn’t really change that fact. So issue number one, it looked too much like its smaller cousin.
More to the point was that the Landcrab was not exactly a great looking car – its awkward proportions and BMC’s (or Issigonis’s?) resistance to style for the sake of style saw to that. Add to that the visually over-long bonnet and the dated front end (was this the last car without a true full width front end?), and the result was fairly graceless and clumsy, if imposing. Issue number two then, it was also unappealing, aesthetically.
Then, inside, this car offered no more space than the 1800. Actually it offered less, as the bulky transmission tunnel required for the rear drive took a lot of foot room, front and rear. The boot was bigger, though. Issue number three: it was less spacious inside than the smaller car.
The engine used in the 3 Litre was the BMC C-series straight 6 cylinder, well known from its use in the Austin-Healey 3000 as well as the Westminster saloon range. For this application, the engine was the significantly revised version that had been developed for the also ill-fated MGC, with a new cylinder block and head, and a 7 bearing crankshaft. Sadly, it also had a great reluctance to rev, and proved to be heavy on fuel, struggling to achieve 20mpg (around 17 US mpg) in normal use and much less if pushed. Linked to this, the car was little faster than the Austin 1800 and no faster at all than the twin carburettor 1800S. In fact, those two cars were almost exactly matched at about 80bhp/ton and both could just reach 100 mph and get to 60 in around 14 seconds. Issue number four, then, was inadequate performance and economy.
In defence of the 3 Litre, it is only fair to record that the car had a quite exceptional ride quality. It used the hydrolastic system pioneered on the BMC ADO16 (Austin, Morris 1100) with double wishbones at the front and trailing arms at the back, but also linked it to a self levelling system as well. Factoring in the work done with Rolls-Royce early in the development and the considerable weight of the car ensured that the suspension, whilst not making it a driver’s car by any means, certainly made it exceptionally comfortable for the passengers.
But perhaps the fifth issue was the one crucial to the car’s success (or rather the lack of it). The market position this car was aimed at was disappearing rapidly. By 1968, the Triumph 2000 and Rover 2000 compact luxury sport saloons had been on the market for five years, and were clearly established as the next progression for the aspiring and successful driver moving up from, say, a Morris Oxford or Ford Cortina rather than the traditional larger cars, like the Westminster, Ford Zephyr or Humber Hawk.
Indeed, the big Rootes cars were discontinued and not replaced in 1967, as the smaller Humber Sceptre aped the Rover and Triumph concept at a lower price, as did Ford with the famous Cortina 1600E. This size and style of car had had its day – compact luxury with style had taken over from size as the dominant factor.
And then there was the price. The car initially cost around £1500, or about 50% more than a Landcrab. For that, BLMC could offer you a Triumph 2500PI, with fuel injected six cylinder engine, stronger performance, a more prestigious badge and none of the comprises required for the 3 Litre. Or if the Triumph was bit too flash and you preferred a more conservative choice, how about a Rover 3.5 Litre (P5), with the Buick V8? Good enough for the Queen and Prime Minister, you know. Remarkably, BMC persevered with ADO61 project, even after buying Jaguar in 1966. This or a Jaguar Mk2 – it’s your choice
Or, if you were a BMC loyalist who thought the Austin 1800 was not plush enough and wanted a bit more luxury, there was always the Wolseley 18/85S – based on the Austin 1800S, it was therefore as fast and as spacious as the 3 Litre, though more compact but still with a wood and leather interior, power steering and the option of an automatic transmission, unusually controlled by a facia lever rather than floor mounted selector. All yours for £1100 in 1968. The 3 Litre looked redundant, from the off.
So, there we have six issues that worked against the 3 Litre – the similarity to its smaller brother, the looks, the space, the performance and economy, the market position and pricing.
BMC, or rather BLMC, sold just 10,000 in 3 years, before the car was quickly pensioned off, practically unnoticed and was not replaced, nominally. But in 1972, BLMC put a transvserse straight 6 cylinder version of the Austin Maxi’s E series into the Landcrab. The Wolseley version, known as the Six, offered everything the 3 Litre did, except the large boot and the self levelling suspension.
The Landcrab is really the core of a trilogy of cars, each of which failed. The Landcrab itself never sold the 4000 a week BMC planned for, the Maxi disappointed technically, aesthetically and commercially and the 3 Litre would probably have been better left in the cupboard. And in this trilogy you can see some of the reasons BMC failed.
Related:
Cohort Classic: Austin 3 Litre: Landcrab Imperial T. Klockau
CC 1965 Austin 1800 Mk1 (ADO17) “Landcrab”: Best In Class or Just Ugly R. Carr
CC 1973 Wolseley Six: A Land Crab Appears In Oregon PN
Another abject lesson in comprehensive failure brought to you by the 1960’s British motor industry. They really were the champions of disaster. History suggests that it was labour relations that soured things but with management decisions like this….
Why they wanted to use the Landcrab body for everything I cannot imagine. When you consider the multitude of changes (like having to engineer a driveshaft tunnel…) it is unlikely there could have been any cost saving.
The thought of a Landcrab Rolls Royce literally makes me shudder!
These cars are a prime example of what happens when the bean counters are given too much, nay, almost total, control over the product development process. And over the next ten years, this “cost savings in the wrong” place mania repeated itself again and again – and for the oddest reasons.
Like, the Austin Allegro becoming pudgy because of the determination to use an already existent heater from another car, that was too large for the original design. Or dropping the Healey 6 into the MGB without worrying about weight distribution (and then killing the cost savings by redesigning the entire engine for virtually no improvement).
BLMC has historically become the automotive poster child of, “What were they thinking” Were they thinking?”
This always did seem the most pointless variant. You have to wonder why this was pursued instead of the more upmarket Vanden Plas Landcrab. After it was discontinued they brought out the Wolseley Six which proceeded to outsell the cheaper Austin and Morris 2200s, confirming that they definitely went off in the wrong direction with this one.
I love this shape. The 3-litre cops so much stick for being an overstretched landcrab, but it actually is very attractive and could quite easily have been the next Riley/MG Magnette type of saloon. I’ve said it before, but if we had not been privy to the landcrab, then the 3-litre shape would probably be much better appreciated. It’s certainly better than the large Pinin Farina fin saloons.
I think this Bentley clay side shows the shape at its best potential.
BMC/BLs concepts were always better than the execution. Even the princess looked good in some of the styling sketches.
Yep. I think one of the things that makes this model work is the much more delicate pillarwork within the greenhouse.
Definitely. Changes the whole look of the car.
That clay is not of a genuine landcrab. It’s obviously an earlier design that might have been loosely based on it, but it’s a new “body” that does look distinct, and more attractive.
I can somewhat agree with you that the 3 Litre was decent looking from the side, but the front end was a disaster. And the biggest problem is that it might have looked reasonably ok in 1964, but by 1967-1968, the world had moved on, design-wise. Think about the new cars in the executive class that were out or coming out in this time period, like the new BMW six cylinder E3. The 3 Litre suddenly looks like it’s from another epoch altogether.
BMC’s problems with its cars were multiple, but just the fact that they consistently dithered and brought the new cars out 3-5 years late alone would have killed them, never mind all the other deficiencies.
It’s one of the models from the ‘Bengal, Alpha, Java’ period in the early-mid sixties. These were in fact styled by John Blatchley and his team (you can see the Silver Cloud model in the background of the profile pic I posted).
One thing they were looking at was how much they could adapt the Landcrab, or Farina Westminster in the case of the Java – so for example Java 1 was minimal bodywork change, Java 2 was (IIRC) minimal bodywork change but different engine and Java 3 was comprehensive bodywork change to look like the Silver Shadow.
The same applied to the above Bengal. The one in Roger’s article shows a greenhouse much like the landcrab, and the one I’ve pictured shows a landcrab-based car with more comprehensive changes.
I agree the 3-litre is somewhat lacking in its front end. The Vandenplas was only slightly better, but as you say by the time these came onto the market they already looked archaic.
I think it’s the same basic Landcrab greenhouse. They just did a “Mk II” job on it and cut the doors above the waist line and fitted new and thinner chromed window frames. Obviously, the door outer skin is also different. Perhaps being a Bentley, they could afford such luxury above the more plebian alternatives. As said, the 3-litre was more or less locked and production ready already in 1963. And perhaps it was its biggest sin? It could’ve been a contender in ’63, but not so much in ’68.
The big Wolseley Westminster twins and Vanden Plas R were still selling ok in 68 here and there were always plenty of them around and still are, the 3 litre sold poorly to the same customer base and survivors are relatively few, the 1800 wasnt as popular here as BMC hoped if you got a good one it was a good car and some people must have but most didnt.
“if we had not been privy to the landcrab”
To be fair, that’s a pretty big ‘if’!
I find it extraordinary that even with the extensive use of the parts-bin (not re-engineering doors & windows would have saved a lot of time) they couldn’t get it onto the market in less than 5 years. Surely there were people within the company that would have been saying “this is not worth tooling up for”.
Yeah, it is a big ‘if’.
This everlong tale of woe is the transatlantic equivalent of the Deadly Sins series and has me trying to find something redeemable. This is the best I can do. Otherwise, as JPC notes, it’s a bit of a downer.
Bloc built a prototype 3ltr vandenplas useing the austin tasmin bodyshell…it was spot on ,looked great ..had style and class like a junior Mercedes there’s a picture in Austin rover online
Dr Frankenstein found Issigonis’ keys to the lab and this is the result. Same scale, aesthetic, and joylessness as his first and similarly reviled creature.
No one deserves even points for trying on this project. Nothing heroic about it.
Cut them all up for scrap like Issigonis’ V8 Riley development mule.
Except for their woolly steering I’d bet the 3 litre Farinas were superior cars in every respect and a 6/110 Mk II with the floor shift 4 speed would be my choice.
Thanks for the analysis Roger, you’re far kinder than me.
The rear is quite attractive, far better than the front. Dated, yes by 1968, but would have worked with an earlier introduction.
That front is ugly in in any era though.
I do have a slight soft spot for the “landcrab”,
We had the Australia only (I think) ute version as Dad’s runabout in the mid 70s.
A landcrab ute??? Boggles the mind. Do you have a picture?
Have a look here: http://www.aronline.co.uk/blogs/cars/bmc-cars/18002200/bmc-18002200-commercial-derivatives/ (the van version above it was never built). Note use of the Mk.1 rear lights in a vertical format, either side of the tailgate. The compact FWD format gave a long and low bed for the vehicle size.
The 1800 ute has even been featured on CC before.
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/austin-1800-utility-australians-just-had-to-have-a-landcrab-ute/
I’ve actually seen one in the last month or so, but in traffic so I couldn’t get a photo.
Almost everything assembled in OZ had a ute version at some point, and when they forgot to build one like for the Ford Zephyr MK3 because Ford AU wanted to sell Falcon utes New Zealand produced them instead
I shot a ute for the cohort last year its on there somewhere but it obviously wasnt one of the 7 galvanised ones judging by the rust.
I beg to differ :
BMC didn’t make any ‘ failures ‘ , no ~ what they did was take niche marketing to the illogical extreme…..
A pity that .
-Nate
And in doing so, they often seemed to add in some detail guaranteed to turn buyers elsewhere. Narrowing the focus even further, you might say.
Sad if true .
A few of us still are BMC fanbois though…..
Older folks from the colonies fondly remember BMCproducts from the 1940’s ~ 1960’s that soldiered on over crappy roads with low quality fuels and untrained Mechanics….
I know that sounds odd but every time I’m in the West Indies etc. I meet folks who wish they could still buy Austins, Mini Coopers, MG’s and so on .
-Nate
Well Roger, now you’ve done it. I was feeling pretty good when I got up this morning. But after being greeted with yet another depressing tale of failure by the British motor industry, I just want to go back to bed and pull the covers up over my head.
That wasn’t the plan JP!
Britain’s dark, cynical cultural products since WW2 suggests they have some sort of need to celebrate failure. Optimism is a Yank thing, but we’ll get over that soon enough.
http://ask.metafilter.com/202245/How-are-British-people-taught-to-expect-failure-and-disappointment
Of course we do,why do you think I follow 2 crap soccer teams?(Blackpool and West Ham though the Hammers aren’t doing so bad now)
I just want to go back to bed and pull the covers up over my head.
That’s just the cold, and overcast, and rain, talking. You’ll feel better when you can bring Milo out on a warm, sunny day.
Another splendid read this time about a not so splendid car.The 3 litre looked too much like the Land Crab(a drab car compared to a Cortina,Victor or Hunter).I’d take a Cresta or Zodiac over a 3 litre any day and so did most other drivers looking for a big,comfortable 6 cylinder British car.
Chrysler scored a similar own goal with the Maserati engined car looking too much like a run of the mill Le Baron.
“Not some cheap mutton dressed up as lamb.” The ad copy is fantastic.
I agree with chris in that this car looked okay except for the front end styling and might have paid for itself/barely broken even if it had been produced just 5 years earlier.
I don’t think using the middle section of a car already in production is that big a deal….in the late 70s through the late 80s Ford USA did that extensively with the “Fox-body” platform.
I would think the biggest factor in the failure of this car is the price with power for fuel used a close tie.
Is it just me or does that gear shift lever look like it was “pirated” from a truck?
Five years earlier, it still would have gone against the Rover 2000 and Triumph 2000, probably with similar results.
The Fox platform at least got an extra pane of glass added or removed here and there and some substantial sheet metal changes through it’s run. The comparison is spot on though, but with the wrong chassis, the 72-76 intermediate coupe body was the one Ford didn’t even seem to try concealing. There were a half dozen different faces butts and badges that graced that identical middle body.
Hmmm. Just based on size this sucker looks like it needs a Rover V8.
BMC makes GM in the 70s/80s/90s (in the same boat, trying to keep all these model names afloat) look like a competent company.
Now that would be interesting! Its probably been done, knowing the Brits’ predilection for putting the Rover V8 in places it wasn’t meant to go.
It’s a nice looking car. It’s a shame that quality control was so piss-poor.
I love your entries, Roger…I certainly can never get enough “Anglophilia,” for good or for bad. 🙂
Of course Leyland Australia went one worse and morphed the land crab into the Austin Tasman/Kimberly models, these now very rare cars need a write up if anyone ever sees one to photograph it.
Here’s one from the Cohort
Stylistically there was nothing wrong with the Tasman/Kimberley, except for a very amateurish grille treatment. They were far and away the most attractive landcrab derivative produced anywhere. Engineering-wise is another matter, and that’s why they’re a rare sight today.
Truly terrible cars- the early ones had overheating issues and so the passenger side air ducting was redirected for extra cooling.
So the passenger had an air vent, but no air…
I grew up in the UK in the 70s/80s, and took a reasonable interest in cars. And I do not recall ever seeing one of these. Which says everything about their popularity and longevity, I guess.
A highschool friends father bought a new Kimberly I saw it once in the 3 years I spent at that boarding school it spent most of its life at the dealers in Whangarei having faults rectified the owners hadnt traded their rusty 66 Impala so just kept driving that it looked and sounded terrible but the little 283 just kept going
LOL another embarassing British design disaster exposed for the whole world to see.Hardly ever seen even here when new and forgotten now but this site has an uncanny habit of digging up these UK auto nightmares and reminding us just how bad it really was.Crazy that the ugly and unloved 1800 body was recycled for the 3 litre (replacing a dated but very impressive and handsome Farina design) and was then also used on the Maxi .Hobbled by the hideous 1800 centre structure these cars stood no chance of selling just from the way they looked never mind their other shortcomings.
Roger does a great job covering British CC’s, even when “classic” may mean classic failure. Great read once again. I’ve seen worse looking cars than these, but it seems the engineering and quality was really lacking.
Very nice write-up. These articles about British cars are much appreciated (I’ve owned several British cars, and currently have an MG TD). I learn something new with almost every one (very interesting about the MGC’s 6 cylinder engine in these cars). And the history of the British car industry- especially BMC and British Leyland- never ceases to amaze me.
The MGC and 3 litre are not the same engine they are similar but not the same BMC built two different 3 litre sixes for some unfathomable reason
It strikes me that shoving the expensive, traditional wood and leather interior in what really should’ve been a big-but-basic “Chevy Biscayne” was their crowning mistake given that post-Jaguar and Rover merger BL had the high end well covered.
The U.K. market for big-but-basic was a lot weaker than in the U.S., though. Six-cylinder sedans tended to have fancier trim and more equipment because they were too expensive to run for most family buyers. There were some police sales to be had, but I think for the most part, cars like this ended up mostly going to business users, which was already becoming a dominant part of the British market. There was a reason Ford and Vauxhall also tended to limit their six-cylinder models to plusher trim levels. (You could get a Ford Zephyr 6, but I think only with the smaller 2.5-liter V-6; you had to buy a Zodiac or Executive to get the 3-liter engine.)
BLMC could have created a cheaper version with bench seats, a smaller engine, and no Hydrolastic, but at that point, you’d still basically have a less-roomy RWD Landcrab with a big trunk, which doesn’t sound like any more appealing a commercial proposition than the 3 Litre that was.
I think Roger is dead on that part of the 3 Litre’s basic dilemma was that it was an uninspired example of a class of car that was already becoming an endangered species in the U.K.: the big “non-premium” executive car. Ford and Vauxhall kept fighting that particular battle for a long time, but it took extremely aggressive marketing and “more for your money” pricing strategies to keep cars like the Granada/Scorpio and Carlton/Omega as long as they did. (I kind of suspect that the only reasons the Insignia still exists are stubbornness and platform sharing.)
Cars like the Insignia and Mondeo are now pretty large cars, much larger than the Sierra or Cavalier/Vectra ever were .
I suspect you’re right – it’s hard to see a business case succeeding for a purely European Insignia, Mondeo, Peugeot 508 or Citroen C5 unless you add “we need to be in this market” and ” brand status” to it.
Fiat and Nissan don’t bother, and both the Honda Accord and Toyota Avensis have gone from Europe now.
Dimensionally, I think the current Mondeo and Insignia are actually pretty close to the old Scorpio and Omega (I’d have to look up the specs), so I suppose there’s an argument to be made that something a class bigger just wouldn’t make any sense in European terms, even aside from the question of who would buy such a thing if it had a Ford or Opel/Vauxhall badge. There’s still some market in the States for bigger non-premium cars, hence the survival of the Toyota Avalon, Chevrolet Impala, Nissan Maxima, et al, but definitely not outside North America.
And now the Mondeo is gone, Ford EU just announced it. Mondeo Man, son of Sierra Man, grandson of Cortina Man, great-grandson of Prefect Man, now becomes Kuga Man. About time he made his Escape.
Ugly face but nice rear 🙂
I can think of a number of simple styling changes which could have transformed that car and differentiated it enough from it more humble brethren. But should have been done from the start, way back in 1963. That styling might have been advanced in 1958 – it looks like a Checker Marathon of all things. Similarly, some proper development of the MGC C type engine would have seen the lethargy off. If this car would have arrived with those styling changes and a 200 hp engine in 1963, with a price competitive with the smaller Jaguar, it might just had a chance to establish itself.
Mind you, VW managed to repeat the same mistake with the Passat W8 and – worse – the Phaeton…
Those high-set quad headlamps just scream Checker Marathon to me, too. Hard to unsee it once it’s in your head.
For some reason, I like the looks of these. The grille design is clunky–too much, too “gaping mouth” but overall, especially from the side, it’s a nice balance. And that interior…so much wood! Real, not plastic. Comfy seats. Cushy ride. Maybe not a driver’s car, but just the thing to float down the highway…seems almost 1960’s American in that regard!
Then again I like the original Landcrab too. Just endears itself to me somehow!
I was just reading in the February issue of the British mag Classic and Sports Car where one of their columnists is putting a Rolls-Royce FB60 from a scrap Vanden Plas 4 litre R into one of these. Reckons he gains 50hp and loses 100 lbs. from the front end. Should be interesting……
He abandoned it which is a shame, I think it is do-able but you can gain the same power increase from the original engine without much effort
I am a little late to this post – however yesterday in London I saw a 3-litre in the wild on our local high street. Not a local or preserved automobile but one going about its daily business. It was a clear still Saturday morning and it was akin to seeing a unicorn – quite elegant looking these days when seen with modern vehicles around it. It is also great to see classic cars in use not just parked in show fields. I owned one of these in the 1980’s. Certainly the engine was lethargic but it was fun to own.
A rather more accurate story of the cars and their history is on my website, http://www.austinthreelitre.co.uk Nobody who has ever driven one has any real critism of them, so many people who have never even sat in one recycle the same old inaccurate comments about them, Westminster power plant always makes my smile
Brilliant handling and extremely comfortable what’s not to like but then I own two.
As a car-mad ’70s kid quite a few of these were still running around as bangers… I thought they looked great! the only well-proportioned use of the centre section, unlike the Maxi and ‘landcrab’ 1800. Unlike many comments above I thought the front end looked fine… The bonnet’s length working well with the wide grille.. The Mk1 1800 always looked too wide-mouthed to me though has grown on me over the years… The Maxi like the Mini Clubman always looked like the front had been designed in a game of consequences… ie: having never seen the rest of the car!
Even with half a century of rheumy-eyed nostalgia and bucket load of irony it’s hard to imagine who would have bought one of these. Not so much a steroid enhanced 1100 as one in need of a laxative. Maybe a brand loyalist who’d won the football pools and couldn’t think outside the BMC box, or the Lord Mayor of a small provincial town whose treasurer wouldn’t stretch to a Daimler?
No chance of parking near a wall and exiting via the passenger door. You’d need ropes and oxygen to negotiate the transmission hump. There was a UK comedy series about an East End Jewish-Catholic tailoring business called, “Never Mind the Quality, Feel the Width” that emerged at the same time as this car. The Austin 3 litre in a nutshell.
What were they thinking ? The back looked decent, the side view dodgy, and the front hideous. Clearly BMC had a death-wish.
It is a _BRITISH_ car, sir ! .
=8-) .
-nate
…so’s a Jag XJ6, and it’s drop-dead gorgeous.
The father of a girl I knew had one – it fascinated me in it’s hideous pointlessness.
Even though Benny Hill never drove. For some reason I think this car is a perfect match for Benny. It’s somewhat odd proportions yet still polished just make me laugh. Perhaps a better analogy would be Benny and his small sidekick driving this car in a british version of the Blues Brothers.
I’ve been trying to think what I can say that hasn’t already been said. I remember reading about these cars at the time and thinking this couldn’t have a happy ending.
What a shame the front end didn’t have the raised bumper and all-in-a-line lights and grille of the Tasman/Kimberley. Or just about every other car on the market by then. Those lights raised above the hoodline looked so old-fashioned, and not in a good way. And the prominent bulge in the side sills, though a trait of Issigonis designs, doesn’t help either. Speaking of doors – whacking off those heavy window frames and replacing them them with a thin channel frame a la Mini and 1100/1300 (plated of course for this car), would have helped the design immensely. If you’re going build a new product for a declining market segment, I’d have thought you’d want it to look good, to get as much as possible going in your favour. Was Leyland hoping engineering and brand loyalty alone would sell them?
Speaking of that, I’m still amazed that nobody in the Leyland organization (such as it was) was keeping tabs on the declining sales for plain-brand non-luxury three litre cars. It’s like someone high up in management decreed “We are the biggest, we must have a car in this segment”, so off they went.
Sad.
How about the Humber 3 liter hemi ? How does it compare ? Did it have tuning potential ? Was it ever used in competition ? Seems surprising that it wasn’t used in more cars… AMC could’ve tried it under the hood of the Pacer.
Wait—an Issigonis offspring with rear-wheel drive ? I’m shocked and confused.
The six that was shoved into the MGC was referred to by one auto scribe as appearing to have been designed “by an engineer transferred from the tractor division against his will . . .”
Although this seemingly has Issigonis’s finger prints on it, the actual project, idea and definition was led by George Harriman, MD of BMC. Issigonis was never a true fan of big cars and had his faults but he spot a complete turkey when he saw one coming.
Unless it was his own turkey.