(first posted 8/29/2014) CC has recorded previously my nomination for the most significant cars of the 1960s, the 1970s and 1980s. You can probably guess my nominee for the most significant car of the 1950s and for the 1990s – well, you’ll have to wait but you might (or might not) be surprised. And the 1940s? Undoubtedly the Morris Minor from 1948, designed by Sir Alec Issigonis, and a car that bears the stamp of one man more than practically any other.
In 1936, Alec Issigonis joined Morris, from Humber (part of Rootes) as a suspension engineer, with a brief to design an independent suspension system and rack and pinion steering for future Morris cars. His first design, for the 1938 Morris Ten, was not actually used as intended but appeared on the post war MG Y type. The war intervened with passenger car production and design, although Morris (and others I’m sure) conducted some work under the radar of the government. Issigonis was involved in some war equipment work, but from 1941 was doing an increasing amount of work on what became known as the Mosquito project.
Issigonis was not (and never was) the design or engineering head of Morris Motors but was working for Morris’s Chief Engineer, Vic Oak and had a good relationship with Managing Director Miles Thomas. Company Chairman Lord Nuffield (formerly Sir William Morris, of course) was by then focussing more of his personal energies on his philanthropy (he is undoubtedly Britain’s, probably Europe’s, greatest industrial philanthropist) leaving Thomas to manage the business, aside from some periodic interventions.
The Mosquito project was started by Thomas in May 1940, in a far sighted decision based on the fact after the war, there would be large pent up demand for affordable family transportation, and, that, as before the war, a compact family car from Morris should be a strong competitor, and that the pre-war Morris Eight (above) would no longer be a credible competitor. Thomas was also aware that engineering standards and public expectations were rising, and keeping up is not always enough.
Some accounts recall that Vic Oak engineered opportunities for Issigonis to meet Thomas. In the early years of the war, many large sites from schools and hospitals to industrial premises around the UK arranged rosters of staff to watch for bombing raids and the subsequent fires (hence the system was known as fire watching), and it is rumoured that Oak arranged for Issigonis and himself to be rostered with Thomas, giving Issigonis the opportunity to present his ideas to Thomas, initially informally.
In a series of crucial discussions with Oak and Thomas, Issigonis argued successfully for a very rigid monocoque construction, with independent front suspension using torsion bars and the engine mounted low and as far forward as possible. The combination of independent front suspension, a stiff monocoque and low mounted engine allowed for the front suspension to be softer than the rear – previously, the rear suspension would have been softer as stiff front suspension was required to avoid pitching over rougher surfaces, whilst avoiding shimmy at the front from a beam axle arrangement. There is no doubt that independent suspension was the way to go, indeed Morris was arguably lagging behind some of its competitors such as Vauxhall, but Issigonis was among the first to take full advantage of it, and wanted to include independent rear suspension as well. This was deemed unaffordable, at an estimated £100.00 per car – say 15-20% of the retail price.
Arguably, the Minor was the first British car to be designed holistically – the engine position, the front suspension, the steering, the smaller than previous wheels (14in; the pre war Morris Eight had 17in wheels and Fiat Topolino 15in), the monocoque construction all fed off each other to achieve the full benefits, whereas previously a car was built as chassis frame, with an engine bolted in, some beam axles hung underneath, a gearbox and steering box connected up and a body built on top. But Thomas didn’t ask Issigonis to lead the design because he wanted a conventional car – he wanted a good car that would place Morris ahead of the market and stand the test of time. There was no point asking Issigonis for a conventional answer, even then.
Issigonis originally planned, consistent with his holistic attitude to the whole car, to use a flat four engine in the Minor. The concept he proposed allowed for different cylinder barrels to be fitted to the same crankcase, to offer varying capacities. This design was the centre of a lot of internal debate and anguish within Morris, between those who recognised potential benefits to the car and the options it offered, and those who would have to re-tool and re-train extensively to build it.
At the time, the British horsepower rating, and vehicle taxation, was determined by cylinder bore and this was inevitably a factor in the design of the flat-four engine, but in 1946 this was relaxed to a flat rate. This made the choice of the existing Morris Eight engine (four cylinder inline, 918cc, side valve) easier as well as quicker and cheaper, and this was used in place of the flat-four. One benefit was reliability, from the start. Incidentally, the change in tax assessment is judged to have had a significant effect on the export ability of the British industry in subsequent years, and Thomas and Issigonis are often credited with persuading the politicians on this.
In early 1943, work formally started and by late 1943, Issigonis had a working prototype running. Again, Issigonis’s holistic attitude showed through – his early preferred style made it through to production almost unchanged, in the same way as it did for the Mini. The main characteristics of Issigonis’s initial drawings, such as complementary and well-proportioned curves of the bonnet in to the wings, the wings into the doors, the roofline down the back window and over the boot and the small wheels are all clearly visible in the original sketches, and the good-from-any-angle appeal of the car is possibly unmatched by any one else until another car shaped by engineers and only tidied by stylists – the original Range Rover.
By the end of 1946, all the key features were set, after final development work and factory configuration, a launch at the 1948 London Motor Show was set. Progressively, the Nuffield Organization began to build detail parts for the new cars, alongside the simultaneous resumption of civilian car production. In the summer of 1947, Issigonis took a fateful decision – he chose to widen the car by four inches, primarily to increase interior space and also partly to improve the proportions visually.
A car was literally cut in half and the two halves moved out, back in, out again until Issigonis judged it correct, at four inches. Of, course, many body drawings and tools had to be adjusted, and wherever possible this was done in the centre of the car. Consequently, the bonnet has a raised centre moulding, the roof has a neutral area in the centre and the boot lid was widened. The floor pan had two inch strips added either side of the transmission tunnel. One side effect of this change was increased cornering stability; another was that enough front and rear bumpers had been pressed and plated for the first two years production, so early cars had a joint plate in the centre to compensate.
There was now one hurdle to overcome to get the Minor into production – Lord Nuffield. Nuffield, by now 70 years old and seen above with a pre-war Morris Minor, strongly opposed the new car, believing that the pre-war Morris 8, possibly with the Minor’s front suspension, would be a good enough car to compete with the new Austins and Fords expected in 1948. Thomas had to work hard to get Board approval for the new car, proposing alternatives such as an MG1100 – a Mosquito with a pre-war Wolseley OHC engine, alongside a revised Morris Eight. It was not until November 1947 that the Nuffield Organization board finally accepted the car into the formal product plan, for an October 1948 launch, to replace the Morris Eight.
The day after this agreement, Thomas resigned. He was replaced by another Mosquito supporter, Reginald Hanks, who formally confirmed the name Minor on the car. Nuffield himself had a form of revenge, by refusing to pose with or drive the car for photographers, a position he held until the car achieved its resounding success.
The engine, the 918cc side valve four cylinder carried over from the Morris Eight and many other pre-war cars, offered 28bhp, a 64 mph top speed, and 0-60 in something over 50 seconds; the brakes were drums all round with no servo; the rear suspension was semi-elliptic; the gear box four speed with syncromesh on the top three, without an overdrive option. Though this sounds a very modest specification, it was typical of the class at the time.
Dimensionally, it was 148in long, a wheelbase of 86in, and width and height of 60in. For comparison, a current Ford Fiesta hatchback is L x W x H 156in x 68in x 66in on a 98in wheelbase. Weight was 1700lb for a four door (the Fiesta is 2300lb). Key competition in the home market came from the Ford Prefect and Anglia and the Austin A40.
The Minor was launched at the London Motor Show in October 1948, perhaps the most famous and certainly the most defining British motor show ever held. Whilst the Jaguar XK120 might have the title of star of the show, for its glamorous example of value for money, for many people the Minor was the true highlight. Here was a car that was accessible, affordable, capable, stylish, all round more than competent and ahead of its class competitors, from Britain and elsewhere in Europe, in ways that can only be described as a step change.
The Minor was, for its time, as innovative and capable, and as class leading, as the ADO16 fourteen years later, or the Golf in 1974. It created Issigonis’s reputation; it continued the Morris line with perhaps the best car (as opposed to purely the best value and best selling) car ever to carry that badge; it was perhaps the first thoroughly compact modern car.
Issigonis kept a tight grip on the minor (sorry, I had to) design details of the car, as well as the interior. Features such as the door handle blending with the rubbing strip and the headlights in the grille (early prototypes had them behind a full width grille as well) were almost certainly Issigonis dictated. The interior is very clearly the first of a series to bear Issigonis’s stamp, showing hallmark features such as the symmetrical location of the instrument cluster and the clock or alternative decorative feature, and the full width under-dash parcel shelf. Also, the leather door pulls and very simple door furniture, saving space as well of course, are typical Issigonis features.
Production was planned initially for 400 a week; this was quickly raised to 600 a week. In the first full year, 1949, 28500 were built arising to 53100 by 1953. Exports were inevitably high, rising from 75% of total production in 1949 to 80% in 1950 and 90% in 1951, before home sales were allowed to increase. Key export markets were, in descending order, Australia, North America, South Africa and New Zealand, ahead of any other European markets. The initial cars were two door saloons or two door convertibles, which was not a sports version but more a reversion to the pre-war tradition of a Tourer version of a regular saloon.
One question that cannot be ignored is why the Beetle succeeded and the Minor didn’t. I propose there are basically three factors – solidity and durability, the after sales network and support, and circumstance. I am not a great Beetle fan, as I consider the car to have too many compromises and solutions that were proved to be less preferred, such as air cooling, swing axles and the rear engine, but you have to respect VW’s achievement in building so many, for so long, so successfully. In terms of size and market position, the two cars were very similar. The Beetle was ten inches longer in length and wheelbase, the boot space significantly less (albeit with additional space in the rear of the Beetle) and performance not dissimilar. Morris offered four door and estate versions as well, of course.
1966 and 1948
The Minor was first sold in North America in 1949, with the headlights being moved to the now familiar position in the raised pod on the front wings, to meet Californian regulations, a position that within two years became standard for all cars. Sales were slow, with only 8700 cars sold in the USA by 1956. Later years saw increased sales, peaking at almost 15,000 in 1959. In total around 50,000 Minors were sold in North America in 20 years.
In many ways, this story parallels that of the compact Renault 4CV and Dauphine in North America. The Minor never achieved the heights the Beetle did in north America, which was better suited to American conditions and requirements, such as sustained high speed use, an adaptability to climatic extremes not seen in the UK, and backed up by a very efficient dealer network.
The competing brands inevitably moved to challenge the Minor. Ford offered a new range of Prefect and Anglia saloons in 1954, which while looking very different from the Minor, and rather more modern, took significant steps to catch up with it, with independent suspension, monocoque construction and a fully contemporary (if not timeless) style. Fords did half a million of all types in the 1950s.
Austin’s offer was the A30 saloon – this was slightly smaller than the Minor, narrower and 10 in shorter in the wheelbase, but also had a monocoque construction. It was the first outing of the 803cc version of the Austin A series engine, something that soon featured in the Minor story.
1955 interior
In 1952, Morris and Austin merged, to create BMC, led by Leonard Lord, Austin’s strong willed managing director. Lord Nuffield became Chairman of BMC. The Minor received some development almost immediately, the 803cc A series OHV engine was transplanted into the car, starting with the newer four door version (introduced in October 1950), from the summer of 1952 and known as the Series II. How much this improved the car and how much it improved BMC’s manufacturing economies is a moot point, but power was up, to 30 bhp and acceleration improved, partly through a lower final drive ratio. The featured black car (UK reg MSJ 151) is a series II Minor, with this 803cc engine, and still in daily use in Dumfries, Scotland.
The estate, formally known as the Traveller, came in late 1953, and had a definite American inspiration to its styling with its timber framed rear, and matched the style of the larger Morris Oxford Traveller. The construction was based on the same monocoque as the saloon, with a shorter roof pressing matching up to an aluminium rear roof panel supported by a seasoned ash framework, comprising of some 50 detail parts. This is perhaps the most distinctive of the Minors we still see around today.
The big change for the Minor, and the one that perhaps defined the definitive Minor, was the installation of the larger 948cc A series engine in 1956, along with larger windows including a one piece curved windscreen and a new interior (still very much of an Issigonis flavour, although he had had no involvement in the change, as he had left BMC in 1953) to create the Minor 1000. Power was up to 37bhp, and with a new gearbox and revised gearing, 70mph was possible on the flat. Again, two door, four door, Tourers and Travellers were offered, along with a pickup and a small van, which was a favourite of the Royal Mail and Post Office Telephones into the 1970s. This was also sold as an Austin, such as this example, even if it has been re-badged to a Morris.
1964 interior
By now, the instrument cluster had migrated to the centre of the dash, where it would also be found in the Mini.
There are two other Minor developments that should be noted. In 1957, BMC released the Riley 1.5 (above) and Wolseley 1500 twins. These were small sporting saloons – you could consider them as the 1950s take on the Triumph Dolomite if you wish. They were based closely on the Minor, with a new body on the existing floorpan and running gear along with the larger 1.5 litre B series BMC engine. Much debate has been expended on whether BMC had actually intended this to be a replacement for the Minor. Certainly, it or one of its derivatives replaced the Minor in some overseas markets with assembly facilities.
The other development to note is that before he left BMC in 1953, Issigonis had built a transverse engined Minor, purely as a development vehicle. I have no photo or documentary evidence but the available accounts are strong enough to be believable.
In 1962, BMC gave us the follow up to the Mini, the larger ADO16 range of saloons and later estates, with front wheel drive and hydrolastic suspension (CC here). This car was designed by Alec Issigonis, and could, perhaps should, be seen as his answer to the same question as that he had answered with the Minor 14 years earlier, and a natural successor to the Minor. BMC, being BMC, not only offered the ADO16 initially under just one of the main market brands, as the Morris 1100, but at the same time updated the Minor with the same 1100cc A series engine and flashing indicators. Sometimes, when looking back at BMC and BLMC, you feel you couldn’t make it up.
1948 and 1966
The Minor continued to sell, largely just in the UK, until 1969. Peak production had been 115,000 in 1958 but by the late 1960s it was down to around 20,000.
The Tourer was retired in 1969, the saloon in November 1970 and the Traveller and light commercials in 1971. It was the first British car to sell a million, something that was commemorated with a special series of Minor 1000000 in 1960, and is a car that features somewhere in almost every British family history for the 1950s and 1960s. 
Ours was a 1959 or 60 (or was it a 1958 – no one knows now!) Minor 1000 Tourer in pale blue that was apparently ideal for carrying three very young children in, one sitting on the front passenger seat, and two twins in carry cots on the folded down rear seat in a car with no seat belts. No wonder UK road deaths have dropped by 75% since 1960.
But what made the Minor so special? It has to be more than longevity, and it certainly wasn’t speed. It wasn’t that the Minor was continually developed and improved in the way the VW Beetle was, with a continuous sequence of significant change, not to mention the Super Beetle or the Type 3 and 4. The Minor got an Austin engine, a new dash and a bigger windscreen.
Nor can it be solely because of the visual appeal of the Minor, pleasing though it was. Yes, the headlights gave the car a friendly face and the lack of performance gave it a non-threatening reputation, but there has to be more than just that, otherwise we’d be all over the Hillman Imp in the same way.
My personal hunch is that the holistic approach to the design and its ownership by one person shines through to the finished car. Other cars that had (and still have) the enduring appeal of the Minor, such as the Beetle, the Citroen 2CV, the Fiat Nuova 500, Issigonis’s Mini, the original Land-Rovers or more recently the Mazda MX-5 Miata (to name but a few) all show evidence of a single personality driven holistic design, and when matched to the ease of driving, ease of ownership and passenger comfort of the Minor, timelessness starts to come.
There are still something like 15,000 Minors registered in Britain, and I’d guess maybe the same number, maybe more, in barns, garages and elsewhere in the world. The Austin A30, and later A35, total perhaps 2000, the Ford Prefect and Anglia in the hundreds. There are fewer Ford Sierras, and fewer than 1000 Austin Maestros. There are 717 Morris Marinas, a smaller number than the quantity of the suggestions you get from Amazon when searching for “book” and “Morris Minor”.
That last figure tells you all you need to know about the popularity of the Minor, and the affection in which it is held by the people of the United Kingdom. And it was earned, fair and square. Even the Archbishop of Canterbury had one. In fact, three Archbishops. Might as well call it St. Minor.
Britain’s favorite car? Mark me down, too, as it has always been my favorite British car, too! Really wanted one when I was in high school!
I used to see lots of these around the St. Louis area before I went in the service, and saw several out in California.
Funny – on base there was a G.I. who had one – a gray one. He sure made it stood out, too – he put a large red model airplane propeller on the front of the hood, painted air force star & bar insignias on the doors and drove around with his buddies.
Seeing that car running around base with that red propeller spinning always cracked me up!
Roger, you allude to the fact that this is a beloved car, but nobody is really sure why…I totally agree! I’ve been in love with Minors for years now, and it certainly has nothing to do with mechanical specification. It’s kind of like a person who just can get along with anybody; it’s something intangible.
Great article!
What a delightful vehicle and wonderfully written post (especially when read in a British accent!). The during-and-post-war years seemed to be a heady time for the auto industry. So much innovation happened during the war (with much of the normal red tape pushed aside) that it simply had to spill over upon Victory. Those were days when one man could and did often have large influence over much of a single product – I think of R. J. Mitchell for example, with the Supermarine Spitfire. And interestingly, it was a Brit (Major Ivan Hirst) who is largely responsible for Volkswagen becoming a viable, if not hugely successful, company in the immediate post-war years.
When I was very young, my Dad drove a Hillman Husky – though my memories of it are blurry, I still remember it fondly as it was so very different from the Chevy Biscayne Mom drove at the time. I would love to have a Minor in which to tootle around in on weekends…
Like Ed, I really like these even though I have had zero contact with them. It seems such a friendly and welcoming car. And I cannot imagine how awkward it would have looked 4 inches narrower.
Thanks for this excellently written history on the car’s development.
Seventh and eighth pics on this page are of it 4 inches narrower.
My dad has a black four-door high-light 1951 Series MM (with the old sidevalve engine). Having driven it, and looking at it the garage, I feel that its claim to “innovation” is rather emotional rather than actual. Its obsolete 30s drivetrain is nothing to write home about. Indian versions used a mega-sized radiator to help cope with high temperatures. Even then, sustained high-speeds (by 50s standards) are a pipe-dream because of the poor brakes.
And the design! Can you say “shrunken down 46 Chevrolet”? The Chevy Fleetmaster (which I have only had the pleasure of observing, not driving) is a huge car, by comparison, thus its horrid space utilisation is not critical, but in a car the size of Minor?! What were Morris engineers thinking? Of course, Morris’ earlier cars were even more obsolete, so Minor must have seemed a better deal, but I daresay if the British buying public had had access to a real ⅔ Chevy, they would’ve bought that instead. Of course, Ford was one to realise this quickly, and thus we have Ford’s total domination of BMC happen very quickly. Similarly with Vauxhall, though to a much lesser extent.
As early as 1955, we had the refreshing 1955 new Bel-Air in the large-car field, and the remarkably spacious and powerful small Fiat 1100, the latter of which spelled doom for Minor in India.
Never once considered that. Have always really liked the Morris Minor. Have owned several beetles but no minors. My second car at probably 15 yo was a 46 chevy and it does have the same appearance. Maybe that explains it but the warrant officer who seemed to pull 40mpg driving around our small base is a more logical reason.
USA buyers who bought the Minor would certainly have done so for the mileage! Also, there the ⅔ 40s Chevy/Ford looks would’ve been advantageous, as the car wouldn’t be deemed too funky-looking or conspicuously foreign. UK buyers, however, had no choice in the matter. This was one of the most (if not the most) up-to-date cheap cars available from a major manufacturer.
In its original form, with the low headlights, the only similarity to the ’46 Chevy was in very broad design aspects that were universal at the times, such as the fenders and their partial integration into the body. But just about every car designed during the immediate pre and post-was era had them. That was just the style at the time.
The Minor was quite decent in terms of space utilization. Given that it was shorter than the VW, I’d say the space was roughly comparable, if not better. What other small car designed in the war era was better? Especially one with RWD.
Yes, the Morris engine in the early Minors was a very real compromise. But the A Series soon fixed that, and the ability for Minor owners to update these engines, all the way to the common 1275cc twin carb engine, makes these quite lively performers.
The Minor with a decent A Series engine is a fun car to drive, if one can appreciate the traditional Brit characteristics that encompass that. Quick, lively steering, decent handling, relatively tossable, and plenty of feedback.
It wasn’t the most avant garde small car of its time, but given the limitations of the times, it was both expedient and adequate. And it can be fun, with a few mods, to turn it into an “MG” sedan.
Yes, I agree it’s a small car with certain uses (like getting high petrol mileage), but it is certainly not innovative. It’s appeal is emotional, not by any objective standards, even if you ignore the obsolete drivetrain that it got saddled with (that I have, unfortunately).
Neither is the design any original or even practical—a design that follows the style of the time is, by definition, non-innovative. Also, that Chevy/Ford design had been going on throughout the 40s. I only mentioned 46 Chevy as that was the latest incarnation at the time Minor was presented. One can also see the 42 Ford Super Deluxe for similar design. This was the fag-end of the 40s. To develop a new car following this decade-old formula, and then putting in an even older drivetrain hardly counts as innovation. A new Minor looks obsolete in every way compared to a 49 USA Ford, for example. It is only innovation in the British sense, i.e., the contemporary USA Fords were too big, and the small Morris/Austins (and UK Ford Anglia) were extremely dated 30s designs, so Minor counted as a “new” car. Of course, Ford guessed this much as well, and flogged its 30s designs for a few more years before introducing “ponton” Anglia, Zephyr, and Consul, etc., going straight from 30s design to 50s design, strikingly so on case of Anglia. This is what Morris should have done earlier to be called innovative.
For a truly innovative (50HP OHV flat-four fastback, anyone?) 40s British car (albeit not as small as Minor), look no further than Jowett Javelin! Although acceptable for a minor/inexperienced maker like Jowett, Minor is nowhere in the league of a major auto manufacturer of Morris’ stature.
Of course, the major innovation at Morris was the introduction of monocoque construction. Was Minor the first monocoque mainstream car in the UK?
Vauxhall did a unitary with the H-type ten in 1938.
Ford was still selling the sit up and beg 30s Anglia/Popular in 1959 alongside the 105E with mechanical brakes and 10hp flat head it was cheap it had to be it was outdated junk
Quite a few car and bike makers were still making flatheads,Studebaker Rambler(I think).,Mopar and Harley Davidson in America and Ford and BSA in Britain.I’m sure there were more.
Harley Davidson were still winning races with flatties until the late 60s although other bikes were handicapped
” And it can be fun, with a few mods, to turn it into an “MG” sedan.”
This ~ .
Mine came to me with a 1971 MG Midget 1275 engine and rib case gearbox , the box is mangled so along with the suspension rebuild I’m going to try and piece one good gearbox out of the mangled one and another I pried out of a ’73 Midget that took out a lamp post…
I have my eye on some traveler rear springs (heavier) and will see about fitting the Armstrong lever shocks with heavier damper valves , maybe fit Bilstein HD tube shocks in the rear end .
-Nate
Awesome story! I haven’t seen these Morris Minor series of cars.
It often amazes me just how pre-eminent the British motor industry was in the 1950’s, outdone only by how they managed to squander that status in the following twenty years. As bad as General Motors managed to bodge things in their own 20+ year period (1971-199?), BMC/British Leyland will always be the classic example of how not to run a car company. With Associated Motor Cycles as their two-wheeled equivalent.
The quick mention of the Volkswagen Beetle also brought out the thought of one of the great (although he’ll never get a bit of credit for it) automotive designers (or at least conceptualizers) in history: Herr A. Hitler. For someone who didn’t even have a driver’s license, or own a car, he certainly understood the performance needs for what it would take for a small car to be a success. Yes, Herr Porsche did the real work. Still, back in the 1950’s, the Beetle was the only small foreign car available in the US that could travel the Pennsylvania Turnpike nonstop from Pittsburgh to Philadelphia at the then expected speeds without damage to the drive train.
And that alone guaranteed why the Beetle would succeed, while all the other competitors would fall by the wayside.
All in all, the Minor is a wonderful car. Never had a chance to ride in one, and don’t really have a huge desire to own one (if I want small 50’s British, the Hillman Minx is my first choice), but I love seeing them on the rare occasion they show up at vintage meets.
That Hitler put aside Tatra’s lawsuit against VW after the Czech Annexation didn’t hurt Porsche either. Tatra T97s, like VW Käfers, were Autobahn-Ready. Tatra finally got satisfaction, but long after the War ended.
Austrian School of car design: VW, Tatra, Pinzgauer.
The history of Czechoslovakia is really, really terrible to read. Even after WWII (and the attendant treachery/cowardice of UK & France), they ended up in Soviet-land! Czech is still not the powerhouse it was after WW1.
I’m Slovak, tell me about it.
My credit toward Der Fuhrer is in his insistence that the car could actually do 100kph on the autobahn all day without drivetrain damage. He was definitely thinking well in advance of the British and French at that time, given the price point.
That lawsuit’s potential impact are commonly exaggerated. It only covered a few minor technical details, some aspects of the air-cooling system, and not the car in general. It would have been a bit of bad PR, something Hitler couldn’t abide.
Porsche and Ledwinka were friends, and both had been working on air-cooled rear-engined cars for quite some time. They both acknowledged looking over each others shoulders, although Porsche probably looked a bit more than Ledwinka, as Tatra was clearly somewhat further ahead in its work on the subject.
VW eventually made some payments to Tatra after the war, but it wasn’t all that big, and again, it was essentially a war reparations payment in disguise, for having forced Tatra not to build the 97 more than the actual infringement on patents.
FWIW, the 97 was a larger car, and would have cost much more than the VW, not a direct competitor at all. The price of the VW was untouchable, given its capabilities. That’s why Mercedes and the other German companies wouldn’t touch building the VW; Hitlers demands for it to be sold for 9999 RM was impossible for them to build at that price. So he built his own factory…
Thanks for clarifying. I didn’t mean to imply the T97 would’ve had the same success as VW,for nothing I read about Tatra indicates they were anything but a specialist company, not in Ford mode at all. You’d think Communists would’ve remedied that given their admiration for Fordism, but they applied that (with a vengeance) only to military equipment; the Warsaw Pact badly outnumbered NATO right up to the end. At one point, the Soviets could afford 2 state-of-the-art MBT designs, the T-64 & cheaper T-72.
So I don’t fault Porsche too much for peeking at Ledwinka, for that Alternate Universe wouldn’t have happened anyway, given Tatra’s business model & the Iron Curtain.
I like that Alternate Universe idea…
With Czechoslovakia or Bohemia on the Western side of the curtain, VW, Tatra, Jawa, Steyr and Porsche join forces in a GM or Auto-Union type of conglomerate.
VW does Beetles and Microbuses, Steyr does small trucks and conventional (front-engined) mid-range cars, Jawa does motorcycles and small FWD cars, Porsche does sports cars and Tatra do upper-range/prestige cars and big trucks.
The little voices in my head agree that this would have been awesome.
hehehehehehehehehehehehehe
Terrific write up. Love the tidbits on wartime planning for the return of civilian production.
As ever, Roger, a superb piece of writing. I would have to disagree that this is the most significant 50s British car. I suggest the Jaguar XK120 claims that title. Not for the fact that it was an intrinsically better car; more that it immediately became the benchmark for its type in Britain and around the world. (Someone’s going to hit me with the BMW 328 stick).
Don, he said it was the most significant Forties car. Although we do tend to think of it as being a fifties car, there were so many of them around back then!
That was a typo on my part. I still hold that the 1948 XK120 was the most significant British car of the 40s, but reading all the love here for the Minor (except cas.willoughby’s rude, crude and deleted but very funny comment) definitely puts me in the minority.
Syke you make a good point. For all the emphasis on exports the British car industry, or at least BMC, was not that responsive to addressing the needs of those markets. It was not so bad in Australia as the local branch did some very good work, eg the Riley/Wolesley Roger mentioned replaced the Minor so it went from 1.0 to 1.5L with a more modern body style to boot. So it should have too, 9 years was a decent run for the Minor especially with the pace of change then. It is telling that with its US influence Ford would take over market leadership before too long with cars like the Cortina while also building icons like the 105E Anglia.
I remember reading a long-lost article on the British engineers who accompanied the Austin technology to Japan. IIRC on their return they were completely ignored with their positive appraisal of the capabilities within Nissan.
But they caught the “BMC disease”, and kept the Morris Major in production for too long. Long production runs are fine up to a point, but keeping cars in production when the styling is obsolete was the bane of BMC.
CC effect strikes again as I’ve been watching Open All Hours with my look- a – like (when I was a redhead)Nurse Gladys Emanuel driving a Morris Minor. These were all over when I was a kid in the 60s and 70s.My Grandparents on my Mum’s side had a green Traveller(part exchanged for an Escort estate in the mid 70s),quite a few of my teachers drove Minors though apart from Mr Miles the French teacher I can’t remember what the others taught.Our local bobby drove a Minor panda car(my brother spent quite a bit of time in that for fishing without a licence and riding motorbikes round the allotments).The vans were popular with tradesmen and the Post Office used them well into the 70s.
Mr Watkins my favourite music teacher drove a Wolsley 1500 until the early 70s,it was always spotless,I’d no idea it was a development of the Minor.Britain turned down the Beetle after the war,who on earth would want a car with the engine in the back!
Thanks for another great read Roger
Truly an outstanding article.
My familiarity with British motorcars is negligible, but Roger, I always feel smarter after reading one of your posts. Thank you!
I loved these back in the 1960’s and finally bought one recently , it’s still in tiny pieces all over my backyard as I sort out the various DPO/DPM bodges , chase parts and de rust things….
I was able to put 200 + miles on it before diving into the mechanical repairs , it drives well for a 1940’s tech car .
The first one pictured here is what ‘ patina ‘ is all about ~ not the bullsh*t rusty junk to – day’s kiddies force upon their poor vehicles . (creating rust is mindlessly STUPID and indicates you know NOTHING about and do not really like , Old Vehicles)
It’d clean up very well indeed , nice to see it’s a D.D. in Scotland .
The high speed thing really is what killed off British cars , I was here and saw them constantly dead on the road as ” top speed 64 MPH ” means diddly squat if it died two weeks after you bought it and tried driving it to work daily @ 55 ~ 65 MPH .
ALL LBC’s sent to North America should have had overdrive fitted standard , then they’d have had a chance against the VW Beetle that really could be driven flat out all day long with it’s tiny 36 HP engine .
-Nate
Lovely automobile and a great article! There are a couple of these running around where I live that I’ve seen at shows/cars and coffee,etc – there is a rightness about them. I have no doubt that they are superior to a VW bug. Way too many compromises.
” I have no doubt that they are superior to VW beetle. Maybe one day I can cage a ride.”
I think you meant ‘ cadge ‘ a ride , if you’re ever in Los Angles this might be do – able .
FWIW , I rather like British cars and so far , not a one has ever come within a mile of a VW Beetle ~ I could fill a page with basic engineering boo-boos I’ve discovered in my Morry whilst taking it apart for Servicing .
-Nate
A very comprehensive article; what could I possibly add other than to compliment in writing it? Well, I’ll add that I enjoy our similar tastes.
This is one of those cars which seemingly lived on forever in many parts of the world where the Brits left their mark. All the Iranians I know call the later Mini, “Mini Minor,” despite it being a completely different car.
Really, cheap front drive at the time was an accomplishment, especially from a conservative manufacturer. Suspension design is usually one of the most fascinating parts of automotive engineering as far as I’m concerned, and the benefit of putting Issigonis–a suspension engineer–in charge of this car’s conception is evident.
Great writeup. I read some where that when Lord Nuffield saw it he said it looked like a poached egg.
There’s a lovely green Minor in my neighborhood. There used to be two, but one went for sale and it sat, and sat. Finally I said (to no one in particular) “Would someone please buy this car so I don’t have to rescue it?” and it disappeared the next week. Whew.
I always have thought of the Hillman Minx as a superior car. I have no idea of the Minx developer or -ment, but we had a 1962 with red leather and a four speed that was sublime, especially to a kid weaned on Hudson and Imperial and Rambler. And, let’s face it, the Morris is so homely it has that weird charm, especially as a woody wagon, err, estate.
48 Minx still had beam axles fore & aft and mechanical brakes though in 50 it caught up and surpassed the Minor for ride and roomyness finally getting hydraulic brakes and independant front suspension it did however still use a flathead engine from 1934, I had a 51 for about 18 months better car than the Minor to drive and own more ruggedly built and actually reliable it was my work commute car.
I have owned a 61 Minx for a couple of years. Some years before that I owned a 1958 Morris Minor. Comparing it to the Minx is interesting. I have always felt the Minx was much better built, stronger. And maybe a class above the Minor.
I loved the Minor but did not like its flimsy build, it reminded me of the Citroen 2CV I had as a first car. I always felt much safer in the Minx than in the Minor (or the 2CV!).
Not that I am all into wanting to drive the most safe car all the time. My summer car is a TR4 which probably says it all.
Everyone loves a Moggie. If you’re down this way, the British Car Museum in Hawkes Bay has got a big pile of them, alongside all the other oddities of the British car industry. http://www.britishcarmuseum.co.nz/
23 different models at Ian Popes backyard Ive been meaning to take CC there with my camera again.
That would be good. I’ve got a few photos from when we were down your way last school holidays, but didn’t get to stay as long as I would have liked. Strangely, the kids weren’t quite as interested as I was in all the Allegros, Cortinas and rusty Bedford vans
More…
He has a 3a Rapier stacked above a Minx I want to examine the suspension and measure the swaybar with a view to upgrades so I have to go there some day again we had a clue recently from a outside shot of some of the wrecks stacked beside the main shed.
Don’t get earthquakes in that part of NZ, I hope?
Regularly but no big ones since 1931, Morrys abound round here I saw 4 today just cruising around not live but easily revivable
Chaz, I’m glad to see that isn’t literally a pile of Minors!
Growing up we had a 55 Minor in the household it belonged to my maternal grandmother begining its life in blue upon obtaining her licence in 59 she had it painted pale pink, I had mant memorable rides in that car my “nana” got taught to drive in the traditional way feeding the steering wheel into turns she used to hammer that little Morris along at its top speed on the open road using opposite lock when required, some of her lawn bowls cronies had the new then ADO16s and she seemed to be regularly ferrying them to a nearby town where the nearest dealer was situated to retrieve their newly repaired cars, That underpowered Morry survived until 69 and it began jumping out of 3rd and 2nd gear and got replaced by a lightly used (8,000mile) HB Vauxhall Viva 2door.
I later gained my drivers licence in a Morris Minor already being very familiar with the breed and having learned to shift the gears from the passengers seat in Nanas cars I knew at an early age how it all worked, I love those little Morry thous but own and drive a Hillman Minx a far superior automobile.
Undoubtably Issigonis best design it was tailored to all markets pummped up a size it became the Oxford sedan and Cowley Commercials then lengthened ahead of the windscreen it became Wolseley 6/80 and Morris 6 with OHC engines of Wolseley design, When this trick was tried later on with ADO16 and the Morris 1800 the upscale derivatives were seen as a joke.
And also the Wolseley 4/50, a “wolseleyfied” version of the MO Oxford. Unfair of Morris Engineering to give the Oxford a side valve engine when the Wolseley got an OHC! But notwithstanding that, Dad used to say the MO was the best car he ever had. He replaced it with a Series II, but never liked the BMC B-series engine – reckoned the old Morris engine was better! And this from someone who drove Chevs before the war….!
Wolseleys were OHC from the teens onward, They built Hispano Suiza Aircraft engines during WW1 and kept the OHC technology for their cars
There is a 34 Hornet on the cohort that features a 1300cc 6 cylinder OHC engine, the 4/50 and 6/80 were the last Wolseley powered Wolseleys after those they went to BMC engines
Ironically the Wolseley 4/44 used a XPAG MG engine while its MG badgemate used a BMC B series. Wolseley OHC engines drove the camshaft via shaft and bevel gears
The first Morris minor of 1931 had a Wolseley OHC engine as did the first MG Midgets, Issigonis Minor was a backward step mechanically from what preceded it in days of yore.
No stone left unturned in the research of this great article. Great photo’s also. Those woodie type wagon versions really look terrific. Enjoy getting insight to cars such as these that mostly were only seen by me in old British movies on TV.
A local truck driver uses a Morris woody as his daily drive hes owned it 29 years it has twin carbs and other enhancements and features a Triumph overdrive gearbox, Its done some half million miles in his stewardship.
Outstanding work, Roger. I have read about the Morris Minor for almost 30 years in British car mags but now see that I learned very little about it earlier, possibly because the story of the Minor is considered too well known in the UK to repeat frequently. Can’t wait to see your next British car history. Perhaps you can cover one of my favorites, the Rover P5B with its formerly American V8.
Absolutely brilliant, Roger. You have truly done the Minor justice.
Amazing that it was kept in production that long, with such tiny sales towards the end.
It really should have been retired by the early 1960s, and replaced with a more modern design.Perhaps a Morris version on the Austin A40 Farina. Although that would have ment even more BMC badge engineering…………
I’ve only seen two Minors on my trips to the USA. One was a low light convertible
on a pole at a wrecking yard- some where in PA, I fancy. That one was back in ’96.
In 2012, saw one near Tucson, must have been a British Car Club run, as it was accompanied by assorted Spitfires & MGs.
Back in ’77 when me & my mates all got licences at the same time, a mates Mum had
one. Terry brushpainted a strip down the sides & put tassle under the dash….
Only way to get the tail out was to find a corner where the bitument ended right on the apex ( great road building. Not) and went to gravel.
I always feel so provincial reading posts about curious British cars from before my time. Thankfully there are writers like Roger and Charles Platt who can convey a tremendous amount of information in an entertaining and memorable way. I will never again think Morris and Austin were the same company although I was half right on that 🙂 I especially enjoyed the story about how the car got widened and your points about holistic design.
Well done Ol’ Chap or however that saying goes.
You’re welcome, old boy!
I like how many of these maintained a hand-crank-start feature.. in case any of you were wondering about the keyhole in the front bumper.
Superb article and great car. Those earlier ones with the split screen are the best-looking ones IMHO. And durable little things too. When I was living in the UK in the late 90s, you would still see them everywhere.
I just don’t understand why it was born with that ugly kisser. Didn’t know that it was the Californians that forced the headlights out of the grille–well done there. Almost makes up for what the US did to the Citroen SM’s front end.
Two other European cars amazingly improved by US spec lamps were the Renault 16 and Saab 99. Both ‘federalised’ with quad 5½” lamps to replace European rounded-off rectangles.
Carrycots? I don’t remember it being carrycots, our kid. We used to dream of carrycots. We had to make do with old cardboard boxes. (But were carrycots to use)
Something about the Minor says a lot about England and the quality of ‘Englishness’ – certainly of its day and possibly still. The ability to produce a contemporary design that fits comfortably within a more traditionally oriented society is something that I’ve always admired. Did Frodo drive a Minor?
Not sure about Frodo, but Wallace and Gromit had an A35 van – and they’re genius inventors as well.
I never took to the A35 as I associate them with a much disliked French teacher.She drove a drab dark green one,
Great article! A buddy of mine had a clapped-out Minor around ’77. Ran and drivable but not very sound.
This one is from a car show here in Kenosha this morning. There is also a panel version I see pretty regularly in town.
BTW, came across this rave review of the Morris Minor Traveller by Tom McCahill in a Mechanix Illustrated from 1954.
I wouldn’t have expected any American magazine of the time to take an English car very seriously, but he obviously thought a lot of it – praising its handling (‘one of the best handling cars in the world’), and ending up with the opinion that ‘within (its) performance capabilities, there is nothing finer in the world.’
http://blog.modernmechanix.com/mi-tests-the-morris-minor-station-wagon/
The Morris Minor would have likely defeated the Volkswagen Beetle on the sales front in the US had it initially been powered by the 918cc OHV Wolseley Eight (instead of the existing Morris 918cc Sidevalve) unit later uprated to 950-980cc, quickly followed by 1250-1500cc Morris XPAG engines to satisfy demand from people want a bit more power as well as placing Morris on a more equal footing during the merger talks with Austin.
With Series III Minor receiving the 948-1275cc A-Series and 1500-1600cc B-Series engines (possibly even a limited-run Twin-Cam variant) from 1955/1956 onwards.
Would have also been interesting to see it live on as a Hindustan in India, like the Morris Oxford based Hindustan Ambassador.
Anyway does any information exist regarding the Issigonis penned Morris Imperial proposal (essentially the Morris equivalent of the Austin Sheerline) that was to be powered by a 4-litre 6-cylinder and supported by Miles Thomas prior to his resignation?
Hindustan Motors did build Minors for a while in the late ’50s.. called the ‘Baby Hindustan’. Not sure why they gave up. Maybe all the government and taxi orders that kept the Ambassador going didn’t really apply to such a small car. (The Fiat 1100 based Premier had the smaller taxi and private car market)
Am now aware they were indeed built in India at one point as the Baby Hindustan, perhaps another reason why they stopped building it was because the Indian market never received the larger 1098-1275cc A-Series engines.
Then again it would have likely prompted Hindustan to bring the out a 1.6 B-Series version of the Ambassador or to carry over the relatively lighter 1098-1275cc A-Series engines to the Ambassador, since the engines already put out similar power to the 1.5 B-Series used in the Ambassador.
Sometimes I wonder why sir Issigonis didn’t opt for the “pontoon” / “envelope” body style, as e.g. any German designer would have done in his place. That would have given the required 4 extra inches of interior width without any increase in exterior dimensions. It seems that recessed fenders would not have scared the conservative buyers off any more than the grille-mounted headlights. Nevertheless, a curious design, while not the most aesthetically appealing from my P.O.V.
Speaking of the Ford 100E Anglia / Prefect models, is it known whether similarly sized post-war small Ford projects were developed in parallel with the former?
Sure there was the US conceived “Light Ford” project that became the Ford Vedette though that was roughly the same size if not larger compared to the Ford Consul EOTA. with both obviously being a class above the Ford 100E Anglia / Prefect.
What isn’t always appreciated in hindsight is just how good the minor was to drive. This was a 1948 low price car with pin sharp rack and pinion steering that actually handled. Right from the outset people realised that the chassis was capable of handling far more power so aftermarket industries provided everything from an ohv conversion for the 918cc sidevalve to supercharger kits for the A series. Later 1098cc cars will sit at 60 all day and apart from the brakes, are still eminently capable of everyday use. The only real problem is keeping the rust at bay, otherwise there’s very little to actually go wrong. Brilliant cars.
The guys who built Gordon Murray’s Escort MK1 had quite the take on the Morris Minor. It may sound like he is basing his opinion on modern standards, but he goes on to explain some of the design failings in detail.
Here you go. Morris Minor number 1,000,000. Photographed in Cornwall in 2018. Not a fan of that colour.
I used to buy these for £50, get them through an MOT and sell them for £150. Thought I was doing well. They’re making £10k nowadays…
They were much better than the other small cars on the UK market at the time. Standards were awful to drive, Austins clunky and Fords still had wheezy flatheads. The Minor had rack and pinion steering and really handled well. It’s a great shame that neither BMC or Leyland ever fixed its glaring faults: torsion bar ends which punched holes through the floor, top suspension trunions that needed a grease gun twice a year else destroyed their threads and popped out, and a brake master cylinder buried in a chassis member.
I had a Traveller up to 87mph once…took a few miles and a bit of a tail wind and a slight downhill slope.