(first posted 2/22/2017) The Jowetts we saw yesterday were a case of an automaker biting off more than they could chew – going too far and too fast into a new market segment. Armstrong Siddeley did the opposite kind of Deadly Sin: timidly going into a segment they had plenty of experience in, and getting the product completely wrong.
Armstrong Siddeley came to be just after the First World War through the merger of Armstrong Whitworth Aircraft and Siddeley-Deasy Motors. Not unlike Rolls-Royce, BMW, Hispano-Suiza or Isotta Fraschini, Armstrong Siddeley was therefore both a high-end automaker and an aero engine manufacturer – precision engineering being the hallmark of both trades. The first Armstrong Siddeley car, developed by John Siddeley, was a 5-litre (30 HP) luxury model, soon followed by smaller 18 HP and 14 HP chassis. Over a dozen different models were produced up to 1940, all of them powered by 6-cyl. engines of varying displacements. By then, Armstrong Siddeley was part of the Hawker Siddeley Group, which was chiefly focused on aero engines and aircraft – the automotive side was always a much smaller branch in terms of the group’s bottom line.
1946-49 Armstrong Siddeley Typhoon, the coupé version of the 2-litre Lancaster.
After the Second World War, during which its aeronautic division played a significant part in the victory over the Axis, Armstrong Siddeley were quick to propose a new car, the 2-litre (14 HP) Lancaster. The car was soon declined in coupé, limousine and convertible forms, all named after wartime aircraft. These were a notch or two below Bentleys and Daimlers, not as flashy as Jaguars and better-bred than Wolseleys or Humbers. The late ‘40s were a boom time for British automakers and Armstrong Siddeleys were being sold hand over fist both at home and abroad, though quantities never exceeded 3000 chassis in any given year.
By the early ‘50s, the 2.3 litre (18 HP) Whitley, still very much based off the 1945 models, was a sedate saloon battling within the mid-range market. Its engine and Wilson pre-selector gearbox were very similar to what Armstrong Siddeleys were back in the mid-‘30s, but the firm was about to change its strategy.
The Sapphire 346 was available as a standard saloon (above) as well as a LWB limousine (below).
A new big car, the Sapphire 346, was launched as a 1953 model with Jaguar, Daimler, Alvis and Lagonda in its sights. It featured a completely new chassis and a 3.5 litre hemi-headed 6-cyl. engine wrapped in traditional British luxury and styling. It was essentially a Bentley for less than half price.
1952 Armstrong Siddeley Whitley coupé by Ghia
The 346 was an outstanding success, being a high-performance 100-mph car under the guise of a bulbous and heavy saloon. Armstrong Siddeley wisely kept the 346 as it was while giving it more modern internal features, such as an optional 4-speed fully automatic gearbox. Meanwhile, the Whitley was languishing with its heavy body and outdated looks. Perhaps the Whitley coupé that Ghia made for the 1952 Turin Motor Show gave Armstrong Siddeley something to ponder on…
1955 ad for the Double Mamba turboprop engine, a far more profitable side of the firm…
The plan for a new low-range car was put in motion in 1953. But internal discussions regarding the new car’s engine were something of a stumbling block. Some felt that the car had to have a 6-cyl., which would have to be the Whitley’s rather anemic plant. Others felt that a new large 4-cyl. could be extrapolated from the 346’s engine, reducing costs and development time while ensuring the new car would be a brilliant performer.
As both factions seemed to have a point, Armstrong Siddeley’s top brass decided to go ahead with both ideas. The new car would end up with two engines of a very similar size, one 6-cyl. and one 4-cyl., but the latter would be the sporting engine, developing far more power than the former. By 1954, the Sapphire 234 and 236 were being tested in chassis form in Coventry. The suspension would be based on the Whitley’s capable leftovers. The standard 4-speed all-synchromesh gearbox would be available on both cars with optional overdrive, and was complimented as one of the finest of the period. A new clutchless “Manumatic” would be made available on the 236 only.
Above: two-tone Sapphire 234; Below: fine interior, pipe and fedora recommended.
The next challenge lay in the 234/236’s styling. Traditional cues such as the high vertical grille would remain, but Armstrong Siddeley’s new small car would aim to be as contemporary as possible. Small rear fins were even part of the line-up, as were fully-integrated front fenders.
1957 Armstrong Siddeley Sapphire 234 — Source: Simoncars.co.uk
But something went badly wrong in between the two. The problem was a familiar one: company boss Cyril Siddeley demanded that the cabin should accommodate well-heeled gentlemen such as himself – top hat included. The roof was therefore raised by over two inches, with catastrophic consequences on the car’s looks, particularly from the side and rear three quarters.
The Sapphire 234 and 236 twins were launched at the London Motor Show in October 1955 and promptly bombed. At the same event, Jaguar was launching its new small car too, now retrospectively known as the Mark 1 – and comparing the two models was definitely to the Sapphires’ detriment in virtually every aspect. Not only that, but there were plenty of other strong contenders within the British four-door 2-litre-plus market, most of them cheaper and better-looking than Armstrong-Siddeley’s latest.
This comparative table does not take into account such pedestrian vehicles as the Austin A90, the Ford Zephyr Zodiac or the Vauxhall Cresta E – which would all have been tut-tuted by the average Armstrong Siddeley client in those days. But those also presented a formidable threat to the Sapphires, as they were usually well-appointed and far cheaper within the 2.2-2.6 litre range. Not to mention foreign cars, which could be fearsome competitors given the Sapphires’ high price.
Above: not the Sapphire 234’s best angle; below: a handsome proposed redesign by Michelotti, circa 1957.
The Sapphire 234 / 236 were sold for two model years – the 236 going it alone for 1958, most likely to get rid of the stock. The sales figures speak for themselves: 601 of the 236 and 806 of the 234 were made. The larger Sapphire 346, by comparison, had sold over 7000 units in five years.
Above: rear deck-lid emblem — Source: Simoncars.co.uk; below: Sapphire 236
The failure of the Sapphire 234 / 236 was due to questionable styling and a confusing image: having two radically different temperaments and engines with near identical displacements in the same car was not a shrewd move. Few understood the reason why the 4-cyl. was the quicker and better engine – aren’t sixes supposed to be better than fours?
The Star Sapphire was built in about 1700 units in three years – too little, too late.
Stunned by this defeat, Armstrong Siddeley nevertheless produced a new model, the Star Sapphire, which was a lightly modified 346 with a 4 litre engine at a price that should have given Jaguar reasons for concern. But the demands of the aero engine side of the business for more investment and factory space ultimately doomed the automobile branch, which was not making money. Hawker Siddeley merged with Bristol, another aircraft maker with a luxury car line, in 1959. It was soon decided that Bristol Siddeley should focus on aircraft and aero engines exclusively, so Bristol Cars were sold off and Star Sapphire production was terminated in the summer of 1960.
That’s it for today. Tomorrow, we shall explore the very top of the British automotive market – Daimler, the automaker that went from the cream of the crop to the bargain bin in under ten years…
Oh. Now I know where the Toyota Echo got its looks. I really hate the Toyota Echo.
Ooo, but that hood ornament though! It’s like the sphinx with jet engines and rocket launchers! A Sphinx of DEATH! A Sphinx prepared to utterly annihilate anything thrown in front of it.
I miss fanciful hood ornaments.
+1 on the hood ornament!
Yes, wonderfully Art-Deco Futurist Egyptienne. And the Sphinx has such a smug look too.
Yeah, that sphinx looks like it’s taking aim at the Jaguar in front. James Bond should have had a Sapphire.
Full disclosure, that particular one comes from the Sapphire 346, not the smaller cars. It just looked soooo much better, I couldn’t resist it.
Their advertising slogan was “As silent as the Sphinx.”
The Hudson Jet’s styling also suffered because Hudson president A. E. Barit thought the driver and passenger should be able to wear hats, but presumably he was thinking fedoras, not top hats.
Actually, the Echo was puffed out in the other direction. Rather than Mid-Century Keep-Your-Hat-On its’ aesthetic can probably best be described as Fin-de-Siecle Hatchback-With-A-Trunk-Tacked-On.
Needs sharks.
I remember buying the new car review featuring the Mk1 Jag and the new Armstrong- Siddeleys, and being completely lost by the option of 4 or 6 cylinders with similar capacity. I never saw one in the metal. I had ridden in a Lancaster, and in a Sapphire 346.
That comparison chart is interesting, but wrongly credits the Riley with overhead cams. It was twin cam, but with pushrods. The Riley shared its bodywork and rear suspension with the Wolsely 6/90, but had a proper Riley engine and different front suspension. I sat in one in a scrapyard once, just to see how they managed to fit the gearlever between the drivers seat and the drivers door. ( there was a little cut-out in the corner of the cushion).
The Rover wasnt OHV either it was OH inlet side valve exhaust
Thank you for pointing these out, gents!
Fixed it.
Interesting but a shame management can be so pig headed and short sighted all at once, Ive had a ride in a 236 with manumatic a friends uncle turned up in one in about 75 it was already a rare car and quite strange looking, nice to ride in yes but not remotely sporting it was kinda slow compared to a MK1 Zephyr or Eip Vauxhall which were its contemporaries, Earlier Armstrong Siddeleys Ive also seen the only surviving 1923 sedan on this planet belongs to Sam Whyte in Sydney my uncle who also has a 1934 sedan, the 34 had been tidied up when I saw it but the older one was in true curbside condition with dents and patina having had the engine overhauled only,
Enjoyed the article. Thanks. I shall hopefully see Simon tomorrow. I think he’ll be pleased that you credited his pic of the badge on the bootlid.
Big fan of his site. I usually try to crop out watermarks in my photos, but if I use any of his stuff (as I did here twice), I will credit it.
Armstrong Siddeley also designed the hemi head six that powered the later Humber Super Snipes, there was a tie up with Rootes for production reasons I forget exactly what but that was the outcome.
Where did you find the handsome proposed Sapphire 234 redesign by Michelotti, circa 1957?
Worth noting that Armstrong-Siddeley had one project in the pipeline aside from building the Sunbeam Alpine (with a possible 2-litre version of the Armstrong-Siddeley derived 3-litre Humber Super Snipe unit) as well as proposed plans to make the Gordon-Keeble.
A 2nd gen Star Sapphire replacement was developed and intended to be launched in 1962, resembling a Rolls-Royce Silver Shadow and Rover P5 with hints of BMC Farina in the grille, while the overall shape had hints of the Lancia Flaminia.
It was to be powered by three related engines, the base-model featuring an updated Sapphire 234 Inline-4 unit bored-out to 2.7-litre (from 2.3-litre essentially a 4-cylinder version of the 6-cylinder engine) and the 4-litre Star Sapphire Inline-6 unit slotting in the middle (not sure if it was to be updated). The top of the range model meanwhile was to feature an all-alloy 4.6-litre V8 Overhead-Cam based on a pair of 2.3-litre Sapphire 234 units with further enlargement a possibility via the bored-out 2.7-litre Inline-4
Have always envisioned a scenario where without the aircraft side causing problems for both marques, Armstrong-Siddeley and Bristol under the Bristol-Siddeley Cars banner grow to become an equivalent of Rolls-Royce / Bentley and Daimler / Jaguar, Armstrong-Siddeley as a stately marque with Bristol as the sporting marque.
Bristol themselves even had a shelved Inline-6 Twin-Cam project called the Type 160 that used the Jaguar XK6 as a benchmark during development with the intention of powering the shelved Bristol Type 220 / Type 225 / Type 240 prototypes, which were all canned because of problems on the aircraft side of the business.
By the way, are there any plans to do a Deadly Sins series on countries such as Italy, Germany, etc?
You got me curious on the MkII Sapphire prototype, but this ‘Silver Cloud-type’ is the only body I can find online. Is this the one you remember?
My bad, the project mentioned in my previous comment was intended to replace the MkII Sapphire prototype prior to the company ceasing car production and can be found in the beginning of chapter 15 in Armstrong-Siddeley Motors by Bill Smith.
Not a common book I imagine, but I’ll keep an eye out. Cheers
I’ll loan you my copy
Thanks for all that additional info, Lotus.
I remember reading that the only roadworthy prototype Star Sapphire MkII (the one Don found a picture of) was used throughout the ’60s by the chairman of Hawker Siddeley as his official car. Imagine that happening nowadays!
I found the Michelotti car on coachbuild.com — no love for the ’52 Ghia coupe? I think that one looks beautiful…
Another curious detail that found out regarding the 234 and 346 / Star Sapphire engines was they were basically a conservative OHV redesign of W.O. Bentley’s earlier Twin-Cam project during his short-lived involvement at the company for the Sapphire project, best described as an Armstrong-Siddeley replication of his earlier Lagonda Straight-Six.
The original name for smaller 234/236 was apparently Project Amethyst only for it to be abandoned in favour of Sapphire for some inexplicable reason, which is likely another factor that did not do any favours for the 234/236.
One can only imagine how Armstrong-Siddeley would have fared has the 234 been a visual and commercial success. They really needed their own answer to Aston Martin’s Tadek Marek who redesigned the Lagonda Straight-Six that went into the DB4 up to the DBS, with influences carrying over to his Aston Martin V8 as well as them subtracting 2-cylinders to create a 2.5-litre four fitted into a Volvo P1800.
Which puts Armstrong-Siddeley’s plans for a bored-out 2.7-litre Inline-4 and all-alloy 4.6-litre V8 Overhead-Cam based on a pair of 2.3-litre Sapphire 234 units into perspective.
Combine that with Humber using a reduced version of the six for the Super Snipe Series as well as stillborn plans for a 2-litre four to be used in the Sunbeam Alpine (briefly mentioned in Brian Long’s Daimler SP250) and it opens up more ideas.
https://www.armstrongsiddeleyheritagetrust.com/amethist
Also heard stories of Alvis testing Armstrong Siddeley Sapphire engines in their cars, however cannot find anything concrete connecting the above with the 220 hp 3.5-litre OHC Alvis TA30 project.
OK, it looks a bit frumpy, but so do others on that table, such as the Humber and the Daimler, and I’m afraid I have to “tut-tut” many of the others.
I feel like few people would be “cross-shopping” the Sapphire with the Vanguard or the Jag, for example.
Completely agree on the looks of the Daimler. Even worse than Siddeley in many ways. I’d put the Standard in with that lot too.
The table tries to give a picture of the high-end mid-sized saloons in ’56. Few people would have “cross-shopped” the Sapphire with anything, as very few people shopped for a Sapphire at all.
From what I’ve read, the Jag was always named as the one that killed those smaller Sapphires. Similar price, brilliant engine, much better styling, racing mystique… The Jag ate most of that table for lunch.
Lyons and Jaguar were the great disruptors of the old guard.
I just shot a fab early Mk1 2.4 in CA last week. I need to write it up.
Laugh at the Daimler mist people do, but it set a 2.3litre record around Silverstone, probably its only obscure claim to fame numerous Daimler Conquests survive in NZ frumpy sure but durable.
That comparative specs table is fascinating. I know it was an old-guard cottage-industry-size company that probably sold saloons in tiny numbers, but I’m amazed/horrified that AC still used a solid axle front end in the mid-fifties.
I keep going back to the pictures though. How could Armstrong-Siddeley get the styling so classically right on their big Star Sapphires, yet so horribly wrong on these small ones? Awful things happen when people who don’t have an eye for style insist on putting their oar in. But it’d take more than a slice off the top to make this one look presentable.
Someone in Hobart was using a AC 2 litre as a daily car in 01/02 it was parked regularly near the Hospital yep straight front axle I had a good look around it.
This series is fantastic- and I now know how little I know about the British auto industry.
Dad always wanted a Star Sapphire, and always spoke of the Armstrong-Siddeley as something really special. I never heard him mention these smaller ones, which would have been more within his budget – or at least less-unaffordable. After his passing, I found a Humber Super Snipe brochure along with a few others of cars he never owned, but not one of the Armstrong-Siddeley.
Toyota perhaps studied Armstrong-Siddeley history before launching the 1998 Altezza – later re-badged as a baby Lexus. You had a choice of a 2-litre 153 hp straight six, or for tearaways a 2-litre 200 hp 4-pot ( which is very popular as a grey import here in Ireland).
Toyota can of course afford to play around like this, or at least they could in the 90s.
Others have gone down that road too. The BMW E30 M3 used the S14 four, which had more beans than any of the six cylinder models. And then there’s the MB 190 2.3 16V, which was also more powerful than the 2.6 six version.
Did BMW or companies such as Alpina ever consider developing high-performance 4-cylinder engines for the E36 and E46 Compact / 3-Series as a spiritual successor of sorts to the E30 M3?
Once the E36 M3 came along with the S50 six, why bother? The six was bound to be more powerful and a lot smoother.
Perhaps though aside from the E36 M3 Compact prototype, a lot more could have been done to produce a high-output 4-cylinder in the E36/46 Compact.
I have a feeling that the first generation M3 engine was designed to slot in to a set of racing class specifications. Unfortunately, I’ve never followed the M-series history that much to know which class or what specs.
And, having owned an E36 M3 (even though it was the bowdlerized American version), yeah, once you’ve got the high performance six, why would you want to go back to a four?
The 234/236 is not a bad shape from the front. The rear lets it down, but I don’t think the Michelotti dealt with that adequately enough. It needed a trailing edge treatment like Gerald Palmer’s Pathfinder/Wolseley. More juicy nuggets T87.
I agree. From the front just taking out that unfortunately added height from the cockpit would make it look like the painting in the advert, but the back is a confusing, half-hearted and wrong footed mish-mash. The odd step up to the fins that then fail to take-off (and end up drooping!) combined with a boot shape that was old fashioned even in 1950. Neither fish nor fowl.
My father had a Typhoon , these were very rare cars here in Australia.
It was a really lovely car and there was some association with the Anglican Vicar of Surrey Hills in Sydney, Australia who he was close friends with.
Maybe the Vicar had an Armstrong Siddeley?
The Armstrong Siddeley community is tight knit and i was surprised all these years later that people remembered my father and the details of the cars.
The cars were held in the highest regard here in Australia.
Thanks for filling in a major hole in my data banks. These were sad years, as it was a game of musical chairs, particularly in this segment of the market. One look at all those saloons that competed against each other makes that painfully obvious.
Random thought. I wonder how MG felt about the Standard Vanguard Sportsman’s grille.
It was probably supposed to recall the Triumph Renown (and not the Mayflower), but it does look rather MG-ish, and certainly doesn’t suit the bulbous Vanguard body.
This would have to be the least desirable of the 12 cars listed IMO, if you were looking for an entry-level luxury sedan.
Very interesting article. I guess I never got or never will get the mystique of British cars. Sounds like the company followed almost the same successful? business model of Studebaker Corp.
One area of confusion for me is – what was the economy like in the post-war UK, what was the size of the market for cars in this league, and how many annual sales would it take to keep Siddley-Armstrong et al profitable? This article lists 12 vehicles of which the six lower priced vehicles would seemingly be in direct competition, and the five upper priced vehicles would compete. (At double the price, I don’t think the Bristol would be an actual market concern for the other makers.)
So, it seems to me that even noting ‘export or die’ drive for overseas sales this section of the market was very crowded, and a lot of fall-out was inevitable.
However, I don’t actually know, and I’d be interested to find out…
The British economy was thriving in the ’50s. “Never had it so good,”p as the PM said at the time. With the notable exception of 1957 (Suez Crisis), car sales were healthy on the domestic front. The glut of marques and models, though, was evident even at the time. This slice of the market was especially crowded, as it had specialist marques (Siddeley, AC, Jaguar) as well as the Big Boys (Rootes, BMC) competing for limited volumes.
And export sales had plateaued, as protected markets (Imperial Preference) were a thing of the past. Fewer and fewer folks in the Empire/Commonwealth were buying British cars in this range, even though some (Jaguar, Rover, BMC) were more successful than others in retaining foreign sales. US and European market penetration for several of these marques was near zero.
So yes, fall-out was inevitable. But the big question was who would be left in the game. The first to exit was AC’s 2-litre, which was well past its sell-by date in ’56. Then Siddeley and Daimler. Badge-engineering soon claimed Riley, Humber and Sunbeam as well (Wolseleys were already parts-bin specials by ’56: MG/Riley body + Austin engine; Humber & Sunbeam had identical engines but very different bodies).
Hard to say how much volume Siddeley would have needed to keep itself going. I understand that they were having issues with profit margins. Apparently, they were making about £60 profit on every Star Sapphire they sold in 1959-60, which was ridiculous. I’m not sure what their profit projections were for the 234/236, but these cars weren’t made cheaply and weren’t cheap to make.
Re: the Bristol 405 — it’s included here as a sort of boundary marker, the extreme upper limit of the 2-litre four-door. But although they didn’t sell very many (265 saloons in 3 years!), Bristol Cars were a profitable operation. Their survival into the 21st Century is a testament to their products’ quality and the soundness of their business model, hard as it may be to replicate.
Really the Humber had a badge engineered model in NZ from the 30s the Hillman Minx was renamed Humber ten to give Humber dealers a small car to sell in the 50s when import restrictions came in here the OHV and Audax Minx was rebadged Humber 80 then 90 when the Super Minx arrrived, only here though.
Thank you for this thoughtful answer…. and as for myself…. I’ve always wanted a Bristol… and especially so their newest
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/cars/news/new-bristol-bullet-revealed/
Always wanted a Bristol, maybe a 411.
Actually, always just wanted to visit their showroom on Kensington High Street, London, only to be kicked out by Tony Crook.
But no chance of that now.
Wonder what Bristol’s Deadly Sin would be? The 603? The Blenheim? The Fighter?
Crook would never have kicked you out: he wouldn’t let anyone in unless they passed whatever mad criteria he operated with. A workmate once dated his daughter and it seemed he vetted boyfriends the same way. He didn’t last.
Sounds like Cyril Siddeley is British for K.T. Keller. Build ’em to sit in, not to pee over.
Although, the practice of calling every model a Sapphire Something reminds me of when almost every Olds was a Cutlass Something.
“Sounds like Cyril Siddeley is British for K.T. Keller. Build ’em to sit in, not to pee over.”
+1
These were at the show I saw the Bradfords and Javelin at
Love those pics, Bryce. Especially the above, as it shows the 346 and the Star Sapphire side-by-side. You can really see how the greenhouse was identical, but everything else was different but essentially similar. So weird that they went through all the trouble of designing new body panels to obtain a virtual twin of the older car.
That plus the 234/236 makes me think the good people at Armstrong Siddeley were a bit eccentric, even by UK standards.
And that Alvis below is a true gem. Most beautiful of the early ’50s British high-class saloons, IMHO.
and these
My sole Armstrong-Siddeley experience
What a shame. Nothing a 3″ chop won’t fix – from what I’ve heard when I lived in the UK from those “in the know” it goes rather well and handles better than the Jag, plus that engine had potential (180hp with a bit of work is possible).
+1, if it looked like the artist’s rendering in the 9th photo (Manumatic Ad) it would have been much better looking. The front is fine, with a lower roofline and less frumpy posterior could have been a success.
Well, I’ve had a go at this. Fortunately the artist’s impression doesn’t seem to have the raised roof line (possibly it was based on earlier styling models/drawings) and on the rear view the open door got rid of that unfortunate wing lead-in, so I just had to smoothing the sides on the front view and raising the wings and boot line (more in line with the contemporary Standard Vanguard) on both. Incidentally, the paintings were done by Terence Cuneo, one of my favourite transport artists who worked from the 1940s to the 1990s.
Makes one wonder whether the 150 hp Sapphire 346 engine would have fitted into the Sapphire 236 engine bay, since it had potential of being tuned to around 190-230 hp with a bit of work.
Certainty would be a more appealing alternative compared to the anemic pre-war 16hp-derived engine used in the 236.
Never seen a 234/236 in the metal in the UK. Another squandered opportunity by the British motor industry – a BMW 5-series equivalent years before BMW hit their stride – probably let down by woeful market research and cost control. The aircraft links, with similarities to SAAB, well emphasised in the sales brochures – and the cars shown quite blatantly ‘restyled’ by the advertising artists to remove same of the gawkyness – the rear with deeper rear window and fatter fins looks much better!
Hat’s off! – Wonderful. Can’t wait for for the next one – I’m particularly looking forward to opinions on the ‘Docker Daimlers’, some of the most over the top cars ever.
I was born in ’59 and as a car mad kid would see most of these cars out and about, but Armstrong Siddeleys were always rare. Apart from the Jag (obviously) only the Wolseley and Riley have any styling appeal to me – and decent power for the day. Hence their popularity with UK Police Forces. All the others look either frumpy or downright unfortunate.
I’ll take slight issue with one point though, The British economy was hardly booming in the 50’s. Re-building after massive war damage is a costly undertaking, and rationing was was only entirely stopped in ’54. Only in the late ’50’s did boom time come. ‘You never had it so good’ was said in ’57, and many people scoffed at that. We had to wait until the ’60’s for things to really take off.
Have to cautiously agree on the economic outlook. From what I’ve read (amazing what you can learn when you’ve got a bug for 50’s/60’s British pop) while society was improving enough for the Teds to start appearing around ’53-54, it didn’t really take off until after the Suez Crisis during the Mods vs. Trads (that’s jazz – Mods vs. Rockers didn’t happen until about seven years later) years.
I get the feeling that all the middle priced British car manufacturers were working under the same philosophy during these years: Modernize and improve your lines if you want to survive. Period.
Unfortunately, nobody was doing the kind of job that Jaguar did. As Paul mentioned, they were the bracket busters of the Fifties, putting out a product way beyond their competition.
Rationing and economic boom are not mutually exclusive. Britain was awash with Marshall Plan money, and though war damage was extensive, it was not as bad as the situation in France, Benelux, Italy or Germany. British private capital was far better off than the rest of Europe. The national debt fell like a rock from 230% of GDP in 1948 to 100% in 1961, there was full employment, 3% growth most years, inflation well below 10%, positive balance of trade on average. That is called an economic boom. Its effects were felt in the 60s and it petered out by the end of that decade, but it was there for a good 20 years.
So, how does one pronounce “Siddeley”?
Rhymes with “Ridley”
Thanks Tatra87!
I think I used to know this but how was the tax rate hp calculated?
RAC HP = 2/5 * cylinder bore (in inches) squared * # of cylinders
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_horsepower
Great reading! It seems a bizarre decision to have built both 4- and 6-cyl engines, but apparently the 236 was an update of the existing engine while the 234 engine was 2/3 of the 3.4L six. Apparently there was a prototype 2.4L version of the 346 engine – I wondered about that as a rationalisation of the two approaches! Surely it would have made sense if only for efficiency of production to build two versions of the one basic engine rather than three different engines (even if two were related).
Something that wasn’t mentioned is there were also a Station Coupe and Utility Coupe that were based on the Lancaster/Whitley built from 1949-1952, the former had a small rear seat and a shorter bed than the latter. Over half of of the approx 1750 units produced, perhaps 2/3, were sent to Australia. Ironically the photo attached of a Utility Coupe (from Wikipedia) was taken in the USA!
Star Sapphire – shame the car, though distinguished, didn’t match the beauty of the name.
Inspired a Green Lantern, comic book, nemesis, though.
Horrible vehicles. The AS utes just fell to bits in Australia. I remember wrecking yards had several. The arrival of the new Holden ute absolutely strangled the AS.
The Standard Vanguard Sportsman was originally going to be branded as a Triumph, but for some reason it didnt happen. Vanguards were really tough cars , used extensively by the British military . My father’s business used them as chauffeur driven hire cars until the early 60’s.His last one, a very late 4 cylinder , came special ordered from the factory with a TR4 engine, overdrive, and Sportsman springing. The Ensign later came with the 2138cc engine but detuned..
i remember even in thlate 50s/early 60s as a young boy thinking how old fashioned customers’ Whitleys, Lancasters, etc looked when they came in for Cleveland Discol with Alchohol.
When all the British Aero engine makers eventually merged into Rolls-Royce, in late 60’s, the Rolls-Royce car division, came to own the Armstrong-Siddeley marque.
Can’t see VW group dusting it off, to sit below Bentley, but above Audi, now though ?
Aside: I haven’t (re-)read it yet – but it’s because I’m still looking up some answers in the Simca Deadly Sins article and haven’t finished 🙂 Getting fuzzy on my A-S details, though, so it’s in queue…
Just wanted to say Tatra87’s D.S. pieces are a real treasure, just as good in the second reading. Like a lot of CC for me, it’s top-shelf reference material
(By the way, if web pages could get dog-earred, my Simca and Borgward D.S. pages would be just about shot 😉 ).
The lines of the Whitley are the best viewed from the side or rear quarter. Almost perfect for a 4 door Sports (only side glass in the doors) saloon. But I could not live with the front. Those headlamps in wings ruined it for me.
So glad that you brought back this article! I have read of the Armstrong-Siddeley but knew little about them save for the ones that I would see in Manhattan when I was a boy.